[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 3 KB, 250x167, refrase.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11094179 No.11094179 [Reply] [Original]

Let me rephrase my question. I already know that the speed of light is the speed that light travels, you fucking morons. But WHY does light travel at that EXACT velocity? I already know it's the fastest speed something can go, but WHY is THAT specific arbitrary speed the fastest speed? Why not another number instead for example?

>> No.11094180

>>11094179

familiar again

>> No.11094183 [DELETED] 

>>11094179
why do you touch yourself at night?

>> No.11094187

>>11094183

You didn't answer the question. Shit poster.

>> No.11094189

>>11094179
>already know it's the fastest speed something can go,
you've accepted the lies

>> No.11094195

>>11094189
What is this /x/ or /sci/? Are you trying to tell me that light isn't the fastest speed? Why are you teaching in schools that it is the fastest speed then? Wouldn't mathematically speaking the fastest speed be infinite? Why is the speed of light particular? If light doesn't experience time then it is infinite speed technically, but it doesn't appear infinite to us, why does it appear a particular "arbitrary" speed to us?

>>11094183
>>11094189
Based on these two answers, you sound like you either don't know the answer or you don't know the answer.

>> No.11094196

Because in a vacuum nothing is there to slow down the light so it travels the maximum possible distance over time for light

>> No.11094201

>>11094195
>>11094189

Familiar

>>11094196
You are just not understanding are you? Why is the maximum possible distance over time for light equal to that exact number and not something higher?

>> No.11094206

>>11094201
Familiar again lol.

>> No.11094455

>>11094179
figure it out yourself brainlet

>> No.11094485

Light uses background electromagnetic fields as the medium.
The background EMF exists all through the observable universe.
You cannot get light energy any higher because the outer valence shell electrons that are being stimulated and vibrating back and fourth cannot move any faster or the electrons themselves become emitted, so there is a physical limit to how high energy you can get light to be emitted) and a physical limit to how fast it can travel. Same reason sound cannot go far above 160 decibels.
Sound and light and electromagnetic waves all work the same.

>> No.11094486

>>11094455
familiar

>> No.11094492

>>11094485
i guess that's at least the first answer i've gotten so far

>> No.11094493

>>11094485
>valence shell electrons
>in a photon
bro...

>> No.11094497

>>11094179
because according to group theory there is only one Lorentz invariant speed, and causal influences must go slower than that speed, and massless particles are required to go at that speed

what the value of that speed is unconstrained theoretically but is determined empirically

>> No.11094498

>>11094179
>WHY does light travel at that EXACT velocity
it's just a universal constant

>> No.11094500

>>11094497
*slower or at that speed.

this is a requirement of causality

>> No.11094502
File: 109 KB, 800x800, 14564524b16909461ade5d9786666e8c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11094502

>why
>*explanation in terms of physical laws*
>okay but why
>*explanation in terms of what we literally observe*
>Okay but WHY u damn moran!
Science doesn't answer """"why"""" you faggot, it just describes. Go ask a philosopher.

>> No.11094515

>>11094179
Because it has that degree of freedom from all atoms but not from collections of atoms.

>> No.11094560

>>11094493
That's not what I meant man ;)
Light is emitted from something, called the emitter, the emitter is made from matter, mademof protons, nuetrons and electrons, the electrons fly around the proton and neutron, electrons are negatively charged, so they interact with electromagnetic fields. Vibrate the electrons fast enough, they send ripples through this background electromagnetic field, we perceive these waves as light ;)
What we call "photons" are just the peaks in this wave pattern, that's why we think it's quantised, it technically is, but not a particle. Light is always a wave. Young's twin slit experiment proved this.

>> No.11094591

Because science.

>> No.11094594

You guys know light travels as different speeds through different mediums right, that's why a prism splits light into a spectrum of colour.
The speed of light is a constant in a vacuum.
Perfect vacuums Dont exist.
Quantum mechanics does not apply to any real world physics.
The speed of light is not a constant.

>> No.11094599

>>11094594
back to >>>/x/

just because perfect vacuums don't exist doesn't mean the speed of light isn't a constant. it is a constant in a vacuum. this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, so you proved yourself to be a brainlet. this is called "special relativity" which i know is beyond your attainable level of knowledge given you have the mandatory <70 IQ required on /pol/

>> No.11094606

>>11094599
Is that why you can't explain it?
Because you understand it so well?
So light is a constant....just not in our observable universe?
And the speed of light has nothing to do with quantum mechanics....the science we use to study the speed of light.
Man when you start disagreeing with yourself you should just walk away.

