Talk:Faster-than-light/Archive 4

Why was I redirected here?
I searched for "interstellar propulsion" specifically because I am researching proposals to use things like ion drives to achieve velocities less than the speed of light. Going faster than the speed of light is by no means a synonym for interstellar travel. 98.232.26.108 (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reporting this. I have retargeted to interstellar travel, and categorized the redirect as an R with possibilities, because I can imagine someone writing an article specifically on propulsion systems for such travel rather than the travel itself. --Trovatore (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Still broken IMHO. "The main article for this category is Faster-than-light. This page is a listing of articles about faster-than-light travel. Such travel is considered at the theoretical edge of current science." Kortoso (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Non-information"
What kind of wiggle word is that, specifically? Kortoso (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Needs to be a section on Violations of Causality
Causality violations are the key reason why FTL travel and communication are impossible so it's best if there was a dedicated section explaining this. ScienceApe (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Harold G. White ... White–Juday warp-field interferometer
What about a mention or link to Harold G. White or White–Juday warp-field interferometer? seems relevant. Michael Ten (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Faster-than-light. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614105929/http://omnis.if.ufrj.br/~mbr/warp/etc/PRD62_44005.pdf to http://omnis.if.ufrj.br/~mbr/warp/etc/PRD62_44005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Remi Cornwall's disproof section needs to be reinstated
As per the subject line, perhaps the section could be added with a disclaimer that there is dissent stirring in the community and the informed reader can judge for themselves  ? The peer review process is long and subject to fiefdoms/biases/prejudices/incompetence, with those in power blocking change. I met Cornwall a few years ago and was impressed by him. Perhaps this quote by Julian Schwinger is relevant ? If Wikipedia is to be a relevant, dynamic (as opposed to book bound) encyclopaedia of the 21st century, it needs to be able to show the (informed) reader dissent and current developments, though carefully sandboxed, rather than the staid establishment line all the time, provided that the material comes from a good source with evidence of scholastic input or seconding. When doing research, it is often not the loudest voices but the dissenters indicating where change takes place. An electronic encyclopaedia can give a hint of the dynamic nature of a subject by showing some material on the hinterlands, with suitable disclaimers. TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Same remarks as at Talk:Superluminal communication. - DVdm (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a bit more about the mandate and nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia with dynamic content. I think it fair to show young researchers the changing nature of knowledge and ideas which are hinterland and becoming mainstream. The young researcher has to move from notions of textbooks, encyclopaedias and knowledge as set in stone and professors (or merely teachers) as infallible and honest players, always acting logically, fairly without vested interests or envies (one need only look at the history of science and its characters - take the snobbish attitude of Humphrey Davy to Michael Faraday). This is all part of the process of growing up and having one's own ideas. Remember when you were 5 years old and began to realise that your parents didn't know everything?TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember the days, vividly. Alas, to "show young researchers the changing nature of knowledge and ideas which are hinterland and becoming mainstream", is not Wikipedia's mandate and nature—see why not at wp:NOT. - DVdm (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ideas which are "hinterland" fall under WP:FRINGE - Wikipedia does discuss and have articles on fringe theories, and mentions fringe views in other articles when certain criteria are met. The main criterion is that the fringe views are discussed by independent reliable sources in a serious and prominent way. As I'm having trouble finding any sources discussing Cornwall's theory that are independent of Cornwall, IMO his fringe views just aren't notable enough for inclusion. If you have such sources, please point them out. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess the most able people, the ones likely to make a difference, go off-piste in their reading material. After all, research school is about reading more from papers, rather than textbooks. So similarly one might attend conferences and read hinterland material. Such is the life of those researching and not mere librarians.
 * What makes Cornwall's "fringe views" notable and shocking, is that he uses entirely standard analysis that any journeyman should see challenges the No-communication proof. That seems to be his gift here and in other projects; he is able to distil complex ideas down to shockingly simple counter-proofs, always with with real world experiments and data in mind. In other words, real physics. I imagine his work will be picked up in the not too distant future.
 * He doesn't do speculative legerdemain fancy maths proofs (like String theory, which can never be proven and is questionable. Check out the falsifiability criterion of Karl Popper and ask is the 10^500 universes predicted by String theory even "science" - Not even wrong). So what the "great and good" are saying in the peer review system, with all the flaws of human nature (envy, bigotry, short-sightedness, incompetence, herd instinct) is not always a guide to what is or what is not so. People follow fashions in abeyances of logic in a herd instinct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk • contribs) 06:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But regardless its value or lack thereof, string theory is very widely covered in the literature, so it appears in Wikipedia, as are Gods and Ghosts. But Remi Cornwall is not covered in the literature. Apart from wp:NOT, please also have a close look at the WP:Five pillars to learn about Wikipedia's mandate and nature. - DVdm (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this really science fiction?
The essence of science is falsifiability (Karl Popper). Is talk of faster than light, with discussions of real experiments that can validate it, science fiction (eg. Zbinden, H.; Gisin, N., et al, "Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance". Nature, 2008. 454)? One mustn't be so swayed by fashion and what the peer review system or even self-appointed wiki "experts" say - for example, look at String theory with its 10^500 potential universes and physics on the Planck scale and ask oneself, is it science if it can't be directly or indirectly proven (not even wrong)? TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ). See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * The article contains references to some SF topics, so it is in the project SF. - DVdm (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just saying, it is generally not very useful to refer to "experts" (in the way your comment does) because argument from authority does not alone carry any weight in content discussions on Wikipedia. --Jasper Deng (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course you do and of course it does. Why else do you all keep banging on about a broken peer review system and removing people's edits in an authoritarian manner? TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @DVdm "The article contains references to some SF topics". So does String "theory", a staple plot device of many sci-fi films, along with Einstein-Rosen bridges and Godel closed time-like curves. High conjecture, please update the appropriate pages too. (There was a time when the leading authority, the Catholic Church, told us that the Sun went around the Earth or the Chairman's Five Year Plan was working and there wasn't any famine @Jasper Deng). TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the people from the WikiProject Science Fiction are interested in some articles, they will update those pages. I don't take part in the project.
 * Also note that an article talk page is for discussions about adding/changing/removing content to/of/from the article, and not about the subject of the article, or about what we, the contributors, think about the world. So some the above comments are really off-topic here—see wp:Talk page guidelines. Yes, there's a lot to learn here... - DVdm (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Very patronising. The material is not off-topic because we are precisely analysing the actions of those who wish to censor and worst still, do it inconsistently and prejudicially. The immediate matter at hand is whether the article is science fiction if other areas of physics ("fizziks"), making extraordinary claims that can never be tested, aren't listed as such. I repeat, this is real science and a real phenomenon (eg. Zbinden, H.; Gisin, N., et al, "Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance". Nature, 2008. 454). You do the novice reader a disservice by labelling it science fiction when it is tangible, do-able, routinely performed in the laboratory, unlike other fantastical areas of physics - build me an ER bridge or make a Godel CTC - not today, next year or even next century. BTW, this definitely isn't "B category" or of minor scientific interest too, as per the classification. It strikes right at the heart of physics. This meta-discussion on the form of the article, much like the matter itself or any scholarly debate should be informed or you see no irony here (hoist with his own petard)? I state my case sufficiently. TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia's policies can look pretty patronising. You'll have to learn to live with that, because they tend not to change, as they clearly made Wikipedia into what it is. If you don't like it, too bad.
 * I did not mean to say that the material is off-topic. Some of the philosophical remarks are. The discussion whether the pointer to the SF project belongs here is of course on-topic. It simply belongs here because the WikiProject_Science_Fiction noticed that some of the aspects of this article touch and mention SF. If you don't like it, you can go to their talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction. - DVdm (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not worth it. Science fiction is a busted flush. Too much nonsense and worse, it filters into the mainstream with people unable to tell the difference between science fact and science fiction. I say keep the two apart, so as not to encourage loose thought, for the purposes of real education on real matters. (I'm glad it's only physics and not medicine, I wouldn't want the populous applying fictional remedies or believing in tosh (eg. Andrew Wakefield))! Science and the process of doing it is only real when it is based on evidence (experiment) or theory built directly from experimental evidence. I may be soapboxing but it is on topic - is the discussion of FTL really sci-fi and why muddy the waters by tarring it with the same brush? TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to join the others and point you to WP:NOTFORUM/WP:TPL. If you have specific actionable concerns about the article, do bring them up, otherwise this discussion amounts to more heat than light. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is ArXiv.org (only) considered peer reviewed? Part 2
So, to my point, in Cornwall's papers he has speculated, he has written a theoretical proof. It would be different if he wrote an experimental paper and hid his methods and claimed it did something that no-one else could replicate. Also, once again, why arXiv and not other preprint servers, what makes arXiv special?
 * So I will now remove items not on a citation index (Web of Science etc.) by the following flow chart -
 * If on Citation Indexes? Fine.
 * Elseif unpublished material and the person is at professorial level at a renown university/industrial lab? Fine.
 * Else remove material least charge goes up of favouritism/discrimination... racism/sexism/nepotism/intolerance etc./vested-interests/inconsistency etc. and it can't be called vandalism because I will be operating with an objective rule set.
 * This is not Scholarpedia, where guest editors at professorial level with checkable credentials deem what is worthy. Who are the people making the decisions here, what gives them the right? TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not Scholarpedia, where guest editors at professorial level with checkable credentials deem what is worthy. Who are the people making the decisions here, what gives them the right? TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is ArXiv.org (only) considered peer reviewed?
I simply ask if an arXiv reference should be given instead of a journal reference? Is it possible to cite papers that are only on arXiv and nowhere else? Surely this latter example should be removed?TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * arXiv is (mostly) a repository of preprints. Some have been peer-reviewed, most haven't. If you're asking if it's technically possible to cite a paper on the arxiv, the answer is yes (we even have cite arxiv specifically for that). If the question is should we cite an arxiv paper, the answer is it depends. For example, is used to support the claim "On the other hand, what some physicists refer to as "apparent" or "effective" FTL". That seems like an appropriate use to me, since this is about how terms are used, and doesn't support specific scientific claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I don't follow what you are saying: are you saying that arXiv is citable if someone deems the style of the paper acceptable to them ("doesn't support specific claims")? For instance, the arxiv paper you cited (and by implication is in the main article) is on an otherwise fictitious/theoretical device, an "Alcubierre warp drive" (which is peer reviewed) but the issue then is the derivative arxiv paper cited (about improvements, hence specific claims) isn't peer reviewed and cited in the main text - for exactly what reason then?TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting to the crux of the issue, are arXiv only papers deemed noteworthy: a source of quality over other sources (say academia.edu)? Why then are some arXiv papers listed and others not? This seems to be an appeal to authority (or someone's opinion of what is authority) and I ask, is this official Wikipedia policy? It all seems rather arbitrary, a policy behind closed doors which would then put forth an official line (gatekeeping) based on a bastion/clique of people who deem what the public should reference. It would be better to be objective and democratic, having no preprint papers unless they were peer reviewed in an indexed journal. TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again the answer is it depends. I'm sorry you're not happy with that answer, but context matters. The proof of Poincaré conjecture has only been uploaded at arXiv, and it is a widely-accepted proof that got its author the Fields Medal (although the author declined to accept it). Some are prior versions of papers that eventually got accepted, some are papers that only differ in formatting from the version of record, others are white papers that don't intend on being peer-reviewed (essentially we can treat those as expert blogs), and some are papers that couldn't pass peer-review no matter what. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on whom? I'm sure most of the arXiv only material doesn't pass the Fields Medal test, yet it's included in Wikipedia by no objective standard and an appeal to authority (whose?) This is in clear contravention of Wikipedia policies. At least try to be consistent. The arxiv (only) article you mentioned was subsequently referenced in citeable material, so that's consistent. We want to avoid the charge that Wikipedia pages are being run by a clique of editors who decide what the public should know. If you have consistent rules, the charge won't go up. Once again, why only arXiv and not other preprint servers and why arXiv only papers if not discussed elsewhere? It looks like I am going to have to refer you to WP:NOTFORUM/WP:TPL because you are generating more heat than light now. TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you should ask. An arxiv reference to support a claim such as "this term is used" is quite different than one claiming to have broken faster-than-light communications, for instance. And indeed, since we're not a forum, and this doesn't seem to be about improving the Faster-than-light article, let's stop this rather unproductive conversation. If you have more questions about referencing, feel free to ask at the WP:RSN, but they'll pretty much tell you the same thing I just told you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Who are you Headbomb? Are you a professor of physics, where do you draw your right to censor others? Degree, PhD, lecturer, senior lecturer, reader, professor? This is not scholarpedia where the editor is announced. TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Remi Cornwall's disproof section needs to be reinstated (Part 2)
He is using the formalism, his paper and proof is very compact and shows that the system can be factorised, yet it maintains the non-local entanglement information by swapping it to local path entanglement. It's just mathematics/analysis and is either right or wrong. There is nothing "new" to it, no invention of new premises to QM, no use of phenomena that aren't known to exist. Two professors, one a NASA research fellow have stated they can find nothing wrong with the proof and indeed, Prof Michael Hall at the Australian PTO, one of the co-founders of the No communication theorem granted Cornwall's patent on the matter, that is on public record (so that's three professors). Also, patents are citeable in academic literature. In all, I would revert the to the original edit with the material as a sufficient case has been made.TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Video Links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqf-FsUMww

2600:8801:982:290B:B071:5882:EAE1:1FFE (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Faster than light isn't
At Rice University in 1970, just after the first articles on so-called tachyons, I wrote a paper with the same title as this section. It showed that all the puzzles about tachyons arose from failure to use the metric tensor's signature when labeling axes "distance" or "time". There is a complete equivalence between the two descriptions "travelling in the +x direction with speed $$v$$ &gt; $$c$$" and "traveling in the +x direction with speed $$c^2/v$$ &lt; $$c$$" (note that &gt; and &lt; could be exchanged); the latter would be just $$1/v$$ if $$c$$ were conventionally set to 1 by compatible choice of units. (Other associated tensors would have a similar flip in meaning of the coordinates.) Thus, tachyons are just a perverse interpretation of tardyons. As a further demonstration, try plugging in $$c^2/v$$ (or $$1/v$$ if you use $$c=1$$) in any of the 4 combinations of velocities $$v$$A and $$v$$B in the usual formula for addition of velocities, then simplify the result to see that they all work the way I have described.

When I submitted my paper to physics journals, it was reviewed solely by researchers whose funding was for the express purpose of looking for tachyons (which they mistakenly thought would have different properties than tardyons). So I wasn't taken seriously, except by a small number of students and staff at Rice (and later by my thesis advisor at WPI). It is a pity, because a lot of time, effort, and money could have been saved in developing the theory of black holes if the same understanding of the essential role of the metric in interpreting the direction of time had been applied there.

Because the development of tachyon theory and black hole theory have historically embedded misconceptions, I suggest that it is appropriate to include in the Wikipedia articles appropriate alternate viewpoints, not just those that are currently in fashion. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * No problem, but alternate vieuwpoints can only be mentioned in articles if they have sufficient coverage in the established literature. See wp:secondary sources and wp:fringe, the latter stating: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." - DVdm (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request
From the Quantum Mechanics section: The uncertainty principle implies that individual photons may travel for short distances at speeds somewhat faster (or slower) than c, even in a vacuum; this possibility must be taken into account when enumerating Feynman diagrams for a particle interaction.[30] However, it was shown in 2011 that a single photon may not travel faster than c.[31] the wording is somewhat confusing, it implies contradiction between the statements, but as I understand that is not actually the case. Could someone clarify? Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hyphens (and article title in general)
At this writing, the article is at faster-than-light, which strikes me as an odd title. The thing that caught my eye initially was the hyphens, which would not ordinarily be used for the phrase standing alone. One possibility would be to move it to faster than light.

But it's still a weird title. Most of the time, articles are supposed to be about things, and things are described by nouns. Adjectives are generally bad article titles. See WP:NOUN.

I'm guessing the reason for this is that people couldn't decide whether it was better for the article to be about FTL travel or FTL communication? I agree they're sort of naturally treated in the same article. But can we maybe pick one? I think travel is the one that people more naturally think of. I could maybe get behind a move to faster-than-light travel or superluminal travel, with a section on communication.

But if people think that communication shouldn't be subordinated like that, maybe propose something else? The current title is pretty strange. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * At first sight it looks like a bizarre title. But Faster than light communication and travel would be too much, whereas both Faster than light communication and Faster than light travel would be insufficient. I think the hyphens were put in place to effectively turn the—let's say—adjectivy or adverby "faster than light" into the noun phrase "faster-than-light" with "light" as the head word. So IMO the article title actually conforms to wp:NOUN, and I don't think we should change it. - DVdm (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? It's a noun?  What's a faster-than-light?  How much does one cost?  Or are you claiming it's a mass noun?  What quantities do you buy faster-than-light in? --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Tricky. Not a noun, but a noun phrase. Something "nouny", based on a noun. Something in front of which you don't put an article "a" or "the". Perhaps the creators of the article should have used scare quotes instead of hyphens. Scare quotes too can turn anything into any-other-thing - DVdm (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, "faster-than-light" is not a noun phrase, and neither is "faster than light" in scare quotes. A noun phrase is something that can take the place of a noun in a sentence.  "Faster-than-light" cannot take the place of a noun in a sentence. --Trovatore (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To be more explicit &mdash; you linked head (linguistics), which is not a term I use a lot, but according to that article, the head of a phrase is the word that determines the syntactic category of that phrase.  In that case, the head of "faster than light" is "faster", not "light".  You can see that because "faster than light" functions as an adjective, not a noun. --Trovatore (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Our mileages seem to vary . - DVdm (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't a matter of opinion. Neither "faster-than-light" nor "faster than light" is a noun phrase.  That's just a fact. --Trovatore (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why it actually is a ""noun"-phrase". (Sorry, couldn't resist ) - DVdm (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, the digression above aside, this is still a problematic title, because of WP:NOUN and the hyphens. Any suggestions? --Trovatore (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Superluminal motion" or "Tachyons" would work, although fewer readers are likely to search for those keywords. I suggest "Faster than light" as the primary title, with redirection from the hyphenated form, and in the text body reserve the hyphens for usage such as "faster-than-light particle" which could easily be misread if the hyphens were changed to spaces ("faster than light particle" seems to be talking about properties of lightweight particles).  In contexts such as "the particle moves faster than light" there should be no hyphens.  — DAGwyn (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But again, article titles are supposed to be nouns. There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them.  "Faster than light" is not a noun, and neither is "faster-than-light", and neither of them is a noun phrase either.  This article should be moved to a title that is clearly a noun. --Trovatore (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But again, article titles are supposed to be nouns. There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them.  "Faster than light" is not a noun, and neither is "faster-than-light", and neither of them is a noun phrase either.  This article should be moved to a title that is clearly a noun. --Trovatore (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

cannot be measured
I think the recent argument about whether to call Magueijo a "cosmologist" misses a bigger issue, which is that the underlying claim is confusing and not clearly true. Here is the text as it stands:
 * The speed of light is a dimensional quantity and so cannot be measured.

First, who says you can't measure a "dimensional" quantity? I put my cat on the scale and measure her weight; that's a dimensional quantity, in the sense that it is not dimensionless, and I measure it. More fundamentally, who says you can't measure the speed of light? There's a whole history of measurements of the speed of light. To be sure, by the current definition of SI, the speed of light is a defined exact value rather than a measured one, but arguably that tells you more about SI than it does about the measurability of the speed of light. Or you could say that it's a definition of the meter by the back door (since the second is defined in terms of a transition in the cesium atom). I think there's a valid point being made in the text, but it is not expressed clearly, and in particular the use of the word "dimensional" is problematic. It needs rewriting and elaboration. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What it comes down do is that if you take a meter stick, and use that to measure the speed of light, and you get a different number than 299,792,458 m/s, it means that your meter stick is off, not that the speed of light isn't 299,792,458 m/s. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's a fact about the definition of the meter, not a fact about the speed of light. --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)