It is possible that our scientists have been conducting preliminary experiments that produce the observable, repeatable results that are required by science in order to validate the long sought ‘Unified Field Theory'.
A quick review of the elements of this Unified Field Theory might be in order so as to help explain why this would be so.
The Unified Field Theory unifies gravity with electromagnetism (and ultimately with everything else as well), so that we then understand that a gravitational field is actually another manifestation of the electromagnetic field. What we think of as ‘the blank empty void of space' is actually an energy field. You may have heard that ‘gravity warps the fabric of space-time' and this idea makes no sense if we imagine trying to warp a blank void of nothingness, for there is nothing to warp. If this ‘fabric of space- time' is an energy field then there exists something to warp, which is the energy field.
...
A visual observation of a galaxy suggests a warped field in which there is increasing density toward the center of the field, with the field dilating the further away from the center you look. The Smith Hydrogen Cloud, which is currently falling into the gravitational well of our galaxy, displays the same ‘fan shaped' pattern as we see in the spiral arms of a galaxy, and we can make the assumption that this is one more visual confirmation of the true shape of space (dilated further from the center of the source, and contracted and denser closer to the center of the source).
Lines of Flux in a Magnetic Field
This shape of space is consistent with the shape of a magnetic field, where you can that the field lines are denser towards the center of the field and then the lines of force begin to dilate and spread out the further from the source one looks. This is the same pattern we see when we observe the Smith Hydrogen Cloud or the spiral arms of a galaxy, and it suggests an equivalence between the shape of an electromagnetic field and the shape of an observable gravity field which makes sense if we assume that we think of as ‘space' is actually a gigantic energy field.
This shape of space is inconsistent with an Einstein matter based gravitational field where space is stretched close to matter and therefore the field is more dilated closer to a gravitational source. Typically you will see an Einstein gravitational field modeled as being much like a heavy bowling ball dropped onto a trampoline. The fabric of the trampoline stretches (becomes more dilated) close to the heavy weight of the matter represented by the bowling ball and then the shape of space becomes flatter and more constricted (less stretched out) the further away you get on that trampoline. This is inconsistent with what we actually see if we make a simple visual observation of an object such as a galaxy.
We know that clocks run faster the deeper into the field one goes and that as one moves farther away from a gravitational source, the clock runs slower and slower. For this reason the universe according to Einstein requires that the speed of light be a fixed constant. A relationship must exist between the speed of light and the timing of the clock. If we assume that space is actually dilated the further away from the source one moves (the opposite of the pattern assumed by Einstein's matter based theory of gravitational fields) then it becomes a requirement that the speed of light is relative, and not a fixed constant.
In the diagram above we can see that as electromagnetic radiation travels upwards into space to reach a satellite, it red shifts, which means that its wave length becomes longer and the frequency of the waves decreases. Satellites are designed with this fact in mind and prepared to receive a red shifted version of the signal broadcast from deeper in the gravitational field down on earth, which is why satellites work properly. A red shifted signal is less energetic and therefore the law of the conservation of energy requires that this apparent loss of energy be explained. According to Einstein the electromagnetic wave ‘loses energy' to the gravitational field. However if we change the shape of space, so that space is actually dilating as you move away from the field, then we can see that the light is red shifting because it is conforming to this dilated space, and so its wave length red shifts (becomes longer and more dilated as it conforms to this space). The law of the conservation of energy then requires that we assume that the speed of light is relative the space in which it is measured, and that there is no loss of energy, but rather energy is conserved in the form of increased velocity. Now because space is dilated (it expands) and because the clock is running slower at the same time, an observer out in space will measure the speed of light as being the speed of light. Everyone in every frame always gets this same result due to the shape of space being an exact match to the speed of the clock. It is only when we place ourselves within a fictional objective frame of reference, and imagine ourselves sitting outside the universe looking in, that we notice that the speed of light is actually relative to the frame in which it is measured.
In the image above we imagine a scientist testing the speed of light by bouncing a signal off a satellite, and even though the speed of light is relative and increases and then decreases as the signal goes up and comes down again, the scientists receives as his answer the average of these speeds, which is the speed of light. Therefore the speed of light appears to be a fixed constant even though it is actually relative.
The length of a one meter rod is defined as such and such a number of wave lengths of electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency. If we measure a meter rod on the surface of the earth, and then send a sample of that frequency out into space, it will red shift. If John receives this sample out in space he cannot use it to measure his meter rod, because it will be red shifted and this result in an error. What this suggests is that John's meter rod, out in space, is actually longer (it is dilated) relative to the length of a meter rod on the surface of the earth.
We assume that space is an energy field. Space and energy are equivalent. For example if we heat gas atoms, hot gas then expands. Because space and energy are equivalent, and we have increased the energetic density of the gas, we have also increased the space the gas occupies, and therefore the gas expands. Similarly, if we super-cool a cloud of gas, we decrease its energetic density, and the volume the gas occupies contracts, and the gas can then be stored in a small container, for energy is equivalent to space, and the cool gas has less energy and therefore occupies less space.
When we consider all these ideas, it becomes possible to imagine a scientist able to conduct an experiment in which the result is the apparent breaking of the light barrier which produces apparent speeds greater than the speed of light. We assume here that the scientist is an observer occupying the objective frame. The scientist is on the outside looking in upon a small universe he himself has created in his lab. We further assume that one of the consequences of the experimental set-up is that the scientists has used magnetic fields in such a way as to create a small pocket of dilated space. The law of the conservation of energy states that energy is never created out of nothing, and that energy is never destroyed, but rather is merely changes form. The total energy of a system is constant. Therefore the scientist creates a small universe in his lab, in which the total energy of the system is ‘E-total' and therefore, given that space and energy are equivalent, this would imply that the total space of this universe must be ‘S-total'. Therefore if a scientist were to create a pocket of dense space in his universe it follows that he must also create a pocket of dilated space. The speed of light will be relative within this small universe just as it is in the larger universe, and therefore we should not be surprised if the experiment produces results that ‘break the light barrier'. The truth was that the light barrier was not broken, for in warping space (by warping an energy field) a scientist is altering and distorting the clock within the small universe he has created, and because the speed of light is relative, and because the scientist is observing from the objective frame (on the outside looking in at his universe) the result is an apparent breaking of the light barrier.
What this suggests is that these unusual experiments and their unexpected results are just the first steps towards validating the new Unified Field Theory.