Fermi maps spacetime, confirms c for many wavelengths
dlzc
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
Two different frequencies of Gamma rays arriving 0.9 seconds apart from
the same source could be considered confirmation that the highest energy
GR's /are/ affected by the roughness of space.
Yousuf Khan
Tom Roberts
> Two different frequencies of Gamma rays arriving 0.9 seconds apart from
> the same source could be considered confirmation that the highest energy
> GR's /are/ affected by the roughness of space.
Not when you don't know that the source's duration was significantly
less than 0.9 seconds. They don't know that.
Tom Roberts
Ken S. Tucker
The universe is obviously not a perfect vacuum, it has
a density, so just as blue light is slowed more than
red in optics, the 0.9 secs diff makes sense.
Ken
BURT
> http://www.popsci.com/node/40163/?cmpid=enews110509
>
> David A. Smith
What else do you expect? It is a fact smith.
Mitch Raemsch
dlzc
On Nov 5, 2:00 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> dlzc wrote:
> >http://www.popsci.com/node/40163/?cmpid=enews110509
>
> Two different frequencies of Gamma rays arriving 0.9
> seconds apart from the same source could be considered
> confirmation that the highest energy GR's /are/ affected
> by the roughness of space.
Not when the visible light, radio waves, etc. all also arrive during
the same "burst". Bursts are not zero duration events, they
ostensibly also come from distant events so the burst gets "duration
stretched" by expansion, and we still are not clear on mechanism as to
what departs... when.
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
Then they can't confirm the opposite either.
Yousuf Khan
BURT
Space is continuous and curved round in substance. It has no
roughness.
eric gisse
Someone has their thinking cap on today.
>
> Yousuf Khan
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Should't light change sizes if it is a local wave?
How could a small energy light with a large wavelength spread out
accros space at emmision? if it is not a local phenomenon?
Mitch Raemsch
Yousuf Khan
> Should't light change sizes if it is a local wave?
> How could a small energy light with a large wavelength spread out
> accros space at emmision? if it is not a local phenomenon?
It's individual photons that do the spreading out across space. There is
a different photon for every direction you see in space.
Yousuf Khan
YKhan
> > Two different frequencies of Gamma rays arriving 0.9
> > seconds apart from the same source could be considered
> > confirmation that the highest energy GR's /are/ affected
> > by the roughness of space.
>
> Not when the visible light, radio waves, etc. all also arrive during
> the same "burst". Bursts are not zero duration events, they
> ostensibly also come from distant events so the burst gets "duration
> stretched" by expansion, and we still are not clear on mechanism as to
> what departs... when.
So they would need to correlate how quickly the radio, visible, IR,
UV, etc. also came. Since they can't stopwatch individual photons
leaving the GRB at exactly the same time, so they typically have to
correlate the peaks and valleys of each of the signals. If it's
assumed that the same sequence of events within the GRB are causing
the peaks and valleys in all wavelengths of light, then all
wavelengths should be arriving at the same time with a nearly
identical graph. Some events inside the GRB might create more of one
wavelength over another, but they should have their peaks and valleys
at nearly the same times, even if their amplitudes differ.
Yousuf Khan
Ken S. Tucker
Yeah, but it's hard to draw conclusions. Perhaps the
dynamics of the GRB event involved a low energy initiator
that took 0.9 secs to set-off the higher energy spike.
Personally I think there should be a slight diff in the
speeds of light as a function of energy since the universe
is not a perfect vacuum for which the 'constant speed of
light' is specified.
Perhaps the diff could co-related with the density of
our part of the universe.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
dlzc
On Nov 7, 7:29 am, YKhan <yjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> So they would need to correlate how quickly the
> radio, visible, IR, UV, etc. also came.
Right. For different GRB events, and different distances, there
should be similarity in arrival times (if similar physical events
caused them).
> Since they can't stopwatch individual photons
> leaving the GRB at exactly the same time, so they
> typically have to correlate the peaks and valleys
> of each of the signals. If it's assumed that the
> same sequence of events within the GRB are
> causing the peaks and valleys in all wavelengths of
> light, then all wavelengths should be arriving at the
> same time with a nearly identical graph.
Which is what they seem to be saying, regardless of GRB source
distance.
> Some events inside the GRB might create more of
> one wavelength over another, but they should have
> their peaks and valleys at nearly the same times,
> even if their amplitudes differ.
*If* the physics is similar...
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
> Yeah, but it's hard to draw conclusions. Perhaps the
> dynamics of the GRB event involved a low energy initiator
> that took 0.9 secs to set-off the higher energy spike.
Understood but that by definition would be a one-time only event, since
it is an "initiator", and therefore it can be discarded. All subsequent
events should be synchronized throughout the spectrum.
> Personally I think there should be a slight diff in the
> speeds of light as a function of energy since the universe
> is not a perfect vacuum for which the 'constant speed of
> light' is specified.
Well in a way, that was sort of the point of trying to measure the speed
difference. If the shortest wavelength photons begin to feel the quantum
foam of space, then they should be slowed down. Then the vacuum of space
itself would be a something rather than a nothing, therefore it wouldn't
really be a vacuum.
