If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medium)   Speed of light needs correcting after photons outpaced by neutrinos. Speed of dark unchanged   (medium.com) divider line 109
    More: Interesting, neutrinos, supernovas, Einstein, speed of light, fine structures, weak forces, astronomers, virtual particles  
•       •       •

3317 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:53 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



109 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-25 02:23:39 PM  
That was a thoroughly interesting read.  Thank you for applying the right tag to it. Given the (unstated in TFA) distance of 168000 light years to SN1987a, the 4.7 hour differential represents a 3.2E-7% difference in the predicted versus observed light arrival time.

Significant for astrophysicists, certainly, and would represent an error of 41 years in the estimated 13B year age of the universe.
 
2014-06-25 02:45:23 PM  

factoryconnection: That was a thoroughly interesting read.  Thank you for applying the right tag to it. Given the (unstated in TFA) distance of 168000 light years to SN1987a, the 4.7 hour differential represents a 3.2E-7% difference in the predicted versus observed light arrival time.

Significant for astrophysicists, certainly, and would represent an error of 41 years in the estimated 13B year age of the universe.


Here we go again, revising history.
 
2014-06-25 02:47:22 PM  
The "Speed of Neutrinos" doesn't have the same zing, though.

/seriously, way cool article
 
2014-06-25 03:06:51 PM  

This About That: factoryconnection: That was a thoroughly interesting read.  Thank you for applying the right tag to it. Given the (unstated in TFA) distance of 168000 light years to SN1987a, the 4.7 hour differential represents a 3.2E-7% difference in the predicted versus observed light arrival time.

Significant for astrophysicists, certainly, and would represent an error of 41 years in the estimated 13B year age of the universe.

Here we go again, revising history.


"Science" got it wrong again.  You know what never changes?  The Bible.
 
2014-06-25 03:18:22 PM  

factoryconnection: That was a thoroughly interesting read.  Thank you for applying the right tag to it. Given the (unstated in TFA) distance of 168000 light years to SN1987a, the 4.7 hour differential represents a 3.2E-7% difference in the predicted versus observed light arrival time.

Significant for astrophysicists, certainly, and would represent an error of 41 years in the estimated 13B year age of the universe.


Or about 10 minutes in the 6000 year Biblical age. ;)
 
2014-06-25 03:55:56 PM  
We finally discovered that bad news is made out of neutrino particles.
 
2014-06-25 03:56:13 PM  
Didn't professor Farnsworth talk about this?
 
2014-06-25 03:56:58 PM  
Um....

Considering that the 'speed of light' (IE, the speed of photons) slows down inside a physical medium like,
say, interstellar dust clouds, whereas neutrinos can zip through almost all intervening matter, I don't see
why the theory of relativity needs to be revised in any way.

But I'm not a scientist.
 
2014-06-25 04:00:22 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: Um....

Considering that the 'speed of light' (IE, the speed of photons) slows down inside a physical medium like,
say, interstellar dust clouds, whereas neutrinos can zip through almost all intervening matter, I don't see
why the theory of relativity needs to be revised in any way.

But I'm not a scientist.


Plus, if it's a supernova, if I Remember right, the neutrino burst occurs *BEFORE* the visible light from the explosion, *because* while the photons are working through all the other gunk that's going to explode (The plasma), the neutrinos, well, don't.

Perhaps the revising isn't "Relativity was wrong!", though, and more "The 8th digit of the speed of light neds to be turned from a 5 to a 6" or something.

/Note: I am not a cosmologist, my field of physics is nano-phsicys/engineering/synthesis.
//Goddamnit nanorods, STICK TO THE GODDAMN SUBSTRATE, I AM FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE.
 
2014-06-25 04:03:05 PM  
"Speed of Dark" sounds like a biatchin' title for a metal album.


timujin: This About That: factoryconnection: That was a thoroughly interesting read.  Thank you for applying the right tag to it. Given the (unstated in TFA) distance of 168000 light years to SN1987a, the 4.7 hour differential represents a 3.2E-7% difference in the predicted versus observed light arrival time.

Significant for astrophysicists, certainly, and would represent an error of 41 years in the estimated 13B year age of the universe.

Here we go again, revising history.

"Science" got it wrong again.  You know what never changes?  The Bible.


What about the New Revised Standard Version?
 
2014-06-25 04:05:52 PM  
But the speed of love is still the same right?
 
