# Confirming Einstein, scientists find 'spacetime foam' not slowing down photons from faraway gamma-ray burst (Update)

One hundred years after Albert Einstein formulated the general theory of relativity, an international team has proposed another experimental proof. In a paper published today in *Nature Physics*, researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Open University of Israel, Sapienza University of Rome, and University of Montpellier in France, describe a proof for one of the theory's basic assumptions: the idea that all light particles, or photons, propagate at exactly the same speed.

The researchers analyzed data, obtained by NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, of the arrival times of photons from a distant gamma-ray burst. The data showed that photons traveling for billions of years from the distant burst toward Earth all arrived within a fraction of a second of each other.

This finding indicates that the photons all moved at the same speed, even though different photons had different energies. This is one of the best measurements ever of the independence of the speed of light from the energy of the light particles.

Beyond confirming the general theory of relativity, the observation rules out one of the interesting ideas concerning the unification of general relativity and quantum theory. While these two theories are the pillars of physics today, they are still inconsistent, and there is an intrinsic contradiction between the two that is partially based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that is at the heart of quantum theory.

One of the attempts to reconcile the two theories is the idea of "space-time foam." According to this concept, on a microscopic scale space is not continuous, and instead it has a foam-like structure. The size of these foam elements is so tiny that it is difficult to imagine and is at present impossible to measure directly. However light particles that are traveling within this foam will be affected by the foamy structure, and this will cause them to propagate at slightly different speeds depending on their energy.

Yet this experiment shows otherwise. The fact that all the photons with different energies arrived with no time delay relative to each other indicates that such a foamy structure, if it exists at all, has a much smaller size than previously expected.

"When we began our analysis, we didn't expect to obtain such a precise measurement," said Prof. Tsvi Piran, the Schwartzmann University Chair at the Hebrew University's Racah Institute of Physics and a leader of the research. "This new limit is at the level expected from quantum gravity theories and can direct us how to combine quantum theory and relativity."

Explore further

**More information:**A Planck-scale limit on spacetime fuzziness and stochastic Lorentz invariance violation,

*Nature*, 2015. DOI: 10.1038/nphys3270

**Citation**: Confirming Einstein, scientists find 'spacetime foam' not slowing down photons from faraway gamma-ray burst (Update) (2015, March 16) retrieved 20 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-03-einstein-scientists-spacetime-foam.html

## User comments

jscroftSean_WSoylentGrinHeadline:

From the article:

DetheDetheShootisthorseshit on rye..

antialias_physorgOh well. Back to the drawing board.

DetheDetheProtoplasmixDetheversion782GoodElfIt is "unfortunate" that so much effort has been placed into theories that "sound plausible" but have no experimental proof and is what happens when theory swamps experiment for so long, that it has become more "real" than the "reality". All "pop physics" talk in this stupid way and it is wrong. Dirac had his infinite "Quantum Sea" idea, swarms of "virtual particles" bobbing in and out of existence everywhere is an incorrect interpretation of quantum tunneling and are another fiction invented to solve these same problems and are like "epicycles" were to the Greeks because old researchers just could not accept Relativity.

DetheIn addition, the photons in gamma rays aren't always without delays. The closer gamma bursts (like the MKN501) often exhibit wider separation in arrival times of photons, than these more distant ones. IMO it's because the photons in nearby bursts had no time to form a dense cluster of photons bound by gravity. But the bursts from larger distance are homogenized already, because the photons of different speed already leaved the cluster and they were scattered.

El_Noseit one of a number on the quantity of the number of grains of sand you can hold in your hand the disproves AWT. Which as a model has some issues with predicting things you take for granted as predictable. but hey, i have some very good friends who are flat worlders so too each there own.

acronymousYep. The headline got it 180 wrong.

rufusgwarrenrufusgwarrenrufusgwarrenvic1248http://www.space....oth.html

mikep608here's my science page link

https://www.faceb...e?ref=hl

Benni@Ira, would you please explain this to us:

vic1248First, they prove that light photons travel at a "constant speed" independent of their energies, a huge score for Einstein's "Theory of General Relativity." Second, they prove that space-time is "continuous" and not foamy as posited by quantum theoretical physicists, another huge score for Einstein's "Theory of General Relativity."

What all that means is, in the grand scheme of things, the concept of reconciling the Theory of General Relativity and the Quantum Field Theory is changing little by little to "either or," and the tides are favoring the Theory of General Relativity.

p.s. I saw some remarks regarding Aether Wave Theory, that has been ruled out a long time ago affirmatively.