> Perhaps the diff could co-related with the density of
> our part of the universe.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Apparently this supernova was instrumental in ruling out a particular
class of quantum gravity theories, but doesn't rule out other classes of
quantum gravities. So they are not denying that there is a delay in the
arrival of higher-energy, shorter-wavelength gamma rays.
Quantum gravity theories wiped out by a gamma ray burst - Ars Technica
"A value this close to the Planck length means that quantum gravity
models in which there's a linear relationship between photon energy and
speed are "highly implausible." That leaves other quantum gravity
options open, including those in which the the relationship is
non-linear. Hopefully, theoreticians will be able to devise real-world
tests for some of these. "
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst.ars
Yousuf Khan
eric gisse
[...]
What baffles me is why Ars Technica is taking a crack at physics, and why
you are taking them seriously for trying.
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Yeah, but it's hard to draw conclusions. Perhaps the
> > dynamics of the GRB event involved a low energy initiator
> > that took 0.9 secs to set-off the higher energy spike.
>
> Understood but that by definition would be a one-time only event, since
> it is an "initiator", and therefore it can be discarded. All subsequent
> events should be synchronized throughout the spectrum.
>
> > Personally I think there should be a slight diff in the
> > speeds of light as a function of energy since the universe
> > is not a perfect vacuum for which the 'constant speed of
> > light' is specified.
>
> Well in a way, that was sort of the point of trying to measure the speed
> difference. If the shortest wavelength photons begin to feel the quantum
> foam of space, then they should be slowed down. Then the vacuum of space
> itself would be a something rather than a nothing, therefore it wouldn't
> really be a vacuum.
Yes, that is what people have a problem with, what is a
vacuum. We really need a standard on that meaning where
GR is concerned so we can better commonally understand
G_uv = T_uv.
> > Perhaps the diff could co-related with the density of
> > our part of the universe.
> > Regards
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> Apparently this supernova was instrumental in ruling out a particular
> class of quantum gravity theories, but doesn't rule out other classes of
> quantum gravities. So they are not denying that there is a delay in the
> arrival of higher-energy, shorter-wavelength gamma rays.
>
> Quantum gravity theories wiped out by a gamma ray burst - Ars Technica
> "A value this close to the Planck length means that quantum gravity
> models in which there's a linear relationship between photon energy and
> speed are "highly implausible." That leaves other quantum gravity
> options open, including those in which the the relationship is
> non-linear. Hopefully, theoreticians will be able to devise real-world
> tests for some of these. "http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-...
> Yousuf Khan
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Thomas Heger
> On Nov 9, 10:35 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, that is what people have a problem with, what is a
> vacuum.
Koobee Wublee
> http://www.popsci.com/node/40163/?cmpid=enews110509
After the advent of electromagnetism, the Aether was thought to be the
medium to allow light to propagate. In doing so, the speed of light
relative to the stationary background of this medium is constant. Any
observers moving against this stationary background of the medium
would observe a different value in the speed of light depending on the
drift speed of the observer of course.
Michelson’s 1881 MMX-type experiment showed no such drift. It
prompted Voigt to declare that any observer regardless his drift speed
will always observe the same value to the speed of light. He then
worked out the necessary mathematics to support his claim. That was
in 1887.
In Voigt’s model, the medium that allows light propagation is still
there. Since light from the same source travel through the same
medium, one would expect all packets of light to arrive at the same
time. Therefore, Fermi’s result does not proves anything really.
<shrug>
Of course, the article would never miss a chance to glorify Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. In 1905, 18 years later,
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar finally repeated the
same thing. That would make Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar a plagiarist. In his 1905 paper, the derivation of the
Lorentz transform was total gibberish. That would make Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar a nitwit. Since he knew about
the Lorentz transform because he arrived at the transform itself, that
would make Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar a liar.
You know you are an Einstein Dingleberry when you are bedazzled by
** The nonsensical works of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar.
** The plagiarized works of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar.
** The lies of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
Speaking of SR, does the Lorentz transform really support the
principle of relativity? Well, after 100 years, the ever so humble
yours truly Koobee Wublee shows that it actually does not.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en
So much for Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to claim
he came up with the Lorentz transform from two glorified assumptions:
** Observed invariance to the speed of light --- already suggested by
Voigt 18 years prior
** The principle of relativity --- already identified by Galileo more
than 300 years prior
Orwellian education is already here deeply rooted in the minds of the
self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries:
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
<shrug>
BURT
>
> So much for Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to claim
> he came up with the Lorentz transform from two glorified assumptions:
>
> ** Observed invariance to the speed of light --- already suggested by
> Voigt 18 years prior
>
> ** The principle of relativity --- already identified by Galileo more
> than 300 years prior
>
> Orwellian education is already here deeply rooted in the minds of the
> self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries:
>
> ** FAITH IS THEORY
> ** LYING IS TEACHING
> ** NITWIT IS GENIUS
> ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
> ** PARADOX IS KOSHER
> ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
> ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
> ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
> ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
> ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
> ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
> ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
>
> <shrug>
Since there is apparently no possibility of exact measurement of light
speed we will just get as close as possible.
Mitch Raemsch