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 20:40, 19 July 2010 editBob K31416 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,020 edits →Does light always travel at c, or does it never travel at c?← 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, Rollbackers138,475 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:
{{See also|Talk:Speed of light/Definition of the metre}}
{{skip to talk}} {{skip to talk}}
{{talk header}} {{talk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{Article history
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 14
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Speed of light/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date=20:53, 17 Aug 2004 |action1date=20:53, 17 Aug 2004
Line 33: Line 26:
|action4oldid=339898368 |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
}} }}
{{Physics|importance=Top|class=B|relativity=yes}} {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=Top |relativity=yes }}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Natsci|VA=yes}}
}}
{{archive box|search=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}}
*] (Up to end of 2004)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
*] (2005 – July 2006)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
*] (July 2006 – end of 2006)
|maxarchivesize = 250K
*] (2007)
|counter = 18
*] (2008)
|minthreadsleft = 4
*] (Jan 2009 – February 2009)
|algo = old(90d)
*] (February 2009 — July 2009)
*] (July–August 2009) |archive = Talk:Speed of light/Archive %(counter)d
}}
*] (August 2009)
{{archive box |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index|
*] (August–September 2009)
*] (September–October 2009) * ] (Up to end of 2004)
*] (October–December 2009) * ] (2005 – July 2006)
*] (November 2009 – May 2010) * ] (July 2006 – end of 2006)
*] (May 2010 – present) * ] (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 – )
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=14 |small=yes}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Speed of light}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Speed of light}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


== Are we ready for FA? == == Is this part accurate in History? ==


Quote:
When I returned to this article last week, after about a month I hadn't significantly edited it, I found it even better than I remembered. I am quite positive that it is ready for FA status, but can anyone find any issue with it before I nominate it again? ―&nbsp;<i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">]_di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">]</sup> (formerly Army1987) 18:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


'''Connections with electromagnetism'''
:I have an issue with the 'Fundamental role in physics section. In this section there important facts about the subject of the article have been relegated to footnotes. Why are they not in the main text? ] (]) 23:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
::The Doppler effect and the Terrell rotation are quite irrelevant to the point being made, so I would keep them where they are. The Scharnhorst effect is so small that it might well be never observed during the lifetime of anyone around here, so it was agreed that it was undue weight to put it in the main text.
::Anyway, I'm going to move the reference to the relativity of simultaneity and the tachyonic antitelephone back into the main text (being sent to a footnote only comprising one link distracts more than seeing it in the text, IMO). As for the note on one-way vs two-way speed, I think it should be in the main text too, but I seem to remember there once was an opposition to that and was moved to the footnote as a compromise. ―&nbsp;<i style="background: white; color: blue; font-weight:600; font-family: monospace">]_di_M.</i><sup style="font-family: fantasy">]</sup> (formerly Army1987) 13:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


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'').
== Measurement ==


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)
The introduction says about the speed of light: “Its value is <u>exactly</u> 299,792,458 metres per second”. is cited in this connection, as is “turning ''c'' into a conversion factor whose value is fixed and arbitrary” (p. 280). I'd suggest that some reconciliation of this viewpoint be attempted in the section which explains many methods for determining the speed of light and cites values like 299,710±22 km/s with error bars, as is appropriate only for an uncertain quantity, not an exact value.


: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)
I do not feel comfortable in pursuing a discussion of these matters, which caused me a great deal of difficulty with ArbCom in the past, and brought the most extreme invective and vituperation upon me that I have experienced in my 71 odd years of life.


::There's a definite discrepancy in number of significant digits between the quoted metric and traditional measurements... ] (]) 13:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
However, it still seems to me that a naive reader is likely to wonder what is going on here. I hope that some enterprising soul can brave this wilderness to bring some clarity to the Measurement section. That involves at most the addition of a few sentences of reconciliation. ] (]) 20:49, 15 July 2010 (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)
:As for the introduction, the reader is going to understand what is going on by the time they get to the end of the third paragraph. Maybe a paragraph could be added after the first paragraph of "Measurement" stating that today measuring ''c'' in metres serves no purpose (other than verifying that your measuring instruments are properly calibrated and properly working) and that measuring it in some other unit is equivalent to measuring the length of other unit in metres ... but I'm not sure of how to word it. What would you propose? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::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? ==
::A. di M.: I wouldn't hazard an attempt at wording given the history of conduct among editors of this article.
::The underlying difficulty with the ] article is short shrift given to how a system of units based upon replacing ‘distance’ with ‘time-of-flight’ compares with a different system where distance and time are kept separate. That comparison could be done in a general manner for any speed standard, explaining the need for reassurance that the "standard" speed has been realized in any given measurement, and the role of definitions in making that speed "exact". That presentation could then be narrowed to describe why light-speed is a good choice. ] (]) 11:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::But there aren't two or more systems: modern physics is based on special relativity, from which we get that the speed of light is fixed, so distance can be defined in terms of time. Historically there were many different ways to understand it, all covered in the article, but the current system has been settled science for about a hundred years. The definition changed more recently, but standards bodies are much more conservative than scientists, and have to take account of how easily a definition is to use.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 13:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::The idea of a fixed, finite speed of light dates back to Rømer (who also used time of flight as his measure of distance, as astronomers still do to this day). This subject has been discussed ''ad nauseam'' on this page, there is no need for any additional clarification, and certainly no need for philosophical ponderings of what might have been had physcics been different. ] ] 14:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::::<small>FWIW, the idea of a ''fixed'' speed of light only dates back to special relativity, actually. Before then, it was believed to depend on the frame of reference, which left Michelson and Morley scratching their heads. ] (]) 02:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)</small>
"''I do not feel comfortable in pursuing a discussion of these matters, which caused me a great deal of difficulty with ArbCom in the past, and brought the most extreme invective and vituperation upon me that I have experienced in my 71 odd years of life.''" — well don't do it then! ] ] 14:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


186282.3970512 mi/s, to be fairly accurate.
John, and Physchim62: Your remarks are not at all responsive to the matters raised. To recapitulate, the section on Measurement describes many attempts to measure the speed of light and quotes the results with error bars appropriate to an inexactly known quantity, which appears to be in conflict with the statement of the Introduction that the speed of light is an exact value. That is confusing, and could be clarified with some remarks reconciling these two views in the Measurement section. This is a matter of making the logic clear, and is not a question about historical development or modern practice. I'm sorry to see your intemperate reaction, Physchim62. ] (]) 15:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
-