>> No.11094610

>>11094606
Also quantum mechanics is the study of photons......

>> No.11094622

>>11094606
i explained it already bro:
>>11094497
>>11094500
and you ignored it apparently because "group theory" probably glitched your chimpanzee circuits. just read it over. the fact is that if you 1) assume the laws of physics don't change if you move from one place to another or are moving at a constant velocity and 2) causality exists, then that implies there is only one speed everybody can agree on, and that's the speed of light. this follows from the mathematics of the Lorentz group. look it up

>>11094610
the speed of light can be handled in a completely classical way by treating it like a classical wave. not quantized.

>> No.11094862

>>11094179
not getting enough replies on 7chan I see

>> No.11094882

>>11094179
But it can be a different number. For example, you are probably thinking of the speed of light in meters. But let's say I invent a new measure called OPfaggots such that perhaps 1 OPfaggot = 0.3182731 meters then light is a different number.

What part of numbers don't exist and everything is relative to each other don't you understand? Absolute values literally don't exist.

>> No.11094960

Anything with zero inertial mass travels at the maximum speed, which experiments have determined is approximately 299,792 kilometers a second. We have a lot of complicated theory that tells us why things with zero mass travel at the maximum speed all the time.
But,
We don't know why the maximum speed is set to that value and not some other value. We also don't know if it can change, or if it is fixed at roughly 299,792 km/s.
We just don't know that part, and maybe nobody will ever figure it out.

>> No.11094973

science can only answer the hows, not the whys
in fact, the word "why" is completely meaningless
the speed of light is arbitrary the same as the masses of the fundamental particles

>> No.11094984

>>11094973
>the speed of light is arbitrary the same as the masses of the fundamental particles

not in string theory.

>> No.11095436

>>11094560
whoaa, are you serious? is this what "Light" is?
can you please explain this more?

especially the part about "background electromagnetic fields"

>> No.11095454

>>11095436
Welcome to the dark side OP :) Do you like conspiracy theories? Because if so I have one that's gonna blow your mind :)

Have you heard of this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

That's the medium I was referring to ;)


Keep asking questions and I will only use noble prize winners for reference , but be careful, the psurdoscientists don't even realise what that are, they think they are the real scientists ;) you understand, they are the ones getting aggressive because you ask justified questions :P

>> No.11095466

>>11095454
>background_radiation
not op, but interested.

so were you saying that "light" is actually the peaks of this 7.23-cm wavelength being excited?
and not some particles being transmitted through space?

>> No.11095520

>>11094179
You ignored my answer in the last thread twice, so...

>> No.11095528

>>11094492
It's wrong though, energy and velocity aren't related for light.

>>11094594
Wrong, light cannot slow down. You perceive it as slower because of interactions foing on in the medium. "Between" these interactions it continues to travel at c.

>> No.11095529

>>11095520
Repost it then :)

>> No.11095540

>>11094179
The number depends on what we choose as METER and what we choose as SECOND.

It is 299 792 458 m/s.

If we had chosen second differently, e.g. 0,8 current seconds, it would be

239 833 966 m/s.

And if we had chosen meter differently, say, 1.2 current meters, it would be

>> No.11095544

>>11095540
That seems trivial we could just use Planck length and time and it would be invariable

>> No.11095545

>>11095528
I haven't actually heard that theory before anon :) so you think it's just bouncing around in the medium and appearing to travel slower?
That theory goes against what is taught at college but it's still pretty cool :)
And you didn't need QM to explain it :) /sci/ is not going like that lol

>> No.11095548

light moves at light speed
the number is just converting that to man made units
thats it really

>> No.11095550

>>11095540
if someone asks "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.

>> No.11095551 [DELETED] 

>>11095545
>Never heard of relativity
I think you're on the wrong board anon

>> No.11096200

>>11095550
>if someone asks "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.
That's because the mile is defined first, and only then is the numeric value of the highway speed limit set in terms of miles.

But for the speed of light, it's a universal constant that had a value even before humans existed, and in fact the definition of the metre is set in terms of c.

To make this more explicit: if you followed >>11094882's suggestion to
>invent a new measure called OPfaggots such that perhaps 1 OPfaggot = 0.3182731 meters
then the speed of light would be ~940 million OPfaggots per second. In which case, when asked "Why is the speed of light 940 million OPfaggots per second, and not some other number like 300million?", referring to the definition of the OPfaggot is a legitimate answer.

Keep in mind that >>11094179 asked
>Why not another number instead for example?
Keyword being "number", not value, which indicates that the answer must be sensitive to the choice of units.