Gamma-ray photon race ends in dead heat; Einstein wins this round

IMO these photons are spreading like vortex solitons simmilar to smoke rings. It means, short wavelength photons are moving at center of gamma ray flash, while more lightweight ones are revolving the center of resulting cluster, thus moving along longer path. This would explain, why weaker flashes occuring at short distances exhibit higher dispersion, then those very distant ones and why neutrinos sometimes precede gamma ray flash. If this idea is correct, then the high frequency photons should appear at the middle of gamma ray flash in most cases.

"nine-tenths of a second spread over more than 7 billion years is so small that the difference is likely due to the detailed processes of the gamma-ray burst rather than confirming any modification of Einstein's ideas."

Plasma pinches have that profile. This is only slightly different than the merging of two bodies theory.

0.9 seconds eliminates what quantum foam model???

Any quantum foam model that has actual numbers, I suspect. That is, the Alizee, Alexa No Numbers Ever Model will continue to have every bit as much numerical support as it ever did.

None.

Exactly the same as The String Hypothesis which actually does have numbers. Only unlike Alexa-Alizee it too many rather than none at all.

Alizee:
Neutrinos trailed the visible light of 1987A by many hours. So if they preceded gamma rays, in any particular instance, it is likely due to the source being both much closer than the Magellanic Clouds and generated before the gamma rays.

Ethelred

..String Hypothesis which actually does have numbers...

String theory has no numbers in this extent - it simply considers, light is spreading in invariant speed through vacuum, being based on special relativity theory (between others)

Based on General Relativity is a bit more accurate. For instance gravitational lensing can be involved. A gamma ray burst that is affected by such a lens could tell us more.

Of course there is no String Theory since, technically anyway, it doesn't yet tell us anything about the universe that can separate it from the Standard Model. So there is no way to take it out of the hypotheses stage.

Maybe someday.

The point I was making is that Aetherwave Theory ISN'T theory anymore than String Theory is theory. One is a hypothesis. The other is a vague, variable, highly amorphous concept in search of a hypothesis.

Both tell us nothing about the Universe. At least nothing that anyone can test.

GR has been tested and so far fits the evidence. This gamma ray data fits GR exceeding well so there is no need to suppose exotic vortexes. Now if you can find an reason for a vortex occurring and calculate a dispersal curve that could be a point in your favor with enough data.

Ethelred

This gamma ray data fits GR exceeding well

GR doesn't require light to spread in constant speed, as such requirement doesn't belong between GR postulates. The absence of gamma ray dispersion violates quantum mechanics due the presence of microwave background, instead. High energy photons should materialize with microwave photons more often then the low energy photons, thus forming particle-antiparticle pairs temporarily. These pairs cannot move by luminal speed. In this way, the absence of gamma ray dispersion maybe fits special relativity, but it violates another theories and Aether wave Theory has nothing to do with it.

.Now if you can find an reason for a vortex occurring...

Special relativity is relevant for flat space-time only with no microwave background and it describes light wave speed - not the speed of light photons. At the presence of microwave photons the result may be different. In fact, it should be - and the formation of vortex solitons is one of possible explanations. We didn't measure absolute light speed during gamma ray flash, only relative speed difference between gamma rays of different frequency - so it's still possible, gama ray flash propagates in highly subluminal speed through vacuum as a whole.

Just some background info, the particular theory being disproved here is called Loop Quantum Gravity http://en.wikiped..._gravity While these experimental results have disproved the theory, at least it was able to provide testable predictions

the particular theory being disproved here is called Loop Quantum Gravity

It was rather so called double relativity (DSR, DSR2) proposed by Lee Smolin and Maguejio:
http://arxiv.org/.../0209264

Loop Quantum Gravity doesn't predict Lorentz symmetry violation in this case.
http://arxiv.org/.../0702016

Because prof. Smolin is an author of both theories, many people are connecting LQG with Lorentz speed violation, but it's incorrect interpretation. I'm explaining it on my blog.

