Start A Petition

Could We Be Wrong About The Speed Of Light?


Science & Tech  (tags: discovery, research, science, light, speed of light, physics, neutrinos, astronomy )

Michael
- 1846 days ago - iflscience.com
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.



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Michael O (176)
Friday June 27, 2014, 7:50 pm
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.

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”.

If Franson is right gravitational fields, particularly from the center of the galaxy, would have slowed photons down by the required amount. “The predictions of this model are in reasonable agreement with the experimental observations from Supernova 1987a, in which the first neutrinos arrived 7.7 hours before the first photons,” Franson says.

The alternative explanation is that the second neutrino burst was the one triggered at the same time as the original release of light. Even if the delay was 4.7 hours, rather than three, the puzzle of the earlier neutrino flurry remains. Directional detection of neutrinos is very poor, so some astronomers have assumed that these neutrinos were a coincidence, originating from some other source. Franson claims the probability of such a chance event is 1 in 10,000.
 

Nimue Michelle P (339)
Friday June 27, 2014, 9:42 pm
Anything is possible.
 

Catrin S (47)
Sunday June 29, 2014, 6:44 am
Thanks for sharing .
 

Jordan G (37)
Sunday June 29, 2014, 10:30 am
The more we know the more mysteries appear.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday June 29, 2014, 11:16 am
Interesting, thanks.
 

Birgit W (160)
Sunday June 29, 2014, 2:33 pm
Thanks Michael.
 

Debra Tate (17)
Sunday June 29, 2014, 4:16 pm
Interesting! Noted, thank you for sharing!
 

Lois Jordan (63)
Sunday June 29, 2014, 4:18 pm
Noted. Thanks, Michael. I wonder how long it will take to come to a definite conclusion. Sure would be interested to know what the final results are. hmmmm....
 

Nelson Baker (0)
Sunday June 29, 2014, 7:19 pm
Thank you for the article.
 

Colleen L (3)
Sunday June 29, 2014, 11:40 pm
Interesting. Thanks Michael
 

Dot A (180)
Monday June 30, 2014, 9:10 am
sounds like not so much wrong
as just finding the modifications
~~~~
as
nothing is constant
change is reality
******
zoom Zooom ZOOM!
 

Panchali Yapa (26)
Monday June 30, 2014, 11:20 am
Thank you
 

Roger G (148)
Monday June 30, 2014, 12:33 pm
noted, thanks
 

Aileen P (39)
Monday June 30, 2014, 3:54 pm
Noted, thank you.
 

Kevin Lewis (1)
Monday June 30, 2014, 5:57 pm
Very interesting. Thank You
 

Greg K (1)
Tuesday July 1, 2014, 11:24 am
What if time is not perfectly consistent during giant cosmic events? Saw a show recently where the possibility of time 'waves', variations in time were discussed. The hypotheses, possibilities, probabilities, likely conclusions and sometimes facts are seldom clearly distinguished in any of these type of shows or articles. The title kind of oversold the strength of the evidence.
 

Kathleen M (208)
Tuesday July 1, 2014, 6:56 pm
Noted. Thanks, Michael! Your postings are fascinating, and incredibly uplifting after a passel of seriously f****d up news re: human idiocy. Blessings...
 

Jav R (0)
Wednesday July 2, 2014, 11:14 am
Gracias.
 

Charlene Rush (79)
Wednesday July 2, 2014, 11:39 am
I shutter to think of the number of so-called facts, that we DON'T know.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Science & Tech





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.