Interesting that they expected it to be delayed by 3 hours. How would a star remain together for that long under those extreme conditions? The forces generated by the energy contained in such a small local should be almost beyond imagination. How long does an A bomb remain intact? (few microseconds?)
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 2:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum The time delay is anticipated as follows: SN 1987A was first observed in February, 1987 when it baffled some scientists with an intriguing anomaly. After a star collapses, traditionally a super nova should immediately emit a burst of neutrinos, followed by a time delayed burst of photons. In the case of SN 1987, this time delay it greater than it should have been as the optical light arrived roughly 7.7 hours after the neutrinos, or 4.7 hours late instead of the expected 3 hours delay. Read more at http://www.zmescience.com/space/supernova-speed-of-light-change053456/#UKDuRAvRQzU8Goft.99 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:22 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:30:54 -0700: Hi, I suspect that the explanation is far simpler. It takes photons something like 10000 years to exit the sun AFAIK. So photons generated at some distance below the surface are delayed relative to neutrinos generated in the same reaction. I would expect a similar effect to occur during a supernova explosion. In short the slowing doesn't happen in space after they have left the supernova, it happen in the plasma of the supernova itself, before they leave. If this is the correct explanation, then similar delays should be measured for supernova explosions of similar size, irrespective of distance from Earth. >Interesting idea. > >Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( >highly dispersive, though, I'd guess). > > > > > > > >From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] >Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum > > > >Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of >electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much >larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take >into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for >light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: > >As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of >these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields >with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a >result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will >tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the >average velocity of the matter that it encounters. > >Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. >Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the >neutrinos? > > > >Dave > > > > > >....Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and >neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons >was later than expected, by 4.7 hours... > > > > > >--- >This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus >protection is active. >http://www.avast.com Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
