Misplaced Pages

Talk:Speed of light: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:42, 10 October 2009 editThe Rationalist (talk | contribs)1,568 edits →Difficult section: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:45, 8 November 2024 edit undoDVdm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,467 edits Reverting edit(s) by 49.148.143.105 (talk) to rev. 1251296027 by Lowercase sigmabot III: Vandalism (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{skip to talk}}
{{talk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Article history
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date=20:53, 17 Aug 2004 |action1date=20:53, 17 Aug 2004
Line 13: Line 14:
|action2oldid=256337011 |action2oldid=256337011


|action3=PR
|action3date=10:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Speed of light/archive1
|action3result=Reviewed
|action3oldid=326969975

|action4=FAC
|action4date=21:05, 25 January 2010
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Speed of light/archive2
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=339898368

|action5=PR
|action5date=18:42, 12 October 2010
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Speed of light/archive2
|action5result=reviewed
|action5oldid=390277913

|action6=FAC
|action6date=04:35, 20 December 2010
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Speed of light/archive3
|action6result=promoted
|action6oldid=403246761

|action7 = FAR
|action7date = 2022-03-19
|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Speed of light/archive2
|action7result = kept
|action7oldid = 1077590852

|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=October 29, 2004 |maindate=October 29, 2004
|maindate2=16 August 2022
|currentstatus=FFA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=Top |relativity=yes }}
}} }}
{{Spoken article requested|] (])ScientistBuilder] (]) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)|The speed of light is central to physics fields including the Big Bang Theory, special relativity, general relativity, spectroscopy, optics, as well as real world applications such as signal processing and GPS networks}}
{{Physics|importance=Top|class=B|relativity=yes}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Natsci|VA=yes}}
{{archive box|
*] (Up to end of 2004)
*] (2005 – July 2006)
*] (July 2006 – end of 2006)
*] (2007)
*] (2008)
*] (Jan 2009 – February 2009)
*] (February 2009 — July 2009)
*] (—)
*] (—)}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 11 |counter = 18
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(7d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Speed of light/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Speed of light/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=7 |small=yes}} {{archive box |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index|
* ] (Up to end of 2004)
* ] (2005 – July 2006)
* ] (July 2006 – end of 2006)
* ] (2007)
* ] (2008)
* ] (Jan 2009 – Feb 2009)
* ] (Feb 2009 — July 2009)
* ] (July–Aug 2009)
* ] (August 2009)
* ] (Aug–Sept 2009)
* ] (Sept–Oct 2009)
* ] (Oct–Dec 2009)
* ] (Nov 2009 – May 2010)
* ] (May–Aug 2010)
* ] (Aug–Dec 2010)
* ] (Feb 2011 – Apr 2014)
* ] (Jan 2014 – )
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Speed of light}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Speed of light}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


== Is this part accurate in History? ==
== Measuring ==


Quote:
Some musings based on reading Brews, David's and other's posts:


'''Connections with electromagnetism'''
1) Measurement of a quantity means relating it to something else, but more than that, the definition of a quantity is a comparison with something else. The definition of speed is a relation between distance and time. Measurement of speed means comparing it with a ruler and a clock.


In the 19th century ''Hippolyte Fizeau'' developed a method to determine the speed of light based on time-of-flight measurements on Earth and reported a value of 315000 km/s (''704,634,932 m/h'').
2) The speed of light is postulated to be constant therefore it is assumed to always takes the same time to travel a given distance, or equivalently it always travels the same distance in a given time, therefore an ideal ruler can be defined as the distance traveled by light in a given time.


His method was improved upon by ''Léon Foucault'' who obtained a value of 298000 km/s (''666,607,015 m/h'') in 1862. ] (]) 01:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
3) Actual rulers manufactured according to this definition will differ due to the accuracy of the manufacturing equipment and the accuracy of the clock. The numerical value of the speed of light given in these ideal rulers is a defined value but using one of these manufactured rulers to measure the speed of light will give a relation between the speed of light and the manufactured ruler. Since the manufactured ruler will have limited accuracy it may well give a different value than the defined value. This measured value will be a relation between the speed of light and the manufactured ruler. Since the speed of light is postulated to be constant, any discrepancy between the defined value and the measured value will be attributed to the inaccuracy of the ruler, i.e. the difference between the defined value and the measured value will tell you the difference between the ideal ruler and your actual ruler - which is a measurement of the actual ruler in terms of the ideal ruler or equivalently a measurement of the ideal ruler in terms of the actual ruler.


:Are you suggesting our article may not be correct or proposing that it include conversions to km/h at that point, and in either case, why? ] (]) 11:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
4) Suppose you want to measure the speed of light (either because it's hundreds of years ago and you've no idea how fast it is or that it is constant, or you don't really believe it is constant), then you must compare the light with some ruler and some clock and you will get some idea of its speed subject to inaccuracies in your ruler and clock. The act of measuring the speed of light in this way is a different concept from the act of defining the speed of light, i.e. the ''act'' of comparing the speed of light to something else is a different concept to the ''act'' of not comparing the speed of light to something else. However this doesn't matter because the speed of light is postulated to be constant therefore you use the defined value to define a ruler with which to measure the distances and speeds of everything else - so everything else is ultimately measured in relation to the speed of light.


::There's a definite discrepancy in number of significant digits between the quoted metric and traditional measurements... ] (]) 13:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
5) The equation relating c,ε0 and μ0 may have originally been discovered as a result of experiment, but ''assuming the equation is true'' then whatever value and units are given for two of the quantities, the third quantity is fully determined. A=B implies B=A so an equation can be read either way, assuming the equation is true, regardless of how the equation was originally discovered. ] (]) 18:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Indeed, but the values in parentheses aren't in the article. If we wanted to include them, we could use {{tl|Convert}}, which would probably round them appropriately automatically, and wouldn't abbreviate miles to "m" either, but I don't see why we'd want to include such conversions in that part of the article anyway. ] (]) 13:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I added the parenthesis. It's just a conversion to m/h that I made, just to show how different they are & to convert it into U.S. terms. ] (]) 00:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure if 315000 or 298000 km/s is correct. I feel it's 315000 km/s, but I'm not sure. ] (]) 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


== Why not also include an accurate description of c in miles per second? ==
:I think there's another point that you miss from your list: that's that nobody is forcing you to use SI units. I'll assume that we're talking about scientific research here and not everyday commerce. Imagine, for example, that you wanted to see if the speed of light varies with frequency. You can't use SI units, because the definition of the SI metre ''assumes'' that the speed of light doesn't vary with frequency. That doesn't stop you from using some other length standard, for example an old standard metre bar: you then measure the speed of light at different wavelengths against your chosen length standard, and see if they differ. Similarly if you want to see if the speed of light changes over time: you can't use the SI metre, but you could use some other length standard which you don't think has changed over time, such as some function of the mass of the earth, the Newtonian gravitational constant and a time standard. The way that the metre is defined doesn't ''stop'' you from doing these experiments, nor does it mean that they are not physically worthwhile. But it doesn't mean that the speed of light ''isn't'' 299,792,458&nbsp;m/s either. ] ] 19:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


186282.3970512 mi/s, to be fairly accurate.
::As long as the new "perfect" definition results are within the upper and lower limits of the old "perfect " results there is no problem for everybody having to use the result of all these (nonexistent )difficulties.] (]) 00:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


== Speed of light in vacuum ==
I'd say everybody is a bit right here. For example, ] points out that you don't need to use SI units. An example might be to go back to the pre-1983 SI units based upon fringe counts of wavelengths. Then you can measure the speed of light in these wavelength-based units, and of course, as with all measurements an error bar of observation will arise (''c'' = 299,792,458 ± 1.2 &nbsp;m/s). Where I think some problems with language show up is in connecting such a measured speed of light with the use of the term "speed of light" to describe the defined value 299,792,458&nbsp;m/s in today's SI units. These usages are separate. There can be no argument that the speed of light in today's SI units "is" 299,792,458&nbsp;m/s, but what is its relation to measurement? As the BIPM and others point out, measurement uncertainty has been . Thus, the number 299,792,458&nbsp;m/s is exact, but the unit ''m/s'' is not known. It is the ''unit'' that is the experimental quantity now. ] (]) 15:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages should get rid of all occurrences of the phrase "speed of light in vacuum". There is only one speed of light, which is a universal constant. Also the speed of light doesn't change if not in vacuum. ] represents the real speed of a photon, and that doesn't change. Only ] is changing, causing the optical effects that mislead people. But this very article is explaining the same in the section ]. ] (]) 13:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:Speed in natural units is expressed as a fraction of lightspeed so:
:speed of light = 1 x speed of light
:also speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s
:therefore 1 = 299,792,458 m/s
:or equivalently 1 = 299,792,458 x 1 m/s
:i.e. the number 299,792,458 is a conversion factor between natural units and m/s
:turning the equation around: 1 m/s = 1/299,792,458 in natural units, that is as a fraction of lightspeed.


