Talk:Speed of light/Archive 5

Muslim Claims
Muslims claim that the speed of light as it is currently known was predicted in the islamic holy book using the following calculation - see video at      http://www.speed-light.info       but I think its pretty misguided. Can anyone help ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilthehorse (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Qur'anic verse 32:5 in the Speed of light video site is translated differently at his Speed of light text site. Unlike the video verse, the English version in the text site clearly refers to a distance in a day. I'm sure that many other translations of the Arabic text are available which may or may not refer to a distance. Additionally, the equation in the video is explained in much more detail in the text site. I assume for the purpose of calculation that his interpretation of the verse is correct—that the speed of light in the Qur'an is 12000 lunar orbits in one day. However, he uses some esoteric assumptions in order to arrive at a figure that agrees with the modern value of the speed of light to seven significant digits. I reject that, preferring to use for distance the length travelled by the Moon in 12000 synodic months and to use one solar day for time, both of which are used by the present Islamic calendar (it uses neither the sidereal day nor the sidereal month).


 * The average distance to the Moon given in the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (U.S. Naval Observatory) is 3.844 km, so one sidereal lunar orbit is 2&pi;×3.844 m = 2.415 m. The ratio of the orbital length travelled by the moon in one synodic month is longer than the sidereal lunar orbit via the ratio 29.53059 days in one synodic month to 27.32166 days in one sidereal month. So the length of one synodic lunar orbit is (29.53059/27.32166)×2.415 m = 2.611 m. 12000 synodic lunar orbits is thus 3.133 m. Dividing by 86400 seconds in one solar day yields 3.626 m/s for the speed of light in the Qur'an vs the modern value of 2.998 m/s.


 * If it can be shown that the verse really does refer to a distance, interpreting it as the speed of light is just as tenuous or just as firm (depending on your point of view) as the Hindu verse already in the article. — Joe Kress (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

why a speed limit
what happens at 186,000 mps that makes the speed of light stop at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.146.45 (talk • contribs)


 * No one knows what happens. DVdm (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That speed is what the universe considers "instantaneous". Consider the photon: it experiences zero time from its emission to its absorption.  --BlueNight (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words, what happens is that you can be everywhere at the same time by traveling at the speed of light. John (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that is false. By your definition, you can be here AND at the sun at the same time if you are going at light speed, which would in reality take about 8 seconds if I do remember correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.38.159 (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please note the talk page guidelines that the talk page is for discussion about the article, not about the topic. Secondly, you're taking into account one aspect of special relativity (the speed limit) without considering the rest of it. The reason that things are "instantaneous" and you are "everywhere" is that as you speed up, your perception of time slows down (everything speeds up around you). At the speed of light, time "stops" (everything around you happens at once). So whilst from our point of view light takes 8 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth, from the perspective of a light ray it is instantaneous, it it at the Sun and the Earth and everywhere in between at the same time. (Not that light rays necessarily can have a perspective, as as far as they are concerned they do not exist for any time at all.) Stannered (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest that you do so on sci.physics.relativity Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Overview statement too strong
The overview states that the speed of light may be logically deduced to be constant in any frame of reference from Maxwell's equation and the principle of relativity. Historically and logically this is too strong a statement. The above deduction is only valid if we take Maxwell's equations to be part of the 'laws of physics'. Although this may seem eminently reasonable today I believe that this assumption should be stated explicitly if the statement is to be made in this way.

Alternatively it should be made clear, as Einstein did, that the constant speed of light is a convenient convention. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just wondering what you meant by the last sentence. Could you elaborate? Thanks. MarkWayne (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to do so but this is probably not the right place. I suggest either the sci.physics.relativity newsgroup or by private email (martin001@hogbin.org).Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Suggested
As there has been no response to the above, I am going to propose an alternative to the first paragraph:

Experimental evidence has shown that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source. It has also been confirmed experimentally that the two-way speed of light (for example from a source, to a mirror, and back again) is constant. It is not, however, possible to measure the one-way speed of light (for example from a source to a distant detector) without some convention as to how clocks at the source and receiver should be synchronized(3). Einstein (who was aware of this fact) postulated that the speed of light should be taken as constant in all cases, one-way and two-way.

The speed of light (c) is now viewed as a fundamental physical constant. This postulate, together with the principle of relativity that all inertial frames are equivalent, forms the basis of Einstein's theory of special relativity.

3. Zhang, Yuan Zhong, "Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations" p171 Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of The Speed of Light
The article says "In 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures adopted a standard value, 299,792,458 m/s for the speed of light. This in turn defines the length of a metre in terms of the speed of light". This is not enough to define the length of a metre. We also need the definition of a second (which I believe is defined in terms of Cesium). Does anyone want to add this? 142.162.15.11 (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested deletion from Overview
I suggest that the paragraph beginning, 'Due to special relativity's time dilation...' is deleted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, no problem, get rid of it - and from the opening phrase of the next paragraph: "To put it another way,". DVdm (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I had several objections to that paragraph, firstly it has no conclusion (such as 'this is why ftl travel is impossible), secondly it breaks up a section on causality, and thirdly it reports just one aspect of a more general phenomenon. I wonder if it is best to delete the paragraph and replace it with something (in a different place) along the lines of: 'The equations of relativity show that, for an object travelling faster than the speed of light, several physical quantities would be not represnted by real numbers. Many physicists take this to indicate that travel faster than light is not possible'?

As for the next paragraph, I think something on light cones should be there (maybe not in the overview) although, with my proposed deletion, the light cone section follows on more logically from the causality bit.

The question is, 'who will be reading the overview and what will they expect to get out of it?' I think the formulae should be moved to a different section.Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, be bold :-) DVdm (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

faster-than-light
I intend to try and reorganise the FTL section into various categories of FTL motion and maybe add a bit. Does anyone have any objections? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "Closing speeds" section is just flat wrong; it ignores special relativity. It should probably be rephrased to specify a frame. Is it speaking about the stationary frame in which in both spaceships are approaching at .8c? If so, that should be clarified. From either ship's perspective, the other's velocity is still less than c. 128.12.119.76 (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree - the statement is incorrect. First, both frames are inertial - so the last statement is misleading. And due to SR, the closing speed is still less than c using relativistic velocity addition.  If someone disagrees then speak up.  Otherwise, I think the section should be removed.PhySusie (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is not wrong. We are talking about just one inertial frame, and in that frame the two objects are both measured to be travelling at 0.8c, in opposite directions (if that is not clear then it should be made so). They therefore have a closing speed of 1.6 c in that same frame. Have a look at 'Third Party Observers' in http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#2  Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the problem with this section that you believe that closing speeds cannot exceed c, or is it that the description given of a closing speed is not clear? You can easily verify for yourself that closing speeds can exceed c from many web and written references. If, on the other hand, you think my description is not clear, I would welcome any help help in rewording the section to make it quite clear what is being described. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification - it was not clear that you were talking about a third party observer measuring the closing velocity. It sounded as if the people in the spaceships were measuring approach speeds greater than c.  PhySusie (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was not clear to you then there is a case for wording it more clearly. Any suggestions? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

c or c0
I note that c has been changed to c0, in accordance with ISO31, except for the first time it is show. Should some explanatory note be added? Maybe something like, 'ISO31 recommends the symbol c0 is used for the speed of light in a vacuum and this symbol us used throughout this article, however most older publications use just c and many physicists may continue to do this in cases where there is no ambiguity'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your explanation is present as footnote 1. Brews ohare changed all instances of c to c0, including the first occurrence, and also added that footnote. However, the phrase "c for constant" is a historical usage which must not include a 0. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So e = mc02 now? How common is this? I think c0 should probably be changed back to just c. 71.102.172.130 (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Physics consensus was to switch back to c. I'll be doing this (if someone doesn't beat me) at some point. --Falcorian (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Further, we may want to add a note about the adoption of this (i.e. not very wide spread) next to the note saying c_0 is the standard. --Falcorian (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I missed the discussion on this as, for some reason, it took place on another page. There is a case for using c0 on this page because this page is specifically about the speed of light and it is important to make the distinction between its speed in a medium and its speed in a vacuum (see section on headings below). I agree that this notation is not widely used and that this should be pointed out to the reader, along the lines of my original suggestion. Alternatively, if we agree to use c, I would suggest adding, 'ISO31 recommends the symbol c0 is used for the speed of light in a vacuum, however older publications use just c and many physicists will continue to do this in cases where there is no ambiguity. In accordance with common practice, c is used throughout this article exclusively to denote the speed of light in a vacuum'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

'Dubious' and 'citation' tags
I have removed the two recent 'dubious' tags but left the 'citation' tags. Perhaps 88.105.78.216 could say why they have marked the items as dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 09:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Birefringence of vacuum
Re the hypothesis, mentioned via footnote in Speed_of_light -- the article referenced says that there is no experimental evidence for this theory. In any case, if there were, the SI definition would be adjusted to avoid it. For example, if the permittivity of vacuum changes, say, in strong electric fields, the definition would say "in the absence of electric fields" or something like that. You can see this sort of approach at work in the note about "at 0 K" for the definition of the second. Paul Koning (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the effect has not yet been observed and I am sure that the definition would be modified as suggested if this became necessary. Is there anywhere else the footnote could be put? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if WP:NOR applies. Maybe a way to cover the point is to have the text say that the current definition treats the speed of light in vacuum as constant, so for example it doesn't address the hypothesized birefringence of vacuum (which has not been observed experimentally).  In other SI units, the practice for dealing with perturbing factors is to write the definition in a way that excludes them, as is done for example in the definition of the second.


 * The implication is that, if it came to that, the definition of the meter would do likewise, but it avoids the need to cite an authority for such a claim, which may be hard to come by because it's a hypothetical event.


 * I'd suggest making it part of the article, not a footnote. Paul Koning (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is made part of the article it is better put under 'Other theories concerning the speed of light'. It has no real relevance to the definition of the metre.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that Paul's discussion is the real meat of the hypothetical question, and the real issue is how such an eventuality would be handled. Paul's observations seem completely correct, with the caveat that somewhere long down the road when measurement errors are much smaller than now, a troublesome birefringence or dichroism would simply lead to a revised definition that deals with the issue, for example, by specifying the polarization of light necessary for a standard meter. A few sentences à la Paul would cover the matter very nicely. Brews ohare (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That point applies to any theory that might affect the speed of light. In all cases there would have to be a discussion about how the new effect would be handled regarding the definition of the metre.  To put all possibilities under that heading detracts from the important point being made.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True. Perhaps it needs a line or two saying that the current meter definition effectively treats the speed of light in vacuum as a constant, since that is the current state of experimental physics.  If at some point it is found that the speed of light in vacuum is affected by experimental conditions (for example, the hypothetical birefringence) then the definition would change to cover that. Paul Koning (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think that it is a good idea to put hypothetical possibilities in the definition of the metre section. If light is found not to travel at c the situation would get complicated.  It is really c, the constant of spacetime, that is used in the definition of the metre.  I suggest that the vacuum birefringence is put in the 'other theories' section with a note to the effect that, if some of these theories prove to be correct, some aspects of physics and metrology would need to change.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of words rather than symbols in headings
Although I agree that it is generally better to use words rather than symbols in headings, in two headings that have recently been changed it is hard to convey the correct meaning without the use of either a symbol or cumbersome punctuation. In the heading 'Things which only appear to travel faster than light' it is important to make clear that it is the speed of light in a vacuum that is being referred to. Changing the heading to 'Things which only appear to travel faster than light in a vacuum' is ambiguous as it is not clear whether it is the things or the light that are in a vacuum. The best way round this problem seems to me to use the symbol 'c' (or c0). If suitable wording cannot be found, I propose to change the headings back to the use of symbols. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that a heading doesn't have to say everything. It is simply a guide to help to find what interests the reader, and the text rapidly explains the details. Brews ohare (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the heading should not mislead. Better to use a symbol than to mislead, in my opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

'Free space' vs 'vacuum'
The current wording seem cumbersome to me. Should we just change it to 'speed of light in free space'? Alternatively, what about 'vacuum of free space'?Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Free space sounds good to me, particularly as there is a very complete article free space. "Vacuum of free space" is more wordy, although often used, and says the same thing. There is no article with that name. Brews ohare (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy with that, although 'vacuum' is more common when talking about the speed of light, yet 'free space' is much more common when referring to permittivity. Both can be misunderstood but, as you say, there is a good article on 'free space'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed 'vacuum' to 'free space' in the top paragraph only, to see what people think. I do not think that it is practical or necessary to do this throughout. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

c for constant?
I note the comment about the symbol c standing for constant has been removed. The reference cited, however, goes into some detail as to why c does stand for constant. The comment should be reinstated or a more authoritative reference found to support the current text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gravity is instant
There are no verifiable sources to this statement in the wikipedia entry. It is true that Newton stated that gravity is instant. Einstein said that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. Here is a link that shows Einstein was correct.

The Speed of Gravity: Einstein Was Right!

The statement "Gravity travels faster than the speed of light. Gravity is instant." should be changed.

196.192.105.155 (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot see the section that you refer to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that it has already been removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Laboratory vs Optical measurements
The "Laboratory Measurements" section states: "In 1946, Louis Essen in collaboration with A.C. Gordon-Smith used a microwave cavity of precisely known dimensions to establish the frequency for a variety of normal modes of microwaves—which, in common with all electromagnetic radiation, travels at the speed of light in vacuum. As the wavelength of the modes was known from the geometry of the cavity and from electromagnetic theory, knowledge of the associated frequencies enabled a calculation of the speed of light. Their result, 299,792±3 km/s, was substantially greater than those found by optical techniques, and prompted much controversy."

But the final, and presumably best, "optical method" in the previous section was:"Michelson began his lengthy career by replicating and improving on Foucault's method... The precise measurements yielded a speed of 186,285 miles per second (299,796 kilometres per second)."

Thus, the article seems to be inconsistant: the laboratory-method result was in fact less than the value found by optical techniques, not "substantially greater than". Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Distracting Animation
The animation on the top right showing the light traverse time from Earth to Moon is quite distracting while reading the passage. It should either be removed or should be made a still photograph (animation can be triggered by a click of mouse or hovering of mouse...).Ahirwav (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, it needs a switch on it. Also the timing is wrong except on the very fastest computers.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

speed of light gif
on the page for "sped of light" the gif image says that it is a scale model of earth and the moon and it shows lght traveling between it. the text states that it takes about 1.5 secs althought the pictur take 4-5. either change the picture or the text to make the match (i havent calculated h actual time it would take light to travel that distance so im not sure which on is correct). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.54.104 (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That is just an issue with your internet speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.198.151 (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light through a vacuum
The third paragraph states:

The speed of light when it passes through a transparent or translucent material medium, like glass or air, is less than its speed in a vacuum.

But the text accompanying the illustration states:

Light traveling through a medium such as air (for example, this laser) travels slower than light through a vacuum.

While these two statements agree, I think the first statement can be more easily misconstrued to mean "less time" which, of course would be the opposite of the intended meaning. I think the second statement is clearer and less ambiguous. Should there be either be increased parity between these two statements, or maybe a restating after the first along the lines of the second? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.26 (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see the problem with the third paragraph. I would have thought that it was clear to anyone who understands speed.  Why would anyone think it meant less time?  There used to be an illustrative example here.  We can reinstate this if anyone else thinks that there is a possibility of misunderstanding.    D b f i r s   19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Optokinetics
I reverted recent edits by Optokinetics because they appear to be a conflict of interest since that editor appears to be either the author or editor of the cited book by H. H. Marks, Introduction to Optokinetics, The amazing speeds of lights. New York, 2008, iUniverse. Furthermore, it posits a controversial theory the the speed of light varies depending on the observing conditions. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

discrepancy with the german article
I just noticed that the diagram of light going moon -> earth is said to be about 1.3 seconds on the english page but only 1.2 seconds on the german page. Which is which? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.203.103 (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On average the moon is closer to Germany than to the U.S.
 * Sorry, couldn't resist. DVdm (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 3.844 km according to the Explanatory supplement to the Astronomical Almanac. Dividing by the speed of light 299,792.458 km/s yields 1.282 s. Its extreme perigee is 3.564 km while its extreme apogee is 4.067 km according to Astronomical algorithms, hence 1.189 s to 1.357 s. Thus 1.2 s would be correct for its perigee while 1⅓ s would be correct for its apogee. I'm changing the caption of the English version to the average, 1.28 s (without changing the graphic itself). — Joe Kress (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreshortening and dilation
Observers traveling at large velocities will find that distances and times are distorted in accordance with the Lorentz transforms

has been changed to this;

By observing inertial systems traveling at large velocities in rapport to us, we will find that their distances and times are also distorted in rapport to ours in accordance with the Lorentz transforms

Don't know about anyone else but to my mind that obscures the explanation rather than illuminating (even if it is more accurate).  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree: the original was clearer, though we could make it even clearer by combining the two.   D b f i r s   19:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to drop this paragraph from the overview. Length contraction is better covered elsewhere. The Lorentz transformations cannot easily be explained in one sentence. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Interaction with transparent materials
this artical nor any other i can find on wiki explains y light slows down when passing through a transparent medium, nor does it provide a discription of what makes a medium transparent or other wise (219.89.95.106 (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC))will n

This is explained in refractive index. However, we do seem to be lacking a mathematical treatment of this phenomena.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  10:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A mathematical treatment of the subject is complex and beyond the scope of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said it wasn't complex, nor did I suggest that it belonged in this article. I merely pointed out that Wikipedia lacks any mathematical treatment of this, which it certainly should have.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Accelerated frames of reference and general relativity
Apart from the first sentence, this section does not make much sense and should be reviewed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the whole section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This should not be deleted. It is valid, see for instance Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric for a solution of the GM field equations with variable speed of light, also gravitational time dilation which makes the same point as this article.  Possibly it could be cleaned up, but there is no good cause for deleting it.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  18:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see little connection between the reference you quote and the validity of the article. In relativity the concept of an extended accelerated reference frame is not a good one.  How, for example, are the clocks to be synchronized in such a frame?Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't? Gravitational time dilation in the place linked addresses exactly the question of which clocks are being observed. There is no question of needing to synchronise clocks, the clock used is in the lcoal frame, but it is measuring time between events occuring in a different place and different gravitational field.  It does not seem surprising to me that the result of this measurement is a speed other than c.  "Extended accelerated frame . . not good" why not?  If you are observing from an accelerated frame then the whole universe is accelerated from the point of view of your observations.  What fact exactly are you disputing?  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing an accelerated reference frame with an accelerated observer. An accelerated observer is fine, but a reference frame is a conceptual means to assign space and time coordinates to any event, far or near.  In other words there must be clocks at every point in the frame (in principle) that must be synchronized in some way so that a time coordinate can be assign to any distant event.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose to delete this section as the first part is a duplicate of a similar statement in the overview and the second part makes little sense.Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

History section
I notice that the history section in this article is at the end. In many other technical and physics articles, for example the ones on the atom and strong interaction, the history section is the first section after the introduction. Why is this article's history section at the end? Oneforlogic (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the history section is better at the end for most scientific and technical articles. Many people will be more interested in the current state of knowledge then the history of a technical subject.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, I'd agree. Is there a policy on this? Oneforlogic (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Medieval and early modern theories
The alleged experiment using a camera obscura showing finite light speed seems somewhat dubious to me. Unless anyone can give an explanation, I propose to delete it.Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the theories in this section need to be restated to show that they are theories and not actual experiments (or if in fact the text does refer to actual experiments then details should be given and the items moved to a more appropriate section). Also the comment from a verse in the Rigveda makes claims of undue accuracy and gives no indication of the basis on which the claims were made. I propose to rewrite these sections and would welcome comments from anyone who can give any information about the subject.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The camera obscura experiment that has been reinstated does not prove or demonstrate that light has a finite speed, neither does the intromission theory of vision. This information is therefore not relevant to an article on the speed of light and should be removed.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider it extremely unlikely that any measurement of the speed of light could possibly have been made with a camera obscura and I have therefore deleted that sentence. If indeed such a measurement was made, then some details should be given in the appropriate section. References to other experiments with light should not be in this article; maybe they have a place in articles about theories of vision. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course the speed of light was never measured using experiments in medieval times, but I think it is important to give the reasons behind why a scientist would claim that the speed of light is finite in the first place. In Alhazen's case, it was on the basis of his intromission theory that made it possible for him to make such a claim. The idea of the speed of light being finite is not compatible with the emission theory but it is compatible with the intromission model, therefore I think it is relevant to this article. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming that Alhazen was the first to propose the intromission theory of vision (essentially the existence of light)?Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jagged, your response to my edits seems to have been to write much more on the same subject. I do not doubt the good work done by the scientists that you mention but you make far too much of it.  The article is about the speed of light but most of what you discuss is the theory of light and vision rather than the speed of light although I do accept that  it is necessary for light to exist for it to have a speed.  I prefer you latest wording on the subject but I propose to make various edits to reduce the volume of the section and  remove some repetition.  I will make the edits in sections, with comments so that you can consider each individually.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of this section basically gives a list of scientists who agreed with, or otherwise, with the emission theory of vision which adds little to our understanding of the speed of light. I suggest that it is replaced with a single sentence.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest something like, 'This debate continued in Europe and the Middle East throughout the Middle Ages'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Jagged has just added more text about the above debate. In my opinion this is too much for this section. There were really only two theories: infinite speed, and finite speed. How much do we need to write on this subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with citations
Help! I am trying to add some references to the overview but the system demands a title for papers. I do not have titles but I do have all other relevant information. Any suggestions?Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't use the template. Just put it between ref tags and format it manually.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Speed of light, new approach
Wouldn't it be more understandable to approach the concept of time and distance, commonly called velocity or speed, recoprocally, say the other way round. In such case we would write s/m, seconds per metre. Causality dictates that the maximum speed cannot be less than 0 seconds per metre. This concept automatically deals with the classical example of two spaceships going in opposite direction, both travelling at almost lightspeed. Their combined speed (relative to each other) would then simply be represented by almost zero seconds per metre, devided by 2. This results in a speed still being less than the maximum speed at which can be travelled. Note that the reciprocal of the classical 300000000 m/s for the speed of light is not apliccable, as the speed of light would be (almost) equal to the ultimate speed of 0 s/m.


 * Your ultimate 'speed' of 0 s/m represents the reciprocal of what is known as a proper speed (see 'faster than light' section). It is the elapsed proper time of the object considered to be moving divided by the distance travelled in some other reference frame.  This cannot be strictly applied to light, but for other things it bears little relation to the way speed is normally understood.  Our normal concept of speed is that of a coordinate speed, that is to say, a distance travelled in a particular reference frame divided by the time it takes to do that, measured in the same frame. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the sum of 60 hm/h and 40 km/h still 100 km/h? In this approach we would have to write 0.06 s/m and 0.09 s/m. The sum of these velocities would have to be calculated as follows: 1/((1/0.06)+(1/0.09)). The answer being 0.036 s/m. This equals 100 km/h exactly. This only holds for relatively low speeds, as can be concluded from the above.


 * Alternative concepts of speed have already been considered - have a look at 'rapidity' and 'celerity'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay2U: Jay2U (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about reference
Greetings. This article uses the following reference:
 * P Beckman and P Mandies Radio. Sci 69D (1965) 623.

However, the only place I'm seeing this citation is on wikipedia mirrors. I am finding ghits for the following:
 * P. Beckman, Radio Sci. 69D, 629 (1965).

Is there a way to confirm which is correct? Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Faster-than-light: observations from a rotating Earth
Is it worth adding that most stars appear to be moving faster than the speed of light when observed from the surface of the Earth. I know it is a non-inertial frame of reference, but if a star is k light years away and its declination is &delta; then I would have thought its apparent speed is about 365&times;2&pi; k cos(&delta;) times the speed of light, usually mcuch more than 1 unless it is above a pole.--Rumping (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would say so, perhaps under the heading of measurements made in non-inertial frames, although the subject is rather complicated.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps something along the lines of:


 * Non-local measurements of time and distance in non-inertial frames are dependent on the way the frame is defined and are therefore ambiguous. This can result in the observation of faster-than-light speeds.   For example, in the the non-inertial frame of the rotating Earth, stars can be measured to be moving round the Earth faster than light. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How long does sunlight take to reach the earth?
As light from the Sun takes 8.4 minutes to travel 1.93 millions miles to Earth. But

E=mc^2, where c is the speed of light in vacuum (where gravity still exist), often expressed distance travel in time. Now gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential which was tested/ confirmed with difference of nanosecond recorded by atomic clocks at different altitudes.

Sun gravity decreases as we move away from it. Similarly eath's gravity has the same effect on light due to different gravitational potential. This means that speed = distance/time of light is not constant because of the time difference due to time dilation.

Similarly,

Second is currently defined as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#Inte...

the duration of 9 19 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hype levels of the ground state of caesium 133 atom.

This definition refer to the caesium atom at rest at a temp of 0 K(absolute zero). The ground state is defined at zero magnetic field. The second thus defined is equivalent to the ephemeies second which was based on astronomical measurements.

From the above time dilation and definition of second, the high magnetic filed and temperature of sun should effect the length (duration) of time ? If yes, then how long does sunlight take to reach the earth? Myktk (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Khattak


 * Since time is defined as what you measure on your clock (at rest with respect to you!), it depends on where you (and your clock) are:
 * If you are here on Earth: 8.4 minutes.
 * If you are somewhere in the vicinity of Sun: slightly less than 8.4 minutes (due to gravitational time dilation of Sun)
 * If you are far away from Sun, Earth, or any other mass: slightly more than 8.4 minutes (due to absence of gravitational time dilation of Earth and Sun)
 * If you are moving at 86.6% of lightspeed w.r.t. the Earth/System, very close to 4.2 minutes (due to special relativistic time dilation, ignoring gravitational dilation of Earth and Sun)
 * DVdm (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My Dear Friend

Time passes or clock is ticking at slower rate at higher altitude (low gravity) than lower altitude (high gravity). Further, acceleration is the rate of change of instantaneous speed. This means that light changes or reduces its speed at every gravitational potential due to time dilation and should decelerating till it diminish. While C^2 (Speed which should not be constant) was used in the equation instead of deceleration.

Similarly I don’t understand how astronauts on the moon were communicating to their colleagues on earth due to time dilation. Note: Present time on moon wrt earth is past. How they able to communicate in their future (earth’s present) which is impossible at any present time.Myktk (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Khattak


 * An article's talk page (see guidelines) is not a place to discuss one's (mis)conceptions and (mis)understandings of the article's subject. It is a place where the content and the form of the article is discussed. Questions like yours are formulated and answered on Usenet forums like for instance sci.physics.relativity on a daily basis. You will meet other people with similar questions and/or motives there - warmly recommendend. I know, I should not have answered your original questions to begin with, and I apologise for that. Good luck on Usenet. DVdm (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can also post questions on Wikipedia's Science Reference Desk where volunteers will try and answer any science related question.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  18:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Time Travel
Does the speed of light make you go back in time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kombinatorik (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but this is not the place to discuss this. Please see comments just above your question.  D b f i r s   07:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Causality and Relativity.
I am not sure that the lead section has things quite right regarding, causality, relativity, and going faster than light. In my view matter or information cannot travel faster than light because, according to the theory of relativity, that would violate causality and such a violation has never been observed. In particle physics, causality is simply defined in terms of light cones - the cause is whichever happened 'first'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with what this statement. To me, this seems consistent with the lead's description though
 * "The principle of causality in physics requires that no matter or information can travel faster than the speed of light. [This requirement] come[s] from the theories of special relativity and general relativity..." Could you be more specific where you're disagreeing in content or emphasis? --Steve (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it is just the way it is put: "The principle of causality in physics requires that no matter or information can travel faster than the speed of light" suggests to me that the principle of causality on its own prevents anything from going faster that light. Perhaps we should say something like "Einstein's theory of relativity together with the principle of causality require that ..." Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, that would be an improvement. :-) --Steve (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Overview?
The section heading and the content do not seem to match. Should the section be called something else? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a number of areas where the article could use better organization, IMO. The random assortment of information in that section is one symptom of that. --Steve (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am thinking of deleting the overview section, we already have a lead section, and moving most of the content to a new section called 'Constant speed of light' to be positioned just above 'Speed of light set by definition'. The remainder could be absorbed into the article elsewhere.  Any thoughts? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hard to know precisely what you have in mind, but it sounds to me like it would be an improvement. Certainly the symbol "c" discussion doesn't need to be so early in the article, and would be fine somewhere in the "History" section for example. The diagram and text about space-like and time-like intervals would seem to me to more logically go in the "Physics" section, as would any mention of blueshift and redshift. "Light years" would actually fit pretty well into the text of the "Communications and GPS" section, although the section would have to be re-titled. The thing about one-way and two-way speeds of light is unnecessarily pedantic and should probably be deleted...no one to my knowledge has ever made a serious argument that the one-way and two-way speeds of light should be different, it's like if someone points to a bird and says "that bird is blue" and someone responds, "well, we only know for sure that the side of the bird facing us is blue"! I like the table (obviously since I made it), but it would be fine either at the very top (now that there's no picture there) or in whatever Section 1 ends up being.


 * The bit about one-way and two-way speed of light is not pedantic but maybe a bit esoteric. The constancy of the two-way speed of light is an experimental fact but that of the one-way speed remains a postulate (axiom or convention if you prefer).  The theory of relativity is based on the constancy of light's speed and the speed of light's place as a fundamental constant of nature is related to the theory or relativity.  It is therefore an important philosophical point that need to be made clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On a different note, I think the "faster than light" section is far longer than it should be, particularly when there's already a main article Faster-than-light dedicated to this. --Steve (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you although I rewrote much of this section to make clear and categorise the different kinds of FTL phenomena. The problem is, how to reduced it: miss out some of the types, reduce the explanation on each, not have headings and put all as one text paragraph?  Maybe just have a very short not to the effect that FTL phenomena exist with a link to the main article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For one-way vs two-way speed of light, maybe there was a time that it was an axiom, but now it appears to be an experimental fact. See this Phys. Rev. D paper from 1992, which explicitly describes some recent experiments as proving the constancy of the "one-way velocity of light", unlike Michaelson-Morley where the light goes in a closed loop. Unless there's more to the literature than portrayed in that article, or I'm misunderstanding something. :-)


 * I believe the paper by Will was something of a mistake. This experiment, and several others like it, were re-analysed in 1997 by Zhang who came to the conclusion that the constancy of one-way light speed cannot be confirmed by experiment.  His book 'Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations' is now considered the standard work on the subject.  I believe (but cannot present any evidence at this stage) that Will, a very reputable scientist, has since accepted his error.  One thing this discussion does prove is the importance of retaining the section under discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For shortening the faster-than-light section, I can't offer any specific ideas right now, but I'll discuss it with you further if I get a chance at some point to take a closer look. :-) --Steve (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will have go myself some time. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Feet per ns???
Hello, the speed of light is written also in "feet per ns". I ask: what for? I guess there isn't anybody, who can handle with nanoseconds and either not yet has a feeling for the speed of light or isn't able to convert the other values on the fly. If someone still wants to have a more visible description rather choose one based on frequencies (eg 30kHz on 1km loop) or frequency for rounding the earth. I will delete it with respect to this commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.116.220.91 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One foot per nanosecond is a rule of thumb used commonly by electronic engineers and I tend to think that it should be included in the article somewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an electronic engineer, but I quite liked the "one foot per nanosecond". It has an everyday feel, gives a quick comparison with the speed of sound (that I know in feet per second), and makes a lot more sense than the suggested frequency which I don't understand.    D b f i r s   13:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you say it would be better where it was, in the info-box, or in the section on communications somewhere? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am an electronics engineer and confirm that that rule of thumb is used in practice, for cutting cable lengths to match sync pulses from different locations for instance. I think it should stay in the table (why put it somewhere else?) but maybe the table should not be in the first para of the overview - put in "light years" section maybe?  I really don't think we need to be strict about using SI units here, we are not writing an exam textbook and measurements in feet are still common in many countries - albeit unofficially.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  16:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm also an electronic engineer but as I'm from Europe continent I never calculate anything feet. If it is common, well, than take it, but anyway I guess, that most people don't have a feeling for nanoseconds. This people which have a use for this approximation, I guess, know it anyway. Others won't use it. --192.116.220.91 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting your deletion because the consensus per the discussion above was to keep it, which I agree with. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There seems to be a tendency amongst some Europeans (not 192.116.220.91 who has been generous) to purge Wikipedia of any units that are not standard SI. Some of us in the off-shore part of the continent still think in Imperial (though we no longer have an empire), so it is good to see that Wikipedia caters for all.    D b f i r s   20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I put that chart in a few weeks ago. Before, all those numbers were listed in an endless stream of text in the second paragraph of the article; I figured the table would be an improvement. I kept it near the top because of its importance for the article. I kept the feet per nanosecond figure for the reasons mentioned above; the nanosecond does come up in electrical engineering (EE), physics, and other places, so there are a number of people who have a feel for a nanosecond but haven't gone to the effort of approximating how far light travels in that time. I would be strongly in favor of adding "0.3 meters/nanosecond" into the table, for the many EE people who don't know what a foot is. Does anyone object? --Steve (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Another possibility is to move the feet/ns out of that table and put in this new, second table: --Steve (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, I like Steve's table. Just right for the less-technical reader.  D b f i r s   08:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of the symbol 'c' for the speed of light
As a supporter of the c0 notation on the basis that it is becoming more and more common in textbooks, and on the basis of international agreement ISO 31-5, and on the basis that every other parameter of free space has a subscript, viz Z0, μ0, ε0, I am opposed to any and all attempts to downplay the fact that Wikipedia's position on this matter is an anachronism, sustained because a bunch of traditionalists want to continue a notation whose time has past and whose logic has evaporated. In particular, I oppose the idea of relegating the discussion of symbol c to a remote location. Brews ohare (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a survey of the books on my shelf here. Of the 13 books that mention the speed of light, 12 (92%) use "c", and one (8%) uses c_0. (The one that uses c_0 is a contributed chapter to a technical handbook on nanoelectronics; the other 12 include four modern widely-used electromagnetism textbooks, among others.) In such circumstances, I don't think it's appropriate to call Wikipedia's use of "c" an "anachronism"; maybe you mean that it "fails to be ahead of its time". Anyway, the spirit of Wikipedia's philosophy is not to be ahead of its time, it's to be with its time, for example in how NPOV is applied to downplay newly-emerging scientific theories.


 * I 100% agree that it would be a better world if everyone used c_0. It would also be a better world if English spelling were rationalized, and better still if we all spoke Esperanto. :-) It might be true that c_0 is becoming "more and more common in textbooks"...it used to be 0%, and now it might even be as high as 8%, although I would guess that that's an overestimate. (Is your experience different?) But that doesn't mean it's "common", at least at this point in time. if it is common in the future, we can change it then. :-) --Steve (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that the bulk of texts use c, although I'd say that is because the bulk of texts are just updates of old texts. It's a bit difficult to get an appraisal from Google books. I tried "speed of light" + "SI units" + "c0" and found a few examples, I didn't pursue it very diligently because a lot of weeding has to be done. However, certainly there are over a dozen examples.
 * I am resigned to waiting until the next decade for Wiki to come up to speed. I just don't want the article to look like it is incognizant of change afoot - that adds inattention to Wiki's other faults. Brews ohare (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What this debate fails to realise is that there's a difference between the use of c0 (note that the zero is not italicized) and c to refer to the speed of light. The former refers to the speed of light in a vacuum and is a physical constant, the latter refers to the speed of light in a given medium and is a variable. Given that the article has a long section on faster-than-light paradoxes, I would have thought that it would be important to point out the difference… By deciding on it's own particular usage of symbols, the article can't succinctly point out that the ratio of two speeds of light is equal to the refractive index, for example. Physchim62 (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to make very clear, the twelve books I was referring to all used "c" specifically as the symbol for the "speed of light in vacuum". The speed of light in materials was explicitly discussed in at least six of these books, always using a different symbol besides "c". In fact, one of these books is entirely dedicated to the subject of light traveling through materials, and even that book very consistently and exclusively uses "c" for speed of light in vacuum.


 * As we speak, there are many physicists who have never heard of the use of "c_0", and yet are perfectly capable of clearly describing how the speed of light in vacuum compares to the speed of light in materials. There are many other symbols in the alphabet! For example, I just picked up a random textbook off of the shelf at work; it happens to be a widely-used introduction to materials science and engineering. It says "The index of refraction n of a material is defined as the ratio of the velocity in a vacuum c to the velocity in the medium v, or n=c/v." Seems like a pretty clear explanation to me, and that's without using c_0. "c'" is another very common symbol for the speed of light in a medium, and I would bet that far more textbooks and papers use (c' and c) than (c and c_0).


 * By the way, as much as I'm opposed to using c_0 to denote as the speed of light in vacuum in the article, I think it would even worse to use "c" anywhere in the article to mean something besides the speed of light in vacuum. Almost everyone in the world today assumes that when they see the symbol "c" it means speed of light in vacuum, and we don't want to mislead these readers. --Steve (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that common usage supports Steve here, although there are contrary examples, such as Atomic Structure and Periodicity, Handbook of Physics and Chemistry, Handbook of Physics, Zoological Physics that use c0 for light and c for media, and many more that use c0 and c never comes up, for example, Thermal Physics, New Research on Astrophysics, Neutron Stars and Galaxy Clusters, Noncommutative Structures in Mathematics and Physics, Isodual Theory of Antimatter, Wave Motion, Computer Processing of Remotely Sensed Images.


 * The above is not an argument. It is a set of repeated jabs intended to soften up the opposition.:-) It also shows that newer books and books by those in engineering and science outside the staid physics community are catching up faster than you might think. Brews ohare (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you're right that c_0 may be gaining more traction. Like I said, I agree that if someday everyone universally used c_0, then the symbols of SI electromagnetism would have slightly more pleasing symmetry. However, I would caution you not to be over-optimistic, the world doesn't always follow an inexorable trend towards more-rational conventions, and c_0 could still fade away again or languish forever in obscurity. The same way that "Imperial units" have won out over SI in US manufacturing, QWERTY over DVORAK in keyboards, English over Esperanto in world-communication, SI over CGS-Gaussian in electromagnetism units for engineers, and so forth. :-) --Steve (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We had this discussion some while back and I thought that we came to a reasonable compromise/consensus. The current version, 'usually denoted by the symbol c0 or simply c ', is wrong as c0 is rarely used in current practice.  I agree that WP should educate, but it should not enforce.  I think that we should work towards a form of wording that accurately reflects the current situation.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just had a look at the section on the use of c for the speed of light and it reads like promotional material for the use of c0. We do not need to mention by name every learned body that recommends its use, or change the words 'speed of light' to c0. Any persuasion should take place here, not in the article.