== Speed of light in vacuum ==
:{{ec}} And I'm sorry that you have chosen to ignore . The logic is clear: after a couple of centuries of ever-decreasing the error bars on measurements of the speed of light against standards of the metre, the uncertainty in the definition of the metre became the limiting factor. Rather than stop improving measurement techniques, the definition of the metre was changed so that the speed of light became the defining factor. This is no different from, say defining the ] in terms of the ] and not in terms of a number of electrons which passes a given point per second, or saying that the mass of a ] atom is exactly 12&nbsp;]s. All of these are definitions which have changed over the years, without any logical inconsistency. ] ] 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the last sentence of the lead "...the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre." could be moved up... ] (]) 15:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::And again, Physchim62, your are beside the point. There is no question of logical inconsistency in the historical record or in modern practice. The question is simply one of clarity of presentation in a WP article called ] of two different approaches: the “time-of-flight” approach that uses a definition with an exact value for ''c'', and the approach that uses separate ‘time’ and ‘distance’ units and therefore a ''measurement'' of ''c'' as ‘distance/time’. ] (]) 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::But there aren't two different approaches, there's only one, the one given in the article. In what we think of as modern physics it's one of the best established facts, that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, which fixes the definition of length in terms of time. Any other approach is historic (and covered already) or wrong (and so has no place here).--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::::John, you are mistaken: please re-read the article itself carefully. The standards methodology changed in 1983 to achieve greater reproducibility and accuracy. Read and take a look at the references, which provide a more detailed discussion, in particular, is cited in this connection, as is . That is why error bars appear on the numbers in the Measurement section. I'd say that if a person can come away from the ] article without this awareness, the article is lacking. ] (]) 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Brews, you have just plunged headlong into the same discussion that, 'brought the most extreme invective and vituperation upon me that I have experienced in my 71 odd years of life'. I am sure that you have been right about many things in your life but in this particular case please just consider the possibility that you might be wrong before going any further. ] (]) 17:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::Thank you Martin, for that advice. Frankly, I see nothing at all controversial in what I have said here. My view of the reaction to these rather simple remarks is that in the minds of several (among whom Physchim62 clearly is one), old, ingrained arguments that have not been brought up here at all, dominate their thoughts and prevent them from reading what is before them. Like Pavlov's dogs, certain sounds cause salivation, even when no food is present. So, the ] article is free to continue in its present confusing form, that even an erudite editor like John Blackburne will misinterpret. I will follow your advice, which I take as urging my withdrawal. ] (]) 17:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Well, distances could be and were measured through transit times before 1983, and they still can be and are measured by other means today. The only thing that changed was which of the conversion factors needed to express one's measurement in metres is exact. Section 6.3 of the current version already clearly explains the purpose of the redefinition; what is confusing with it? ] (]) 02:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
:::BTW, the "the approach that uses separate ‘time’ and ‘distance’ units and therefore a ''measurement'' of ''c'' as ‘distance/time’" was not quite what the most precise measurements in the 1970s were about: the experiments described in "Laser interferometry" were essentially measuring the ratio of two frequencies. ] (]) 10:29, 17 July 2010 (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)
Gentlemen, the sentence should state, by international agreement, for purposes of measurement in the SI system of units, the value of the speed of light is taken to be exactly... This is a rather simple solution to the difficulty and Brews was correct to raise the point.] (]) 21:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
: It already does say that, except in more detail and more clearly, in the third paragraph. But most of the time the history of the definition is inimportant - when you use ''c'' in a formula like ''E''=''mc''<sup>2</sup> for example you should know it's a constant, and to do calculations you need to know it's value, but that's all. A curious or attentive reader might wonder why it's exceptionally an exact value, and can find the theory behind and the practical reasons for this later in the article.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 21:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:The suggested sentence gives the impression that there is a 'real' definition of distance that has somehow been ignored by the definition of the metre. Such notions have long since been abandoned by physicists. Even so, the metre is still defined as a unit of proper length. ] (]) 08:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC


:If you have a reference for your point of view please share it. ] (]) 15:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
You gentlemen seem to be throughly confused. There is no constant of physics that is known exactly, except by a definition as to the agreement of the value to be used. All of this talk is beside the point. You have said that a constant is known exactly through measurement and that is impossible. Please stop putting impossible physics into Misplaced Pages articles, we have enough of that already.
::@] 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)
:Who said it is "known exactly through measurement", exactly? ] (]) 14:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
:::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:

* {{Cite book
::A. di M.: Your comment above about "measuring the ratio of two frequencies" is the kind of detail that requires more attention in this article. Statements like Blackburne's “aren't two different approaches, there's only one, the one given in the article” are indicative of the confusion generated around this topic. Replies like Physchim62's “there is no need for any additional clarification, and certainly no need for philosophical ponderings of what might have been had physics been different.” are total irrelevancies.
|last=Lide |first=D. R.
::I hope you can clear up and explain better how the measurement situation led to the decision to change the basis of the units from a ‘time and space units’ approach to a ‘time-of-flight’ approach requiring only the second, and connect that to today's definition that doesn't employ error bars like 299,710±22 km/s, but an exact value 299,792,458 m/s. It's a big challenge, given that so many want to believe that they understand perfectly what happened in 1983 but cannot tolerate any attempt to explain it more carefully. ] (]) 16:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|year=2004
::It may be that a separate article should be written to discuss at length the comparison of “time and space” units approaches and “time-of-flight” approaches using only the second. That would allow for a more detailed discussion of measurement techniques, historical developments, and the difference in logical basis allowing the use of a defined speed of light. It also would allow for the treatment of issues such as how we can check that ''c'' is a universal constant even though we use a defined value for it. And above all, it would allow referral to this article from ] and thereby remove all this furor to a different venue. ] (]) 16:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|title=CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
::::If we move this to a different venue it will be to return to ArbCom; all your points have been discussed at great length before, and the discussions can be found in the archives of this page. That you choose to to return here with exactly the same arguments once ] is a sign that you do not wish to improve this page, simply ]. ] ] 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WDll8hA006AC&q=speed+of+light+%22c0+OR+%22&pg=PT76
:::::Physichim62: Threats of ArbCom action as a response to a mild suggestion to create a separate article for more in-depth treatment is exaggerated and hostile. ] (]) 17:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|pages=2–9
:::Again there is no "difference in logical basis", there is only the current correct and universally accepted approach. Everything else is wrong and/or historical, and is already covered at length in the article. There's certainly no need for a separate article, especially not to explore alternative (i.e. incorrect) interpretations of the science.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 17:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|publisher=]
::::John: An approach using both length (metre) and time (second) units is not "incorrect". It is the system in use prior to 1983. It requires a speed to be established by measuring a distance traveled and the time of travel, and as both of these measurements are indeed measurements, the speed has an experimental error bar. An approach using a standard speed also is perfectly viable. It could be the speed of sound in a specified medium, for example. Then a distance is determined as a "time-of-flight", that is, how long it takes the sound wave to travel the length. Such a system requires only a time unit, the second, and all lengths are determined in terms of times-of-flight in seconds. In choosing between these two systems, it is not their "correctness" that is at stake. What is involved is practical matters, most notably, how much trouble it is to insure that the standard speed has actually been realized. In the case of a standard speed in terms of the propagation of sound, the issue is how readily and accurately one can ascertain that the standard medium has been realized. It is when considering this matter that the speed of light becomes so highly recommended, because experiment has shown the speed of light to be readily realized in a great variety of circumstances, available to all observers without undue concern and preparation. ] (]) 17:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|isbn=978-0-8493-0485-9

}}
=====Suggestion=====
* {{Cite book
Might I suggest that this discussion is continued on a separate talk page where those that wish to discuss the subject can do so and this page can continue to be used for improving the article in other respects. I have started a page at ] for those interested and have copied Brews paragraph above there. ] (]) 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|last=Harris |first=J. W. |year=2002

|title=Handbook of Physics
:That's a good idea. I think whether Brews is right or wrong about how to present the definition of the meter etc. can be gauged better by improving the article on other points to make the article ready for FA review. Then we'll get comments from univinvolved editors who may or may not notice the same issues as Brews is raising. Then, if the FA review is successful and the article appears on the main page, we can expect a lot of comments from a much larger audience. So, if people are really surprised that c has an exact value and want the article to explain this in a clearer way, then we'll get that feedback. ] (]) 19:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c60mCxGRMR8C&q=speed+of+light+%22c0+OR+%22+date:2000-2009&pg=PA499

|page=499
::I like this idea myself. I make this suggestion: in a day or so I'll set up a user page along the lines of Speed of light pre- and post-1983 and present what seem to me to be the salient topics. On its discussion page all are invited to comment. How does that sound? ] (]) 19:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|publisher=Springer

|isbn=978-0-387-95269-7
:::Fine. ] (]) 20:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|display-authors=etal}}

* {{Cite book
== Exact value for c in miles per second. ==
|last=Whitaker |first=J. C.

