It has also been proven in labaratory experiments within the last year or so, that "c" is not "c", (meaning light is not constant). They have actually shown, (on very small scales, obviously), that light can be slowed down as well as increased, which also sheds a somewhat dubious light on Einstein's theory.
It's possible that things can travel slightly faster than the speed of light, I suppose. But to this point, "c" is always "c", which is the speed of light under certain conditions (in a vacuum or in space or however it's measured). But the speed of light isn't always "c", for instance light traveling through water. So while it's possible that particles travel faster than "c", it's also probably possible for a particle to travel faster than light but still not be faster than "c".
Yeah, i was under the impression that "c" is "c" no matter what.
It has been described to me (simplistically) like this: Imagine you have a radar gun and clock a car coming at you at 40mph. But then imagine you are moving toward that car at 10mpg. What speed does your radar clock the speed of the car at? 50mph. But if light is coming at you (in a vacuum), the speed of light is "c". And if you move toward that light, at any speed, as it comes at you and clock it, the speed is still "c". I was under the impression that had been proven also?
But that is exactly what is being questioned, that the measurement or "constant" speed of light, (value of "c"), is no longer a constant, or is varying in measurements, (and not in relation to space/time, but in a vacuum).
That is what has some scientists so excited, and what these articles and discussions are about.
Here's the Montgomery & Dolphin Compilations again (Setterfield):
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdata.txt
This is just one set of proofs I know, but still pretty compelling numbers.
Pretty cool discussion, folks.
The speed of light can vary as light goes through different mediums (such as air, glass or water). It can also vary (or at least appear to vary) due to gravity. But people need to consider how this affects the argument in question. If you really wanted to measure how long it takes something to get from point A to point B you have to have extremely accurate measurements in distance and 2 clocks that are in almost perfect lockstep. But in this case the distance measured is 454 miles and the clocks are that far apart.
If the overall accuracy of the test is less than 10ns, the distance would have to be accurate to with the distance light travels in a few ns, so about a millimeter or so. It's unlikely that you're going to physically measure (with a ruler or some type of device) a distance of 454 miles to within a millimeter. They're probably using a laser to calibrate the distance. Likewise, if they wanted to try and synchronize clocks they'd likely have to send a laser or something and base the synchronization on how long it takes the light to get there.
I'm sure these physicists are clever, but I think that on some level they'd be measuring the distance by timing how long it takes light to get there and back. Like the way we measure the distance to the moon, reflecting a laser off of a mirror on the moon. But this is based on an assumption on how fast the light's traveling. In other words, they know that light travels slightly slower through our atmosphere, but they can't measure that effect by timing how long it takes light to get to the moon because they'd need a precise distance. But there's no way to get a precise measurement independent of light.
Back to the neutrino story, we know that there can be slight variations to the speed of light based on external factors. But there's no way (at least no easy way) to precisely measure the speed of *that* light (in other words, accurately measure exactly how long it took the light to get from point A to point B. What is doable is to make a relative comparison of the speed of the the neutrinos to the speed of light.
Your clocks don't have to be synchronized and you don't have to know the distance, but your clocks have to be very accurate. So at point A you can shine a laser and then send a beam of neutrinos exactly 2 seconds (or any amount of time) later. At point B you measure when you receive the beams of light and neutrinos. If the time between the two beams is more than 2 seconds, the light was faster. If the time is less than 2 seconds, the neutrinos were faster. However, since you didn't precisely measure the speed of the light, you don't know whether neutrinos that travel faster than light was actually faster than the speed of light in a vacuum in space.
Realistically, you might not even know that the neutrinos were actually traveling faster than the light, if the neutrinos were less affected by gravity they might have traveled in a straighter line, hence traveling a smaller distance.
Topic: Einstein was wrong? Subatomic particles move faster than light? (Read 27641 times)