What I meant was, is the results are correct, and neutrinos are capable of going faster than light, then we have to consider what that means, if the results are correct.

One result of that might be massless particles, not affected by the speed of light, and that neutrinos are capable of being technically massless under certain conditions.

Occam's razor keeps saying it's probably error or something overlooked.

Did they really say that? That massless particles would not be limited by the speed of light? In that case, did they explain why waves/photons are affected by it?

The speed of light is a property of light, and as far as we know, it's the only particle/wave that has that property.

Come to think of it, light particles must possess mass, because they have energy, and energy and mass are just different sides of the same coin.

Perhaps the neutrinos in the experiment briefly became massless tachyons?

My fault!
Rule 1 :Always check before posting.
Rule 2 ; See Rule 1

Always remember the English irregular verb for the occasion, declined thus.

I am accurate
you are picky
he is a pedant.

I understand - many spelling mistakes come about because of the way we say words, we don't say them the way they are spelled, and the way language is evolving more rapidly than at any time in speaking and spelling history there are going to be many shocks for people.

as usual bil you have us down to a tee (or is it tea or T )

The significance of the speed of light is that it is the speed limit for everything, (as physics currently stands) not just light. And, as I'm sure you know, ALL electromagnetic radiation travels at this speed, not just light.

And yes, photons can indeed be considered to have mass. That's what makes physics so strange, waves can be particles and particles can be waves.

if radio waves are electromagnetic radiation why does it take longer to bounce a radio signal off the moon than it takes to bounce a light ??

why does the frequency of the radio waves above make a difference in their speed.?

Does it? I've never heard that before and would be interested to read more.

I would be interested in you proving your statement that electromagnetic travels at the speed of light.
thats like saying a Tiger Moth travels at the same speed as Concorde because they both fly.

Not really. It's a fundamental 'fact' in physics that all em waves travel at the same speed. As far as I know, it's not a fundamental fact that a tiger moth travels at the same speed as concorde.

I'd like to know more about these radio waves though.

Wiki says this

Of course being wiki it might not be right...

Well, if it's wrong, so is every physics textbook I've ever used and so are all the physicists i've ever known....

thank you,
thats not how I remember my training, but I do remember the schooly falling asleep during our lessons

I don't have all my books as they have been packed for moving but seem to recall experiments carried out with moon bounce where the light returned quicker than the RF.
with RF the signal can be absorbed before reflecting (as happens with the Heavyside layers), light may be absorbed before reflection but much less than RF.

it makes sense to me, but is the travel speed different in a vaccuum compared to an atmosphere ?

Some waves are absorbed more than others by the substance they're passing through. So while light can't get through a brick wall, radio waves can, or you'd always need an external aerial.

But in a vacuum they all travel at the same speed. Yes, it's true that the atmosphere is not a vacuum but the speed in air is taken to be the same (or with negligible difference) to that in a vacuum.

Most of the distance from the earth to the moon would be a vacuum anyway.


Refraction could make a difference in the time taken for the wave to return. Different wavelengths refract through different angles, so can end up following different paths. But if this is what you're talking about, then the difference in time is down to the fact that one wave has had to travel further than the other, not that it has travelled at a lower speed. Difference in path (due to reflection rather than refraction) is, I think, how the speed of light was first measured.