Mordred

if you apply the ideal gas laws you will quickly see that expansion and energy-density reduction are part of the same process. However you may be talking about a reducton of the total energy. So here is my question what process would reduce the energy total? conservation of energy states energy cannot be created or destroyed. However it can alter from one form to another. There is a general consensus that energy is not conserved in GR or Newtonian Cosmology, this article by Ned Wright discusses some of those issues "Total energy (expressed in comoving coordinates) is not conserved in Newtonian cosmology. (This is also the case in GR - indeed, there is generally no unique scalar for the total energy in GR.) However, if almost all of the mass is in virialized systems obeying the classical virial theorem 2T + W approx 0, we recover approximate total energy conservation." http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Bertschinger/Bert1_3.html What it breaks down to is the model specific treatments, This paper can explain this aspect better than I http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0511/0511178.pdf not sure what your stating here but you need to be careful in how you define space is created... Space by itself is simply geometric volume filled with the energy-mass density of the universe, in and of itself it has no property of its own other than volume, space is not a substance or fabric. By itself it has no energy or matter. It is simply a change in geometry. In other words your going to have to find a way to explain the reduction in energy that conforms to this caveat. also can you clarify your speed of propagation statement, propagation of what?

well I don't know how much you understand about cosmology or high energy particle physics, as your interested in developing a model that deals with both aspects your going to need to be able to apply the mathematics. First off the standard model vacuum expectation value is 246 GeV, as the time era your dealing with is higher than that in terms of thermodynamics you will need to apply the scalar equation of state in the various stages. Then you will also need to define the process of each stage. For example false vacuum is a high energy region that quantum tunnels to a lower energy region. The false vacuum is the higher region the true vacuum being the lower region. the scalar equation of state is given below [latex]w = \frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 - V(\phi)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 + V(\phi)}[/latex]. the next question your going to have to decide is which particle physics model are you going to use. the standard model is SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1), supersymmetry is SU(5)*SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1). However then you also have the SO(10) model S0(10)*SU(5)*SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1). These groups determine the particles that you will need to correlate from today backwards to the inflationary stages in terms of thermodynamic processes. I would recommend starting with the CMB. There is a ton of available data and if your statistical mechanics skill is up to par then you can extrapolate the number density of each particle species, using the following formulas [latex]q=\frac{N}{V}+\ge+n_q[/latex] for boson particles Bose_Eintein statistics is [latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex] for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics [latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex] the De-Broglie wavelength is [latex]\frac{V}{N\Lambda^3} \le 1 \[/latex] using the above equatons you should be able to extrapolate how many particles of a given type from the temperature at a given time, although you can also use the equations of state in accordance to the FLRW metrics for an approximation the above formulas have a higher degree of accuracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 you will find how to use those formulas in the following articles, the second one being a textbook by Liddle, who also wrote the first link I posted. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde (this one is older may be a bit out of date) for up to date use the one below. chapter 4 covers how to use the Bose_Einstein/Fermi_Dirac distibutions http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis (chapters 3,4,5) good luck with your model, you will need the math to make it work mere verbatim won't do the trick. As you saw there is plenty of models where the physicists have taken the time to show the maths, as well as explain how their model operates with observational evidence support. In order for your model to work you will need to do the same. The above material will get you started, however it will take time to develop a working model. (I'm still working on my own for the past 2 years, I expect to be at it for another 2 years at least)(deals with the cosmological constant, and I keep proving my own model incomplete or inadequate lol-but then again that's what makes it interesting, wouldn't be fun if it was easy) forgot to mention your going to need to have a minimal of 60 e-folds to satisfy the flatness problem, the horizon problem and the monopole problem.

