A group of international researchers, including from the Hebrew University and the Weizmann Institute, discovered the particle that arrived following an emission event that occurred in 2019
An extensive international team of scientists - which includes about 60 researchers from the German DESY research center, from the Humboldt University of Berlin, the American universities of New York, Maryland and Columbia, the Dutch Leiden University, the Australian Curtin University, and other universities including the observational astrophysicist from the Rekh Institute of Physics Dr. Assaf Harash and doctoral student Itai Sephardi from the Hebrew University as well as astrophysicist Prof. Avishai Gal-Yam from the Weizmann Institute - discovered for the first time a neutrino particle coming from the vicinity of a supermassive black hole after a catastrophic event in which a star was torn apart by strong tidal forces exerted on it by the black hole. This discovery indicates that events of this type serve as natural particle accelerators to very high energies. The study was published today (Monday) in the famous scientific journal Nature Astronomy, the second study by Dr. Haresh concerning black holes, published in this issue.
The neutrino (from Italian, small neutral) is an elementary particle with an extremely low mass (almost massless) and has no electric charge (and therefore does not respond to electromagnetic force). The probability of a neutrino interacting with the atoms of the material through which it passes is very low, therefore it can pass through a material easily and over a very long distance without anything happening to it or without undergoing fusion with another material. He can reach us from far away without being scattered along the way. In order to understand its uniqueness, a lead wall several light years thick is required in order to block half of the amount of neutrino particles passing through it. In general, particles of this type wash the earth all the time. For example, neutrinos (plural neutrinos) come from our Sun, but also from other astrophysical sources. A famous example is the flux of neutrino particles discovered from supernova 1987A (which occurred at a distance of about 170 thousand light years from us).
In recent years, more and more bright flashes of visible (optical) light have been discovered in the centers of galaxies. The light flashes last several weeks to months. The popular opinion is that these flashes of light result from a particularly violent event, during which a star moves too close to a supermassive black hole located at the center of that galaxy, and is torn to pieces by the tidal forces exerted on it by the black hole. The star ceases to exist when the gas that made up the star until now turns into a stream of matter (gas), part of which remains in a circle around the black hole, and part of which flies away from the black hole at enormous speed. Events of this type are called Tidal Disruption Events, or TDEs for short.
An event of this type was discovered in April 2019 as a visible flash of light (it is given the name AT2019DSG), by the ZTF (The Zwicky Transient Facility) project. Following the discovery of this event, astronomers around the world directed telescopes that observe different wavelengths (visible light, X-rays, and radio radiation) towards the event in order to collect more data on it and establish its nature (a team from the Hebrew University led by Dr. Assaf Haresh made radio observations of The event for months using a telescope called AMI located in England). Later, about half a year after the discovery of the visible light flash, scientists in the IceCube project, located at the South Pole of the Earth, discovered a neutrino particle, and the scientists believe that the particle was created in a process related to the destruction of the star that was discovered half a year earlier. The Icecube detector actually consists of a series of detectors over a huge area inside the Antarctic ice (at the pole). The researchers on this site discovered that the neutrino particle hit the Antarctic ice with an energy of more than 100 tera electron volts (consider ten times the energy to which a particle can be accelerated in the most powerful particle accelerator in the world).
The information collected in the observations of the event from the beginning can be explained by the ejection of material in the form of a jet at high speed from the vicinity of the black hole following the event of the destruction of the star, which in fact created a kind of central energy "engine" responsible for the ejection of the material and which has been operating for months. This "engine" can probably also explain the particle that was discovered. "The origin of the particle in the event in question is not in the star itself. Due to the destruction of the star, apparently there is adsorption of material from the destroyed star into the black hole," explains Dr. Haresh. "This process of adsorption probably creates jets of matter that fly at enormous speed from the vicinity of the black hole (it is important to note that the details of the process are not completely known to science). In the process in which the jets are created that fly material at high speed, there is also an acceleration of particles to high energies and as a result neutrinos are also created. One of these particles made its way to us and was discovered."
Finally, Dr. Haresh clarifies that "events of destruction of stars by tidal forces from black holes are phenomena about which we still know very little. The discovery of the neutrino from such a violent event is evidence that in these events a mechanism is activated that accelerates particles to very high energies. The discovered particle is an important piece of information in our overall understanding of these events. The very use of the many means of observation in the current event, starting with the discovery of the event for the first time in visible light, following the development of the radio radiation from the event from the moment of its discovery and ending with the discovery of the neutrino particle, demonstrates the scientific power created by combining several observation channels together. This combination is becoming more and more common in the world of astrophysics today and increases the potential for scientific discovery in every astronomical event.'
