Could We Be Wrong About The Speed Of Light?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Could We Be Wrong About The Speed Of Light?


A challenge has been thrown down to the consistency of the speed of light, based on an anomaly from the most closely observed supernovae of all time.

In 1987 astronomers witnessed the only supernova in 400 years close enough to Earth to see with the naked eye. The first hint of the event came not from telescopes, but neutrino detectors.

Neutrinos and photons were assumed to have crossed space between the Large Magellanic Cloud and us at the speed of light. However, light does not always travel at 3x108 m/s. Just as glass or water will slow light down, the dense core of a supernova is expected to impede photons so that neutrinos will reach us first.

Models of supernovae suggest the delay should be about three hours. However, rather than witnessing a single burst of neutrinos three hours before the first light was observed, detectors picked up two bursts, one 7.7 hours earlier, and the other 4.7 hours. Some models of supernovae predict two collapses, and thus two rounds of neutrinos, but the timing is puzzling since it is the first round that should beat the light by three hours.





Professor James Franson of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, believes that these observations require a rewrite of light's behavior. He claims that quantum mechanical effects slow light down under certain circumstances. The effect is very, very small, but over a distance of 163,000 light years could account for the discrepancy in observations.

In the New Journal of Physics, Franson draws on vacuum polarization, a well established phenomenon where a photon of light sometimes turns into an electron-positron pair. These then recombine to become a photon again, traveling along the same path, but after a tiny delay (see diagram).





However, Franson argues that these events are not random, but affected by gravitational fields.

"Roughly speaking, the gravitational potential changes the energy of a virtual electron-positron pair, which in turn produces a small change in the energy of a photon,” Franson says. “This results in a small correction to the angular frequency of a photon and thus its velocity.” He describes the equivalent effects on neutrinos as “negligibly small in comparison”.


We think we know things but through more studies & analysis we find we may have been wrong in what we thought were facts. That's the wonderful thing about science, we always are learning & changing theories. Look at the recent discovery of elements responding differently under high pressure, it has changed our understanding of chemistry.

This study isn't absolute proof that we were wrong about the speed of light but it does shed light onto the possibility.

If we are wrong about the speed of light, that will change a lot of things in the science community.




posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
if the results are verified it doesn't mean we were wrong at all just more information will be added to the books and amended and clarified such as for example the original.
in this system, the speed of light in a vacuum is 299792458 mps
to
in this system, the speed of light in a vacuum with out any outside influence is 299792458 mps
and may also add
in this system, the speed of light in a vacuum with a gravitational curved space-time of (insert expression here) is 299792458.1 mps
i expect as we learn more and start to fill in the gaps in the theory more variations will be found.
edit on 27-6-2014 by suicideeddie because: spelling



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
what this theory misses is that the neutrino has mass and thus does not travel at the speed of light. Furthermore the neutrinos that are emitted by a supernova event will be emitted at the moment of core collapse. The visible light produced from that process will be delayed due to opacity around the core being slow, similar to how energy produced in the core of our own sun requires time to rattle around before it breaks surface.

For a exploding star however the neutrinos and the high density and energy release ejects material and photons may escape more quickly.

Now there are a few options, as the above suggests, maybe there could be a slowing process. The other possibility is that neutrinos have mass. In 1987 the idea of neutrinos had some evidence, though not anything that was conclusive proof. So many theories sprouted up, in fact more papers and theories have been written about 1987A than the number of observed neutrinos... by about 100x

With the discovery of neutrino mass (or confirmation i should say) the data from 1987A corroborates the concept of a massive neutrino and actually places an upper limit on the neutrino mass scale as



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
that's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208
"Futurama"



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I have been thinking that light doesn't have a speed there is only distance apart and a calculation of how far that is.
That this different way of sensing are not receiving but only different way of calculating distance and interpreting results.

Like a stars light isn't a million years old it would just take a million years to get there at the speed of the thing we interpret as light.

Blind people wouldn't pick up light a million years old.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: knoledgeispower

No, we aren't wrong about the speed of light.

An electron and a positron aren't a photon and can't travel at the same speed.

And as ErosA433 pointed out, neutrinos aren't photons either.

This is just someone trying to get publicity to raise his academic profile.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   
No, and the new ideas presented have nothing to do with the speed of light being wrong, only that it is altered in ways we currently are not aware of.

Speed of light has been measured.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
According to Einstein time and distance are variable. Speed is calculated by dividing distance traveled by the time it takes to travel that distance (S = d/t). Since both components (s /d) are variable, then speed is also variable, making the Speed of Light variable and not a constant . But since neutrinos and photons each have different attributes in their makeup (spin, mass, etc), the various forces and substances (matter) encountered over 163,000 light years would have an effect on their arrival timing IMO.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Speed of light is subjective not objective. The speed of light is not constant and therefore changes speed. We have measured the speed of light but not over great distances. It is impossible to give light a given value due to many inconsistency. Nothing can escape a black hole not even light. every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Black holes suckin light faster than light travels or breaking light speed.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Sure ,I'll bet you 20.00 they are.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: littlegarner2014t
Speed of light is subjective not objective. The speed of light is not constant and therefore changes speed. We have measured the speed of light but not over great distances. It is impossible to give light a given value due to many inconsistency. Nothing can escape a black hole not even light. every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Black holes suckin light faster than light travels or breaking light speed.


Except that is not how light gets pulled in. Black holes do not pull light in, that is a misconception. Black holes bend space into it, so the light technically is just traveling a straight line from it's perspective, but from out perspective the line is curved into the black hole.

Speed of light is not subjective ... when we talk about the speed of light it is the speed in a vacuum. That is constant as far as we can tell.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: littlegarner2014t
Speed of light is subjective not objective. The speed of light is not constant and therefore changes speed. We have measured the speed of light but not over great distances. It is impossible to give light a given value due to many inconsistency. Nothing can escape a black hole not even light. every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Black holes suckin light faster than light travels or breaking light speed.


Except that is not how light gets pulled in. Black holes do not pull light in, that is a misconception. Black holes bend space into it, so the light technically is just traveling a straight line from it's perspective, but from out perspective the line is curved into the black hole.

Speed of light is not subjective ... when we talk about the speed of light it is the speed in a vacuum. That is constant as far as we can tell.
point in case as far as we can tell nothing is a misconception it's theoretical nothing we know is for sure



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: littlegarner2014t

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: littlegarner2014t
Speed of light is subjective not objective. The speed of light is not constant and therefore changes speed. We have measured the speed of light but not over great distances. It is impossible to give light a given value due to many inconsistency. Nothing can escape a black hole not even light. every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Black holes suckin light faster than light travels or breaking light speed.


Except that is not how light gets pulled in. Black holes do not pull light in, that is a misconception. Black holes bend space into it, so the light technically is just traveling a straight line from it's perspective, but from out perspective the line is curved into the black hole.

Speed of light is not subjective ... when we talk about the speed of light it is the speed in a vacuum. That is constant as far as we can tell.
point in case as far as we can tell nothing is a misconception it's theoretical nothing we know is for sure

That is false. It has been tested.

www.theguardian.com...





top topics
 
1

log in

join