[imatfaal]

I tried to figure out which were actually bigger, neutrinos, or photons thinking that speed was related to mass.  However, I think the neutrinos are actually slightly larger than the photons.

Larger?  Gotta be more specific.  For many years neutrinos were thought to be massless - this would mean they travelled at light-speed. It was later found that due to the strange oscillation of the neutrino between the different flavours (electron, mu and tau) that they must have a finite mass.  As they do have mass they cannot travel at the speed of light - especialy not at above the speed of light 

With stellar phenomena, different energy photons (wavelengths) including Gamma all arrive at Earth at the same time.  So energy alone doesn't account for the difference of speed.

of photon.  but we do not know this is the case for neitrinos.  to reconcile opera/gran sasso with SN1987a there must exist neutrino of certain energies that travel at a fraction (below 1) of the speed of light

There also seems to be a rather high error rate in the measurements.  One question related to other discussions.  Essentially all of our current measurements of the speed of light are "2-way" measurements.  The speed from the source to a mirror and back. 

  The errors in the measurements seem pretty robust at the moment and any glaring mistakes would have been well publicised.  many of the claimed errors after the opera/gran sasso announcement turned out to be erroneous!

One should be able to do good one-way speed of light experiments using geosynchronous satellites, but I'm not sure if these have been done. 

  OK - I would have to read up on that, not sure I know what you mean

Anyway, perhaps the neutrino experiments are one-way speed experiments that would be biased by the time of day they are being collected (and thus Earth's orientation in space).

  Not sure I quite understand what you mean - FYG the experimental data was collected over many days and at different times.  I would have hoped that any diurnal anomaly would have been spotted very early on. 

[David Cooper]

Are the neutrinos also travelling faster than the speed of light as it would be outside of the Earth's gravity well, or are they only travelling faster than light in the sense that they're going faster than light that's being slowed by the Earth's gravity?

[CliffordK]

Whew!!!
Ok, Ok, Ok.

With mass, there seems to be some odd units, generally in eV (or energy, I think).
Photon Mass: <1×10⁻¹⁸ eV/c²
Neutrino Mass: between .2 eV and 2eV
So...  can we equate energy and mass?  Unless speed can account for energy differences?

Ahh, I think I had misinterpreted this from Wikipedia

So, this is difference between the Neutrino speed and the calculated speed of light for 20 tests.  All show the Neutrinos going faster than light, but range from difference of 40ns to 90ns faster than light.  It still is a fairly wide range, and doesn't really seem to follow a "Normal Distribution", at least with the number of trials in the image.

Yes, it does sound like the experiment was being run 24 hrs a day.  However, only the results from 20 neutrinos were used, I think...  When?

One should compare these results with cosmological neutrino sources.  For example, a supernovas generate a pulse of both neutrinos and light.  Not necessarily at the same time, but one would expect if they were traveling at the same speed, that the photons and Neutrinos would arrive similarily for supernovas 1 thousand lightyears away and those 1 million lightyears away

Now...
For one-way speed of light.  It is a big issue.
Here is the Michelson–Morley experimental setup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

The problem is that if you consider the frame bound, one-way speed of light to be:
C+X/C-X in the X direction, and C+Y/C-Y in the Y direction.
Then, the Michelson-Morley bounces light all over...  but it all comes down to every X+ is countered by an X-.  Every Y+ has an equivalent Y-.  At best, all the experiment demonstrates is that the two-way average speed of light, C, is the same in both the X and Y directions which could be demonstrated with a much simpler design.

Obviously the issue is to create a device big enough with a high enough shutter speed to measure the one -way speed of light (in two directions), with the definition, of course, being in a vacuum.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I believe that one could create a wheel shutter device that would do reasonably well at measuring the speed differential between the one-way speed of light.  X+ & X-.  The problem is that it would be difficult to get the accuracy necessary.  But, perhaps in the near future, with higher speed motors and better magnetic bearings, it will be possible to construct such a device that is a few meters long.

Here is where I presented my concept for 1-way light speed measurements using satellites.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=42756.msg377479#msg377479

To avoid redundant arguments, I'll refer you to that post.  The idea is that every 12 hours, the relative positions of satellites A&B reverse.  So, timing errors cancel out.

[imatfaal]

Whew!!!
Ok, Ok, Ok.

With mass, there seems to be some odd units, generally in eV (or energy, I think).
Photon Mass: <1×10⁻¹⁸ eV/c²
Neutrino Mass: between .2 eV and 2eV
So...  can we equate energy and mass?  Unless speed can account for energy differences?

Energies can be given in eV (electron volts) - due to mass energy equivalence we can measure masses in eV/c².  The c² is nearly always missed off because in most particle physics we use more natural units in which we put the speed of light as equal to one.

Ahh, I think I had misinterpreted this from Wikipedia

So, this is difference between the Neutrino speed and the calculated speed of light for 20 tests.  All show the Neutrinos going faster than light, but range from difference of 40ns to 90ns faster than light.  It still is a fairly wide range, and doesn't really seem to follow a "Normal Distribution", at least with the number of trials in the image.

  I don´t think that 20 results are enough to say what sort of distribution

Yes, it does sound like the experiment was being run 24 hrs a day.  However, only the results from 20 neutrinos were used, I think...  When?

  20 results refers to the retest done in October - with the very short bursts to overcome any problem of phase-shifting

One should compare these results with cosmological neutrino sources.  For example, a supernovas generate a pulse of both neutrinos and light.  Not necessarily at the same time, but one would expect if they were traveling at the same speed, that the photons and Neutrinos would arrive similarily for supernovas 1 thousand lightyears away and those 1 million lightyears away

  Been done - that was why I mentioned trying to consolidate results from Gran Sasso and SN1987a (Supernova 1987 a).  The neutrinos from that Supernova arrives a few hours ahead of the light - which would be expected as they do not have trouble get through the gas/dust/etc surrounding the Supernova.  If they travelled at the Gran Sasso speed they would have been here years earlier.

Now...
For one-way speed of light.  It is a big issue.

/snipped for now - will have a look later

[CliffordK]

Ok,
The experiment that I described with geostationary satellites essentially is an East/West experiment in the plane of the Earth.  That should detect the frame-drift of the speed of light in Earth's plane which would reverse on a 12 hr (sidereal) period.

The OPERA Gran Sasso experiment is more or less a North/South experiment.

So, in a 24 hour period, the installation would more or less describe a cone in space.  Thus, you wouldn't get the reversal that I had suggested.

If there was a positive frame-shift in the speed of light, then one would see it waxing and waning with the timing of the direction based on the sidereal day.

Plotting the times on a sidereal day should generate a sine wave. 
Plot the hours of the sidereal day on the X axis, and the speed differential on the Y axis.

[Geezer (OP)]

I added a new voting option.

[imatfaal]

I added a new voting option.

The techies will now dig out a memo they sent 10 years ago complaining about cheap components and lack of staff to check connexions - that the boffins passed to the bureaucrats with an exasperated sigh - and it can all be blamed on management, who will then give themselves a pay rise to make sure they pay more attention next time.