/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15951826]

>"The speed of light is a constant because... IT JUST IS, OKAY?"

[Anonymous No.15951829]

>>15951826
>The speed of light is a constant
It's not
light travels with different speeds in various mediums.

[Anonymous No.15951832]

>>15951829
Op is clearly referring to the speed of light in a vacuum

[Anonymous No.15951833]

if we can change the speed of light or slow it down, we could become a black hole in the universe and nobody will invade this solar system

[Anonymous No.15951840]

>>15951832
that only makes it an even more ridiculous and absurd and non-disprovable claim. vacuum does not exist anywhere in this universe. non-disprovable claims are not science.

[Anonymous No.15951855]

>>15951840
>The critical density for the Universe is approximately 10 -26 kg/m 3 (or 10 hydrogen atoms per cubic metre)
it kinda is a vacuum between those 10 atoms in a cubic meter.

[Anonymous No.15951872]

>the speed of light is a constant because ... it can be derived from Maxwell's equations as c = (mu_0 epsilon_0)^-1/2

[Anonymous No.15951999]

>>15951832
There is no such thing as a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.15952002]

>>15951832
>vacuum
It's only a "vacuum" when you have nothing else to compare it to.

[Barkun No.15952006]

>>15952002
>that
>don't do
>that, do

[Anonymous No.15952023]

>>15951833
cool science fiction bro, add white dwarfs to that, and string theory and make a movie

[Anonymous No.15952062]

>>15951826
>scale invariance
>made of light
>FUUUU-
same reasoning for why 2 is 2

[Anonymous No.15952065]

>>15952002
yeah but that's like the closest to "nothing". got anything even closer to nothing?

[Anonymous No.15952116]

>>15951872
>one constant is defined by two other constants
retard

[Anonymous No.15953235]

>>15951829
Akshually....light does travel at the same speed regardless of the medium. What happens in say water where light travels over a given distance slower than that same distance in a vacuum is that the light in water is being absorbed and emitted as it comes into contact with particles in the water. The absorbing/emitting takes time to occur which is the apparent loss in speed, but each emission is still at the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.15953309]

>>15953235
wrong

[Anonymous No.15953323]

>>15953235
Absolute state of (You)

[Anonymous No.15953338]

>>15953309
>>15953323
>In exotic materials like Bose–Einstein condensates near absolute zero, the effective speed of light may be only a few metres per second. However, this represents absorption and re-radiation delay between atoms, as do all slower-than-c speeds in material substances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

[Anonymous No.15953387]

>>15953338
using wikipedia is confessing that you have no idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.15953410]

>>15953387
>Is it possible to slow light down?
>The short answer is No. Einstein's theory of special relativity is based on the idea that the speed of light is always constant. However, we CAN make it take longer for light to travel a set distance
>When light enters a material, photons are absorbed by the atoms in that material, increasing the energy of the atom. The atom will then lose energy after some tiny fraction of time, emitting a photon in the process. This photon, which is identical to the first, travels at the speed of light until it is absorbed by another atom and the process repeats
https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae509.cfm
maybe you're joking. I don't know. I don't know much of anything. But I know that in this case re: light-speed, you're mistooken

[Anonymous No.15953424]

>>15951855
Not taking into account the underlying energy field permeating the entire universe

[Anonymous No.15953450]

>>15953410
>take longer for light to travel a set distance
hmmm, i wonder what this means...

[Anonymous No.15953466]

>>15953450
It means the light's average speed over some distance including when it's absorbed and not its instantaneous speed which is the speed it actually travels at when it's moving independently

[Anonymous No.15953470]

>DA SPEEEEDEEE UUVV LITEEEE!!!!
OMG ITS SOOO FAST!!!
POWERFUL!!!

[Anonymous No.15953487]

>>15953466
So you think light travels through the water with a speed that is a fraction of c, but if you calculate the instantaneous speed of the same light that travels through water, you'd get c?

[Anonymous No.15953492]

>>15953487
>if you calculate the instantaneous speed
if you calculate the instantaneous speed at any point in time*

[Anonymous No.15953539]

>>15953487
The speed through the water over some distance includes absorptions and emissions of the photons as they interact with the particles during the journey. It's basically constantly stopping and starting again. But if you measure the speed of the light when it's not absorbed and is actually progressing through the medium it would be c.

Like if you caught a bus from A to B, then stopped, then started again and went to C, you wouldn't include the time the bus was stopped if someone asked you how many m/s does the bus travel. If they ask the total time from A to C in m/s then that would be the bus's average speed for the entire journey but not necessarily the speed that a bus travels at when moving

[Anonymous No.15953544]

>>15951832
Einstein wasn't the first one to say this, anyhow. OP is a troon pseud.

[Anonymous No.15953574]

>This thread again

It's an induction, not a speed

[Anonymous No.15953658]

>>15951829

This.
Referring to c as the "speed of light" telegraphs that you are a midwit.
It's just a metaphore, but not a very good one.
Feel free to look down your nose at anyone who mixes up the concepts.

[Anonymous No.15953663]

>"The Special Theory of Relativity
>By A. Einstein, 1905
>1. The speed of light (c) is a constant;
>2. There are no universal or preferred frames of reference.
>(...)"

[Anonymous No.15953679]

>>15951826
Just think about trains until you "get it", dumb dumb. It's not THAT hard

[Anonymous No.15953681]

>>15953387
>if I contradict wikipedia I must be correct!