0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 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.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/12/2017 14:07:47You 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 ?
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.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/12/2017 13:49:21If 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?
My theory provides qualitative predictions. Quantitative predictions can only be made after results of experiments.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/12/2017 15:35:02How 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.
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.
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.
And how does that imply that gamma rays are faster than visible light?
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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.
In my theory faster speeds are correlated with longer wavelengths. Gamma rays should travel fastest and have longest wavelength.
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.
Isn't traditional physics predicts gamma rays should refract more than visible light by a prism ?
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.
refraction is more complex than a straight dependancy on frequency
I imagine a faster moving electron should deflect less than a slower moving electron when pass near a proton.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not necessarily. The amount of refraction is strongly dependent upon the structure that the rays are passing through:
In my theory a photon is a fast electron. You haven't read my theory, have you ?
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.
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.
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.
Also in my theory.