Talk:Faster-than-light

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Relativity  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Relativity Taskforce.
 

This article has comments here.


Merge Superluminal communication into FTL page[edit]

Because superluminal communication is a subtopic of faster than light, the FTL page seems to encompass almost all the information in the Superluminal communication article in a more comprehensible way. If anything, I think superluminal communication should be a sub-topic within the FTL page. If there's no objection I'll merge after a few months. Kdmeaney (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Why wasn't this talked about[edit]

Black Holes pull in matter and light energy faster than light implying matter(energy) can be made to move faster than light. "The brightest known quasars devour 1000 solar masses of material every year. The largest known is estimated to consume matter equivalent to 600 Earths per minute." Why hasn't this been talked about in matter or energy being made to move faster than light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.244.1 (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please put new messages at the bottom and sign them with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Because they don't pull in matter and light energy faster than light—see Black hole#Accretion of matter and Accretion disc. You might ask how and why at the wp:Reference desk/Science. Cheers and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm no physicist, but I noticed two things:
  1. The source you link above (as modified in this edit) does not mention black holes.
  2. The headline of that source says that a light speed "record" has been "smashed", but the "record" referred to is the speed of light in a vacuum and the article itself explains pretty carefully that the observations described rely on propagation through a medium which is not a vacuum. Note that this WP article says, "Light travels at speed c/n when not in a vacuum", n being the refractive index of the medium. Apparently, the caesium vapor used in the experiment apparently has a index of refraction less than 1.0 for some radiation wavelengths. See also Refractive index#Refractive index below 1.
Never trust a headline writer. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Why wasn't this article talked about from physicsworld. Light was made to move 300 times the speed of light. This would cause a significant change to the faster than light page. Initial thoughts? http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2000/jul/19/laser-smashes-light-speed-record 06:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.241.195 (talkcontribs) 12:06, February 6, 2014‎

Please read that Physicsworld article -- not just the headline introducing the article. After you have done that, read my comments above about the article. Never trust a headline writer.
The headline writer for that article seems to be making a comparison involving (metaphorically speaking) Apples (the speed of light in a vacuum) and Watermelons (the speed of light in a gas of caesium atoms in an excited state, wherein refractive index changes rapidly with wavelength). The paper which sparked the Physicsworld article to which you point is titled Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation. The abstract of that paper says, in part, "Einstein's theory of special relativity and the principle of causality imply that the speed of any moving object cannot exceed that of light in a vacuum (c). [...] The observed superluminal light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality, being a direct consequence of classical interference between its different frequency components in an anomalous dispersion region." See [1]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Moffat, Magueijo et al.[edit]

I reverted this edit for the following reasons:

  • The work of Albrecht and Magueijo is already summarized and referenced in that section. I'm not against adding further details, but the present addtion is problematic:
  • Moffat was not the first to propose a varying speed of light, see the linked article Variable speed of light.
  • Albrecht and Magueijo explicitly refer to their work as a phenomenological approach and not as a theory.
  • They state that the speed of light in the early universe cold have been more than a factor of 1030 higher than now under certain conditions. They don't treat this as a central result of the paper though, as they mention it neither in the abstract nor in the conclusions.

Regarding the edit summary not vandalism, you should start reading the paper by magueijo instead of thinking it is wrong. i think wikipedia user are quite biased: I doubt that you can convince ClueBot NG to read a paper. I'm not sure what you mean by wikipedia user are quite biased: which user, Cluebot? Or all users, that is including yourself? Or the people who worked on the article so far? If they are biased against inclusion of the work of Albrecht and Magueijo, then how come their paper has been included in the article for the last eight years? — HHHIPPO 19:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Anon ip who made the first edit seems to have changed to another ip to make the same edit. Same location of IPs: 151.230.92.188 and 149.254.181.24. We might need to ask semi-protection of the page. - DVdm (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The first IP made some questionable contributions before, including a 3RR violation within 11 minutes. I would of course prefer if they would join the discussion here rather than edit-warring. Otherwise, RPP it is. — HHHIPPO

with quantum theory we will find that there are speeds faster than light.[edit]

that is all. We must now wait for someone to do the experiment that will show this is true and the math for it. once this is done we will find a new math that will work in all areas.The Raven Said: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.140.224 (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi 73.52.140.224 . I confess I don't entirely understand your question. However this is not the place to ask it. Per WP:TALK, this page is for discussing what should appear in the faster-than-light article, not general discussion of speeds faster than light.
Please feel free to ask your question at WP:RD/Science. If possible, you might try to reword it so that it's a little clearer just what you mean. --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not a Question it is an answer. There are speeds faster than light. Science knows this but has not proved it yet.

Science never "proves" anything (outside of mathematics) so your statement doesn't make much sense. Jeh (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, look, everyone, this is not the place to discuss it. I tried to make that point gently and point to the alternative venue, but it can't happen here. --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)