Misplaced Pages

Talk:Speed of light: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:44, 4 December 2022 edit27.63.16.252 (talk) →Speed of light: new sectionTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit Revision as of 14:48, 4 December 2022 edit undoNebY (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,852 edits Undid revision 1125537806 by 27.63.16.252 (talk) Reverting vandalism or test editTag: UndoNext edit →
Line 126: Line 126:
I am specifically thinking of the speed of light in transparent material such as glass or diamond. If that statement is true, wouldn't we expect the re-radiation to be emitted in random directions, scattering the light more and more as it travels through the material, making these materials not transparent at all? Doesn't the fact that we can see a clear picture through a glass pane, of what is on the other side, disprove that there is absorption and re-radiation, but instead that there is some other mechanism?<br> I am specifically thinking of the speed of light in transparent material such as glass or diamond. If that statement is true, wouldn't we expect the re-radiation to be emitted in random directions, scattering the light more and more as it travels through the material, making these materials not transparent at all? Doesn't the fact that we can see a clear picture through a glass pane, of what is on the other side, disprove that there is absorption and re-radiation, but instead that there is some other mechanism?<br>
Assuming that there is absorption by an electron, and some very small amount of time (dt) later, some re-radiation by the same electron, wouldn't this electron be in a slightly different angular position, in relation to the atom core, that small amount of time (dt) later? and therefore causing the re-emission to be at a slightly different angle? ] (]) 12:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC) Assuming that there is absorption by an electron, and some very small amount of time (dt) later, some re-radiation by the same electron, wouldn't this electron be in a slightly different angular position, in relation to the atom core, that small amount of time (dt) later? and therefore causing the re-emission to be at a slightly different angle? ] (]) 12:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

== Speed of light ==

Vhhjkl ] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:48, 4 December 2022

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Speed of light article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Featured articleSpeed of light is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED] This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 29, 2004, and on August 16, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
December 7, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
November 21, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 25, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 12, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
December 20, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
March 19, 2022Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPhysics: Relativity Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the relativity task force.
Template:WP1.0
WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages

There is a request, submitted by ScientistBuilder (talk)ScientistBuilderScientistBuilder (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "The speed of light is central to physics fields including the Big Bang Theory, special relativity, general relativity, spectroscopy, optics, as well as real world applications such as signal processing and GPS networks".

Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Photons faster than the speed of light

Researchers managed the speed limit of light "inside hot swarms of charged particles, fine-tuning the speed of light waves within plasma to anywhere from around one-tenth of light's usual vacuum speed to more than 30 percent faster." (source: sciencealert.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.34.70.250 (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That source says this is about group velocity, and this Misplaced Pages article already states that group velocities greater than c are possible, and have been achieved before. -- Dr Greg  talk  14:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, but the current WP article not the group velocity affirm that "fine-tuning the speed of light waves within plasma to anywhere from around one-tenth of light's usual vacuum speed to more than 30 percent faster." 30 percent faster seems to be a relevant experimental result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.179.76 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
This is not a comprehensible use of the English language. Try again? JBL (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, there was a typo. The current WP article doesn't affirm that "fine-tuning the speed of light waves within plasma to anywhere from around one-tenth of light's usual vacuum speed to more than 30 percent faster.
In the same way, nothing similar is said within the article titled group velocity. To say that someone has achieved a group velocity that is 30 percent faster than the speed of light, seems to be relevant for the WP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.32.41 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
We have an entire section on Faster-than-light observations and experiments|Faster-than-light observations and experiments and it begins See also: Faster-than-light and Superluminal motionThe experiment you mention is just one instance in a large field of study. WP:NOTNEWS applies to the continual flow of scientific experiments and demonstrations too. NebY (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your help. I misunderstood that my link was a summary of a peer-reviewed scientific paper instead of a part of a continous flow of scientific news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.251.187 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Copying one letter 50.29.238.62 (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EnIRtpf09b 05:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Insert the following sentence to the proper line of "Increases accuracy of c redefinition og the metre and second"

 'After similar experiments found comparable results for c, In 1973, the Consultative Committee of the Definition of the Metre determined the speed of light in vacuum to be c= 299 792 458±1.1 m/s by using the average of vacuum wavelength of several laboratories and the frequency of methane-stabilized He-Ne lasers.

 <Ref> J. Terrien, Wavelength standards, optical frequency standards, and the velocity of light, Nouv. Rev. Optique, 1973, t. 4, no 4, pp. 215-220, Bureau International des Poidset Mesures, Pavillon de Breteuil, F-92310, Sevres Comite International des Poids et Mesures, Comite Consultatif pour La Definition du METRE, 5e Session-1973 (13-15 Juin), Bureau international des Poids et Mesures, Pavillonde Breteuil, F-92310, Sevres 3 392 231. 3955 pm; an average of values reported by several laboratories( NBS (the National Bureau of Standards; It became the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, in 1988), NRC (the National Research Council Canada ), and BIPM (the International Bureau of Weights and Measures)). 88 367 181 627±50 kHz; measured by the US National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado

The End. Suh, Hosuhng (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I couldn't grasp your formatting for the sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Speed of light in a medium

The "in a medium" section states:"However, this represents absorption and re-radiation delay between atoms, as do all slower-than-c speeds in material substances".
I am specifically thinking of the speed of light in transparent material such as glass or diamond. If that statement is true, wouldn't we expect the re-radiation to be emitted in random directions, scattering the light more and more as it travels through the material, making these materials not transparent at all? Doesn't the fact that we can see a clear picture through a glass pane, of what is on the other side, disprove that there is absorption and re-radiation, but instead that there is some other mechanism?
Assuming that there is absorption by an electron, and some very small amount of time (dt) later, some re-radiation by the same electron, wouldn't this electron be in a slightly different angular position, in relation to the atom core, that small amount of time (dt) later? and therefore causing the re-emission to be at a slightly different angle? Dhrm77 (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Speed of light: Difference between revisions Add topic