Speed of light theory challenged

[ktlight]

FYI:
"Scientists are becoming more confident that they will be able to contradict Einstein's assertion that nothing can travel faster than light, after carrying out another test.

Italian physicists first made the startling claim in September but have now repeated an adapted version of their experiment, which produced the same result.

The test suggests that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can break the barrier. If such tests can be repeated, they would challenge one of the fundamental assumptions of modern physics.

Scientists have submitted their latest findings to the Journal of High Energy Physics for consideration. They said that they had waited until now to submit the paper to take into account suggestions from other scientists and carry out a new test.

They beamed neutrinos through 730 kilometres (454 miles) of rock from the nuclear research facility Cern in Switzerland to Gran Sasso, Italy.

A light beam would take 2.4 milliseconds to travel the distance - but both experiments have shown a neutrino can beat it there by 60 billionths of a second.

In 1905, Albert Einstein stated in his theory of special relativity that nothing can travel faster than a light beam in a vacuum - 168,282 miles per second. According to the theory, it would take an infinite amount of energy to exceed light speed.

The tests were carried out by Opera - the Oscillation Project with Emulsion Tracking Apparatus. Fernando Ferroni, president of the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics, said: "A measurement so delicate and carrying a profound implication on physics requires an extraordinary level of scrutiny.

"The experiment Opera, thanks to a specially adapted Cern beam, has made an important test of consistency of its result.The positive outcome of the test makes us more confident in the result, although a final word can only be said by analogous measurements performed elsewhere in the world."

Physicists in Japan will now try to repeat the experiment, with the help of scientists from Liverpool University. Professor Themis Bowcock, head of the university's particle physics team, said: "Should neutrinos travel faster than light, it would overthrow our ideas of the structure of space and time.""

source
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/speed-light-theory-challenged-170444597.html

[jackovesk]

CERN Experiment Excludes 1 Error In Faster-Than-Light Finding

18 November 2011

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/409662/thumbs/r-CERN-EXPERIMENT-large570.jpg

GENEVA — The chances have risen that Einstein was wrong about a fundamental law of the universe.

Scientists at the world's biggest physics lab said Friday they have ruled out one possible error that could have distorted their startling measurements that appeared to show particles traveling faster than light.

Many physicists reacted with skepticism in September when measurements by French and Italian researchers seemed to show subatomic neutrino particles breaking what Nobel Prize-winning physicist Albert Einstein considered the ultimate speed barrier.

The European Organization for Nuclear Research said more precise testing has now confirmed the accuracy of at least one part of the experiment.

"One key test was to repeat the measurement with very short beam pulses," the Geneva-based organization, known by its French acronym CERN, said in a statement.

The test allowed scientists to check if the starting time for the neutrinos was being measured correctly before they were fired 454 miles (730 kilometers) underground from Geneva to a lab in Italy.

The results matched those from the previous test, "ruling out one potential source of systematic error," said CERN.

Still, scientists stressed that only independent measurements by labs elsewhere would allow them to declare that the results of their experiment were a genuine finding.

"A measurement so delicate and carrying a profound implication on physics requires an extraordinary level of scrutiny," said Fernando Ferroni, president of Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics. "The positive outcome of the test makes us more confident in the result, although a final word can only be said by analogous measurements performed elsewhere in the world."

According to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity, nothing is meant to be able to go faster than the speed of light – 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second).

But the researchers said in September that their neutrinos traveled 60 nanoseconds faster, when the margin of error in their experiment allowed for just 10 nanoseconds. A nanosecond is one-billionth of a second.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i5ADQr7sPQ

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/cern-experiment-faster-than-light_n_1101151.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C114049

[Earthship]

What would be the implications if this finding is re-confirmed again and again to be right?
How could change our perception of the world, and our approach to the world?

[ThePythonicCow]

What would be the implications if this finding is re-confirmed again and again to be right?
How could change our perception of the world, and our approach to the world?

These neutrinos got there about 58 feet sooner then they should have, after a journey of about 450 miles == 2,376,000 feet. That's 58 parts in 2376000, or approximately one part in 40,000 faster than light speed.

The actual reports say 58 nanoseconds sooner, but as Captain Grace Hopper (of COBOL fame) liked to remind us, a foot is about a nanosecond, at light speed.

One part in 40,000 faster than light speed is small enough that most will figure this is just a persistent error, as in the following quote (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/experiment-shows-neutrinos-travel-faster-speed-light-challenging-einstein-theory-relativity-article-1.980085):
Alvaro de Rujula, a CERN theorist, said there were two interpretations of the experiment. "One is that they have stumbled upon a revolutionary discovery; the other, on which I would place my bet, is that they are still making and not finding the very same error."

[Carmody]

If you go to the lithium thread and check on the Eric Dollard video links, it is illustrated that FTL or longitudinal waves are possible and actually...very very very real.

They show the rotational vector mechanics of the situation, via making an electrical motor that according to all known and used theory--- should not work. how extreme current cause the voltage field to proceed the current and set conditions for the fields to develop and interact, via spinning vector mechanics of aether flow. gyroscopic function, at another level or scale.

It's right in the video......... You get to see it work.n Plain as day. Gyroscopic function ends up illustrating FTL phenomena.

a very large number of alternative researchers stumble upon FTL, and over unity from the very basic and obvious point that gyroscopes are largely unexplained in a true working sense and cannot do what they do, according to known theory.

[Gwin Ru]

...

... "Speed of Light"... well, apparently, it's not constant to start with...

Forbidden Science (https://www.sott.net/article/478903-Forbidden-Science)

Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Ark Jadczyk Blogspot (https://ark-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2023/03/forbidden-science.html)
Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:01 UTC

[...]

P.S.1. 01-04-23 A friend, physicist, sent me this morning a link to this video by Rupert Sheldrake:

JKHUaNAxsTg

And there, in particular:

00:09:53
"But I want to spend a few moments on the constants of nature too. Because these are, again, assumed to be constant. Things like the gravitational constant of the speed of light are called the fundamental constants. Are they really constant? Well, when I got interested in this question, I tried to find out. They're given in physics handbooks. Handbooks of physics list the existing fundamental constants, tell you their value. But I wanted to see if they'd changed, so I got the old volumes of physical handbooks. I went to the patent office library here in London - they're the only place I could find that kept the old volumes. Normally people throw them away when the new values (volumes) come out, they throw away the old ones.

"When I did this I found that the speed of light dropped between nineteen twenty-eight and nineteen fourty-five by about twenty kilometers per second. It's a huge drop because they're given with errors of any fractions of a second/decimal points of error. And yet, all over the world, it dropped, and they were all getting very similar values to each other with tiny errors. Then in nineteen fourty-eight, it went up again. And then people started getting very similar values again. I was very intrigued by this and I couldn't make sense of it, so I went to see the head of metrology at the National Physical Laboratory in Eddington.

"Metrology is the science in which people measure constants. And I asked him about this, I said "what do you make of this drop in the speed of light between nineteen twenty-eight and nineteen fourty-five?" And he said "oh dear", he said "you've uncovered the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science."

"So I said "well, could the speed of light have actually dropped? And that would have amazing implications if so." He said "no, no, of course it couldn't have actually dropped. It's a constant!" "Oh, well then how do you explain the fact that everyone was finding it going much slower during that period? Is it because they were fudging their results to get what they thought other people should be getting and the whole thing was just produced in the minds of physicists?" "We don't like to use the word 'fudge'."I said "Well, so what do you prefer?" He said "well, we prefer to call it 'intellectual phase-locking'." So I said "well if it was going on then, how can you be so sure it's not going on today? And the present values produced are by intellectual phase-locking?" And he said "oh we know that's not the case."And I said "how do we know?" He said "well", he said "we've solved the problem." And I said "well how?"

"And he said "well we fixed the speed of light by definition in nineteen seventy-two." So I said "but it might still change." He said "yes, but we'd never know it, because we've defined the metre in terms of the speed of light, so the units would change with it!" So he looked very pleased about that, they'd fixed that problem. But I said "well, then what about big G?" The gravitational constant, known in the trade as "big G", it was written with a capital G. Newton's universal gravitational constant. "That's varied by more than 1.3% in recent years. And it seems to vary from place to place and from time to time. "And he said "oh well, those are just errors. And unfortunately there are quite big errors with big G." So I said "well, what if it's really changing? I mean, perhaps it is really changing." And then I looked at how they do it, what happens is they measure it in different labs, they get different values on different days, and then they average them.

"And then other labs around the world do the same, they come out usually with a rather different average. And then the international committee of metrology meets every ten years or so and average the ones from labs all around the world to come up with the value of big G. But what if G were actually fluctuating? What if it changed? There's already evidence actually that it changes throughout the day and throughout the year. What if the earth, as it moves through the galactic environment went through patches of dark matter or other environmental factors that could alter it? Maybe they all change together. What if these errors are going up together and down together? For more than ten years I've been trying to persuade metrologists to look at the raw data. In fact I'm now trying to persuade them to put it up online, on the internet. With the dates, and the actual measurements, and see if they're correlated. To see if they're all up at one time, all down at another. If so, they might be fluctuating together. And what would tell us something very, very interesting. But no-one has done this, they haven't done it because G is a constant. There's no point looking for changes."