Graphics to illustrate the "jet" in which the particles are accelerated (credit: DESY+SciComLab)
More of the topic in Hayadan:
50 תגובות
miracles my friend,
You faced a challenge to find the "standard unit of length".
,. I have a few ideas, you'll be one of the first to hear about them if they come to fruition.
Thank you for an educational and fun comment journey!
All the best!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Smart people from both of us together searched and did not find. It also makes sense - because nothing has a "natural" length.
If you find one - I would be honored to have spoken to a Nobel laureate 🙂
for miracles
thanks for the effort. I apologize that I don't get to the bottom of your mind.
Additionally, does anyone have an idea how to determine the standard meter assuming that the speed of light also changes from time to time?
I will search on Google.
Thank you miracles. All the best.
Yehuda
Yehuda
You are not listening 🙂
As expected - you completely ignored my explanation of why you can't use a metal rod to define a unit of length.
There is no point in continuing this discussion.
for miracles
Nissim:- Yehuda, I explained to you several times - there is no meaning in changing the speed of light, because there is no meaning in measuring it.-
Answer:- A strange conclusion that I do not accept. Every measurement has meaning because it is human nature to measure the speed of light, the depth of the ocean and the height of Everest.
And as said by our scientists, David Yom, Popper and others, measurements are the essence of science.
Miracles:- The greatest scientists in the world could not define a unit of length without using c.
And you didn't make it either. Please stop ignoring this point?
Answer:- What's wrong with the iridium rod in Paris? Even if he changes over time it won't matter because we will all change to the same extent.
Like it or not, we must take into account the possibility of changing speed C.
Miracles: The explanation for inflation is not forced. is a prediction of certain hypotheses. But leave it - answer me something simple: why is the cosmic background radiation uniform in every direction?
Answer:- It is not uniform but only almost, and inflation is not necessary to achieve this uniformity, and a greater speed C during the "inflation" period would have prevented the need for inflation. In addition, I have a different C speed in different regions of the universe where the background temperature was different, would increase the apparent uniformity of the universe.
Conclusion: We have a disagreement and you may be right. Let each one live with his own truth.
Science does not stand still either, and there is no doubt that new studies and measurements will lead to conclusions regarding these topics as well as others that we have dealt with, such as the existence of dark matter, the possibility of the spread of Hubble within galaxies, and more.
Thank you Nissim, and I appreciate your opinion and the time you devoted to me and the other science commenters
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Yehuda
I explained to you several times - there is no meaning in changing the speed of light - because there is no meaning in measuring it.
The greatest scientists in the world could not define a unit of length without using c.
And you didn't make it either. Please stop ignoring this point?
The explanation for inflation is not forced. is a prediction of certain hypotheses. But leave it - answer me something simple: why is the cosmic background radiation uniform in every direction?
Questions that require answers
Is the number of stars in the infinite space finite?
Is infinite space empty? Or full of something?
Is substance a quantitative concept? Like time, length, energy
Can observation reveal the structure of the universe?
for miracles
thank you for your response,
Regarding the speed of light, I agree that what was said should be changed, and the movement should be treated as the movement of massless bodies moving at speed C. This movement includes other phenomena besides light.
My attitude still remains that says:- Is it possible that this speed is changing?, Can I say that about a hundred years ago the speed C was greater by about a meter per second than the speed C today?, Am I contradicting the science of physics by saying this? I would appreciate it if you would address my question.
Regarding your reference to the big bang, we both understand that there is great difficulty in trying to explain the behavior of the bang at its beginning, and the subsequent demand for an explanation of the inflationary expansion, to me, seems a forced explanation, and by the way, a greater speed C then, would have prevented this need.
And finally, regarding the expansion of the universe within the galaxies, I would appreciate it if you could expand a little and try to enlighten my eyes as to why this expansion is not possible?
Thank you Nissim, and all the best for your patience,
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Yehuda
"Regarding the speed of light, does it bother you that I don't use the word electromagnetic radiation instead of light?"
-Definately not. I'm saying that the speed of light is not a fundamental component of what makes up our universe. What is fundamental here is c - the speed at which information moves. For example - gravity also "moves" at the speed of light.
