/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10784494
speed of light in vacuum*

>>10784500
Ok, but bls exblain

>inb4
"Why is the speed limit on the highway 55mph?" - "Because the sign says so!" or "25+30 = 55" or "Cuz miles are arbitrary!", aren't legitimate answers.

>>10784494
>Why is the speed of light the upper limit of speed?
What makes you think it is?

It's not.

>>10784507
It's just an observable universal constant, that's like asking why G or K or e0 are equal to what they are. What answer are you expecting?

>>10784494
what makes c special is that no matter the observer or the reference frame (barring non-inertials) it is constant

>>10784532
>"Because the sign says so!"

>>10784494
Popsci fags believes there is something lot faster then the speed of light: the expanding universe

>>10784545
You don't understand the question you are asking is the problem.

>>10784664
stuff 45 bn ly away is receding at 3x c
doesn't conflict with GR tho

>>10784673
>just believe
>>>/x/

>>10784679
>why is 1 + 1 = 2
>and don't say just because 2 ones is a 2

>>10784679
He's not wrong. You're asking how mechanics predicated on a lot of math and science works at a high level. When you're given the answer you try to poke holes in it, instead of accepting that without understanding the underlying grammar and math you're going to have to deal with shitty metaphors.
*pushes pen through folded piece of paper*

>>10784664
>fags
Why the homophobia?

>>10784683
> "25+30 = 55"

>>10784703
>high level
>ooh don't ask kneel before the priest and just suck on it
>>>/x/

>>10784707
People like this is the reason societies never last long.

>>10784708
oh so sorry your majesty that I dared to speak.
can I swallow now or would you prefer I gargle a bit first?
hurr durr

>>10784707
You're not asking questions, you're just being argumentative and demonstrating how it would be a waste of time to try and educate you since you're already convinced you know everything.

>>10784721
Jesus christ you're such a fucking faggot. GTFO MY INTERNET

>>10784725
>>10784726
not an argument

>>10784725
>>10784726
>let us pray in silence

>>10784529
/thread

>>10784704
because scientifically speaking,...
all LGBTQs deserve the rope

>>10784532
>Is just an observable universal constant

But it's been "observed" to change.

>>10784673
"Aunt Minnie slipped on ice"

>>10784683
2 of what? See, here's we're talking about something that is empirical, not the language of math.

>>10784494
Because people think perturbations are "discrete".

>>10784494
The universe is a Lorentzian Manifold, thats why

>>10784494
In cartesian coordinates what's the fastest path between two points? A straight line. Now consider a geometry more hyperbolic in nature - ie 3+1 lorentz manifold. Fastest way between two points is no longer a straight line. But we find the path light takes in vacuum is the optimal path. Just like you can't get between two points faster than a straight line in cartesian, you can't go faster than light in vacuum.

>>10784797
it's not

the idea is that you can treat time like a spatial dimension and get a space-time manifold, and through this manifold light kind of "rolls down" the shortest path. just like a ball on a curved sheet.
so you can't really move down a shorter path than light, cause it's already taking the shortest path.

>>10784855
>the path light takes
oh honey, it's so much more complicated than that
protip: light takes all paths
proof: see the diffraction grading in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1GdgD77AQ4

>>10784881
You are right, it is more complicated. There are properties of light that relativity can not explain while the analysis of light as corpuscules can. Defraction grading is one such light property. However the geometry of general relativity is rock solid, but I don't believe it can be reconciled with quantum mechanics. However, I am looking for a geometry which is consistent with all our observations. There must be one out there.

>>10784924
>There must be one out there.
out where? the platonic realm?

>>10784494
Everything moves through spacetime at the speed of light anon, this cannot be changed.

You are sitting in your chair motionless currently, so all of your motion is through time, if you start to move through space then your movement through time must start to slow, until you reach the speed of light, at which point you would not experience time.

Any faster than the speed of light and you would be experiencing time in reverse. This is potentially what happens inside a black hole but of course that is purely speculation.

>inb4 that's not technically true or possible
It's just to help visualise the concept of spacetime

>>10784494
Because everything is inside gravity, which doesn't allow for faster movement.

Photons travel at the fastest possible speed because they can, nothing slows them down. If the universal speed limit were faster, protons would travel faster.

A better question, I think, why is the universal speed limit what it is? What caused our universe to have this constant?

>>10784527
>>10784529
it literally is. unless you count things that aren't actually moving like a shadow, or the universe.

>>10784814
>it's been observed to change
you're exactly wrong, it's been observed to not change even time and space does. and if you mean it's slower in an atmosphere that's simply because light has to take a longer path through it the actual fotons are the same always

>>10784494
The upper limit of speed is the maximum speed of information or better to say maximum speed of signal. By proposing the maximum speed of signal we get an invariant which is preserved in every system. The theory which describes transformation of such systems is called general theory of relativity.

>>10784494
Because light is the constant speed that it is, theoretically speaking, it has no speed at all. Once one thing has all the speed, it is impossible for more to be created. This being said, light has most speed but not all. Once the max is reached, light slows itself in order to preserve speed/momentum for other things. It has no "speed"

>>10785055
Yes obviously

>>10784494
Because matter is secretly just really high frequency EMR, and it too must propagate through the medium. The medium of the aether.

