Light appears to be like a screw that threads through space.
This is a very rough analogy but here are some interesting points.
-
A rotational motion is relative to its own axis of rotation. It may be felt merely as force, where the lines of forces may originate from one end of the axis and terminate at the other end. This is like a magnetic force field.
-
Light consists of magnetic and electrical force fields. Change in one field generates the other field.
-
The magnetic and electrical fields oscillate in phase but normal to each other. It is as if space splits into these two fields.
-
Each “oscillation” is like a vector rotation that advances the disturbance of light along its axis by a wavelength.
-
The propagation of light takes place as the inertia of its vector rotation simply persists in an inertia-less space.
-
As the speed of vector rotation increases, wavelength decreases. The increase in vector rotation is similar to the increase in frequency.
-
With faster vector rotation and shorter wavelength, the “threads” of this corkscrew motion come closer to each other.
-
Inertia increases with faster vector rotation. It is expected that this increase in inertia may slow down the forward propagation to some degree.
Note 2/23/15: This may be the threshold disturbance level at which light starts to slow down and start to converge as by a lens. This disturbance level shall occur at the surface of an atom, and also at the surface of an electron. -
As the closeness of threads crosses a certain threshold, they may start to congeal into a motion that resembles more like a fast rotating disk. Thus come about the mass type characteristics of inertia.
Note 2/23/15: This may be the threshold disturbance level at which transition from disturbance to mass takes place. This disturbance level shall occur at the surface of the nucleus of an atom. This disturbance level may only be approached in an electron but not reached. -
Hence there is a transition from wave to a particle type motion, which is accompanied by a rapid decrease in forward propagation.
The above are simply some conjectures. Much work needs to be done mathematically and experimentally to support or reject them.
This article provides a crude unidirectional picture. In reality the phenomenon is 3-dimensional. The idea of “disk rotation” may need to be expanded into a more complicated “centered rotation.”
The atom may act as a “sink” for inertia. The electromagnetic radiation approaches the “sink” and its spread-out “threads” start to get compressed, until they transition into mass type centered inertia when approaching the center of the atom.
It is very likely that an atom is made up of electromagnetic patterns of different densities with no separate electrons, protons and neutrons inside. The atom simply happens to spit out such particles when disturbed at different levels of “depth.”
.
Comments
V: “There are “oscillations” in which the magnetic and electrical energies transform into each other, much like the kinetic and potential energies of a simple harmonic motion.”
They don’t transform into each other. They are in-phase, meaning the maximum magnetic field occurs at the maximum of the electric field.
This would be expected as the magnetic field is intimately coupled to the spin of the electron, so “concentrating” electrons (increasing voltage) would increase the magnetic field concentration.
To get a “positive” portion of a wave, a similar effect must occur when electrons are fewer than protons and the spin fields from the protons are creating the magnetic flux field.
LikeLike
Per Wikipedia
“The electromagnetic waves that compose electromagnetic radiation can be imagined as a self-propagating transverse oscillating wave of electric and magnetic fields. This diagram shows a plane linearly polarized EMR wave propagating from left to right. The electric field is in a vertical plane and the magnetic field in a horizontal plane. The electric and magnetic fields in EMR waves are always in phase and at 90 degrees to each other.”
.
LikeLike
You are right. I shall modify the OP.
LikeLike
V: “As the closeness of threads crosses a certain threshold, they may start to congeal into a motion that resembles more like a fast rotating disk. Thus come about the mass type characteristics of inertia.”
You also need to account for charge and spin.
The possibility of this happening should be easily testable by looking at what happens when high energy photons (gamma) collide and combine. It is likely that the first thing that happens is that a new photon emerges with twice the frequency (the sum of the frequencies of the gammas.)
This photon construct must not be very stable as this collision can yield a positron-electron pair as a result.
So you have two massless, chargeless “spin-one bosons” (the gammas) decaying into two “spin 1/2” fermions with mass and charge.
What I see is that this boson-to-fermion transform takes the apparently 2D boson (E and M fields) and transforms them into a construct with extra dimensions of spin and charge and mass. I see this as similar to a 2D flat sheet of paper being folded into the 3 dimensional shape of a swan. This implies that the boson has the same multidimensional structure as an electron, but some of the dimensions have a value of zero in the bosonic state.
The boson-fermion transform would result from an instability of the colliding gammas that is resolved when the energies rearrange along the axes of mass and charge.
LikeLike
What we have is a presentation of a very crude model. Let’s see if this model can be refined to account for more observations.
The new thing about this model is that inertia is the characteristic underlying mass, and mass is not the only form of inertia. Mass is simply inertia that is conceived to be centered at a point.
But there are other forms of inertia that are massless simply because they are not centered. One of the possibilities is corkscrew type motion associated with electromagnetic radiation. There is no mass because there is no “centeredness” of inertia. But there is a “speading out” of inertia as the frequency decreases.
LikeLike
In Quantum Mechanics, we are basically looking at both “centered” as well as “spread out” forms of inertia.
It is as if a transition between the two forms of intertia occurs at subatomic dimensions, and a balance is maintained between those two forms. One form is corkscrew type motion of “wave-frequency;” and the other form is rotating disc type motion of “particle-mass”.
LikeLike
The atom may act as a “sink” for inertia. As electromagnetic radiation approaches the “sink” the threads of spread-out corkscrew inertia start to get compressed, until they transition into a rotating disc inertia at the center of the atom.
LikeLike
It is very possible that an atom is an entirely homogeneous entity with no separate electrons, protons and neutrons inside. The atom simply happens to spit out such particles when disturbed at different levels of “depth.”
LikeLike
The OP provides a crude unidirectional picture. In reality it is 3-dimensional or even 4-dimensional. The idea of “disc rotation” may need to be expanded into a more complicated “centered rotation.”
LikeLike
V: “The new thing about this model is that inertia is the characteristic underlying mass, and mass is not the only form of inertia. Mass is simply inertia that is conceived to be centered at a point.”
I certainly agree with the photonic wave model having angular momentum – which can give the apparency of mass – but you’ve got to consider the primary characteristic of classical mass: it cannot be accelerated instantaneously.
Massless photons are instantaneously emitted at light speed.
For this reason I think you must distinguish between classical (mass) inertia and the apparency of photonic inertia (which is really just angular momentum).
The mechanics of the two are likely very different. I’ve described a potential model for the mechanics of classical inertia in the post below.
2ndxmr On February 14, 2015 at 3:57 AM
What I still see as needed is more fleshing out of the fabric of space. In the referenced post I described a potential interaction with the Higgs field. This interaction is either an excitation of a static field (zero frequency, infinite wavelength – as you have posited previously) or an energy condensation from an extremely high frequency geometry.
There are arguments to be placed for each type of field. What it comes down to, for me, is that static fields need a mechanical descriptor that just does not make itself self-apparent: how do you mechanically describe the difference between an E field and an M field?
The advantage of a geometrically identified field (like a helix) is that mechanical interactions can be predicted.
As far as the geometry you’ve posited for helical wave-collapse into mass, the collapsed product has a geometrical form that is essentially the same as loop gravity.
I think you are getting very close with that but there are a few higher order terms that are required to make the loop gravity equation fully consistent. My think is that these terms will cause the loop to decay into a vortex that is only coupled to spacetime for a few spirals of the vortex. After that point the higher order terms dominate and complete the spiral, but outside of spacetime. This would be consistent with the apparent action of a black hole and the collapse of spacetime at the event horizon of the black hole.
The radius of a black hole (the Schwarzschild radius), R = 2GM/c^2 clearly shows a direct relationship between the hole radius (R) and the amount of mass (M) “in the hole”.
The Einstein field equation for the curvature of space due to mass has the right-side term of ((8*pi*G)/c^4) times (a complex Tensor).
The salient portion of the term is the “8*pi” which may well describe 4 loops of the spiralling tensor before it breaks with spacetime.
The break with spacetime seems indicated by the c^4 term. A c^3 term would indicate consistency with 3 dimensions of space. The presence of “c^4” takes the right-side term out of “3-space + T”.
The significance of this is that it points to gravity as a geometrical construct, and the vortex is very close to being adequate to describing this construct.
LikeLike
2ndxmr: “For this reason I think you must distinguish between classical (mass) inertia and the apparency of photonic inertia (which is really just angular momentum).”
.
OP #9 and #10 cover this. It is corkscrew motion versus centered motion.
Space is at the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum with zero frequency and infinite wavelength. There is no inertia associated with it because there is no motion. As motion comes about with excitation, so does inertia. It is like action-reaction. As frequency (corkscrew vector rotation, or angular momentum) increases, inertia also increases. Extremely high frequency then occurs at the other end of the electromagnetic spectrum where inertia starts transitioning from wave-frequency to particle-mass.
With excitation, space seems to split into E and M fields. It is as if E-field represents motion and M field represents inertia. They go hand in hand. E-field seems to represent vector translation and M-field vector rotation. High vector rotation (inertia) seems to dampen forward vector translation (linear motion). At the high frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum, the E-M oscillation is so high that rotation dominates over translation. Mass comes about as translation is fully dampened by rotation.
It is disturbance of space that seems to condense into mass. Space is continuous, mass is discrete. Space remains continuous as disturbances in it condense into discrete particles. Space never ceases to be continuous.
Loop quantum gravity postulates space to be discrete, which is inconsistent with this inertia model.
LikeLike
2ndxmr: “I think you are getting very close with that but there are a few higher order terms that are required to make the loop gravity equation fully consistent. My think is that these terms will cause the loop to decay into a vortex that is only coupled to spacetime for a few spirals of the vortex. After that point the higher order terms dominate and complete the spiral, but outside of spacetime. This would be consistent with the apparent action of a black hole and the collapse of spacetime at the event horizon of the black hole.”
.
I believe that space and time are components of motion. The space-time of an electromagnetic wave is determined by its wavelength and period. The ultimate space-time is of infinite wavelength and infinite period (zero frequency and zero inertia). This ultimate space-time forms the background for all electromagnetic disturbances and particles.
LQG (Loop Quantum Gravity) is an attempt to merge and adapt standard quantum mechanics and standard general relativity. It postulates space to be quantized. That is probably so for space-time associated with electromagnetic waves (see above). but not for the ultimate space-time that makes the background of all phenomena. There is no such thing as “outside of spacetime.” A black hole is simply “infinite” mass concentrated at a point.
Where space as background represents zero inertia, a black hole represents infinite inertia. A black hole is a disturbance in space condensed to the nth degree, where n tends toward infinity.
.
LikeLike
2ndxmr: “The radius of a black hole (the Schwarzschild radius), R = 2GM/c^2 clearly shows a direct relationship between the hole radius (R) and the amount of mass (M) “in the hole”.
The Einstein field equation for the curvature of space due to mass has the right-side term of ((8*pi*G)/c^4) times (a complex Tensor).
The salient portion of the term is the “8*pi” which may well describe 4 loops of the spiralling tensor before it breaks with spacetime.
The break with spacetime seems indicated by the c^4 term. A c^3 term would indicate consistency with 3 dimensions of space. The presence of “c^4″ takes the right-side term out of “3-space + T”.
The significance of this is that it points to gravity as a geometrical construct, and the vortex is very close to being adequate to describing this construct.”
.
So, radius of a black hole increases with its mass. What seems to be curved around a black hole are the disturbances in space. These disturbances are represented by electromagnetic waves. The higher is the frequency of these waves (higher inertia), the more they seemed to be curved. The farther away one moves from the black hole the less curved are the disturbances in space (lesser frequency and inertia). Ultimately, at enough distance away from the black hole there is undisturbed space of zero inertia.
The above scenario parallels what is probably happening inside an atom.
There seems to be a relationship between inertia and gravity at cosmic level. There may be a harmonic of it at atomic level.
.
LikeLike
V:” A black hole is a disturbance in space condensed to the nth degree, where n tends toward infinity.”
n doesn’t have to be anywhere near that large. At n=35 you’d be down to a Planck length and have yourself a singularity.
V: ” There is no such thing as “outside of spacetime.””
That’s an “absolute” statement which does not have its own proof. Our physical universe is bounded by the distance galaxies have expanded. The space inside our physical universe has an apparency of time. You cannot extrapolate that time outside the boundary of expansion.
Have a look at:
LikeLike
2ndxmr: “The possibility of this happening should be easily testable by looking at what happens when high energy photons (gamma) collide and combine. It is likely that the first thing that happens is that a new photon emerges with twice the frequency (the sum of the frequencies of the gammas.)”
.
I think that threshold is the boundary between the electron layer and the nucleus in an atom. It is upon crossing this boundary that inertia transitions from wave-frequency to particle-mass. Electron layer inside the atom is the densest form of electromagnetic wave.
Here is a paper on collisions of high energy photons. It is too complicated for me.
Click to access slac-pub-6571.pdf
.
LikeLike
2ndxmr: “This photon construct must not be very stable as this collision can yield a positron-electron pair as a result. So you have two massless, chargeless “spin-one bosons” (the gammas) decaying into two “spin 1/2″ fermions with mass and charge. What I see is that this boson-to-fermion transform takes the apparently 2D boson (E and M fields) and transforms them into a construct with extra dimensions of spin and charge and mass. I see this as similar to a 2D flat sheet of paper being folded into the 3 dimensional shape of a swan. This implies that the boson has the same multidimensional structure as an electron, but some of the dimensions have a value of zero in the bosonic state. The boson-fermion transform would result from an instability of the colliding gammas that is resolved when the energies rearrange along the axes of mass and charge.”
.
Reference: Two-photon physics
“Two-photon physics, also called gamma–gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons. If the energy at the center of mass of the system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created.”
Per the OP (#9 and 10), the transition of inertia is taking place in these high energy photon interactions. The gamma photon frequency is in the same range as the de Broglie frequency of electron. So, this is consistent.
It may be looked upon as creation of matter, but, essentially, it is inertia transitioning from wave-frequency into particle-mass form.
.
LikeLike
V: “Hence there is a transition from wave to a particle type motion, which is accompanied by a rapid decrease in forward propagation.”
Considering the gamma-gamma transform again, to start with you have massless photon bosons that enjoy light speed propagation in their gamma state. Then, when a pair of gammas collide you get a mass term emerging and the velocity of propagation goes down.
Photons are massless bosons, but not all bosons are massless (W and Z have mass) so this again indicates that mass property comes from a dimensional aspect and that the massless photons simply have a zero magnitude in that dimension. But they DO have that dimensional axis as they are bosons and other bosons have magnitude on the mass-producing axis.
Mass is seen to be an interaction with the Higgs field. I have posited before that the effect of the mass axis interacting with the Higgs field could be exemplified by the drag effect produced by moving a piece of iron past a magnet, i.e. if you move iron past a magnet you will feel the force of attraction of the magnet and this is the equivalent of drag.
With the iron and magnet, a relative motion between the two causes eddy currents to be set up in the iron. These eddy currents set up a magnetic field with a polarization in opposition to the pole of the magnet, i.e. a north-to-north or south-to-south alignment. Without getting into further complications of the effect, note that this particular eddy effect is due to relative motion and is influenced by the speed of that motion.
With mass endowed particles we might see something similar. I think we could make the comparison of the Higgs field to a stationary magnet and mass-endowed particles to the iron. The relative motion comes from the combined velocities of the planet around the sun, the sun around the galactic center and the galaxy moving as a result of universe expansion.
All of this combined motion ends up moving our mass endowed particles very fast compared to the static Higgs field. Perhaps the interaction of the mass axis and the Higgs field sets up eddies in some space dimension and this eddy effect is what we experience as inertia. The effect we call mass would be due to our basic velocity through space due to planet/sun/galaxy and the inertia we experience would be due to motion relative to our base motion.
The effect of the eddies would seem to be cumulative: the greater the collective mass (the inertial mass, like a planet), the larger the combined eddy effect and the larger the effect on other masses (like bodies) in the vicinity of the inertial mass.
This eddy or vortex effect of large masses becomes apparent at the point the mass creates a black hole, collapsing a volume of space local to the black hole.
Each and every particle with a magnitude on this “mass” axis would then create an individual eddy in some space componet, or possibly right in the Minkowsky “spacetime” manifold and this eddy component would be the graviton.
Quantization of the eddy/vortex/graviton would occur at Planck time unit intervals (10^-44 sec) as the particles make the transition back and forth between being condensed and being probabilistic.
The difference between this inertial mass eddy effect (call it gravity) on masses and the effect of a magnetic field on moving iron is that the gravity effect is unipolar (always towards the mass center) whereas the eddy currents in the iron set up a magnetic field in opposition to the applied magnetic field. This is the factor that distinguishes gravity from magnetism.
However, what it would show is that what we call gravity is produced by moving particles. It would then follow that if a particle had no motion relative to the origin point of the universe, i.e. if it wasn’t cutting the Higgs field, then the particle would have no experience of mass. That supposes that the Higgs field is a static field of zero frequency. If the Higgs field has a frequency then all mass endowed particles would cut the Higgs field on each oscillation cylce of that field.
LikeLike
2ndxmr: “Considering the gamma-gamma transform again, to start with you have massless photon bosons that enjoy light speed propagation in their gamma state. Then, when a pair of gammas collide you get a mass term emerging and the velocity of propagation goes down.
Photons are massless bosons, but not all bosons are massless (W and Z have mass) so this again indicates that mass property comes from a dimensional aspect and that the massless photons simply have a zero magnitude in that dimension. But they DO have that dimensional axis as they are bosons and other bosons have magnitude on the mass-producing axis.”
.
Mass property comes from centered-ness of inertia. That is why we can have a center of mass. This is not so with the corkscrew motion of the electromagnetic wave. Here we have an axis of rotation that is spread out and propagating forward. Therefore, the inertia is spread out in the continuous space. There is sort of a diffused discrete-ness associated with a photon. A photon cannot be represented by a point. That is why it is considered massless. Its inertia cannot be represented as being concentrated at a point.
Therefore, there is a dimension of being spread out associated with a photon. There is no such dimension required for mass, which can be represented by a dimensionless point.
LikeLike
2ndxmr: “Mass is seen to be an interaction with the Higgs field. I have posited before that the effect of the mass axis interacting with the Higgs field could be exemplified by the drag effect produced by moving a piece of iron past a magnet, i.e. if you move iron past a magnet you will feel the force of attraction of the magnet and this is the equivalent of drag.
With the iron and magnet, a relative motion between the two causes eddy currents to be set up in the iron. These eddy currents set up a magnetic field with a polarization in opposition to the pole of the magnet, i.e. a north-to-north or south-to-south alignment. Without getting into further complications of the effect, note that this particular eddy effect is due to relative motion and is influenced by the speed of that motion.”
.
Again, mass property comes from centered-ness of inertia. This inertia model provides a very simple explanation compared to the complicated explanations of the Standard Model.
The oscillations of E-M fields propagate the disturbance in space. The faster are the oscillations, smaller is the wavelength. The speed of propgation results from the product of those two parameters. This product is mostly constant at low inertia. But at higher oscillations this inertia seems to increase more rapidly. I expect the velocity of Gamma rays to be somewhat less than the velocity of visible light. This speed reduces drastically at very high oscillations as they collapse into rotational motion only that is now centered at a point.
.
LikeLike
2ndxmr: “You also need to account for charge and spin.”
The spin of elementary particle seems to be the centered rotation mentioned in the OP. It is directly related to inertia and mass. It only appears about the axis of the particle. Thus, an electron may have a spin only when it exists as a particle. But when electron is part of an atom it would have orbital momentum instead of spin. The atom as a whole shall have a spin.
The spin, being inherent rotation about the axis of the particle, may generate a magnetic field. When this magnetic field is changing, it may generate an electrical field normal to it. This electrical field may account for the charge of the particle.
Thus a neutral particle may have a constant spin, but a charged particle may have oscillating spin. Such oscillations have to be very high. This is just a conjecture.
.
LikeLike
V: “Thus, an electron may have a spin only when it exists as a particle. But when electron is part of an atom it would have orbital momentum instead of spin.”
This is inconsistent with the Pauli Exclusion Principle and also with magnetic effects which are seen only in atoms with certain orbital shapes occupied by single electrons.
LikeLike
It will help me if you could provide references that explain your point in detail. Thanks, You are helping me a great deal.
LikeLike
I did a search but did not turn up anything that was not fully math reliant. The wiki articles on the Pauli Exclusion Principle and spin magnetic moment are both good.
Good pics can be found from google search “spin magnetic moment”
Lots on YT.
LikeLike
A good one.
LikeLike
My statement does not violate Pauli’s Exclusion Principle considering electron does not exist as electron inside the atom.
LikeLike
Hmmm…
Intended 2nd vid:
LikeLike
I have to research how did scientists arrived at the conclusion that electrons maintain their identity as electrons inside an atom.
LikeLike
According to quantum mechanical effects, the mere fact of observation changes what is being observed. So, how did we come up with a model of an atom that we can trust?
LikeLike
V:” So, how did we come up with a model of an atom that we can trust?”
That would be because there is also the workable level of classical physics and chemistry where the illusion of reality gives predictable results.
LikeLike
I am studying about it here:
Click to access phys3.pdf
.
LikeLike
Asimov: “It may have been reasoning like this that led some Greek philosophers to suggest that the universe was made up of tiny particles that were themselves indivisible. The most prominent of these philosophers was Democritus of Abdera, who advanced his theories about 430 B.C. He called these ultimate particles “atomos,” from a Greek word meaning “indivisible.” and it is from this that our word, atom, is derived.”
.
LikeLike
Similar reasoning seems to underlie the idea that space is a set of points.
LikeLike
Asimov: “It is the law of fixed proportions that forced the concept of atomism to arise out of purely chemical considerations. Suppose that copper consists of tiny copper atoms; oxygen, of oxygen atoms; and carbon, of carbon atoms. Suppose further that copper carbonate is formed when a copper atom, an oxygen atom and a carbon atom all join in a tight union. (The truth of the matter is more complicated than this, but right now we are only trying to observe the consequences of an atomistic supposition.) A tight union of atoms, such as that which I am suggesting, is called a molecule (from a Latin word meaning “a small mass”). What I am saying, then, is suppose that copper carbonate is made up of molecules each containing a copper atom, a carbon atom and an oxygen atom.”
.
LikeLike
Asimov: “From the law of fixed proportions it was quite plain that: (1) Each element is made up of a number of atoms all with the same fixed mass. (2) Different elements are distinguished by being made up of atoms of different mass. (3) Compounds are formed by the union of small numbers of atoms into molecules. From the law of fixed proportions it is even possible to come to conclusions about the relative mass of the different kinds of atoms. This relative mass is commonly referred to as atomic weight.”
.
LikeLike
The following is beautifully written:
Asimov: “Scientists must take the universe as they find it, of course, but there is a deep-seated faith (no other word will suffice) dating back to Greek times that the universe exhibits order and is basically simple. Whenever any facet seems to grow tangled and complex, scientists can’t help searching for some underlying order that may be eluding them.”
Quantum Mechanics has grown very complex mathematically. Hence there is the effort on this blog to simplify it conceptually.
.
LikeLike
Asimov: “But even the determinations of the mass and size of the atom rests on indirect evidence. In ordinary life, reality is judged by the direct evidence of the senses–especially that of vision. “Seeing is believing,” goes the old bromide.”
.
LikeLike
Asimov: “A controversy then arose as to the nature of the cathode rays. The fact that the rays traveled in straight lines and seemed unaffected by gravity made it appear likely that they were a wave form after the fashion of light. The great argument against this was that the cathode rays were deflected by a magnet, whereas light rays (or any form of radiation resembling light) were not.
“The alternative suggestion was that the cathode rays were electrically charged particles, the “atoms of electricity” in fact. They would then naturally be affected by a magnet, and their lack of response to gravitation would be explained by their small mass and rapid motion. The response would be there but would be too small to detect.”
.
Here we have electrons traveling like waves but also displaying electrical charge and mass.
.
LikeLike
Asimov: “Maxwell’s analysis of electrical and magnetic phenomena had showed that the two must be so closely and indissolubly related that one could properly speak only of electromagnetism He went on to show, furthermore, that an oscillating electric charge ought to produce a waveform type of electromagnetic radiation that would travel at the speed of light. It seemed almost inevitable, therefore, that light itself must be an electromagnetic radiation– otherwise the coincidence of its velocity being equal to that of such radiation would be too great for acceptance.”
.
LikeLike
Asimov: “The discovery of radio waves gave physicists their first notion of the truly broad extent of the electromagnetic spectrum. The wavelength range of visible light is from 380 to 760 millimicrons, representing a single octave of radiation. (A millimicron is equal to a billionth of a meter, end an octave represents a range over which the wavelength doubles.).”
The above idea of octave forms the basis of the disturbance levels:
https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/
.
LikeLike
From Markarian 501:
“In these flares the higher energy gamma rays (of 1.2 Tev) were delayed 4 minutes over the 0.25 TeV gamma rays.”
Calculations from these numbers show that when the disturbance level of gamma rays increases from 85.63 to 87.96, the velocity of light decreases only by 6.5 x 10^-6 m/s. This is negligible.
So the velocity of light is pretty much constant.
LikeLike