Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed of monochromatic light

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:18, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Speed of monochromatic light
Not sure if this is original research, an attempt at communication, or something else entirely; but it's not an encyclopedia article. Delete Rlandmann 11:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Thanks Mike but back again! If a fixed frequency approaches me with the speed of light and I am receding at half the speed of light its frequency will appear to be reduced. This makes me think that I must be receiving it more slowly and I am stuck on this point. It looks like simple logic and the fallacy is eluding me. Arthur Hinks. &mdash; RJH 15:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hopelessly misguided. A hint for the author: speed of light in vacuum is always constant, and doesn't depend on its frequency (or on the relative speed of the source and the observer; see theory of relativity). Delete. - Mike Rosoft
 * Response: I know.  But I want to know how the constant speed of light squares with the Doppler effect between monochromatic light and white light.  The Doppler effect shows a change of frequency which seems to imply a lower speed of approach. Arthur Hinks.
 * No, change of frequency does not imply a change in speed of light. (Once again, speed of light in vacuum is always constant.) It implies a change of its wave length. The following equation holds for the wave length of light (and any other wave): $$\lambda = \frac{c}{f} $$ Where &#955; is the wave length, c is the speed of the wave's propagation, and f is frequency. - Mike Rosoft 17:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 12:23, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOR. Kappa 12:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; "...clearly showing that the monochrome signal must have slowed down." Huh? Only true in a non-vacuum medium, per widely accepted physics principles. (C.f. special relativity.) Article appears to be personal research and opinion, with no references. Topic already covered by doppler shift article.

I DIDN'T MEAN SLOWED DOWN. Sorry I misled you! Please, please comment on this new summary;- IN A NUTSHELL: A red shifted hydrogen marker strikes us at a lower frequency, telling us that WE must be receding from it’s source (Hubble). The implication of that is that the light (COMING IN AT SPEED C) is hitting us more slowly! Arthur Hinks.


 * Delete: I learned some physics!  And at the university, they said it couldn't be done! (Original research and Deep Thoughts.) Geogre 18:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge anything salvageable with Group velocity and/or Phase velocity
 * Delete in agreement with Mike R. I already knew some physics.  I see no indication that Doppler shift or any other article would gain (rather than lose) usefulness by merging any content from this article.  Maybe the stretching of this finite (or perhaps infinitesimal) information over more not-paper would cause the knowledge to be accelerated.  Barno 19:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Nothing there that can be merged. --Carnildo 22:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as (un)original (non)research. Mike is right: Einstein's theory shows that light does not ever, in a vacuum, change speed. This applies whether you are in motion or not - whether towards or away from the beam of light. The speed of light, $$c$$ is so denoted because it is The Universal Constant. Wikipedia is not really the place for asking questions - there are many websites out there that provide just such a service. -Splash 22:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .