
Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC - pmjoyce
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484
======
DanielBMarkham
A news article where both the scientists and the reporter understate the
claims, publish the data, and ask other teams to please prove them wrong.

I like this. Most of the time the reporters overstate the research, the
scientists keep the data secret, and the general public is left scratching
their heads.

~~~
beloch
Scientists generally do not keep data secret. They try to publish as much as
they can actually! This is how you get nice things like funding and tenure!

Most of the time reporters misunderstand the research and then oversell it in
order to get their story read. The general public is usually left scratching
their heads because of this bizarre layer of clueless journalists between them
and the scientists. Yes, some scientists are hard to understand, but there's
no hope in trying to understand particle physics filtered through the soft
spongy grey matter of a liberal arts major! Scientists are quite often
educators who are used to speaking to a wide range of audiences. Journalists
would do far far better to introduce the subject and then let the scientist
explain it _in their own words_. I have no idea why this is not done more.

As for the FTL neutrinos at CERN... I'd hold on to skepticism for now. The
reason they're asking for help finding the glitch instead of proudly
proclaiming that they've found tachyons (FTL particles) is because this would
be a truly bizarre result that would upend a century of physics that has, to
date, proved remarkably accurate in its predictions. If this discovery proved
true it would literally force us to rewrite physics from ~1900 onwards.
Physicists are not afraid of this. Quite the contrary! It would touch off a
bonanza of research! There would be so much work to do that the field would
literally explode. It's just a lot more probable that there really is a glitch
somewhere and we simply haven't found it yet.

This actually would not be the first time that tachyons were "found". A group
in the 70's found statistically significant evidence for them preceding cosmic
showers. They were so sure of their results that they published. Then, a year
or two later, they discovered that it was just a glitch in their electronics!
These guys were small fry compared to CERN, but CERN's accelerator is so
complex that glitches could be very hard to find. The scientists at CERN are
clearly out of ideas and mean just what they say: They don't believe their
results and they want help finding the glitch that's probably causing them.
It's extremely irresponsible to report this story as if FTL particles have
really been found before CERN has had a chance to consult with outside
scientists and other facilities have had a chance to try reproducing their
results.

~~~
trocker
Yes,the mankind would literally need to rewrite physics! It will be so
exciting to be a part of it!

About the 70's group, can you share the link to the article?

~~~
azulum
am i the only one that has come to love the scientific method simply because
it creates more questions than it answers. there is just so much that we do
not and cannot understand. the more we learn, the less we know. fantastic.

on the flipside, i would be certain that certainty is a particular kind of
hell, if having such knowledge didn't condemn me to it. excuse me while i
proceed to consume my tail <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros>

~~~
samstave
The Scientific Method could be boiled down to:

10: Question Reality

20: Verify Results

30: GOTO 10

~~~
InclinedPlane
10: Question (the currently accepted model of) Reality

20: Verify Results

30: GOTO 10

------
foob
If this result is valid then it would mean that neutrinos are capable of
traveling .0025% faster than light. There was a supernova that we observed in
1987 (SN 1987) that occurred 168,000 light years away from us. A neutrino
burst was observed in 3 different labs about 3 hours before the light was
observed. If neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than the speed
of light then why would we observe these neutrinos at a time that is
consistent with them traveling at almost exactly the speed of light (slightly
less due to their finite mass)? A difference of .0025% would correspond to the
neutrinos arriving 4 years earlier! This is the first experimental
contradiction to this result that pops into my head but there are probably
many more.

Plain and simple, this is most likely due to a systematic error in their
experiment that isn't being properly taken into account. The result would tear
apart well established theories that have been tested time and time again in
thousands of different ways. Of course that doesn't mean that they're
absolutely right but it does mean that any contradictory result has to be
initially taken with a grain of salt (kudos to the article writer for doing
this). It's easy to mess up a calibration in such a complicated system and 60
nanosecond errors could potentially pop up. It will be interesting to see the
results from other labs but I would advise against getting your hopes up for
any new physics.

