Talk:Faster-than-light
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faster-than-light Script error: No such module "pagetype".. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Script error: No such module "Message box".
|
Script error: No such module "Archive list". |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than Template:Th/abp Template:Th/abp may be automatically archived by [[User:Template:Th/abp|Template:Th/abp]]Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "[".. |
User:MiszaBot/config User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Unreferenced claims in GIF caption.
The cool GIF Tachyon04s.gif is captioned as
- Because the sphere travels faster than light, the observer sees nothing until it has already passed. Then, two images appear: one of the sphere arriving (on the right) and one of it departing (on the left).
But what is the justification for this description. Indeed what is the justification for the image at all? Well other than being colorful? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
L. Gavassino and M. M. Disconzi
I removed all references to
- Gavassino, Lorenzo; Disconzi, Marcelo (2023). "Subluminality of relativistic quantum tunneling", Phys. Rev. A 107, 032209 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.032209
This primary ref has only two citations, one by the authors, one disputes the work. Clearly this is an example of WP:TOOSOON. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Being in the field, and not associated to the authors, to me their analysis looks not only correct but also extremely clear and simple. The criticism is inconsistent, more here: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.032209 Anyway, it is probably better to wait for a bit more, as the paper is very recent. AliceHarding23 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Static fields
Under quantum mechanics there is a parenthesis "(see section on static fields above)" while there is no such section. It was removed years ago in [1]. Pkoppenb (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
