Talk:Laser

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2024

change "anacronym" to "acronym," please. Deedle2038 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You will need to provide a justification as the current usage looks ok.

• The word laser is an anacronym that originated as an acronym for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.

Laser is now a word, but it was originally an abbreviation. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to expand on my reply, the requested change would result in:

• The word laser is an acronym that originated as an acronym for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.

This is not sensible.

I assume that the request meant the phrase "anacronym that originated as an" should be struck because this phrase does not summarize the article. That justification works for me and I applied a fix. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Second time around. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Johnjbarton '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Please remove unfounded statement

Someone recently added the statement: "Lasers transport the majority of Internet traffic." That's a very bold statement. The article cited as a reference is a CNN article about a proposed laser comms protocol that could make it more widely practical. Nowhere in the article does it say how much lasers are currently used, much less that they're used for the majority of traffic. If this statement is true (which I guess is possible if you include laser fiber optics), it needs a strong reference. 24.251.17.37 (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

A valid point - removed, as it's quite clearly a false statement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I doubt the statement is false, but since you've challenged it a reference is required. Fiberoptics are used pretty heavily for long-haul data communications these days, and all of the traffic on long-haul links is carried by lasers. When you send data over the internet it's pretty much guaranteed that your data is going over a fiberoptic link at some point in its journey. "The majority of" might be an understatement here.--Srleffler (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The statement is false because it not only was not supported by the attached source, but by the rest of the article itself. Also, I see your argument, but we're now entering the pedantry of terms - consider the modification of your statement: When you send data over the internet it's pretty much guaranteed that your data is going over a copper cable at some point in its journey - ergo does copper cable not "transport the majority of Internet traffic"? Which medium is more prevalent - copper, fibre optic, or wifi

The statement - as was - suggested that there was a clear-cut winner when it comes to data transmission, and needs a very clear source in the article body. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The wording in the source may not be perfect, but copper wire cables for carrying the internet over long distances have pretty much died out, due to the growth of fibre optic cables. I think this is what the source is *trying* to say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the CNN source was describing a new commercial effort for free-space optical communications based on NASA technology. The use is listed in the article and I added the CNN and NASA source to that location. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

If you consider the volume of data carried around the world on the Internet, the vast majority of that traffic is carried on fiberoptic cable. Copper wire is mostly just used for the "last mile" wiring to some people's homes and for older intrabuilding wiring. Some traffic is carried over satellite links as well. Wifi is negligible. If you want something more concrete than "traffic", think about amount of data transmitted (number of bytes), times the distance. Fiberoptic cable easily dominates other forms of transmission; it carries about 95% of the traffic, worldwide. --Srleffler (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Ianmacm - agreed, but the claim is vague, and that's my point. There's no mention of whether it means long distance transmission or what. Just "the majority of Internet traffic". I wouldn't be averse to something along the lines of "at some point of the journey most internet traffic passes through fibre optic cable", but the current statement (before removal) implies an explicit journey that relies only on laser/fibre optic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Gordon Gould Patent Edit Question

Hey @Graham87

I noticed your recent edits to the Laser page, and I wanted to discuss them on the talk page. I have some concerns about the change in this sentence.

The sentence reads:

...yet it was not until 1987 that he won thehis first significant patent lawsuit victory when a Federal judge ordered the USPTO to issue patents to Gould for gas discharge laser devicesinfringement claim.

Your revision shifts the focus from a victory in a patent lawsuit to an infringement claim, which alters the original meaning. The lawsuit was indeed a victory for Gould, as the judge ultimately issued patents for his gas discharge laser devices. The new wording suggests that he was the one suing for patent infringement, which I believe is not accurate.

Could you please share your reasoning behind the change and provide a citation to support it? I would love to start a discussion about your edit. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Sarahparker9 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

According to this source he was the one suing:

"When the Bell patent was granted, Gould sued, claiming he was first to conceive the device. Legal battles raged for the next thirty years. If Gould’s patents were valid, everyone who built or used a laser would owe him money—and the longer the patents were undecided, the more valuable they became as the laser industry grew. In 1987 Gould and his backers began to win settlements." Johnjbarton (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Johnjbarton,

Thank you for obtaining the quote from the source. My original question asked how Gould could sue for a patent infringement claim if he was not the owner of the original Bell patent.

According to the source, "Gould sued, claiming he was the first to conceive the device."

I believe the original wording accurately represented the lawsuit and the patent situation. The text states,

"...yet it was not until 1987 that he won his first significant patent lawsuit victory when a Federal judge ordered the USPTO to issue patents to Gould for gas discharge laser devices."

Please let me know your thoughts! Sarahparker9 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference between winning a patent infringement claim and victory in a patent lawsuit. These seem the same to me. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sarahparker9: My recent edit didn't change anything at all; it was just a page import. Graham87 (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Graham87,

Thank you for clearing that up! I apologize for the miscommunication. Sarahparker9 (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you are asking about my edit. The text I removed had been recently inserted and was factually incorrect. Gould already had the patent on gas discharge laser devices by 1987. The 1987 lawsuit was Gould and his partners suing a laser manufacturer to enforce their patent—a patent infringement case. See the reference I cited in the article for more on this. I recommend reading the whole book if you're interested—it's a good read.

Gould never obtained the patent on the laser itself. The original Bell Labs patent stood until it expired. He should have been granted that patent but the USPTO did not treat him fairly. What Gould did win was patents on several key technologies that are required to make a laser, such that it was pretty much impossible to make a laser without violating one of his patents. He also obtained patents on some important laser applications. --Srleffler (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Srleffler,

Thank you for helping to clear up the confusion! To further clarify the change, I believe it would be helpful to mention that Gould won patents for key technologies necessary for creating the laser. This addition could provide valuable context for the last sentence in the paragraph, which states, "The question of how to assign credit for inventing the laser remains unresolved by historians."

What are your thoughts on this?

Best Sarahparker9 (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't think we should dwell too much on Gould. He didn't in the end contribute all that much to the development of the laser. He was a bright guy and thought of many things first, but he kept his ideas secret and other people quickly made the same discoveries, published them, and other people built on their work to develop the technology.

The tendency to dwell on "inventors" of important technologies often leads to a false view of history. --Srleffler (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"Active species" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Active species has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 1 § Active species until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)