[Bored chemist]

You can leave a gamma ray detector pointed "at the sky" all the time. If there's a sudden increase in gammas then the detector will spot it.
Once you know there's a GRB happening you can try to work out where it is and point an optical telescope at it, but that takes time. Essentially gamma detectors have a much  bigger field of view and lower background noise.
So the observation of the gammas will (almost) always happen before the observation of the visible light.

That's pretty obvious.

Why do you keep imagining that it tells you that the gammas arrive first (rather than being observed first)?
Do you not understand the system, or are you ignoring the facts because they don't agree with the WAG you keep mislabelling as a theory?

[Yaniv (OP)]

You can leave a gamma ray detector pointed "at the sky" all the time. If there's a sudden increase in gammas then the detector will spot it.
Once you know there's a GRB happening you can try to work out where it is and point an optical telescope at it, but that takes time. Essentially gamma detectors have a much  bigger field of view and lower background noise.
So the observation of the gammas will (almost) always happen before the observation of the visible light.

I read modern telescopes focus within seconds to the correct position of a GRB. The authors of the graph which was published in Nature claim optical brightness peaked several seconds after the burst. Is it a common feature of GRBs ?

[Colin2B]

I think you raise an important point here. Different types of radiation could originate at different times. If this is the case in GRBs they are not good systems to test predictions about the speed of light.

We never suggested GRBs are any use in testing relative speeds. In fact I see that @Kryptid has already made this point when he said “That's why it's called an afterglow: the remnants of the burst are still emitting lower-energy light even after the initial explosion has taken place.”back in #211.

[Yaniv (OP)]

We never suggested GRBs are any use in testing relative speeds. In fact I see that @Kryptid has already made this point when he said “That's why it's called an afterglow: the remnants of the burst are still emitting lower-energy light even after the initial explosion has taken place.”back in #211.

I think analyzing GRBs can't provide a conclusive answer to the question does light travels at the same speed or at different speeds. Delayed optical peak could be later emissions and I suspect does not prove a prediction of my theory gamma photons should travel faster than optical photons. Similarly the 31 GeV photon detected at the same time with lower energy photons could have originated at a different time.

[Bored chemist]

You can leave a gamma ray detector pointed "at the sky" all the time. If there's a sudden increase in gammas then the detector will spot it.
Once you know there's a GRB happening you can try to work out where it is and point an optical telescope at it, but that takes time. Essentially gamma detectors have a much  bigger field of view and lower background noise.
So the observation of the gammas will (almost) always happen before the observation of the visible light.

I read modern telescopes focus within seconds to the correct position of a GRB. The authors of the graph which was published in Nature claim optical brightness peaked several seconds after the burst. Is it a common feature of GRBs ?

Well, if they capture the optical image within seconds of the gamma burst you must know that they arrive within seconds.
If they get here from a galaxy far far away within seconds then they travel at pretty much the sane speed and your idea (the one you kept falsely calling a "theory") is utterly wrong.

[Yaniv (OP)]

If they get here from a galaxy far far away within seconds then they travel at pretty much the sane speed and your idea (the one you kept falsely calling a "theory") is utterly wrong.

My theory predicts different types of light travel at different speeds and precision measurements are required to test this prediction of my theory. I wonder if the longest vacuum tubes (LIGO?) and most accurate clocks on earth could find this prediction of my theory ?

[Bored chemist]

If they get here from a galaxy far far away within seconds then they travel at pretty much the sane speed and your idea (the one you kept falsely calling a "theory") is utterly wrong.

My theory predicts different types of light travel at different speeds and precision measurements are required to test this prediction of my theory. I wonder if the longest vacuum tubes (LIGO?) and most accurate clocks on earth could find this prediction of my theory ?

How big a variation do you predict between, for example, visible light and gamma rays?

[Yaniv (OP)]

How big a variation do you predict between, for example, visible light and gamma rays?

My theory provides qualitative predictions. Quantitative predictions can only be made after results of experiments.

[Kryptid]

My theory provides qualitative predictions. Quantitative predictions can only be made after results of experiments.

Why do you propose that gamma rays travel faster than visible light in the first place? What is the reasoning?

[Bored chemist]

How big a variation do you predict between, for example, visible light and gamma rays?

My theory provides qualitative predictions. Quantitative predictions can only be made after results of experiments.

So, it's not really science then...

[Yaniv (OP)]

Why do you propose that gamma rays travel faster than visible light in the first place? What is the reasoning?

Gamma rays penetrate most materials that block light. My theory predicts gamma rays should refract less than visible light by a prism.

[Kryptid]

Gamma rays penetrate most materials that block light.

What does that have to do with anything? Extreme ultraviolet light (10-121 nm) is strongly absorbed by the atmosphere even though visible light (400-700 nm) can pass through it easily. Ultra low frequency waves (100-1,000 km) can penetrate the ground, even though much more energetic visible light is strongly absorbed by it.

My theory predicts gamma rays should refract less than visible light by a prism.

And how does that imply that gamma rays are faster than visible light?

[Yaniv (OP)]

What does that have to do with anything?

In my theory negative gamma particles travel faster than negative light particles and interact more weakly with charged particles in a material. Slower light particles interacts more strongly with charge particles in a material and are deflected away more quickly in all directions.

Extreme ultraviolet light (10-121 nm) is strongly absorbed by the atmosphere even though visible light (400-700 nm) can pass through it easily. Ultra low frequency waves (100-1,000 km) can penetrate the ground, even though much more energetic visible light is strongly absorbed by it.

Absorption of light by an atom depends on two primary factors; the speed of a light particle and the type of an atom/molecule/crystal. When these two factors match a light particle is absorbed and when they don't match a light particle is deflected.

And how does that imply that gamma rays are faster than visible light?

Faster negative gamma particles deflect less than slower negative light particles when arrive at close proximity to the positively charged prism.

[Kryptid]

In my theory negative gamma particles travel faster than negative light particles and interact more weakly with charged particles in a material.Slower light particles interacts more strongly with charge particles in a material and are deflected away more quickly in all directions.

Now you need to demonstrate that faster particles interact more weakly with matter than slower particles do. That certainly is not the case with neutrons, so why should it be true for photons?

Absorption of light by an atom depends on two primary factors; the speed of a light particle and the type of an atom/molecule/crystal. When these two factors match a light particle is absorbed and when they don't match a light particle is deflected.

If that's the case, then how can you say that one wavelength of photon is predicted to travel faster than another? How would I determine whether a blue photon or a red photon is faster? Some materials will absorb the blue photon while allowing the red photon to pass whereas a different material will absorb the red photon and allow the blue photon to pass through. How can you know whether the absorption was due to a difference in speed or a difference in "the type of an atom/molecule/crystal"?

Faster negative gamma particles deflect less than slower negative light particles when arrive at close proximity to the positively charged prism.

Now you need to demonstrate that there is some good reason to believe that the speed of a photon has an effect on how much it is deflected by a prism.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Now you need to demonstrate that faster particles interact more weakly with matter than slower particles do. That certainly is not the case with neutrons, so why should it be true for photons?

I imagine a faster moving electron should deflect less than a slower moving electron when pass near a proton.

If that's the case, then how can you say that one wavelength of photon is predicted to travel faster than another?

In my theory faster speeds are correlated with longer wavelengths. Gamma rays should travel fastest and have longest wavelength.

How would I determine whether a blue photon or a red photon is faster?

Experiments! Maybe bouncing different types of light of mirror left on the moon could measure this prediction. In my theory red light should travel faster than blue light.

Now you need to demonstrate that there is some good reason to believe that the speed of a photon has an effect on how much it is deflected by a prism.

Measurable differences in speed of light as determined by experiments will provide a good reason to incorporate speed to explain deflection by a prism.

My theory predicts gamma rays should refract less than visible light by a prism.

Isn't traditional physics predicts gamma rays should refract more than visible light by a prism ?

[Colin2B]

In my theory faster speeds are correlated with longer wavelengths. Gamma rays should travel fastest and have longest wavelength.

Gamma rays have shorter wavelengths than visible light and measurements confirm speed is same as visible light and other em radiation as previously described.

Experiments! Maybe bouncing different types of light of mirror left on the moon could measure this prediction. In my theory red light should travel faster than blue light.

Apollo left a mirror on moon and laser light has been bounced off it. No speed change with colour.
Also sunlight bounces off moon and we don’t see difference in speed with colour.
If your assumptions were correct we would see strange colour effects when planets are eclipsed.
If your ideas were correct we would also see a speed difference between microwaves and visible light, should have shown up during Apollo program, but there was non.

Isn't traditional physics predicts gamma rays should refract more than visible light by a prism ?

No, gamma rays deflect less under current physics. Also refraction is more complex than a straight dependancy on frequency and this is confirmed by measurements.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Apollo left a mirror on moon and laser light has been bounced off it. No speed change with colour.

I suspect one type of laser beam is used in this experiment to determine distance to the moon and wonder if using a different color of laser would give different results ?

Also sunlight bounces off moon and we don’t see difference in speed with colour.

A difference in speed can only be measured at the beginning of a light beam.

If your assumptions were correct we would see strange colour effects when planets are eclipsed.

There should be all sorts of strange color effects due to interaction of light and atmosphere. Also my theory predicts blue light should deflect more than red light by gravitational fields (positive charges) of celestial objects.

If your ideas were correct we would also see a speed difference between microwaves and visible light, should have shown up during Apollo program, but there was non.

Reference required.

refraction is more complex than a straight dependancy on frequency

My theory provides a simpler explanation.

[Kryptid]

I imagine a faster moving electron should deflect less than a slower moving electron when pass near a proton.

Why? More importantly, why should an uncharged particle like a photon necessarily refract less just because it is moving faster? You also need to define how much faster a gamma ray is supposed to travel than a visible photon. That is absolutely critical. If you don't do that, then your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. There are always limits to the precision of experiments and if you don't define the bounds of your hypothesis then there will always be enough "wiggle room" for you to claim that your hypothesis could still be correct.

For example, if we were to determine from experiment that gamma rays and visible light travel at the same speed to within 99% accuracy, then you can claim that your hypothesis is still feasible because we haven't ruled out that gamma rays travel 0.5% faster than visible light. If we advance the experiment and narrow that down to 99.9% accuracy, you can step back and claim that gamma rays being 0.05% faster than visible light is still feasible. Then we can advance it further to 99.99% accuracy and you can step back even further and say that gamma rays being 0.005% faster is still possible and we can continue this cycle on and on forever. At no point can we prove your hypothesis wrong because you have failed to explain at what point it is supposed to break down. That's why your proposal is unscientific.

In my theory faster speeds are correlated with longer wavelengths. Gamma rays should travel fastest and have longest wavelength.

You have it backwards. Gamma rays are the electromagnetic waves with the shortest wavelengths. By your reasoning, they should therefore be slower than visible light, not faster.

Experiments! Maybe bouncing different types of light of mirror left on the moon could measure this prediction. In my theory red light should travel faster than blue light.

Measurable differences in speed of light as determined by experiments will provide a good reason to incorporate speed to explain deflection by a prism.

You predict that there is a direct correlation between wavelength and speed of photons. You also predict that there is a direct correlation between the speed of photons and their refraction. This, in turn, means that there should also be a direct correlation between a photon's wavelength and its refraction. There is not, as shown in the link below:

Isn't traditional physics predicts gamma rays should refract more than visible light by a prism ?

Not necessarily. The amount of refraction is strongly dependent upon the structure that the rays are passing through:

Refraction works well with visible light, a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, because the light waves have a frequency that chimes well with the oscillations of orbiting electrons. But for higher energy electromagnetic radiation—ultraviolet and beyond—the frequencies are too high for the electrons to respond, and lenses become less and less effective.

Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/gamma-ray-bending-opens-new-door-optics

[Yaniv (OP)]

Why? More importantly, why should an uncharged particle like a photon necessarily refract less just because it is moving faster?

In my theory a photon is a fast electron. You haven't read my theory, have you ?

You also need to define how much faster a gamma ray is supposed to travel than a visible photon. That is absolutely critical.

Precision speed measurements of different colors of light will provide quantitative values. Gamma rays may travel too fast to be measured directly because they are not reflected by mirrors but could be determined indirectly by for example comparing refraction through a prism to refraction of visible light.

If you don't do that, then your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. There are always limits to the precision of experiments and if you don't define the bounds of your hypothesis then there will always be enough "wiggle room" for you to claim that your hypothesis could still be correct.

For example, if we were to determine from experiment that gamma rays and visible light travel at the same speed to within 99% accuracy, then you can claim that your hypothesis is still feasible because we haven't ruled out that gamma rays travel 0.5% faster than visible light. If we advance the experiment and narrow that down to 99.9% accuracy, you can step back and claim that gamma rays being 0.05% faster than visible light is still feasible. Then we can advance it further to 99.99% accuracy and you can step back even further and say that gamma rays being 0.005% faster is still possible and we can continue this cycle on and on forever. At no point can we prove your hypothesis wrong because you have failed to explain at what point it is supposed to break down. That's why your proposal is unscientific.

My theory predicts weight should decrease at increasing temperature in vacuum. If there is no change in weight I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that change is too small to measured and my theory is right. If however there is a measurable reduction in weight conservation of mass is disproved and your theory is wrong. Precision measurements required! My theory predicts electric current entering a radiation emitting device should be higher than current exiting the device. If there is no change in current I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that change in current is too small to be measured and my theory is right. If there is a measurable change in current Kirchhoff's conservation of charge is falsified and your theory is wrong again. Precision measurements required! My theory predicts different colors of light should travel at different speeds. If there is no measurable change in speed I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that differences are too small to be measured and my theory is right. If there are measurable differences in speed Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is falsified and your theory is wrong again and again. Precision measurements required! My theory provides many experimentally testable predictions and therefore is a scientific theory.

You have it backwards. Gamma rays are the electromagnetic waves with the shortest wavelengths. By your reasoning, they should therefore be slower than visible light, not faster.

I know how it supposed to work in traditional physics. In my theory gamma-rays should have the longest wavelengths.

You predict that there is a direct correlation between wavelength and speed of photons. You also predict that there is a direct correlation between the speed of photons and their refraction. This, in turn, means that there should also be a direct correlation between a photon's wavelength and its refraction.

My theory predicts gamma-rays should have longest wavelengths, not shortest.

Not necessarily. The amount of refraction is strongly dependent upon the structure that the rays are passing through:

Also in my theory.

[Kryptid]

In my theory a photon is a fast electron. You haven't read my theory, have you ?

Then it's automatically wrong. Here's why:

(1) Electrons are fermions whereas photons are bosons, meaning that no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously whereas photons can. One consequence of this is that beams of light can pass right through each other as if they were not there. Electrons cannot do this. You can only fit so many electrons in one space at a time.

(2) If photons were electrons, then the annihilation of an electron with a positron to produce a pair of photons would violate charge conservation as you are actually somehow producing two electrons from a positron-electron annihilation.

(3) Beams of electrons can be deflected by magnetic fields whereas beams of photons cannot. Watch this video of an electron beam being deflected by magnetism:

The energy of electrons in a cathode ray are in the kilo-electronvolt range. That is equivalent to x-ray level energies for photons. For one thing, the beam should not be visible if it was made up of x-rays (especially since it's travelling in a vacuum), yet in this video it very clearly is visible. So it cannot be made of x-ray photons, even though it has x-ray-type energy levels. You claim that slower moving particles should be deflected more than faster particles. If this was true, then you would expect slower moving, lower energy photons (like a beam of visible light) to be even more strongly deflected by the magnetic field than the cathode ray beam is. Yet visible light is not bent by magnetic fields. That's easily testable at home with a magnet and laser pointer.

Electrons absolutely cannot be photons.

Precision speed measurements of different colors of light will provide quantitative values.

But your hypothesis does not tell us what quantitative values we should expect to find, meaning that these precision measurements cannot possibly falsify your hypothesis.

Gamma rays may travel too fast to be measured directly because they are not reflected by mirrors but could be determined indirectly by for example comparing refraction through a prism to refraction of visible light.

That won't tell you anything because the amount of refraction depends on the materials used in the prism.
 

My theory predicts weight should decrease at increasing temperature in vacuum. If there is no change in weight I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that change is too small to measured and my theory is right.

That's why this prediction of your hypothesis is unscientific: it cannot be falsified. You also cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist.

If however there is a measurable reduction in weight conservation of mass is disproved and your theory is wrong. Precision measurements required!

Yes, just as the discovery of Bigfoot would prove Bigfoot skeptics wrong.

My theory predicts electric current entering a radiation emitting device should be higher than current exiting the device. If there is no change in current I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that change in current is too small to be measured and my theory is right.

Which is, again, why this prediction of your hypothesis is unscientific. It is not falsifiable. You also cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist.

If there is a measurable change in current Kirchhoff's conservation of charge is falsified and your theory is wrong again. Precision measurements required!

Yes, just as the discovery of Bigfoot would prove Bigfoot skeptics wrong.

My theory predicts different colors of light should travel at different speeds. If there is no measurable change in speed I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that differences are too small to be measured and my theory is right.

Which is, for the third time, why this prediction of your hypothesis is unscientific: it isn't falsifiable. Just as you cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist.

If there are measurable differences in speed Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is falsified and your theory is wrong again and again. Precision measurements required!

Yes, just as the discovery of Bigfoot would prove Bigfoot skeptics wrong.

My theory provides many experimentally testable predictions and therefore is a scientific theory.

It is verifiable but it is not falsifiable. That's a critical difference. If it is correct, you could potentially prove that it is correct, but if it is wrong, you can never prove that it is wrong. It's the exact same thing as the search for Bigfoot: if Bigfoot is real, you could prove it some day by finding a body. If Bigfoot is not real, you could never prove that it doesn't exist because there is always some excuse you could use to explain why we haven't found it yet. That's why cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience: it lacks falsifiability.

No falsifiability, no science.

I know how it supposed to work in traditional physics. In my theory gamma-rays should have the longest wavelengths.

My theory predicts gamma-rays should have longest wavelengths, not shortest.

Then your hypothesis is automatically wrong. We know that higher energy corresponds with shorter wavelengths. Gamma rays have high energy and therefore have short wavelengths. We are capable of measuring the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation and also of measuring how much energy they have. This has allowed us to work out the relationship between wavelength and energy: Energy = (Planck's constant times the speed of light) divided by the wavelength.

And yes, wavelength is something that can be measured. Here is one way that even students can measure the wavelength of light: http://practicalphysics.org/measuring-wavelength-light.html

Also in my theory.

Then your claim that gamma rays should refract more than visible light was a vacuous statement.