:If you have a reference for your point of view please share it. ] (]) 15:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:The use of the term speed of light for a defined value is basically the same thing as using the term speed of light for the natural unit 1 in which we simply relate the speed of light to itself.
::@] shouldn't this work the other way around? I don't want to add anything. I want something to be removed which has no reference. ] (]) 15:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:Measuring the speed of light means relating it to something else.
:::The article has rather a lot of mentions of the speed of light in vacuum that are supported by references to ]. Merely in ], we have {{tqb|Sometimes {{Math|''c''}} is used for the speed of waves in any material medium, and {{Math|''c''}}<sub>0</sub> for the speed of light in vacuum.<ref name=handbook>See, for example:
:So the different uses of the phrase that you talk about are either 1) relating the speed of light to itself and then relating other speeds to light, or 2) relating it to something else straight away. ] (]) 16:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{Cite book

|last=Lide |first=D. R.
:Brews, what you say is right, but the unit has ''always'' been an experimental quantity, not just "now". There's no fundamental difference between using the speed of light, the wavelength of a particular atomic transition, or the distance between two tacks on a particular piece of metal in Paris. In any case, you would know exactly the value of said speed/wavelength/distance in your unit by definition, but you could have uncertainties in the measurement of said speed/wavelength/distance which essentially become uncertainties in the unit. --<span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|year=2004

|title=CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
::]: I agree that today's SI Units use the speed of light as a unit of speed. So for example, the speed of sound can be expressed as a multiple of the speed of light. Moreover, this multiple depends in no way upon knowing the numerical value of the speed of light. So in that sense, the number 299,792,458 m/s is simply an artifact, or as Jespersen says, a defined and arbitrary value. I think we agree about that. ] (]) 16:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WDll8hA006AC&q=speed+of+light+%22c0+OR+%22&pg=PT76

|pages=2–9
::]: I think your description muddles me. I think I can agree that there is no difference in kind between the metal bar and counting fringes: they both are length measurements. However "the speed of light" is a speed, not a length. It can be related to a length measurement by introducing a transit time, which most probably you would agree. So then, is a transit time measure of length the same in kind as a wavelength determination of length? I'd say not, for this reason: When length is determined using a length measurement and time is determined using a time measurement, then speed can be determined as the ratio of these measurements. However, when length is determined as a time-of-transit measurement and related to length by a ''defined constant with the dimensions of speed'', it no longer is possible to measure speed as length / time, because only the defined conversion factor can result, and it provides no physical information, only the defined value, which is arbitrary. ] (]) 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|publisher=]
:::So, according to you, when the litre was defined as the volume occupied by one kilogram of water in such-and-such conditions, a measurement of the density of water could "provide no physical information"? --<span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|isbn=978-0-8493-0485-9

}}
::::I am unfamiliar with your example. You seem to suggest, however, that saying the litre = volume occupied by 1 kg. of water → the density of water is 1kg/ litre, appears to be inescapable and of no content. It looks that way. If one measured the dimensions of a litre of water as so many cubic metres, then the density in kg./m<sup>3</sup> would have a meaning. Thus, there appears to be a parallel between time-of-transit length ''cf.'' wavelength length compared to density in kg/litre ''cf.'' density as kg./m<sup>3</sup> ] (]) 17:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{Cite book
:::::So what would you propose as a "non-arbitrary" standard for speed, that would give the "physical information" you're looking for? ] ] 17:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|last=Harris |first=J. W. |year=2002
::::::I haven't raised that question, which is a different matter. I simply wished to clarify that the number 299,792,458 m/s has no physical content within the new SI units. It's a hang-over from the pre-1983 units, where it actually was a speed measurement, and was chosen for the new SI Units only to minimize dislocation with prevailing practice. I also wished to point out that the experimental error bar in the new SI Units is now in the unit ''m/s'', having been transferred there by introduction of the now defined value of the speed of light. As the BIPM points out, any advance in the precision of measurement changes the metre, not the number 299,792,458 m/s. ] (]) 17:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|title=Handbook of Physics
Erm, no, any advance in the precision of the measurement gives us a more precise metre, which is ''not'' the same as changing it. The problem is that we would all really like to believe that you simply don't understand what a unit of measurement is: so, please, give us you proposition for a standard against which to measure the speed of light which would give you the "physical information" you're looking for, instead of just saying that everything is ] since 1983 and nobody else has noticed. Because there, you're making a big claim against pretty much the whole of physics: it might just be that it's you who has the misunderstanding. ] ] 18:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c60mCxGRMR8C&q=speed+of+light+%22c0+OR+%22+date:2000-2009&pg=PA499

|page=499
:]: Roger, the metre becomes more precise, and the number 299,792,458 m/s is unaffected, as measurement precision improves. Your summary of my position "saying that everything is ] since 1983 and nobody else has noticed" is an invention of your construction, as I have never said, suggested, or thought anything of this kind. Likewise, "you're making a big claim against pretty much the whole of physics" is completely incorrect: please explain where this crazy notion comes from. ] (]) 18:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|publisher=Springer

|isbn=978-0-387-95269-7
Charvest, First of all, I'm glad that you have actually acknowledged that the equation relating c,ε0 and μ0 was originally discovered as a result of experiment. I got reported at AN/I for disruptive behaviour for bringing that matter up at ]. That equation has got nothing to do with the measured speed of light. It arises exclusively from the ratio between the electromagnetic units of charge and the electrostatic units of charge. That ratio will always exist. There is no system of units that can get rid of that ratio out of Maxwell's equations. If we have a defined ] such as in the new SI system, or in the system in which we define 'c' to be equal to 1, we cannot put it into that equation. The only thing that we can do is draw attention to the closeness in value between the defined speed of light and the value that arises from the experimentally measured values in this equation.
|display-authors=etal}}

* {{Cite book
Now let's not lose sight of what the main argument is here. The main argument is not even related to what I have just said above. The main argument is about the fact that the measured speed of light is used to define the new metre. It then follows that if we express the speed of light in terms of that new metre that is defined in terms of the speed of light, then we merely end up with an arbitrarily defined number. This defined number is beyond measurement, and it is a different concept to the measured speed of light that was used to define that metre in the first place. In SI units, the speed of light then becomes 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, per second. We could have chosen any number. The physical speed of light as a concept cannot therefore be sacrificed in the article for a system of units. The article introduction must clearly explain both concepts. ] (]) 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|last=Whitaker |first=J. C.
:"The only thing that we can do is draw attention to the closeness in value between the defined speed of light and the value that arises from the experimentally measured values in this equation." – which is all Weber and Kohlrausch could do, until there was sufficient theory to show that the relation will always hold. Some fifty of so years later, the Weber–Kohlrausch experiment had been turned round (new measurements, of course, by Rosa and Dorsey at the U.S. National Bureau of Standards) to provide a ''measure'' of the speed of light. These days, it's more likely to be used as a measure of capacitance or as a lab demonstration.
|year=2005
:As for the "physical speed of light as a concept" being "sacrificed" for a system of units, the "speed of light an a vacuum" is exactly what it says it is: we could always link ], ] and ] if there was any risk of confusion. There should be no apology for quoting its value in the systems of units used by the overwhelming majority of our readers. Or perhaps you believe that the "speed of light" is something completely different? ] ] 19:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|title=The Electronics Handbook

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FdSQSAC3_EwC&q=speed+of+light+c0+handbook&pg=PA235
::]: As you say: "There should be no apology for quoting its value in the systems of units used by the overwhelming majority of our readers." Undoubtedly so, provided the context is provided explaining the switch from length measurement to time-of-transit measurement, which is a departure from the approach used for many centuries prior to 1983. ] (]) 01:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|page=235

|publisher=CRC Press
]: You have not responded to me as to the origin of the ridiculous statements you attribute to me . ] (]) 01:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|isbn=978-0-8493-1889-4

}}
Physchim62, Nothing has changed as regards the Weber/Kohlrausch experiment. Maxwell's work in 1861 demonstrated a convergence of two measured results. There was the direct measurement of the speed of light by ] and there was the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio as measured by Weber and Kohlrausch. From that convergence of measured results, Maxwell was able to demonstrate that light is an electromagnetic wave. Nothing has changed to this day. The equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) always has and always will read from right to left. It is the equation which links the speed of light to the measured value of ε. Neither the measured value of the speed of light nor the defined value of the speed of light should be used in that equation. If we use that equation from left to right, we are cooking the books with the benefit of hindsight. In maths, equations may work in both directions, but you as a chemist should know that they don't necessarily work in both directions in chemistry. Likewise in physics. There are issues of cause and effect to be considered as well as the physical scenario that is being described. ] (]) 05:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
* {{Cite book
:When you speak of "cause and effect", you're getting onto philosophical ground about the "nature of science". This is usually described as the "philosophy of science", although some prefer the term "sociology of science" (and, personally, I'd say they're not entirely wrong, but who am I to judge).
|last=Cohen |first=E. R. |year=2007
:That aside, when you say: "The equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) always has and always will read from right to left." you are making a claim that is evidently false. Weber and Kohlrausch suggested it, in reading from right to left. Maxwell proposed a theory (which has been largely supported by experiment, at least in its descriptive value) that the relation will be true ''whichever way you read it''. Rosa and Dorsay (1907) read the equation from left to right to determine the speed of light. ] ] 12:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|title=Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TElmhULQoeIC&q=speed+of+light+c0+handbook&pg=PA143
No Physchim62, That equation links the measured value of electric permittivity to a number that is very close to the measured (or defined) speed of light. That is all there is to it. We can certainly use it in reverse, with the benefit of hindsight, as a lazy way of obtaining a practical working value for electric permittivity. But in doing so, we are cooking the books and working against the spirit of the equation. Where it becomes really ridiculous is when we use the defined value of the speed of light to obtain a defined value of electric permittivity, and then purge the discharging capacitor experiment from the texbooks. ] (]) 12:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|page=184

|edition=3rd
:David, when you invoke the discharging capacitor experiment, you also need to explain how you want to define the unit for electric charge and electric potential. ] (]) 13:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|publisher=]

|isbn=978-0-85404-433-7
Count Iblis, When the experiment was originally done in 1856, it involved two distinct units of charge. There was an electromagnetic system of charge and an electrostatic system of charge and the experimental result yielded the ratio of these two units which was related to the measured speed of light. That puts the speed of light firmly into Maxwell's equations, irrespective of what system of units we use. ] (]) 13:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|display-authors=etal}}</ref> This subscripted notation, which is endorsed in official SI literature<ref name=BIPM_SI_units>{{SIbrochure8th|page=112}}</ref> ....}} I find the idea that we would deny the current definition of the metre rather disturbing. ] (]) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