In my developing theory of vacuum mechanics, this result is not surprising. The vacuum is an elastic propagation medium (not a 'foam') consisting of structure units. In order for energy to propagate through the vacuum, it must exert a force upon its constituent structure units. At a critical distance the force quantizes due to the granularity of this vacuum medium. The vacuum then reflexes, propelling the quantized particle (photon in this case) to the next vacuum structure unit to repeat the process (propagation). A more energetic photon involves more structure units in its propagation, but also gets a stronger reflex force, negating any effects due to 'size' of the photon.

GR doesn't require light to spread in constant speed, as such requirement doesn't belong between GR postulates.

It has nothing in it to cause the speed of light to be affected by its energy level. If light WAS effected by its energy level then GR would be violated.

The absence of gamma ray dispersion violates quantum mechanics due the presence of microwave background

False

High energy photons should materialize with microwave photons more often then the low energy photons

False

Microwave photons are inherently lower energy than Gamma rays. The energy of any photon is directly related to its frequency/wavelength.

thus forming particle-antiparticle pairs temporarily.

Temporary yes. But that is the end of the gamma ray, permanently. So it won't cause a dispersion of the time of arrival since it won't arrive. It may affect the energy distribution.

but it violates another theories

False

Aether wave Theory has nothing to do with it

True

Ethelred

MrGrynch, does your model provide for both the wave and particle duality of photons ? Also, if your vacuum 'recoils', can it be leveraged ?

Special relativity is relevant for flat space-time only with no microwave background

I WAS talking about GR not SR so that is irrelevant. So is the microwave background.

describes light wave speed - not the speed of light photons.

Same thing in a vacuum. You do know that SR is a subset of GR don't you? You sure aren't acting like it.

At the presence of microwave photons the result may be different.

Light waves don't interact with each other that way. Something to do with Spin.

and the formation of vortex solitons is one of possible explanations.

And hand waving is another. At least you seem to fond of it anyway.

We didn't measure absolute light speed during gamma ray flash,

True. It was arrival times. Which are certainly effect by departure times if the velocity is the same.

so it's still possible, gamma ray flash propagates in highly subluminal speed through vacuum as a whole.

Its possible that wishing works. Neither has evidence.

Ethelred

Microwave photons are inherently lower energy than Gamma rays.

Two photons always materialize in presence of external fields. Such field can provide neighboring photon of microwave background radiation. The so called GZK limit has the same origin - it results into complete dispersion of ultrahigh energy photons in vacuum.

..Temporary yes. But that is the end of the gamma ray, permanently..

If particle-antiparticle pair forms only 0.0000001% of total gamma photon life, it still means, such photon cannot propagate by speed of light completely, because material particles always propagate in subluminal speed - just because of Special Relativity. Anyway, it's not my intention to force you my truth - the future experiments will show us, who was right in this case.

The formation of boson solitons is quite general phenomena, in fact. Whole atom or Earth planet can be considered as a dense cluster of various bosons of very different wavelengths. Nevertheless, atoms or Earth still propagates through vacuum as a single body, just because lighter bosons are revolving centers inside of this cluster along longer path, thus compensating the effect of dispersion. I presume, formation of gamma ray clusters is the effect of the very same category - they can serve as an prototype for all heavier particles.

The trick is, many gamma ray flashes disperse fast - only those, which contain correct mixture of photons of proper wavelengths can travel across whole universe - so they can be observed at Earth at distance. It's an example of evolution of energy.

Neither has evidence

It has an evidence. Shorth distance gamma ray flashes are quite dispersive with compare to very distant ones and neutrinos often advance them.

If particle-antiparticle pair forms only 0.0000001% of total gamma photon life,

Its not a percentage situation. Its an end of existence.

If a gamma ray produces a particle/anti-particle pair it is no longer a gamma ray and therefor will not arrive here. Thus it does not contribute to the measurement of gamma rays here.

To put it another way the gamma ray has to arrive for it to be detected. It can't arrive if it becomes a pair of particles before detection. Therefor pair production will not effect the arrival time since it won't arrive.