Because photons have no mass they are forced to travel at speed c.
"Regarding the Big Bang, I don't think we can follow the first second of creation, the laws of the universe at the moment of creation are unknown and cannot be tested."
-Not true. I mean, you might think that, but it's not true…..
We develop hypotheses about what happened in the Big Bang, and test what can be predicted from these hypotheses.
Dear Nissim
It's too late now.
I will delve into your last comment and understand exactly where the disagreement is between us
for example:-
Regarding the speed of light, does it bother you that I don't use the word electromagnetic radiation instead of light?
Regarding the Big Bang, I don't think we can follow the first second of creation, the laws of the universe at the moment of creation are unknown and cannot be tested.
And more.
Please be a little more patient and maybe I will understand the disagreement between the two of us
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
You are reinforcing what I am saying over and over and over again.
You treat the speed of light as a basic physical concept, and refuse to understand that there is a speed c, and every massless particle must move at this speed. One can discuss the speed c, but it is ridiculous to talk about physical reasons for the value of the speed of light.
As usual, you ignored the point that the speed of photons does not change in matter!!
You repeatedly refer to the expansion of the universe as something akin to an explosion that has a center (in 3 dimensions). This is simply not true.
And the main thing - you are always sure of yourself - and this completely disqualifies you from expressing a scientific opinion.
"Wonderful", "I don't think so", "Obviously", "Certainly" …… and all the cases you use these expressions, you are wrong 🙂
aetzbar
Please stop polluting the conversation here with your nonsense.
I liked the sentence... You must understand Nissim, my friend, because there is a reluctance to change, and the changes usually come from brave people who move against the general scientific current of their time.
There is nothing permanent in physical reality.
Free fall is with variable acceleration, not constant acceleration.
Pi is not constant but varies between 3.1416 and 3.164
It is likely that the speed of light is not really constant either, but varies in a narrow range (perhaps like a pie)
One thing is certain, the universe moves in infinite space full of passive time, at a speed of 12C
The two fundamental concepts in the Newtonian universe are matter and force
The two fundamental concepts in the Einsteinian universe are matter and energy
The two basic concepts in the neural universe are energy and passive time.
Matter in the neural universe does not exist as a quantitative concept, and is in the nature of a physical form.
The substance is created by combining amounts of passive time and energy.
More details in the article
http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/ac193a50-8b58-4711-89bd-475f16879d2a.pdf
Miracles my friend
(I hope we are still friends)
Until the 17th century there was no debate about the speed of light and it was determined to be infinite. I will not enter into a debate about whether it is scientific to say about something that it is infinite because something is only scientific if measurements can be made that will try to disprove it (Popper, David Yum) and as far as I know there are no measurements at infinity,
But... what do I understand about physics..
The first to try to prove that the speed of light is finite were Galileo, Cassini and Remer, but they ate bitters from academia in their time.
You must understand Nisim my friend that this is the way of the world and there is a reluctance to change. And the changes usually come from the brave who move against the general scientific current of their time.
It's true, Nissim, my friend, I don't understand physics like you, but I'm brave, and I'm not afraid to say that the speed of light changes over time, and a solution of dark matter in the universe is illusory, and I don't accept the change we make in the amount of matter in the universe just because it doesn't fit the holy formulas that are forbidden We have to give up Newton Einstein, who have been with us since we were born.
But... what do I understand about physics?
Dear Nissim, the only thing that may be sacred in physics are the measurements and no one who understands physics, Professor Zwicky, or any other expert, will change them for me just because it does not fit the sacred formulas.
But, what do I understand about physics...
Then you write in your response:- "When you (Yehuda) write" we can say with certainty: the expansion of the universe according to Hubble also exists within a spiral galaxy." I (Nissim) understand that I'm wasting my time", end quote.
So I'm sorry, dear Nissim, that I'm making you waste your time, which everyone knows is a limited and finite amount for us.
Understand miracles, the galaxy is supposed to expand at one kilometer per second, if you don't do this and the universe expands apart from the galaxy, what will be left in the universe next to the galaxy?, emptiness? How are you able to believe that the movement of a few mm particles resulting from the gravitational force of the galaxy in its circumference, will prevent the expansion of the universe of galaxies??.
But what do I understand about physics?
Please respond as you wish
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Just so you understand - your understanding of the concept of expansion is so wrong that I don't see any way to discuss all your errors.
I'm sorry.