>now playing
>Fast and Furious 23: Copernicus 2 - Faster 'n Light
>w/ Jason Statham as Nicolaus
>Critics say: "Heretical!" "Impossible!"

>>10785697
>or the universe.
Holy shit. Where'd you get that notion? Legit asking.
I've not even thought to apply that to my meta.
I'm currently just at from absolute void to birth.My best effort is boundary by virtue of time not existing ahead of a vector. And that boundary is only as far as the deviation is.

But the conundrum, no time, infinite deviance makes infinite in itself.

Becauze universe is a perfect fluid automaton, and automaton have speeds. Its logic. Fyi everything is traveling at the same speed on our scale. We dont appear to be traveling at light speed but our appearance of being a single body is an illusion. At planck scale everything is diffusing and contracting at light speed. BUT this only our scale. In reality "speed" is just a ratio. Makes more sense when you see the automaton.

>>10784664
Was seeing some shit to do with electromagnetism between galaxy clusters being the explanation of their behaviors.
I forget if/what was being used for the voids """"inflation"""".

I dislike inflation strongly, because it's applying to 2 different phenomenons in my mind. Kinda against my sense of universal logic.
These are two 'massive' systems. The clusters and voids. On paper it's easy to go we'll they're defined by each other. But to explain the causality. You've had to invent a force that's spawning.

>>10786094
My Meta is basically extreme Bohmian. Quantum states, observe quantum states. A wave stack. It's not measurement. But I'd guess measurable quantifiable?

The nexus is true to Bohmian. Cataclysmic wave form from 0 potential.
Basically sets forth a 'partial' that's default of a vector as it's birth is only 1 reference point. You need to for a straight line.
So this makes what is essentially a 3D storage matrix of previous paths. As it knows where it's been. But can't predict what's coming beyond intersecting a previous path.

So in essence it's a absolute solid. No speed, velocity, or ongoing causality beyond the next moment of partial zero.
But where the Universe get's perception of those things. Is that the vectors are interconnected with knowledge if all connections. Good old Pi plays the part of data definition. As these were curved paths, so mathematically they have Irrationality and rationality inherent in them.

Pi is what gives perceived variance. To the 'collapsing verse'.
Pi can't be resolved. It's forever edging.
It's the equivalent of stopping after a long period of motion, but your focus still try to adjust for the motion.
Extreme case. A dolly zoom they do in Movies.


Does that satisfy your thought of fluidity in existence?

>>10784494
>Why is the speed of light the upper limit of speed?

Who said so?

That's just an archaic interpretation of Einstein's theories.

>>10784494
c is thought to be the "speed limit of the universe" for many a good, well-defined reason.
One is that photons (light as particles) are massless. The lower something is in mass, generally, the more affected it is by an unbalanced force.
Obviously, it's more complex than the nomenclature of classical mechanics allows for (especially since you're only going to get a fat goose egg if you plug in the mass of a photon into Newton's second law), but I find classical mechanics to be better understood by a general population.
But don't take any of our words for it. There were some pretty bright chaps at the turn of the last century that put a lot of work into figuring all this shit out so go see what they had to say about it.

>>10786090
>>10786114
>>10786157
based schizo

>>10786185
It's way more fun, bleeding edge desu~

>>10784494
Well. Suppose the speed of light were infinite. What effects would this have on our universe? If the universe still exists under this condition, then will it still support life?

>>10786074

Fucking damnit dont tell them the optimum truth of reality!!!!!!!!! Reeee!!!!!

Here (in picture), are Maxwell's equations in Gaussian units. If c was infinite, then the curl of E and the curl of B would both be generally zero. This would mean both B and E could always be expressed as the gradient of a scaler function. This would destroy Faraday's law of induction. Thus EM waves would never exists.

So if light is to exists, then it must have finite speed.

>>10784494
A more interesting question is, is 1/c the minimum possible speed?

>>10784507
He says vacuum because different mediums have different maximal velocities for everything passing through them, including light.

>>10786114
And to go further. If any of you cunts are working in association with, in one, or adjacent to a "think tank/brains trust".
Please don't embed functions into the minds of the savants.
Alan Guth may have inadvertently wasted his and our time for over 30 years.
>how
Because only rationale I can for why this stuck, is someone explaining the meta to the data set a fucking balloon analogy.
>yeah but he must've good reason to have fixated on a suggestion
Does this look like the face of operationalization or Qualitative recognition to you?
https://www.strawpoll.me/18281854

>>10784494
If I text the idea is that there's a speed limit. Not that the speed of light is this limit.
But it just makes sense that the speed of light is the limit. Read the Einstein paper on the two clocks. I forgot the title but it's friendly enough to be read by an undergrad

>>10784494

We don't know, other than it is what it is. It's one of those mysteries of the universe.

>>10786274
My only criticism to that is, would you quantify a 3 light year long rod between 2 Morse code machines as breaking light speed?
This rod is assumed to be absolute solid. No flex or wave form.

Gravity is a force exerted through space, as such any object with mass moving through space will have some sort of force acting back on them, since photons have no gravitational force (or near 0) then have the least amount of force exerted on them from the opposing direction.

>>10784494
It’s not; it’s only impossible for objects to accelerate to as fast or faster than the speed of light, because as you accelerate, you become more massive, requiring more energy to accelerate, creating more mass, requiring more energy to accelerate, and on and on. So, an object cannot accelerate to a speed at or faster than the speed of light.

However, theoretically, there could be particles that were always traveling faster than the speed of light and never decelerate to below 3 x 10 ^ 8 m/s. These are hypothetical particles called tachyons; there’s no evidence for their existence.

>>10786296
>tachyons
Why do I get a furry kind of Easter vibe from them?
The colored egg I get. But I'm detecting crude SFM animation of an act.

>>10786310
Idk most physicists are autistic.

>>10786312
I wish.
If they were autistic. We'd have so much more nonframe reference calculations.
But the only thing I can track down vaugly like it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-autonomous_mechanics
&
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_motion_equation
I don't think they're useful to much of what I'm after.
I have the need. The need for velocity, I.E. speed.
Acceleration just doesn't cut it with a state of zero.

>>10786327
Yeah, unfortunately physics is getting overrun by I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE types and other Bill-Nye-worshipping shitlibs.

>>10786331
Guess I'm off to checkout Sergent sticky for the wiki.
Oh, what are the glyphs called for mathematical notation?
Either I haven't googled that phrase, or I cant figure it out.

>>10786287
that's cheating I guess. Because the interaction in classical Newtonian mechanical are infinitely fast.
But one example of faster than light information transmission would be the following.
Imagine a blue ball and a red ball wrapped in identical packaging. You and I take one, and we travel one light year away. When you open yours and you see a red ball, it doesn't take you a year to know I have a blue one.

>>10786391
That isn't FTL information transmission at all lmao

>>10786391
Yeah, but that's only workable on paper. (AFAIK)
You've got quantum suicide to evident that.
Suicide booth. It's activated to measure superposition when the door closes. Scientist goes in, comes back out infinite times.
yadda yadda.

Then (also? I forget) there's that Bohmian QM of superposition definitions. Where the state is always known. There's no superposition, just hidden values.

And we're back to, If I'm not looking. Is the moon still there?
Bits off bobs, traceable courses. Like looking at our gf's before we whack it. We're measuring bounce of photons off it. Not directly the hand.
So whatever you pack into anywhere is traced.

>>10786391
Just mention quantum entanglement next time instead of trying to make up a fitting analogy on the fly.

>>10786433
2spooky4me

>>10786433
Fuck me dude. You didn't have to insult them.
He was on the right track. Hence why I validated his position with suggestion/s of further study.
Don't throw people into that 'mind fuck' when they're lacking broader concept.
You've got probably at least 30ish hours to study that. It's not even short ending them the stick.
You've just committed assault and battery.

I don't even pretend I know what the fuck it's trying to say at a concise level to its factors.
I doubt you even do, As you've just went "I am smart me, read this citation circle jerk."

That or you're a result of malevolent actions for entropic entertainment.
But at least have fun when you do it. Nuance in inflection creates so much more chaos.

>>10787133
>an easily triggered namefag
Your ego is such a pathetically fragile thing.
See, now that's an insult.

Besides, it was simply blunt advice. Analogies are hard as fuck to create, especially when dealing with such esoteric topics as ftl information transfer.
Also, an unchallenged mind quickly becomes a dull one so I don't really agree with your sentiment about not "mindfucking" people.
Quantum field theory and general relativity are both about a century old so there's a near unimaginable amount of data on each theory and their unique aspects.
He's more than welcome to further his own education on these topics in numerous ways.

>>10787206
The mindfuck is as a result of barriers of entry.
He was clearly about 2 videos from YouTube into QM.
To get the references mentioned and related to the beast entanglarrr. For argument sake say around 40 wiki pages. Of which, you'd have to back track back to each page a fair number of times. As inter connectivity between aspects to understands aspects just is.

Given his current set, do you think he'll ride the hyperlink train to logical relevance?
Or implode into a organic web crawler.

One thing to quote a book. But helps in order of magnitude to give the pages you want the student to read.
Especially given the devaluation of paper that's resulted in page count explosion.

>>10787206
>Your ego is such a pathetically fragile thing.
Well I'm pleading, begging and jumping up and down for a boot to the head.

So far I've got 2 skitzo posts with unclear user direction.
IIRC another 2 or 3 anagious skitzo posts either linked. Or I'm the lighting rod for said thread.

Perplexedly 1 case of "Based skitzo poster" 3 quotations of several significantly varied from being directly relative

Actual engagement to concepts and not mentality when it does occur is really positive. But that may be as a result of thirst bias,

So I'm left at a loss.
My understanding of /sci/ness is that I'm so fucking retarded that no one can even read my posts.
This is biased by lack of engagement relative to when I was first kicking it here. As this behavior can't exist.
There's a banner explicating noting the notion. Post good, receive bacon. Be a dum. Get your shit kicked in concisely.

Soo.. It's that I'm out of touch with the kids. Because they're afraid of retort.I can't allow that.
If you can't see that that's a tragedy. You're not only on the wrong website. You're in the wrong hobby/pastime/career

>>10787277
That's just, like, your opinion, man.

>>10784494
Light will always need a medium In order for it to travel. This is where you get wavelength. It will still need a medium to travel between two object and use the wavelength current to propel itself. The medium is plasma. Which explains general relativity between two object. By some form of decay they experience. The idea is that wavelength slows the speed of light. It’s like a drag race vs circuit. The cars in a drag race will always reach top speeds while in a circuit it must somehow slow down for turns. Of course the turn itself has useful properties as this is where you get the perfect quantity of gravity vs inertia. It proves that these points is where light most cracks. Or rather gains some form of simple conscience due to it having to observe its turns to fulfill a route while many register it as round. It must snap around to fulfill a curve. It’s the only thing that can graduate a wavelength.

>>10788274
you're a crank

>>10788274
Turn of the lights on and off. If you know your electrical conduits are in optimal state it means something must be making it short break from within the grid. Which will be displayed by all light bulbs simultaneously. So it’s not the light bulbs fault. Nor your circuits. However it can have an effect on your personal breakers. ultimately lowers the lifespan and raising the bill due to repair.

>>10788301
The idea of it needing a medium is that light is sympathetic. Means if you provide the optimal fiber conditions it travels through you with no harm as a sympathetic conduit.

>>10788309
Amp ultimately states the condition it needs for a sympathetic equilibrium even high amps need sympathy or proximity for proper circuit.

>>10788318
The calmer and unstressed you maintain your fibers the greater of a sympathetic circuit you become. Since it doesn’t want you it needs you so it needs to protect its grounding and must somehow find another circuit to extend to somehow.

>>10784494
It's the speed of causality.
Watch pbs for more info

>>10784683
axioms

>>10784494
because it looks at mass conversion vs energy. For example for something to travel at the speed of light its mass is so light, what you really seem to be looking at in layman terms is the "death expansion" in which electrons escape a charge. For anything to be faster then the speed of light it needs to come from a force so great as to induce propulsion and have a smaller mass, it could be quiet possible but becomes utter useless as it would be outside of any spectrum we could visualize and possibly measure. Not to mention to travel at such speed would require a small mass by the laws of physics, and anything outside of a mass of the speed of light is useless to us and nigh impossible.

>>10784494
Because it takes energy to move fast and there isn't enough energy to move faster than that.

>>10784494
Because space and time are quantized. The speed of light in a vacuum is one planck length traveled each planck time.
Some dumbfucks are gonna come along and claim that space and time are not quantized. Those dumbfucks are wrong and you should not listen to them.

>>10784494
Maybe its due to the viscosity of whatever "space" is.

>>10784494

Light travels at the maximum speed the universe allows. As do other electro-magnetic waves.

>>10784500
No, light moves everywhere with the same speed. In medium it just doesn't move in a straight line since it gets scattered everywhere.

>>10788995
Nice non-answer brainlet. The sky is blue because that is the color the universe allows.

>>10786224
The only non retarded answer

>>10788999
>No, light moves everywhere with the same speed. In medium it just doesn't move in a straight line since it gets scattered everywhere.
wrong light literally moves slower through a medium and only travels at c in a vacuum. "c" literally means the speed of light in a vacuum and therefore may not practically exist as perfect vacuums may or may not exist

>>10788982
>Maybe its due to the viscosity of whatever "space" is.
Yes, that sounds like something the girl in your pic would say.

>>10784494

If it was faster than light, we would have seen it already.

Our universe is a simulation, c is just a velocity cap implemented by the programmers to avoid overload issues.

>>10788999
>what is Cherenkov radiation

>>10788982
viscosity and compressibility
permittivity and permeability
μ_0 = 4π × 1E−7
ε_0 = 8.85 × 1E−12

>>10789101
lol okay I guess viscosity doesn't effect the speed of waves.

If light travels through "space" as a wave though there must be some property of space that limits the speed the light wave can travel through it though right? In the same way the speed of sound waves are effected by the elastic properties and density of the medium.

>>10784494
It's called "Light" not because it's bright but because it has no weight. It's energy, that is, no mass just force. Anyways, because it has
a. No mass
b. force (to move itself)
it is able to go faster then anything else. because that stuff all has mass and get's slowed down by weight.

I actually know nothing, just pure lying.

>>10789311
Space has something like density and compressibility that defines the speed of light.

[math] \displaystyle
c = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ \varepsilon_0 \mu_0}}
[/math]

[math] \displaystyle

\begin{align*}
\text{Theory} && \text{Circulation}
&& \text{Gauge fields}
&& \text{Gauge condition}
&& \text{Helicity}
&& \text{Electric field} \\
Electrodynamics && \overrightarrow{B} = \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \times \overrightarrow{A}
&& \varphi , \overrightarrow{A}
&& \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \cdot \overrightarrow{A} + \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{ \partial \varphi}{ \partial t} = 0
&& h_e = \overrightarrow{v} \cdot \overrightarrow{B}
&& \overrightarrow{E}_e = - \frac{ \partial \overrightarrow{A}}{ \partial t} - \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \varphi \\
Hydrodynamics && \overrightarrow{ \omega} = \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \times \overrightarrow{v}
&& \chi = \frac{v^2}{2} , \overrightarrow{v}
&& \overrightarrow{\nabla} \cdot \overrightarrow{v} + \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{ \partial \chi}{ \partial t} = 0
&& f_h = \overrightarrow{v} \cdot \overrightarrow{ \omega}
&& \overrightarrow{E}_e = - \frac{ \partial \overrightarrow{v}}{ \partial t} - \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \varphi \\
\end{align*}


[/math]


source:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0070
A quaternionic unification of electromagnetism and hydrodynamics
page 7

>>10789311
Space has something like density and compressibility that defines the speed of light.

[math] \displaystyle
c = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ \varepsilon_0 \mu_0}}
[/math]

[math] \displaystyle

\begin{align*}
\text{Theory} && \text{Circulation}
&& \text{Gauge fields}
&& \text{Gauge condition}
&& \text{Helicity}
&& \text{Electric field} \\
Electrodynamics && \overrightarrow{B} = \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \times \overrightarrow{A}
&& \varphi , \overrightarrow{A}
&& \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \cdot \overrightarrow{A} + \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{ \partial \varphi}{ \partial t} = 0
&& h_e = \overrightarrow{v} \cdot \overrightarrow{B}
&& \overrightarrow{E}_e = - \frac{ \partial \overrightarrow{A}}{ \partial t} - \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \varphi \\
Hydrodynamics && \overrightarrow{ \omega} = \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \times \overrightarrow{v}
&& \chi = \frac{v^2}{2} , \overrightarrow{v}
&& \overrightarrow{\nabla} \cdot \overrightarrow{v} + \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{ \partial \chi}{ \partial t} = 0
&& f_h = \overrightarrow{v} \cdot \overrightarrow{ \omega}
&& \overrightarrow{E}_e = - \frac{ \partial \overrightarrow{v}}{ \partial t} - \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \varphi \\
\end{align*}


[/math]


source:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0070
A quaternionic unification of electromagnetism and hydrodynamics
page 7

>>10789357
thanks fren

>>10789311
she can keep that stuff in her ear but that thing in her nose has to go.

>>10789413
You should let her know, bro. I'm sure she'll be very thankful that you set her straight.

OP, to understand why nothing is faster you have to consider two things:
1) Maxwell's Equations
and
2) Galilean Relativity

1) is what >>10786224 posted. The equations describe electric and magnetic fields. By using the last two equations you can show that the speed of light is equal to [math]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0 \mu \epsilon_0 \epsilon}}[/math] which in a vacuum reduces to [math]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0 \epsilon_0}}[/math]. The speed of light only depends on two constants and is thus also a constant.
2) is the concept that the laws of physics are frame invariant. You could be standing still while I was moving or you could be moving while I'm standing still. We can't determine which of these is true, and in both cases the physics should be exactly the same.

What Einstein did was combining these. No matter how fast you are moving, you should measure the speed of light to be exactly the same as someone who's "standing still". So if you move at 50% c and measure some photon you send out, it will move at the speed of light. But to someone outside it will also be "seen" to be moving at the speed of light. That's why to not break with either 1) or 2) space and time have to change.
The effects are that lengths are contracted, time is dilated and mass increases the closer you get to the speed of light. As others have said, since your mass increases exponentially the closer you get to c the more energy you need to accelerate further. To reach the speed of light you'd need to expel an infinite amount of energy.

>>10784494
Knowing that speed of light is the way it is, has to do with the difference between physics and pure math. Is physics because is a fact that ultimately comes from the world, from experience like newton's second law.

>>10784494
Special relativity says that an infinite amount of energy is needed for any massive object to accelerate from rest up to the speed of light.

>>10784494
Because photons don’t have mass there for they can travel as fast as they do. But anything that has mass would need more more energy to go faster as it gets closer to the speed of light to actually hit the speed of light you would need an infinite amount of energy

>>10786296
why do you gain mass as you accelerate?

>>10791914
Because with the formula e=mc2 m being mass and e being energy and c the speed of light which is a constant. So if you want to equal c the formula becomes c=(e/m)^1/2. Acceleration would be the same thing as energy so as you accelerate e increase but to keep c constant you would need to increase m as well. So anything with mass can never reach the speed of light.

>>10788977

Space is not quantized, however, you are basically right. Space is an automaton and the planck length is the size of each cell in it at our scale; HOWEVER, you can go small in depth for ever to other scales. We know this because we have simulated it, and the automaton does not work unless space is infinite in depth. You can learn more about unified physics at www.optimum.center, and yes! Physics is now unified! It happened a few months ago! Our forefathers landed on the moon, don't act surprised that we can accomplish more than eating tide pods!

It is till this day a fundamental postulate that is derived from empirical verification. All modern theoretical development starts with "A a physical theory must be relativistic". Why? There is a limit to why that should be even if there is some philosophical arguments for it. For example, action at a distance with no limit whatsoever has plenty of issues. But if you are doing physics, you basically agree that experiment is what actually tells you what happens, even if there is no why behind it.

if v=c, then you would divide by zero, but you cant
if v>c, then that would be the square root of a negative number, which is imaginary

>>10784799
t. /pol/

>>10786253
> media*
> has never heard of Cherenkov radiation

If photons have no mass then why are they affected by gravity?

>>10786287
The push on one end of the rod travels through the rod at the speed of sound in the rod material. So the opposite end of the rod is only displaced after sufficient time has elapsed. There can be no perfectly rigid rod in reality, all rods contract temporarily when pushed, you just don't notice with a small rod.

>>10786391
It did take you a year, it took you a year to move one light-year.

>>10784494
>>10784507
Light is made up of photons. Photons have no mass. When no mass moves through a vacuum, it is essentially "nothing moving through nothing", and therefore the speed of light is the maximum speed, since nothing with mass can reach the speed of something with no mass moving through more no mass.

>>10792453
Because "gravity", the effect massive objects have on the surroundings, is a bending of space. It turns straight lines in space into curves. (Ignoring the effect on the time dimension too which also occurs). So, massless particles, while not slowed, are deflected by gravity by this curvature; although in their view they are moving "straight."

>>10792454

Yo mama notices when I push my small rod

>>10792456

Shouldn't it be considered odd that a particle with no mass still has properties?

>>10792467
You know what? I just saw this thread advertised on the home page and I saw an opportunity to repeat something I heard in a high school physics class. I don't question this shit that much. I think vaccines are sketchy and that MRI scans cause cancer and that the government knew about 9/11 and all the works. So don't ever ask me about shit that has a serious answer. Bye, /sci/, lol

>>10792444
t. nigger faggot

Its the speed of massless particles. Particles with some mass move at some speed. This requires some energy for them to move. Then you have some particles with no mass that obviously can move a lot faster. This is super fast speed.

Say you have particle A that is 10kg moving at 5m/s and partcle B that is 20kg moving at 2.5m/s. If you reduced particle B’s mass it would move faster now, if given the same energy. But if you have particle C and particle D both with 0 mass, how can one particle move faster than the other given the same energy?

The speed of light is simply the speed of massless particles. Its just how fast you happen to go when you cant go any faster by getting lighter, but cant have infinite speed because that would require infinite momentum (i think). So youre left with some finite speed that is really fast. Why that speed happens to be 3e8 m/s is just chance, it has no meaning its just what we observe

>>10792467
No because it still has momentum and energy. You do know about the mass energy equivalence right?

>>10784494
Because it's merely an axiom. So far hasn't been disproven experimentally

limitations of the hardware running the simulation

>>10792618
Axiom is word borrowed from math, when talking about the physical world is better to not use a word like that

>>10784544
what does that mean? If I were cruising in my spaceship at 0,9c and you were standing on earth and someone shoots a light beam, we measure speed and we both read 1c on our measuring devices?

>>10792565
stupid question, but how do you actually measure mass? the actual mass, not the force that mass produces.

>>10793102
For macroscopic stuff either by weight or volume/density analysis or something like that and solve/deduce. For particles by finding their energy

>>10793109
so how do you go from there to the fact that light has no mass?

>>10793120
Well at first it was because they didnt observe light having any mass when early quantum mechanics forerunner scientists were measuring/discovering its basic properties, such as lights wave nature, its simultaneous particle nature, and some other stuff i forget. Then a lot of mathmatical formulism was brought into the picture that theorized in explicit terms and formulas that light had no mass. Then scientists began experimenting and verified these hypotheses.
Thats a rough sketch i believe

>>10793140
yeah, but... how do you measure it? as anon before said and that's logical, for macroscopic stuff you measure force of some sort. How do you measure mass of a light particle? He said "by finding their energy", what does that mean? Higher the energy needed to move it, lower the mass? how can you measure "mass" of something? You never actually measure mass of anything, it's always calculated indirectly. What's the procedure because it may be possible that it's just to small to detect

>>10793094
Exactly that.

>>10793120
If we take quantum field theory, with Feynman diagrams and all that stuff, you can compute the classical approximation of an exchange of a large numbers of bosons carrying a force (i.e., you can recover the classical force from the quantum effects). If you do that for a massless boson you get the usual 1/r potential (1/r^2 force), while for a massive boson you have a e^(-m r)/r potential (called Yukawa potential). Because we don't see this exponential suppression at large distance for the electric interaction, we deduce that photons don't have mass (well, actually an upper bound on what their mass is).

>>10793219
so it's not measured? Is it possible that they do have mass, but due to other effects or the other way of functioning that mass is simply not demonstrating itself like it is for macroscopic particles? It's not my field, I'm just trying to understand since it seems like a bold statement
>>10793202
is it possible that measuring devices we have are limited to that value? because if it went 10c and you could only measure up to 1c it would show 1c no matter what. You could slow it down 5 times and still get 1c. That doesn't mean you didn't slow it down. I know there's probably some explanation, but how are actual experiments of something like that even carried out? You don't actually have to answer this since I know it's super brainlet tier, but this stuff always makes my brain be like "NO!" although it's probably correct

>>10788999
The scattering argument is completely wrong, brainlet. If that was the case how could transparent materials exist. Light is slowed because its oscillating electric field induces an opposing electric field in the material, which slows down the light. Fermilab did a video on this.

>>10785697
things without mass can go faster. there is no speedlimit.

>>10793172
You smash shit into each other and look at their resulting moments and backtrack from their to find energy. Energy = mass so its a simple calculation. Youre not going to find a simple answer here because the question is not simple

lmao no one in the whole fucking board is able to answer the question

this is the kind of shit you would find in a neil de grasse tyson youtube video lol

>>10792565
/thread

>>10784707
That's just shitty trolling and you know it.

Unless you believe in some variant of the aether, there is no way to explain the speed of light in intuitive mechanical terms. It's just a defacto state of the system that is taken to be self evident. Imo, the speed of light is set by the properties of the medium, it is the upper limit of speed because it represents an exchange of momentum between the smallest possible particles. The medium is perfectly elastic and and superconductive. Light is just a highly coherent flow of charge between the particles of that medium, which are in direct contact with one another. The speed as it moves between particles is set by the period of the electron orbital and the angular momentum of the electron.

>>10784494
its not. however your hard pressed to find anything moving even near light sped except light

gama ray bursts forced physicists to do mental gymnastics and say it was just a optical illusion that they move faster. they didnt like the idea of a black hole having super energetic emf emissions that are bigger than our galaxy that happen in the blink of a eye

>>10784494
if the speed of light were different, life wouldn;t have evolved to observe it being that value

>>10797193
based anthropocentrist

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1rLWVZVWfdY&list=PLoaVOjvkzQtyjhV55wZcdicAz5KexgKvm&index=2&t=0s
This is the first video of eight that explains special relativity. It talks about the speed of light being constant no matter the observer. I highly recommend these.

>>10792453
because gravity affects energy, not mass directly
but since mass has a corresponding mass energy it's also affected

>>10793287
>is it possible that measuring devices we have are limited to that value?
nope, the fact that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames is not due to our measurement devices.
It's because it's a constant, and constants are the same in all reference frames

>You could slow it down 5 times and still get 1c. That doesn't mean you didn't slow it down.
the thing is, the speed of light depends on two constants [math]\epsilon_0[/math] and [math]\mu_0[/math]. So if the speed of light changes then either of those should change as well. That would mean that physics works differently. Which means you can provide a rest frame, and can say with confidence that you ARE/AREN'T at rest.
This is forbidden by relativity, so you can't have both. Either the speed of light can vary or all frames are equal.

>but how are actual experiments of something like that even carried out?
well, for time dilation you can measure it using satellites with atomic clocks. The clocks up there move at different rates than the ones down here. Which is partially due to their speed, but also partially due to gravity.

>>10784494

A simple straight forward and reasonable question, and all these chucklefucks can not for the life of them give you a straight answer. The reason being /sci/ is populated by way too many arrogant asses.

Here it is: We dont know. Nobody knows.

Simple as that. We dont know why the speed of light has the value we observe, and we dont know why it is the upper limit for speed.

>>10798023
>>10795393
see
>>10790969

>>10786163
there are no photons
light is a wave bro

>>10798047
explain the photoelectric effect then

>>10798034
Afaik this still does not explain why light has the value we observe. Hence why photons are limited to the speed we observe.( Seems like the jury is still out on neutrinos )

Think of it this way, why shouldn't the speed of light be twice its observed value. Or ten, or even a thousand million times greater.

>>10798050
I'm not prepared to explain it at this time.

>>10798050
The relationship between light and photons is simple. When passing through a material of attuned wave spectrum and absorption, photons turn to electrical energy. Photons, while able to be INTERPRETED as waves actually carry a mass similar to an electron and are therefor more accurately defined as particles.
This in turn shows that all electrical energy is self contained, at least within the entropic values of the gravitational field which they inhabit.

>>10784529
Correct.

>>10798065
because you don't have an explanation faggot it's both

>>10798073
They are fundamentally different particles.
Go home Satania, you're drunk.

>>10792474
>>10792577
broad range of people here, pity.

>>10784707
Except you can go and learn all you need to know in order to understand the answer to the questions you ask. But you won't. You're a nasty, difficult idiot.

>>10798053
>Afaik this still does not explain why light has the value we observe.
>>10790969
>The equations describe electric and magnetic fields

the speed of light is c because that's the speed electromagnetic waves travel at
if you mean "why is c approx [math]3*10^8 \frac{m}{s}[/math]?" then the answer is the same as "why are [math]\epsilon_0[/math] and [math]\mu_0[/math] the values they are?" to which the answer is "because if they weren't we likely wouldn't be asking the question"

Because light doesn't interact with the Higgs field, therefore nothing alters it speed except itself. All particles with mass interact with the Higgs field, but photons are massless. That's why their speed, and the speed of massless particles, are the upper speed limit.

In short, light is massless and therefore the fastest thing possible.

>Speed of light dropped few decades ago and scientists don't know why

nice constant you got there

>>10798348
>Speed of light dropped few decades ago
source

>>10784500
>speed of light in vacuum
I'm sorry what is this vacuum?
Is this something you've created or observed?
Can you direct me to the area of true vacuum please. I have yet to see one within our universe, even space has density and isn't truly empty of matter. I would like to see light travel and be measured through this phenomenon since so far I seem to have missed it myself yet I see it constantly discussed within physics.

>>10784855
>>10784881

Good to see that it sometimes pays off to visit this shitty website. Actually learned something.

>>10798243

>It is that way because it is that way.

Way to go Einstein! Next week you explain how at the edge of the Universe there is this big brick wall keeping everything in.

>>10798696
well, what other explanation is there?
the speed of light can be derived through Maxwell's equations (specifically the curls of Electric and Magnetic fields)
and the calculations show that it's only dependent on the two constants ([math]c=\frac{1}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}[/math])
so light has that speed because those two values are as large as they are
it's like asking "why is gravity as strong as it is?" or "why are atoms as large as they are?"

>>10798842
fuck, make that [math]c^2[/math] not [math]c[/math]

>>10798842
>constants assuming the constant speed of light prove the speed of light is the speed of light
Thank you, I now know why the speed of light is the speed of light.

>>10798876
>constants assuming the constant speed of light
???

>>10798420
Creating a vacuum is really easy.

First you select into which you want to create your vacuum. Then you remove all particles in said volume. The volume is now a vacuum.

Was that so hard?

>>10784881
Shut the fuck up you imbecile, stop giving these people spoopy thoughts, photons are literally an abstraction, the only measurable thing is the electromagnetic field and that shit fucking obeys wave mechanics

>>10798879
You are why physics can't even begin solving the why question. You guys just can't get your head out of the math.

>>10798890
Then how come is the intensity of the EM field quantized?

>>10798887
But boss, we have no technology that can do this.

>>10798900
The fuck? No, the energy occupation levels of the - FREE - electromagnetic field are quantized and each quanta has the energy of

[math] E_{photon} = \hbar \omega [/math]

this is what is called a photon, but the translation to space propagation and the collective behaviour of the field and it's interaction with environment is something dramatically different where the notion of a single photon fails and more advanced treatment is necessary, the result of which is ordinary Maxwell's theory which gives you the wave behaviour.

I REPEAT - we can only measure the values of the field which is described by Maxwell's equations. (bar vacuum fluctuations and sub-poissonian light)

>>10798911
Just select a small enough volume.

Also, who cares? That's a problem for the engineers.

>>10798919
But our theories expect the vacuum to be perfect. What do we do now boss, do we just assume we're close enough and write them anyway?

>>10798276
Now this is the biggest brainlet post ITT, this is how you know these people have no fucking clue how quantum field theory actually works.

>>10798912
But we can also measure single photons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting

Where do you draw the line between photon dynamics and the Maxwell's equations? You'll get the Maxwell stuff when you add enough photons.

Also, what's a free electromagnetic field? Something not bound to a charge? How do you come up with those? I thought that all EM waves are created by an accelerating charge.

>>10798925
You have to do some approximations somewhere. The perfect vaccuum assumption works quite well. You can add the scattering particles there if you want to.

>>10784494
Because God decided so, dummy

>>10798892
>why physics can't even begin solving the why question.
physics doesn't give a shit about the why, just the how. you are like a conduit complaining that the theory of evolution doesn't explain how life started in the first place
have you tried philosophy?

>>10798960
*fundie not conduit

>>10798960
Half of the theory of evolution is the why.
You're just pointing me at a constant and telling me it's the constant because we defined it as the constant.

>>10798933
That's the advanced treatment I mentioned, you can quite twist and blur what consists a photon especially in the theory of photodetection, the only thing that remains is the quantized energy, another way you can reveal the quantum nature of light is through correlated detections, but the image of a single photon propagating is nothing more than the propagation of a wave packet in Maxwell's theory with quantized energy.

quantized EM field is quantized from the source less version of Maxwell's equations, everything else is simply a weak perturbation or uncomputable.

>>10798975
>Half of the theory of evolution is the why.
what parts so you mean?
>constant because we defined it as the constant.
because it doesn't depend on the medium and is time-invariant

>>10798985
>because it doesn't depend on the medium
Why do you think we talk about speed of light in a vacuum.

>>10798976
cont.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271368/propagation-of-the-photon

This question has some nice answers explaining the nature of the photon a bit more.

>>10798976
>>10799014
Well, I didn't understand anything but I appreciate the effort. Thanks for the link, it seems nice.

>>10793094

Yes end thread

>>10798418
google it. It was about 20 km drop but it was measured all over the world.

>>10784676
That's a lot slower than my hairline

>>10798876

Yup, these smart asses are this stupid.

>>10784704
>>10792444