|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faster-than-light article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3|
|WikiProject Physics / Relativity||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article.
If you have science questions, please ask them here, at the reference desk instead.
|Threads older than 100 days may be archived by.|
Moffat, Magueijo et al.
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: 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52. 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.
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi 220.127.116.11 . 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)
Major error in "Faster light (Casimir vacuum and quantum tunnelling)"
Earlier in the page it says, "tunnelling time tends to a constant for large barriers...For large gaps between the prisms the tunnelling time approaches a constant and thus the photons appear to have crossed with a superluminal speed." That is correct. But in the section, "Faster light (Casimir vacuum and quantum tunnelling)" it makes a false statement, "Raymond Y. Chiao was first to measure the quantum tunnelling time, which was found to be between 1.5 to 1.7 times the speed of light." That is completely misunderstood. Furthermore, "time" is a different unit than "speed." The amount of time to cross the barrier approaches a constant, and therefore the net speed increases with barrier distance. So at a certain distance the *effective* speed (if we may call it speed) doubles if you increase the distance by a factor of two. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Travel vs Communication
Am I the only one who feels that these subjects may better be served with separate articles? They really have a different set of problems and possible solutions. Kortoso (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)