::::This is what I was talking about from the beginning. You are confusing two different concepts as well. ''c''<sub>0</sub> has a place in physics. In one place. Optics. In case of refraction the phase velocity is used for calculations, because the phase of light is shifting constantly if travelling in a medium which is not vacuum. Every other area of physics is using the universal constant ''c'', which can be calculated using ]. By the way the ] article also says "Photons are massless particles that always move at the speed of light when in vacuum." which is plain wrong. Photons are unable to travel slower then ''c''.
== Clarifying the distinction between the two concepts of the speed of light ==
::::If you think that Misplaced Pages is correct in its current state, than I won't say anything more. ] (]) 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::I fixed the ] article thanks. ] (]) 20:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This prolonged dispute has come about because of attempts to deny an important point that has been raised by Brews ohare. The matter has now gone to arbitration and the arbitrators will now be watching this page carefully. I think that it's only fair to the arbitrators, most of whom are probably not physicists, to make an attempt to explain to them, and eveybody else here, exactly what the distinction is that Brews has brought to our attention.
:::@] You asked that all occurences across Misplaced Pages to be changed. I think we better discuss a reference for your claim first. You pointed to one section, ], but it has sources so you need to explain why they should be removed. ] (]) 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

::::Understanding should be the key here. Please look at this . After watching it you will have the urge searching for references, too. ] (]) 17:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Everybody, whether a physicist or not, is familiar with the concept of the ]. It is the speed that light travels at, and it is generally known to be extremely fast and unreachable by any existing technology. Now let's imagine that I went unto a stage to give a speech on the ]. Imagine that I went unto a stage in front of 10,000 people and said that I am going to tell you all what the speed of light is. And then imagine that I stated "The speed of light is the speed of light". And with the speech ending at that, a loud clapping and stamping of feet erupts and lasts for the next twenty minutes. That sounds like a pretty ridiculous scenario. But in fact it is no more ridiculous than if I went unto the stage and stated the speed of light in modern SI units. If I were to go unto the stage and announce the speed of light in modern SI units, I would be stating "The speed of light is 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, every second". I could then expect the twenty minute clapping session to be no less sarcastic for me having just stated the obvious.
:::::That's a great video. But it's not news, sorry. It explains the atomic model of the index of refraction. Based on this video I recommend no changes. ] (]) 17:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Brews has pointed out that it is not satisfactory to state the speed of light in modern SI units without some kind of extended elaboration, because the metre itself is defined in terms of the speed of light. Hence any statement of the speed of light in terms of that metre is merely a statement of the speed of light in terms of itself.

Now if we were to already accept the old classical concepts of length, I could go unto the stage and tell the crowd of 10,000 that I had performed an experiment to measure the speed of light using a Michelson interferometer on top of Mount Wilson, California. I could announce, that after performing some difficult calculations that I have found the speed of light to be in the order of 299,792,458 metres per second with an error bar of 0.04%. That would be news worth hearing. I would have given the audience a useful piece of information that had a physical meaning.

It is this latter measurememnt that Brews and I have been referring to as the physical speed of light that can be measured. It is clearly a different concept from the defined speed of light that I described further up, and which tells us nothing that we don't know already, and which is beyond measurement.

This edit war came about because Martin Hogbin wanted to only include the new SI speed of light in the introduction. His argument was that since the SI system is the internationally established system of units, then it follows that we must exclusively use that system in the introduction. Martin has of course overlooked the fact that in the special case of the speed of light, where one of the staple SI units has itself been defined in terms of the speed of light, then it is not good enough to state the speed of light exclusively in SI units without any kind of elaboration.

Brews on the other hand wanted to make that elaboration for the benefit of the readers. Martin was determined to frustrate Brews in his efforts. A crowd then descended upon the article and tried to accuse Brews of being wrong, and of advocating fringe views and pseudoscience. These allegations against Brews, and also against myself, will simply not stand up even against the mildest standards of probity. ] (]) 05:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::As has been explained to David many times, defining the speed of light as 299,792,458 metres per second is not tautological, since measuring the speed of light is equivalent to measuring a metre (i.e. a recalibration of our instruments). It is analogous to saying that a foot is twelve inches. That doesn't stop us from measuring how long a foot is, which tells us how long an inch is. Similarly, measuring the speed of light tells us how long a metre is. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:When you say "It is clearly a different concept" and use that to support the POV that there are two different concepts called speed of light, you are aligning yourself with Brews, but not with any source that I have seen cited. The lack of citation to a source supporting the point of view is why it can't stay in the article. The fact that you and Brews push an idiosyncratic point of view is the source of the problem. Brews has at least shown us which sources he thinks are closest to representing the POV he wants to push, and I for one welcome the representation of the points of view expressed in those sources -- but I don't think any of them said anything about there being two different concepts called speed of light. If I got that wrong, just give us the source and the quote that contradicts what I just said. ] (]) 06:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::Dick: Are we persuading you personally? If so, sourced precepts and a logical argument should suffice. The whole matter is explained with care at ]. ] (]) 13:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dick, Brews provided the sources, and I am backing Brews up on the point that he has made. The arbitrators can decide on whether or not Brews and I have a legitimate point, or whether we need to be topic banned for having advocated this point of view. ] (]) 06:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:David, the sources that Brews cites to justify his POV are typically these: ; ; . If you want to support him meaningfully, just show where they support the idea of two different concepts of the speed of light. The arbitrators are more like to be swayed by whether you argue with reference to sources than by anything about the physics, which it's not their job to understand. If you keep pushing a POV by insistence, rather than by showing it in sources, you'll just help them see that our complaints about your behavior are well founded. ] (]) 07:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:But many of the 10,000 people in the audience roughly know how long a metre is (even if they have no idea of how it is officially defined) and how long a second is, in relation with everyday quantities. To such people, telling that the speed of light is 299,792,458&nbsp;m/s, although tautological for those who ''do'' know the definition of the metre, is not useless; they'll know that the light travels roughly 300&nbsp;million times the distance from their hips to the ground in a time roughly equal to that between two consecutive heartbeats of theirs. And as for the Misplaced Pages article, per ], ], ] and all that, we should ''not'' assume that readers will know how the metre is defined, at least not in the ''lead section''. --<span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 09:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick, I clicked on Jespersen and the first thing I saw was "One fall out of this new definition of the metre was that the speed of light is now a defined quantity and no longer a measured quantity". What more do you want? ] (]) 07:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::Well, just above, it says "This task has proved to be about as much art as science." This was an art first demonstrated in 1972, and repeated by many laboratories. The value obtained was recommended from 1976, and officially adopted in 1983, after the same procedure had been applied to other light sources and found to give the same result (within experimental error). The fact that the author of an introductory book about the concept of time wishes to distinguish it from science in 1999 (the date of the quoted edition) is of little consequence here. ] ] 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:]: This book is written by several scientists at NIST. SO they have some authority. Your denigration of sources is the next step in refusing to engage in this discussion. You are simply running a debate, with the normal rules of debate, which are to obfuscate, distort to score points, and entertain with . There is no point holding discussion with those ground rules. ] (]) 13:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62, My argument above stands on its own merits irrespective of sources. Brews has given sources for good measure and you are now trying to belittle one of those sources. ] (]) 13:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:Dear David,
:my puny mind needs your mighty intellect's guidance:
:Is the kilometre
:#just a defined value?
:#just a measured value?
:#both a defined and a measured value?
:Eagerly awaiting your clarification,
:--] <sup>]</sup> 10:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::Another smart-alecky comment by ], champion debater and master of the snarky remark. ] (]) 13:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::A question, not a comment. And a question that Brews and David have both avoided answering. I wonder why? --] <sup>]</sup> 14:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., No. To say that "The speed of light is 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, every second" is a meaningless tautology that tells us absolutely nothing about the speed of light. It is no different to saying "The speed of light is k times the distance that light travels in 1/k seconds, every second". The case has been unequivocally proven in Brews's favour along with supporting sources. I suggest that the arbitration committee take note of this and swiftly fold up the case, because there is absolutely nothing more that can be said regarding the dispute. I suggest that Brews ohare is owed a major apology. ] (]) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:Except that many readers won't mentally substitute "the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds" for "metre"; most of them have an idea of how long the metre is in relation to everyday stuff (e.g. "slightly more than the width of my bed" or something), but no idea of how it is formally defined. --<span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 12:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::Yes, Which is exactly why it is a less informative concept than the measured speed of light. Do you now agree that this matter needs to be elaborated upon in the introduction? You are turning the argument upside down. You are now saying the same thing as me, but doing so in a manner as if you are disagreeing with me. ] (]) 12:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:::But what neither Brews nor yourself have been willing to tell us is: "what is this real speed of light?" Can we measure it? The measurement of the speed of light (as we all seem to have agreed on its definition) presents no problem at all, so long as you can provide a length standard that is sufficiently precise. The speed of light is still measured, at inner solar system scales at least, and to admirable precision. All of this after 1983. ] ] 13:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted real engagement with you on these points time and again. You have many careful explanations above, which you abandon when convergence is approached, and re-open again later. ] (]) 13:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:Physchim62, Of course we can measure the speed of light. But we have to use a system of units other than the modern SI system, because the defined speed of light in SI units is fixed by definition, and therefore cannot be measured. I've stated the argument clearly above and I intend to take that argument to the arbitration committee. It has now become patently clear that you don't understand this issue, yet you have gone to AN/I and successfully persuaded an administrator to ban me from explaining it to you. ] (]) 13:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::I agree that this explanation has been offered again and again. Dialog only goes so far, and then the questions simply are repeated days later without reference to explanations provided. The fact is, these matters are extremely simple and straightforward, and the resistance cannot be understood as a failure to grasp the issues. An extensive discussion with sources is found at ]. ] (]) 15:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