~~~
nickolai
Um... is there any trace of neutrino bursts before that? Im not sure anyone
bothered checking, since such a correlation would have been very hard to
justify. A neutrino burst 4 years before a supernova... _so what?_

Could a physicist clarify whether neutrinos could travel at different speeds
in vacuum like any 'normal' particle, or are 'fixed speed' like photons. We
could well have had several waves with the bulk arriving at c-epsilon and no
one bothering to check outside the expected time frame.

~~~
lutorm
Well, the point is that there _was_ a neutrino burst coincident with SN87a. So
if there was one 4yr earlier, too, then you'd have to explain how the same
event produced two bursts of neutrinos with different speeds, while _within_
the burst they apparently had exactly the same speed.

If neutrinos have mass, they can travel at any speed <c depending on their
energy, like any other massive particle. Of course, the upper mass limit is
quite low, so even with very little energy they will go very fast.

(Edit: In fact, the arrival interval of those neutrinos puts an upper limit on
the neutrino mass, because the larger the mass, the more different the speed
and the more dispersed the arrival of them at Earth.)

~~~
kpanghmc
Maybe the neutrinos that appeared 3 hours before the event are from another
event altogether (one that occurred even further away, whose light particles
haven't even reached us yet)?

~~~
lutorm
Given that the flux goes as 1/r^2, and the sum total of the neutrinos detected
in association with 87a was something like 17, a SN in any external galaxy
would be undetectable.

------
DenisM
There was an experiment where an impulse of light came out the other end of a
material faster than light could have traveled through vacuum in the same
space. The eventual explanation was as follows - imagine that your outgoing
bunch of photons looks like this: :::... The first three photons are
"invisible" because there is so few of them that they are below the equipment
sensitivity. The second group of six particles is more dense and so they are
visible to equipment. Hence, it is deemed that the light has "entered" the
material when the second group has entered, long past after the first one
actually did. Having entered the material the first group has triggered
release of energy from the material, and the second group was partially
consumed by the material (energizing it for the next time around). The
outgoing bunch looked like this: ...::: And this time it was the first group
of photons that was detected. So the apparent speed of the beam was higher
than the speed of light. However that's not because the same particles
traveled faster than light, but because the peak energy of the entire bunch
has shifted forward during travel. If you try hard enough, the light will have
"exited" the material before it has "entered".

Similar thing could be happening here.

~~~
jxcole
That is such a well known result in physics that the likelihood of it
occurring here is almost zero. I remember first reading about it and the
scientists basically said "we broke the speed of light" without looking for
further explanations. These guys seem like they generally don't believe that
they have broken the light barrier, but they need help figuring out what they
actually did do from the broader community. Due to their very humble attitude,
I bet they examined the literature and ruled this particular possibility out
very early on.

I bet you there is a systematic error, but I don't think it's this one.

My general rule with physics is that if I can think of it, then a real
physicist will laugh at it's triviality.

~~~
Confusion
What DenisM is describing is not the result of a systemic error. It is not an
error at all. 'Something' is travelling faster than light in that experiment.
The problem is that the 'something' isn't a physical object.

The common example is the beam of a lighthouse. Suppose a lighthouse revolves
once per minute. At one lightyear distance from the lighthouse, the angular
velocity of the beam is 2*Pi lightyears per minute, which is much faster than
the speed of light. However, this is not a problem: the beam is not a physical
entity. There is no single particle actually travelling faster than the speed
of light. It's just some construct in our minds to which we assign that
velocity.

Something similar is happening in the experiment described by your parent and
possibly in the experiment in the linked article.

~~~
Permit
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I think DenisM was talking about something
completely different. He mentioned that because of a lack of density in the
leading photons, the first piece of equipment missed the measurements while
the second one picked it up. That would a problem with the system they're
measuring with, not at all to do with treating light as a single entity.

~~~
Confusion
As I interpreted it, the critical part of his explanation is the fact that the
higher density part shifted from the back to the front. If that change in
density would be due to actual photons shifting that way, then those photons
would have traveled faster than light (whereas the entire 'blob', on average,
traveled exactly at the speed of light).

~~~
msutherl
Could be explained if the photos leaving the source look like this: :::::.....
and arrive like this: :::::.::, where the 'tip' folds back on itself to become
visible, still before the original bulk of the photon cluster.

------
nickolai
Similar results seem to have already been obtained in the past

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Speed>

QUOTE

In the early 1980s, first measurements of neutrino speed were done using
pulsed pion beams (produced by pulsed proton beams hitting a target). The
pions decayed producing neutrinos, and the neutrino interactions observed
within a time window in a detector at a distance were consistent with the
speed of light. This measurement has been repeated using the MINOS detectors,
which found the speed of 3 GeV neutrinos to be _1.000051(29)_ c. While the
central value is higher than the speed of light, the uncertainty is great
enough that it is very likely that the true velocity is not greater than the
speed of light. This measurement set an upper bound on the mass of the muon
neutrino of 50 MeV at 99% confidence.

/QUOTE

The value looks awfully like what we have in front of us today, but the
uncertainty was too big to investigate further

EDIT : actual paper :<http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0437>

~~~
cpeterso
> ... found the speed of 3 GeV neutrinos to be 1.000051(29) c.

What does the "(29)" in "1.000051(29) c" mean?

~~~
BoppreH
I'm not sure, but I think it represents uncertainty over the last digits.

So 1.000051(29) would be equivalent to 1.000051 +- 0.000029.

~~~
kaybe
Yes, that is what it means. :)

~~~
jlarocco
That can't be it because the error wouldn't straddle the speed of light. It
would put the range at 1.000022 _c to 1.000080_ c, both of which exceed c, so
they wouldn't have written it off as error.

~~~
Ralith
But that doesn't indicate a hard error bound; this is a statistical matter,
after all. Most likely it's just an expected standard deviation.

~~~
Bootvis
It indeed is the standard deviation.

------
steverb
I desperately want to believe that this will somehow enable us to live in a
Star-Trek future, even though I'm sure it won't.

Would someone with some knowledge of physics care to break down the
ramifications of this (if it's not some sort of measurement error)?

Please?

~~~
rbanffy
In any case, I'd like to submit my resume to the Time Travel Bureau. I am a
computer collector and I am very familiar with many of the technologies time
travelers from the future may want to procure. ;-)

~~~
planckscnst
Why would they procure them from you rather than go get a fresh new one from
the day it was made?

~~~
rbanffy
I'm not selling the devices - I'm selling the expertise ;-) How do you know
the best time and place to buy, say, a Mattel Aquarius or an A-series Unisys
mainframe on an ISA board?

------
gaika
It wouldn't break current theory, it would just mean that photons travel
slower than "speed of light" and have non-zero rest mass. Constant c in
relativity instead of speed of photons would just mean fastest speed possible.

~~~
jasonkolb
Isn't the speed at which photons travel, by definition, the speed of light?

And as for the "c" in e=mc^2, doesn't this suddenly make "c" an unknown
constant? Doesn't the fact that "c" changes suddenly change the values of the
other variables in that equation as well? That seems pretty fundamental to
me...

~~~
dfranke
_Isn't the speed at which photons travel, by definition, the speed of light?_

Photons speed up and slow down routinely, depending on what medium they're
traveling through. _c_ , as it is used in the equations of relativity, is
currently believed to be equal to the speed of light in a vacuum. But, with my
limited knowledge of GR, my understanding is that gaika is correct and that
the rest of the theory can still stand if this equality is broken.

~~~
doctoboggan
This isn't technically correct. Photons _always_ travel the same speed but in
certain materials they are absorbed and emitted by atoms, causing their
apparent speed to slow down.

A photon's instantaneous speed is always the speed of light.

------
mun2mun
Some days ago I saw some people here saying that billions of dollars was
wasted in LHC. I would like to know their opinion about new findings.

The post in question <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2943950> .

~~~
pinko
This wasn't the LHC. It was a non-LHC experiment at CERN.

(I agree with your sentiment, however.)

~~~
archgoon
Agreeing still with the sentiment. However, if this is correct, the data from
the LHC will confine the new theories, which will be very important.

------
pitchups
Just for reference Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity - does not strictly
prohibit the existence of particles that travel faster than the speed of
light, it only prohibits acceleration in an inertial frame to reach the speed
of light :

As per Wikipedia ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light> )

"In special relativity, while it is impossible in an inertial frame to
accelerate an object to the speed of light, or for a massive object to move at
the speed of light, it is not impossible for an object to exist which always
moves faster than light."

~~~
hugh3
True, but such a particle would violate causality and allow messages to be
sent backwards through time (including, presumably, the message "Hey, don't
send this message") which causes potentially nasty causality violations. Great
Scott!

------
Jun8
Is it Bbc's policy not to capitalize acronyms? It's CERN, not Cern, and they
did it multiple times.

------
gluejar
discussion by people who actually know stuff:
[http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-
superlumin...](http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-
superluminal/)

~~~
vrode
Superluminal Travel is a sexier name.