Ethelred

I'd recommend to read at least five ORIGINAL articles about gamma ray flashes to get a general picture of what is going on. If you would read only abstracts from popular on-line journals, like physorg, you'll always forced to wait, what more educated people will invent for you.

Shorth distance gamma ray flashes are quite dispersive with compare to very distant ones and neutrinos often advance them.

Neutrinos have mass. Gamma rays don't. Therefor the only way for a neutrino to arrive before gamma rays is for them to generated first or for the gamma rays that were created at the same time to be blocked. Which fits the known causes of gamma rays and neutrinos.

Both can be created in violent events deep inside massive objects or on the surface of white dwarfs. However gamma rays cannot escape from the interiors of massive objects or even a dense accumulation of hydrogen on a white dwarf, in a straight line. Neutrinos can.

Since the events you mention are near, the difference in escape time is not overwhelmed by the higher velocity of the gamma rays after they finally escape.

Ethelred

Neutrinos have mass. Gamma rays don't.

During gamma ray flash the energy corresponding mass of Sun is released in a single moment. Can you imagine, where such mass gets lost? Whether it evaporates at place into nothing?

I know, many textbooks are memorizing like parrots, photons have no mass, only momentum. But you cannot believe in every nonsense from textbooks blindly - or you become religious parrot as well.

Can you imagine, where such mass gets lost?

It isn't lost. Its dispersed as energy and gas. A tiny amount is converted to neutrinos.

A photons mass is its energy. As in E=MC2.

If you want to claim that photons have mass that is unrelated to its frequency then you have a to prove it. After all this time someone should have noticed. YOU should found something lurking in someones work by now. So I will go on the standard idea that a photon's mass is due to its energy.

Religion is right out. I will stick with being an Agnostic as that is all the evidence supports.

Ethelred

If a gamma ray produces a particle/anti-particle pair it is no longer a gamma ray and therefore will not arrive here.

Not at all. Resulting particle-antiparticle pair is mostly of opposite charge (like electron-positron) - so it gets attracted each other and recombines back again into pair of gamma ray. You'll notice any change, in fact.

If you want to claim that photons have mass that is unrelated to its frequency then you have a to prove it

Not at all - the mass of photons related to their energy by E= hf formula of quantum mechanics is quite sufficient to keep gamma photons together and to enable them in propagation like single swarm (well, not quite - but this is detail of too low level for You for now). In first approximation you can imagine, photons are kept together in gamma ray flash by their own gravity, thus fooling observers believing in special relativity blindly. I even presume, some other foreign photons may get trapped into cluster from outside.

But if you want to believe in general relativity, no one prohibits you in it. The phenomena described is just a result of general relativity - but it's not a product of flat space-time, but a product of many subtle space-time deforms, resulting from cosmic microwave background fluctuations.

I will stick with being an Agnostic as that is all the evidence supports

But you're still believer - in negation of my explanation. Popper's methodology is quite symmetrical in this point. If you believe in something, you're expected to give an evidence. If you don't believe in something, you're expected to support it by arguments as well. In general, being Agnostic is suboptimal strategy for invention of new theories.

so it gets attracted each other and recombines back again into pair of gamma ray.

Which goes in a random direction. Therefor not in a straight line so we don't detect it.

Ethelred

Not at all - the mass of photons related to their energy

Thanks but I already said that. I just used a different formula.

ut this is detail of too low level for You for now)

Too much hand waving anyway. Just how short are your arms that you think can't see them waving?

n first approximation you can imagine, photons are kept together in gamma ray flash by their own gravity,

Do you practice hand waving at beauty pageants?

I even presume, some other foreign photons may get trapped into cluster from outside.

Presume all you want. I prefer evidence.

But if you want to believe in general relativity, no one prohibits you in it.

The evidence doesn't prohibit even you from GR. Just your religion.

Two can play that game and since I use evidence and you wave your hands and call it a theory, you are the one with a religion.

Ethelred

...Which goes in a random direction. Therefor not in a straight line..

Yes, this is what a dispersion is called and its true for materialization of photons of approximately same frequency.

