report 'proves' speed of light not a constant

[MattEU]

The report suggests that the speed of light is not constant but this was mentioned at the end.

The researchers show that their discovery should be applicable to any type of wave. This means that sound and electricity could be manipulated to control speed. Speed in the control of electricity could lead to new circuit developments that were not thought possible. Manipulation of the right frequency of light could turn on faulty enzymes or proteins that cause diseases. This is really a big deal in physics. Light does not travel at a constant speed.
British physicists prove speed of light is not a constant

[Metryq]

The researchers found that single photons and groups of photons slow down at the same rate depending on the complexity of the shape of the photon or group of photons.

Is this even possible? I was under the impression that photons were a theoretical construct and that no one had ever actually seen one—let alone controlled photons one by one. More than one "alternative" model suggests that the particle aspects of light are due to matter. (Matter is "quantized," not light.)

[MattEU]

yeah its all theories built upon theories of computer models of built on etc ... but what could you control, change if gravity is electric? What other natural forces could you change and what could you do with them?

[Metryq]

but what could you control, change if gravity is electric? What other natural forces could you change and what could you do with them?

Makes one spindizzy thinking about it!

[onezeno]

Could "slow light" explain the redshift?

[saul]

Lol. British press is ridiculous. No shame.

[saul]

The researchers found that single photons and groups of photons slow down at the same rate depending on the complexity of the shape of the photon or group of photons.

Is this even possible? I was under the impression that photons were a theoretical construct and that no one had ever actually seen one—let alone controlled photons one by one. More than one "alternative" model suggests that the particle aspects of light are due to matter. (Matter is "quantized," not light.)

I believe your impression is correct. A "photon" is a quantized emission or absorption, not a travelling object.

[D_Archer]

The researchers found that single photons and groups of photons slow down at the same rate depending on the complexity of the shape of the photon or group of photons.

Is this even possible? I was under the impression that photons were a theoretical construct and that no one had ever actually seen one—let alone controlled photons one by one. More than one "alternative" model suggests that the particle aspects of light are due to matter. (Matter is "quantized," not light.)

I believe your impression is correct. A "photon" is a quantized emission or absorption, not a travelling object.

Already taken apart: http://milesmathis.com/belowc.pdf

That is, I believe the particles coming out the other side were slowed below c. However, they were no longer photons, so photons were not being slowed below c. See the difference? What was happening is that the photons were being spun up by the mask. If they were spun up enough, they became a species of electron

Regards,
Daniel

[D_Archer]

The researchers found that single photons and groups of photons slow down at the same rate depending on the complexity of the shape of the photon or group of photons.

Is this even possible? I was under the impression that photons were a theoretical construct and that no one had ever actually seen one—let alone controlled photons one by one. More than one "alternative" model suggests that the particle aspects of light are due to matter. (Matter is "quantized," not light.)

I believe your impression is correct. A "photon" is a quantized emission or absorption, not a travelling object.

>

I was under the impression that photons were a theoretical construct and that no one had ever actually seen one

Photons are real particles with mass and radius. They also spin. Study Miles Mathis.

Regards,
Daniel

[saul]

Photons are real particles with mass and radius. They also spin. Study Miles Mathis.

Regards,
Daniel

Sorry, I was under the impression we were discussing electromagnetic radiation.

Cheers -- Saul

[Metryq]

Already taken apart: http://milesmathis.com/belowc.pdf

That is, I believe the particles coming out the other side were slowed below c. However, they were no longer photons, so photons were not being slowed below c. See the difference? What was happening is that the photons were being spun up by the mask. If they were spun up enough, they became a species of electron

Photons are real particles with mass and radius. They also spin. Study Miles Mathis.

Sorry, but that "paper" sounded like word games to me. "Let's call it something else, then by definition..."

The simple fact is that photons are imaginary particles invented by physicists with a penchant for making up new particles for everything—as though tagging something with a name somehow explains it. Instead, the idea of photons creates problems and confusion, like wave-particle duality.

The only "evidence" we have for photons is through physical interaction, like the photoelectric effect. We have good reason to believe that matter is quantized, particulate, but there's no reason to believe light is quantized, too. Light behaves like a wave—whether one believes it somehow "bootstraps" itself through nothingness, or admits that the Michelson-Morley experiment detected something, just "not enough" of it. (Some argue the math was done incorrectly, and the correct amount of "ether" was detected. However you slice it, textbooks claiming MMX found no indication at all of an ether are disingenuous.)

Back to photons. If electrons continuously receive or lose energy and change shell only when a given threshold has been passed, the experiments would look the same. Why those orbits? Perhaps there are "interference patterns" defining thresholds of stable orbits. And if matter is quantized, while light is not, lots of problems go away.

[kiwi]

You need a "reference-frame" when you are taking a/any physical measurement? .... but the reference-frame itself in this case "is" the thing they wish to measure? .... or is it just me?