------
coffeenut
If I calculated correctly, that's only about .0025% faster than c. Practical
implications?

~~~
nickolai
> Practical implications?

Print out 90% of physics articles from the century. Get big trash can. Put
printout in trash can.

Of course i'm exaggerating, but if the story is true, this is going to be big.

Speed of light is the main block for things like time travel and a hard limit
on communication speed.

It doesn't matter that it is only 0.0025%, what matters is that it can be
done(if it is confirmed). As a(very poor) analogy, the first CPUs were
probably about 0.0025% the speed of the modern ones, yet look where we are
today, in no small part thanks to them. The point is, if true, this may well
open a whole new realm in physics, and who knows what we will find there.

~~~
ShawnJG
This is it in a nut shell. While the ramifications are hard to predict at this
moment, they are huge. E=mc^2 prob won't effect practical physics that we deal
with on a daily basis. but as far theoretical physics the impact is enormous.
time space fabric warping, wormholes (existence, creation and artificial
stabilization), how fast the universe is speeding apart, our calculations for
where things are in our solar system and beyond and a whole host of other
things physics relies on the formula to calculate.

what i am most excited for is the possibility to travel faster than the speed
of light. conventional theory dictated that the more mass you have the more
fuel you would need to break the lightspeed barrier, however the closer you
approach the speed of light the more fuel you would need therefore increasing
your mass infinitely putting you in a perpetual null loop. but if that
equation changes and we know that there are particles that travel faster than
light speed limit we may have to re-examine this theorem. Especially with new
power sources being discovered on the atomic and quantum levels. The splitting
of those bonds if harnessed yield promising potential. Not to mention the
existence of antimatter which releases catastrophic amounts of energy when in
contact with matter. We can't seem to find any right now so were limited with
how much we can make which is a miniscule amount. Limits the production seem
to be on a physics level as opposed to a technological one. But who knows if
the speed of light is up for discussion almost anything can be in a table.

------
nikcub
Headline is wrong - this experiment has nothing to do with the LHC

------
fl3tch
Phil Plait puts this into perspective:

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/22/fa...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/22/faster-
than-light-travel-discovered-slow-down-folks/)

------
splat
The paper is now up: <http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897>

------
biot
Considering that neutrinos can pass through a light year of solid lead
unimpeded[0], they must face a lot of challenges in determining when a
neutrino has been generated and when they are finally able to detect one
arriving at its destination.

[0] [http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrin...](http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrino3.html)

------
TechnoFou
Wow..... this is capital news! There is a flaw in our whole comprehension of
physics and our basic understanding of everything that surrounds us. There
might be faster that the fastest we have ever imagined and based our
calculations on.

Yet, we see news like "Kardashian hubby's bad first impression" on the first
page of sites like Yahoo "news", disappointing...

~~~
Maro
No, no capital news.

Almost certainly this is a measurement error or some other mistake. If a
couple of years from now nobody found an error and a bunch of independent
groups reproduced the results, then it's time for capital news!

------
watmough
Bearing in mind 'spooky action at a distance', shouldn't we be expecting to
see some kind of mechanism that would imply some kind of particle accounting
behind the scenes, that might appear as objects or information moving faster
than the speed of light?

~~~
danparsonson
Assuming you're talking about entanglement (an effect of quantum mechanics),
then no. Since QM describes the behaviour of particles (such as the 'faster
than light' neutrinos in this experiment), you can't use the behaviour of
particles to describe QM.

------
leoh
Old CERN publication from 1998 suggesting that neutrinos could travel faster
than c <http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/340078/files/9712265.pdf>

------
tsycho
"...the researchers noticed that the particles showed up a few billionths of a
second sooner..."

I am impressed that their measuring instruments have a precision that is
(statistically significant-ly) smaller than a billionth of a second.

~~~
sp332
How do you think gigabit ethernet works?

~~~
sliverstorm
I don't have the specs, but 100Mbit operates at 31MHz. Remember, quad-twisted
pair. So it is likely 1Gbit operates at ~300MHz.

Now, 10Gbit probably _does_ operate with a period less than 1ns. (1 billionth
of a second)

~~~
sp332
Over Cat5e, it uses all 4 pairs and 2 bits per symbol, so it's only 125M
symbols per second (per pair). I was thinking of fiber, which I think also
uses 2 bits per symbol so it would need 500M symbols per second.

------
aufreak3
The most striking thing that came across to me in the report is that the time
difference is 60ns thereabouts!

Thats a whole lot of time delay, not a "tiny fraction" as the reports say.
Light travels about 18m (~60 feet) in that time. A modern cpu will have
processed more than 100 instructions in that time interval. So you don't
actually need a CERN quality clock to measure it.

So if this turns out to be due to systematic errors of various kinds, I'm
wondering what _other_ measurements from the lab will be cast into doubt as a
consequence!

Exciting result and possibly exciting times ahead for physics.

------
base
This seems to be somewhat related:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varying_speed_of_light>

"The variable speed of light (VSL) concept states that the speed of light in a
vacuum, usually denoted by c, may not be constant in most cases."

"In 1998, Magueijo teamed with Andreas Albrecht to work on the varying speed
of light (VSL) theory of cosmology, which proposes that the speed of light was
much higher in the early universe, of 60 orders of magnitude faster than its
present value."

------
azulum
_But for now, he explained, "we are not claiming things, we want just to be
helped by the community in understanding our crazy result - because it is
crazy"._

is it _really_ crazier than nothing being able to travel faster than light? it
sure as hell isn't crazier than particles flitting into and out of existence
at the subatomic level all the time. the fact is, that most things science has
uncovered, particularly in the last 100 years, have been nothing short of
hysterical. and for this, dear researchers, i thank you.

------
scotty79
Ok. Call off SETI until we master neutrinos for communication.

They pass through matter as it wasn't there AND could be faster than light?
Aliens must have been stupid to use radio waves.

------
fractallyte
Taking a different point of view, perhaps there's nothing superluminal about
this: what if the neutrinos are indeed travelling at 'true' c, whereas light
is 'tiring out' over the same distance?
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>)

The idea of cosmological redshifts would need revision, and thus our
understanding of the universe. But at least c remains unassailable...

------
jholman
Why does the link title claim that the result is at the LHC? The LHC is not
involved in this story at all.

Edit: other than the obvious reason of "linkbait", I mean.

~~~
sliverstorm
Well, the LHC is at CERN and this happened at CERN.

------
mladenkovacevic
Tesla postulated that there are faster speeds than light-speed... so he might
have been right after all.

Or maybe he was just thinking of ludicrous speed.

~~~
omegant
Advancing the spaceballs empire! It might be happening just now!!!

------
omegant
Lol maybe the speed limit is marked by the neutrinos not by the light... By
now... It will be interesting to see how this developes.

------
gluejar
The research preprint is now available: <http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897>

------
figital
How does one "fire a bean from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454
miles away in Italy"??

~~~
ceejayoz
Using neutrinos, which rarely interact.

------
buckwild
I wonder how accurate their time measurements are. If nothing can exceed the
speed of light, what makes them think they can rig together hardware that will
accurately measure speed at that magnitude?

~~~
realou
Light is not that fast. In the time it takes for a photon to travel between
your computer screen and your eyes, modern CPUs will be able to execute many
instructions.

------
jshowa
I'm very skeptical about this. It seems like every time a "supposed"
scientific discovery gets published in the media before a peer-reviewed
journal, it's almost always wrong. The same thing happened with cold fusion,
Ida (aka. Darwinius) the supposed "missing link" between human and ape, and
NASA's "supposed" discovery of bacterium growth through arsenic instead of
phosphorus.

It's always disheartening when science gets reported to the media at such an
early age of discovery (i.e. the point where it hasn't been criticised and the
lead investigator himself says he isn't so sure). It just opens the flood
gates for the retarded news to make of moronic headlines like: "Roll over
Einstein: Law of physics challenged"