2014-06-25 04:07:04 PM  
Also, submitter: Huzzah for the pratchett reference (Or, at least, so I assume)
 
2014-06-25 04:07:14 PM  

ghall3: But the speed of love is still the same right?


I don't know what the speed is, but the time hasn't changed: About 2 minutes.
 
2014-06-25 04:10:28 PM  

Felgraf: Plus, if it's a supernova, if I Remember right, the neutrino burst occurs *BEFORE* the visible light from the explosion, *because* while the photons are working through all the other gunk that's going to explode (The plasma), the neutrinos, well, don't.


^

This was even covered on an episode of Cosmos.
 
2014-06-25 04:14:09 PM  

skozlaw: Felgraf: Plus, if it's a supernova, if I Remember right, the neutrino burst occurs *BEFORE* the visible light from the explosion, *because* while the photons are working through all the other gunk that's going to explode (The plasma), the neutrinos, well, don't.

^

This was even covered on an episode of Cosmos.


The article does account for that. Based solely on the supernova the neutrinos should have arrived 3hrs earlier not 4.7.

But I didn't see anything about other matter slowing the photons down on the way to us which seems more likely to me, but I am only a failed astrophysicist.
 
2014-06-25 04:15:13 PM  

Felgraf: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

Considering that the 'speed of light' (IE, the speed of photons) slows down inside a physical medium like,
say, interstellar dust clouds, whereas neutrinos can zip through almost all intervening matter, I don't see
why the theory of relativity needs to be revised in any way.

But I'm not a scientist.

Plus, if it's a supernova, if I Remember right, the neutrino burst occurs *BEFORE* the visible light from the explosion, *because* while the photons are working through all the other gunk that's going to explode (The plasma), the neutrinos, well, don't.


Know how I know you didn't read the article?
Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light and should therefore arrive simultaneously, all else being equal. The mystery is what caused this huge delay of 7.7 hours between the first burst of neutrinos and the arrival of the optical photons...
First, some background about the mechanism behind the supernova. A supernova begins with the collapse of a star's core, generating both neutrinos and optical photons. However, the density of the core delays the emergence of the photons by about 3 hours. By contrast, the neutrinos interact less strongly with matter and so emerge unscathed more or less immediately...
But the timing is still a puzzle. The optical photons should have arrived about 3 hours after the first burst of neutrinos rather than 4.7 hours after the second burst.
 
2014-06-25 04:17:36 PM  
In the absence of any explanation, astrophysicists have simply ignored this burst, saying that it cannot have been associated with the supernova and must have been a flukish coincidence. That's despite the chances of such a coincidence being something like 1 in 10,000.

Not to piss on anyone's parade, but given that there are 300 billion stars in our galaxy, a 1 in 10,000 chance would happen 30 million times.

I don't know what that translates to in this case, but you know how they talk about long odds as "astronomical"? Because shiat that "doesn't happen often" happens all the damned time somewhere in the universe.

// the quantums are probably to blame
 
2014-06-25 04:18:58 PM  

Felgraf: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

Considering that the 'speed of light' (IE, the speed of photons) slows down inside a physical medium like,
say, interstellar dust clouds, whereas neutrinos can zip through almost all intervening matter, I don't see
why the theory of relativity needs to be revised in any way.

But I'm not a scientist.

Plus, if it's a supernova, if I Remember right, the neutrino burst occurs *BEFORE* the visible light from the explosion, *because* while the photons are working through all the other gunk that's going to explode (The plasma), the neutrinos, well, don't.

Perhaps the revising isn't "Relativity was wrong!", though, and more "The 8th digit of the speed of light neds to be turned from a 5 to a 6" or something.

/Note: I am not a cosmologist, my field of physics is nano-phsicys/engineering/synthesis.
//Goddamnit nanorods, STICK TO THE GODDAMN SUBSTRATE, I AM FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE.


That was mentioned in the article. The problem was that the expected photon burst didn't arrive at the predicted time.
 
2014-06-25 04:19:40 PM  
"Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light, "

um, no...
 
2014-06-25 04:20:31 PM  
So if we were ever in the path of an energy jet from a supernova, which would fry the solar system to a crisp in seconds, then we would have a small warning from neutrino detectors.   No one would bother to tell us though.   They would be trying to analyze the data.
 
2014-06-25 04:21:10 PM  

wjllope: "Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light, "

um, no...


explain?
 
2014-06-25 04:21:16 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Not to piss on anyone's parade, but given that there are 300 billion stars in our galaxy, a 1 in 10,000 chance would happen 30 million times.


That's pretty much exactly what I thought when I read that.
 
2014-06-25 04:21:30 PM  
Check out pages 14 and 15 of the actual paper. It's a bit clearer than TFA... cheers
 
2014-06-25 04:23:04 PM  

BafflerMeal: wjllope: "Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light, "

um, no...

explain?


neutrinos have mass. A very small mass, but non-zero. (Just pointing out the usual science-reporting-fail)...cheere
 
2014-06-25 04:25:04 PM  

wjllope: BafflerMeal: wjllope: "Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light, "

um, no...

explain?

neutrinos have mass. A very small mass, but non-zero. (Just pointing out the usual science-reporting-fail)...cheere



Ah.  Ok.  Was not aware of that.  I assumed by their general almost zero interaction with matter that they did not.
 
2014-06-25 04:27:38 PM  
The speed limit is just a suggestion anyway.
 
2014-06-25 04:30:24 PM  
Both still slower that the speed at which bad news travels.
 
2014-06-25 04:31:32 PM  

BowtoMogul: Didn't professor Farnsworth talk about this?


Cubert J. Farnsworth: That's impossible. You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.

2208? We're 194 years ahead of schedule. God damn we're good!
 
2014-06-25 04:35:36 PM  

Theaetetus: Felgraf: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

Considering that the 'speed of light' (IE, the speed of photons) slows down inside a physical medium like,
say, interstellar dust clouds, whereas neutrinos can zip through almost all intervening matter, I don't see
why the theory of relativity needs to be revised in any way.

But I'm not a scientist.

Plus, if it's a supernova, if I Remember right, the neutrino burst occurs *BEFORE* the visible light from the explosion, *because* while the photons are working through all the other gunk that's going to explode (The plasma), the neutrinos, well, don't.

Know how I know you didn't read the article?
Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light and should therefore arrive simultaneously, all else being equal. The mystery is what caused this huge delay of 7.7 hours between the first burst of neutrinos and the arrival of the optical photons...
First, some background about the mechanism behind the supernova. A supernova begins with the collapse of a star's core, generating both neutrinos and optical photons. However, the density of the core delays the emergence of the photons by about 3 hours. By contrast, the neutrinos interact less strongly with matter and so emerge unscathed more or less immediately...
But the timing is still a puzzle. The optical photons should have arrived about 3 hours after the first burst of neutrinos rather than 4.7 hours after the second burst.


You are correct, I have not yet had time to read it.

Trying to get a nanorod deposition to work, can only brain so much.

I would think, though, it might be more likely that the neutrino burst comse 'earlier' than expected? Maybe not.

Tobin_Lam: That was mentioned in the article. The problem was that the expected photon burst didn't arrive at the predicted time.


Understood. I suppose just after the whole "POSSIBLY FASTER THAN LIGHT NEUTRINOS!" (that the media was shouting about, while the people reporting it were going ".. someone please figure out WTF we're doing wrong over here, we can't find it"),that turned out to be... I think one of their timing cables was farked up?

My brain went ".. Are we doing this again?".

I am perhaps just overly frustrated at my own work at the moment. I swear to god nano sometimes feels more like voodoo than science.
 
2014-06-25 04:39:12 PM  
Man, God is having some fun with scientists, lately.

"Farking N00bz" - God.
 
2014-06-25 04:42:34 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: Um....

Considering that the 'speed of light' (IE, the speed of photons) slows down inside a physical medium like,
say, interstellar dust clouds, whereas neutrinos can zip through almost all intervening matter, I don't see
why the theory of relativity needs to be revised in any way.

But I'm not a scientist.


As I read it, it doesn't sound like a revision to relativity or quantum mechanics at all; it's just another mechanism for velocity change (loss, in this case) that would have been overlooked before. The speed of a photon outside of a gravity well should still be the same. Making assumptions and approximations when calculating solutions are often necessary evils; and it's often as much of an art as it is a science choosing what needs to be considered and what can be disregarded. Things like this SN1987a are often nature's way of slapping us in the face and telling us to pay more careful attention to our calculations because something's likely been left out. Often by choice, but usually by ignorance or accident. In this case, the hypothesis appears to be that we're dealing with a relatively well known effect that just hadn't been considered over very long distances.