|year=2005
In SI units the ] is defined exactly in terms of the meter, which means c has an exact rational value in units of miles per second:
|title=The Electronics Handbook

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FdSQSAC3_EwC&q=speed+of+light+c0+handbook&pg=PA235
<math> \textstyle c= \frac{ 18737028625 }{ 100584 } </math> mi/s.
|page=235

|publisher=CRC Press
It is impossible to convert meters/sec to miles/second using a decimal conversion factor. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|isbn=978-0-8493-1889-4
:This is already mentioned in . ] (]) 14:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
}}

* {{Cite book
== Proposal for a new article concerning time-of-flight and length-and-time standards ==
|last=Cohen |first=E. R. |year=2007

|title=Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry
A rough, preliminary draft of a proposed article can be found ]. Comments are invited on its discussion page.
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TElmhULQoeIC&q=speed+of+light+c0+handbook&pg=PA143

|page=184
This article is intended for the naive reader to help them understand the change in SI units that occurred in 1983. The article is far from final form, and some help in its construction would be appreciated. ] (]) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
|edition=3rd
: Aside from the way it is written - after the first paragraph is seems largely devoid of encyclopaedic writing, and reads more like an essay than an article making arguments largely unsupported by the references - I don't see the need for such an article. Anything that needs to be said of the definition of the metre should be in the article ], or on the speed of light in this one. The history of it is interesting, as it tells us a lot about how our understanding of the universe has developed, but that's already covered.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
|publisher=]

|isbn=978-0-85404-433-7
::The article is not about the metre per se, but about two ''definitions'' of the metre, a ‘time-of-flight’ definition and a ‘length’ definition. The idea is to contrast the approaches and point out why one provides better reproducibility and accuracy than the other. Improvements are expected and recommendations and comments are invited. ] (]) 05:22, 19 July 2010 (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''.
:Re the 1st sentence of the draft, "A change in the meaning of the term ''speed of light'' as used in the ] occurred in 1983." – Perhaps you meant the physical constant '''c''', which changed to have a specific fixed value because of the change in the definition of the meter? My feeling is that the speed that light travels in a vacuum is what it is, regardless of what humans do, whereas the value and units of the physical constant '''c''' are derived from definitions made by humans. (BTW, I'm not sure if this view of mine is in the consensus of opinion here.) I recognize that you might have had this distinction in mind when you wrote "term" but this subject can easily get confusing if it isn't made as clear as possible.
::::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)

: Also, assuming this article isn't a ], it seems that the material in it could be covered in existing articles, if it isn't already. Regards, --] (]) 08:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) :::::I fixed the ] article thanks. ] (]) 20:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:::@] 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)
::This is nothing but a ]. I also note that you are again try to push the same idiosyncrasies as you did before you got banned. You'd think that after the Arbcom kurfuffle you would have learned your lesson and stop ], but I guess this is impossible for you (as we all feared). You yourself said this was the worse experience of your life, and yet you're back asking for more. Brews, please drop the stick and find yourself a less controversial article for you to edit. Because I'm really not looking forwards to ARBCOM/Speed of Light 2, which will inevitably happen if you keep at it. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 10:25, 19 July 2010 (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. ] (]) 17:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

:::I don't think Brews is behaving in a disruptive way anymore. As long as discussions are taking place elsewhere so that the editors here can continue working on the other issues and as long as Brews won't actually create or edit articles unless he gets the necessary consensus for that, there is really no problem.

:::Note that I wrote earlier that making this aticle ready for FA review should be a priority and that this will actually help to deal with the issues Brews has brought up. If the definition of the speed of light really does require more explanation, then we'll get that feedback in the FA review or when the article is featured on the main space. If no one sees a problem here, then Brews argument that it is not clear, is not something that is widely shared by people who are not involved in the writing of this article.

