/sci/ - Science & Math

> Is the speed of light arbitrary
We don't know.
> If not, what is the derivation?
We don't know.
> would "changing" the speed of light break any fundamental laws?
Since the speed of light appears in most of the fundamental laws of physics it would change most things enough that life would not exist.

No the speed of light is closely tied in with the entire working of the universe
If it was different the universe would probably be fundamentally different and probably hostile to life

>>15186843
Light simply goes as fast as anything can go. The number humanity assigns to that speed is arbitrary. You could ask why there's a speed limit, and claim that that's arbitrary, but the truth is that "speed" is an arbitrary concept. Rapidity is additive and doesn't have a limit.

The speed of light is actually a constant, and it entirely defines the second law of thermodynamics. If the speed of light were to be "changed", everything else would be defined in terms of the "new" speed of light, so you wouldn't even notice the change.

>>15186843
>299 792 458 m / s
It's so close to 3 x 10^8 that one wonders if that was what it originally was and the speed has slowed over time. In fact, maybe it was 3.14159 x 10^8 !!

>>15186843
It's just equal to 1 in appropriate units

>>15186854
Shut up retard

>>15186843
The speed of light is the result of the inverse square root of the product of the permittivity and permeability of free space, it was derived from Maxwell's equations around the time of the American Civil War.

>>15187050
>around the time of the American Civil War.
No one gives a shit about your country to know when that was

E=mc2
Here's the Speed of Light squared

>>15186843
The speed of light has been changed about three or four times in the past ~150 years.

>>15187061
>reeeeeeee!! USA!!!! i hate it!!
>it triggers muh nationalistic inferiority complex!!
you and every last one of the 7 billion other non americans, the sentineli are the only forigniggers who don't wake up every morning of their lives enraged at their own inferiority as compared to the epic USA.

people need to stop thinking about the speed of light. it’s the speed of causality, at which energy states change in spacetime. light just happens to be at the speed of causality.
so if causality is faster, would something change? everything including the physical objects to interrogate nature would also be faster then.
i’d say nothing changes, because the speed of the causality is the 100% to which every other speed is relative to. it’s still constant, even if the value was different.
and as always, if you change the laws of the universe, a different universe may emerge. we can’t test this without another universe

>>15187147
Try saying that again without the burgers stuffed in your mouth and hands, fatass

>>15187061
rude

>>15187164
Issac Arthur pls go

>>15186843
The speed of light is relative, not arbitrary.

>>15187050
Exactly. Once you have the first order differential equations that relate E and B, you can decouple them into separate second order differential equations. These equations have the exact form of the wave equation. Both E and B travel in waves at the same speed

>>15186843
>Is the speed of light arbitrary?
no
>If not, what is the derivation?
it's calculated from the permittivity and permeability of the given medium
for a so-called "vacuum" that's called the "permittivity of free space" and the "permeability of free space" respectively (epsilon_0 and mu_0)
the speed of light is given by:
>c = 1 / sqrt(epsilon_0 * mu_0)
neat, huh?
>If so, what would be the implications if say, the speed of light were double, triple or even a hundred times faster what it is.
that would mean you would have found a way to reduce the permittivity and/or permeability by the factor necessary for this to occur
at this point it's not known if it's even possible to reduce those values beyond their "vacuum" values, but it could be
>In other words, assuming the figure is a finite number, would "changing" the speed of light break any fundamental laws?
not really, but it would probably require extremely advanced technology
you'd have to set up a "highway" of sorts for the light, a path where the permittivity and permeability were lower than that of "vacuum"

>>15187379
Finally a helpful post. Thank you, Anon.

>>15186843
>Is the speed of light arbitrary?
Yes

>>15186843
This website full of mongy children. Shut your little fucking gay runty traps. And get off the fucking internet. Do something properly for once. Your mothers should of pushed you out as a fetus and flushed you down the toilets.

>>15186843
No, the speed of light of exactly 1

The speed of light, by which I assume you mean the speed of light in a vacuum, is arbitrary as far as we know, in that we can't determine it without physical measurements. It might be possible to derive it from first principles with more advanced physics, nobody knows. You can say it's related to the permittivity and permeability, but those are just two more constants. What makes them more fundamental than c? Nothing. It's also related to other constants like the fine structure constant. If the speed of light were different it would change a lot of things about the structure of the universe. In terms of fundamental physical laws, changing c is just changing a parameter. The effect is straightforward. However, in terms of complex matter like what we're made of, the changes would be very unpredictable and almost impossible to predict, except perhaps for a very small change in c. This is because changing c would affect every level of physics and chemistry in various ways. For instance, it would change the masses and stability of all the elements, as well as their chemistry and other behaviour.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant

>>15188209
>very unpredictable and almost impossible to predict
Forgive me

>>15186854
We can't even properly define what life is.

Forms of "life" may exist in those alternate possible forms of, the Universe with different speeds of light, that we can not adequately comprehend or predict.

>>15188209
>You can say it's related to the permittivity and permeability, but those are just two more constants.
permittivity and permeability are not constant
for a wide variety of media they have higher values than that of "vacuum", which is why light propagates significantly slower through those media
the "permittivity of free space" and "permeability of free space" as measured in a "vacuum", and thus determining the "speed of light in a vacuum", are simply approximations, and still not actually constants
in any case, it's clear that these are far more fundamental than "the speed of light in a vacuum" (c_0)
so no, you are not correct that changing c_0 would be like changing a parameter, because it's not fundamental at all, but derived from permittivity and permeability, which in turn are not constants either

>>15188282
Yes that's why I said "vacuum". The permittivity etc of the "vacuum" are constants, like it or not. In what way are they approximations? You can do SR and GR in a vacuum without ever mentioning permittivity. In my view permittivity (and permeability) are less fundamental. They are properties of bulk matter. The speed of light in a vacuum can be defined without any reference to matter or permittivity.

Does sci really not understand that the speed of light is a dimensional constant so its value is completely dependent on the units that are used?

>>15188315
>The permittivity etc of the "vacuum" are constants, like it or not.
they're not, though
there will always be small variations in them, and there's no way of knowing that they can't be reduced below their "vacuum" values either, allowing for light to propagate much faster
>You can do SR and GR in a vacuum without ever mentioning permittivity.
relativity theory is nonsense with zero basis in reality
>They are properties of bulk matter.
there's no such thing as "bulk matter"
that is not a meaningful phrase at all
>The speed of light in a vacuum can be defined without any reference to matter or permittivity.
totally incorrect

>>15188331
you don't understand what is being discussed here at all
no one is talking about the difference between ~300 km/s and god-knows-how-many-retard-burgerfat-units-per-second
what is begin discussed here is whether the speed of light itself is constant and/or arbitrary, or whether it's derived from more underlying factors
the truth is the latter: the speed of light is a direct derivation of the permittivity and permeability of the medium it's propagating through

>>15188331
you don't understand what is being discussed here at all
no one is talking about the difference between ~300,000 km/s and god-knows-how-many-retard-burgerfat-units-per-second
what is begin discussed here is whether the speed of light itself is constant and/or arbitrary, or whether it's derived from more underlying factors
the truth is the latter: the speed of light is a direct derivation of the permittivity and permeability of the medium it's propagating through

>>15187040
Retard. Why would the universe use base 10? Why would it expect units in meters?

>>15188334
Ahh, it's the relativity schizo. What a surprise. Why don't you tell us about Maxwell's super special extra equations again?

>>15188353
no way they aren’t joking lmao

>>15188357
>the relativity schizo
my nickname for all the schizos who still cling to the ridiculous nonsense that is relativity theory

>>15188365
Whatever helps you cope my man

>>15188315
Every point in space is position locked. Cause its the only way how the stupid cube paradox recently posted on 4 chan can be solved. Its a "real" vector space. Ofc its not a "real" vector space, cause nature provides infinite values for any given size bigger as zero. Which we cant.
But imagine it as vector space is probably the best thing how you can imagine it.


Every position in space has a real value to every other position in space. And not only to every other object in space. It basically shows that "nothingness" is a a real thing.

If all objects the entire universe jumps one quatrillion quatrillion light-years to the left. Every point of our location will have the same distance to each other. They will not vanish just cause nothing is here.
And bicause it is like this, their has to be a solution on how to lock a position i space and find it ova and ova again, no matter how objects in space move.

>>15188387
Why are you telling me this?

>>15188393
cause you cant navigate in the warp with out my superior knowledge.

>>15188395
th.. thanks

>>15188398
np it means its possible to triangulate any object with out using electromagnetic radiation.

>>15188398
>>15188403
or at least its former location. as soon as you know how fast and in witch direction objects move, space you dont even need to triangulate objects anymore you can simply have a map.

given that you know the "numeric" value of your location. but it wont show you how a object moved cause of a big explosion.

>>15188398
>>15188411
it is also fair to assume that entertain is the thing which links you to the position in space.
if this is true its also fair to assume that you need nothing but an device who shows you your numeric value and a map. cause then objects didn't move that fast at all.

>>15188417
inertia*

>>15188378
ironic, coming from someone clearly coping with relativity theory being blatantly false nonsense

>>15188456
hmm yes, the irony is palpable

>>15186843
speed of light is the time-measure equivalent of 299792458 metres. if time was spacial, 299792458 metres and 1 second would be the same.
shit is called spacetime for a reason, movement through one intrinsically means movement through the other.
you move 299792458 metres, you move 1 second. simple as.

>>15186843
The speed of light was way higher, until civilizations started to use dimensional strikes against each other and move into lower dimensions to escape the effects of such weapon and where the speed of light was slower each dimension down

>>15188684
>spouting physics opinions when you don't know what a unit is

>>15187164
Why does speed of causality slower in glass

>>15189005
the speed of light is lower in a medium. causality is always at the speed of 1, and everything else is relative to it

>>15186843
tegmark 4 my dude

>>15186855
No reason to assume this.
>>15186891
Unless you fix the units of measure and recalculate the speed of light to find out that the speed changed relative to those units.
>>15187379
>it's calculated from the permittivity and permeability of the given medium
No. It's calculated using some experimental techniques.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
A few of them occurred before Maxwell's equations existed to derive the relation between c and the electromagnetic constants. There's also no reason to assume either permittivity or permeability are approximately constant either with respect to cosmological time or outside of the local region.

