I am not a physicist so feel free to discount what I say accordingly. I have not edited any of the articles in question. However, I have had a few opportunities in the past to engage in conversation on-Wiki with Tim Shuba, and I can report that in my opinion he is a cautious, circumspect and helpful editor, who shows no trace of arrogance or condescension to lay people and is pleased to volunteer helpful information. Arbitrators may want to take my comments into account as they consider criticism launched at Shuba by Tombe and Brews. -- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews ohare ( talk) 00:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)“Primarily, I use wikipedia for enjoyment rather than attempt to edit seriously. Since I am aware of how and why so much blatantly bogus information gets into articles, and why a large number of articles are highly unreliable, it doesn't affect me adversely as a user. Therefore, whether the speed of light article gets better or gets worse isn't too important to me.″ Tim Shuba
Goodmorningworld, You seem to be totally overlooking the fact that Tim Shuba is the one who launched the criticism at Myself and Brews. The only thing that I have written that might be interpreted as criticism of Tim Shuba was my reference to the fact that he deleted a large and very important sub-section from the history section of the speed of light article on 29th August, hence leaving an inexplicable gap in the chronology. I wasn't the one who actually put in that sub-section on the luminiferous aether, however, I made substantial modifications to the paragraph regarding Maxwell's role in that part of the history of the speed of light. I challenged Tim Shuba on his talk page as to why he had removed that sub-section, and he replied with double irony disguised as humour. It's all very nice that you can come here as a non-physicist and give a character reference for Tim Shuba, but eventually the merits of Tim Shuba's removal of that section will have to be judged by somebody with a knowledge about electromagnetism. David Tombe ( talk) 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
In part of a longish rant to Jimbo Wales' talk page, Dave Tombe wrote, "I have therefore attempted to introduce specialized knowledge back into wikipedia in areas that I have done alot of research in."
As regarding physics articles, this statement refers to nineteenth century theories. In particular, the period of "the old real physics", before "the new nonsense physics" of Einstein's theory of relativity. Most of David Tombe's contributions to physics article have this extreme fringiest of the fringe motivation (since the word crank can be incivil, I will endeavor to use euphemisms, though I admit to having used it freely when I first commented about David Tombe). Here are some examples of the kind of "specialized knowledge" we can expect to be introduced.
Please arbitrators and other uninvolved interested parties, find an acquaintance who is conversant in physics and ask about these quotes. They are utterly preposterous, show no expertise whatsoever, and bode ill for anything but the attempted introduction of disruption and pseudoscience into the encyclopedia. Many of the recent arguments in the speed of light article center around this 1983 definition, and this undoubtedly leaves outsiders bemused. Well, the theoretical reasoning (there are other reasons) for this definition is solidly based on Einstein's theory of relativity. As such, it is antithetical to David Tombe's extreme minority point of view. In his words, "[t]his most important chapter of scientific history has now degenerated into the abominable post-1983 new physics that is summed up in the lead to the vacuum permittivity article."
David Tombe's participation in physics articles is the epitome of what needs to be addressed within the context of the intent of the arbcom pseudoscience decision. Tim Shuba ( talk) 04:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Despite all that Tim Shuba has said above, I have not been putting original research into the articles. My major contribution to the speed of light article was in the history section. It passed the consensus and remained there for a few weeks until Tim Shuba deleted it. Here is the content material in question [1] as removed by Tim Shuba. I wrote most of the middle paragraph beginning with Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch in 1856, down to Maxwell's 1865 paper. With the exception of a few modifications relating to Maxwell's 1865 paper that were made by Martin Hogbin, that paragraph is essentially mine. So why did Tim Shuba remove it? That is perhaps the most crucial aspect in the entire history of the speed of light. It relates to how James Clerk-Maxwell showed the linkage between the measured speed of light and the electic and magnetic constants (nowadays referred to as the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability). I have expanded on this issue in a series of articles that are published in an on-line journal entitled 'The General Science Journal'. There was actually a wikipedia article page about that journal until Tim Shuba had it deleted about a week ago.
Until last month, I knew absolutely nothing about the decision to re-define the metre in 1983 in terms of the speed of light. When I investigated the matter, I discovered that Brews was absolutely correct. The metre is now defined as the distance that light travels in a specified fraction of a second. That means that in SI units, the speed of light is then defined in terms of itself, and so it immediately loses the connection with the physical speed of light and becomes a mere definition with an arbitraily assigned number. It means that in SI units, the speed of light is beyond measurement and it is therefore important that the article introduction clearly makes a distinction between the new SI speed of light on the one hand, and the physical speed of light as is expressed in other systems of units and which can be measured. My involvement in the main article in relation to that issue was minimal and I was not involved in the edit war. Instead, I went to investigate the knock-on effect that this new definition would have on the electric permittivity, and how Maxwell's discovery in 1861 would be written up in the textbooks in the context of the new 1983 definition. The experiment in question was still in my 1979 edition of 'Nelkon & Parker'. I brought up the subject at WT:PHYS. An editor Headbomb tried to tell me that since 1983 we can no longer put a ruler across the plates of a capacitor and measure the distance. He told me that instead we will be in fact merely calibrating the ruler. I considered this to be total nonsense and I made my opinions about it clear on the speed of light talk page. An editor called Physchim62 then ran to AN/I to complain that I was engaging in disruptive editing, and I got promptly page banned without any apparent investigation into the truth of the allegation. Meanwhile, Christopher Thomas, who was the only one who seems to have understood my argument at WT:PHYS came along and maliciously presented the WT:PHYS thread as evidence of disruptive behaviour. Since then, I have been to the science library and confirmed my suspicions, that since 1983, the capacitor experiment that links the electric permittivity to the speed of light has disappeared from the textbooks. I did find one exception, and that was the 1995 (seventh edition) of 'Nelkon & Parker'. This then goes full circle to the bit in the history section that Tim Shuba deleted. The main question that needs to be asked at this hearing is, 'Why did Tim Shuba remove that edit? In doing so, he removed a vital chunk from the chronology in the history section. I questioned him about it on his talk page and all I got in return was double irony disguised as humour. And whatever the answer is, you'll find that it is the exact same reason why he and certain others don't want Brews to elaborate on the significance of the 1983 definition of the metre. That's why I've suggested that the article be handed over to Steve Byrnes and semi-protected for six months, with a voluntary withdrawal of all the disputing parties. David Tombe ( talk) 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Physchim62 has just made a statement on the evidence board to the extent that he believes that I believe that I own the speed of light article. He then asks whether or not he must present evidence that I don't believe it. The answer is that he doesn't have to. But he must present evidence that I do believe it, and so far, he has presented none. And he would have a very hard job presenting any such evidence in view of my minimal involvement in the article. Ultimately it was Physchim62 that started all this. He started it when he went to AN/I to report me for disruptive behaviour without presenting any evidence of what disruption was actually caused. It is because of that singular action on the part of Physchim62 that this whole arbitration hearing has come about. Therefore it might be a good idea if the hearing begins with Physchim62 presenting evidence of the actual disruption that was caused by my edits. If he can't present evidence of any actual disruption, then questions need to be asked by the higher authorities. David Tombe ( talk) 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Physchim62, An experiment in physics disappeared from the textbooks because of a new system of units. There are plenty of sources on the library shelves to prove that. Practically any modern physics textbook proves it. Do you want to subordinate real physics to a system of units? Bringing that issue to attention at WT:PHYS is not disruptive behaviour, and the term 'fringe physics' has got nothing to do with it. You need to learn to start actually debating these issues rather than running off to noticeboards trying to get your opponents disqualified. The issue here is, "do we report the physical speed of light and the defined speed of light as two distinct topics, or do we only report the defined speed of light and sweep the physical speed of light under the carpet? Do we sacrifice the physical speed of light to the SI system?". David Tombe ( talk) 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Michael, That of course is the big problem. You want to limit the article to reporting about a defined speed of light in metres/second that is beyond measurement. Brews on the other hand additionally wants to report about the physical speed of light as is expressed in other systems of units, and which can be measured. David Tombe ( talk) 15:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Here again we see Michael Price and Physchim62 attempting to misrepresent the argument and invoking sensational terms such as 'pseudoscience'. The facts are that the speed of light in SI units is a defined quantity that is beyond measurement, whereas the physical speed of light is a measured quantity. Hence we have two different concepts. If the best argument that Michael Price can come up with is to state that his opponents are wrong, then he doesn't have much of an argument. As regards the point made by Physchim62, the c in the equation E = mc2 follows from the measured value of E/m. Based on Maxwell's equation (132) in his 1861 paper, this is the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio as determined experimentally using a discharging capacitor. Maxwell uses the density and the transverse elasticity of the medium that light is propagating in. Hence E/m is equivalent to 1/(εμ), where μ is the density and where ε is related to the inverse of the transverse elasticity. In other words, E refers to the energy in the medium. In 1908, Gilbert N. Lewis derived E = mc2 from Maxwell's radiation pressure equation, although I've read that he probably derived it as early as 1903. From all of this, it is clear that we cannot use the SI defined speed of light in the equation E = mc2. David Tombe ( talk) 10:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thing is that if one were to discuss this again with David, the issue would be settled quite fast if we temporarily discuss this without any sources or any appeal to BIPM, NIST, 1983 definition, what Maxwell wrote or didn't write etc. etc. Because, as far as the physics is concerned, this is all completely irrelevant. Electromagnetic fields and light behave as they do, because the laws of physics are the way they are, not because of "BIPM, NIST, 1983 definition, what Maxwell wrote or didn't write".
Then, this adds a constraint to how David can present his argument. E.g., no more citations from the 1861 paper are allowed. We don't care about what Maxwell said. David has to present his argument from A to Z (i.e. derive everything from Maxwell equations himself). Now, if David is wrong, then that means that either he'll make an error somewhere in his self contained logical argument or he'll make an assumption that is not true from which he argues. Either way, it is easy to point out where he goes wrong. And when that happens, he'll at least have to temporarily concede. He may say that he thinks he is still correct, but siunce he can't appeal to any authority from sources, the ball will remain in his court. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Christopher, What are you talking about here? Are you talking about the distinction between the physical speed of light and the defined speed of light? Or are you talking about the subject that I raised at WT:PHYS. If you are talking about the latter, I seem to remember that you agreed with me on that issue, but that you worded your replies as if you were disagreeing with me. The second sentence in your second reply indicates that you agreed with me. You know that an experiment with a discharging capacitor is needed in order to introduce the numerical linkage to the speed of light into Maxwell's equations. Your first reply reads as follows,
Your argument appears to boil down to a statement that we need experimental evidence linking the measured speed of light with this magical constant "c" that shows up in Maxwell's equations, or QED, or whatever model we're choosing to use for EM. That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that we can relate c, ε, and μ without recourse to experiment. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
But then you contradicted yourself in your second reply and you stated,
What takes experimental evidence, is showing that the constant called "c" is equal to the speed of light.
Which had been my point all along. Then you took the thread to AN/I and presented it as evidence of disruptive behaviour, knowing that I would know that this wasn't disruptive behaviour, but hoping that the non-physics readers would believe you. David Tombe ( talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I agee with Count Iblis's argument in general. We should be allowed to argue from first principles on a talk page. My argument at WT:PHYS was to say that experimental results are needed to link the electric and magnetic constants to the speed of light. Christopher Thomas agreed with me on that point, but then he went to AN/I to report me for disruptive behaviour. When he agreed with me he was trying to word his agreement in a manner as if to suggest that he was actually disagreeing with me. At AN/I, he claimed that he had been trying to coach me, but to no avail. The rest of them disagreed with me, yet at AN/I Christopher Thomas tried to give the impression that he had been part of a united front of many who had been trying to coach me, even though Christopher Thomas had actually been in disagreement with the rest of them, and in agreement with me. David Tombe ( talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This section was moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop#Comment on Totientdragooned's proposals at the workshop. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again we see a series of allegations relating to my off-wiki activities. But not a single shred of evidence has been presented as regards inserting original research into main articles. I began my dealings with Steve Byrnes before I started using my proper username. The issue in question was Faraday's law. Steve Byrnes believed that he had detected two Faraday's laws in electromagnetism, and he wanted to amend the Faraday's law article to that end. I tried and succeeded in holding him back from doing so, while explaining to him that in fact there is only one Faraday's law, but that it contains two aspects, and that only one of those aspects is catered for in the modern version of Maxwell's equations, which is why we have to supplement those equations with the Lorentz force. Steve finally realized the inter-relationships after I had demonstrated them to him. There was somewhat of a hitch over the issue of the fact that I was using Maxwell's original papers, and that Maxwell's idea of 'electromotive force' does not correspond exactly with the modern notion of the concept. I was using the term E for F/q in the equation F = qvXB. Hence I was writing E = vXB which is a format that is not used nowadays. But that is the format that is needed in order to show the inter-relationship between the two aspects of Faraday's law. I then had a debate with Steve about the Biot-Savart law and how to reconcile its singularities with its solenoidalness. That steered me into having to divulge the fact that I believe that the Biot-Savart law, just like the centrifugal force, has to obey the inverse cube law, and not the inverse square law as is commonly believed. But I never wrote that in the main article. Others have tried to do that, but I never have.
In my dealings with Steve, I found him to be very knowledgeable in physics, and competent in mathematics, but there were certain patterns which he clearly hadn't seen until I drew his attention to them. In a few other exchanges he has proved to have taken a very balanced approach, which is why I recommended him to be a neutral arbitrator in this dispute. I'm sorry that he has refused the olive branch, and I'm sorry that he has now misrepresented my position in this current speed of light dispute. I didn't say that the BIPM definition was impossible. It is quite possible, but I do believe that it was a mistake. Having said that, I have never once attempted to write my opinions on that matter into the main article. I have attempted to explain on the talk page why the BIPM definition of the metre means that the ensuing speed of light is a definition that is beyond measurement, and hence why it is a different concept than the physical speed of light, that can be measured. I entered the dispute on the talk page to help out Brews who was being rounded on by a crowd, who in my opinion were wrong, and who were trying to hush up this important 'sourced' fact.
