Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redefinition of the Metre in 1983

Redefinition of the Metre in 1983

Redefinition of the Metre in 1983 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV fork of Speed of light, created for material removed from there by consensus. Previously PRODed but prod tag removed without reason. title non-notable in its own right, material belongs at Speed of light or Metre JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This article is in poor shape because it is an insufficiently detailed treatment of its subject. It is intended to be a detailed discussion of the 1983 redefinition of the metre, the reasons for that redefinition, the practical implementation of the new methodology, and the ramifications both practical and philosophical. That goal is not a POV fork, but an amplification of the discussion in the article Speed of light. Unfortunately, this article has simply been transferred from that article, which had a rather superficial treatment of the topic, and made into a full article with only a few modifications. The decision to make here is whether this article is ready to stand on its own and be more fully developed by normal editing, or deleted and resubmitted in a more complete form later on. Brews ohare (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• I had begun an article along these lines at this link. Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. There is simply not enough to say on the subject for it to merit its own article: it is not a subject in its own right, and is already treated in metre. Physchim62 (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It was enough of a subject in its own right to prompt this 5 full page article at the time:
    • Tom Wilkie (1983-10-27). "Time to remeasure the metre". New Scientist. pp. 258–263.
  • As well as this 2 page precursory coverage a fortnight earlier:
    • G. W. E. Beekman (1983-10-13). "Hunt for the speed of light". New Scientist. pp. 101–102.
  • And all of these journal articles and book chapters:
    • P Giacomo (October 1983). "The new definition of the metre". European Journal of Physics. 4 (4): 190. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/4/4/001.
    • B. W. Petley (1983). "New definition of the metre". Nature. 202 (5916): 373–376. Bibcode:1983Natur.303..373P. doi:10.1038/303373a0.}
    • Pierre Giacomo (March 1983). "Laser Frequency Measurements and the Redefinition of the Meter". IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement. 32 (1). Braunschweig, Germany: 244–246. doi:10.1109/TIM.1983.4315052. ISSN 0018-9456.
    • K. M. Evenson (1983). "Frequency Measurements from the Microwave to the Visible, the Speed of Light and the Redefinition of the Meter". In P. H. Cutler and A. A. Lucas (ed.). Quantum Metrology and Fundamental Physical Constants. NATO AS1 Series B-98. New York: Plenum Press.
  • It's remained enough of a subject since to warrant this conference paper some years later:
    • K. M. Evenson (1994). T. W. Hansch and M. Inguscio (ed.). A History of Laser Frequency Measurements (1967-1983): The Final Measurement of the Speed of Light and the Redefinition of the Meter. Frontiers in Laser Spectroscopy : Varenna on Lake Como, Villa Monastero 23 June–3 July 1992 (Proceedings of the International School of Physics). ISBN 9780444819444.
  • A quick search for sources turns up the original papers on the science underpinning this from the Boulder Group, as cited in the references section of a summary written by David R. Lide of NIST in 2002:
    • D. A. Jennings, C. R. Pollock, F. R. Petersen, R. E. Drullinger, K. M. Evenson, J. S. Wells, J. L. Hall, and H. P. Layer (1983). "Direct frequency measurement of the I2-stabilized He-Ne 473-THz (633-nm) laser". Optics Letters. 8 (3): 136–138. doi:10.1364/OL.8.000136.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • C. R. Pollock, D. A. Jennings, F. R. Petersen, J. S. Wells, R. E. Drullinger, E. C. Beaty, and K. M. Evenson (1983). "Direct frequency measurements of transitions at 520 THz (576 nm) in iodine and 260 THz (1.15 µm) in neon". Optics Letters. 8 (3): 133–135. doi:10.1364/OL.8.000133.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • As well as this:
    • "Documents Concerning the New Definition of the Meter". Metrologia. 19: 163–177. 1984.
  • Lide is, like others, is specifically addressing the laser measurement of the speed of light and the definition and redefinition of the metre:
    • David R. Lide (2002). "Speed of Light from Direct Frequency and Wavelength Measurements". A century of excellence in measurements, standards, and technology. CRC Press. pp. 191–193. ISBN 0849312477. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
  • Uncle G (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - a thematic multi-focus, interdisciplinary and clear presentation, in this overall-view to be referenced from different angles/lemmas. Help amplifying and keep! Gerhardvalentin (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep or move to the metre article. I think John is wrong to say that this is a POV fork as the material was not removed for POV reasons, rather the reason was that the speed of light article was becoming too long and the consensus was that we could do without the excessive detail about the redefinition of the metre. Count Iblis (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • a POV fork arise when a new article is created for content removed from another article by consensus, as happened at Speed of light. In addition the title clearly indicates a sub-topic of metre, or not even that - "definition on the metre" might be that, and even that would not merit its own article. I agree though that this content would have been better considered for inclusion in Metre rather than a new article (though I suspect as it stands there is too much detailed content for that too).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say that Blackburne has a misreading of the meaning of POV fork: such a fork is an attempt to duck a controversy by starting a new article to present an alternative viewpoint. The POV concept does not refer to an article intended (as is this one) to expand upon a sub-topic. Such articles are common on WP. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The argument that this is too detailed for the Speed of Light article seems valid. It isn't as clear that it couldn't be in the metre article, but that article is a broad overview of a number of items, and including all this material may be over-weighting this particular aspect, so a separate article seems like a good choice. Let this one improve, and sometime in the future, revisit whether this should continue as a stand-alone or should be merged in metre.--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - terrible, but also terribly notable. Intended. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Merge into Metre. That article is not very crowded right now, so I can't see why this material must be kept at a separate article rather than there. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The idea of merging the article with Metre should be shelved for the moment. Ideally this article on the 1983 decision should evolve into something more interesting and more extensive as editors are given the time to amend it. After this evolution it will be clearer whether a merge would benefit the Metre article, or perhaps constitute too large a digression. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, that is the reverse of our normal procedure: we should only have a seperate article if it becomes obvious that the metre article cannot support a reasonably complete discussion of the matter. If people think there is material to be merged (I don't), then it should be merged, but there is no reason for this article to exist. Physchim62 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, merge relevant content in the metre article. It certainly does not warrant it's own article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I started this article to remove unnecessary detail from the Speed of light article. I am not sure that the metre article will benefit from this level of detail being added to it. It is a specialist subject representing an important change in the way that length was regarded in metrology an deserves its own article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why the 1983 redefinition of the metre and not any of the many other redefinitions of SI units over the ages. This is a topic which should be discussed in the unit article, not in a separate article. Physchim62 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This particular definition removed a physical constant from the list of basic standards and placed it outside the reach of measurement in that system of units. There is a philosophical issue here about reduction of the number of basic units. There is also some subtlety in understanding replacement of the unit of length with a defined speed and the unit of time. These matters would take the Metre article rather far afield. A decision on merge at this moment is premature, but already the article looks too long and too far ranging to include in Metre. Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • For the last time, no the redefinition did not do such thing. It fixed the value of that constant (or "set the scale" between time and space). It's not "outside of the reach of measurement", it's just pointless to measure (you already know the answer of what your measurement should be, if you read any number other than 299,792,458 m/s, you need to recalibrate either your ruler or your clock or both), just as it is pointless to measure the refractive index of vacuum. "Setting the refractive index of vacuum to 1" did not "remove a physical constant from the list of basic standards", whatever that phrase is suppposed to mean. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • So did the 1948 redefinition of the ampere which removed the magnetic permeability of vacuum, and so on, and so forth. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What exactly is the objection to having this article? We would still expect to get an appropriate level of discussion in the unit articles but this article could give more detail. What is the problem with that? It allows WP to contain even more information in a well-structured way. Those that do not like it or are not interested need not edit it, or even look at it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It gives undue weight to the topic. We don't need articles on specific redefinitions of unit, that stuff should be covered in the unit's article. Headbomb {talk / is important discussion which can't be covercontribs / physics / books} 19:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree with Headbomb. If there was a significant controversy over the 1983 redefinition of the metre, it should be dealt with in section of the metre article: to create a separate article suggests that there is significant material which cannot be covered in the metre article, and consensus is that this is not the case. It is indeed a WP:POVFORK to suggest that the 1983 redefinition was any more significant than the other redefinitions of units which occur from time to time. The 1983 redefinition is less significant than the 1960 redefinition (which switched the length of a bar for a wavelength of light), and is far less significant than the planned redefinition of the kilogram (described at length in that article). Physchim62 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)