>>15187061
is the butthurt limit of ESLs arbitrary as well? If we doubled or tripled it, would online discussion remain as it is or become even more chaotic and worthless?

>>15186843
Imagine you keep the meter and the second fixed in some absolute coordinate system measured by God or whatever, and then you double the speed of light. Depending on what you adjust to change it, either the lengths of everything (rulers etc) would increase or the rate of change of things like atomic clocks would speed up such that changing the speed of light would be unobservable (except with respect to some abstract absolute coordinate system).

Only changing dimensionless parameters like the fine structure constant would lead to an observable change in the universe.

>>15186854
>>15186855
retards

>>15186891
correct in spirit, but it has nothing to do with the second law

>>15187044
yes

Could the speed of light be the terminal velocity of energy?
it has no mass so you couldn't hook up some mega boosters to push it it past its limit.

>>15193576
>Could [schizobabble]?
Why is /sci/ like this?

>>15193578
Too much TV/media and not enough books. Like non-fiction books about things like, oh I don’t know, science maybe, not sci-fi fantasy shit.

>>15193578
speculative theorizing is a cowardly and safe way to engage in sciencesque discussion without ever running the risk of being shown to be wrong. its like coming up with theories about the off camera lives of cartoon characters, easy to guess at if you're dead certain that there is no evidence to discredit your guess.

>>15193599

>>15193450

>>15193578
because it's easy

>>15186854
>We don’t know.
>We don’t know.
Is there anything you physicists do know?

>>15193673
He's not a physicist, he's some kid that watched a Youtube video

>>15193673
Bold of you to assume that some random anon on /sci/ is a physicist. If you're looking for how we calcualted the speed of light https://oscarnieves100.medium.com/deriving-the-speed-of-light-from-maxwells-equations-9200632252ba

>>15194179
Guess again.

>>15194381
That just shows that [math]c[/math] depends on [math]\mu_0[/math] and [math]\epsilon_0[/math], both of which can't be derived and have to be measured. Strictly speaking c defines the values for each.

>>15192610
>No. It's calculated using some experimental techniques.
imagine being so retarded that you don't understand the difference between measurement and calculation
>A few of them occurred before Maxwell's equations existed to derive the relation between c and the electromagnetic constants.
yes, the speed of light was indeed measured before we discovered the more fundamental quantities that you derive it from, that's correct
>There's also no reason to assume either permittivity or permeability are approximately constant either with respect to cosmological time or outside of the local region.
literally exactly what I'm saying, dumbfuck
learn to read

>>15186843

Infinite light speed means that you need infinite energy to make ANY mass. There's only massless particles travelling at infinite speed. Time contraction and length contraction are infinite. There is no time or space, no cause or effect, because all locations and times communicate with each other instantly. The universe becomes an infinitesimal here and now.

>>15186843
The fine structure constant is fairly important in physics. It's a combination of the speed of light, planck's constant, the permitivitty of free space, and the electron charge. If the constant were different, then wouldnt exist. No one knows why the constant is the way it is - perhaps if there is a multiverse, then every value is different.

>>15195534
>It's a combination of the speed of light, planck's constant, the permitivitty of free space, and the electron charge.
The speed of light and the permetivitty of free space are also a function of each other, so this explanation is circular

>>15186843
No, c isn't arbitrary, c comes from the Maxwell equations. Later, this was confirmed.
The issue here is to know why gravity and other forces are propagated at the same speed.

>>15196656
It's not circular you autist. It means one of those constants has to be measured, but they are not independent. In other words, the constants are arbitrary as far as we know. A deeper theory of physics might say otherwise.

>>15186843
That's like asking why the speed of sound is what it is. It's just a property of sound in whatever substance you are talking about.

The speed of light is just how fast we travel through time when otherwise motionless. Why that speed and not some other speed? It's just a property of the cosmos

>>15186843
Lmao im not telling you.

>>15186854
>Since the speed of light appears in most of the fundamental laws of physics it would change most things enough that life would not exist
[Citation needed]

>>15186843
>Is the speed of light arbitrary?
It has to do with the refresh rate of the simulation, see pic. It's not arbitrary, but it can be upgraded if need be. It can and HAS changed. And for an extensive explanation on what it is and why it changes, see this vid. Speed it up to at least 1.5 though, because he talks slow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1axh6ki0oc
Nobody else is going to give you this correct answer by the way, since most of the consciousnesses immersed in the reality don't want to admit it's a simulation for some reason.

>>15186855
Variable Light Speed Theory.
If the planck length changes, light speed changes

>>15188279
We define life by humanness so wouldn't ai be the closest to satisfying that if not eukaryotes and later?

>>15203438
Better yet, is life defined by the interactions constituting mitosis or metabolism?

The universe is like a big game of Conway's game of life and the game updates at a certain frequency. Information has to travel through adjacent cells at a maximum speed of one cell per tick. The maximum speed of light is the width of a cell times the fundamental frequency.