Speed of light in a vacuum... not constant?

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/speed-light-can-vary-vacuum

I'll need to re-read this when I'm not at work and have more than a few moments to skim the article... but this sounds very interesting; what would this mean for the longstanding c?

EDIT - adding link from Beer w/ Straw to a more official site:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

except, there is no true vacuum. outside of dark matter and energy, in the cosmos, is considered a void. not sure if i can give a thought image for you on that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the linked article "25 morons that will make you feel better about where you are..." is of more scientific relevance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.the-webs-best.com/25-people-who-will-make-you-feel-much-better-about-your-own-life/50/343

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Care to elaborate Beer?

 

It seems that if light can be effected by gravity, then it's speed should not be constant?

 

The links are random...

But anyway, that's an entertainment site. If that article had any credibility, it should be easily cross referenced elsewhere -like a CNN or BBC etc.(I have actually been hitting the CNN site all day. Wondering about the fate of the hostages of ISIS.) Hence, that article is easily dismissed without even reading it. I did, however, see some guy with a box of Kraft Dinner tattooed to the back of his lower leg and burst out laughing.

:EDIT:

The site advertises other entertainment sites randomly.

 

There is another article somewhere has well that shows the speed of light in a vacuum was varied , they used short lengths and different structures of light.
I do not know if this article is related, I have already looked at the article earlier.
My logic tells me that the parameters of one light beam and the parameters of the racing beam were different, one beam had a barrier in the way of some description making the experiment fundamentally floored by means of changing the natural speed of the beam by adding means. The change of speed is man made and not natural.

My opinion.

 

No.
So much for your "logic" and "opinion".
And so much for your claim to have "looked at the article" (which actually links to the paper itself).

 

You are wrong, I read the article , please feel free to check.

''They sent photons - individual particles of light - through a special mask. It changed the photons' shape - and slowed them to less than light speed.''


Changing the parameters of the lights natural speed , simple as that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584

 

Oh wait, you claim to have read the article yet you link to a different one.

Er yeah.
So IF you really had read the article you would also have noted this "The photons remained travelling at the lower speed even when they returned to free space." or this "but it showed that it had not just been slowed by the mask, but had continued to travel at less than light speed even after it had returned to free space".

So much for your claims...

 

If the mask slowed the Photons down in the first instant, that is interference of the natural speed.

To me they are saying my car slowed down because it hit a brick wall, and I lost the race.

I see no more than that , just my opinion you are welcome to accept that knowledge, I personally will not be accepting it.

 

Evidently you're unaware that, up until this experiment, the speed of light was held to be c in free space and that light could ONLY travel a c.

In other words you are fundamentally ignorant of what the "speed of light" means.
It's nothing like your example of car hitting a wall. It's also nothing like adding extra weight to slow something down.
Light (prior to this experiment) was believed to be capable of travelling at c and NO OTHER SPEED in free space.

In other words you're going to preserve your ignorance despite the facts.

I note that you've ignored
A) the fact that you duplicitously linked to a different article, and
B) failed to acknowledge that you ignored what the article itself stated.

 

By what definition is free space if there is something in that free space, by definition that is no longer free space.
We already know light slows down in a medium, we already know that is only constant in free empty space with no obstructions. We already know that if light is obstructed it slows down, I miss the relevance to what they did.
The different article had the same picture , I recognised the picture, the article explained the experiment, so the same thing in my opinion, I fail to see where there is a difference when the article is the same experiment.

 

From the article originally posted it even tells you they interfere.

''So in the time it takes unmodified light to travel a meter, the adjusted light makes it 0.01 millimeters less.'

 

If this was the original link http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584 I would have stopped to read it.

 

FFS sake.
Aren't you the guy who claims to have "learned science"?
Free space - vacuum.
And it's still a vacuum if there's light in it.

Because - this experiment excepted - as soon as light leaves that medium it speeds back up to c (mainly because it never actually slowed down in the first place).

Because you claimed to have read something in the article that wasn't in the actual article linked to and under discussion.

 

The article is the same experiment, the link I provided added to the article already provided, I am not arguing it anyway, I gave my opinion in that is that. No more comments from me on it , I have said what I thought about the experiment.

 

no atom/particle is a true sphere.
edit: added particles.

 

you should just not comment sometimes.

 

I have added your link to the OP Beer - much obliged.

Finally back home from work... long day caused by a single user in another site somehow managing to not have an antivirus installed and as a result sending out hundreds of infected emails ... *headdesk*