===Mathematical model vs Experimental observations===

One way of looking at this argument is to say that physics as a whole is a mathematical model of reality consisting of various constants, various variables and various equations relating the constants and variables. The model is deemed useful if it corresponds closely to experimental observations. There is an element of the model called c. The model relates c to various other elements of the model, and experiments can try to invalidate the model by measuring the real world counterparts of elements of the model and seeing whether within statistical error bounds the model reflects the real world. In this respect, the difference between c as part of the model, and real world measurements of the speed of light, is no different from how every part of the model can be contrasted with real world measurements. Does that mean every article about a concept in physics should explain the difference between a model and the real world in the lead paragraph ? There's no reason why the speed of light should be singled out for such treatment. ] (]) 17:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:Your discussion of model equations involving ''c'' is fine. However, it is not related directly to the question of the status of the number 299,792,458 m/s. In the pre-1983 system of units, measurements of the ''c'' you talk about were made with the result ''c'' = 299,792,458 ± 1.2 m/s. In the post-1983 a speed called the "speed of light" and given by ''c''<sub>0</sub> = 299,792,458 m/s ''exactly'' is introduced. The connection between ''c'' and ''c''<sub>0</sub> is the subject of discussion. Because of the switch to times-of-transit for length comparisons, a means to convert such times to lengths was needed. For that conversion the number ''c''<sub>0</sub> = 299,792,458 m/s ''exactly'' was selected. Possibly, if the number 500,000,000 m/s ''exactly'' had been chosen instead it woudl have avoided the confusion between ''c'' = 299,792,458 ± 1.2 m/s and ''c''<sub>0</sub> = 500,000,000 m/s ''exactly'' and made more clear the arbitrary nature of this number. It is the distinction between ''c'' = 299,792,458 ± 1.2 m/s with its error bar and ''c''<sub>0</sub> = 299,792,458 m/s ''exactly'' that I would like to see clearly explained in the article. ] (]) 17:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::And my point is that "299,792,458 exactly" is part of today's model, but 299,792,458 ± 1.2 m/s was a real world measurement based on the then-used units. This part of the model was chosen to reflect that real world measurement, just as all parts of the model should closely reflect the real world measurements. ] (]) 17:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Why do you say that the exact value is part of a model. There is no physics in the fact that the speed of light is exact when expressed in SI units. It is just a choice of units. ] (]) 18:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::::I'm simply allowing the possibility of having a model which also models units. <s>You</s> One might say that there is no interesting physics in including units but it seems to me that a ''numerically'' complete model should allow for the modelling of units. ] (]) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC) (modified ] (]) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

:::::I see what you are saying but I do not think it has anything to do with the Brews' perceived problem. ] (]) 09:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::I think it does. It is my take on how to deal with the issue of defined values vs measured values. ] (]) 05:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Charvest's argument about the physical world being equivalent to a model in which c appears. However, it then has to be recognized that there exists a one parameter family of equivalent models that is obtained by rescaling the time variable relative to the spatial variables. This rescaling constant can then be absorbed into c, so the set of equivalent models is parametrized by c. ] (]) 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:To Count Iblis:I didn't say the model was "equivalent" to reality though. I would say the model has been built up to reflect reality to the best of our abilities at building models. But the model known as physics isn't complete or even necessarily as accurate as we might one day make it. But anyway, you mention that we have different models parametrized by c which are equivalent to each other. What is the conclusion that you want us to draw from that statement? ] (]) 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::The conclusion is that c has the same status as the constant 1.609344 kilometers/mile :) ] (]) 23:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


:''my point is that "299,792,458 exactly" is part of today's model'' is not true if one means somehow that this particular number is a demand that must be met if the model is to fit nature. The measurement ''c'' = 299,792,458 ± 1.2 m/s was an evaluation of a model parameter. The number "299,792,458 exactly" is part of a definition and contains no physical information. It happens to be that a different choice, say ''c''<sub>0</sub> = 500,000,000 m/s would result in a 1983 metre so different from the previous metre as to cause great dislocation during its adoption, but of course, one could elect to do that if, for example, one were really hung up on easy arithmetic and didn't care about scrapping all exiting metre sticks. ] (]) 18:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::To Brews ohare: I don't mean that nature demands it. I mean that it is a defined value therefore it is part of what I consider to be a model which includes numerical values and units. ] (]) 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::]: A model, like SR, does not require a specific value for ''c''. But to fit nature using the pre-1983 SI units, one value of ''c'' will be optimal. However, whatever that value is, it's got nothing to do with the number 299,792,458 m/s in the modern SI Units. That number may be chosen arbitrarily to be any real number whatsoever without affecting in any way how SR fits nature. ] (]) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Of course we don't have to put the particular number 299,792,458 in our model, but if we write down a model that includes all the units and numerical values then one way of doing this is to use 299,792,458. I don't see how you can say with a straight face that 299,792,458 has nothing to do with 299,792,458 ± 1.2 ] (]) 04:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::Of course 299,792,458 ± 1.2 was an evaluation of a model parameter. But that parameter was 1,650,763.73/9,192,631,770 times the ratio between a particular transition of the krypton-86 atom and another particular transition of the caesium-133 atom. Hardly a fundamental parameter. --<span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 19:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I have not said it was fundamental. ] (]) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

===Alternative (mainstream) view===
Just in case the arbitrators are interested in the content of the page and none of them happen to be physicists I have written my version of what I believe to be the standard view of this subject ]. Please do not edit this page, it is my personal opinion. The views of other physicists and experts in metrology are welcome on the associated talk page. ] (]) 17:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:Just in the same case, the contain a very decent explanation of those issues. --<span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::I've also produced ] to the idea that a fixed speed of light has no physical significance… ] ] 09:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Brilliant. You should be debunking crackpots on Usenet ;-) - ] (]) 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm old enough (in RL) to have cut my teeth on Usenet, that much is true ;) — ] ] 12:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

===Two different concepts of the "speed limit"===

I think I've figured this out. If you asked "what is the speed limit?" you could answer "the speed faster than which it is illegal to drive". Or else you could answer "65 miles per hour". Just like the answer to "what is the speed of light?" could be "the speed at which light travels in a vaccum, a fundamental physical constant" or else "299,792,458 m/s". The word "speed" is ambiguous. To say that there are two distinct concepts is misleading, though, since in each case both have to be true about the same thing.

To Brews and David, I gather, the SI's "speed of light" is a ''number''. The ''number'' itself, since it is "defined", doesn't depend on c, although a measured value would. Drawing a distinction between the number and the physical constant sounds like a claim that c!=299,792,458 m/s. But that isn't what Brews and David are saying. This is not a dispute over a fringe theory; it's just a matter of semantics. ] (]) 14:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

::140.247.103.158, That's pretty well it. It's got nothing to do with fringe science. It's a simple case of pointing out that the speed of light, when expressed in terms of a metre that is itself defined in terms of the speed of light, is merely an uninformative tautology that should not be confused with the actual physical speed of light itself. And those who haven't grasped this point are making malice out of what Brews and I have been saying, because what we are saying can sound superficially ridiculous to those who haven't grasped the subtlety of the argument. Imagine we defined a new unit of length as being the height of the Eiffel Tower and that we called it an 'Eiffel Tower'. Then imagine somebody asking what height is the Eiffel Tower, and the reply comes that it is one 'Eiffel Tower' high. The person then asks "how high is an 'Eiffel Tower'?" The reply comes that an 'Eiffel Tower' is the height of the Eiffel Tower. So does the person now know how high the Eiffel Tower is? This would be no more ridiculous than stating the speed of light in modern SI units. ] (]) 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::It's not a tautology at all, it's a point on a scale. On your hypothetical scale, the ] is 0.523&nbsp;Et and the ] is 1.176&nbsp;Et. Are you trying to claim that there's no information in those relations? The answer to your question "How high is the Eiffel Tower?" could very well be "Just under twice as high as the Washington Monument." or "Not quite as high at the Empire State Building, but nearly." ] ] 10:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::To IP 140.247.103.158: Not quite. ''Speed'' is the ''distance'' traveled in a unit of ''time''. The units of distance and time are invented by people based on standards that people choose to define the units. Speed is a real phenomenon, and you can use any units of distance and time that you choose to measure it; the number will be different, but the speed won't be. With modern technology, scientists can measure the speed of light ''very'' accurately (but, of course, not perfectly). Because the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, and because it is relatively easy to measure the speed of light very accurately in a laboratory, in 1983 the organizations that define units of measurements decided to redefine the ] (the basic unit of length in the ], abbreviated SI), based on the speed of light, as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. This conformed to the speed of light as measured with the pre-1983 metres, within narrow limits of accuracy. Everyone here agrees on what I have said up to this point, I believe. However, David and Brews contend that using the speed of light as the standard to define the unit of length caused big problems. I hesitate to describe their positions (which are similar in many ways but not identical), because David and Brews seem to object to everyone else's attempts to summarize succinctly what they say, but I'll try to do the best I can with some of the key points. They both contend that it changed the speed of light from something that real that can be be measured into something that is merely a "convention" (without real physical meaning) or a "]". David argues that this 26-year-old definition of the metre undermined part of the foundation of ]. Brews contends that the "real, physical speed of light" is now decoupled from any statement of its value (or at least from the statement of its value in SI metres). Professional physicists, which David and Brews admittedly are not, don't agree, and the professional literature on the subject doesn't support these views (although David and Brews, unlike the professional physicists here, contend that some passages in the professional literature do support them). That is the essence of the dispute, as I understand it. —] ] 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Well put. That is the problem as I understand it too. ] (]) 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

:There are many aspects to answering "what is X?"; and we should give them all. But that's not the same as saying that "X is really two different concepts"; if no source says that, then neither should we. ] (]) 18:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

::The "two different concepts" idea is definitively described and Dicklyon's argument is disposed of . ] (]) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Has it been considered that - from our limited view amid the process of incomplete Universe - the structure of space extends more rapidly with distance, carrying its contents with it at the same faster rate, that space conducts light in the same way that a cable conducts electricity, and that therefore, by bodies travelling away from us, distant light is emitted at velocities relatively different from that in our position in space? Those bodies would apparently be static in their position in receding space, so light there would be conducted by the space there 'at the speed of light', and at all the positions between here and there, and also as it passes us here, but the light is simply increasingly 'red-shifted'. Your comments are welcome.] (]) 07:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

:Many things have been considered by many people but this page is about physics that has a sound theoretical basis and which has been experimentally verified. ] (]) 08:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Then would you be so kind as to explain how the proposal is 'theoretically unsound'? ] (]) 09:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
:Light in vacuum appears to travel always at the same speed, regardless of the relative motion of the source and the observer. See ]. --<span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 09:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. And where a block of space at a distance of ten billion light years is moving away from us now at, say, half the speed of light, a galaxy it carries within it will emit light there 'at the speed of light' into its local space which is immobile relative to the galaxy itself. That light, being conducted 'at the speed of light' by space now in an outward direction through space accelerating away from us will be travelling at faster than the speed of light relative to us here and now. No? ] (]) 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

:No indeed. ] (]) 19:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::If the light is travelling away from us, we wouldn't be able to "know" anything about it until it is reflected back towards us. In principle, say if there's a random variation in the intensity of the galaxy, we can measure the distance between the galaxy and whatever is doing the reflecting by measuring the time lag between the signals (attention: this is just a thought experiment, it isn't anything that's practically feasible and the distances you're talking about). What we would see – in our frame of reference – is the reflecting object at a distance ''x''. If we were in the galaxy itself, travelling away from the Earth at half the speed of light, we would see the giant reflecting object at a distance 3''x''/2. It is an example of ].
::But, you say, surely that means that the light being emitted away from us is travelling away from us at 3''c''/2? Well, you can imagine that if you like, but special relativity (which is a pretty well-tested theory) says that you will never be able to to an experiment to ''measure'' a speed of light that is different from ''c''. Special relativity doesn't put a limit on your imagination, simply what you're able to observe. ] ] ] ] 09:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We do understand, don't we, that the Universe is already complete, that it already contains both its 'beginnings' and its 'end', whatever both may be. Only, it makes a difference if you appreciate this, as you will understand that 'time' as such does not exist, but only the relative position in the process, of which we are simply a part, and our observation gives us the impression of an incomplete Universe which is in action and with the perception of 'time'. ] (]) 17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Er . . . Hello? - I have just seen the following on 'the expansion of space' - "While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other)."

Right, that is what I am saying here, and have been saying for fifty years, except that the objects are not constrained by anything except the nature of the Universe rather than by any 'theory' or its associated mathematical formula. I am only describing what Universe <i>does</i>, and if you have reservations, perhaps you should take the matter up with the 'expansion of space' page - Or, indeed, with Universe itself.] (]) 10:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So suppose you say that light travels at c through a vacuum of uniform space, but where space is distorted by extension or compression, this velocity may vary.] (]) 05:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:We don't make stuff up here; show us a source. ] (]) 06:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. Just write 'extension of space' in Misplaced Pages, and read the second paragraph.] (]) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, that should have been 'expansion of space'. It's still there. And, by the way, ''I'' am a source. But you still have to see it said by 'someone else'? Brother.

:Statements on Misplaced Pages must be supported by what our policies and guidelines define as ]. ] ] 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::In terms of expanding space, you need to think of the tiny distance that light travels in an "instant", that is d''x''/d''t'' in ]. That speed stays constant, according to mainstream physics, although there is a ] that things might have been different in the early Universe. ] ] 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

== Planck units" some phycisist use length/time dimension ==

It seems that if we do not use "Planck units" some phycisist use length/time dimension. Rather than an edit war can we get an educational discussion about this? (see art. history).] (]) 15:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

:I think this deserves a separate section in the article. I'm ok with removing "dimesionless" in the table (not mentioning this doesn't mean the opposite POV is taken). If I have time I'll start the new section later today. ] (]) 15:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
::Fair enough, I'll wait and see what you propose ;) I agree that the "spacetime dimensionality" needs to be mentioned somewhere, but I would also put my voice towards the opposite site, which is that ''most'' readers won't care about spacetime, and will only want to know about the classical approximation. For me that means something a brief as possible while remaining correct, and good links to other articles. How does that sound to you? ] ] 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::Assuming that "'spacetime dimensionality needs to be mentioned somewhere", is it clear that it needs to be mentioned in ''this'' article? ] ] 21:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::What I mean is dimensions in the context of unit systems. ] (]) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

== Let's make sure we're not talking at cross-purposes ==

Is anyone who disagree on any of the following points? My hunch says that some of the disagreements around here might actually be misunderstanding.
# "A physical quantity is expressed as the product of a numerical value (''i.e.'', a pure number) and a unit". (From the ].) For example, in {{gaps|9.109|382|15(45)|lhs=''m''<sub>e</sub>|u=kg}}, ''m''<sub>e</sub> is a physical quantity, {{gaps|9.109|382|15(45)}} is a numerical value and the kilogram is a unit.
# The ''numerical value'' of a physical quantity normally depends on the ''unit'' used, even if the ''physical quantity'' normally doesn't. For example, my choice of the unit I use to measure height has no effect on how tall I am, but the ''numerical value'' of my height is about 1.87 if I use the metre, and about 187 if I use the centimetre. In other words, the same physical quantity can be expressed with different units, but the numerical values will be different, too. For this reason, ''numerical values'' of dimensionful quantities are artefacts of the choice of units.
# Any dimensionful unit of measurement must be defined in terms of a physical quantity of the same dimension; such physical quantity can be expressed as the product of one or more physical quantities and pure numbers. For example, for the kilogram it is the mass of a piece of metal in France, and for the kelvin it is the product of the triple point temperature of water (with a certain isotopic composition) by the pure number 1/273.16.
# You can never directly measure a dimensionful physical quantity: any such measurement is inherently a measurement of a pure number, the ratio of the quantity being measured and a quantity of the same kind being used as a reference standard. For example, what I measure when I put my ruler along a line on a piece of paper is the dimensionless ratio between the length of the line and the distance between consecutive ticks on the ruler. For this reason, if two measurements of the same quantity yield different values, there's no way to determine whether the quantity has changed, the reference standard has changed, or both; to do that, we have to measure the quantity and the reference standard with respect to some other reference standard which is assumed to be constant.
# Once you have measured such a ratio, you convert it into the form "numerical value times unit" by multiplying it by the reference standard. Then there are two kinds of uncertainties in the ''numerical value'' you get: the one in determining the ratio and the one with which you know the ''numerical value'' of the reference standard; but in practice, usually one of these two kinds of error will largely dominate. For example, if I measure a time around 10 seconds with my digital stopwatch, the first kind of error (due to my reflex times when pressing the start and stop buttons) will be significant, whereas the second won't, because I can trust the time between two consecutive updates of the display to be 0.01&nbsp;s to a very great accuracy. On the other hand, if I measured a time around two months, the error in the number of clock ticks in the period being measured would be negligible, but I could not be sure that the clock isn't too fast or too slow.
# When the reference standard is the unit itself, or an exact number of times the unit itself, the second kind of error is zero. For example, if I had a caesium-133 atomic clock at 0&nbsp;K, I'd be sure that 9,192,631,770 of its ticks are one second exactly.
# When the quantity being measured is the unit itself, the ratio which is measured can be inverted to get the numerical value of the reference standard in the unit used, to use it for subsequent usages; this is called ''calibrating'' the measurement apparatus. For example, if I weighed the piece of metal used to define the kilogram and I got 1.024&nbsp;kg, it'd mean that my scale's reference value is not 1&nbsp;kg but {{val|0.9765625|u=kg}}, to within the error with which the ratio was measured. I can now multiply all subsequent measurements by this value, and the second kind of error in these measurements will be the first kind of error in the calibration. Another way of stating this is that it is pointless to measure the numerical value of the IPK mass in kilograms, as it is exactly 1 by definition; but it still makes sense to measure the ratio of that mass and other masses, for example to use the latter as reference standards, or (assuming that we can somehow be sure that the latter mass stays constant) to determine whether the IPK mass has changed.
# In some cases, the ratio between two physical quantities can be determined to within much greater accuracy than the numerical value of either of them in a particular unit; this usually happens when the physical quantity used to define the unit is such that it's hard to precisely measure the ratio between it and other quantities, and so the second type of errors will be large. For example, I can determine the ratio between the lengths of two sheets of paper on my desk to be {{val|1.000|0.001}}; but I can't determine the numerical values of those lengths in ancient Egyptian cubits with any decent accuracy, because I can't determine the ratio between any reference standard I could use and an ancient Egyptian cubic with any decent accuracy.
# To minimize the second kind of errors, one should use units of measurement which can be accurately compared with other reference standards. That's why the meridian definition of the metre didn't last long, and why they are thinking of replacing the International Prototype Kilogram with another definition: for example, we are able to measure the ratio of the electron mass and the IPK mass to within 50 parts per billion, and the ratio of the electron mass and the carbon-12 atom mass to within 0.42 ppb; ditto for many other subatomic particles. So, defining (for example) the unit of mass in terms of the carbon-12 atom rather than the IPK would allow for errors of the second kind about 120 times as small. Also, for the reason given at the end of point 4. above, it's useful to use reference standards with are assumed to be unable to change with time or circumstances.
# According to special relativity, which is by far the most widespread accepted description of kinematics in absence of gravity among the scientific community and is backed up by , the speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant; also, ratios of lengths to the path traveled by light in one second can be determined to within excellent precision, better than any other reference standard.
# Everyone is free to call things whatever the f*** they want; for example, if I want to call ''t'' the quantity you call ''ct'', ''E'' the quantity you call ''E''/''c''<sup>2</sup>, '''v''' the quantity you call '''v'''/''c'', and so on, I am perfectly free to do so, as long as it's clear what I am doing; since in SR quantities like '''v'''/''c'' show up far more often than quantities like '''v''', it makes perfectly sense to use the shorter symbol for the more common quantity. This is colloquially referred to "using units in which ''c''&nbsp;=&nbsp;1". The philosophical reason why one would do that are irrelevant, and different people could do that having different ideas (or no ideas at all) in their mind of the philosophical reason why they do that. --<span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 10:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

