I am not a physicist, but I am unsure about a few points highlighted in this article. My understanding of photons is that they are not an actual entity, but a measure of energy to determine quantities of light...so essentially a way to break down light based on energy quantities not an actual physical part like a proton or electron.

Unless my understaning is wrong, then measuring photons, in a machine that "defys the laws of physics" with properties that the article alluded to, inferring the need for an endless supply of energy, the conditions seem to uncontrolled to measure with accuracy.

I do not know what quantum tunneling is, or what it means by "certain conditions", but if you are measuring photons with photon detectors, in a setup that -from what I can gather- is fueled by vasts amounts of energy, wouldnt it seem more likely that they are just proving Einsteins theory more than disproving it. I mean if you are using energy as a measure to measure the speed of light in a system driven by large amounts of energy, why would it be ruled out that the photons detected and used to determine the immeasurable speed of the light were not derived from mass being converted into light.

I know the photons detected arrived at the exact same time, but that suggests a constant more than variability in the speed of light. And to suggest that that variability is dependent on energy or time and space seems vague, and gives the impression that these physicists are using data that can suggest any number of things to redefine Einsteins theory. If they could attribute the suggested variability to more than just an either or scenario of "energy or time and space", then they could be more convincing.

But as is the case, to use generalities like that, three of them, uncertainly at that, reveals complete lack of explanation. It sounds like they were thinking about their own names in the paper instead of seriously considering what the likely ex[;anation for these test results are.