Yehuda
Let's conclude that you are not suitable for physics……
When you write "Yes we can say with certainty: the expansion of the universe according to Hubble also exists within a spiral galaxy."
I realize I'm wasting time.
I am not loyal to "academy", I am loyal to integrity. Get back to me when you understand the difference.
for miracles
You repeated and mentioned the following several times:
"The propagation of Hubble does not take place within our galaxy, or in any other galaxy."
End of quote.
This is an accepted opinion not only by you but by the best of the best in the academy.
The main reason for this claim is that because of the significant gravitational forces found inside spiral galaxies, we will not be able to notice the phenomenon of the expansion of the universe (according to Hubble) inside the spiral galaxies. I disagree with that. Let's check it out:
Hubble's expansion is about 20 km per second per million light years, that is, for a spiral galaxy with a radius of about 50,000 light years, the expansion will be 1/20 of that, that is, 1 km per second in radius.
On the other hand, the force of gravity is balanced by the centrifugal force equal to it and has no effect on the distance!
Even if we ignore this equality, these are factors whose degree of influence is very small.
The gravitational acceleration in the galaxy is equal to the magnitude of the centrifugal acceleration which is:
About half an angstrom for the first second!
It is thirteen orders of magnitude smaller than the expansion of the universe according to Hubble, and I doubt whether the expansion of the universe according to Hubble is even "aware" of the galaxy's existence. Therefore we can say with certainty:
The expansion of the universe according to Hubble also exists within a spiral galaxy.
for miracles
You repeated and mentioned the following several times:
Hubble propagation does not exist within our galaxy, or any other galaxy. End quote.
This is an accepted opinion not only by you but by the best of the best in the academy.
The main reason for this claim is that because of the significant gravitational forces found inside spiral galaxies, we will not be able to notice the phenomenon of the expansion of the universe (according to Hubble) inside the spiral galaxies. I disagree with that. Let's check it out:
Hubble's expansion is about 20 km per second per million light years, that is, for a spiral galaxy with a radius of about 50,000 light years, the expansion will be 1/20 of that, that is, 1 km per second in radius.
On the other hand, the force of gravity is balanced by the centrifugal force equal to it and has no effect on the distance!
Even if we ignore this equality, these are factors whose degree of influence is very small.
The gravitational acceleration in the galaxy is equal to the magnitude of the centrifugal acceleration which is:
10 minus 13 km per second squared (for the milk at least).
which are about half an angstrom for the first second!
It is thirteen orders of magnitude smaller than the expansion of the universe according to Hubble, and I doubt whether the expansion of the universe according to Hubble is even "aware" of the galaxy's existence. Therefore we can say with certainty:
The expansion of the universe according to Hubble also exists within a spiral galaxy.
So I'm sure you'll continue to be loyal to the academy and dismiss these things outright, so I'll ask only one thing: Please respond gently and don't analyze my personality because it would rather break me to know how (in your opinion) I am suitable for politics.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
for miracles
In connection with your response from 1.3.21, 05:12:
I will not respond to your offer to become a politician or to compare me to a lying politician, such insulting offers are certainly not in order. But we will ignore.
1. Are you trying to convince that it is impossible to take two rods of the same length???? So there is no point in continuing the argument between us because in my physics lengths can be compared. And if they were made of the same material and of the same length, they would both expand equally and remain the same length, even if the universe expands. point.
2. You state: "What cannot be done is to measure the speed of light between two points. The reason is that there is no way to synchronize clocks in different locations, without relying on the speed of light."
And I even show you that it is possible to measure the speed of light using only one clock, which does not require synchronization to another clock. I will explain again:-
In the corner of the room there is a clock and a laser. At the end of the second room, 5 meters away, there is a mirror.
Method of measurement:- At time 0 the laser beam shines in the direction of the mirror and is returned to the watch and stops it. This is the time for light movement to a distance of 10 meters. No synchronization and no additional clock.
3. I really don't care why the light beam is delayed in the glass. Why argue? Let's measure and see if the speed of light in a universe of 2.725 degrees Kelvin is the same as the speed of light in a universe of 2.724 degrees Kelvin? And really at this point I don't care why it happens and how?
Good day miracles
And please respond in moderation
And don't take the fun out of it!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
There is nothing permanent in physical reality.
Free fall is with variable acceleration, not constant acceleration.
Pi is not constant but varies between 3.1416 and 3.164
It is likely that the speed of light is not really constant either, but varies in a narrow range (perhaps like a pie)
One thing is certain, the universe moves in infinite space full of passive time, at a speed of 12C
The two fundamental concepts in the Newtonian universe are matter and force
The two fundamental concepts in the Einsteinian universe are matter and energy
The two basic concepts in the neural universe are energy and passive time.
Matter in the neural universe does not exist as a quantitative concept, and is in the nature of a physical form.
The substance is created by combining amounts of passive time and energy.
More details in the article
http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/ac193a50-8b58-4711-89bd-475f16879d2a.pdf
Yehuda
Why do you keep coming back to this nonsense?
"Example: I wanted to check if the speed of light changes. According to my conspiracy, it varies by about 10 mm per second per year, therefore the distance of the moon, which is about 380,000 km away, will only be about 25 mm per year and not 38 mm per year. An interesting result because 25 mm per year is the expansion of the universe to the distance to the moon..."
First thing - the propagation of Hubble does not take place within our galaxy, or in any other galaxy.
Second thing - the moving away of the moon is due to the reduction of the earth's rotation rate. Do you want to throw out the principle of conservation of momentum as well? In fact, why not - after all, you threw away every other physical principle (conservation of energy, the Copernican principle, the cosmological principle, the principle of equivalence...)
Yehuda
You make sure to answer only what you want. You should have been a politician!!!
But - I will refer to what you said. I'll ignore for now all the questions you avoided, but I'll get to that too 🙂
1) Take two rods. One is the standard meter. The second is another rod "exactly" the same length (the smears are a clue to everything you ignored).
Well - after a while we measure and the lengths are no longer the same. How do you know now what the length of each rod is??
2) Again you are not listening! I will write exactly what I wrote:
"What cannot be done is to measure the speed of light between two points. The reason is that there is no way to synchronize clocks in different locations, without relying on the speed of light."
Please (!!!!!) answer what I ask and not what you want to hear 🙂
3) This is absolutely not what happens in the transition between glass and air! You know high school physics, and that's really how you learn in high school 🙂
The speed c does not change inside glass!! And regardless, photons move at the same speed in glass as well 🙂 The point is that a photon does not pass through glass. It is swallowed and expelled alternately, and this process takes time.
Maybe we should draw conclusions from what is really happening? 🙂
to AQU
Response to your comment 28.2 07:56,
To prove that the speed of light changes, you can simply measure the speed of light at several points in time and compare them. Principles and parameters of all kinds will not convince me one way or the other. You can always find or invent new principles.
Just like they invented dark matter. Look what happened with the gravitation formula, it fails to explain the rotation speed of the galaxy so instead of throwing away the formula and looking for another formula, they decide to change the galaxy with dark matter and dark energy in any amount as required until the upgraded galaxy fits the formula
Are you claiming that my development is based on incorrect assumptions? My answer Let's check if the universe behaves according to my conclusion or your assumptions approach.
The safest thing is to check in the field who is right.
Example: I wanted to check if the speed of light changes. According to my conspiracy, it changes by about 10 mm per second per year, therefore the distance of the moon, which is about 380,000 km away, will only be about 25 mm per year and not 38 mm per year. An interesting result because 25 mm per year is the expansion of the universe to the distance to the moon...
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
for miracles
28.2 04:43, you asked: "On what basis do you determine that the length of the rod does not change?"
Answer: I did not stipulate such a thing, but I also hoped that no one would raise this question, but the question did arise and it is an interesting question.
If this is what will happen then not only the standard meter will change but also Yehuda and Nissim and in general the whole earth will change in the same way and Yehuda who is 1.73 meters tall will continue to be the same height even according to the new meter. After all, both are made of material and it is assumed that both will shrink or expand to the same extent.
This will not happen if we rely on a variable speed of light to determine the standard meter.
28.2 04:47, the clock synchronization problem at a distance?
Answer:- Why do I need to measure with two watches? One clock with a mirror at the end of the room at a known distance is enough. The laser beam exits the watch to the mirror and returns to the watch and stops it. This is how they measured the distance to the moon, only they did not take into account a possible change in the speed of light since the previous test!
28.2 05:59 Question:- "Yehuda, so according to you, a photon traveling through our universe alternately slows down and speeds up?".
Answer: unequivocally yes! And this happens in the transition between glass, water, air, and emptiness, etc. (And as you know, I draw conclusions even without understanding exactly how it works!).
Let's design an experiment to test this in our small universe. Nobel Prize for both of us!
And on this optimistic note we will move on to the next response.
All the best, miracles, and thanks for interesting and challenging responses!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
aquarius
It is better to look at it the other way around. There is a physical constant we call c. This is the greatest speed of impact transmission. If there is no such speed, then paradoxes are reached.
Another question is why do photons move at speed c? The search for the answer to everything leads to the special theory of relativity.
The fundamental elements of our universe are neither particles nor waves - they are fields. When we make measurements, it appears to us that these components have the properties of particles or fields (depending on what is being measured).
Yehuda of course denies all this, because it's complicated... He prefers a simpler explanation, no matter how wrong it is, or how much it contradicts everything we know.
For example - Yehuda once explained to me that we see the moon moving away because the speed of light decreases over time. It doesn't bother him at all that what he says contradicts Newton's laws...
Yehuda
What you suggest is consider telling the milkman to milk yogurt directly from the cow. If you keep building straw men I'll think you're a gardener. point
Your theory about the speed of light changing is incorrect for the reasons I have shown. agreed upon? Yes, no, explain why.
I don't care what your optimization knowledge is or what your experience is. It is not relevant to the discussion. The discussion deals with whether Judah's theory regarding the uniform speed of light in the universe is correct or not.
Let's say and I am wrong in my claims, you have not yet proposed an experiment that will show how we can measure this change here on the website.
Yehuda
The scarecrows you build seem to claim you are a gardener. And what does optimizing a business's activity have to do with my response? I present to you why your theory about the speed of light falls because your foundation is fundamentally wrong. True, light is a wave and sound is also a wave, but a moving wave moving along a wire is also a wave. Everyone follows the wave equation, you just need to understand what the parameters are within each equation. It's like telling a seamstress to sew a thick wool summer dress because it's just faster.
Your experience/knowledge is as irrelevant to the discussion as my knowledge/experience/everyone else's miracles is irrelevant except for the knowledge for this specific topic in physics. In this case I have shown you that you have a fundamental error in your whole theory about the speed of light changing and you still have not contradicted/argued against my claim.
Do you still hold the view that your claim about electromagnetic waves is correct even though your development is based on incorrect assumptions? If so, come and explain why.
Yehuda
So according to you, a photon traveling through our universe alternately slows down and speeds up?
Yehuda
It is clear that the speed of light (and a quality watch) can be used to measure distance.
What cannot be done is to measure the speed of light between two points. The reason is that there is no way to synchronize clocks in different locations, without relying on the speed of light.
Yehuda
On what basis do you determine that the length of the rod does not change?
Let's assume you manage to prove that it doesn't change. How do you accurately measure the length of a rod? After all, the end of the rod is not smooth.
And let's assume that you manage to measure with maximum precision the distance between the two ends. How do you make sure, for example, that the temperature is constant?
And what will happen if over time the rod is damaged? Or will Trump voters play baseball with him??
interesting …. Maybe it was precisely for such reasons that they decided on a different sandrat? what are you saying?
To Aquarius, to the anonymous commenter and others
You will be surprised, but, I absolutely do not have to understand how sound waves work to use them!! Just like in order to operate a seamstress I don't have to be a seamstress or to build a wall I don't have to be a construction worker and to run a dairy I don't have to be a milkman. point.
In our case, I'm looking for options for a solution in electromagnetic waves, and my question is:- If it's good for sound waves, why wouldn't it work for electromagnetic radiation as well. I can ask this question even without understanding how it works!
For your information, Aquarius, I have a graduate degree in industrial management and I was involved in factory optimization and I speak from decades of experience in the industry.
My method can create original solutions to scientific problems
Like... speed of light changes. and so.
In my way of thinking, I am fruitful in coming up with ideas and then I check them, if they are good, great!, if not?, I throw them away and look for others.
To my father Blizovsky,
What about my comment that has been waiting for approval since noon? Please approve it.
Thanks
Yehuda Sabdarmish
for miracles
Until the eighties of the twentieth century, the meter was determined by a standard rod made of iridium found under a watch in Paris.
As soon as "rumors" arrived as if it had been proven that the speed of light was constant, it was decided to determine the meter as a function of the speed of light. Nissim is accurate and states that the second one was also redefined not according to the rotation of the earth with the help of pulses of a cesium atom. From this we get that the meter is the path traveled by the light in 30.663319....pulses of cesium 133 (approximately).
In my humble opinion, the aforementioned method has 3 main disadvantages:
A. The speed of light has never been proven to be constant over time.
B. I am not sure that the cesium 133 pulse is permanent.
third. The measurement method is difficult with a widening result interval
Nissim's words are true that "these definitions do not depend on time or place...because they are arbitrary." But adhering to these definitions will cause us to be in a situation every year and its meter!
Therefore, I think the good old method of the standard rod should be preferred.
You also claimed that "it is not at all possible to measure the speed of light between 2 points??"
This is not at all familiar to me and I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this. On the contrary, I know that the distance to the moon is measured with a precision of millimeters, and in the LIGO facility they reach great precision in measuring gravitational waves! The above two measurements are made with the help of a laser.
As for the background radiation, it is not uniform and therefore according to my argument the speed of light will be different in the different parts of the universe. The question is, is it possible to do an experiment that will reveal this??
Well, for this problem we need to activate the brain and this requires, as you know, energy which in Homo sapiens is obtained in the kitchen, so I have an appetite!
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
With all due respect, you need to understand why the equation you are using is correct for sound before you generalize it to electromagnetic waves. Do me a favor and open Wikipedia (in Hebrew or English, English is recommended) and look at the transition between the speed of a wave in a medium and the speed of sound in a gas and try to understand why you are completely wrong with your generalization.
Assuming you can't see where your mistake falls I'll help you here. Skip to the end of the comment if you understand where your error falls.
So let's go over the development:
The speed of progress of a wave in a medium is equal to the root of the ratio between the stiffness coefficient of the medium and the density of the medium. In an ideal gas, it is possible to relate the stiffness coefficient to the pressure of the gas, and it in turn depends on the density, therefore in an ideal gas there is no dependence on the density of the gas when talking about the speed of sound. Photons still have no connection between
Read from here if you understand the error.
Suppose you can find a similar relation for electromagnetic waves, (probably not possible for photons since their pressure depends on the speed of light and then you will get that speed is equal to speed or you will get a false mathematical statement). The proportionality coefficient that connects the temperature of the gas and the speed of sound inside it depends inversely on the root of the mass of the molecules that make up the gas. Last time I checked photons are massless.
Apparently physics professors have more important things to do than make elementary mistakes in physics.
post Scriptum. A similar response exists on your site but has been waiting for approval for several days. It is worded in a more polite way, but it is hard to ignore such mistakes for so long
Yehuda
With all due respect, you need to understand why the equation you are using is correct for sound before you generalize it to electromagnetic waves. Do me a favor and open Wikipedia (in Hebrew or English, English is recommended) and look at the transition between the speed of a wave in a medium and the speed of sound in a gas and try to understand why you are completely wrong with your generalization.
Assuming you can't see where your mistake falls I'll help you here. Skip to the end of the comment if you understand where your error falls.
So let's go over the development:
The speed of progress of a wave in a medium is equal to the root of the ratio between the stiffness coefficient of the medium and the density of the medium. In an ideal gas, it is possible to relate the stiffness coefficient to the pressure of the gas, and it in turn depends on the density, therefore in an ideal gas there is no dependence on the density of the gas when talking about the speed of sound. Photons still have no connection between
Read from here if you understand the error.
Suppose you can find a similar relation for electromagnetic waves, (probably not possible for photons since their pressure depends on the speed of light and then you will get that speed is equal to speed or you will get a false mathematical statement). The proportionality coefficient that connects the temperature of the gas and the speed of sound inside it depends inversely on the root of the mass of the molecules that make up the gas. Last time I checked photons are massless.
Apparently physics professors have more important things to do than make elementary mistakes in physics.
Yehuda
In my opinion, the question has no meaning. I explained several times why (and you ignored it for some reason...).
The reason is that a meter is defined as the distance light travels in a time of 1 divided by 299,792,458 of the distance light travels in one second. A second is defined as 9,192,631,770 "oscillations" of a cesium 133 atom.
These definitions do not depend on time or place ... because they are arbitrary.
It may sound stupid to you - but - do you know that it is not possible to measure the speed of light between 2 points??
The speed of light is not the speed at which photons travel. This is the speed at which any massless particle moves. The explanation for why there is such a speed is philosophical - if there is no such speed, paradoxes are created. I mean - this speed has a much deeper explanation (which I don't understand).
Miracles,
Do you think there is the possibility of a different speed of light in the past? Or do you think the speed of light has always been the same as it is today?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
I alluded to this earlier - how do you even know how to measure the speed of light? What are your units of distance and time?
Yehuda
What you said about the speed of sound is true - it mainly depends on the temperature, but not only. There is also a small frequency dependence.
Are you claiming there is a gas of photons? If so, then it means that light is a wave, not a particle... As sound is a wave and not a molecule of air. This also means that different photons necessarily have different speeds - after all, this is the meaning of a wave 🙂
I agree with you that it does not contradict special relativity, but it necessarily completely contradicts general relativity.
for miracles,
Let's see what happens at the speed of sound... and it's true, I know that sound is not electromagnetic radiation, etc., etc., etc. But still, we will see what happens with the sound waves we all know.
The speed of sound in air at a temperature of C°0 is 331 m/s. The speed of sound in air does not depend on the density of the air. It is approximately equal to the average speed of the thermal movement of the molecules, and similarly the speed is proportional to the root of the absolute temperature……
Now we get to the head of Yehuda Sabdarmish with his conspiracies, so let's assume that in principle it is similar, say, light will move according to the speed of the photon gas that fills all our universes since the big bang and... the speed of light will be proportional to the root of the absolute temperature just like with sound waves.
Now you will understand that I am in some way having fun, and if I were a professor of physics I would be careful not to establish this conspiracy.
Of course I check a number of facts that can be checked, for example: does this contradict the Mickelson-Morley experiment?? No! Because you cannot determine speed determinations by measuring at one time point (1887) you must perform the test at several time points and compare them.
Second question: Does it contradict the theory of relativity?,... My conspiracy says that I have no problem with each year and its theory of relativity and its speed of light.
But there is a small problem brought up again and again by someone named Nissim:
Does this contradict the law of conservation of energy???
And I love Newton and Einstein, and their law of conservation of energy...and I wouldn't want to change,...also, I'm not as brave as Professor Mordechai Milgrom who changed Newton's second law F=M*A with small accelerations in his MOND theory.
Bringing up miracles a few more comments but I haven't had lunch and the brain is the biggest consumer of energy in our body and conspiracies require extra energy so we'll take a break here.
But.. I enjoyed responding to your comment.
All the best
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
hard for me….
Yehuda
I am asking about a photon that is currently emitted from an atom. He has no past.
I fail to understand why the speed of light will actually decrease when the temperature decreases.
And in any case - the background radiation is radiation like any radiation. According to what you say (to my understanding), light in a hot place should travel faster than light in a cold place. How come we don't see it in experiments?
And another thing that bothers me: the background radiation is not uniform. Shouldn't we see a different speed of light in each direction?
Personally, I have no problem with the speed of light changing. It is meaningless. For example - let's use the British method and whoop - the speed of light has tripled!
for miracles
I estimate that all the free photons that exist today move at the same speed - 299,792,458 meters per second. But in their past when the background temperature of the universe was warmer they moved faster. I tend to believe that it is a prop for the root of the background temperature of the universe. In addition there is of course a relativistic effect of gravitation on the speed of the photon.
Of course there is room for the justified question that you raise to me every time: - How does this fit with Newton's law of conservation of energy and also how will the changing speed of light affect the speed of netrins?
Food for thought
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Does a 10 billion year old photon and a second old photon travel the same speed?
The light radiation from the event obviously moves at the speed of light. On the other hand, and according to relativity, the natrino particles move at a slower speed because the natrino has mass. This is the factor that we watched arrive about six months after the event was noticed.
Yoav Havkin says that I also think that the speed of light changes and was greater in the past, but this will not fundamentally change the half-year calculations because apparently the neuterino also moved faster in the past.
I was looking for an important figure where the event was and how far it was from us, and I didn't find it. In 1987A mentioned in the article the event happened in the Large Magellanic Cloud.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The calculations are done according to our schedule on Earth
The neutrino was associated with the observation of the star's rupture half a year ago. The photographs, as is known, reflect and arrive after millions of light years and more.. not clear. Intriguing and interesting
At what speed does the particle move in less than two years?
An empty shell trying to justify belief in God through scientific discoveries. Religion is a malignant social disease, an excess of excess from a backward and backward society.
The distances are calculated on the assumption that the speed of light is uniform throughout the universe.
This assumption needs experimental confirmation, since the speed of light is not a fundamental element of the universe, but a derivative of space and time.
Beyond that, the change in ratio is related to the energy received or required to change the ratio.