PhysicsMatterDid they say photons arrived at the same speeds of light so why there was fraction of a second delay among them if they came precisely from the same point of origin. Fraction of second could be huge, may be fraction of femtosecond they meant? So there is no foam, space time is continuous to infinity, back to classics.

I found interesting take on problems with relativity at:

https://questforn...ativity/

and problems with quanta at:

https://questforn...-quanta/

fred s'CONFIRMING EINSTEIN, SCIENTISTS FIND SPACETIME FOAM...

Yet this experiment shows otherwise. . .' "

No, it doesn't; the headline is spot on.

What you missed is that Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) says that spacetime is smooth at all scales, no matter how tiny.

What quantum mechanics (QM) says, is that at the Planck scale, spacetime is topologically no longer a simple 4D manifold; it is foamy rather than smooth at such a scale.

So under GR, all photons emitted simultaneously, travelling through vacuum, would arrive exactly simultaneously, right down to the femtosecond over a 10-billion year journey.

QM, OTOH, says that photons with higher energies, thus shorter wavelengths, would be affected more by the quantum foam nature of spacetime, than would lower-energy, longer-wave photons. Thus, in this case, Einstein (GR) is confirmed, vs QM â€” as per the headline.

Protoplasmixmikep608This makes me think that they should study light of different energy levels. Why? Maybe the PARTICLE like property is an illusion that may be more attached to light with higher energy levels.

Uncle Ira@ Bennie-Skippy I would if I could but I can't. I'm not the scientist like you aren't either. So Cher, you got to get somebody smarter than both of us to explain him to you. You might ask the Zephir-Skippy he is the one who wrote it to you..

TheGreatApeProtoplasmix"Well, there's clearly an interaction (coupling?) that occurs between matter (energy) and spacetime, as gravitational lensing demonstrates. So the variable(s) for the foam remain -- hidden ? mm hmm..."

Edited to add: Because if there is no foam (or no direct interaction between energy and "empty" spacetime) then the force of gravity would have to propagate faster than light, correct?

David AyeDarkLordKelvinAlmost certainly not .. any interaction like the ones you describe has a high probability of changing the direction of the photon. The chance that a photon coming from such a distant object that was initially on a trajectory that would intersect the Earth at the appropriate point in space (and time) would remain on that trajectory after a scattering or refraction event is negligibly small.

Protoplasmix... or there could be 'gravitons' propagating at c, instead of foam... still QM tho'...

kamcoautomotiveDethetonyv_414GR spacetime requires continuum, but the measurement (observation) of spacetime, upon which all of mathematical accessibility and human sensorimotor functioning relies, requires discrete processing. Logical and mathematical processing, by definition, requires a "step-like" approach. That is what the mathematical "limit" is all about. To take a measurement is to take a "still photograph" of a point on the continuum. The still point is ALWAYS a fiction in a universe of continuous motion. This is what the "limit" in calculus is. Science will NEVER arrive at a singular meta-theory until it realizes that it needs the contradiction of discrete versus continuum in order to justify abstract modeling of any kind. Relativity is built on the "fictions" of the tensor calculus; the "limits" in the calculus are really no different than the fictitious foam required by QM

ursiny33adam_russell_9615Well, then there would be refraction, correct? And photons of differing energy would be refracted through different angles.

Dethemooster75DethemortooSo I looked at wikipedia about pulsars and it says, "Because of the dispersive nature of the interstellar plasma, lower-frequency radio waves travel through the medium slower than higher-frequency radio waves".

Is it because only radio waves not gamma rays are interacting?

DetheNavid010its opposite from the article

or am i wrong?

esophalthingumbobesquireTorbjorn_Larsson_OMArkani-Hamed had a public presentation of today's physics posted on the web last year, and he noted that supersymmetry would control expected fluctuations to this degree.

[To wit, as I understood it: Supersymmetry relies on internal field 'space' degrees of freedom, and such freedoms would be small in string theory. They should couple with the large dimensions of space, and the result would be that only small fluctuations (relative space) would be observed.]

Torbjorn_Larsson_OMNot quite. GR predicts its own demise, because it breaks down at high energies, while QM doesn't need to. The idea of "quantum foam" is idiosyncratic, they are then attempting to apply QM directly on space. In reality, GR and QM plays nice, you can quantize GR and get the standard model graviton.