:I agree with all of that and always have done. I have stopped discussion of the subject and editing the article here until we get a response from the arbitrators. I am hoping that the arbitrators' response will let us get on with discussing the subject and article rationally without the madcap contributions and arguments we have had here in the past. ] (]) 12:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
::I only really disagree on one point that is minor (probably completely irrelevant) for this article, of which a quick summary in a second (however you define it). I also think there are a couple of "basic principles" point that you hint at but don't mention explicitly.
:::PC1. Every measurement is based on some theory. For example, if we measure length relative to the length of a given metal bar, we assume that the length of the metal bar (under given conditions of storage and measurement) is constant. If we measure length relative to the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in a given time, we assume that the speed of light is constant. The current definition of the metre also assumes that the speed of light is independent of frequency.
:::PC2. We can usually make different measurements based on different aspects of physical theory, although rarely to the same precision at any given moment. If one of the underlying theories is "wrong" (to within the precision of the measurements), the measurements won't agree. ''A priori'', we don't know which of the theories is at fault, but we can then test them independently against other measurements: the one that is only an approximation will always be simply an approximation. In practice, the constancy of length of metal bars was held to be an approximation.
::As for the slight point of disagreement, your example in point 9 will ''only'' work for the electron at our current level of theory, and your statement assumes that ''E''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''mc''<sup>2</sup> is correct (I don't dispute that it's correct, but it's an additional assumption to those inherent in the definition of the metre). Also, we cannot ''practically'' redefine the ] in terms of a number of carbon atom-masses, nor even with more amenable nuclides, because of the problems of accurately measuring the number of atoms: several groups are spending huge amounts of money to try overcome these problems at the present time, but they're not there yet! ] ] 13:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
:::What I meant is that currently (i.e. as of CODATA 2006), the value of the electron mass in kilograms is known with a relative standard uncertainty of 5.0{{e|-8}} and the value of the electron mass in amu is known with a r.s.u. of 4.2{{e|-10}}. BTW, that was intended to be an example, so the fact that the latter measurement assumes that ''E''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''mc''<sup>2</sup> is only marginally relevant.

A slight clarification, particularly on point 3, is needed I think. The problem here is that different systems of units do not have to be dimensionally compatible. E.g. the cgs system is not compatible with the SI system as far as elecromagnetism is concerned. In SI units the electric charge is assigned an independent dimension but in cgs units it can be expressed in Length, Time and Mass.

So, the problem with point 3 is that the whole notion if "dimensions" is not well defined. Point 3 must actually be understood in reverse. I.e. different quantities were originally assigned different dimensions simply because when they were first measured there was no known universal way to compare the different quantities. Then, in the SI system of units, one introduced extra dimensionful quantities for metrological reasons. Even if you can do with only a few independent physical standards, that may not be the most accurate way to perform measurements. ] (]) 14:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
:Indeed that was part of the follow-up I was going to post after everyone said "yes, all of those points are valid". These are two points which in my mind are logical extensions of the ones above, but for some unfathomable reason appear to be more controversial; I wrote them shortly after posting the list above, and before reading your replies.
:# The ''numerical value'' of the speed of light in vacuum in metres per second is fixed by definition as 299,792,458 and so it's pointless to measure it. Nevertheless, you can measure the ratio of the speed of light in vacuum to any other reference standard for speeds; but if you found such a ratio to have changed, you couldn't say whether it's the speed of light which changed, your reference standard which changed, or both, short of comparing them both to another reference standard you assume to be unable to change. In the framework of special relativity, the speed of light in vacuum is a constant, so it'd be your reference standard for speeds which changed; in another framework, you could find another reference standard constant in that framework and compare both the speed of light and your reference standard.
:# If you know on theoretical grounds that two quantities are always proportional, Whether they have the same or different dimensions depends on the system of units used, and hence is partly arbitrary. For example, assuming that the first law of thermodynamics holds, you may consider heat to have the dimensions of an energy, and then the first law of thermodynamics is d''U''&nbsp;=&nbsp;&delta;''Q''&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;&delta;''W''&nbsp;; or you may consider them to have a different dimension, and the law is d''U''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''k''&delta;''Q''&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;&delta;''W''&nbsp;, where ''k'' is the mechanical equivalent of heat, a constant with the dimension of energy/heat equal to 4184&nbsp;J/kcal<sub>th</sub>. Assuming that Newton's first law holds, you may consider force to have the dimension of a mass times an acceleration, and then Newton's first law is '''F'''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''m'''''a'''; or you may consider it to have a different dimension, and then it's ''g''<sub>n</sub>'''F'''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''m'''''a''', where ''g''<sub>n</sub> is a constant of the dimension of mass&times;acceleration/force equal to 9.80665&nbsp;kg&nbsp;m/(s<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;kgf). Likewise, assuming that special relativity holds, you can consider time to have the dimension of a length, and then the metric in Minkowski spacetime is d''s''<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;=&nbsp;d''t''<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;d''x''<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;d''y''<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;d''z''<sup>2</sup>, or to have a different dimension, and it's d''s''<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;=&nbsp;''c''<sup>2</sup>d''t''<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;d''x''<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;d''y''<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;d''z''<sup>2</sup>, where ''c'' is a constant of the dimension of length/time equal to 299,792,458&nbsp;m/s. This may be viewed as the former person calling ''Q'', '''F''', and ''t'' the quantities the latter person calls ''kQ'', ''g''<sub>n</sub>'''F''' and ''ct''.
:Let's see whether Tombe and Ohare can find a way to claim it makes sense to agree with the points I posted earlier but not with these last two. --<span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 14:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

::A. di M, with these additions, I now fully agree. I think the "unfathomable reason" is this: If something has been treated in a certain way, this tends to stick. In high school, people are still taught that the dimensions of the unit system corresponds to a fundamental physical incompatibility. But this is not something that can be supported from within physics itself. Duff writes in the Trialogue article that he himself was taughed to believe this and only later did he realize that there isn't a shed of evidence to support this view. ] (]) 15:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

== Subsection: Meter defined in terms of the speed of light ==

In the light of these facts:

#The CGPM the metre as ''The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.'' I don't see speed of light mentioned in this definition. I see a ''time-of-transit''.
#Morevover, the CGPM says ''that wavelengths determined from frequency measurements and a given value for the speed of light have a reproducibility superior to that which can be obtained by comparison with the wavelength of the standard radiation of krypton 86'' and this superior reproducibility of frequency measurement compared to comparison of lengths is one reason for the change in definition of the metre to refer to time of transit. Again, no mention of speed of light.
#Finally, the choice of a time interval of 1/299 792 458 s is '''' and has been selected at this value because ''there is an advantage, notably for astronomy and geodesy, in maintaining unchanged the value of the speed of light recommended in 1975 by the 15th CGPM in its Resolution 2 (c = 299 792 458 m/s).'' Here is where the "speed of light" crops up: as a matter of convenience, .

Given these points, the above sub-section title appears inappropriate.
Shouldn't it be replaced with something like
:'''Meter defined in terms of time of transit''',

or, because this is a speed-of-light article,
:'''Speed of light set by definition of the metre'''.

This last title seems to put the burden of explanation upon the metre, where it belongs. ] (]) 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
:Here we go again! ] (]) 20:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
:Brews, #1 defines the metre in terms of the distance that light travels in a certain time a.k.a. the speed of light. How hard can this be to understand.(] (]) 21:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC))
:It's the ''numerical value'' of the speed of light that is set by definition of the metre, not the speed of light itself. They are not the same concept. See point 1. at the top of the section above for the distinction between the two. <span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 22:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

::In response to Martin Hogbin: Catcalls aimed simply at interruption don't aid discussion. They should be severely dealt with, but so far have not been. ] (]) 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

::In response to TimothyRias: Rhetoric ("How hard can this be to understand") doesn't aid discussion, and is inflammatory. It should be severely dealt with, but so far has not been. In my mind and contrary to your point, #1 defines the metre in terms of a transit time. That is, I believe, simply a straightforward read of the exact wording of the definition, and therefore beyond controversy. The value chosen 1/299… s is an artifact of compatibility with the earlier definition of the metre, and this arbitrary choice of value is, as a matter of reasoning, ''logically'' separate from the notion of using a transit time. With that in mind, do you now agree that the title of this subsection should be changed? ] (]) 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

:::The exact wording does not anywhere mention "transit time" it does mention "length ... travelled ... per (unit of time)", which is a speed. The problem you have here seems more linguistic than anything else so lets just write this to a commonly understood language, math. In terms of equations the 1983 definition of the metre reads:
:::: m := c s/299 792 458 .
:::That is the metre is defined in terms of the physical quantities "speed of light" and "second" and the convenient/arbitrary number "299 792 458". The logical result of this definition is that the expression of the speed of light in terms of the metre and the second becomes:
:::: c = 299 792 458 m/s.
:::I think it is clear to everbody here that this numerical value could in principle have been set to any value, but the chosen one kept the metre as close to the old definition as possible. (] (]) 06:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

::In response to A. di M.: I agree with this remark. Do you support a change in title, or not? ] (]) 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

:::"Metre defined in terms of the speed of light" (I just conformed the spelling of ''metre'' to the rest of the article) is an accurate statement and an accurate heading for the section. The section explains the ''consequence'' of this definition of the metre to the value of the speed of light. Further, the heading accurately reflects the significance of the definition of the metre to the ], which is the topic of the article. Plus, the documentation of the definition explains that the value chosen for the metre was not "arbitrary", as you keep insisting, but was chosen based on the measurement of the speed of light. ] ] 02:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Response to Finell: But the metre is <u>not</u> defined ''in terms of the speed of light'' at all. The metre is defined in terms of a definite transit time of 1/299 … s. The <u>consequence</u> of this transit time is that the SI units "speed of light" is 299 … m/s ''by definition''. ] (]) 05:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Meter defined in terms of the speed of light :Agree ] (]) 03:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Response to ]: Your one-word insertion into this discussion does not, of course, further the discussion, but constitutes ''cheerleading'', an activity tending to polarize the discussion into armed camps. That activity should be severely discouraged as an undesirable encouragement of incivility, leading to emotional rather than reasoned responses from others, but so far has not been adequately disciplined. ] (]) 15:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

::Brews, this is just you trying again to tell us that the speed of light that has a defined value in SI ("the SI units speed of light" as you call it) is not the same speed of light that is a physical constant, right? Or is there some other POV you want us to get out of these rants? ] (]) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

::Response to Dicklyon: You have characterized my effort at discussion as a "rant", which is uncivil and not germane. Such inflammatory terms should be dealt with harshly, but so far have not been. You also rephrase my argument incorrectly to make it sound bizarre, to justify your scorn. Such distortion (whether deliberate, or due to various forms of intellectual limitation) also should be dealt with harshly. I suggest you read the proposal and respond to what actually was said in a civil manner. ] (]) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

:::If by "the SI units speed of light" he means "the ''numerical value'' of the speed of light in SI units", surely it "is not the same speed of light that is a physical constant", for the former is a dimensionless number equal to 299,792,458 and the latter is, depending on your philosophy, either a dimensionful constant or a dimensionless one equal to 1. To avoid miscommunication, I suggest that from now on we only use the phrase "speed of light" to refer to the ''physical quantity", and always explicitly say "numerical value" when we mean that (see above for the explanation from the IUPAP Red Book). <span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 17:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who changed it. I changed it because the previous heading could imply that the SI "defined" the "speed of light" to be something that did not equal the actual speed of light, in much the same way as the ] "defined" pi to be 3.2. Just to make it clear that the SI has no power over the speed of light nor are they going to force everyone to use an incorrect value of c. The current heading is unambiguous. ] (]) 03:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

:Response to 140.247.242.101: There is a quagmire here that you may not be familiar with: the transit time corresponding to the metre can be selected to be any fraction of a second you wish. Shorter times lead to shorter metres, for example. The SI units ''defined value'' for the speed of light simply adjusts accordingly in response to that choice. Thus, unlike defining ''pi'' to be a convenient value, which would involve a logical error, the numerical value of the SI units speed of light can be in fact any number whatsoever. That is the gist of points 2 & 3 above, and the reference to Jespersen. Accordingly, the view that the CGPM has the power to force a numerical value upon us is not a misinterpretation at all, as they do have the authority to do exactly that. Of course, this authority does not change what you call "the actual speed of light", because all they can do is define the metre, not the actual speed of light. That is why I think the title "Speed of light set by definition of the metre" is apt; maybe "SI Units speed of light set by definition of the metre" is better? . ] (]) 05:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the section title to "Redefinition of the Metre" since by the MoS section title should not contain any reference to the article title. This is also solves any possible dispute about the previous section title. (] (]) 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

:TimothyRias: Thank you. ] (]) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., If I am not mistaken, is that not what Brews and I have been saying all along? The article should be about the physical speed of light and not the "SI units speed of light" which is a numerical value. ] (]) 06:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

:The article is and always has been about the physical speed of light; that is not an innovation attributable to you. Stating the value of the physical speed of light in various measurement systems, the history of knowledge about physical speed of light and its measurement, its role in physics, especially in special and general relativity, its role in metrology, and the rest of the content, have also been part of the article long before you arrived at this article or talk page, and long before you discovered the 26-year-old "news", which was 25 years old when you learned about it. Adding the adjective ''physical'' to ''speed of light'', as the two of you do, does not change the latter's meaning, so ''physical'' is an unnecessary word. Shortening the title of one subsection of the article, to conform to the MOS by eliminating repetition of the article's title, was TimothyRias's correction; it is of relatively minor importance (although we do like to conform to the MOS because it is a guideline), does not change or compromise the article's content, does not resemble the titles that Brews proposed above (which no other editor agreed with), and had nothing to do with any of your lengthy and repetitious arguments here. That Brews evidently derives satisfaction from this change in the subsection's title is a bonus. ] ] 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

:Response to Finell: The reason for introducing the "extra word" ''physical'', or''real'', or maybe ''actual'', on occasion as an adjective describing ''speed of light'' sometimes is necessary to distinguish it from the ''numerical value'' of the speed of light in SI units, which numerical value is referred to on the and in the CGPM documentation regarding the metre as the "speed of light". (For example, says "a consequence of the definition is that <u>the speed of light</u> is now a defined constant, not to be measured again." Emphasis mine.) Where clarity is at stake, an extra word is not amiss. ] (]) 13:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

::There is no difference between the two concepts. ] ] 13:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I think you missed my point. Quoting the ]: "A physical quantity is expressed as the product of a numerical value (i.e., a pure number) and a unit". For example, in "1.87&nbsp;m", 1.87 is the numerical value and the metre is the unit; and the physical quantity 1.87&nbsp;m equals 187&nbsp;cm although their numerical values are different. In "299,792,458&nbsp;m/s", 299,792,458 is the numerical value and the metre per second is the unit. Of course the speed of light and the pure number 299,792,458 are different concepts: "the population of the United States on 30 September 2006 at 17:58 was 299,792,458" is a meaningful statement and might be true, "the population of the United States on 30 September 2006 at 17:58 was the speed of light" is nonsense. <span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

::Response to Physchim62: I take it that you subscribe to the notion that no adjective is necessary? That seems an odd position to me as the quote from Sullivan above with addition of an implied "physical" adjective would be taken to mean that the real, physical speed of light never need be measured again, which would be absurd because a number of tests of theories like ] involve very precise measurements of this speed. That is, it is significant to separate these two concepts. ] (]) 13:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::The use of different terms also was recommended by above. ] (]) 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I did not recommend to call the physical quantity speed of light anything else than "speed of light"; only to call its numerical value differently. <span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Response to A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.: I do not think Sullivan meant that the ''physical'' "speed of light is now a defined constant, not to be measured again.", but rather that the numerical value 299… m/s is now a defined constant, not to be measured again (as the term "defined constant" requires, in fact). Do you agree with this interpretation of Sullivan? ] (]) 19:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::I guess he indeed mean that, or he might not be thinking about the distinction. So what? The fact that someone used a term with a confusing meaning doesn't mean that's it a good idea for us to do the same.<span style="color: #4B61D1; font-family: monospace; border: thin solid">]A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.</span> 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::Response to A.&nbsp;di&nbsp;M.: Thanks, just checking. If you look over my remarks, I am in support of your view that confusion be avoided. ] (]) 14:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

