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  
•       •       •

3319 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Jun 2014 at 3:53 PM (26 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
 
2014-06-26 03:39:36 AM  
Photons do indeed have mass, as do the orthopositronium. Suck it deniers. Therefore, light has weight and can be bent by gravity as evidenced at the accretion disk.


I just totally faced you into next week.
 
2014-06-26 05:50:00 AM  
As has been mentioned several times, neutrinos are bound to hit us before the actual light from the event because of occlusionof photons by the mass itself.
And as I gather..
The puzzlement is that 1.7 hour difference in the expected reception of the photons after the neutrinos.

Maybe I'm a bit foggy because it's 4:40 am or because I'm partially sick at the moment but that doesn't seem like a big deal.

I've seen many simulations of things blowing up or colliding at scale(planets / suns) and it's not a fast process(in the classical view of "explosion" ie as we see them in tiny scale on earth[ie firecrackers or dynamite]).  Is it so inconceivable that the photons would be occluded for a different amount of time depending on variability in the mass/materials between objects of varying events?
 
2014-06-26 06:51:46 AM  

powhound: So, nothing exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum, photons travel slower than neutrinos due to interactions in less than vacuumy interstellar space? Is that about right?

My question is this: if the sun were to "disappear", would the Earth fly off instantly, or would there be a delay equivalent to the speed of light? In other words, does the gravitational force act instantly, or at the speed of light?

My daughter's physics teacher asked the class that question, and argued that it is an instantaneous effect. We disagree, but there isn't much out there on the topic.


Your daughter's physics teacher needs to go teach something he/she is actually qualified for, like woodshop, or gym.

As an aside, if gravitational effects didn't propagate at the speed of light, advanced civilizations would be routinely blowing up stars as a form of instantaneous interstellar communication.
 
2014-06-26 09:12:53 AM  

aerojockey: Mikey1969: 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...

The article writer, doing what article writers do, made the implications of this out to be more than they were.  The "speed of light in a vacum" is really a theoretical limit that is never reached.   We already know that light doesn't ever travel at the speed of light (even in the greatest voids of space there is still a very, very, very thin gas, but it can still be enough to slow down light a noticeable amount over a few billion years).  This theory just adds another factor that can slow down light slightly.

It may or may not be true but it is not at all controversial.  It doesn't "disprove relativity" (apart from taking into account effects for which scientists already knew relativity doesn't hold) any more than light moving slower through a gas disproves it.


Lind of like it's pretty hard to find a place on the planet where water freezes at 'exactly' 32 degrees F...

powhound: So, nothing exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum, photons travel slower than neutrinos due to interactions in less than vacuumy interstellar space? Is that about right?

My question is this: if the sun were to "disappear", would the Earth fly off instantly, or would there be a delay equivalent to the speed of light? In other words, does the gravitational force act instantly, or at the speed of light?

My daughter's physics teacher asked the class that question, and argued that it is an instantaneous effect. We disagree, but there isn't much out there on the topic.


Um, the Earth would still be under the effect of the gravitational pull of every other object in our solar system.
 
2014-06-26 09:42:25 AM  
If he's right-that the speed of light is slower than Einstein predicted-that is hugely significant.

Actually, to me it means one of two things... either

a. Speed of Light isn't a constant. or
b. "Speed of Light" isn't the right term, so much as "Speed of Photon" which is still constant, but while a photon isn't a photon but a positron electron pair, it quite reasonably doesn't move at 100% Speed of Photon.

However, if true it means the distances of many objects and due to that, both size and age of the universe need some minor corrections.

Cool
 
2014-06-26 09:48:37 AM  
So, science DOESN"T have all the answers like they always claim! Therefore Mitt Romney is president, Stephen Hawking gets unplugged, all science books are burned, and Pat Robertson gets lifetime-appointment as head of the U.N.
 
2014-06-26 11:20:21 AM  
This reminds me of freshman physics. Astronomers are obviously still at the freshman physics level, where we pretend that strings are massless and pulleys are frictionless. So long as strings are massless, pulleys are frictionless, and instruments are sufficiently crude, you can have nice, simple equations. However, if your instrument is no longer sufficiently crude, then you have to start accounting for the masses of strings and friction of pulleys, which is a hassle.
 
2014-06-26 12:43:33 PM  

Silly_Sot: However, if your instrument is no longer sufficiently crude, then you have to start accounting for the masses of strings and friction of pulleys, which is a hassle.


Or as scientists like to call it, "engineering".
 
2014-06-26 01:58:03 PM  

czetie: Silly_Sot: However, if your instrument is no longer sufficiently crude, then you have to start accounting for the masses of strings and friction of pulleys, which is a hassle.

Or as scientists like to call it, "engineering".


As an engineer, I can assure you that all you have to do is carry out calculations to two significant figures.  Boom, massless strings hold.
 
Displayed 9 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