The problem comes then GR breaks down at high energies (so at small scales).

These types of experiments are the first that probe the Planck scale, but they do so weakly. You integrate out the small scale over the universe in order to say anything. If we can observe primordial gravity fluctuations and probe inflation, we may have another window.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OMWell, it goes, but only because people still insist it is a "theory".

If it would be a theory of physics and not a construction of geometry, it would predict dynamics, energy & particles move. However it fails to do so, because it has no lower energy limit. Typically LQG mathematicians insert a toy model to emulate a harmonic oscillator (say taking a non-existent "limit" onto a HO) and then useful energy and particles to get anywhere, but it isn't predicted by the theory.

I thought it looked nice when I first heard about it, but after studying it, its shortcomings were obvious. It stopped being "beautiful" and turned ugly, in my eyes.

antialias_physorgThere had already been some indication that this was not so (an observed supernova a few years back where the uncertainty of measurement about the various wavelengths arriving was within a few seconds).

Well...there's plenty more theories out there.

El_NoseBenni........well I just figured all you AWT guys have this thing whereby the AWT funny farm stuff is so innate to the way you think that you are equally capable of expositing it. You mean to tell me you are incapable of even following non-Differential Equation based science?

physicsbeanyThe headline is technically correct *now*; they edited it. Originally there were only those six words you alluded to.

antialias_physorgEven with 'fundamental randomness' (which I find an appealing concept from a philosophical point of view as it would give an answer to "why THESE particular sets of physical laws") there doesn't exist full macroscopic randomness IF that fundamental randomness acts on a small enough scale entity independently.

So while everything could fall apart under such a premise the chances are so infinitesimal, that it is way more likely you would spontaneously walk through a wall by every atom in your body tunneling just at that moment (which is already so unlikley that you will need a googolplex of universes until that happens).

DetheNow, when the smartest LQG physicists finally developed the foam model for vacuum with using of rather abstract and indirect methods, then the nature smiles again and it "says": "well, guys - you must try harder". There are essentially four options here.

At first, the foam model is BS and the light waves are propagating through empty vacuum in some miraculous way, which cannot be derived from solid state physics in apparent way. And we should live with it.

DetheAt third, the foam model is correct and its cells are quite large - but the photons do utilize some less trivial way, how to travel along this foam. I already pointed above, that in hollow core fibers or neurons the foam is actually used for elimination of scattering of light wave. This foam is one-dimensional, oriented in parallel to path of wave spreading and we can ask, how the normal foam will appear for particles, spreading with speed of light - well, it will also look one-dimensional, don't you think?

At fourth, we are simply fooled and the vacuum foam works rather normally - just the photons move together, but along differently curved spiral paths, so that the Lorentz symmetry is preserved globally, but still violated locally. This is IMO the most probable option with respect to massive character of photons.

DetheAlbert Einstein: "If the facts don't fit the theory, check the facts".

BenniI'm curious & I'm sure Ira is too , have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve? You know, like maybe a few straight out of Einstein's GR?

Uncle IraAlrighty Cher, now we are on the same frequency us together. This means you are going to do the differential equation for me so I won't be curious about whether you can do more than write differential equation six or five time on every thread. Choot, I can write down differential equation in every postum if I wanted too, but it does not mean I know how to cipher one.

Goody goody gee whiz, now I won't have to be curious any more.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. I don't mind, and I'm sure nobody else will mind much either if you need to post up more than a couple of postums to get it up there because of the letter limit thing. So Bennie-Skippy I will stand by to see you do the differential equation solving thing.

DetheDetheDetheThe whole source of misunderstanding starts with belief, that when the light wave is formed with photons, then the photons must also follow the postulates of special relativity (which has been originally developed for light waves). But the light wave isn't equivalent to photon, so that the special relativity has actually nothing to say about photons as such (which are quantum objects by itself).

DarkLordKelvinMost scientists would take disagreement between observations and theoretical predictions as reasonably strong evidence that said theory is wrong, or at least severely flawed.

DetheYes, we are really observing the group of gamma photons galloping together - this is a fact. Does this fact really imply, that these gamma photons are moving with speed of visible light? Maybe they just like each other.. ;-)

DarkLordKelvinIt's not my proposal, but Einstein's, and it's kinda common knowledge. The nuclear reactions involved in stellar fusion are exothermic .. i.e. they release energy. Some of that energy is in the form of kinetic energy of massive particles, like nuclei and neutrons. Some of it is in the form of high-energy radiation, like gamma particles. Ultimately, much of that energy is released as EM radiation in one way or another, since the kinetic energy (heat) is radiated as visible or IR radiation as well.

In any case, the stars lose mass through conversion of mass to energy a la E=mc2 .. much of that released energy is then radiated away as EM radiation, by the mechanisms I mentioned above.

DetheNow the question is, how the matter can travel from place to place in massless form?

DarkLordKelvinAs photons of course. What part of the "equals" in E=mc2 is giving you trouble?

DetheBenniAlias: Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle formulated by Einstein in 1906, ten years before GR.

ProtoplasmixBenniPhotons ARE energy, they don't transfer energy. Photons transfer mass from place to place in the universe upon transformation to mass as in the case of electron pair production. If you don't understand electron pair production, type it into a Search engine & look at some Feynman diagrams under "Electron Pair Production", the transformation of gamma wavelength photons.

DetheProtoplasmixDarkLordKelvinDetheDetheBenniYup

rpaul_baumanDarkLordKelvinTo me that looks like a mishmash of physics "buzzwords", and doesn't make any sense at all. You start from a non-sensical premise (a star "exploding into photons") and it seems to go downhill from there. If you choose to eschew standard physical descriptions of basic concepts like photons and mass, it makes you quite difficult to understand.

DetheDarkLordKelvinBenniIf energy could trapped inside a perfectly mirrored box, the gravitational force that light box exerts within its' surroundings will increase. This is because the captured photons unable to escape do not lose inherent gravity upon transformation from mass, gravity is also conserved with either form of transformation. If you weigh the perfectly mirrored LB before it captured photons it would weigh less than before the capture of photons, hence the term Relativistic Mass often given to electromagnetism.

DetheDarkLordKelvinDetheDarkLordKelvinNo, that's not what I said; there is no "disappearing". For each (small) decrease of intrinsic mass associated with photon emission, there's speed of light propagation of the associated "curvature change". The inverse happens at the other end, assuming that the radiation is absorbed in a way that it changes the intrinsic mass of the absorbing entity. The information that the mass of the "absorber" has increased (i.e. your "gravitational curvature") propagates outwards at the speed of light. You seem insistent on making "simplifications" that are not consistent with established physical theories .. why?

Detheantialias_physorgThere is a law for the conservation of energy - not one for mass. Mass is just one form of energy (of many). A photon can transmit energy. While it has no mass it does have a momentum.

Note: You could convert all of a star into massless state (e.g. by hitting it with an identical star made of anti-matter). But that conversion would still satisfy conservation of energy (and conservation of momentum).

DarkLordKelvinI don't like the term "suddenly" because it's fuzzily defined and tends to imply "non-physical" interpretations, but other than that, yes, that's my understanding of the process, as. I already wrote.

But I am not really sure how important such "localized" interpretations really are. Consider that if you are observing from outside the Dyson sphere inside which all of that was occurring, you would not detect any changes at all.

FleetfootThe source term in GR is the stress-energy tensor:

http://en.wikiped...y_tensor

That includes all forms of energy and momentum so the energy of the cloud of emitted photons measured in the rest frame of the star does contribute. The shell theorem means only the total of the star, photons and sphere matters, and that is constant outside.

Note also that E=mc^2 is a simplification only valid for particles with mass which can be brought to rest. The full equation which is valid for all particles including photons is

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2

where p is the magnitude of the momentum. Since a photon can't be brought to rest, you have to use that equation, and since E=pc for a photon, m=0.

DarkLordKelvinProtoplasmixNote that a combined pseudotensor can be constructed (e.g, Landau-Lifshitz) to extend the stress-energy tensor to provide a way for showing what portion curves spacetime and what portion propagates along the curvature.

indio007DarkLordKelvinUmmm .. not sure what you mean there, the Landau-Lifshitz and Einstein pseudo tensors certainly "exist" in the sense that they can be meaningfully defined, and they seem to do a pretty good job at explaining observable phenomena, so they also appear relevant to "real" physical phenomena. Is it possible that you just mean that the inventors of tensor calculus proved long ago the pseudo-tensors like the ones used in GR aren't really tensors?

indio007Do not exist is a quote.

See for yourself.

Mechanics. - On the analytic expression that must be given to

the gravitational tensor in Einstein's theory

T. Levi-Civita

http://arxiv.org/...04v1.pdf

"Now it is well known that differential invariants of the 1^0 order which are intrinsic

i.e.,like G*, exclusively formed with the coefficients of ds^2 and with their first derivatives, do

not exist.This is enough to render, at least in general, not admissible

the form of the gravitational tensor taken by Einstein. "

Protoplasmix"Some people object to this derivation on the grounds that pseudotensors are inappropriate objects in general relativity, but the conservation law only requires the use of the 4-divergence of a pseudotensor which is, in this case, a tensor (which also vanishes). Also, most pseudotensors are sections of jet bundles, which are perfectly valid objects in GR."

indio007Another sourceless unattributable comment wedged into an article.... wikipedia is full of them.

DetheThat is to say, I don't doubt, that these changes may exist and propagate, but they wouldn't follow 4D general relativity, but actually violate it instead.

Detheindio007ProtoplasmixAs far as I know, pseudotensors are the only way to comply with an exact conservation law when defining an integral energy-momentum and generalizing it to curved spacetime. See http://web.mit.ed.../gr7.pdf , and this may be helpful too: http://math.ucr.e..._gr.html - the important thing is not to confuse artifacts in a particular coordinate system with real physical effects.

FleetfootIt defines the amount of 'stuff' in a region, whether that region has curvature or not is a global question.

No.

You have to include the energy density of the photons.

Definitely! Consider the fact that for the 48000 years or so, the universe was dominated by the energy in the radiation we now see as the microwave background, it had more effect than all the matter in the universe:

http://en.wikiped...ated_era

That's another sock account for the crackpot previously known as "Zephyr".

DetheDetheProtoplasmixProtoplasmixDetheDetheDarkLordKelvinThis just seems like a mess of words ... can you show how these effects arise out of the mathematical formalism of GR? Can you derive the force binding the photons?

DetheFleetfootThey also have momentum of p=hf/c and since (mc^2)^2 = E^2 - (pc)^2 clearly their mass is m=0.

The equation E=mc^2 is a simplified version that you get by assuming p=0. That is fine for massive particles, it's just the energy measurement in their rest frame, but you can't use that for photons because they don't have a rest frame.

FleetfootAn accurate assessment, it's just gibberish.

DetheDarkLordKelvinDetheindio007I'm not saying psuedotensors in general don't exist. I'm saying Einstein's pseudo tensor doesn't exist.

DarkLordKelvinWell, ok, I guess this gets exactly at the point of my confusion, I guess. If EM fields can cause spacetime curvature, then doesn't that mean that there is a non-zero gravitational attraction between a pair of photons, like Dethe seems to be claiming? I had always thought that was strictly ruled out by GR, but I never could manage to make it through the tensor math by myself, so I always had to be content with a qualitative understanding of the principles.

[ctd]

DarkLordKelvinPerhaps the "box of photons" example will serve to illustrate my confusion better. A box that is perfectly reflective on the inside has an intrinsic mass of m when empty. Now someone makes an unspecified change to the box so that it's measured mass (T00 component of stress-energy tensor) becomes m+dm.

1) is there any way for an external observer to tell whether the mass change dm arises from matter being placed in the box, or from trapping an equivalent amount of EM radiation inside it? (I am almost certain the answer is "no", I just want to make sure.)

2) Assuming the answer to 1 is "no", then doesn't that mean that "trapped" EM radiation is somehow different than "free" EM radiation, because we can clearly define a reference frame where the box is at rest, but we cannot define a frame where an equivalent density of EM radiation propagating through free space would be at rest, right?

3) Does the apparent diff in 2 have to do with momentum conservation?

DarkLordKelvinFleetfootNo.

The difference is between one photon and more than one. We cannot define a rest frame for a single photon but you can define a frame in which the total momentum for a group of photons (minimum 2) is zero because momentum is a vector. Unless the photons are moving in exactly the same direction, you can always find a frame in which they are moving in opposite directions and Doppler shift allows you to make their frequencies equal.

FleetfootIf you do the same for the scalar sum of the energies versus the vector sum of the momenta for 2 or more photons, you also get a hyperbola. The aggregate of the photons is indistinguishable from a single particle having the energy in the zero momentum frame.

Captain Stumpyto anyone using ZEPHIR/dethe links

IF it links back to his own site, as does his pseudoscience aether link above, then he can gain a LOT of information about anyone who uses the link

especially if he is the admin or moderator of the site linked

DO NOT EVER CLICK ANY LINKS THAT ARE HIDDEN, SHORTENED or go to his aether site unless you are a phenomenal hacker!!!!

@the IDIOT TROLL ZEPHIR

your animation short link goes to a known PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE and is NOT supported by ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

therefore you are simply (again) pushing your aw/daw stupidity and trying to gain more acolytes for your religion

do you get paid per head or what?

reported

DetheProtoplasmixhere: http://www.youtub...7-rUyW3I

here: http://www.youtub...HLJoe7pA

and here: http://www.youtub...I6jECJxk

Anything to add, Zeph?

indio007debunked my ass. You can't debunk ric=0

Captain Stumpythanks for that update -

i was specifically talking about his embedded link to here: http://www.aether...tons.gif

it is embedded in the quote linked as "illustrates it."

This is known pseudoscience. and if you visit his site he can collect info OR do worse

i also don't ever open crothers etc

they are a favourite of the EU crowd... and EU is debunked in so many places it is not even funny

it makes one wonder how ANYONE can still believe in it... but then you meet idiots like CD, zephir and jvk

THANKS for the links

appreciate it

viko_mxFleetfootPhotons are massless and have spin 1.

Gravitons would be massless and have spin 2 (but at present they are hypothetical).

Gravitational waves are macroscopic effects of GR, not particles at all.

ProtoplasmixDarkLordKelvin@Protoplasmix That link is simply spectacular! Everyone who has had interactions with those passionate deniers of science who afflict the forums at PO and elsewhere should read it, even if they don't know much about (or care much about) relativity. Old Gerard, who is a good writer to begin with, is in scintillating form as he describes his interactions with some paragons of Dunning-Kruger pathology.

indio007I might as well post the rebuttal.

Gerardus 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate,

On Black Hole Perturbations

Stephen J. Crothers

ABSTRACT

Professor Gerardus 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Editor-in-Chief of the

journal Foundations of Physics, has again brought attention to my work on

black hole theory, big bang cosmology, and General Relativity, by means of

his personal website, providing me thereby with the opportunity to address his

most recent comments, particularly on black holes. Black hole universes are

either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved, by definition, and so there

can be no universe containing multiple black holes. All alleged big bang

universes are not asymptotically anything.

http://vixra.org/...41v2.pdf

StevepidgeGerardy poo is a hack pushing determinism. In other words, what the hell is the point in living life. Boring as shit.

DarkLordKelvinDarkLordKelvinYeah .. Nobel Prizes in Physics .. you can't even drive through Stockholm these days with your windows down, else one of those will come flying through into your lap.

DetheIt also means, if something is moving, propagating and/or changing within space-time metric, it also violates the relativity..

DetheI'm not saying that the general relativity or whatever else theory is incorrect. All theories are better or worse approximations of reality, that's all.. Each of them is also based on particular observational perspective, for example general relativity is based on intrinsic perspective of space-time blobs. It's a good wide scale approximation, but every other perspective (extrinsic in particular) would violate it.

chardo137baudrunnerPhotons don't actually exist. They were invented by physicists to explain the exchange of information between two particles in a propagating medium. They created a whole new class of subatomic "particle" they called a charge carrier, but totally ignored Ocham's razor. You see, particles of like charges repel, and particles in the propagating medium have electron shells which will repel the electron shells of adjacent particles in a chain reaction that eventually reach the retinas in the observer's eyes, exchanging their characteristic information throughout this chain. Philip Bucksbaum of Michigan University proved that an infinite amount of information can be stored in an electron cloud. The particles in a propagating medium carry the modulations of the characteristics of the source of photonic excitations as well as the characteristics of the reflecting surfaces of the ambient waves.

baudrunnerAnd at the same time, they are trying to determine just how a Volkswagen works by blowing it up into a zillion pieces, which is essentially what is happening in particle colliders. They would have more luck understanding the truth if they instead create those theoretical particles and then put them together. The physics world is rife with untestable theories and untenable ideas, not to mention misleading and just plain bad science, but we have to take their words for it because their walking papers qualifies them. I don't know why they think themselves more qualified to theorize incredulities than any other person on the street in light of all the pollution and misinformation that they have been exposed to in the colleges and universities. Reality is plenty practical, and makes plenty of sense to those who know the truth about things, but like I said, simplicity is not on the agenda.

baudrunnerbaudrunnerI have concluded that space, time, and matter are continually created at the periphery of the expanding Universe. The "Big Bang" is an ongoing, perpetual event. When iotonic space is cancelled, iotons spontaneously fill the increased distance between bodies "pulled" apart by their attraction to other nearer bodies. Introduce time, and latency is introduced in this process. In the case of a black hole, the geometry and dynamics of the local iotonic space have created a well of sorts, in which iotons are constantly cancelling each other out, causing a great attraction. Possibly a great mass travelling at extreme velocities through an already iotonically disturbed spacetime is the seed that begets black holes.

ProtoplasmixAs for the neutrinos from SN 1987A, good question, they were emitted before the photons, see http://clarkplane...a-1987a/

Protoplasmix@DLK, spot on re Dunning-Kruger effect, worth noting that they propose the obvious solution -- exposure to the training required for a particular skill. Education, quite the concept.

@Fleetfoot, always glad when you have the chance to provide some of that "exposure" -- DLK's question was very good, I failed to think outside the 'Dyson sphere' and consider the radiation-dominated era, duh...

DetheDarkLordKelvinindio007Variations in the "official" speed of light are well documented. However , I'm sorry to report that no variation can ever be found in the future. The meter is now defined as a derivative of the distance light travels over a certain time.

Mathematically, there can be no variation.

ProtoplasmixFor convenience (and the sake of education) here's the link to the pdf file:

http://www.relati...ight.pdf

And a correction, GRB090510 photon energy was up to ~31 GeV, not 13, oops.

indio007The field equation is highly non-linear and describe a single object present in the model.

You can't simply add another mass (even an identical one) and compute a solution.

There is no TRUE way to figure out the value of what the ricci tensor is for the two masses.

You can't recover the value by reversing because again Ric = 0. A complete expansion of the field equations show that in the single body case 0 is a divisor (let's pretend you can divide by 0). So reversal multiplys by zero killing the whole endevour. Ric can not be recovered to calculate the curvature.

indio007https://www.youtu...HHXaPrWA

't Hooft fails to address all or maybe of them useing strawman arguments and ad hominems .

Protoplasmixhttp://backreacti...ime.html

In the comments there, Zeph is given some sage advice about his question on the mass of massless photons. I may have to take the rest of the day off if I can't stop chuckling...

ComphumanIt could also "confirm" another thesis where ethers and foams do not exist, and where the observed data match the theory. I recommend this YouTube slide show: youtu.be/6YmHdTMdmHc

baudrunnerMy choice of words describing iotonic space in the absence of any matter- "lined up" - was a bad one. I should have said that all iotons in such a space would be "in phase".

Again, photonic waves are sourced by matter and propagated by matter particles in the particle medium.

ProtoplasmixTimLong2001Time as a dimension has a big problem. It's a point. The past is gone and the future hasn't happened. What's left? The point like present. spacetime does not represent reality.

CORRECT! What Einstein was saying was that time arises through motions in space due to interaction of charged particles. The only thing that exists is THE PRESENT STATE OF THE UNIVERSE (Minkowski's "loaf" notwithstanding. Photons have mass, though vanishingly small. Pair formation of 1.0216 MeV gammarays is the key to understanding the dynamics of the photon of electromagnetic radiation. An electron (negatron, of matter) and a positron (antimatter) are formed when the threshold gammaray decays. These slightly smaller masses in stable photons, throughout the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, occur when opposite charges of equal mass bind by charge attraction. A "finding" at the LANL Plasma research facility was that opposite charges interact at right angles.

TimLong2001DarkLordKelvinDetheFleetfootThe experiments confirm the prediction:

http://en.wikiped...ton_mass

All experimental results are consistent with zero mass.

FleetfootOnly if you make the philosophical assumption that only the present exists. It is well known that presentism is incompatible with relativity, see for example Skow's attempts to reconcile them.

Experiments tell us that relativity is correct so it is presentism as a philosophy that fails to correspond to reality.

DetheFleetfootI can see the difference, apparently you can't read. As I said correctly, all experiments are consistent with "zero mass", not "zero rest mass". Presumably you are not aware that mass is invariant.

The archaic concept of "relativistic mass" (if that was what you were thinking about) isn't actually the mass, it is the sum of the mass plus the kinetic energy of a massive particle divided by c^2.

You really should try learning some basic physics before posting, you can't be an effective troll unless your posts have some veneer of credibility.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more