 * I also think that there may be a philosophical objection by some physicists to the use of c0 as this puts it on a par with cair for example, whereas one is a fundamental constant of physics and the other is a property of a particular form of condensed matter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the long list of learned bodies that recommend the use of c0. There in no reason to name them all in the article.  If you are trying to make a point do it here.  Also the reference cited clearly gives 'constant' as one possible reason for the use of 'c'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weber was writing in German; if had meant to use an abbreviation for "constant", he would have used 'k' for "konstante", just as Boltzmann did. There is every reason to name the learned bodies which recommend a symbol which, apparently, some editors have never heard of. We could, of course, just follow their learned advice… Physchim62 (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We should of course mention that c0 is recommended and we do so. Note that I have added the word 'most' to the text. But why should we list them all?  Only to make a point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a free copy of Weber's original paper, but allow me to quote from the reference Martin Hogbin find so dear:

That's all there is to it, the basis for 'c' as an abbreviation of constant! The next paragraph of the same paper is interesting to this discussion all the same:

So much for c only ever being used for the speed of light in free space! Physchim62 (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not my reference but it was the one quoted, and if you read it it seems to have been based on quite detailed research. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The German version of the cited sentence is "und die Constante c stellt dabei diejenige relative Geschwindigkeit vor, welche die elektrischen Massen e und e' haben und behalten müssen, wenn sie gar nicht mehr auf einander wirken sollen." on page 20 of R. Kohlrausch and W.E. Weber, "Ueber die Elektricitätsmenge, welche bei galvanischen Strömen durch den Querschnitt der Kette fliesst", Annalen der Physik, 99 (1856) 10. So Kohlrausch and Weber did indeed spell "Constante" with a "c" within the phrase "Constante c". — Joe Kress (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just reverted a change from c0 to c. From what I read above there is a consensus to use c. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the discussion that settled on the consensus to not use c0: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2008. The decision of whether c or c0 should be used affects many many articles besides this one, so if anyone wants to disagree with this consensus, they should bring it back up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. --Steve (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And you call that consensus? All it says is that WP doesn't have to slavishly follow what the standards organisations do, It says very little about the case in point, ie c0 vs. c. Instead of addressing that point, you have made ridiculous statements such as "there are many physicists who have never heard of the use of 'c_0'". That is certainly the case, and WP is here to educate them, given that c0 is certainly used (and for good reasons) whether those people have heard of it or not. Physchim62 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, my understanding of that conversation was that there was a consensus, albeit not unanimous, that the the speed of light in vacuum should be denoted c not c_0 in Wikipedia's many articles on electromagnetism, optics, etc. In particular, at the end of that discussion, this article and a few others were changed from c_0 (to which Brews had recently changed it) back to c. If you don't think that was the proper way for the discussion to have ended, or that it would have ended differently if you had been there to make the case for c_0, then feel free to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics "I propose that all electromagnetism, optics, relativity, etc. articles that use a symbol the speed of light in vacuum, use c_0 instead of c." You can explain why you believe that would be best, and other people can agree or disagree. If c_0 really is better (and I don't think it is), then there are hundreds of articles that ought to be changed, and I'm sure you don't want to go through all that work yourself, arguing the case each time on each talk page.


 * Also, I'm perfectly happy for the article to tell readers that c_0 is a less-common symbol for the speed of light in vacuum, as it does now. I'm also perfectly happy for that information to be in a visible location near the top of the article, as it is now. I agree with Martin on the idea that the article shouldn't come across as POV-pushing, for example insinuating that c_0 should be used more commonly than it actually is used. But again, I don't see that as a problem the way it's written right now. --Steve (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Excessive justification
Am I the only person that thinks that the mention by name of four standards bodes that recommend the use of c0 is excessive and is an attempt to make a point that should be discussed here rather than a useful or desirable part of the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears so, yes. Given the dispute over terminology, in which you have played your own part, I think it's important that readers know that technical bodies recommend a different symbol than that use in the WP article. It's called giving people information, and letting them decide. Physchim62 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it is important to let people know that most standards bodied recommend a different symbol, that is exactly what my version says. What is not required is to name several of these bodies in attempt to make a point in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that the proponents of c instead of c0 have only one thing going for them and that is the long time constant of change. As for "excessive justification" - well, apparently no amount of justification is persuasive, regardless of its source or validity. It would never do to provide sufficient info to promote good judgment. Brews ohare (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But I am not talking about here. You are entitled to make your point as strongly and clearly as you like on this page but the argument must not be carried over to the article itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have said that in respect of note 1 in the December 8 version, nor the "occasionally" PoV comment in the relevant section of the same version. There are people on this talk page who simply don't want to use c0: fine, but they should actually find some arguments, rather than just shouting load and edit-warring. Physchim62 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. I've modified the Speed of light section slightly to clarify just what was previously said there, and to add some example citations. I believe that is not beyond the pall. Brews ohare (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it as it is right now, after Brews's changes. :-) --Steve (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy with it too although I have added a sentence to make clear the convention used throughout the article.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't like it as it is now. Of course c is widely used for the speed of waves of any sort, indeed for speed in general. The use of c for the speed of light in free space is a specific use, and c0 is always there (and recommended by bodies far more learned than the average WP editor) when there is a risk of confusion. The paragraph should state that c0 only means one thing, whereas c usually means exactly the same but might, on occasions, mean something different. We shouldn't run away from the dispute because, if we are arguing about it here, it probably means that our readers are confused as well! Physchim62 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The point you correctly make is made quite clear in the article as it is now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

C for 'constant'
In the section about the origin of c for the speed of light the quoted reference clearly states that c could stand for 'constant'. If anyone wants to change the text they must find a more authoritative reference that says otherwise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean that we must find an authoritative referenec to say that c never' stood for constant, but you wish to continue to ignore the authoritative references that use c0? and you expect other editors to take you seriously? Physchim62 (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are in fact tens of thousands of authoritative reference that say that the symbol for the speed of light in vacuum is c. That's why the article is justified in saying that c is the usual symbol for the speed of light in vacuum, but that c_0 is sometimes used instead. --Steve (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My original point was that we should state that c might be considered to stand for 'constant'. The cited reference says, 'Weber apparently meant c to stand for "constant" in his force law...'. We cannot cite a reference and then not put what the reference clearly says. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Physchim62 links should be removed
I am unable to find any relevant info in:
 * Cohen, E. R.; Giacomo, P. (1987), "Symbols, Units, Nomenclature and Fundamental Constants in Physics (1987 Revision), Document IUPAP-25 (IUPAP–SUNAMCO

and the document
 * International Organization for Standardization (1993), ISO Standards Handbook: Quantities and units (3rd ed.), Geneva: ISO, ISBN 92-67-10185-4

is listed at Amazon as "out of print" and has no on-line version. The page listing in
 * Taylor, Barry N.; Thompson, Ambler, ed. (2008), The International System of Units (SI): NIST Special Publication 330, Washington, DC: NIST, p. 45

is incorrect: the only mention of c0 for speed of light in this document is on p. 11.

I recommend removal of the first two links and correcting the page number on the third. I've implemented these recommendations. Brews ohare (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ho hum, we'll be looking at mediation soon. The references were taken from an earlier version of the article, when they were linked in with an editorial note. There is no requirement that references be in print, or that they have online versions. However there is a requirement that statement in articles be referenced, which many, many paragraphs of this article fail dismally at the moment. Couldn't you pass your time more constructively? Physchim62 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. Couldn't you take the time to provide useful links? Adding garbage links just makes it look like you are using puffery to support your views. Brews ohare (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already spent some eight hours or so going through every reference in the article, as per the FAR… If only obsession of other editors is the absence of a subscript zero, so be it: that sort of explains why the article lost its star (not that I think the FA star is worth very much on enwiki, but here you go, the quality of the article is far more important to me). Personally I've asked for mediation on the issue, as the editors involved are now aware. Physchim62 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Faster-than-light observations and experiments
I am trying to reduce the above section which some consider too long. I have removed the rather vague and unreferenced section on evanescent waves and also one of the two examples of group velocity. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In the section 'Things that really do travel faster than light' there are really only two types of FTL travel: synchronised events, which includes spots and shadows; group velocities, and people shouting; and quantum mechanics, which essentially refers to the EPR paradox. The current, perfectly good, explanation of synchronised events does not have any references. Does anyone know of a good, short, explanation of this effect from a reliable source that could be used here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have argued previously that the section referred to above should be entitled,'Things that really do travel faster than c' since this is the only reasonably short and unambiguous way of stating the required concept. I persuaded other editors at the time but I now see the title has been changed, presumably in response to the FA review. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Commas or spaces?
There seems to be an edit war over whether to use commas or spaces in the figure for the speed of light. As far as I can see WP:Mosnum prefers commas. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly an edit war! As for WP:MOSNUM (hardly the most respected or highly regarded of the MOS sites), it specifically says that "In scientific context, thin spaces can also be used": is anyone suggesting that this is not a scientific context, the exact figure for the speed of light in free space in SI units? Physchim62 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Get your facts and terminology straight. It’s not SI “units”, it’s per SI “writing style.” The SI writing style calls for a lot of crap, including a space between the number and the percent symbol, such as 75 % and we flout that guideline too (thankfully). So, your argument seems to be that if it is a “definition”, you want the number delimited differently from all the other values in the article! That makes no technical writing sense at all and makes the article look like just another Wikipedia hodgepodge. Greg L (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But you were the one who reverted on the basis of WP:Mosnum. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it was the edit I reverted that claimed to have MOSNUM on the editor's side. In any case, one edit, one revert hardly counts as an edit war. Let's hope that, in this season of goodwill to all humans and bots, things stay at that. Physchim62 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what you said: 'erm, no, let's stick to what WP:MOSNUM says rather than Greg's crusade against thinspaces'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Physchim62 (Martin too), you missed the important issue here. MOSNUM states as follows:

There are many, many instances of big numbers in this article—many that are the speed of light in kilometers per second—that are delimited with commas. Here are some of them:

9,300 10,100 1,000 Earth diameters 220,000 kilometres per second 136,000 miles per second 210,000 kilometres per second 298,000 kilometres per second 185,000 miles per second 313,000 kilometres per second 298,000 186,285 miles per second (299,796 kilometres per second)

Consistency within the article is important and yet you, Physchim62, seemed only too anxious to try to make your point by editwarring over one single number in the article without any apparent desire to achieve a consistent practice within the article. Further, if you want to try to say that MOSNUM and MOS guidelines have a preference for not using commas, the above words don’t support that position; Martin Hogbin’s observations are correct.

“Awe, shucky darn! I’ll show Greg L and convert all those other comma-delimited numbers too!” you might say. Gee, I hope you don’t pull that sort of stunt.

And Martin, stop personalizing this issue as one of “Greg's crusade against thinspaces.” You don’t know what the hell you are talking about and come across as only too anxious to turn everything in to a personal attack and bitch-fest on the talk pages. As for your past allegation, Physchim62, that I’ve had a “crusade against thinspaces”, please note that I’ve been the lead proponent of the val and delimitnum templates; the main purpose of which is to add thinspaces to the fractional side of the decimal marker so big numbers are easier to parse.

I also recognize the obvious reality that Europeans are extraordinarily accustomed to more than one system of delimiting numbers; Swedes are taught three of them in school—including the American system. Europeans are not generally confused by different methods for delimiting numbers on the integer side of the significand. Most Americans on the other hand, have no familiarity whatsoever with other methods besides comma delimiting; it is pretty much limited to American scientists and academics. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to “educate” readers on these things by confusing them with the very wording employed to communicate on topics. Good writing style is all about making reading fluid and natural and minimizing confusion.

Finally, I appreciate intellectual, uhm… *candor*. I just hate it when editors try to hide behind the apron strings of MOS or MOSNUM policy and beat around the bush in their arguments on talk pages in lame attempts to justify their actions. Like the Bible, a little bit of everything can be dug out of MOS and MOSNUM to justify pretty much anything one does. I would really much prefer it if you would just admit that “I think the SI method of using narrow-space delimiting on both sides of the decimal marker is so superior, I want to slip it into wherever I can on Wikipedia—even if doing so produces a retarded hodgepodge of delimiting styles within a single article and is confusing to many readers—in hopes that my efforts on Wikipedia’s general-interest articles will slowly educate some of those dumb-bastard Americans.” Though I would agree with your objectives and disagree with your tactics, I would at least respect and appreciate the candor. Greg L (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg L, I think you are talking to the wrong person. I was reminding Physchim62 of what he had said. See the history of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Martin, I misunderstood. It was my fault and I apologize. Thanks. I’ve struck my main misstatement and revised and expanded the post to clarify. I also moved my in-line response to Physchim62 to its proper spot right after his post, not yours. Greg L (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Some food for thought
Since photons still have mass, the speed of light technically isn't the fastest speed possible. If you were to reduce the mass of a photon you could reach higher speeds, but that would turn a photon into something different, which wouldn't be light. Also, it can generally be said that time is distorted by motion, greater speeds give greater distortions, as proven by the atomic clock experiment with the concord. So, I propose a question- if it were possible to accelerate humans in a rocket to a close enough speed to the speed of light, would it be possible to reduce the journey time of the rocket to a distant section of space by a considerable amount? say, at least 1,000,000 m/s? Theorycrafting like that could cut some costs somewhere. Napalm Flame (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not really the place for discussion of speculative suggestions such as yours. Have a look at proper velocity which may answer your question.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Napalm Flame: The issue is whether photons have rest mass, m0, which they don’t. If you are noting that photons have energy and since energy and mass are equivalent per, and from that conclude that photons must have a “mass”, well, no; that isn’t a valid conclusion. Photons get their energy entirely from their frequency; a photon of infinite wavelength (zero frequency), has zero energy. If you want to create some ultra-low-energy photons, rub a balloon on your head to separate some charges and create some ions and quickly wave it back and forth. You will truly broadcast photons with wavelengths of about a hundred-thousand kilometers and a frequency of 3 Hz. As for your theory that the perceived journey time of humans in a rocket traveling at relativistic speeds would be reduced, that was the very point Einstein was making when he advanced his Theory of Special relativity. If you want to calculate for yourself the journey time (space ship time) for passengers onboard a craft traveling at relativistic speeds, see Lorentz factor. I’ve still got my spreadsheet for calculating the velocities of particles at different temperatures. It’s got a gamma factor built into it for ultra-high temperatures. (*pause why I go find the thing…*) There: if you want a space ship’s coast, or cruise time of 1000 days to be only one day for its passengers, it must cruise at 299,792,308.103&thinsp;734 m/s, or 99.99995% the speed of light relative to their departure point, or inertial frame of reference (Earth). Really though, for high-accuracy work, the reference point would be the barycenter of the solar system; what is called Barycentric Coordinate Time (TCB). Greg L (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Loss of Featured Article status
As editors here do doubt know, this used to be a Featured Article but is no more. I was about to ask who here was interested in trying to get that status back but it seems as though the work might have already started.

Having looked at the FA review, it would seem to me that most of the complaints were about fairly minor MOS issues which should not be too hard to fix. I am not an expert on formatting etc but I am glad to help out where I can. I would like to try to make to improvements to the content of the article and may make some bold edits. Please revert these if you think there are negative and we can discuss.