More importantly, this hypothesis should eventually be testable without waiting for another supernova to blow
 
2014-06-25 04:44:49 PM  

Arkanaut: "Speed of Dark" sounds like a biatchin' title for a metal album.


timujin: This About That: factoryconnection: That was a thoroughly interesting read.  Thank you for applying the right tag to it. Given the (unstated in TFA) distance of 168000 light years to SN1987a, the 4.7 hour differential represents a 3.2E-7% difference in the predicted versus observed light arrival time.

Significant for astrophysicists, certainly, and would represent an error of 41 years in the estimated 13B year age of the universe.

Here we go again, revising history.

"Science" got it wrong again.  You know what never changes?  The Bible.

What about the New Revised Standard Version?


I said NEVER CHANGES!!
 
2014-06-25 04:45:08 PM  

wjllope: "Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light, "

um, no...


You are technically correct. Realistically, neutrons do travel at practically the speed of light. Experimental measurements show that neutrons travel at the speed of light or at least close enough that we can't measure the difference yet.
 
2014-06-25 04:51:55 PM  
Ehh, space is only a pretty good vacuum, not perfect. Figure an atom of hydrogen per cubic meter, 9.46 *10^15 meters per light year, and 1.68*10^5 light years to the star. Just ballpark, but there's 1.5 *10^21 atoms of hydrogen per square meter between you and that star.
 
2014-06-25 04:52:38 PM  

Tobin_Lam: You are technically correct.


That's the best kind of correct!
 
2014-06-25 04:52:39 PM  
The important takeaway is that light doesn't actually move at the speed of light in practice. Neutrinos are moving at the speed of light.   Which should throw off quite a few calculations about the universe.

/A few hours after a million light years doesn't seem like a big deal, but it probably adds up.
 
2014-06-25 04:54:04 PM  

BafflerMeal: wjllope: BafflerMeal: wjllope: "Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light, "

um, no...

explain?

neutrinos have mass. A very small mass, but non-zero. (Just pointing out the usual science-reporting-fail)...cheere


Ah.  Ok.  Was not aware of that.  I assumed by their general almost zero interaction with matter that they did not.


You're in good company. Physicists long believed that neutrinos were probably massless, and this was consistent with the Standard Model. The discovery (in the late 1990s) that neutrinos apparently oscillated from one flavor to another was the first clue that they must have mass. It remains an interesting problem to explain why the neutrino mass is so small, yet not actually zero.
 
2014-06-25 04:56:15 PM  

Felgraf: You are correct, I have not yet had time to read it.

Trying to get a nanorod deposition to work, can only brain so much.

I would think, though, it might be more likely that the neutrino burst comse 'earlier' than expected? Maybe not


That's pretty cool.  You're cool.  And I'm jealous.

/not even snarking
 
2014-06-25 04:57:02 PM  

ghall3: But the speed of love is still the same right?


About 30 seconds, according to your mom.
 
2014-06-25 05:07:52 PM  
Maybe it's an after-effect of a Halo detonation?

img1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-25 05:09:32 PM  

BafflerMeal: wjllope: BafflerMeal: wjllope: "Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light, "

um, no...

explain?

neutrinos have mass. A very small mass, but non-zero. (Just pointing out the usual science-reporting-fail)...cheere


Ah.  Ok.  Was not aware of that.  I assumed by their general almost zero interaction with matter that they did not.


Though the mass of a neutrino hasn't been measured, neutrino mass is required in order to explain the solar neutrino problem, which is why we were initially only detecting 1/3 of the expected amount of neutrinos streaming from the Sun.

As it turns out, there are three flavors of neutrinos, and neutrinos can change flavor as they travel through space. In order for them to change over time, they have to experience time. In order to experience time, they have to move slower than light, and in order for that, they need mass.

These other flavors of neutrinos were later detected experimentally, confirming neutrino mass (And, thus, slower-than-light movement) The flavors seem to be oscillations in how much of the total energy is represented as mass vs. momentum. (or something like that)
 
2014-06-25 05:11:05 PM  
Now one physicist says the speed of light must be slower than Einstein predicted and has developed a theory that explains why


I'm pretty sure the speed of light had been calculated before Einstein had anything to say on the matter...
 
