The concept of a universal speed limit depends on the idea that massless particles can travel extremely fast without needing massive energy to move them. As energy and mass are relative and functions of a constant (E=MC2), there is a trade off between the two and all matter falls somewhere on a spectrum between being highly energetic with low mass, and being massive without energy. It has been assumed that light travels at the maximum possible speed as it is unburdened by mass.
However, it has been known for some time that light does indeed have a mass, it is effected by gravity (albeit only slightly). Furthermore, it can impart kinetic energy (the concept behind lightsails).
It therefore seems obvious to me that if light has a mass, it is not pure energy and cannot move at the universal speed limit. Perhaps nothing does, but if recent observations are anything to go by, seemingly neutrinos come closer than light.
Perhaps some particles have "intermittent" mass. ie they have mass sometimes, but other times they don't. In this way, they could appear massless, while being very slowly tugged by the effect of gravity on their intermittent mass.
ReplyDeleteEinstein has theorised that space is curved and that this is the cause of light bending. The scientific community seems pretty satisfied with that explanation -and who am i to argue with them? Yet, I can't help wondering about the idea of intermittent mass. If a particle had intermittent mass, it would imply it is flitting into and out of the boson field. Could these particles be moving between planes -and if so, mightn't that easily explain their apparent movement faster than the speed of light?
Sadly, though i spent days considering all of this to explain the strange neutrino results -it now looks as though it was a simple measurement error. Bummer.