I have added a section below as a FA 'to do' list. Not all the items I have added relate directly to the FA review. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

* Suggestion Martin, why not just revert to the version when the article achieved FA status? Then we can all look at what is in today’s version of the article and pick & choose the best additional material to bring forward? Greg L (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see now, why that wouldn’t be practical. Never mind. Greg L (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I’ve done my part for the day. The first step in FA is to have an attractive, topical decorative picture at that top.{what I added} Not only does it improve the article for our readers, it rallies editors with some additional pride as they wade in to do their part to improve this article to FA status. No one likes an ugly-ass, dry article. That table of speed equivalencies was just atrocious.{what I am talking about} Why cite equivalent speeds to such low precision(?); no one is going to quote Wikipedia when speeds are expressed in scientific notation to a precision of one part in 108. While this is arguably a “scientific” article, ‘speed of light’ is clearly also a general-interest article. Editors should endeavor to avoid scientific notation where possible to keep this article accessible to the widest audience. Remember too, one uses a non-breaking space between values and unit symbols  in numeric equivalencies. If the unit name is spelled out in full, such as 299,792,458 metres per second, then you use a regular space and allow the line-end word-wrap. Otherwise, you can have huge gaps at the end of a line as the entire numeric equivalency drops to the next line down. Using a non-breaking space between the numeric value and the first word of a spelled-out unit of measure is OK if the numeric value and the first word in the unit of measure doesn’t add up to something really long; 299,792,458 metres… is pushing it. Greg L (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there might be a copyright problem with the picture, which is why it was removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I didn’t know it had been here before. I dug it up using Mayflower and used it on ‘Kilogram’. Regardless, the picture was taken at The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Directed Energy Directorate. Accordingly, the work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. You pay taxes, yes? Ergo, you get to benefit from the fact that this picture was made; the Air Force doesn’t collect royalties. Greg L (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like my mistake them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don’t think you are mistaken. Looking at old versions of this article, it appears the same picture by a different name had been here and later deleted, probably for the perceived copyright problem you cited. No doubt, this new version was posted by an editor who properly cited its provenance and tagged it with the proper copyright notice. Greg L (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

FA 'to do' list
See above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite lead section

It should be a summary of the article. Should it have references or should they be later in the main body?

Do something with 'overview' 

Maybe it is just the title that is wrong but it is not really an overview, and should the lead section not be this?

Reduce the 'Faster than light' section

I am still not sure of the best way to do this but others have commented that it was too long (I have reduced it a bit).

Table
Does someone know how to specify a parameter to keep the body text from crowding so tight against the left-hand edge of the table? Isn’t there a way to do padding that isn’t visible? Greg L (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I figured it out. I had to go off-Wikipedia to Web Design Group for the help. Specifying parameters of style="padding: 1.2em" FRAME= void did the trick. Wikipedia’s Help:Table blows. Someone with better table experience than I should go in and fix this article’s table. I really wanted a 2-pixel border (like this), but now that I’ve got a 1.2-em frame, the new parameter seems to interfere with the border width. What I’ve got at least no longer looks like an abomination. Greg L (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Animation
I have removed the animated picture of light travelling to the moon. I do not think it adds anything as we have a table stating how long it takes light to travel various distances and everyone knows what travelling is. I do not have a particularly strong opinion on this. What do others think?


 * A picture is worth a thousand words; an animation, even more. What better way to make the intangible (the universe’s fastest speed), extraordinarily tangible. Further, a visual image like this truly exploits the power of Wikipedia to its fullest; no ordinary print encyclopedia can avail itself of this technology. This animation has been in the Moon article for months and months. I can think of no more suitable place on all of Wikipedia for this animation than on this article on the speed of light; the two were made for each other. Greg L (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page For 299,792,458?
The speed of light is 299,792,458 M/PS, But when the number 299,792,458 is searched it automatically comes up with this page.

So it should become a disambiguation page.

Thank You,

SaiyanEmperor2008 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with that. The chances of 299,792,458 having any other significance are quite slim. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of light-years section
Here's the section, as written before its recent deletion:

Here's the edit in which the section was deleted by User:DVdm:. Here was the edit summary: "Removed section about a *distance* listing examples of *time* scales (as this is an articale about a *speed*). Link to light-year (with many examples) already mentioned in intro".

I vote to reinstate this section. Certainly the section isn't perfect, but its topic is important to the article. The fact that telescopes see things that are millions of years old is a direct consequence of the fact that the speed of light is not instantaneous. I think that in order for a reader to have a good, encyclopedic understanding of the "speed of light", they should understand how it creates the distance-vs-time relationship in astronomy. What do other people think? :-) --Steve (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to have something on light-years. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too; I'd add mention and a link to parsec as well, as this unit is more common in astronomy. Brews ohare (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, i.m.o. this section was very poorly conceived and formulated. It repeated a remark from the introduction ("In astronomy, distances are often measured in light-years, the distance light travels in a year (around ten trillion kilometers)"), and then gave a few examples of times light takes to reach us, in a section about a distance, in an article about a speed. By the way, adding a remark about parsecs would even be more off-topic, as they are 100% unrelated to the subject of the article.

I think the line in the introduction should be largely sufficient in an article about a speed. Anyway, I have taken the liberty to replace the phrase "around ten trillion kilometers" with the precise km-expression of the light-year. DVdm (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that parsecs should not be mentioned, they have nothing to do with the speed of light. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speed = distance divided by time. Saying that light takes (blank) time to travel (blank) distance is a way of describing the speed of light, no?
 * Also, see WP:LEAD; the lead section is intended to repeat things that are elaborated elsewhere in the article. --Steve (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a proposed rewrite of this section:

Thoughts? :-) --Steve (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Martin Hogbin and Brews ohare here, Steve. It is too easy to delete stuff. I’ve restored the section and will be editing it to make it better tie to the concept of the finite speed of light. Greg L (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the section has been restored. I.m.o. is has become 'much worse than it was:
 * The clumsy and naive formulation is not even fit for a children's book:
 * The phrase "across vast stretches" appears twice. That is, once as vast and once as fast.
 * The phrase "just now reaching" appears twice.
 * The phrase "millions and/or billions" appears three times.
 * "...the light that is only just now reaching..."
 * "...is old; many millions..."
 * "The light from most galaxies in the universe that is just now reaching Earth..."
 * "Light even from objects..."
 * "...quite a bit of time..."
 * "...1.255 seconds prior"
 * ... I'm sorry, no offence, but was this meant as a joke?
 * There is a link to "Earth was first formed" which has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
 * The animation is downright annoying. Lucky thing it can be scrolled out of sight to allow readers to read the text.

I propose we replace the bad section with Steve's suggestion above - and, please waste that disturbing animation. DVdm (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Steve's suggestion is better than the current section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now done that. I think there is a reasonable consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Martin, much better. Made some additional tweaks to the formulation.
 * Still wish we could get rid of that animation though ;-) - Cheers, DVdm (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A light year is precisely
I think you're guilty of overprecision here. What year are we talking about? 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 seconds? Sideral year? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I assumed our Light-year article is correct, Headbomb. Bad assumption?? If it is not correct, please go correct it there (that should be a battle) before you correct it here. I wanted what is said here to match what is being linked to. Greg L (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. I was skeptical about Light-year because it used 365.25 days and not the 365.24 days one would use for averaging across a mere century . Plus, there is a higher-precision number used for averaging across 400 years as I recall. I assumed that an overly precise number and false assumptions wouldn’t be so damned glaring in such a high-profile article without a tag being slapped on it. I get bogged down further than I often like when I get diverted trying to correct every single article I’m linking to during an editing session. That’s what happened on Kilogram: I linked to it once, took a look at the piece of shit, and stayed their for a God-damned year! Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well turns out the hunt wasn't hard. It's based on the Julian year, aka 365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60 seconds.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. I see that it is based on this IAU recommendation on units rather than some Wikipedian’s arbitrary choice. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's step back. I for one think that for this article, saying "9,460,730,472,580.8 km" is worse than saying "around 10 trillion km". The latter is easier to quickly read and understand for most readers, not to mention more concise and better at focusing attention on the important aspects of this information. The 5% difference in value offers no qualitative improvement in understanding how fast light travels. And finally the light-year article has all the details. I mean, even a professional astronomer doesn't ever need to know or use nearly this many digits of precision (nothing in astronomy is measured to 14 digits of accuracy!!), to say nothing of the audience for this (only-somewhat-related) article. --Steve (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The exact value could be shoved in a footnote.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you both. An approximate prose value is better reading. And, given that this is an encyclopedia, the exact value should be provided somewhere. A reference is perfect. Now done. Greg L (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)