:Finell: You might avoid intemperance of tone in your responses, and non-contributory nasty asides like ''(which no other editor agreed with)''. Such asides do not add to the discussion, are in this case incorrect, and serve only to raise the temperature of discourse. ] (]) 13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I was actually responding to A. di M.'s observation that the physical speed of light is a different concept to the SI units speed of light which is a fixed number by definition. A. di M. is therefore making the same point that Brews, and I, and others have been making. Many sources have been supplied, and the one that Brews has just quoted was actually supplied by Physchim62. No sources have as yet been supplied that state a contrary position. ] (]) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

::Response to Brews ohare: I red and think understood "Resolution 1 of the 17th CGPM". Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures. BIPM. 1983. http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/. Retrieved 2009-08-23." . Now I use my hand to measure things but in the past used lasers ,miles,submarine sound profiles and whatever ,most details i do not remember (or care about ) anymore. ] (]) 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


* In the literature:
:::This is a classic example of how this talk page has degenerated and why everyone, with the notable exception of 2 stalwarts, is so tired and frustrated:
::{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"
:::#The heading of a subjection was changed, although to one that only TimothyRias proposed and that did not resemble any heading that any other editor proposed or supported.
|-
:::#Brews is satisfied with the new subjection heading.
! Google Search !! Scholar !! Books
:::#Tombe is satisfied with the new subjection heading.
|-
:::#Everyone else is satisfied with the new subjection heading.
| "Speed of light in vacuum"
:::#TimothyRias should be ''very'' satisfied that he managed to satisfy everyone with his the new subjection heading.
|
:::#Tombe is still arguing.
|
:::#Brews is still arguing.
|-
:::] ] 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
|}
: Getting rid of the term would be spectacularly against Misplaced Pages's mission. - ] (]) 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
::::Response to Finell: As to your last Point 7 : not arguing Finell - asking for input from A. di M., just to be sure we're on the same page. Your remarks about a "classic" example and about my "still arguing" are snippy, invalid, and counterproductive, tending promote polarization and create an atmosphere of contention. Your Point 1 processing of history to minimize my role in the change in title also is completely unnecessary, as it has no bearing upon development of discussion, and is simply argumentative.
::::I don't find your other points contribute anything to your thesis that discussion has degenerated - it seems to have led to a very satisfactory result: a sensible title for the subsection that everybody likes well enough. However, as my comments above indicate, a great many incivilities arose along the way that could be omitted with benefit to the general atmosphere. ] (]) 14:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


:If the speed of light is always the same, then ] shouldn't exist. ] (]) 09:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I am waiting for the results of the arbitration before contributing further. I think there are still may remnants of the earlier problems that need to be dealt with before we can make progress. This will be much easier of the arbitrators take the right action. ] (]) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


:The existence of Cherenkov radiation is already mentioned at the end of {{section link|Speed of light#In a medium}}. <span style="box-shadow:2px 2px 6px #999">]]</span> 10:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
== upper bound on the speed at which matter and information can travel ==


== Speed of light in literature ==
Should the article also mention that the speed of light places the lower limit on time at which two spatially separated systems can get entangled? In other words it is also the maximum speed of the cascade of quantum entanglement. (Do not confuse with the "speed" of the quantum non-local connection!). --] (]) 08:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


I think there needs to be a section about speed of light in popular culture somewhere, namely the teleportation gimmick used areas like in Star Wars and Kingdom Hearts. The disambiguation mentions a few examples but not this article. ] (]) 00:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:In my opinion, that is better left for the quantum mechanics articles. We should not try to make an article like ] more complicated than it needs to be, just as we shouldn't make quantum mechanics articles any less difficult than they need to be. ] ] 18:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


:We already have a page on ] and one on ] and on ]. ] (]) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
== Difficult section ==


:A fairly well-known old science-fiction story where the speed of light plays a prominent role is "]" by Philip Latham. The speed of light actually remains the same, but other things change, resulting in the doom of the universe... ] (]) 07:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi - I'm not a scientist, I'm just approaching this interesting article with a view to its readability and impact on an relavity uneducated readership. Can anyone explain this part to me? "It is possible for the group velocity of light to exceed c, and in an experiment in 2000, laser beams traveled for extremely short distances through caesium atoms with a group velocity of 300 times c. It is not, however, possible to use this technique to transfer information faster than c since the velocity of information transfer depends on the front velocity, which is always less than c.". ] (]) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:45, 8 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Speed of light article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Featured articleSpeed of light is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 29, 2004, and on August 16, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
December 7, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
November 21, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 25, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 12, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
December 20, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
March 19, 2022Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconPhysics: Relativity Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the relativity task force.
WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages

There is a request, submitted by ScientistBuilder (talk)ScientistBuilderScientistBuilder (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "The speed of light is central to physics fields including the Big Bang Theory, special relativity, general relativity, spectroscopy, optics, as well as real world applications such as signal processing and GPS networks".


Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Is this part accurate in History?

Quote:

Connections with electromagnetism

In the 19th century Hippolyte Fizeau developed a method to determine the speed of light based on time-of-flight measurements on Earth and reported a value of 315000 km/s (704,634,932 m/h).

His method was improved upon by Léon Foucault who obtained a value of 298000 km/s (666,607,015 m/h) in 1862. Kailandosk (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting our article may not be correct or proposing that it include conversions to km/h at that point, and in either case, why? NebY (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
There's a definite discrepancy in number of significant digits between the quoted metric and traditional measurements... AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, but the values in parentheses aren't in the article. If we wanted to include them, we could use {{Convert}}, which would probably round them appropriately automatically, and wouldn't abbreviate miles to "m" either, but I don't see why we'd want to include such conversions in that part of the article anyway. NebY (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I added the parenthesis. It's just a conversion to m/h that I made, just to show how different they are & to convert it into U.S. terms. Kailandosk (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if 315000 or 298000 km/s is correct. I feel it's 315000 km/s, but I'm not sure. Kailandosk (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Why not also include an accurate description of c in miles per second?

186282.3970512 mi/s, to be fairly accurate.

Speed of light in vacuum

Misplaced Pages should get rid of all occurrences of the phrase "speed of light in vacuum". There is only one speed of light, which is a universal constant. Also the speed of light doesn't change if not in vacuum. Group velocity represents the real speed of a photon, and that doesn't change. Only phase velocity is changing, causing the optical effects that mislead people. But this very article is explaining the same in the section Speed of light#In a medium. Lustakutya (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If you have a reference for your point of view please share it. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Johnjbarton shouldn't this work the other way around? I don't want to add anything. I want something to be removed which has no reference. Lustakutya (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The article has rather a lot of mentions of the speed of light in vacuum that are supported by references to reliable sources. Merely in Speed of light#Numerical value, notation, and units, we have

Sometimes c is used for the speed of waves in any material medium, and c0 for the speed of light in vacuum. This subscripted notation, which is endorsed in official SI literature ....

I find the idea that we would deny the current definition of the metre rather disturbing. NebY (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This is what I was talking about from the beginning. You are confusing two different concepts as well. c0 has a place in physics. In one place. Optics. In case of refraction the phase velocity is used for calculations, because the phase of light is shifting constantly if travelling in a medium which is not vacuum. Every other area of physics is using the universal constant c, which can be calculated using Maxwell's equations. By the way the Photon article also says "Photons are massless particles that always move at the speed of light when in vacuum." which is plain wrong. Photons are unable to travel slower then c.
If you think that Misplaced Pages is correct in its current state, than I won't say anything more. Lustakutya (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I fixed the Photon article thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Lustakutya You asked that all occurences across Misplaced Pages to be changed. I think we better discuss a reference for your claim first. You pointed to one section, Speed of light#In a medium, but it has sources so you need to explain why they should be removed. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Understanding should be the key here. Please look at this video. After watching it you will have the urge searching for references, too. Lustakutya (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
That's a great video. But it's not news, sorry. It explains the atomic model of the index of refraction. Based on this video I recommend no changes. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • In the literature:
Google Search Scholar Books
"Speed of light in vacuum" 67,400 68,200
Getting rid of the term would be spectacularly against Misplaced Pages's mission. - DVdm (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. See, for example:
  2. International Bureau of Weights and Measures (2006), The International System of Units (SI) (PDF) (8th ed.), p. 112, ISBN 92-822-2213-6, archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-06-04, retrieved 2021-12-16
If the speed of light is always the same, then Cherenkov radiation shouldn't exist. AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The existence of Cherenkov radiation is already mentioned at the end of Speed of light § In a medium.  Dr Greg  talk  10:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Speed of light in literature

I think there needs to be a section about speed of light in popular culture somewhere, namely the teleportation gimmick used areas like in Star Wars and Kingdom Hearts. The disambiguation mentions a few examples but not this article. Jordf32123 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

We already have a page on Teleportation and one on Teleportation in fiction and on warp drive. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
A fairly well-known old science-fiction story where the speed of light plays a prominent role is "The Xi Effect" by Philip Latham. The speed of light actually remains the same, but other things change, resulting in the doom of the universe... AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: