Supernova 1987a, light, neutrinos, VSL claims

  • Thread starter danriley
  • Start date
  • #1
7
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

I'd like to examine the experimental side for a moment, not the theoretical. Would the non-differential (after very long distances and time, and taking into account the different production mechanisms) in the arrival of light and neutrinos from supernova 1987a constitute strong experimental evidence of the de facto constancy of the speed of light, and that Dirac particle pairs offer no impediment whatsoever to the propagation of light?

In other words, since light and neutrinos have different interactions (EM and weak force), it would be strange that light would be impeded/slowed down by any purported changes in free-space energy in exact lock-step with particles slowed by another force.

Any comments?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Garth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,574
105
Agreed.

Also the fact that the neutrinos arrived a little after the light confirms the measurement that neutrinos have a small mass and are not massless.

Garth
 
  • #3
7
0
Garth said:
Agreed.

Also the fact that the neutrinos arrived a little after the light confirms the measurement that neutrinos have a small mass and are not massless.

Garth
I'm glad to have a response, because I've Googled for discussion in science circles, and brought the matter up elsewhere, and no-one seems to have noticed the implications, or answered me. After almost 20 years, you'd think someone would say 'heeeyyyyyy...??!!'.
 
  • #4
SpaceTiger
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,940
2
Garth said:
Also the fact that the neutrinos arrived a little after the light confirms the measurement that neutrinos have a small mass and are not massless.
Do you have a reference for this? I was under the impression the neutrinos came several hours before the light.
 
  • #5
Labguy
Science Advisor
731
7
SpaceTiger said:
Do you have a reference for this? I was under the impression the neutrinos came several hours before the light.
They (neutrinos) did arrive first. 18 hours before the first optical sighting, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was a full 18 hour difference. Who knows if the first SN light was spotted as it just arrived?

Regardless, neutrinos arrived first.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/sn87a.html
Mass implications there too.
 
  • #6
1,414
4
Labguy said:
They (neutrinos) did arrive first. 18 hours before the first optical sighting, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was a full 18 hour difference. Who knows if the first SN light was spotted as it just arrived?

Regardless, neutrinos arrived first.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/sn87a.html
Mass implications there too.

The earliest spotted light was three hours after the neutrino detection. Photos weren't developed until the day after though, so no one noticed the light for 18 hours.
 
  • #7
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
franznietzsche said:
The earliest spotted light was three hours after the neutrino detection. Photos weren't developed until the day after though, so no one noticed the light for 18 hours.

According to the SM models, the neutrinos came out (due to their low interaction with the dense supernova material) before the actual explosion from which the light emanated.
 
  • #8
SpaceTiger
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,940
2
selfAdjoint said:
According to the SM models, the neutrinos came out (due to their low interaction with the dense supernova material) before the actual explosion from which the light emanated.
In fact, one need not even trust the models, there was a confirmed lack of optical emission approximately two hours after the neutrino events:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1987PASAu...7..141D&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=445b02ffde31822"

Even before 1987A, neutrinos were expected to be the first sign of a supernova.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Garth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,574
105
SpaceTiger said:
Do you have a reference for this? I was under the impression the neutrinos came several hours before the light.
Yes you are correct. I was allowing for the time taken for the shock of the core collapse to reach the surface and affect the brightness of the star.

Garth
 
  • #10
SpaceTiger
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,940
2
Garth said:
Yes you are correct. I was allowing for the time taken for the shock of the core collapse to reach the surface and affect the brightness of the star.
And how were you doing that? I don't see how the time it took the shock to propagate through star could have been known to very high precision, nor is there any mention of it in the papers I've seen. Again, I would ask for a reference.
 
  • #11
Garth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,574
105
SpaceTiger said:
And how were you doing that? I don't see how the time it took the shock to propagate through star could have been known to very high precision, nor is there any mention of it in the papers I've seen. Again, I would ask for a reference.
Not conclusive, as you imply, core-collapse models are speculative but try:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVN-470VHNG-K9&_coverDate=05/31/1990&_alid=449181385&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5539&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=221535cb711d7794b78aa7e95fcdea06

Neutrinos from SN 1987A - Implications for cooling of the nascent neutron star and the mass of the electron antineutrino
Abstract

Data on neutrinos from SN 1987A are compared here with parameterized models of the neutrino emission using a consistent and straightforward statistical methodology. The empirically measured detector background spectra are included in the analysis, and the data are compared with a much wider variety of neutrino emission models than was explored previously. It is shown that the inferred neutrino emission model parameters are strongly correlated. The analysis confirms that simple models of the neutrino cooling of the nascent neutron star formed by the SN adequately explain the data. The inferred radius and binding energy of the neutron star are in excellent agreement with model calculations based on a wide range of equations of state. The results also raise the upper limit of the electron antineutrino rest mass to roughly 25 eV at the 95 percent confidence level, roughly 1.5-5 times higher than found previously.
Garth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
SpaceTiger
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,940
2
Garth said:
Neither of those articles is actually accessible to me, but all are upper limits and I suspect that these limits were obtained by looking at the time width of the neutrino pulse, not the delay of the neutrinos relative to the light. The former was the standard method of obtaining a limit on the neutrino mass from SN1987A.
 
  • #13
Garth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,574
105
SpaceTiger said:
Neither of those articles is actually accessible to me, but all are upper limits and I suspect that these limits were obtained by looking at the time width of the neutrino pulse, not the delay of the neutrinos relative to the light. The former was the standard method of obtaining a limit on the neutrino mass from SN1987A.
At the time, I remember, we felt 1987A did give a lower limit to neutrino mass, although not a firm one; it was believed from the timing of the neutrino events that there were grounds that the neutrino mass was non-zero and therefore it might be a possible candidate for DM. Consequently the upper limit was also important, to establish whether the cosmic neutrino density could be sufficient to explain all of DM; of course this proved not to be the case.

For an example of a lower limit, try the best fit Monte Carlo simulation of the February 1988 paper: Neutrino mass, luminosity variation, and spectrum of SN 1987A, which you can download free.
Abstract
In this paper, the neutrino mass has been determined from SN 1987a observation in a manner that the simultaneity of neutrino emission is not regarded as the starting point, but is itself defined through the analysis by Monte-Carlo simulation. The result is that the neutrino mass lies in the 3-4 eV range, possibly mv of about 3.6 eV. Neutrino luminosity variations and neutrino spectrum are also obtained. Comparison with theories gives further support to the mass determination, and also predicts the mass of the progenitor star of SN 1987a to be in the range of 12-25 solar masses.
Subsequently, the Super-Kamiokande (neutrino oscillations) observations suggested the mass of the heaviest neutrino was much less than this estimation, probably about 0.05 electron volts.

However, their estimate of the mass of the progenitor to SN 1987A was accurate and is now thought to be 18 MSolar.

Garth
 
Last edited:
  • #14
SpaceTiger
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,940
2
Garth, this is a good example of a paper that uses the relative arrival times of the neutrino events to constrain neutrino mass. There is no use of the light from SN1987A, as best I can tell. Even further, their results are very hand-wavy and rest on questionable assumptions of the simultaneity of various "groupings" of neutrinos. Not surprisingly, they turned out to be wrong and I'm pretty sure this is not viewed as evidence for the neutrino having finite mass. Also, their estimate of the mass of the star is not being used to correlate the light and neutrino signals, it is just based on the energy distribution of neutrino events.
 
  • #15
Labguy
Science Advisor
731
7
SpaceTiger said:
Garth, this is a good example of a paper that uses the relative arrival times of the neutrino events to constrain neutrino mass. There is no use of the light from SN1987A, as best I can tell. Even further, their results are very hand-wavy and rest on questionable assumptions of the simultaneity of various "groupings" of neutrinos. Not surprisingly, they turned out to be wrong and I'm pretty sure this is not viewed as evidence for the neutrino having finite mass. Also, their estimate of the mass of the star is not being used to correlate the light and neutrino signals, it is just based on the energy distribution of neutrino events.
I can't tell, but are you saying that these sites only are not evidence for neutrino mass, or that there is no evidence for neutrino finite mass?
 
  • #16
SpaceTiger
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,940
2
Labguy said:
I can't tell, but are you saying that these sites only are not evidence for neutrino mass, or that there is no evidence for neutrino finite mass?
I'm saying I don't think SN1987A was used as evidence for a finite neutrino mass. This stuff all predates the discovery of neutrino oscillations.
 
  • #17
Labguy
Science Advisor
731
7
SpaceTiger said:
I'm saying I don't think SN1987A was used as evidence for a finite neutrino mass. This stuff all predates the discovery of neutrino oscillations.
Ok, now that makes sense.
 
  • #18
21
0
danriley said:
Would the non-differential (after very long distances and time, and taking into account the different production mechanisms) in the arrival of light and neutrinos from supernova 1987a constitute strong experimental evidence of the de facto constancy of the speed of light, ?
There is a better use of 1987A for validating the speed of light, though this may have already arisen in another thread.
 

Related Threads for: Supernova 1987a, light, neutrinos, VSL claims

  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Top