But the pair formed by materialization of very heavy photon and very lightweight one has a nonzero momentum toward direction of original - so after annihilation it continues in original line of travel and lightweight photon is restored. Macroscopically the gamma ray photon remains only slightly deflected from its path by spacetime deform of lightweight photon like by tiny gravitational lens.

can they also rule out the slight possibillity that the high energetic photon got a headstart and was send earlier, but was chased by a faster moving lower energy particle e.g. gammaburst afterglow?

But you're still believer - in negation of my explanation.

In negation of your hand waving and in agreement with actual evidence. So its not religion on my part. Your wild speculation doesn't qualify as explanations.

If you believe in something, you're expected to give an evidence.

I am waiting for yours. Mine is all over the Universe. Heck the GPS system wouldn't work if GR was significantly wrong.

In general, being Agnostic is suboptimal strategy for invention of new theories.

I know that English isn't your first language but you really need to look at the definitions of Religion and Agnostics before you make things up next time. It would really help if you used actual English words instead of learning them from Creationists.

Agnostic is the optimum for all non-religions thinking. It avoids the dogmatism of Atheism. I go on evidence and reason. Not hand waving and wishful thinking.

Ethelred

..can they also rule out the slight possibillity..

Of course not, all explanations are still possible. We just need more data about gamma ray flashes from different distances. Single photon doesn't count as an evidence at all.

..Mine is all over the Universe..

Nope, you're operating by General Relativity of pure flat space-time. Which doesn't exist in Universe, in fact. Universe is full of background fluctuations and every detailed theory should take account into it less or more later.

Yes, this is what a dispersion is called

The article is about dispersion IN TIME. Not space.

so after annihilation it continues in original line of travel

Would you care to actually give a link that supports that statement? Not a link to your site by the way but someone independent. Without hand waving and with evidence.

Ethelred

Would you care to actually give a link that supports that statement?

Yep, for example here:

http://tinyurl.com/yzkldl6

But it's quite logical. What would you expect, when heavy and light photon annihilate and restore back? Would you expect symmetric dispersion of energy? This would violate momentum conservation law.

The article is about dispersion IN TIME. Not space.

Jeez, photons are moving by (nearly) speed of light. Every dispersion in space results into dispersion in time, too.

Nope, you're operating by General Relativity of pure flat space-time.

You do know that GR deals with CURVED SPACE don't you? I did mention that the involvement of a gravitational lens could produce a lot more information.

So don't put words in my mouth. Or rather on the net and claim I said them.

Universe is full of background fluctuations and every detailed theory should take account into it less or more later.

So far all the evidence is that space is quite flat. The background fluctuations are about two parts in 10,000.

Ethelred

Final-state NN-rescattering is found to be quite important and leads to a better agreement with existing experimental data.

Sorry but I am not paying to read that. The abstract doesn't support you in any case.

Was that a bluff? Or did you just not read the abstract.Its about spin in any case.

Ethelred

The background fluctuations are about two parts in 10,000.

? How did you get into such number?

Would you care to actually give a link that supports that statement? Not a link to your site by the way but someone independent. Without hand waving and with evidence.

Every dispersion in space results into dispersion in time, too.

How many times are you going to see the same thing and ignore it? Dispersal in SPACE results in NON DETECTION.

If it is dispersed in space it will not be detected on the same line as photons that are not dispersed.

We are talking about something that is billions of light years away. An exceedingly tiny deflection angle will result in missing the whole bloody galaxy much less our detectors.

Ethelred

Dispersal in SPACE results in NON DETECTION

Yes, at the case of single photon dispersion. But pair of photons gets always attracted each other during every collision by their mutual gravity. Again and again...

exceedingly tiny deflection angle

Gamma ray flash has a character of spherical envelope surrounding its source. It has nowhere to deflect from angle of its original direction.

? How did you get into such number?

By using actual evidence. As in COBE.

http://map.gsfc.n...uct.html

And copying my style won't help you if you don't have evidence.

You're person of very thorough, even rigid thinking...;-)

Its the way I do it on most sites. I am not only person here that uses a signature. Most sites do it automatically.

There a several reasons that I use a signature. Its traditional in most forums. On some forums some wanker has already used Ethelred but doesn't post. For instance the physics forum that Physorg is linking too has such a non poster. Two posts and the second was his own reply to his first. On sites like that I use Ethlred with the middle E left out and then use the right spelling in my sig.

Thorough yes. Rigid, well the girls like it that way.

Use evidence and you won't have to descend to ad homonyms.

Ethelred

hot regions, shown in red, are 0.0002 Kelvin hotter than the cold regions

This has nothing to do with frequency of CMB photons. They're everywhere.

But pair of photons gets always attracted each other during every collision by their mutual gravity. Again and again

Thus resulting in deflection again and again. Thus resulting in non-detection. Even assuming it happens as you describe, which is doubtful.

Gamma ray flash has a character of spherical envelope surrounding its source

This strikes me as a blatant case of Spherical Chicken thinking.

has nowhere to deflect from angle of its original direction.

If it is traveling along a 7 billion light year long line between the source and the Earth it has seven billions light years of VOLUME to deflect into. That is quite a large sphere and the Earth is an exceeding tiny portion of it. The only light that is going to reach is light that was emitted in the direction of that line and is UNDEFLECTED along the way. Pair production will result in deflection.

Claiming that the mutual gravitational attraction between photon is significant is quite an imagination.

Ethelred

This has nothing to do with frequency of CMB photons.

Of course not. Didn't claim it did. Nor is that what you asked for.

Interesting how you lose track of the discussion.

It has to do with your claim of non flat space. Evidence as opposed to bare faced claims unsupported anything except the waving of your hands. Apparently you think the wave length of your hands has something to do with the curvature of space.

Ethelred

Thus resulting in non-detection

This results in clusterization of gamma flash, in similar way, like formation of photons (soliton wave packets) occurs in vacuum.

It has to do with your claim of non flat space

You're talking about energy anisotropy of CMB, which is in 0.0002 Kelvin range. I'm talking about anisotropy (space-time curvature) of single CMB photon. For illustration: I can put many stones from altitude 10,0 +- 0.0002 meters to your head. These stones can still kill you safely - although their anisotropy in potential energy distribution remains quite low.

Wow, my head is spinning from all the great discussions generated by this article. One gets more insight into physics by the commentators than by the articles themselves!

But now, a question please:

My understanding of partcile physics says that gamma rays, like any other photons of whatever energy, do not have mass or charge; hence, they cannot react with any other entity and can at most only be absorbed. Therefore, why did anyone expect to see any sort of glancing interaction with the "quantum foam", even if that foam created charged or uncharged virtual particles?

..photons of whatever energy, do not have mass or charge..

By quantum mechanics energy of photon is given by equation E = h*f, by relativity theory energy is equivalent mass by formula m = E/c^2 = hf/c^2. Why photon shouldn't have mass?

It seems - despite I'm aetherist - I'm still the only person, which/who believes in these equations here.

It seems - despite I'm aetherist - I'm still the only person, which/who believes in these equations here.

Perhaps if you weren't a HandWavist you would have noticed that I have pointed out the photons have energy and therefor mass.

Twice already.

This is the third time.

Learn to read.

Which is not the same as claiming you can't read.

You can.

You just don't.

Ethelred

This results in clusterization of gamma flash, in similar way, like formation of photons (soliton wave packets) occurs in vacuum.

Lets see, non detection results in all that PLUS detection.

Amazing.

Thats multiple times you have made ludicrous conclusions based on NON_DETECTION.

Even by Physorg standards that is a high level of anti-achievement.

You're talking about energy anisotropy of CMB, which is in 0.0002 Kelvin range.

I am talking about your claims of fluctuations in the curvature of space. Which would show up in the CMB. And don't.

I'm talking about anisotropy (space-time curvature) of single CMB photon.

Your inventing things that don't exist. Unless of course you have EVIDENCE. Something you have yet to show.

These stones can still kill you safely

Really. Amazing. Safely killed.

And without any relevance at all as well.

Perhaps if you wave your hands faster and harder you can fly.

Your HandWave WAG has even less chance of flying.

Ethelred

..Thats multiple times you have made ludicrous conclusions based on NON_DETECTION....

Not at all. I'm doing extrapolations of many gamma rays observations, in fact. And taking many related phenomena into account, too. Whereas you're just extrapolating single photon observation by now.

Whole story started before two years already, when MKN501 event was observed. This gamma ray burst occurred at much closer proximity, then the GRB090510 - and MKN501's high energy photons were delayed by more then thirty seconds.

This sounds a bit strange, doesn't it?

..conclusions based on NON_DETECTION....

This is quite common approach in physics. Negative result is result, too. Just try to remember the extrapolations of negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment.

"a short gamma-ray burst, an outpouring of radiation likely generated by the collision of two neutron stars, the densest known objects in the universe."
As far as I know, there is no confirmation of what exactly produces GRBs. So, this line should include at least one "probably" or "most likely" if it intends to be scientifically correct.

The point is, we still don't know, if Lorentz symmetry was really broken. What we only know is, whole cluster of photons arrived at single moment.

But we still don't know, if this cluster moved in speed of light, the speed of microwaves in particular. For example, whole Earth planet is composed of bosons of different wavelengths, but it still propagates through vacuum as a single body by subluminal speed. So it violates Lorentz symmetry heavilly, although every boson in it travels along complex spiral path, along which Lorentz symmetry is maintained. The funniest part is, both interpretations are correct at the single moment.

Inside of solitons wave packets the waves of different wavelengths are propagating like single object - although in isolated state such waves would spread in different speed. The soliton mechanism is quite common in physics - it just requires to choose proper combinations of wavelengths in distribution of photons, which is closely related to gamma function and golden mean ratio. Of course, such combination of photons would be quite rare - but from the very same reason it would be the very last combination, which could travel through the whole universe without apparent dispersion - so we can detect it at its very end.

What we are facing is sort of natural selection process - just applied to cluster of gamma photons.

Another point is closely related to recent metamaterial models of vacuum (you know, all these "black holes for light"). In general, metamaterial is basically kind of foam, in which positive and negative curvatures are (nearly) balanced. The trick is, people are choosing such structure of vacuum automatically by observation at large distance, because just this structure remains the least dispersive environment possible.

This model has even its own analogy from common life. During heavy rain dense water droplets are forming kind of metamaterial foam in atmosphere. When we are observing rainbow, we can often see the dark area between primary and secondary rainbows. It corresponds the angle of observation, in which the dispersion of light by inner and outer surfaces of water droplets becomes balanced. In such direction particle environment slows down the energy spreading - but it still doesn't exhibit the dispersion.

The point is, inside of such environment light is spreading in slowest possible speed too, so that this environment appears as huge as possible from perspective of observer inside it.

In my opinion, this is exactly the case of vacuum, which we are observing at cosmic distances via gamma ray bursts. This geometrical model of vacuum goes pretty deep, as it explains, why universe exhibits universal symmetry violation, omni-directional space-time expansion, event horizons and other theoretical stuffs. But it explains too, how is it possible, we cannot observe dispersion of gamma ray photons JUST at large distances.

Thank you for your attention and sorry for flooding.

But now, a question please:

My understanding of partcile physics says that gamma rays, like any other photons of whatever energy, do not have mass or charge; hence, they cannot react with any other entity and can at most only be absorbed. Therefore, why did anyone expect to see any sort of glancing interaction with the "quantum foam", even if that foam created charged or uncharged virtual particles?

Photons have zero rest mass but non-zero relativistic mass, usually what is meant by mass is rest mass.

Photons can react with charged particles without being absorbed, google Compton scattering for example.

As for the interaction with the "quantum foam" the prediction was based on the postulated shape of spacetime on extremely small scales, photons are affected by spacetime, for example massive bodies such as stars induce enough curvature in spacetime to lead to observable bending of photons paths. I don't know however how exactly pair creation comes into this picture.

Why was there even a 9/10ths of a second difference between them?