fair enough, there have been numerous articles on multiple big bangs before, though they never get very far. Its not a particular model I'm overly familiar with. BB taken as multiple inflation stages. Eternal inflation is one such model. "In other words, there was a beginning for each part of the universe, and there will be an end for in ation at any particular point. But there will be no end for the evolution of the universe as a whole in the eternal in ation scenario, and at present we do not know whether there was a single beginning of the evolution of the whole universe at some moment t= 0, which was traditionally associated with the Big Bang" page 19 Inflationary Cosmology after Planck 2013 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0526.pdf As I mentioned I'm not too familiar with the multiple field or multiple stage inflation models, however this resource may hold the model as its a collection of 74 inflationary models Encyclopaedia Inflationaris http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 if your model idea is referring to something else, then you might want to add some more details, particularly in your steps is step 2 for example one measure of energy less? what unit is one measure of energy less? Is this a descriptive of a phase transition? Is your model referring o multiple inflation stages? if so then what causes those inflation stages? Phase transition, false vacuum etc. Unfortunately your descriptive is far too lacking in detail to make any determination as to what your describing as you can see there is no cut and clear consensus as of yet on inflation, this being a time period we can only indirectly study due to the dark ages and the low mean free path of photons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Dark_Ages

first off we need to clarify a few misconceptions, the singularity of the BB model is of unknown size and origin, the singularity is not like a black hole type, its a point where our knowledge of physics can no longer accurately describe. This singularity can either be of a finite or infinite size. The observable universe on a back ward extrapolation leads up to our region of shared causality or point like. However were not even sure how small that region of shared causality would be, as we cannot see anything prior to inflation. The sngularity condition occurs prior to 10-43 seconds. The big bang model also does not describe the cause of the universe, it only describes what occurs at 10-43 seconds.. We do not know how the universe began though there is numerous possibilities, some describe a beginning from a previous universe, some describe a process from nothing and others try to describe it from a BH or inside the EH of a BH etc. The last tends to catch everyone's attention. However its also the least likely when you look at the metrics and observations involved. The universe is extremely homogeneous and isotropic and a BH origin would not be homogeneous and isotropic. Also an exploding origin is also not homogeneous and isotropic. Homogeneous no preferred location isotropic no preferred direction Now in terms of energy you need to apply the ideal gas laws, when the universe was of a smaller volume, the energy-density, temperature and pressure is higher, as the volume increases the energy-density, temperature and pressure reduce. However the total energy is roughly the same.

matter has several properties, mass, spin, charge, momentum, and interactions. Mass is a particles resistance to change in position or momentum, f=ma. For everyday particles the strong force is the primary source of mass, though for some key elementary particles Quarks, gluons, neutrinos the source of mass is the Higg's field interactions is the source of mass, this covers only roughly 1% of the mass in the universe. Every particle has unique characteristic. A particles mass and momentum defines its energy, E=mc2 or [latex]e^2=p^2c^2+(mc^2)^2[/latex] the last being the energy momentum relation. spin is a measure of a particles angular momentum, charge of a particle, helps define the types of interactions. These include electromagnetic charge, color charge and flavor charge particles with electromagnetic charge these define a particles interactions with the 4 forces, mass is the interaction for gravity. color charge is the strong force (mediated by the gluons) flavor charge is the weak force (mediated by the w and z bosons) electromagnetic charge is the electromagnetic force (with the photon being the mediator) if the graviton is found it will be the mediator of gravity,

my confidence comes from numerous calculations, there is several ways you can calculate the total energy density of the universe. As well as calculate the % of every possible particle contributor in cosmology. I merely showed you the easiest method of determining the average density. To completely show you how to perform the above using the ideal gas laws would take me 10 to 15 pages of posts, and yes I have performed the calculations myself. The ideal gas laws in cosmology applications has been a lengthy study for me (over a year on understanding the thermodynamic history of our universe) to break it down in a short explanation you can take the average temperature of our universe at any period of time where only the temperature is known. Using the ideal gas laws you can further confirm the critical density and how each particle contributes to the overall temperature. Now do do this we need to consider the ideal gas laws in thermodynamics or specifically thermal equilibrium. (however you can also correlate the particles not in thermal equilibrium) [latex]PV=nRT[/latex] The relation forms used with bosons however is Bose-Einstein statistics or distribution now to explain this is further detail. Bosons become indistinquishable from one another where N is the number of particles and V is the volume and nq is the quantum concentration, for which the interparticle distance is equal to the thermal de Broglie wavelength [latex]q=\frac{N}{V}+\ge+n_q[/latex] the number of particles of the Bose_Eintein statistics is [latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex] for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics [latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex] the De-Broglie wavelength is [latex]\frac{V}{N\Lambda^3} \le 1 \[/latex] these articles will show you how those equations are used to not only calculate the number of each particle species, the energy density of each particle, their pressure and temperature contribution and their effective equation of state. This methodology is also used to help determine and understand big bang nucleosynthesis, as well as confirming or gathering evidence for GUT theories (though you need a huge understanding of particle physics in the latter two cases.) http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde (this one is older may be a bit out of date) for up to date use the one below. chapter 4 covers how to use the Bose_Einstein/Fermi_Dirac distibutions http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis (chapters 3,4,5) http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.3688.pdf Lecture Notes on CMB Theory: From Nucleosynthesis to Recombination http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY (this particular paper shows the Einstein field equation method to derive the critical density and the matter and energy content of the universe. see section 2.1.2 page 3 however this paper shows another method using Gibbb's law http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2962v3.pdf using the above methods we arrive at the energy budget of the universe and you can either trust me and every scientist that has used the above methods to arrive at the the Cosmic inventory or you can try to show that we are wrong. However as I mentioned before this would take a substantial amount of math and observational support. You would need to convince us that a huge body of evidence is in error. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The Cosmic energy inventory" Although the last paper may make you think that the universe is full of stuff and is therefore there can be no empty space, you must also realize that the volume of the universe is incredibly huge and the average density of that volume is as I posted above. volume of the observable universe is roughly 3.8*1080 m3 (you can then easily realize that the energy-density of any one contributor is also extremely low) Stars and planets etc is only an extremely small % of the total. The articles above show the % of each contributor. Its all well and good to have a theory you wish to prove, however one always needs to understand why physicists have faith in the models and understandings that are already present. (for one thing cosmology has been studied to a very high precision with every dataset available.) The accuracy of the LCDM model is such a high degree that we can perform a highly complex simulation and recreate what we see today (you will find if you look at the mathematics involved that it matches up with the above as well) http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10 http://www.illustris-project.org/ here is the technical paper http://arxiv.org/ftp...5/1405.1418.pdf keep in mind those images you see is a representation of a huge chunk of space in a small image by comparison also they chose to start the simulation at a point where observations and physics are well understood (have to test the program first lol, they are now working on increasing the timeline of the simulation)

Ok lets take the average energy density of the universe, I've worked out a rough calculation at one time by taking the total energy of the universe (including the cosmological constant) and dividing by the total volume. This value worked out to roughly 6.0 *10-10 joules per m3. Though this was done a few years ago. I needed it for the redshift and expansion article I have under my site (see signature) Wiki however has a correlation to the number of particles including dark matter per cubic meter. "Estimates put the average energy density of the Universe at the equivalent of 5.9 protons per cubic meter, including dark energy, dark matter, and baryonic matter (ordinary matter composed of atoms). The atoms account for only 4.6% of the total energy density, or a density of one proton per four cubic meters" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space so roughly 6 protons per m3 sounds like a whole lot of empty to me lol. now as far as the first value goes there is an easier way to check the average energy density. We know that the total energy density is extremely close to the critical density, (extremely flat universe) so for a close estimate the critical density serves as a cross check. Critical density is given by [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] taking 70 km/s/Mpc for Ho will give a mass density of roughly 10-26 kg/m3 energy density= [latex]\rho{crit}* c^2[/latex] =9.0*10-10 joules/m3 there is your proof that there is a whole lot of empty space out there between particles here is an article explaining the critical density and universe geometry http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 for distance measures is http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ or if you prefer here is a nice pdf slide http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~hz4/cos/cosLec3to8.pdf see page 13 for a confirmation of my calculation (though if you truly want to understand the mathematics of that slide that site under my signature has numerous cosmology teaching aids, including a free textbook By Liddle (though older its still an excellent resource) here is two other articles with similar values http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html http://statistics.roma2.infn.it/~morselli/debernardis01.pdf by the way the geometry ie flat compared to the critical density is an extremely studied area in cosmology. The total density is a crucial value in how we measure the universe also if there is more total energy-mass density than the critical density expansion will approach zero then start to collapse

this part is easy to answer, the leading explanation for dark matter is a weakly interactive particle, the neutrino is another example. dark matter is considered to only interact with gravity, and possibly other weakly interactive particles (though the last is only a conjecture that it may interact with itself) particle interactions fall into several categories, covered by the 4 forces so DM, does not interact with the strong force, the weak force, or the electromagnetic force. this isn't too unusual though for example the neutrino only interacts with the weak force and gravity, the photon only interacts with the electromagnetic force (it could be argued that gravity affects the photon but the photon path follows spacetime geometry but is not directly influenced by gravity)(subject for another thread), gluons only interact with the strong force, the w and z bosons interact with the weak force. The ones I mentioned are primarily the force mediator particles the point is there is different particle classifications that depend on their interactions. as dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic, weak or strong force, we can only measure its indirect influences due to its mass.(gravity) its due to this combination that we cannot identify what particle dark matter is. No other particle doesn't interact with all 3 forces other than gravity.

I've always preferred thinking of energy as the "capacity of a body or system to do work, or change" not sure if that definition would cover all forms of energy though

here is the arxiv paper for that site http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6586 unfortunately its rather lacking in my opinion of numerous details I would have expected, for one thing he is describing an new form of dark matter called wave dark matter. Instead of cold dark matter of the LCDM model. The paper shows some interesting simulations done by other research, however lacks any details on the FLRW metrics, nor does it even use any thermodynamic formulas or particle physics references. The paper also does not specify which particle physics model he uses. SU(3), SO(10) etc?, nor does it even apply any perturbation metrics For those lacks of details I would say its an interesting idea but does nothing to identify what dark matter would be, instead the article merely describes a possible type of influence. Though lacking in detail. There is numerous models of how dark matter may be involved in early large scale structure formation by causing early anisotropies. If this paper wishes to compete with those papers already present its going to need considerable more detail. The last proposal for what dark matter may be is relic neutrinos (right hand neutrinos=anti neutrino), including a possible direct measurement paper. "Detection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 and "An unidentified line in X-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy and Perseus galaxy cluster" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 Next decade of sterile neutrino studies http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 as far as dark Energy the SO(10) Higg's seesaw Mexican hat potential shows some promise, The SO(10) model delves extensively into the Higg's high energy metastability (further TEV physics studies at the LHC is underway to explore this possibility The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton (I particularly like this paper as it covers both inflation and the cosmological constant as one and the same, without including an exotic particle) http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 .Multifield Dynamics of Higg's Inflation http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8190 the above approaches from my studies of Cosmology and the numerous articles I've read seem to me to be the most promising approaches to the 3 questions in cosmology inflation dark energy dark matter What I particularly find impressive it the SO(10), has the potential of explaining all 3 problems, The arena of what is oft called "New physics" (TEV high energy research is impressive,)(one can only hope were on the edge of finally answering those 3 questions)

unfortunately Otriolet this article has far to many mistakes in it, to describe and correct all the mistakes would take far longer than the article itself. First off I would highly suggest you look up the 4 forces of nature. The strong force, weak force, gravity and electromagnetism. Atoms and matter are not held together by electromagnetism, the strong force does that. for paragraph two I suggest you study rapid oxidization , we already know what fire is in terms of chemical reactions. gravity has nothing to do with electromagnetism, there are plenty of planets and asteroids that do not have an iron core, and have no magnetosphere. the list goes on some of the other posters covered the light and mass issues. trust me you seriously need to pick up a physics textbook. if I was a high school physics teacher grading this paper you would recieve an "F" I was hard pressed to find a single accurate statement throughout this article. edit on further note I couldn't find one

most of the commentary I've read from various sites, mention the guage symmetry arguments and the use of Newtonian gravity. .A couple of the sites also mentioned the redshift as well. I haven't come across an appropriate professional review paper as of yet. As the comments are similar to the blog that Endy0816 posted there is no need to add those sites (though not nearly as harsh) His statement that c=w(k)k and where k is the angular wave function bugs me for some reason though for some reason. momentum is usually defined by p in the Hamilton form. (still thinking this over)

all I can say is roflmao, the extreme tech article doesn't even agree with the paper or rather misrepresents it. considering the paper discusses light propogation due to interactions with a gravitational potential. Though it never once mentions gravitational redshift or the fact that the photons would blueshift as it approaches the gravitational well then redshift as it climbs back out. Wonder why he chose not to include that? but that point aside, I've been doing some digging and I found a better descriptive of the paper bu the way it is on arxiv. https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/first-evidence-of-a-correction-to-the-speed-of-light-65c61311b08a http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6986 its been around at least the original has since 2011, here is the revision history [v1] Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:40:42 GMT (387kb) [v2] Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:26:11 GMT (387kb) [v3] Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:10:22 GMT (391kb) [v4] Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:51:56 GMT (390kb) [v5] Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:42:57 GMT (884kb) [v6] Thu, 3 Apr 2014 17:31:55 GMT (941kb)

ok so lets ask one question if gravity is merely an artifact of time dilation, why would the ball accelerate to the BH in the first place? take your balls place both at rest. The BH would exert no force on the balls they will stay at rest. so no time dilation. According to your descriptive also as pointed out time dilation is relative to an outside observer observer A is at rest object b is in motion, observer a looking at the clock at observer B's reference frame will see the time dilation on observer B's clock, observer B looking at his own clock will see none on his own clock. This was already pointed out.

this should be discussed in the relativity forum in regards to the photon, but one quick correction. As pointed out an outside observer A will measure an object traveling at near the speed of light (object B) as having a time dilation and length contraction object B however will neither experience a length contraction or time dilation, everything is normal form object B's reference frame. there is already a reply in another thread for the planck measurement limitation, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83896-photon-emission-split-from-length-contraction/?p=813124 this thread should stay on topic so further side track questions should be done in another thread

are you trying to say pressure causes gravity? if so you have that backwards. The energy density of matter exerts no pressure see the equations of state cosmology w=0. However the stress energy tenser due to gravity can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 the higher energy-density of mass causes gravity, this increases the stress energy tenser, the fluid influences of the stress energy tenser is covered in this article http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

its an intriguing idea thanks for sharing that link be interesting to see if it bears fruit

correct

"In physics, quasiparticles and collective excitations are emergent phenomena that occur when a microscopically complicated system such as a solid behaves as if it contained different weakly interacting particles in free space." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle list of quasi-particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quasiparticle virtual particles though can occur anywhere, and they are identical to a real particles in all aspects except they are too short lived to be considered a real particle. Where quasi particles are convenient descriptive's for particle like collective interactions. think of it this way excitations=particle (either real or virtual) collective excitations= quasi-particle see the above definition here is a brief descriptive from my notes Quasi-particles require the existence of an external medium or fields, whereas elementary particles do not. For example, phonons require a solid or a fluid to exist (they are collective modes of the atomic lattice vibration), likewise pions require a quark-antiquark sea. These are not fundamental particles, in the sense that they need the existence of other particles. the dropleton has the same requirements http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dropleton-quantum-droplet-quasiparticle/

acronym for laugh out loud and yes I've been studying cosmology since 1987 so I built up a huge collection of textbooks and articles on every related physics aspects. Currently have over 30 textbooks on cosmology astrophysics, QFT,QED,QCD,QM particle physics, differential geometry, GR etc with a personal database of over 200 gig's of pdf files I like to keep on hand. The better teaching aids I post on my website see signature If I do find the neutrino article I'll forward it to you we should keep this thread back on subject of the OP

there is no point, its old news now lol, unfortunately the internet tends to hang onto the older articles as well as the newer ones. One of the many hazards of learning via the internet. this article covers the SN1987a data, this one is a visual pdf see page 11 http://neutrino.fuw.edu.pl/public/wyklad-From-neutrinos/wyklad10-supernova-neutrinos.pdf still hunting for the professional review but I keep hitting controversial articles there is another factor involved in when the supernova emits neutrinos, apparently the core collapse will allow the neutrinos to be sent sooner. I had forgotten about that. Been a few years "Approximately two to three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at three separate neutrino observatories. This is likely due to neutrino emission, which occurs simultaneously with core collapse, but preceding the emission of visible light. Transmission of visible light is a slower process which occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A Supernova neutrino observations: What can we learn? http://wwwth.mpp.mpg.de/members/raffelt/mypapers/200702.pdf unfortunately I cannot find better articles, I recall having a copy from on older physics forum I was on but that site also closed down (it was back when space.com used to have a physics forum)

I used to however it got lost on my old laptop when the HD crashed, I'll see if I can get another copy and I'll post it for you

actually that result was shown to be false, so was the CERN tests here is a reference on the CERN test "On June 8, 2012 CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci declared on behalf of the four Gran Sasso teams, including OPERA, that the speed of neutrinos is consistent with that of light. The press release, made from the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto, states that the original OPERA results were wrong, due to equipment failures." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly "here is the articles covering why neutrinos arrived early from the supernova data The difference of approximately three hours was explained by the circumstance, that the almost noninteracting neutrinos could pass the supernova unhindered while light required a longer time".[7][8][9][10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed meaning that light had more interactions in the mean free path, but neutrinos being weakly interactive had no interactions on its mean free path. Light travels at c in a total vacuum however the intergalactic medium isn't a total vacuum. Neutrinos weakly interactive nature can pass through a 1000 light years of lead without interference where light can't http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21899-neutrinos-dont-outpace-light-but-they-do-shapeshift.html#.U7DSeLHlrQU http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/08/neutrino-researchers-einstein-right in both cases it was systematic errors in measurements

Ok I hope your aware that the speed of light calculations are used every day in various industries. For example a personal project that required the speed of light was an automated paving application. Take a paving truck, place a series of photoelectric sensors to measure the bumps on the road. Then depending on how long it takes the light to reflect back to the sensor determines the size of the holes. The rest is controlling how much material to place. If light didn't travel at 300,000 km/s the measurements would have been off. Survey equipment also uses the same technique. These are just two simple applications. Now as far as having to know the exact speed of light in Cosmology applications, the speed of light is a foundation of measurements, as such it is constantly tested. Tests include using celestial objects to long range lasers. well as the speed of light is so fundamental to GR and SR this site has a good listing of the various tests, you can go through it to find the various light tests (including the one way and two way light tests etc.) http://www.exphy.uni....prl78_4741.pdf Non-Stationary Optical Cavities : http://www.exphy.uni....xiv0510169.pdf there is even student level projects to measure the speed of light http://twiki.hep.uiuc.edu/pub/Main/TeachersLight2/TOF-SpeedOfLight.pdf in other words its used in our every day existence numerous times every day, it is constantly tested more often than any of us know about. The speed of light is critical in our everyday industry, as well as physics if light didn't travel how would x-rays work in medical equipment? how would laser distancing sensors work? why is is we can measure the time delay in microwave links in communication equipment? I could go on and on but quite frankly it doesn't take a physicist to google his own examples to see how many examples where light travels from a to b. its so fundamental to our everyday lives that its used everyday all over the planet

that's something we don't know yet, We can only theorize the gravitons properties and how it would decay or interact with photons or matter so there is no degree of certainty. So there is numerous speculations etc however it would behave in a similar fashion to the electromagnetic field, however with a spin 2 (possible set of interactions), one conjecture is that there is also virtual gravitons much like virtual photons, mediates the electromagnetic field. The virtual gravitons would mediate the gravitational field. here is one paper that attempts to describe the graviton to photon interactions "Graviton Physics" http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0607045.pdf page 10 describes how its possible though its extremely technical (it also shows the metrics for other possible spin values for the graviton) unfortunately the paper is extremely technical, and I've never found a good paper that simply describes the interactions without being highly questionable. probably the easiest way to relate to this is to study the interactions of the electromagnetic field, on how photons travel through a medium, where the momentum and energy is passed from electron to electron via photon exchange. The graviton would act as the mediator exchanging energy from particle to particle. A higher density of matter would result in a higher number of exchanges with a shorter mean free path between particles. Making for a stronger field strength. The further away you get from the mass the greater the mean free path is between particle interactions(fewer interactions) and the weaker the field strength gets.