I have already suggested that Steve Byrnes should now be allowed a free hand to write the article himself, which should then be semi-protected for six months. I still think that that would be a good idea. Steve has made it clear that he is no ally of mine, and so that should dispel any doubts that he would be biased towards my point of view on the matter. He knows his stuff. Somebody has to write the article coherently. At the moment it is just a pie throwing contest and something needs to be done. I know that Steve will write the article in a balanced fashion, irrespective of his prejudices towards me. If you ban me, as Steve has proposed, it's hardly going to make much difference. I haven't edited the main aticle since 12th August and I have made minimal edits to the talk page in recent weeks. I am not the source of the trouble at that article, and I don't believe that Brews is either. The source of the ongoing trouble at the speed of light article is the confusion that has been sewn by the 1983 BIPM definition.
So I say to Steve, put your bitterness about the Faraday's law argument behind you and move forward. David Tombe ( talk) 13:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Martin Hogbin has now decided to parrot what Tim Shuba and Steve Byrnes have said. My dealings with Martin Hogbin relate to the history section in the speed of light aticle. Martin, attempted to do exactly what Tim Shuba did after I had been banned. Martin tried to remove all mention of Maxwell's 1861 paper in relation to how Maxwell linked the speed of light to the electric and magnetic constants. Ironically, Martin was happy enough to reinsert this material, but in relation to Maxwell's later approach in his 1865 paper. The difference with the 1865 paper that made it more acceptable to Martin was the fact that it didn't involve any explicit references to Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices. In the end, both the 1861 paper and the 1865 paper were treated in the history section, even though I was of the opinion that the latter was superfluous to requirements. At any rate, both of them dealt equally with the importance of Weber and Kohlrausch's experimental result that linked the electric and magnetic constants to the measured speed of light.
When Martin first removed the material about Maxwell's 1861 paper, he wrote in the caption "Remove Crackpot Physics". Martin has no qualms about referring to his opponents as crackpots even when that opponent is James Clerk-Maxwell. Once again today, he is referring to crackpot physics that I have been inserting into wikipedia. Can we all please see some examples of this crackpot physics. I suggest that the arbitrators cross-examine Martin Hogbin on two issues. (1) Why did Martin Hogbin remove the material on Maxwell's 1861 paper from the history section? and (2) Why does Martin Hogbin think that the physical speed of light should be ignored in the article to the exclusion of the defined speed of light as per the 1983 BIPM metre? Martin argues that the SI system is the official system and that as such only the SI speed of light should be mentioned. The SI system may well be the official system of units, but we cannot sacrifice the physical speed of light for a system of units. If we ever have to measure the actual speed of light, we have to use another system of units, and that needs to be made clear in the article. David Tombe ( talk) 13:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Dicklyon asks increduously
Can anyone really believe that there are editors among us with a hidden motivation to hide the truth about the speed of light? or about Maxwell's aether vortex theory? Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Tim Shuba removed the material on Maxwell's aether vortex theory from the history section at speed of light on 29th August [4]. When challenged on the matter on his own talk page, he gave his answer very clearly in double irony disguised as humour.
Martin Hogbin attempted to remove the same material from the history section a few weeks earlier citing "No crackpot physics". [5]
And Dicklyon himself removed all references to Maxwell's vortex aether theory from the history section at centrifugal force claiming that there was no consensus to mention it. He did it in a very crafty manner. On 17th of August 2009, he removed this material [6] from the main centrifugal force article, ostensibly on the grounds that it was being moved to a special history section. As you can see, there is a paragraph about Maxwell's 1861 paper in the removed material. However, when it arrived in the special history section, the material on Maxwell had mysteriously disappeared. Then later in the same day, he removed the similar material in relation to Johann II Bernoulli, [7], leaving in a misrepresetation of the views of Daniel Bernoulli as expressed in a modern source.
Steve Byrnes tried to deny that centrifugal force was real, and in order to make his point, he reduced the argument to the base level of a children's video that showed a dummy getting thrown out the door of a swerving car. The point of course was that the dummy was supposed to fly off at a tangent. But the demonstration was so poor that the driver of the car even had a hard job trying to make his point, because friction stopped the dummy from going very far. At any rate, we should have all seen that the dummy flew off both radially and tangentially, and that the centrifugal force is the radial effect. This effect becomes very important in the context of Maxwell's vortex sea, because it is the centrifugal pressure between the vortices that leads to the radiation pressure in light, and which accounts for the speed of light.
This of course is no longer pat of the current orthodoxy. But we can clearly see that Tim Shuba, Martin Hogbin, and Dicklyon don't even like to have in mentioned in history sections, presumably because it is too plausible.
My very first block on wikipedia was at centrifugal force, and it was for trying to insert this material on Maxwell. Administrator SCZenz blocked me during the course of a revert war with himself, on this very material. That was the beginning of the culture of blocking me which led to my block record. The later blocks were for trying to insert the radial planetary orbital equation which contains a centrifugal force term. David Tombe ( talk) 11:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Dick, As regards the history section at speed of light, I provided a primary source, a secondary source, and a tertiary source. You were happy enough with it at the time. The connection to the topic of the speed of light was overwhelming. It dealt with how Maxwell converged the meaured speed of light, as measured by Fizeau, with the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio as measured by Weber and Kohlrausch. David Tombe ( talk) 05:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, Count Iblis and David Tombe sometimes do, but other than that, the evidence is overwhelming that Brews's points of view are idiosyncratic. He can't often find a source that shows anything like his POV, so he cites multiple sources and lengthy arguments that amount to WP:SYNTH. Many editors push back, and none support him, except that Count Iblis came along with his theory that we should ignore sources are argue from first principles instead. Obviously this is completely contrary to WP:V. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The debate at speed of light has been characterized by an atmosphere of intimidation that has been created exclusively by one side, due to their attempts to get their opponents silenced. The evidence for this exists in the form of two AN/I threads for this purpose, as well as many isolated comments even at this arbitration hearing, particularly from editor Physchim62. Physchim62 has even proposed that two of the disputing parties be banned for the duration of the hearing. The unsubstantiated allegations of disruption, that are exclusively coming from one side, are in fact the only behaviour in the debate that actually constitutes disruptive behaviour. These ongoing allegations constitute sheer intimidation. The readiness of an administrator to instantly pander to one of these malicious allegations, without any apparent investigation, played a major role in this atmosphere of intimidation. David Tombe ( talk) 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
As shown by Tim Shuba's and Sbyrnes321's evidence, it is quite clear that David Tombe is attempting to promote what can only be described as crackpot physics on Wikipedia. Even terms like 'fringe' and 'alternative', which suggest some, albeit small, body of support, do not properly describe the science that he is trying to push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin ( talk • contribs)
As you will see from the examples quoted by Brews I have not attacked him personally but I have attacked his scientific misunderstandings.
Regarding some of my deletions, they are all regarding subjects that had been previously discussed at length with Brews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin ( talk • contribs)
There are plenty of fringe POV pushers on wikipedia, and it's not normally a problem. They are reverted and ignored, and eventually blocked. However, this is proven to not work for David. In article after article, editors initially try to revert/ignore him, but he nevertheless sucks them into substantive arguments that go on and on. How? For example, when someone shows him a source that contradicts what he says, he disputes the interpretation or validity of the source, rewords his claim, or finds different sources which he can claim (incorrectly) to be supporting his point of view. The only way to respond is to argue about the details of what the sources are saying, what the symbols and terminology means, etc.
Here is an example. Note how editors try many times to end the argument by invoking WP:OR and WP:RS, but that David deflects it every time and successfully keeps the argument going.
Moreover, David has the time and energy to outlast almost any editor in an argument, and is smart enough to not overtly break rules like 3RR or AGF. (At least, not too often.)
He is an unusual case where all the wikipedia rules and procedures fail. Even after a year and a half of editing, numerous administrator noticeboard incidents, and even a permanent ban that was successfully appealed, he's still here and he's still wasting people's time with his fringe opinions--in this case, that the definition of the " metre" adopted by BIPM in 1983 (and used for precision measurements every day) is in fact a vacuous and impossible definition.
I believe the only good solution is to ban David from editing any physics-related article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbyrnes321 ( talk • contribs)
Of course, re-examining fundamentals is his right, but an encyclopedia article is not the right place to do this. For example, in physics, it is normal to say that "such-and-such happens in a vacuum". It is understood this this refers to a hypothetical perfect vacuum whose characteristics depend on the exact experiment to be performed, and that if something is measured in a physically real and hence imperfect vacuum, the results may need to be corrected. This is understood to the point where NIST, the champion of 16 digit measurements, does not even specify this: "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299 792 458 of a second.". But see [8] for an example of Brews replacing the word vacuum in this simple and unambiguous definition by free space, where is not needed, technically incorrect (I believe NIST really means vacuum, as it physically exists - they are not prone to careless statements), less familiar to a casual reader, and a distraction to boot. It's even less needed, and more of a distraction, in the lead paragraph of the speed of light article to which it's only peripherally related - see the edit in the first section above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer ( talk • contribs)
Today, however, the classical concept of vacuum as a simple void is replaced by the quantum vacuum, separating "free space" still further from the real vacuum – quantum vacuum or the vacuum state is not empty.
During the development of quantum field theory, it has become a popular point of view to consider the quantum vacuum as a medium. The manifold phenomena which arise from the presence (or the provoked absence) of virtual particles in the vacuum, such as the Lamb shift or the Casimir effect, tempt one to assign real properties to the vacuum. On the other hand, a physicist can hardly accept an establishment of this kind of "modern ether" without reservations; it is, at least, unsatisfactory to formulate a fundamental theory with the aid of some ingredients which elude direct measurement.
Physchim62, Regarding the quote immediately above, isn't that a terrible dilemma for the scientific establishment? Quantum mechanics wants to bring back something like the ether, but that can hardly be accepted. David Tombe ( talk) 12:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an on-going problem. The best example is his insistence on free space instead of vacuum. Of course, it's normal for each editor to have issues with the viewpoints of others, and every editor is not quite happy with the way concensus editing turns out. But eventually most editors realize that their voice is only one of many, and that compromise is required. Brews does not seem willing to accept a version that does not emphasize his particular concerns. Surely 'vacuum' is surely more familiar to the general reader than 'free space', and so better by Wikipedia policy. It's also technically acceptable to even the most fanatical accuracy buffs (and since the NIST definition uses the word vacuum, it's technically more accurate as well, certainly in the definition of the meter). As far as I can tell, all other editors seem to thinks it's OK as well. But it's not acceptable to Brews, so free space goes back into the lead paragraph of speed of light and metre. This lack of willingness to compromise makes achieving a concensus essentially impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer ( talk • contribs)
Dicklyon: Lou has not provided any evidence for "persistent behavior", and this remark of yours is nothing more than slander & slur. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration hearing is being abused by editors who want to widen the scope beyond the agreed terms, and by editors who are only interested in personal revenge and making unsubstantiated allegations which are irrelevant, and which amount to nothing other than noise. I would like to focus the attention of the arbitrators on what the dispute at speed of light is actually about. I made this statement on the talk page at speed of light for the benefit of the arbitrators. I want all the arbitrators to read this statement carefully. It is important for the arbitrators to realize that no physics background is required in order to understand the essentials of this argument.
This prolonged dispute has come about because of attempts to deny an important point that has been raised by Brews ohare. The matter has now gone to arbitration and the arbitrators will now be watching this page carefully. I think that it's only fair to the arbitrators, most of whom are probably not physicists, to make an attempt to explain to them, and eveybody else here, exactly what the distinction is that Brews has brought to our attention.
Everybody, whether a physicist or not, is familiar with the concept of the speed of light. It is the speed that light travels at, and it is generally known to be extremely fast and unreachable by any existing technology. Now let's imagine that I went unto a stage to give a speech on the speed of light. Imagine that I went unto a stage in front of 10,000 people and said that I am going to tell you all what the speed of light is. And then imagine that I stated "The speed of light is the speed of light". And with the speech ending at that, a loud clapping and stamping of feet erupts and lasts for the next twenty minutes. That sounds like a pretty ridiculous scenario. But in fact it is no more ridiculous than if I went unto the stage and stated the speed of light in modern SI units. If I were to go unto the stage and announce the speed of light in modern SI units, I would be stating "The speed of light is 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, every second". I could then expect the twenty minute clapping session to be no less sarcastic for me having just stated the obvious.
Brews has pointed out that it is not satisfactory to state the speed of light in modern SI units without some kind of extended elaboration, because the metre itself is defined in terms of the speed of light. Hence any statement of the speed of light in terms of that metre is merely a statement of the speed of light in terms of itself.
Now if we were to already accept the old classical concepts of length, I could go unto the stage and tell the crowd of 10,000 that I had performed an experiment to measure the speed of light using a Michelson interferometer on top of Mount Wilson, California. I could announce, that after performing some difficult calculations that I have found the speed of light to be in the order of 299,792,458 metres per second with an error bar of 0.04%. That would be news worth hearing. I would have given the audience a useful piece of information that had a physical meaning. It is this latter measurememnt that Brews and I have been referring to as the physical speed of light that can be measured. It is clearly a different concept from the defined speed of light that I described further up, and which tells us nothing that we don't know already, and which is beyond measurement.
This edit war came about because Martin Hogbin wanted to only include the new SI speed of light in the introduction. His argument was that since the SI system is the internationally established system of units, then it follows that we must exclusively use that system in the introduction. Martin has of course overlooked the fact that in the special case of the speed of light, where one of the staple SI units has itself been defined in terms of the speed of light, then it is not good enough to state the speed of light exclusively in SI units without any kind of elaboration.
Brews on the other hand wanted to make that elaboration for the benefit of the readers. Martin was determined to frustrate Brews in his efforts. A crowd then descended upon the article and tried to accuse Brews of being wrong, and of advocating fringe views and pseudoscience. These allegations against Brews, and also against myself, will simply not stand up even against the mildest standards of probity. David Tombe ( talk) 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews, Don't answer them back. The argument above is clear cut. Leave it to the arbitrators. David Tombe ( talk) 06:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
outdent] I'd agree with pretty much everything Mr. Thomas says above. I'd add that I believe (maybe others don't) that you can still measure the speed of light in metres per second, so long as you take "metre" to mean "the best metre you've got available", something which is implied in any measurement. It would be a pretty pointless experiment, unless you're using it to teach people how to use the equipment or testing new equipment, but you could still do if you had a reason to do so. So no, I don't believe there's a difference between a "measured" speed of light and a "defined" speed of light, at least not in the case we're discussing. Physchim62 (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The speed of light when expressed in SI units is a fixed number. Hence the speed of light cannot be measured in SI units. The speed of light, when expressed in SI units is a tautology that tells us absolutely nothing about the actual physical speed of light. That is why it is unsatisfactory to introduce an article about the speed of light by stating the speed of light in SI units. If I stood up on a stage in front of a crowd of 10,000 people and then stated that light travels 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, every second, I would expect a short silence followed by a loud and prolonged sarcastic clapping, with whistles and stamping of feet, due to the fact that I had just stated the obvious.
This entire argument has arisen from the confusion that has been caused by attempting to describe a standard in terms of itself. The argument has never had anything to do with pushing fringe science or original research. And since it is a relatively new state of affairs dating back only to 1983, the full repercussions have probably not as yet been addressed in the scientific literature. Sources do however exist that have brought the matter to attention, and Brews has supplied some of those sources. Charvest produced another source a few days ago. David Tombe ( talk) 09:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears that anybody who puts you right in a debate immediately becomes guilty of soapboxing and tendentious editing. David Tombe ( talk) 14:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I need a bit of clarification about the core dispute. I am familiar with electronics and their accompanying physics, and also possess a modest undergraduate level education in physics. I understand phenomena and mathematics as complex as electromagnetic wave propogation, counting for factors such as ambient noise, terrain, and so forth. Additionally, I also have a solid education in philosophy, including a comprehension of the philosophy of science.
I understand this dispute as centered on:
Is that a correct understanding of the main disagreement?
Secondary points of disagreement, in my grasp of the situation:
What I understand of the topic:
In one to two modest paragraphs, please tell me if my understanding of the main content dispute is correct and explain the following to me:
Please avoid responding to each other at this juncture. I am looking for individual responses to my questions and general points. Please refrain from making comments about other editors. Off-topic, inflammatory, and overly long responses may be removed without prior warning. I am attempting to ensure that I understand what is under dispute and what people are saying about the matter. Vassyana ( talk) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
To address your first set of points:
To address your other points:
I agree with Christopher Thomas and Physchim62 that these points are more or less the core of the dispute as it is debated in the speed of light talk page. Now, you mention "The philosophical impact of this redefinition", but I would say (in agreement with what Physchim62 writes) that while within the physics community there exists a philosphical debate about constants in general, there is no such debate specifically about the 1983 redefinition of the metre. Physicist and wiki contributor John Baez writes here that:
I think the true meaning of terms like "fundamental constant", "physical constant" and "dimensions" is a serious philosophical problem on which there's no consensus.
Then, I think, one has to step away from the 1983 redefinition of the metre and instead look at how the status of the speed of light is debated in the physics community. One can e.g. look at this article, or this article to see that there is indeed a debate going on in the physics community, reputable physicits have different opinions on this matter. It is possible i.m.o to reframe the debate on the speed of light talk page in terms of the analogous debate that does exist in the physics community (e.g. replace 1983 definition by putting c = 1) and then you can end up with some text that is acceptable for the article. Count Iblis ( talk) 18:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Count Iblis, I answered your query on another page but I'll answer it again here. When you talk about deriving Maxwell's equations from first principles, are you talking about the set of four that appear in modern textbooks and which are known to be Heaviside's re-formulations? If so, then one of them is a restricted version of Faraday's law, curl E = -(partial)dB/dt. It is a purely experimental result, but Maxwell does derive it hydrodynamically in his 1861 paper, where it appears as equation (54). But you want me to derive this equation from first principles using relativity. I don't know how this could be done. I have seen attempts to derive the F = qvXB force (which is part of one of the original eight Maxwell's equations) using relativity, Coulomb's law, and invariance of charge. Whether this derivation is right or wrong, the speed of light will be introduced into the proceedings through the Lorentz transformations. The speed of light in question will then of course be the real physical speed of light. The speed of light as expressed in modern SI units is not the physical speed of light. It is just an arbitrarily chosen number. The physical speed of light has been cancelled out of the SI speed of light because the metre itself is defined in terms of the physical speed of light. We are left with the SI speed of light reading as 299,192,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,192,458 seconds, every second. That is about as blank a statement as saying that the speed of light is the speed of light. And if we said that on stage, there would be prolonged clapping, sarcastic whistles, and stamping of feet on the floor. And it's likewise with the system of units in which the speed of light is defined to be 1. If you were to come on stage and announce that the speed of light is 1, you'd feel the floor vibrating. I remember when I first heard about that system of units in which the speed of light is defined to be 1. It was at a tutorial conducted by a Ph.D student when I was a first year undergraduate. We were talking about the two theories of relativity and he said that they are even defining c to be 1 now because of its central role in relativity. I remember at the time thinking that they are getting carried away with themselves a bit. David Tombe ( talk) 11:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Count Iblis, I followed you up until the beginning of the third paragraph, but I got lost when you started talking about yielding other universes. Let me summarize my position. When I first heard that light traveled at 186,000 miles per second, it meant something to me. I knew that 70 mph in a car was a fast speed, and so I realized that 186,000 miles per second is very fast. As the years progressed, it became a matter of interest to me as to how the speed of light was actually measured. Now imagine that a team are up on top of Mount Wilson, California setting up apparatus for reflecting beams of light off a nearby mountain top with a view to measuring the speed of light. A man in overalls is lying on his back with a spanner tightening up some bolts. Suddenly two officials in suits and ties arrive up from the city and tell them to pack up because we no longer need to measure the speed of light. They say that a committee has now decided upon the speed of light. Mr. Michelson asks "What is it?". The men in the suits reply "It's 1". The man with the spanner looks up and snaps "1 what? 1 bunny rabbit?'.
And that is exactly what we are dealing with as regards a defined speed of light. A defined speed of light tells us absolutely nothing about the actual physical speed of light. David Tombe ( talk) 13:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Count Iblis, Sure we can still measure the speed of light. But we need to use units other than SI units, because in SI units the value is already fixed exactly and can never change. David Tombe ( talk) 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
"Am I missing an important point or overlooking anything?" Yes; I think you're looking at this problem as a content issue, rather than as a behavior issue. I think the only content disputes are:
There's a pretty good consensus to not do the latter (unless a source that explicitly supports it can be found), and a pretty good consensus to not belabor the philosophical implications of the 1983 redefinition in the lead, and not to add a section on the philosophy of units and constants in general (which keeps getting added, supported by sources that don't really connect the discussion to the topic "speed of light"). But the real problem is the editing style that makes it so difficult to collaborate and approach a consensus, or to respect the consensus that exists. The behavior is a problem in many articles, not just speed of light; we should not address it as just a speed of light issue, as that won't solve it. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
My take on content, in three paragraphs:
The meter (since 1983) has been defined as the distance light travels in exactly 1/299792458 seconds. (The second is defined independently, by atomic clocks.) As a consequence, the speed of light in meters per second is exactly 299792458 m/s.
One aspect of these disputes is the general feeling among most editors (including me) that this is a pretty straightforward concept. For example, I believe I gave a complete explanation above, in just two-and-a-half sentences. Brews has the feeling that this is a rather deep, profound, inscrutable concept, needing a lot of explanation and discussion (much more than two-and-a-half sentences). I think much of the conflict has come ultimately from this.
Another aspect: Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the speed of light is half as fast on Saturdays as the rest of the week. Then the meter would be half as long on Saturdays as the rest of the week, because of the definition. Of course it would always be true that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 m/s. Brews takes that idea to say that there are "two speeds of light", one being the physical speed of light (which is different on Saturdays), the other being the number 299792458 m/s (which is the same every day of the week). The second thing isn't really a "speed" in the usual sense of the word, so people like me feel that his attempts to "explain" this point are actually counterproductive and confusing (not to mention unnecessary). Even though he's trying to say something that's true (and obvious), what he actually says comes across as something that's false. So a lot of recent conflict has come from this too. :-) -- Steve ( talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana: I agree with Dicklyon that the content issue is secondary. However, regarding your questions about the technical issues: Yes, you have a correct understanding of the center of the dispute, the main disagreement, all of which pivots about the SI Units. The secondary points are worth considering, but haven't got much attention. Your understanding of the topic: Point 1 is not correct: Yes, the speed went from measured to defined. The defined value does not connect measured values of time to measured values of space: what it does is institute time-of-transit measurements as a replacement for length measurements. Point 2 is correct, but I do not think it is an issue, despite strange claims by some that I disagree with this point. (I am not in the "far fringe", and I don't know anyone who is.) Point 3 is not correct: the space-time aspects, although they are of interest in themselves, are divorced from the SI Units discussion.
The problem is behavior. That problem is not restricted to Speed of light. It is due to escalating polarization due to a variety of bad behavior that is easily identified, independent of technical content. That problem, although revealed though the actions of individuals, is fundamentally a problem of keeping the lid on this behavior before it gets out of hand, maybe controllable by administrative action exerted across the board on all participants.
I think the behavior problem is widespread: many editors do not observe four rules: (i) be civil and avoid put-downs, cracks, and derisive asides (ii) be specific, to the point, and helpful in criticism of text, not smart-ass, (iii) don't lecture like an omniscient show-off, and (iv) don't express your personal uncertainties about the text as if they were WP requirements, or vice versa. As to this last, confusion and heat results when a Talk page discussion is called WP:OR or WP:POV, when what is meant is "I don't agree with your explanation." or "I don't think your view agrees with my own." Waving guidelines about is a cowardly method to seemingly invoke higher authority to support your opinion, where instead dialog should be invited.
And then, there are editors that are never wrong, but hold rigid positions or even doctrines. That impedes resolution of problems, because these editors are unmoved by argument or sources, and will resist until death any modification. Any correct description must be sufficiently convoluted to avoid clear distinction from their rigid views. I hope that strict confinement of comments from such editors to specific statements about specific text and a requirement to deal directly with sources might force these editors to retreat sufficiently to allow some sense to prevail. They must be prevented from launching into distortions, vague generalizations and incivilities.
The technical issue debated on the Talk page is a distinction between two things: the logical status of the number 299 792 458 m/s in the pre- and in the post-1983 definitions of the metre. I am focusing on this number, not the term "speed of light", which is too full of connotations.
The pre-1983 role of this number is the usual everyday idea that it is the approximate value of the speed of light as measured in everybody's notion of that term, just as when you refer to the speed of a car. The pre-1983 metre is a specific length, and light travels at a measured 299 792 458±1.2 m/s (well documented: Resolution 1 of CGPM; Resolution 2 of the CGPM).
The post-1983 meaning of 299 792 458 m/s is different. Post-1983 all distances are defined in terms of times-of-transit (well documented: Resolution 1 of CGPM; Resolution 2 of the CGPM). As an example of a time-of-transit length, if you say your office is ten minutes away, you mean it takes you 10 minutes to walk there. If you say the Sun is 8.3 minutes away, you mean it takes 8.3 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth. If you say a metre is exactly 1/500 000 000 s long, you mean it takes light 1/500 000 000 s to travel a metre. If we say a metre is exactly 1/300 000 000 s long, then it takes light 1/300 000 000 s. What we did say is a metre is exactly 1/299 792 458 s. In fact, we can make a metre any number of seconds we like (well documented) - it's only a unit, it isn't nature. But continuity suggests the time-of-transit metre should be close to the original one (well documented: Last sentence in NIST timeline).
Of course, if a metre is the distance traveled by light in exactly 1/299 792 458 s, the "speed of light" is exactly 299 792 458 m/s. An exact value is made possible by the change to time-of-transit lengths, but the "exact value" cannot be interpreted as a measurement: it's an arbitrary number set by the BIPM & NIST. Calling this use of 299 792 458 m/s the "speed of light" is tantamount to an additional technical meaning to what is meant by the "speed of light": this new meaning does not refer to the "speed of light" as previously used, as in special relativity say, which is a property of the universe, not a purview of committee.
So, putting the two parts together, here is the difference between the pre- and post-1983 uses of the number 299 792 458: In one, it's an approximate measurement; in the other, it's a committee decision. If Speed of light were calm, there would be no difficulty dealing with this simple well-documented difference. However, at the moment any mention of the topic causes a Pavlovian response. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana, I think that your grasp of the situation is pretty accurate. As regards your questions, I don't know the answer to your first question regarding mainstream opinions about the significance of the change, because I only became aware of the issue in August of this year. The first thing that flashed through my mind when I finally grasped the point that Brews was making, was that this will have a knock-on effect on the measured value of electric permittivity, and so I began to make some investigations. I discovered that the experiment to measure electric permittivity as was described in the 1979 Nelkon & Parker "Advanced Level Physics" texbook that I used as a teacher was absent in pretty well all of the modern physics textbooks in the university science library. On your final question, I would hold the opinion that the physical constant that is associated with special relativity is a separate issue from the constancy that goes with the new defined speed of light, and that the new definition has no bearing one way or another on the issue of the physical constancy of the speed of light that forms a postulate of special relativity.
As regards behavioural issues, the only thing that alarmed me was the total intolerance which I encountered when I raised these issues. David Tombe ( talk) 01:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a small point: the view of c as a "conversion factor between measurements of time and space" has been around in theoretical physics long before it was used to define the metre in 1983. Time and space are dimensions of the same spacetime, and, from a theoretical point of view, using the metre to measure lengths and the second to measure distances is no more (and no less) useful than using the nautical mile to measure horizontal distances and the foot to measure heights; and saying that one second equals about 300 million metres makes no less sense than saying that one nautical mile equals about 6076 feet. Also, the fact that it is exact by definition is a separated issue than whether it's a conversion factor: the number of metres in an astronomical unit, or that of atomic mass units in a kilogram, are obviously and unquestionably conversion factors, but they're not exact by definition. According to a particular point of view (with which I happen to agree, although I acknowledge it is not the only legitimate one), the same applied to the number of metres in a second before 1983.
Apart from that, your (Vassyana's) description sounds substantially correct to me. -- ___A. di M. 12:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Measurements are always done by comparing something to another thing. That's the most basic definition of something. For example, a atomic mass unit (u) is defined as 1/12 of the mass of a carbon-12 atom. If you want to know how much an atom of Iron-48 weights, you compare yourself to a carbon-12 atom, and you end up with something close to 48 u. Now what happens if you were to express the mass of an atom of carbon-12 in atomic mass units? Well the atomic mass unit is defined as being exactly 1/12 of the mass of a carbon-12 atom. Therefore, carbon-12 weighs 12 u, by definition. Is this a tautology? Yes! Is this a problem? No! It's simply the definition of your unit system.
For the speed of light, it is the exact same thing. The core of this issue is that the "units of speed" are usually presented as "distance/time", because that's how are human brains are wired. But how we like to present things is not important here, the only thing that is important is that there are three quantities, linked by definition of what they are. Speed = distance / time. The choice of the speed of light is particularly well-suited for this because it is constant in all inertial referential, meaning you can go to point A and to point B, and you don't have to worry that something changed from going from A to B. Since you know c doesn't change, it's the perfect standard. Whatever you do must give a value of 299,... to c. If you don't get c, then you calibrate your instruments so it gives c. If you build an experiment, say you place a detector at 20 meters (measured with a measuring tape) away from your light source, and you measure the time it takes for a light pulse to go from the source to your detector, and you take the ratio of 20 by the time it took, and you do not get exactly 299... as an answer, it means that the meters of your tape are somewhat off, or that the seconds of your timer are somewhat off. So no, you cannot ever measure the speed of light in SI units. But you do not need to, just like you cannot ever measure the mass of "The Kilogram" in SI units. It's not a problem for the kilogram, and it's not anymore a problem for the speed of light.
Now concerning the whole "time of transit" thing. Suppose I have a stick and I want to know how long that stick is. What I do is take a pulse of light, let it go for one second, and see where it's at. If the pulse of light is halfway through my stick, then I know my stick is twice as long as 299... meters. It needs to be clear that here I was not' comparing transit times, I was comparing distances. However, knowing that c is both fixed by royal decree and does not physically change depending on where you are, you can compare transit times if you want, and it will be mathematically equivalent to comparing distances, but it is not the same act.
Concerning the "conversion factor"/"fundamental constant". It is true that c is a conversation factor (it relates length and time), much like all the other fundamental constants such as the Planck constant (which relates energy and frequency), the Boltzmann constant (which relates energy and temperature), Gravitational constant (relates force, mass, and distance) and so on, are conversion factors. If it relates two different concepts, it's a dimensional fundamental constant. If it's a pure number (like the fine-structure constant, or the Fermi constant), then it's a dimensionless fundamental constant. Usage is very loose when it comes to the term "fundamental", some people say that the dimensionless constants are the only fundamental constants because they focus on the numerical value, others say the dimensional ones are fundamental as well because they focus on the link they make. The article follows the second use of "fundamental" (aka fundamental because it links two concepts, space and time). This distinguishes them from the other physical constants which no one would call fundamental, such as the index of refraction of glass being ~1.54, or the ionization energy of hydrogen being 13.6 electronvolts.
I hope this answers questions. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Headbomb: The mathematical basis for length comparisons of lengths ℓ1 & ℓ2 is:
which is independent of the speed of light c, so long as the same speed of light is realized while measuring both times-of-transit t1 & t2. The left side is a length comparison (e.g. fringe count ratio) and the right side is transit-time comparison. If my metre is defined as equivalent to a transit time of 1/299… s, then I use the right-hand side to compare my measured transit time to 1/299… s and that determines the length in metres. If time measurement is more reproducible than fringe counting, the right hand side gives better results than the left side. That is the import of the 1983 definition. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a little "light" relief for all concerned, from The Age, 16 December 1983 [16]. The moral of the story is "be very careful", be you politician or journalist… Physchim62 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit perplexed about this, so tell me if I'm wrong, but here and here, Brews is saying that "free space" has defined properties, properties which are, in effect, defined by the definitions of the metre and the ampere insofar as we measure them in SI units.
That seems to be in contradiction with all other secondary definitions of "free space" (of which there are many). The CGPM 1983 definition of the metre choses to speak of "vacuum", perhaps to avoid such confusion.
For me it is "obvious" (maybe less so for other parties) that the "speed of light" in the 1983 definition of the metre refers to the one that is measurable asymptotically, that is that you measure the speed at ever decreasing pressure and you find the limit when the pressure would have been zero (if you could have got that far). That is the way that the absolute zero of the temperature scale is defined. In this sense, "vacuum" and "free space" are used interchangeably, even in the same sentence, as in this textbook (from 1997).
What do other parties think? Physchim62 (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Steve: I take that as a clarification of your notion of my views? I thought you were emphasizing assume versus imply. I'd say that it is my view that today's BIPM 'vacuum' has the electric constant and the magnetic constant as its EM parameters (as they define them on the NIST site here & here), and these exhibit no quantum effects being completely featureless: no field dependence, no dispersion, no anisotropy, no dichroism. That is not to deny the BIPM might change the rules sometime. I do not hold that the Maxwell equations are exactly true, as no physical law is known with certainty. However, given these equations, we will find c0, again as given on the NIST site here and the "characteristic impedance of vacuum" as found here. Where is this leading? Brews ohare ( talk) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
We all knew that FyzixFighter would be here sooner or later. FyzixFighter comes in from centrifugal force, not speed of light. FyzixFighter tried to tell us all that the centrifugal force term in the planetary orbital equation was the centripetal force. I haven't got the diff handy and I'm not going to bother looking for it, but I will surely get it if requested to do so. FyzixFighter actively tried to make the article wrong and I can prove that. FyzixFighter trampled over good edits of mine at Coriolis force. I have actually complained about FyzixFighter's behaviour twice at AN/I. I presented the evidence that he had been following me around, but nobody wanted to look at it. If you check FyzixFighter's history, you will not find a single case of him editing a physics article since I started, that has not been related to undermining one of my edits. In many respects, I blame FyzixFighter for most of my trouble at wikipedia. It all began when he tried to resist my insertion of the radial planetary orbital equation at centrifugal force. As for Faraday's law, I have done nothing wrong there, but I did teach FyzixFighter the relationship between the motionally induced EMF and the EMF that is induced by a time varying magnetic field. He is another of these Ph.D. students who have learned from me, while trying to undermine me for inserting material that they hadn't yet learned about. He's just parroted alot of what I taught him to a new editor at Faraday's law over the last few days.
When judging FyzixFighter's evidence, the key point to remember is that he tried to tell us all that the centrifugal force term in the planetary orbital equation was the centripetal force. David Tombe ( talk) 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A.di M., It's a simple question. What is the name of that term? You have described its effects and its relationship to kinetic energy, but what is its name? It has already been generally agreed amongst all the disputing parties that the inverse cube law term is the centrifugal force. If a motor bike rides in a circle, you bank in order to invoke a gravitational torque to counteract the centrifugal torque that would otherwise throw you over. You do not bank to turn. You turn the handle bars to turn. You bank to stop yourself falling outwards when you do turn. David Tombe ( talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
A. di M., Of course! You probably skidded when you banked inwards and fell inwards. Nobody ever falls outwards because they know instinctively to bank inwards. Hence the accidents only ever involve inward falls. I can assure you that if you go round a corner and don't bank inwards, you will fall outwards. David Tombe ( talk) 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, You're right that I shouldn't have allowed myself to be drawn in. But Physchim62 claimed that there was no such thing as centrifugal force, and that by me having stated otherwise, my wikipedia time should be cut off as soon as possible. It has been apparent so far that the some arbitrators are very easily influenced by what Physchim62 says, and so it was important for me to demonstrate that the issues surrounding centrifugal force are by no means as clear cut as Physchim62 has suggested. Ideally, this entire thread and FyzixFighter's evidence should be removed. Harsher treatment and threats to block have already been demonstrated in relation to evidence that is actually directly related to the case at speed of light. And you're right that the real issues here are the trolleys containing boxes full of sand that are being presented as evidence to prove the phantom "behavioural problems" that have in turn been used to obfuscate the real issues in the case at speed of light. The continual attempts to brush Colonel Warden's source aside are a major issue of concern. David Tombe ( talk) 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
FyzixFighter, This simply doesn't wash. What are the fringe views in question? Please state them in plain English and not in a mountain of diffs. All my arguments at those articles which you have listed above have been caused by a reticence on the part of yourself and others to accept the names of two out of six terms in two equations. The two equations in question are the radial planetary orbital equation and the transverse planetary orbital equation, and the two terms in question which have been the source of this ongoing conflict are the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force. You have tried to deny the presence of those two forces in those two equations, and that's what it's been all about. I explained that on the talk page at Kepler's laws of planetary motion. And you have learned alot about planetary orbital theory since you first began to revert my edits. But while you have now finally accepted that the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force are present in those equations, you are still absolutely determined to strap a rotating frame of reference around the scenarios, even though that is not necessary.
Can you give the arbitration committee one single example of a fringe view that I have inserted into an article. Please explain it in plain English. Explain what is fringe about it. I was trying to bring a simplicity and order to those topics which would make them easier for the readers to access. But it seemed rather as if you were continually trying to scramble my efforts. I wanted to state the two equations and name the terms. But you and others prevented me from doing so. Your latest analysis of the two principles in Faraday's law was good. But it was the long way around because you deliberately wanted to avoid the simplicity of showing that it all stems from taking the curl of equation (D) in Maxwell's original eight equations. I didn't insert my simplistic approach into the main article until I believed that it was backed up in a Stratton source from 1941. I have never seen that source, but my edit was verbatim from a secondary source that referred to the Stratton book. You have seen the Stratton source, and you have acknowledged to me on your talk page that it reads more or less as I stated. David Tombe ( talk) 15:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've moved these sections here, as Brew's section was well over the 1,000 word limits and these sections do not appear to include evidence, simply comments relating to the evidence of others. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The "two different concepts" idea is definitively described here and Dicklyon's argument is disposed of here. The source for the idea of 299 792 458 m/s being an approximation to the pre-1983 measurement of 299 792 458 ± 1.2 m/s and also being the post 1983 defined value for the speed of light is Resolution 2 of the CGPM. Both of these uses for 299 792 458 m/s are commonly called the "speed of light". Brews ohare ( talk) 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
See also Workshop comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have made 'vacuum' link to 'free space' some time ago, but that link has been made before on this article by other authors (see here where Martin Hogbin linked to free space), and is the correct link to explain 'vacuum' in this context of electromagnetism in 'vacuum'. Other than that, I am bewildered by Lou's comments, and suggest he has no evidence to support his comments on this page. Perhaps he has become confused about what I have actually done by listening to the unsupported and incorrect statements of my views made by Finell and by Physchim62 and others? In particular, I have no stance on GR, and have not edited the lead in the article for a long time, nevermind in this regard. Contrary to LouScheffer's remarks about lack of cooperation, I have supported both Abtract and Dicklyon in their versions of the lead paragraph. Unless specific diffs can be provided, I'd say there is nothing valid in Lou's remarks. Brews ohare ( talk) 01:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Editor Headbomb has presented no evidence, just his unsupported assertions. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
My own discussions with D Tombe at Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) stimulated me to make the first draft of virtually all the examples, figures and explanations that did much to improve that page, and similarly the examples on the Coriolis effect page. It also led me to identification of the meaning used in the first draft of the Lagrangian approach, a topic very reluctantly accepted by Dicklyon after weeks of persuasion. These discussions also led to the article Centrifugal force and absolute rotation spun off as a separate article using material from Centrifugal force first drafted by myself in a good move by Dicklyon.
I disagree with Steve's proposal to ban D Tombe, and find his ability to frame a discussion and provide examples a useful contribution to the evolution of WP. An example is Centripetal force. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
What has to be done to fix the editing atmosphere at Speed of light is outlined on the Workshop page.
Finell needs to be reminded about the need to assume good faith. More information can be found here [17]. David Tombe ( talk) 03:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, All the specifics are in Finell's evidence. He chose to draw attention to the fact that I incurred a series of blocks between May and August 2008. None of those blocks were in anyway related to the impasse at the speed of light article. None of the activities involved in those blocks, whether right or wrong, have been repeated since that time. What could Finell's good faith motive have been for bringing up this issue? Was it likely to show me up in a good light? I can't see any assumptions of good faith on Finell's part in relation to his evidence. David Tombe ( talk) 05:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this web cartoon should be taken into account in the case… Physchim62 (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not a physicist so feel free to discount what I say accordingly. I have not edited any of the articles in question. However, I have had a few opportunities in the past to engage in conversation on-Wiki with Tim Shuba, and I can report that in my opinion he is a cautious, circumspect and helpful editor, who shows no trace of arrogance or condescension to lay people and is pleased to volunteer helpful information. Arbitrators may want to take my comments into account as they consider criticism launched at Shuba by Tombe and Brews. -- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews ohare ( talk) 00:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)“Primarily, I use wikipedia for enjoyment rather than attempt to edit seriously. Since I am aware of how and why so much blatantly bogus information gets into articles, and why a large number of articles are highly unreliable, it doesn't affect me adversely as a user. Therefore, whether the speed of light article gets better or gets worse isn't too important to me.″ Tim Shuba
Goodmorningworld, You seem to be totally overlooking the fact that Tim Shuba is the one who launched the criticism at Myself and Brews. The only thing that I have written that might be interpreted as criticism of Tim Shuba was my reference to the fact that he deleted a large and very important sub-section from the history section of the speed of light article on 29th August, hence leaving an inexplicable gap in the chronology. I wasn't the one who actually put in that sub-section on the luminiferous aether, however, I made substantial modifications to the paragraph regarding Maxwell's role in that part of the history of the speed of light. I challenged Tim Shuba on his talk page as to why he had removed that sub-section, and he replied with double irony disguised as humour. It's all very nice that you can come here as a non-physicist and give a character reference for Tim Shuba, but eventually the merits of Tim Shuba's removal of that section will have to be judged by somebody with a knowledge about electromagnetism. David Tombe ( talk) 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
In part of a longish rant to Jimbo Wales' talk page, Dave Tombe wrote, "I have therefore attempted to introduce specialized knowledge back into wikipedia in areas that I have done alot of research in."
As regarding physics articles, this statement refers to nineteenth century theories. In particular, the period of "the old real physics", before "the new nonsense physics" of Einstein's theory of relativity. Most of David Tombe's contributions to physics article have this extreme fringiest of the fringe motivation (since the word crank can be incivil, I will endeavor to use euphemisms, though I admit to having used it freely when I first commented about David Tombe). Here are some examples of the kind of "specialized knowledge" we can expect to be introduced.
Please arbitrators and other uninvolved interested parties, find an acquaintance who is conversant in physics and ask about these quotes. They are utterly preposterous, show no expertise whatsoever, and bode ill for anything but the attempted introduction of disruption and pseudoscience into the encyclopedia. Many of the recent arguments in the speed of light article center around this 1983 definition, and this undoubtedly leaves outsiders bemused. Well, the theoretical reasoning (there are other reasons) for this definition is solidly based on Einstein's theory of relativity. As such, it is antithetical to David Tombe's extreme minority point of view. In his words, "[t]his most important chapter of scientific history has now degenerated into the abominable post-1983 new physics that is summed up in the lead to the vacuum permittivity article."
David Tombe's participation in physics articles is the epitome of what needs to be addressed within the context of the intent of the arbcom pseudoscience decision. Tim Shuba ( talk) 04:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Despite all that Tim Shuba has said above, I have not been putting original research into the articles. My major contribution to the speed of light article was in the history section. It passed the consensus and remained there for a few weeks until Tim Shuba deleted it. Here is the content material in question [1] as removed by Tim Shuba. I wrote most of the middle paragraph beginning with Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch in 1856, down to Maxwell's 1865 paper. With the exception of a few modifications relating to Maxwell's 1865 paper that were made by Martin Hogbin, that paragraph is essentially mine. So why did Tim Shuba remove it? That is perhaps the most crucial aspect in the entire history of the speed of light. It relates to how James Clerk-Maxwell showed the linkage between the measured speed of light and the electic and magnetic constants (nowadays referred to as the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability). I have expanded on this issue in a series of articles that are published in an on-line journal entitled 'The General Science Journal'. There was actually a wikipedia article page about that journal until Tim Shuba had it deleted about a week ago.
Until last month, I knew absolutely nothing about the decision to re-define the metre in 1983 in terms of the speed of light. When I investigated the matter, I discovered that Brews was absolutely correct. The metre is now defined as the distance that light travels in a specified fraction of a second. That means that in SI units, the speed of light is then defined in terms of itself, and so it immediately loses the connection with the physical speed of light and becomes a mere definition with an arbitraily assigned number. It means that in SI units, the speed of light is beyond measurement and it is therefore important that the article introduction clearly makes a distinction between the new SI speed of light on the one hand, and the physical speed of light as is expressed in other systems of units and which can be measured. My involvement in the main article in relation to that issue was minimal and I was not involved in the edit war. Instead, I went to investigate the knock-on effect that this new definition would have on the electric permittivity, and how Maxwell's discovery in 1861 would be written up in the textbooks in the context of the new 1983 definition. The experiment in question was still in my 1979 edition of 'Nelkon & Parker'. I brought up the subject at WT:PHYS. An editor Headbomb tried to tell me that since 1983 we can no longer put a ruler across the plates of a capacitor and measure the distance. He told me that instead we will be in fact merely calibrating the ruler. I considered this to be total nonsense and I made my opinions about it clear on the speed of light talk page. An editor called Physchim62 then ran to AN/I to complain that I was engaging in disruptive editing, and I got promptly page banned without any apparent investigation into the truth of the allegation. Meanwhile, Christopher Thomas, who was the only one who seems to have understood my argument at WT:PHYS came along and maliciously presented the WT:PHYS thread as evidence of disruptive behaviour. Since then, I have been to the science library and confirmed my suspicions, that since 1983, the capacitor experiment that links the electric permittivity to the speed of light has disappeared from the textbooks. I did find one exception, and that was the 1995 (seventh edition) of 'Nelkon & Parker'. This then goes full circle to the bit in the history section that Tim Shuba deleted. The main question that needs to be asked at this hearing is, 'Why did Tim Shuba remove that edit? In doing so, he removed a vital chunk from the chronology in the history section. I questioned him about it on his talk page and all I got in return was double irony disguised as humour. And whatever the answer is, you'll find that it is the exact same reason why he and certain others don't want Brews to elaborate on the significance of the 1983 definition of the metre. That's why I've suggested that the article be handed over to Steve Byrnes and semi-protected for six months, with a voluntary withdrawal of all the disputing parties. David Tombe ( talk) 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Physchim62 has just made a statement on the evidence board to the extent that he believes that I believe that I own the speed of light article. He then asks whether or not he must present evidence that I don't believe it. The answer is that he doesn't have to. But he must present evidence that I do believe it, and so far, he has presented none. And he would have a very hard job presenting any such evidence in view of my minimal involvement in the article. Ultimately it was Physchim62 that started all this. He started it when he went to AN/I to report me for disruptive behaviour without presenting any evidence of what disruption was actually caused. It is because of that singular action on the part of Physchim62 that this whole arbitration hearing has come about. Therefore it might be a good idea if the hearing begins with Physchim62 presenting evidence of the actual disruption that was caused by my edits. If he can't present evidence of any actual disruption, then questions need to be asked by the higher authorities. David Tombe ( talk) 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Physchim62, An experiment in physics disappeared from the textbooks because of a new system of units. There are plenty of sources on the library shelves to prove that. Practically any modern physics textbook proves it. Do you want to subordinate real physics to a system of units? Bringing that issue to attention at WT:PHYS is not disruptive behaviour, and the term 'fringe physics' has got nothing to do with it. You need to learn to start actually debating these issues rather than running off to noticeboards trying to get your opponents disqualified. The issue here is, "do we report the physical speed of light and the defined speed of light as two distinct topics, or do we only report the defined speed of light and sweep the physical speed of light under the carpet? Do we sacrifice the physical speed of light to the SI system?". David Tombe ( talk) 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Michael, That of course is the big problem. You want to limit the article to reporting about a defined speed of light in metres/second that is beyond measurement. Brews on the other hand additionally wants to report about the physical speed of light as is expressed in other systems of units, and which can be measured. David Tombe ( talk) 15:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Here again we see Michael Price and Physchim62 attempting to misrepresent the argument and invoking sensational terms such as 'pseudoscience'. The facts are that the speed of light in SI units is a defined quantity that is beyond measurement, whereas the physical speed of light is a measured quantity. Hence we have two different concepts. If the best argument that Michael Price can come up with is to state that his opponents are wrong, then he doesn't have much of an argument. As regards the point made by Physchim62, the c in the equation E = mc2 follows from the measured value of E/m. Based on Maxwell's equation (132) in his 1861 paper, this is the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio as determined experimentally using a discharging capacitor. Maxwell uses the density and the transverse elasticity of the medium that light is propagating in. Hence E/m is equivalent to 1/(εμ), where μ is the density and where ε is related to the inverse of the transverse elasticity. In other words, E refers to the energy in the medium. In 1908, Gilbert N. Lewis derived E = mc2 from Maxwell's radiation pressure equation, although I've read that he probably derived it as early as 1903. From all of this, it is clear that we cannot use the SI defined speed of light in the equation E = mc2. David Tombe ( talk) 10:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thing is that if one were to discuss this again with David, the issue would be settled quite fast if we temporarily discuss this without any sources or any appeal to BIPM, NIST, 1983 definition, what Maxwell wrote or didn't write etc. etc. Because, as far as the physics is concerned, this is all completely irrelevant. Electromagnetic fields and light behave as they do, because the laws of physics are the way they are, not because of "BIPM, NIST, 1983 definition, what Maxwell wrote or didn't write".
Then, this adds a constraint to how David can present his argument. E.g., no more citations from the 1861 paper are allowed. We don't care about what Maxwell said. David has to present his argument from A to Z (i.e. derive everything from Maxwell equations himself). Now, if David is wrong, then that means that either he'll make an error somewhere in his self contained logical argument or he'll make an assumption that is not true from which he argues. Either way, it is easy to point out where he goes wrong. And when that happens, he'll at least have to temporarily concede. He may say that he thinks he is still correct, but siunce he can't appeal to any authority from sources, the ball will remain in his court. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Christopher, What are you talking about here? Are you talking about the distinction between the physical speed of light and the defined speed of light? Or are you talking about the subject that I raised at WT:PHYS. If you are talking about the latter, I seem to remember that you agreed with me on that issue, but that you worded your replies as if you were disagreeing with me. The second sentence in your second reply indicates that you agreed with me. You know that an experiment with a discharging capacitor is needed in order to introduce the numerical linkage to the speed of light into Maxwell's equations. Your first reply reads as follows,
Your argument appears to boil down to a statement that we need experimental evidence linking the measured speed of light with this magical constant "c" that shows up in Maxwell's equations, or QED, or whatever model we're choosing to use for EM. That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that we can relate c, ε, and μ without recourse to experiment. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
But then you contradicted yourself in your second reply and you stated,
What takes experimental evidence, is showing that the constant called "c" is equal to the speed of light.
Which had been my point all along. Then you took the thread to AN/I and presented it as evidence of disruptive behaviour, knowing that I would know that this wasn't disruptive behaviour, but hoping that the non-physics readers would believe you. David Tombe ( talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I agee with Count Iblis's argument in general. We should be allowed to argue from first principles on a talk page. My argument at WT:PHYS was to say that experimental results are needed to link the electric and magnetic constants to the speed of light. Christopher Thomas agreed with me on that point, but then he went to AN/I to report me for disruptive behaviour. When he agreed with me he was trying to word his agreement in a manner as if to suggest that he was actually disagreeing with me. At AN/I, he claimed that he had been trying to coach me, but to no avail. The rest of them disagreed with me, yet at AN/I Christopher Thomas tried to give the impression that he had been part of a united front of many who had been trying to coach me, even though Christopher Thomas had actually been in disagreement with the rest of them, and in agreement with me. David Tombe ( talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This section was moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop#Comment on Totientdragooned's proposals at the workshop. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again we see a series of allegations relating to my off-wiki activities. But not a single shred of evidence has been presented as regards inserting original research into main articles. I began my dealings with Steve Byrnes before I started using my proper username. The issue in question was Faraday's law. Steve Byrnes believed that he had detected two Faraday's laws in electromagnetism, and he wanted to amend the Faraday's law article to that end. I tried and succeeded in holding him back from doing so, while explaining to him that in fact there is only one Faraday's law, but that it contains two aspects, and that only one of those aspects is catered for in the modern version of Maxwell's equations, which is why we have to supplement those equations with the Lorentz force. Steve finally realized the inter-relationships after I had demonstrated them to him. There was somewhat of a hitch over the issue of the fact that I was using Maxwell's original papers, and that Maxwell's idea of 'electromotive force' does not correspond exactly with the modern notion of the concept. I was using the term E for F/q in the equation F = qvXB. Hence I was writing E = vXB which is a format that is not used nowadays. But that is the format that is needed in order to show the inter-relationship between the two aspects of Faraday's law. I then had a debate with Steve about the Biot-Savart law and how to reconcile its singularities with its solenoidalness. That steered me into having to divulge the fact that I believe that the Biot-Savart law, just like the centrifugal force, has to obey the inverse cube law, and not the inverse square law as is commonly believed. But I never wrote that in the main article. Others have tried to do that, but I never have.
In my dealings with Steve, I found him to be very knowledgeable in physics, and competent in mathematics, but there were certain patterns which he clearly hadn't seen until I drew his attention to them. In a few other exchanges he has proved to have taken a very balanced approach, which is why I recommended him to be a neutral arbitrator in this dispute. I'm sorry that he has refused the olive branch, and I'm sorry that he has now misrepresented my position in this current speed of light dispute. I didn't say that the BIPM definition was impossible. It is quite possible, but I do believe that it was a mistake. Having said that, I have never once attempted to write my opinions on that matter into the main article. I have attempted to explain on the talk page why the BIPM definition of the metre means that the ensuing speed of light is a definition that is beyond measurement, and hence why it is a different concept than the physical speed of light, that can be measured. I entered the dispute on the talk page to help out Brews who was being rounded on by a crowd, who in my opinion were wrong, and who were trying to hush up this important 'sourced' fact.
I have already suggested that Steve Byrnes should now be allowed a free hand to write the article himself, which should then be semi-protected for six months. I still think that that would be a good idea. Steve has made it clear that he is no ally of mine, and so that should dispel any doubts that he would be biased towards my point of view on the matter. He knows his stuff. Somebody has to write the article coherently. At the moment it is just a pie throwing contest and something needs to be done. I know that Steve will write the article in a balanced fashion, irrespective of his prejudices towards me. If you ban me, as Steve has proposed, it's hardly going to make much difference. I haven't edited the main aticle since 12th August and I have made minimal edits to the talk page in recent weeks. I am not the source of the trouble at that article, and I don't believe that Brews is either. The source of the ongoing trouble at the speed of light article is the confusion that has been sewn by the 1983 BIPM definition.
So I say to Steve, put your bitterness about the Faraday's law argument behind you and move forward. David Tombe ( talk) 13:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Martin Hogbin has now decided to parrot what Tim Shuba and Steve Byrnes have said. My dealings with Martin Hogbin relate to the history section in the speed of light aticle. Martin, attempted to do exactly what Tim Shuba did after I had been banned. Martin tried to remove all mention of Maxwell's 1861 paper in relation to how Maxwell linked the speed of light to the electric and magnetic constants. Ironically, Martin was happy enough to reinsert this material, but in relation to Maxwell's later approach in his 1865 paper. The difference with the 1865 paper that made it more acceptable to Martin was the fact that it didn't involve any explicit references to Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices. In the end, both the 1861 paper and the 1865 paper were treated in the history section, even though I was of the opinion that the latter was superfluous to requirements. At any rate, both of them dealt equally with the importance of Weber and Kohlrausch's experimental result that linked the electric and magnetic constants to the measured speed of light.
When Martin first removed the material about Maxwell's 1861 paper, he wrote in the caption "Remove Crackpot Physics". Martin has no qualms about referring to his opponents as crackpots even when that opponent is James Clerk-Maxwell. Once again today, he is referring to crackpot physics that I have been inserting into wikipedia. Can we all please see some examples of this crackpot physics. I suggest that the arbitrators cross-examine Martin Hogbin on two issues. (1) Why did Martin Hogbin remove the material on Maxwell's 1861 paper from the history section? and (2) Why does Martin Hogbin think that the physical speed of light should be ignored in the article to the exclusion of the defined speed of light as per the 1983 BIPM metre? Martin argues that the SI system is the official system and that as such only the SI speed of light should be mentioned. The SI system may well be the official system of units, but we cannot sacrifice the physical speed of light for a system of units. If we ever have to measure the actual speed of light, we have to use another system of units, and that needs to be made clear in the article. David Tombe ( talk) 13:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Dicklyon asks increduously
Can anyone really believe that there are editors among us with a hidden motivation to hide the truth about the speed of light? or about Maxwell's aether vortex theory? Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Tim Shuba removed the material on Maxwell's aether vortex theory from the history section at speed of light on 29th August [4]. When challenged on the matter on his own talk page, he gave his answer very clearly in double irony disguised as humour.
Martin Hogbin attempted to remove the same material from the history section a few weeks earlier citing "No crackpot physics". [5]
And Dicklyon himself removed all references to Maxwell's vortex aether theory from the history section at centrifugal force claiming that there was no consensus to mention it. He did it in a very crafty manner. On 17th of August 2009, he removed this material [6] from the main centrifugal force article, ostensibly on the grounds that it was being moved to a special history section. As you can see, there is a paragraph about Maxwell's 1861 paper in the removed material. However, when it arrived in the special history section, the material on Maxwell had mysteriously disappeared. Then later in the same day, he removed the similar material in relation to Johann II Bernoulli, [7], leaving in a misrepresetation of the views of Daniel Bernoulli as expressed in a modern source.
Steve Byrnes tried to deny that centrifugal force was real, and in order to make his point, he reduced the argument to the base level of a children's video that showed a dummy getting thrown out the door of a swerving car. The point of course was that the dummy was supposed to fly off at a tangent. But the demonstration was so poor that the driver of the car even had a hard job trying to make his point, because friction stopped the dummy from going very far. At any rate, we should have all seen that the dummy flew off both radially and tangentially, and that the centrifugal force is the radial effect. This effect becomes very important in the context of Maxwell's vortex sea, because it is the centrifugal pressure between the vortices that leads to the radiation pressure in light, and which accounts for the speed of light.
This of course is no longer pat of the current orthodoxy. But we can clearly see that Tim Shuba, Martin Hogbin, and Dicklyon don't even like to have in mentioned in history sections, presumably because it is too plausible.
My very first block on wikipedia was at centrifugal force, and it was for trying to insert this material on Maxwell. Administrator SCZenz blocked me during the course of a revert war with himself, on this very material. That was the beginning of the culture of blocking me which led to my block record. The later blocks were for trying to insert the radial planetary orbital equation which contains a centrifugal force term. David Tombe ( talk) 11:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Dick, As regards the history section at speed of light, I provided a primary source, a secondary source, and a tertiary source. You were happy enough with it at the time. The connection to the topic of the speed of light was overwhelming. It dealt with how Maxwell converged the meaured speed of light, as measured by Fizeau, with the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio as measured by Weber and Kohlrausch. David Tombe ( talk) 05:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, Count Iblis and David Tombe sometimes do, but other than that, the evidence is overwhelming that Brews's points of view are idiosyncratic. He can't often find a source that shows anything like his POV, so he cites multiple sources and lengthy arguments that amount to WP:SYNTH. Many editors push back, and none support him, except that Count Iblis came along with his theory that we should ignore sources are argue from first principles instead. Obviously this is completely contrary to WP:V. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The debate at speed of light has been characterized by an atmosphere of intimidation that has been created exclusively by one side, due to their attempts to get their opponents silenced. The evidence for this exists in the form of two AN/I threads for this purpose, as well as many isolated comments even at this arbitration hearing, particularly from editor Physchim62. Physchim62 has even proposed that two of the disputing parties be banned for the duration of the hearing. The unsubstantiated allegations of disruption, that are exclusively coming from one side, are in fact the only behaviour in the debate that actually constitutes disruptive behaviour. These ongoing allegations constitute sheer intimidation. The readiness of an administrator to instantly pander to one of these malicious allegations, without any apparent investigation, played a major role in this atmosphere of intimidation. David Tombe ( talk) 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
As shown by Tim Shuba's and Sbyrnes321's evidence, it is quite clear that David Tombe is attempting to promote what can only be described as crackpot physics on Wikipedia. Even terms like 'fringe' and 'alternative', which suggest some, albeit small, body of support, do not properly describe the science that he is trying to push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin ( talk • contribs)
As you will see from the examples quoted by Brews I have not attacked him personally but I have attacked his scientific misunderstandings.
Regarding some of my deletions, they are all regarding subjects that had been previously discussed at length with Brews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin ( talk • contribs)
There are plenty of fringe POV pushers on wikipedia, and it's not normally a problem. They are reverted and ignored, and eventually blocked. However, this is proven to not work for David. In article after article, editors initially try to revert/ignore him, but he nevertheless sucks them into substantive arguments that go on and on. How? For example, when someone shows him a source that contradicts what he says, he disputes the interpretation or validity of the source, rewords his claim, or finds different sources which he can claim (incorrectly) to be supporting his point of view. The only way to respond is to argue about the details of what the sources are saying, what the symbols and terminology means, etc.
Here is an example. Note how editors try many times to end the argument by invoking WP:OR and WP:RS, but that David deflects it every time and successfully keeps the argument going.
Moreover, David has the time and energy to outlast almost any editor in an argument, and is smart enough to not overtly break rules like 3RR or AGF. (At least, not too often.)
He is an unusual case where all the wikipedia rules and procedures fail. Even after a year and a half of editing, numerous administrator noticeboard incidents, and even a permanent ban that was successfully appealed, he's still here and he's still wasting people's time with his fringe opinions--in this case, that the definition of the " metre" adopted by BIPM in 1983 (and used for precision measurements every day) is in fact a vacuous and impossible definition.
I believe the only good solution is to ban David from editing any physics-related article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbyrnes321 ( talk • contribs)
Of course, re-examining fundamentals is his right, but an encyclopedia article is not the right place to do this. For example, in physics, it is normal to say that "such-and-such happens in a vacuum". It is understood this this refers to a hypothetical perfect vacuum whose characteristics depend on the exact experiment to be performed, and that if something is measured in a physically real and hence imperfect vacuum, the results may need to be corrected. This is understood to the point where NIST, the champion of 16 digit measurements, does not even specify this: "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299 792 458 of a second.". But see [8] for an example of Brews replacing the word vacuum in this simple and unambiguous definition by free space, where is not needed, technically incorrect (I believe NIST really means vacuum, as it physically exists - they are not prone to careless statements), less familiar to a casual reader, and a distraction to boot. It's even less needed, and more of a distraction, in the lead paragraph of the speed of light article to which it's only peripherally related - see the edit in the first section above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer ( talk • contribs)
Today, however, the classical concept of vacuum as a simple void is replaced by the quantum vacuum, separating "free space" still further from the real vacuum – quantum vacuum or the vacuum state is not empty.
During the development of quantum field theory, it has become a popular point of view to consider the quantum vacuum as a medium. The manifold phenomena which arise from the presence (or the provoked absence) of virtual particles in the vacuum, such as the Lamb shift or the Casimir effect, tempt one to assign real properties to the vacuum. On the other hand, a physicist can hardly accept an establishment of this kind of "modern ether" without reservations; it is, at least, unsatisfactory to formulate a fundamental theory with the aid of some ingredients which elude direct measurement.
Physchim62, Regarding the quote immediately above, isn't that a terrible dilemma for the scientific establishment? Quantum mechanics wants to bring back something like the ether, but that can hardly be accepted. David Tombe ( talk) 12:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an on-going problem. The best example is his insistence on free space instead of vacuum. Of course, it's normal for each editor to have issues with the viewpoints of others, and every editor is not quite happy with the way concensus editing turns out. But eventually most editors realize that their voice is only one of many, and that compromise is required. Brews does not seem willing to accept a version that does not emphasize his particular concerns. Surely 'vacuum' is surely more familiar to the general reader than 'free space', and so better by Wikipedia policy. It's also technically acceptable to even the most fanatical accuracy buffs (and since the NIST definition uses the word vacuum, it's technically more accurate as well, certainly in the definition of the meter). As far as I can tell, all other editors seem to thinks it's OK as well. But it's not acceptable to Brews, so free space goes back into the lead paragraph of speed of light and metre. This lack of willingness to compromise makes achieving a concensus essentially impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer ( talk • contribs)
Dicklyon: Lou has not provided any evidence for "persistent behavior", and this remark of yours is nothing more than slander & slur. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration hearing is being abused by editors who want to widen the scope beyond the agreed terms, and by editors who are only interested in personal revenge and making unsubstantiated allegations which are irrelevant, and which amount to nothing other than noise. I would like to focus the attention of the arbitrators on what the dispute at speed of light is actually about. I made this statement on the talk page at speed of light for the benefit of the arbitrators. I want all the arbitrators to read this statement carefully. It is important for the arbitrators to realize that no physics background is required in order to understand the essentials of this argument.
This prolonged dispute has come about because of attempts to deny an important point that has been raised by Brews ohare. The matter has now gone to arbitration and the arbitrators will now be watching this page carefully. I think that it's only fair to the arbitrators, most of whom are probably not physicists, to make an attempt to explain to them, and eveybody else here, exactly what the distinction is that Brews has brought to our attention.
Everybody, whether a physicist or not, is familiar with the concept of the speed of light. It is the speed that light travels at, and it is generally known to be extremely fast and unreachable by any existing technology. Now let's imagine that I went unto a stage to give a speech on the speed of light. Imagine that I went unto a stage in front of 10,000 people and said that I am going to tell you all what the speed of light is. And then imagine that I stated "The speed of light is the speed of light". And with the speech ending at that, a loud clapping and stamping of feet erupts and lasts for the next twenty minutes. That sounds like a pretty ridiculous scenario. But in fact it is no more ridiculous than if I went unto the stage and stated the speed of light in modern SI units. If I were to go unto the stage and announce the speed of light in modern SI units, I would be stating "The speed of light is 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, every second". I could then expect the twenty minute clapping session to be no less sarcastic for me having just stated the obvious.
Brews has pointed out that it is not satisfactory to state the speed of light in modern SI units without some kind of extended elaboration, because the metre itself is defined in terms of the speed of light. Hence any statement of the speed of light in terms of that metre is merely a statement of the speed of light in terms of itself.
Now if we were to already accept the old classical concepts of length, I could go unto the stage and tell the crowd of 10,000 that I had performed an experiment to measure the speed of light using a Michelson interferometer on top of Mount Wilson, California. I could announce, that after performing some difficult calculations that I have found the speed of light to be in the order of 299,792,458 metres per second with an error bar of 0.04%. That would be news worth hearing. I would have given the audience a useful piece of information that had a physical meaning. It is this latter measurememnt that Brews and I have been referring to as the physical speed of light that can be measured. It is clearly a different concept from the defined speed of light that I described further up, and which tells us nothing that we don't know already, and which is beyond measurement.
This edit war came about because Martin Hogbin wanted to only include the new SI speed of light in the introduction. His argument was that since the SI system is the internationally established system of units, then it follows that we must exclusively use that system in the introduction. Martin has of course overlooked the fact that in the special case of the speed of light, where one of the staple SI units has itself been defined in terms of the speed of light, then it is not good enough to state the speed of light exclusively in SI units without any kind of elaboration.
Brews on the other hand wanted to make that elaboration for the benefit of the readers. Martin was determined to frustrate Brews in his efforts. A crowd then descended upon the article and tried to accuse Brews of being wrong, and of advocating fringe views and pseudoscience. These allegations against Brews, and also against myself, will simply not stand up even against the mildest standards of probity. David Tombe ( talk) 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews, Don't answer them back. The argument above is clear cut. Leave it to the arbitrators. David Tombe ( talk) 06:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
outdent] I'd agree with pretty much everything Mr. Thomas says above. I'd add that I believe (maybe others don't) that you can still measure the speed of light in metres per second, so long as you take "metre" to mean "the best metre you've got available", something which is implied in any measurement. It would be a pretty pointless experiment, unless you're using it to teach people how to use the equipment or testing new equipment, but you could still do if you had a reason to do so. So no, I don't believe there's a difference between a "measured" speed of light and a "defined" speed of light, at least not in the case we're discussing. Physchim62 (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The speed of light when expressed in SI units is a fixed number. Hence the speed of light cannot be measured in SI units. The speed of light, when expressed in SI units is a tautology that tells us absolutely nothing about the actual physical speed of light. That is why it is unsatisfactory to introduce an article about the speed of light by stating the speed of light in SI units. If I stood up on a stage in front of a crowd of 10,000 people and then stated that light travels 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, every second, I would expect a short silence followed by a loud and prolonged sarcastic clapping, with whistles and stamping of feet, due to the fact that I had just stated the obvious.
This entire argument has arisen from the confusion that has been caused by attempting to describe a standard in terms of itself. The argument has never had anything to do with pushing fringe science or original research. And since it is a relatively new state of affairs dating back only to 1983, the full repercussions have probably not as yet been addressed in the scientific literature. Sources do however exist that have brought the matter to attention, and Brews has supplied some of those sources. Charvest produced another source a few days ago. David Tombe ( talk) 09:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears that anybody who puts you right in a debate immediately becomes guilty of soapboxing and tendentious editing. David Tombe ( talk) 14:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I need a bit of clarification about the core dispute. I am familiar with electronics and their accompanying physics, and also possess a modest undergraduate level education in physics. I understand phenomena and mathematics as complex as electromagnetic wave propogation, counting for factors such as ambient noise, terrain, and so forth. Additionally, I also have a solid education in philosophy, including a comprehension of the philosophy of science.
I understand this dispute as centered on:
Is that a correct understanding of the main disagreement?
Secondary points of disagreement, in my grasp of the situation:
What I understand of the topic:
In one to two modest paragraphs, please tell me if my understanding of the main content dispute is correct and explain the following to me:
Please avoid responding to each other at this juncture. I am looking for individual responses to my questions and general points. Please refrain from making comments about other editors. Off-topic, inflammatory, and overly long responses may be removed without prior warning. I am attempting to ensure that I understand what is under dispute and what people are saying about the matter. Vassyana ( talk) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
To address your first set of points:
To address your other points:
I agree with Christopher Thomas and Physchim62 that these points are more or less the core of the dispute as it is debated in the speed of light talk page. Now, you mention "The philosophical impact of this redefinition", but I would say (in agreement with what Physchim62 writes) that while within the physics community there exists a philosphical debate about constants in general, there is no such debate specifically about the 1983 redefinition of the metre. Physicist and wiki contributor John Baez writes here that:
I think the true meaning of terms like "fundamental constant", "physical constant" and "dimensions" is a serious philosophical problem on which there's no consensus.
Then, I think, one has to step away from the 1983 redefinition of the metre and instead look at how the status of the speed of light is debated in the physics community. One can e.g. look at this article, or this article to see that there is indeed a debate going on in the physics community, reputable physicits have different opinions on this matter. It is possible i.m.o to reframe the debate on the speed of light talk page in terms of the analogous debate that does exist in the physics community (e.g. replace 1983 definition by putting c = 1) and then you can end up with some text that is acceptable for the article. Count Iblis ( talk) 18:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Count Iblis, I answered your query on another page but I'll answer it again here. When you talk about deriving Maxwell's equations from first principles, are you talking about the set of four that appear in modern textbooks and which are known to be Heaviside's re-formulations? If so, then one of them is a restricted version of Faraday's law, curl E = -(partial)dB/dt. It is a purely experimental result, but Maxwell does derive it hydrodynamically in his 1861 paper, where it appears as equation (54). But you want me to derive this equation from first principles using relativity. I don't know how this could be done. I have seen attempts to derive the F = qvXB force (which is part of one of the original eight Maxwell's equations) using relativity, Coulomb's law, and invariance of charge. Whether this derivation is right or wrong, the speed of light will be introduced into the proceedings through the Lorentz transformations. The speed of light in question will then of course be the real physical speed of light. The speed of light as expressed in modern SI units is not the physical speed of light. It is just an arbitrarily chosen number. The physical speed of light has been cancelled out of the SI speed of light because the metre itself is defined in terms of the physical speed of light. We are left with the SI speed of light reading as 299,192,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,192,458 seconds, every second. That is about as blank a statement as saying that the speed of light is the speed of light. And if we said that on stage, there would be prolonged clapping, sarcastic whistles, and stamping of feet on the floor. And it's likewise with the system of units in which the speed of light is defined to be 1. If you were to come on stage and announce that the speed of light is 1, you'd feel the floor vibrating. I remember when I first heard about that system of units in which the speed of light is defined to be 1. It was at a tutorial conducted by a Ph.D student when I was a first year undergraduate. We were talking about the two theories of relativity and he said that they are even defining c to be 1 now because of its central role in relativity. I remember at the time thinking that they are getting carried away with themselves a bit. David Tombe ( talk) 11:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Count Iblis, I followed you up until the beginning of the third paragraph, but I got lost when you started talking about yielding other universes. Let me summarize my position. When I first heard that light traveled at 186,000 miles per second, it meant something to me. I knew that 70 mph in a car was a fast speed, and so I realized that 186,000 miles per second is very fast. As the years progressed, it became a matter of interest to me as to how the speed of light was actually measured. Now imagine that a team are up on top of Mount Wilson, California setting up apparatus for reflecting beams of light off a nearby mountain top with a view to measuring the speed of light. A man in overalls is lying on his back with a spanner tightening up some bolts. Suddenly two officials in suits and ties arrive up from the city and tell them to pack up because we no longer need to measure the speed of light. They say that a committee has now decided upon the speed of light. Mr. Michelson asks "What is it?". The men in the suits reply "It's 1". The man with the spanner looks up and snaps "1 what? 1 bunny rabbit?'.
And that is exactly what we are dealing with as regards a defined speed of light. A defined speed of light tells us absolutely nothing about the actual physical speed of light. David Tombe ( talk) 13:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Count Iblis, Sure we can still measure the speed of light. But we need to use units other than SI units, because in SI units the value is already fixed exactly and can never change. David Tombe ( talk) 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
"Am I missing an important point or overlooking anything?" Yes; I think you're looking at this problem as a content issue, rather than as a behavior issue. I think the only content disputes are:
There's a pretty good consensus to not do the latter (unless a source that explicitly supports it can be found), and a pretty good consensus to not belabor the philosophical implications of the 1983 redefinition in the lead, and not to add a section on the philosophy of units and constants in general (which keeps getting added, supported by sources that don't really connect the discussion to the topic "speed of light"). But the real problem is the editing style that makes it so difficult to collaborate and approach a consensus, or to respect the consensus that exists. The behavior is a problem in many articles, not just speed of light; we should not address it as just a speed of light issue, as that won't solve it. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
My take on content, in three paragraphs:
The meter (since 1983) has been defined as the distance light travels in exactly 1/299792458 seconds. (The second is defined independently, by atomic clocks.) As a consequence, the speed of light in meters per second is exactly 299792458 m/s.
One aspect of these disputes is the general feeling among most editors (including me) that this is a pretty straightforward concept. For example, I believe I gave a complete explanation above, in just two-and-a-half sentences. Brews has the feeling that this is a rather deep, profound, inscrutable concept, needing a lot of explanation and discussion (much more than two-and-a-half sentences). I think much of the conflict has come ultimately from this.
Another aspect: Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the speed of light is half as fast on Saturdays as the rest of the week. Then the meter would be half as long on Saturdays as the rest of the week, because of the definition. Of course it would always be true that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 m/s. Brews takes that idea to say that there are "two speeds of light", one being the physical speed of light (which is different on Saturdays), the other being the number 299792458 m/s (which is the same every day of the week). The second thing isn't really a "speed" in the usual sense of the word, so people like me feel that his attempts to "explain" this point are actually counterproductive and confusing (not to mention unnecessary). Even though he's trying to say something that's true (and obvious), what he actually says comes across as something that's false. So a lot of recent conflict has come from this too. :-) -- Steve ( talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana: I agree with Dicklyon that the content issue is secondary. However, regarding your questions about the technical issues: Yes, you have a correct understanding of the center of the dispute, the main disagreement, all of which pivots about the SI Units. The secondary points are worth considering, but haven't got much attention. Your understanding of the topic: Point 1 is not correct: Yes, the speed went from measured to defined. The defined value does not connect measured values of time to measured values of space: what it does is institute time-of-transit measurements as a replacement for length measurements. Point 2 is correct, but I do not think it is an issue, despite strange claims by some that I disagree with this point. (I am not in the "far fringe", and I don't know anyone who is.) Point 3 is not correct: the space-time aspects, although they are of interest in themselves, are divorced from the SI Units discussion.
The problem is behavior. That problem is not restricted to Speed of light. It is due to escalating polarization due to a variety of bad behavior that is easily identified, independent of technical content. That problem, although revealed though the actions of individuals, is fundamentally a problem of keeping the lid on this behavior before it gets out of hand, maybe controllable by administrative action exerted across the board on all participants.
I think the behavior problem is widespread: many editors do not observe four rules: (i) be civil and avoid put-downs, cracks, and derisive asides (ii) be specific, to the point, and helpful in criticism of text, not smart-ass, (iii) don't lecture like an omniscient show-off, and (iv) don't express your personal uncertainties about the text as if they were WP requirements, or vice versa. As to this last, confusion and heat results when a Talk page discussion is called WP:OR or WP:POV, when what is meant is "I don't agree with your explanation." or "I don't think your view agrees with my own." Waving guidelines about is a cowardly method to seemingly invoke higher authority to support your opinion, where instead dialog should be invited.
And then, there are editors that are never wrong, but hold rigid positions or even doctrines. That impedes resolution of problems, because these editors are unmoved by argument or sources, and will resist until death any modification. Any correct description must be sufficiently convoluted to avoid clear distinction from their rigid views. I hope that strict confinement of comments from such editors to specific statements about specific text and a requirement to deal directly with sources might force these editors to retreat sufficiently to allow some sense to prevail. They must be prevented from launching into distortions, vague generalizations and incivilities.
The technical issue debated on the Talk page is a distinction between two things: the logical status of the number 299 792 458 m/s in the pre- and in the post-1983 definitions of the metre. I am focusing on this number, not the term "speed of light", which is too full of connotations.
The pre-1983 role of this number is the usual everyday idea that it is the approximate value of the speed of light as measured in everybody's notion of that term, just as when you refer to the speed of a car. The pre-1983 metre is a specific length, and light travels at a measured 299 792 458±1.2 m/s (well documented: Resolution 1 of CGPM; Resolution 2 of the CGPM).
The post-1983 meaning of 299 792 458 m/s is different. Post-1983 all distances are defined in terms of times-of-transit (well documented: Resolution 1 of CGPM; Resolution 2 of the CGPM). As an example of a time-of-transit length, if you say your office is ten minutes away, you mean it takes you 10 minutes to walk there. If you say the Sun is 8.3 minutes away, you mean it takes 8.3 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth. If you say a metre is exactly 1/500 000 000 s long, you mean it takes light 1/500 000 000 s to travel a metre. If we say a metre is exactly 1/300 000 000 s long, then it takes light 1/300 000 000 s. What we did say is a metre is exactly 1/299 792 458 s. In fact, we can make a metre any number of seconds we like (well documented) - it's only a unit, it isn't nature. But continuity suggests the time-of-transit metre should be close to the original one (well documented: Last sentence in NIST timeline).
Of course, if a metre is the distance traveled by light in exactly 1/299 792 458 s, the "speed of light" is exactly 299 792 458 m/s. An exact value is made possible by the change to time-of-transit lengths, but the "exact value" cannot be interpreted as a measurement: it's an arbitrary number set by the BIPM & NIST. Calling this use of 299 792 458 m/s the "speed of light" is tantamount to an additional technical meaning to what is meant by the "speed of light": this new meaning does not refer to the "speed of light" as previously used, as in special relativity say, which is a property of the universe, not a purview of committee.
So, putting the two parts together, here is the difference between the pre- and post-1983 uses of the number 299 792 458: In one, it's an approximate measurement; in the other, it's a committee decision. If Speed of light were calm, there would be no difficulty dealing with this simple well-documented difference. However, at the moment any mention of the topic causes a Pavlovian response. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana, I think that your grasp of the situation is pretty accurate. As regards your questions, I don't know the answer to your first question regarding mainstream opinions about the significance of the change, because I only became aware of the issue in August of this year. The first thing that flashed through my mind when I finally grasped the point that Brews was making, was that this will have a knock-on effect on the measured value of electric permittivity, and so I began to make some investigations. I discovered that the experiment to measure electric permittivity as was described in the 1979 Nelkon & Parker "Advanced Level Physics" texbook that I used as a teacher was absent in pretty well all of the modern physics textbooks in the university science library. On your final question, I would hold the opinion that the physical constant that is associated with special relativity is a separate issue from the constancy that goes with the new defined speed of light, and that the new definition has no bearing one way or another on the issue of the physical constancy of the speed of light that forms a postulate of special relativity.
As regards behavioural issues, the only thing that alarmed me was the total intolerance which I encountered when I raised these issues. David Tombe ( talk) 01:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a small point: the view of c as a "conversion factor between measurements of time and space" has been around in theoretical physics long before it was used to define the metre in 1983. Time and space are dimensions of the same spacetime, and, from a theoretical point of view, using the metre to measure lengths and the second to measure distances is no more (and no less) useful than using the nautical mile to measure horizontal distances and the foot to measure heights; and saying that one second equals about 300 million metres makes no less sense than saying that one nautical mile equals about 6076 feet. Also, the fact that it is exact by definition is a separated issue than whether it's a conversion factor: the number of metres in an astronomical unit, or that of atomic mass units in a kilogram, are obviously and unquestionably conversion factors, but they're not exact by definition. According to a particular point of view (with which I happen to agree, although I acknowledge it is not the only legitimate one), the same applied to the number of metres in a second before 1983.
Apart from that, your (Vassyana's) description sounds substantially correct to me. -- ___A. di M. 12:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Measurements are always done by comparing something to another thing. That's the most basic definition of something. For example, a atomic mass unit (u) is defined as 1/12 of the mass of a carbon-12 atom. If you want to know how much an atom of Iron-48 weights, you compare yourself to a carbon-12 atom, and you end up with something close to 48 u. Now what happens if you were to express the mass of an atom of carbon-12 in atomic mass units? Well the atomic mass unit is defined as being exactly 1/12 of the mass of a carbon-12 atom. Therefore, carbon-12 weighs 12 u, by definition. Is this a tautology? Yes! Is this a problem? No! It's simply the definition of your unit system.
For the speed of light, it is the exact same thing. The core of this issue is that the "units of speed" are usually presented as "distance/time", because that's how are human brains are wired. But how we like to present things is not important here, the only thing that is important is that there are three quantities, linked by definition of what they are. Speed = distance / time. The choice of the speed of light is particularly well-suited for this because it is constant in all inertial referential, meaning you can go to point A and to point B, and you don't have to worry that something changed from going from A to B. Since you know c doesn't change, it's the perfect standard. Whatever you do must give a value of 299,... to c. If you don't get c, then you calibrate your instruments so it gives c. If you build an experiment, say you place a detector at 20 meters (measured with a measuring tape) away from your light source, and you measure the time it takes for a light pulse to go from the source to your detector, and you take the ratio of 20 by the time it took, and you do not get exactly 299... as an answer, it means that the meters of your tape are somewhat off, or that the seconds of your timer are somewhat off. So no, you cannot ever measure the speed of light in SI units. But you do not need to, just like you cannot ever measure the mass of "The Kilogram" in SI units. It's not a problem for the kilogram, and it's not anymore a problem for the speed of light.
Now concerning the whole "time of transit" thing. Suppose I have a stick and I want to know how long that stick is. What I do is take a pulse of light, let it go for one second, and see where it's at. If the pulse of light is halfway through my stick, then I know my stick is twice as long as 299... meters. It needs to be clear that here I was not' comparing transit times, I was comparing distances. However, knowing that c is both fixed by royal decree and does not physically change depending on where you are, you can compare transit times if you want, and it will be mathematically equivalent to comparing distances, but it is not the same act.
Concerning the "conversion factor"/"fundamental constant". It is true that c is a conversation factor (it relates length and time), much like all the other fundamental constants such as the Planck constant (which relates energy and frequency), the Boltzmann constant (which relates energy and temperature), Gravitational constant (relates force, mass, and distance) and so on, are conversion factors. If it relates two different concepts, it's a dimensional fundamental constant. If it's a pure number (like the fine-structure constant, or the Fermi constant), then it's a dimensionless fundamental constant. Usage is very loose when it comes to the term "fundamental", some people say that the dimensionless constants are the only fundamental constants because they focus on the numerical value, others say the dimensional ones are fundamental as well because they focus on the link they make. The article follows the second use of "fundamental" (aka fundamental because it links two concepts, space and time). This distinguishes them from the other physical constants which no one would call fundamental, such as the index of refraction of glass being ~1.54, or the ionization energy of hydrogen being 13.6 electronvolts.
I hope this answers questions. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Headbomb: The mathematical basis for length comparisons of lengths ℓ1 & ℓ2 is:
which is independent of the speed of light c, so long as the same speed of light is realized while measuring both times-of-transit t1 & t2. The left side is a length comparison (e.g. fringe count ratio) and the right side is transit-time comparison. If my metre is defined as equivalent to a transit time of 1/299… s, then I use the right-hand side to compare my measured transit time to 1/299… s and that determines the length in metres. If time measurement is more reproducible than fringe counting, the right hand side gives better results than the left side. That is the import of the 1983 definition. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a little "light" relief for all concerned, from The Age, 16 December 1983 [16]. The moral of the story is "be very careful", be you politician or journalist… Physchim62 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit perplexed about this, so tell me if I'm wrong, but here and here, Brews is saying that "free space" has defined properties, properties which are, in effect, defined by the definitions of the metre and the ampere insofar as we measure them in SI units.
That seems to be in contradiction with all other secondary definitions of "free space" (of which there are many). The CGPM 1983 definition of the metre choses to speak of "vacuum", perhaps to avoid such confusion.
For me it is "obvious" (maybe less so for other parties) that the "speed of light" in the 1983 definition of the metre refers to the one that is measurable asymptotically, that is that you measure the speed at ever decreasing pressure and you find the limit when the pressure would have been zero (if you could have got that far). That is the way that the absolute zero of the temperature scale is defined. In this sense, "vacuum" and "free space" are used interchangeably, even in the same sentence, as in this textbook (from 1997).
What do other parties think? Physchim62 (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Steve: I take that as a clarification of your notion of my views? I thought you were emphasizing assume versus imply. I'd say that it is my view that today's BIPM 'vacuum' has the electric constant and the magnetic constant as its EM parameters (as they define them on the NIST site here & here), and these exhibit no quantum effects being completely featureless: no field dependence, no dispersion, no anisotropy, no dichroism. That is not to deny the BIPM might change the rules sometime. I do not hold that the Maxwell equations are exactly true, as no physical law is known with certainty. However, given these equations, we will find c0, again as given on the NIST site here and the "characteristic impedance of vacuum" as found here. Where is this leading? Brews ohare ( talk) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
We all knew that FyzixFighter would be here sooner or later. FyzixFighter comes in from centrifugal force, not speed of light. FyzixFighter tried to tell us all that the centrifugal force term in the planetary orbital equation was the centripetal force. I haven't got the diff handy and I'm not going to bother looking for it, but I will surely get it if requested to do so. FyzixFighter actively tried to make the article wrong and I can prove that. FyzixFighter trampled over good edits of mine at Coriolis force. I have actually complained about FyzixFighter's behaviour twice at AN/I. I presented the evidence that he had been following me around, but nobody wanted to look at it. If you check FyzixFighter's history, you will not find a single case of him editing a physics article since I started, that has not been related to undermining one of my edits. In many respects, I blame FyzixFighter for most of my trouble at wikipedia. It all began when he tried to resist my insertion of the radial planetary orbital equation at centrifugal force. As for Faraday's law, I have done nothing wrong there, but I did teach FyzixFighter the relationship between the motionally induced EMF and the EMF that is induced by a time varying magnetic field. He is another of these Ph.D. students who have learned from me, while trying to undermine me for inserting material that they hadn't yet learned about. He's just parroted alot of what I taught him to a new editor at Faraday's law over the last few days.
When judging FyzixFighter's evidence, the key point to remember is that he tried to tell us all that the centrifugal force term in the planetary orbital equation was the centripetal force. David Tombe ( talk) 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A.di M., It's a simple question. What is the name of that term? You have described its effects and its relationship to kinetic energy, but what is its name? It has already been generally agreed amongst all the disputing parties that the inverse cube law term is the centrifugal force. If a motor bike rides in a circle, you bank in order to invoke a gravitational torque to counteract the centrifugal torque that would otherwise throw you over. You do not bank to turn. You turn the handle bars to turn. You bank to stop yourself falling outwards when you do turn. David Tombe ( talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
A. di M., Of course! You probably skidded when you banked inwards and fell inwards. Nobody ever falls outwards because they know instinctively to bank inwards. Hence the accidents only ever involve inward falls. I can assure you that if you go round a corner and don't bank inwards, you will fall outwards. David Tombe ( talk) 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, You're right that I shouldn't have allowed myself to be drawn in. But Physchim62 claimed that there was no such thing as centrifugal force, and that by me having stated otherwise, my wikipedia time should be cut off as soon as possible. It has been apparent so far that the some arbitrators are very easily influenced by what Physchim62 says, and so it was important for me to demonstrate that the issues surrounding centrifugal force are by no means as clear cut as Physchim62 has suggested. Ideally, this entire thread and FyzixFighter's evidence should be removed. Harsher treatment and threats to block have already been demonstrated in relation to evidence that is actually directly related to the case at speed of light. And you're right that the real issues here are the trolleys containing boxes full of sand that are being presented as evidence to prove the phantom "behavioural problems" that have in turn been used to obfuscate the real issues in the case at speed of light. The continual attempts to brush Colonel Warden's source aside are a major issue of concern. David Tombe ( talk) 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
FyzixFighter, This simply doesn't wash. What are the fringe views in question? Please state them in plain English and not in a mountain of diffs. All my arguments at those articles which you have listed above have been caused by a reticence on the part of yourself and others to accept the names of two out of six terms in two equations. The two equations in question are the radial planetary orbital equation and the transverse planetary orbital equation, and the two terms in question which have been the source of this ongoing conflict are the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force. You have tried to deny the presence of those two forces in those two equations, and that's what it's been all about. I explained that on the talk page at Kepler's laws of planetary motion. And you have learned alot about planetary orbital theory since you first began to revert my edits. But while you have now finally accepted that the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force are present in those equations, you are still absolutely determined to strap a rotating frame of reference around the scenarios, even though that is not necessary.
Can you give the arbitration committee one single example of a fringe view that I have inserted into an article. Please explain it in plain English. Explain what is fringe about it. I was trying to bring a simplicity and order to those topics which would make them easier for the readers to access. But it seemed rather as if you were continually trying to scramble my efforts. I wanted to state the two equations and name the terms. But you and others prevented me from doing so. Your latest analysis of the two principles in Faraday's law was good. But it was the long way around because you deliberately wanted to avoid the simplicity of showing that it all stems from taking the curl of equation (D) in Maxwell's original eight equations. I didn't insert my simplistic approach into the main article until I believed that it was backed up in a Stratton source from 1941. I have never seen that source, but my edit was verbatim from a secondary source that referred to the Stratton book. You have seen the Stratton source, and you have acknowledged to me on your talk page that it reads more or less as I stated. David Tombe ( talk) 15:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've moved these sections here, as Brew's section was well over the 1,000 word limits and these sections do not appear to include evidence, simply comments relating to the evidence of others. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The "two different concepts" idea is definitively described here and Dicklyon's argument is disposed of here. The source for the idea of 299 792 458 m/s being an approximation to the pre-1983 measurement of 299 792 458 ± 1.2 m/s and also being the post 1983 defined value for the speed of light is Resolution 2 of the CGPM. Both of these uses for 299 792 458 m/s are commonly called the "speed of light". Brews ohare ( talk) 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
See also Workshop comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have made 'vacuum' link to 'free space' some time ago, but that link has been made before on this article by other authors (see here where Martin Hogbin linked to free space), and is the correct link to explain 'vacuum' in this context of electromagnetism in 'vacuum'. Other than that, I am bewildered by Lou's comments, and suggest he has no evidence to support his comments on this page. Perhaps he has become confused about what I have actually done by listening to the unsupported and incorrect statements of my views made by Finell and by Physchim62 and others? In particular, I have no stance on GR, and have not edited the lead in the article for a long time, nevermind in this regard. Contrary to LouScheffer's remarks about lack of cooperation, I have supported both Abtract and Dicklyon in their versions of the lead paragraph. Unless specific diffs can be provided, I'd say there is nothing valid in Lou's remarks. Brews ohare ( talk) 01:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Editor Headbomb has presented no evidence, just his unsupported assertions. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
My own discussions with D Tombe at Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) stimulated me to make the first draft of virtually all the examples, figures and explanations that did much to improve that page, and similarly the examples on the Coriolis effect page. It also led me to identification of the meaning used in the first draft of the Lagrangian approach, a topic very reluctantly accepted by Dicklyon after weeks of persuasion. These discussions also led to the article Centrifugal force and absolute rotation spun off as a separate article using material from Centrifugal force first drafted by myself in a good move by Dicklyon.
I disagree with Steve's proposal to ban D Tombe, and find his ability to frame a discussion and provide examples a useful contribution to the evolution of WP. An example is Centripetal force. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
What has to be done to fix the editing atmosphere at Speed of light is outlined on the Workshop page.
Finell needs to be reminded about the need to assume good faith. More information can be found here [17]. David Tombe ( talk) 03:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, All the specifics are in Finell's evidence. He chose to draw attention to the fact that I incurred a series of blocks between May and August 2008. None of those blocks were in anyway related to the impasse at the speed of light article. None of the activities involved in those blocks, whether right or wrong, have been repeated since that time. What could Finell's good faith motive have been for bringing up this issue? Was it likely to show me up in a good light? I can't see any assumptions of good faith on Finell's part in relation to his evidence. David Tombe ( talk) 05:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this web cartoon should be taken into account in the case… Physchim62 (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)