Am 20.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Magnus Danielson: > On 11/20/2011 11:10 PM, Justin Pinnix wrote: >> I'm no physicist, but is it possible that the speed of light is faster >> than >> we thought it is? Space isn't a perfect vaccum, and we know neutrinos >> are >> less affected by "stuff" than photons. Maybe they travel closer to c >> than >> the actual photons we have been able to measure... > > The speed of light is the speed of photons. For all we know we have > pinned down the speed of light fairly well, and a deviation of 25 ppm or > so would have been noticed. > > The speed of "normal matter" (electrons, quarks, etc), all being > particles of charge and thus interacting with photons also seems to obey > the speed of photons, and then the laws of relativity surely applies. > > The speed of neutrinos might be higher than photons, and current > measures seems to indicate a slightly higher speed, but then again > neutrinos does not interact with photons. Possibly this has a deeper > meaning. It might be that the laws of relativity is relevant within that > force-carrier system, but not outside it. This doesn't really shakes the > laws of relativity in its grounds, it just defines a slightly different > box within the laws applies. > > Recall, physics advances with unexplained observations. Either it can be > explained within the existing system and everybody is happy about that, > or new core theories needs to be developed. Neutrinos has been hard to > do qualitative measures on and looking at the OPERA, MINOS and T2K > experiments indicates that there is indeed not small efforts. > > Now, regardless if photons and neutrinos has the same speed or not, it > becomes interesting to ask what makes them have the speed they have. If > it differs, why is the photons slower than neutrinos? Is there in fact > some underlying subtle force acting on them? > > If we think we don't quite understand neutrinos, do we really understand > photons? Their particle/wave duality is indeed strange and just taken > for granted now, but it is really not explained. > > This little micro-cosmos may have familiar names by now, but even with > vibrating strings, membranes and other esoterical stuff, we just don't > really understand it very well, we just have a bunch of theories. > > Cheers, > Magnus >
Hi, this paper seem to be very interesting. But does it fully explain this subject-matter correct and fully? I am not in the position to assess it. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1111/1111.0805v1.pdf Cheers Arnold _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
