Nicholas Kang Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 If I am not mistaken, there was a new hypothesis made by a university in the USA regarding the new calculation about the speed of light. This hypothesis explains why the light from SN 1987 A delays for 4.7 hours upon arriving on Earth. The neutrino should come first in 3 hours time then followed by light beam. But the light beam took 7.7 hours upon reaching Earth. So, maybe Einstein was wrong.
Mordred Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) If I am not mistaken, there was a new hypothesis made by a university in the USA regarding the new calculation about the speed of light. This hypothesis explains why the light from SN 1987 A delays for 4.7 hours upon arriving on Earth. The neutrino should come first in 3 hours time then followed by light beam. But the light beam took 7.7 hours upon reaching Earth. So, maybe Einstein was wrong. 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 Edited June 30, 2014 by Mordred 2
Nicholas Kang Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 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 interact 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 So, the newspaper was wrong. Thanks. Do you have articles showing that this particular Supernova explosion measurement was wrong instead of showing me related news?
Mordred Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 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
Nicholas Kang Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) Maybe I can send your copy to the newspaper company and show them that they were wrong and their report was misleading. Sorry for the grammatical errors. I have edited it. Edit: I mean the grammatical errors in the post #22 i.e. this post. I am not a native English speaker. I don`t understand why this post can be voted down. Is it wrong for a person to write to the newspaper company and just to inform them that their articles were misleading? I can choose not to but can I simply ignore it and let the people in my country continue being misled by the news? No. Impossible. I must tell to prevent those outside the scientific community from continuous failure to learn and understand true Science. Edited June 30, 2014 by Nicholas Kang
Mordred Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) Maybe I can send your copy to the newspaper company and show them that they are wrong and their report were misleading. 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) Edited June 30, 2014 by Mordred 1
Nicholas Kang Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 I found a similar article on the web-a recent one to proof that this case is not an old one. What is lol? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2672092/Was-Einstein-wrong-Controversial-theory-suggests-speed-light-SLOWER-thought.html I really learnt a lof of thing from your PDF good and it seemed like you have read a lot of online science PDFs
Mordred Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) 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 Edited June 30, 2014 by Mordred
swansont Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 actually that result was shown to be false, so was the CERN tests here is a reference on the CERN test There was an article just recently that had nothing to do with the Gran Sasso experiment; it was an hypothesis that the speed of light is slower in higher gravitational potentials owing to a QM effect. The claim is that the energy of the virtual particle pairs that are continually appearing and annihilating is higher (or perhaps more frequent), which increases the index of refraction. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184879-einsteinian-error-the-25-year-old-supernova-that-could-change-the-speed-of-light-forever —— Personally I think the articles on this are overselling it (big surprise). If this turns out to be correct, we will simply put a new restriction on the definition of c being referenced to a particular gravitational potential, probably zero.
ydoaPs Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 There was an article just recently that had nothing to do with the Gran Sasso experiment; it was an hypothesis that the speed of light is slower in higher gravitational potentials owing to a QM effect. The claim is that the energy of the virtual particle pairs that are continually appearing and annihilating is higher (or perhaps more frequent), which increases the index of refraction. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184879-einsteinian-error-the-25-year-old-supernova-that-could-change-the-speed-of-light-forever Personally I think the articles on this are overselling it (big surprise). If this turns out to be correct, we will simply put a new restriction on the definition of c being referenced to a particular gravitational potential, probably zero. Even then, it's not actually talking about c. C is the instantaneous speed of light in a vacuum. Even if the new model is correct, photons still travel at c whenever they exist.
Endy0816 Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 Here's a blog article talking about the issues with the paper in question: http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/06/fransons-breakthrough-concerning-speed.html links are provided if you wish to fact check.
Mordred Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) 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) Edited July 1, 2014 by Mordred
Mordred Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) 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) Edited July 1, 2014 by Mordred 1
Nicholas Kang Posted July 7, 2014 Author Posted July 7, 2014 Why my post had been split? I am new to this forum and this is the first time I face this situation. Someone hacked into my account?
Phi for All Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 Why my post had been split? I am new to this forum and this is the first time I face this situation. Someone hacked into my account? You introduced a side topic that threatened to hijack the original topic, so your post was split to start a new one.
Recommended Posts