:::Also, note that the ArbCom case was a disaster, the Arbitrators had to reverse their ruling over their objections after intervention by Jimbo Wales. I don't think they will consider to hear a new case in the absense of evidence of clear disruption, e.g. a clear pushing of fringe views in articles.
:::ArbCom is right now considering a case on climate change. If you want to see a example of real disruption right now, . Now if Cla68 and the other sceptics were to decide to just go about their business as Brews is doing now (simply write up something on their own userspace and then ask for comments, instead of editing against consensus), what a relief that would be. ] (]) 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Can you give a link to the intervention by Wales? BTW, I agree that as long as the discussion is only in Ohare's own user space, there's no disruption. Also, I think that the article as it is now is ready for FA; what would you think about nominating it? ] (]) 15:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::I also think the article is ready for FA review. I do have some issues about the section on the role in modern physics. It is not mentioned that in modern physics you can see that c is trivial scaling constant as it now only appears in equations that express equivalences like that mass and rest energy are equivalent. So, c = 1 is a natural choice for that reason. But this is not so important for FA review.


* In the literature:
:::::About the intervention by Wales, Brews send Wales an email and Wales replied saying that he would ask ArbCom to reconsider the case. A few days after that, ArbCom accepted a motion that let the topic ban expire after 90 days. I can send you that email (I don't think Brews would object to that). But this was not done in the open, presumably to reduce the drama, as that was seen to be a major issue as well. I and a few others were also restricted from advocating for Brews in a separate motion (which has now expired). ] (]) 16:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
::{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"
|-
! Google Search !! Scholar !! Books
|-
| "Speed of light in vacuum"
|
|
|-
|}
: Getting rid of the term would be spectacularly against Misplaced Pages's mission. - ] (]) 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
== Does light always travel at c, or does it never travel at c? ==


:If the speed of light is always the same, then ] shouldn't exist. ] (]) 09:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
These are not rhetorical questions. I'm curious, if c in is the speed of light in a ], and pure vacuums do not exist in nature, why is it claimed that that physical light travels at c? Does light always travel at c as claimed in section 4, or does it never travel at c as claimed in section 5? Isn't it common knowledge that c is a concept distinct from "the speed of light", and that it's just called that for historical reasons? Is anyone willing to argue that c is in fact "the speed at which light travels"? The question is, does light travel at c (y/n)? ] (]) 07:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:I think the article deals with the issues that you have raised. In current models of physics c is a fundamental constant representing, among other things, the speed of light in a vacuum. You might say, as you suggest, that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum, indeed there can be no such thing except in a completely empty universe. However, most of physics is based on concepts that do not actually exist so the speed of light is no different in that respect.


: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)
:Bear in mind also that the article is entitled 'The speed of light' and should therefore have some basis in the natural meaning of these words. The philosophy of this subject has been discussed at some length and we could continue to discuss it ad infinitum but I think the article in its current state reflects the current state of physics regarding the subject reasonably well. That is not to say it could not possibly be improved. Do you have any suggestions? ] (]) 08:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


== Speed of light in literature ==
:Re "The question is, does light travel at c (y/n)?" – y --] (]) 08:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


::Yes. We 'know' that light travels at c in a vacuum as well as we 'know' most other things in physics. ] (]) 08:34, 19 July 2010 (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)


:We already have a page on ] and one on ] and on ]. ] (]) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey this is a really good question Bob. The answer is, NO. The physicists are just hoping that their opinion in the matter is the right one. But, lets get real. Most of the time I calculate the speed of light I don't use the value as the physicists give it in their hopeful definitions. That is because I live in the real world and it isn't a vacuum. The statement that it is a constant of physics is simply wishful thinking. In my world I have to figure out what its velocity is really and account for that fact. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Re "In my world I have to figure out what its velocity is really and account for that fact." - Regarding having to "figure out" what the speed of light in vacuum "is really", could you give an example of what you mean? Thanks. --] (]) 20:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC) :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)

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".

Archiving icon
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: