Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

[webolife]

Accept for a moment the idea that we live in a part of the universe where 74% of all energy (+matter) is dark in form of strings in different sub-particle formations. We can no longer regard this as a vacuum. And we can no longer expect light to travel through this, though thin, atmosphere without some interaction. It is inevitable that multi-chromatic white light traveling through this "material" for billions of years will be affected. It is quite likely therefore that what we see as redshift consists of two components. First the well known Doppler effect, but secondly also an aging of components of the multi-chromatic white light where the higher frequencies fade the fastest making the aged, composite white light draw toward the red.
This might make an accurate measurement of the speed of light difficult.
It would also put into question how much of an observed redshift that is due to an expansion Doppler effect and how much that is caused by a relative degradation of the higher frequencies of multi-chromatic white light.

Tired light, eh? I am a proponent of this component of redshift, despite it having a poor rep in "standard" circles. No medium is necessary however. Whereas decreased intensity is the effect of distance in the plane perpendicular to the line of sight, I suggest a tired light component in the direct line-of-sight, based on my view that line is a straight line connection between me and that distant star.

[Oracle_911]

Light is traveling always by c in the benchmark system of light-source.
That is one of the reason of redshift.

[webolife]

In MY benchmark system, light does not travel at all, let alone at the slow speed of c.

[sjw40364]

Ahhh, but with a magnifying glass i can focus this entity called light and fry a few ants. IMO light must be a transmitted thing, contrary to all the theories that may tempt to explain otherwise. The thing is we have lumped too many separate events into one entity, E/M. One can emit radio waves without emitting visible light, or x-rays. But sources of visible light almost always to my awareness, emit most of the other spectrum as well. IMO light is not just a photon, photons are just emitted at the same time the particles that are light are emitted. This interweaving of particles emitted from billions of sources has created what some term "aether" and is the disturbance in this sea of particles we interpret as waves. Although perhaps only our near background, the CMB shows that space with a mean temperature of 3K cannot be a true void, but must be a sea of particles. It is simply more dense in some places and less dense in others.

[webolife]

Sounds much like MJV's quantum aether. I don't mind your word "transmitted", but are you able to visualize this word without synonymizing it with "emitted"? And how are you able to justify "photons" and "light particles" as being different beasts?

[sjw40364]

http://www.science20.com/quantum_diarie ... ment-91551

Something? or just a distraction from the ftl news?

[sjw40364]

Sounds much like MJV's quantum aether. I don't mind your word "transmitted", but are you able to visualize this word without synonymizing it with "emitted"? And how are you able to justify "photons" and "light particles" as being different beasts?

I have yet seen a single test that shows it is the photon that "IS" light, and not that the photon doesn't emit light, hence scattering effects when even the photon is blocked in slit tests.

[webolife]

Yes, I agree with your conclusion about light "scattering" and photons separating the two "entities".
But I take the spectral pattern [vs "scattering" which sounds a bit random to me] to mean no particles are involved at all, so I was simply questioning your parsing the light action into two separate types of particles. Seems a tad contra-Occam to me. For recent or new readers, I also disavow the spectral pattern as the result of interfering wavefronts [See Webocentric thread for my view on the nature of light].

[beekeeper]

Very impressed with the possible findings on neutrinos travelling faster then light in two experiments carried out in Italy in the last few months. I am wondering if anyone is following this story and its implications. What I wish to point out here is that these neutrinos created in the laboratory in Rome are leaving the experiment at a speed lower than light. When they reach their target they are then travelling at a speed greater then light in admitting that the experiment is not flawed. Neutrinos are called so because they are electrically neutral and basically without or with very little mass so they can pass through the mountains on the way to their target without being disrupted. Now what pressure could accelerate them in this fashion when we take out electricity and gravity? any guess is welcome

[seb]

Now what pressure could accelerate them in this fashion when we take out electricity and gravity? any guess is welcome

Financial pressure?

It seems to me that there is sufficient uncertainty about the nature of neutrinos that all errors cannot be accounted for in these recent experiments. On what basis do they think that the neutrinos began at below light speed? A theoretical basis? On what do they base that theory, considering that the same theory is likely to be wrong if the experiment is correct? There is a Catch-22 here: if the experiment is correct then the theory (or its assumed parameters) is wrong; but if the theory is wrong then that throws into doubt the correctness of the experiment.

One of them has to give. If the experiment gives then the theory could still stand. If the theory gives then the experiment becomes doubtful too, since its results are interpreted within the context of the theory.

Seb.

[sjw40364]

Now what pressure could accelerate them in this fashion when we take out electricity and gravity? any guess is welcome

Financial pressure?

It seems to me that there is sufficient uncertainty about the nature of neutrinos that all errors cannot be accounted for in these recent experiments. On what basis do they think that the neutrinos began at below light speed? A theoretical basis? On what do they base that theory, considering that the same theory is likely to be wrong if the experiment is correct? There is a Catch-22 here: if the experiment is correct then the theory (or its assumed parameters) is wrong; but if the theory is wrong then that throws into doubt the correctness of the experiment.

One of them has to give. If the experiment gives then the theory could still stand. If the theory gives then the experiment becomes doubtful too, since its results are interpreted within the context of the theory.

Seb.

I have no problem with ftl affects as I certainly do not believe the photon is the smallest particle, just at the edge of our technology. Also gravitational or E/M systems would fall apart at updates at the slow speed of c, this solar system-wide, let alone galactic. That c is even remotely considered the fastest anything can travel seems the more impossible and fantastic to me than the reverse.

[beekeeper]

greetings I must admit that we have to accept the limits of the technology involved. One of these being that even the most advanced accelerator cannot shoot any particles that reach the conventionnally accepted speed of light, let alone surpass it. So from that perspective I must assume that these neutrinos were ejected at a speed below c. theories remain theories until proven right where they become facts, or wrong where they become history. Gravity and electricity are facts and forces of nature. the argument is about which plays a greater role in the nature of every thing. I support the electrical univers because my researchs on the works of many, and my personel beliefs have lead me there. But I do not reject in any ways the possibilities that other forces, maybe even more powerful then electricity, may be at play in the great scheme of things.

[StalkingGoogle]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401728,00.asp

In what's hopefully the final page to the story that wouldn't die – at least, not until someone takes a cue from Star Trek and invents a warp drive – scientists have gone and performed a retest of last year's experiment that suggested some subatomic particles were travelling faster than the speed of light.

The result? Hold onto your hats: Einstein's special theory of relativity remains in effect. The measured neutrinos do not, in fact, cross the speed limit of 186,282 miles per second.

[Goldminer]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401728,00.asp

In what's hopefully the final page to the story that wouldn't die – at least, not until someone takes a cue from Star Trek and invents a warp drive – scientists have gone and performed a retest of last year's experiment that suggested some subatomic particles were travelling faster than the speed of light.

The result? Hold onto your hats: Einstein's special theory of relativity remains in effect. The measured neutrinos do not, in fact, cross the speed limit of 186,282 miles per second.

All is well and good, since the neutrino itself is just a thinly wrapped concoction, an answer to a question that didn't need to be asked! My hat is off to Einstein, may he roll over in his grave.

[upriver]

If Neutrinos were the massless energy in Aetherometry's model of the Photon, that would explain FTL observations of Neutrinos...

" More fundamentally, the transmission of Light in vacuo involves the propagation of massfree (ambipolar) electric fields(neutrinos) responsible for the excitation wave(s), and whose energy can be "punctually" captured by massbound charges to sustain kinetic states. Light (ie blackbody photons), then, is only generated locally when these kinetic states of massbound particles decay by energy shedding."


JAR02-09-01:
Correa, P & Correa, A (2012)
What is a photon? And how and why are photons massless?

The monograph succinctly compares electromagnetic and aetherometric theories of the photon. Experimentally and theoretically, photons are shown to be massfree particles devoid of electric charge or structure. The fundamental types of photons - ionizing and blackbody, and amongst the latter, high and low frequency ones - are distinguished by their physical fine structure, and their chemical and biological effects. Production of photons is shown to always be local and referenced to the inertial frame of the emitter (massbound charge), even when photons display significant ballistic-like displacement, as is the case with ionizing photons. The theorized mass of photons is functionally found to be the amplitude wavelength for the displacement of the photon energy flux, and the latter analyzed by the particularities of its Space- and Time-manifolds. Photons are shown to have a globular wave envelope. The energy flux of all photons obeys a universal timing constant, but because the globular envelope of blackbody photons is a composite one, the duration of the formation of a complete blackbody envelope is given by the reciprocal of the quantum frequency of its light and energy.


http://www.aetherometry.com/publication ... -09-01.pdf