~~~
jberryman
This wasn't characterized as a discovery, either by the reporter or the
scientists involved. But it is really interesting. Either you didn't RTFA or
I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

~~~
Juha
I agree, few articles that I have read about this (including BBC) clearly
mention this as speculation and a possibility. However probably there are
people who still take this as a fact after reading the article. In my mind
media has been surprisingly careful with this not to claim this as a new
discovery.

------
bitops
I'm extremely ignorant when it comes to physics, but I hope it's for real.
Maybe a big science breakthrough would interest people enough to start
investing more in education.

------
robchez
As an aside, I just finished reading Walter Issacsons - Einstein biography.

Easily the best biography I have ever read. If you don't like biographys, this
will change your mind.

------
grigy
I wonder how they accelerated uncharged particles.

------
neuromage
xkcd on this piece of news, spot on as usual:

<http://xkcd.com/955/>

------
bobby07
<http://i.imgur.com/lZyY0.png>

------
fleitz
Keep in mind that given that they said a few billionths of a second that the
adjustment to c would be on the order of:

    
    
      (5 nanoseconds) / ((732 km) / c) = 0.000204776269 percent
    

update: AP says it's 60 nanoseconds so

    
    
      (60 nanoseconds) / ((732 km) / c) = 0.00245731523 percent
    

Also in different units:

    
    
      ((60 nanoseconds) / ((732 km) / c)) * c = 16 479.1646 miles per hour
    

Interestingly, the earth moves about 60,000 miles per hour in relation to the
sun, could this be explained by frame dragging / Gravomagnetism? This is pure
speculation only because the numbers are with in the same order of magnitude.

~~~
nikcub
this isn't about adjusting c, c will always be c

the speed of light in a vacuum is a known quantity, it isn't changing. this is
about relativity being void

~~~
artursapek
I think the suggestion is we've mis-measured c, and it should be redefined as
the speed these Neutrinos are reaching (if it's a constant maximum)

------
powertower
Even if the neutrinos arrived faster than light could travel (that distance),
it does not mean the neutrinos traveled that fast, only that far...

For example: when muon-neutrinos transform into tau-neutrinos, in that moment
they could "tunnel" through space-time in some fashion that appears as faster-
than-light travel. Or something happens to their probability waves to make
them go from existing at point A, to point B.

------
crizCraig
54% in this random ass poll say "No way (e = mc^2)"
[http://www.wepolls.com/p/2879014/Do-you-think-scientists-
at-...](http://www.wepolls.com/p/2879014/Do-you-think-scientists-at-Cern-have-
really-broken-the-speed-of-light)

~~~
vixen99
I was under the impression that polls are reserved for use in deciding issues
in climate science!

------
fleitz
Couldn't it be that the lack of interaction with the electro-weak force allows
neutrinos to exceed the speed of a photon in a non-vacuum environment? Or is
the article saying that the neutrinos exceed _c_?

edit: More questions, since photons are massless they should be unaffected by
gravity except in the sense of following the curvature of spacetime. Could the
non-zero mass of the neutrino mean that if you changed the experiment so it
fired away from the earth mean that the neutrinos would travel "slower" than
photons?

~~~
sorbus
The article seems to be saying that the neutrinos appear to have exceeded _c_.
If it were just neutrinos moving faster than photons through some non-vacuum
environment, that would be completely non-notable - experiments have already
succeed in slowing light down to almost nothing, after all.

------
J3L2404
"And of course the consequences can be very serious."

Understatement of the century.

------
OCHEN-VINCENT
Well Hellen Blavatsky was right after all; Science must finnally accept not
just the existence of matter but of Spirit as well.

Besides scientific calculation of speed is based on the assumption that the
velocities of transmission of all the colors are the same. Namely, if we call
"W" length of the wave of any given color in ether, and "V" the velocity of
transmission of that color, and "N" number of vibrations or waves of that
color per unit of time, then the formula connecting these is W = V/N. But in
order to calculate the rates of vibration Science assumes that the various Vs
of the different colors are all equal to one another. This assumption is false
and it has been proven that the velocity of red and of blue light are
different.This is an important phase in human History-If this is true then the
age of the Stars has Just Began.

~~~
tadfisher
wat

------
namank
Does this mean I have to buy a new textbook! BUT they are so expensive!!!

------
rckrr
We're witnessing an increased vibrational rate of photons; it is, for those
who are ready, a beginning of a higher density experience.

~~~
hugh3
Good to hear, I've always wanted to be able to gain weight without looking
fatter.

------
mkramlich
I bet Fox News and the Republican Party leadership in general are going to
somehow spin this into their anti-climate-change, anti-science, anti-
intellectual, pro-religion messaging.

~~~
Andys
If all climate research was as honest as this it might be harder to put a spin
on it.

~~~
mkramlich
and so it begins :)