2014-06-25 05:15:56 PM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-06-25 05:18:48 PM  

Mikey1969: Now one physicist says the speed of light must be slower than Einstein predicted and has developed a theory that explains why


I'm pretty sure the speed of light had been calculated before Einstein had anything to say on the matter...


Tell me Morley.
 
2014-06-25 05:22:44 PM  

czetie: BafflerMeal: wjllope: BafflerMeal: wjllope: "Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light, "

um, no...

explain?

neutrinos have mass. A very small mass, but non-zero. (Just pointing out the usual science-reporting-fail)...cheere


Ah.  Ok.  Was not aware of that.  I assumed by their general almost zero interaction with matter that they did not.

You're in good company. Physicists long believed that neutrinos were probably massless, and this was consistent with the Standard Model. The discovery (in the late 1990s) that neutrinos apparently oscillated from one flavor to another was the first clue that they must have mass. It remains an interesting problem to explain why the neutrino mass is so small, yet not actually zero.


Don't photons have to have _some_ mass in order to transmit/transfer energy?
 
2014-06-25 05:27:12 PM  

Felgraf: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

Considering that the 'speed of light' (IE, the speed of photons) slows down inside a physical medium like,
say, interstellar dust clouds, whereas neutrinos can zip through almost all intervening matter, I don't see
why the theory of relativity needs to be revised in any way.

But I'm not a scientist.

Plus, if it's a supernova, if I Remember right, the neutrino burst occurs *BEFORE* the visible light from the explosion, *because* while the photons are working through all the other gunk that's going to explode (The plasma), the neutrinos, well, don't.

Perhaps the revising isn't "Relativity was wrong!", though, and more "The 8th digit of the speed of light neds to be turned from a 5 to a 6" or something.

/Note: I am not a cosmologist, my field of physics is nano-phsicys/engineering/synthesis.
//Goddamnit nanorods, STICK TO THE GODDAMN SUBSTRATE, I AM FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE.


That's actually what I was wondering. Seems like the obvious answer.
 
2014-06-25 05:30:23 PM  

OceanVortex: [imgs.xkcd.com image 740x232]


LOL, liked that bit about the "Thought Police". That's an awesome comic. And yeah, it's a great point. Either this is going to turn out to be a mistake/error(or have a perfectly rational explanation) or it's gonna be a cool new thing to talk about. Either way, we're still gonna be able to hurt each other's feelings  daily on Fark...
 
2014-06-25 05:33:32 PM  
My ex wife used to say our household emergency flashlight which had a "regular" and "bright" setting had two speeds.
 
2014-06-25 05:38:54 PM  

Theaetetus: Felgraf: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

Considering that the 'speed of light' (IE, the speed of photons) slows down inside a physical medium like,
say, interstellar dust clouds, whereas neutrinos can zip through almost all intervening matter, I don't see
why the theory of relativity needs to be revised in any way.

But I'm not a scientist.

Plus, if it's a supernova, if I Remember right, the neutrino burst occurs *BEFORE* the visible light from the explosion, *because* while the photons are working through all the other gunk that's going to explode (The plasma), the neutrinos, well, don't.

Know how I know you didn't read the article?
Neutrinos and photons both travel at the speed of light and should therefore arrive simultaneously, all else being equal. The mystery is what caused this huge delay of 7.7 hours between the first burst of neutrinos and the arrival of the optical photons...
First, some background about the mechanism behind the supernova. A supernova begins with the collapse of a star's core, generating both neutrinos and optical photons. However, the density of the core delays the emergence of the photons by about 3 hours. By contrast, the neutrinos interact less strongly with matter and so emerge unscathed more or less immediately...
But the timing is still a puzzle. The optical photons should have arrived about 3 hours after the first burst of neutrinos rather than 4.7 hours after the second burst.


I did read the article (mostly), and while it accounts for the delay in the emission of photos vs that of neutrinos at the source, it doesn't account for any intervening gas clouds or nebulae or other cosmic stuff on the path of the photons'
travel that could slow them.
 
2014-06-25 05:48:53 PM  

dryknife: My ex wife used to say our household emergency flashlight which had a "regular" and "bright" setting had two speeds.


Yeah, and?  I've been known to complain about a really loud odor.

/ made a cashier fall down laughing - ex-wife had sent me to the pink aisle to grab a box of plugs, and I grabbed 'the wrong flavor.'
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report