Sorry if I missed it in an earlier post, way too much stuff to go through before work.

Thanks.

Why was there even a 9/10ths of a second difference between them?

From the Physorg article:

the difference is likely due to the detailed processes of the gamma-ray burst

Superhuman brings up an interesting point. If any of the photons had been involved with pair production, they would have had to have interacted with matter. Thus, even if the products recombined to produce another gamma ray there is no reason for it to be emitted in any particular direction or even have the same energy as the original (since energy and momentum would have been carried away by the matter that facilitated the pair production). I think this is what Ethelred meant when he said pair production would deflect photons. Since the only way photons interact with each other directly is via gravity, and this interaction is extremely weak, the only reasonable way for a group of photons to arrive from a source far away is to have traveled at the same speed the entire way (same path+time --> same speed)

You just reinvented my proposal, which extrapolated this model in recent 10+ posts. This just illustrates, people are reading only last post, so that discussions can continue infinitelly. Simmilar situation exists in mainstream science - this is what the re-search is called.

Because photons are of different energy, resulting cluster wouldn't be homogeneous, the more heavier photons would go to the center of cluster, thus mimicking tiny gallaxy or planetary system. Maybe the lone high energy photon was trapped into photon cluster from outside, maybe it even served as a nuclei of cluster simmilar to condensation of water droplets from atmosphere.

In general, cluster formation doesn't mean, Lorentz invariance is maintained, because the whole cluster could move in slightly subluminal speed.

The reason, why Nature didn't considered this possibility is probably in widespread belief, photons have no mass, only momentum.

http://www.physli...e270.cfm

It may be that the "slower" of the photons had a longer distance to travel. Nine billion light years is a long, long ways away. A minor diversion within the topographical space-time continuum could result in a major difference over the long term.

The acceleration of gravity on an object only appears to be independent of the mass of the object. After all, inertia - resistence to a change in motion - is much greater for a more massive object. This has implications for the photon background acting on the photonic wavelength. After all, energy "is" mass.

..A minor diversion within the topographical space-time continuum could result in a major difference over the long term...

Article point was, it didn't result - so we are forced to improve this model - or throw it at all. Every planet or star suffers by this paradox too - it consists of many bosons of different wavelengths, but it still propagates through vacuum like single body. The explanation would be probably the very same.

Observation of gamma rays is significant in its combination of extremelly high energy density, which propagates at extremelly high distance (combination of extreme high and low space-time curvatures). Nowhere in terresterial lab such combination can be achieved. This makes research of gamma rays so usefull in understanding of fundamental principles, which are driving observable Universe.

I still don't understand why these 2 photons are 'related'. Couldn't they have been created
at different times at the source ? It may be
clear to all the professionals here, but the
article seemed sparse on this.

One of the guesses for gamma ray burst is the merger of Black Holes.Such an event is should generate very high energy gamma rays such as those detected. The merger of the black holes would take time but a very short period of time.

So yes they could easily have been generated at different times. Nine tenths of second is close enough together to have been created in such a merger. There is no need to suppose that they had to have been created simultaneously. The article was clear enough on that point.

Link to an article about the same paper.
http://arstechnic...urst.ars

It seems pretty clear that the event was of a very short duration but long enough for a one second window for the generation of high energy photons.

In other words they could indeed have been generated at different times as long as you consider an interval of about one second to be at different times. Seems that most do.

Ethelred

BTW Condensation of gamma ray photons in field of microwave photons is semi-classical example of tachyon condensation of open strings into D-strings, as proposed first by Sen in 1999 at scope of Open String Field Theory, introduced by Witten in 1986. In another way, string theorists are fighting against demonstration of low energy analogy of model, proposed by another string theorists. This example demonstrates clearly, how deeply are some string theorists separated from reality, which they're trying to describe. Picture bellow illustrates, how open strings condense into closed one:

http://www.aether...ring.gif

Here we can met another low-energy analogy of closed D-strings, which are attached to space-time brane in so-called the Falaco solitons, which are spreading along density gradient, which is forming water surface.

http://www.youtub...wZ39EDmw