[ 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: 22 KB, 600x600, who.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9680082 No.9680082 [Reply] [Original]

Brainlet here this has been bothering me for like... a week now and it freaks me out the more I think about it.

>The speed of light is stopped and represented by the constant. C
>C is not the speed of light but merely the speed of light is subject to the limitations of the universe represented by the maximum speed an object can go in the universe: C
>The closer you get to C the slower time goes until you reach C which happens to reduce time moving forward to 0.
>Anything past C is impossible. Cannot happen
>Scientists do not know why C is what it is.
>This one value that is arbitrarily there WE HAVE NO IDEA WHY IT IS
>WHO PUT IT THERE!!!!
WHO PUT IT THERE?! HOW IS THIS VALUE MADE?! GAAAAAAAAH I AM PROBABLY ASKING THE COMPLETELY WRONG QUESTION AND I AM TOO STUPID TO COMPREHEND IT

>> No.9680084

>>9680082
physics doesn't tell you "why". It simply allows you to model the universe based on a set of principles.

>> No.9680089

>>9680082
You realize that C is one of many constants in the universe? If you really want a puzzle, look into the cosmological constant and why it is a given value
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

>> No.9680102

>>9680089
Yes there are many. this is a really good one. Thanks. yep. Now I can double down on the shit I can't fucking understand and makes me think there has to be some sort of ethereal presence with abilities far beyond human understanding NO ITS FINE

>> No.9680134
File: 16 KB, 333x332, main-qimg-182c973f248ccda22e038c586300f62f.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9680134

c isn't a random value. it's related to other universal constants. you can derive it with maxwell's equations.

>> No.9680309

>>9680134
You can derive the permittivity of free space from c too

>> No.9680440
File: 45 KB, 697x389, electroVShydro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9680440

>>9680082
Space has something like density and compressibility that defines the speed of light.

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

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

>> No.9680444

>>9680082
Think of C as the limit between a timelike and a spacelike trajectory.

>> No.9680447
File: 8 KB, 229x220, 1519365996080.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9680447

>>9680082
>implying that c is not equal to 1
lol

>> No.9681364

>>9680134
wrong
those constants describe spacetime more than anything, c is more fundamental than that

>> No.9681396
File: 57 KB, 611x600, EyfVqdB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9681396

>>9680082
>The speed of light is stopped
...hmmm, that sounds stupid....
>>9680082
>>C is not the speed of light
Ok, that's definitely wrong...
>>9680082
>>WHO PUT IT THERE!!!!
Wow, full retard achieved.

>> No.9681407
File: 7 KB, 272x186, thumbsup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9681407

>>9680447

>> No.9681422

>>9680082
Speed limit is a bit misleading when describing C.

If you think about a "speed limit" but you are thinking from the perspective of Newtonian physics, it won't make sense.

>> No.9682216

>>9681422
No, describing "c" as being the cosmic speed limit is much closer to the truth than describing "c" as being simply the speed of light. "c" is the parameter of the Lorentz transformation, which governs how fast anything can go in our spacetime.

>> No.9682303

>>9680102

there is definitely a logic to it but sadly

a. it probably defies the limits of modern human intelligence

b. it probably spits in the face of at least some of our current conceptions regarding higher physics.

it's easy to think our beliefs are rock solid, but you can tell just by looking at the past that we can have things right while still making major flaws of judgement. the concepts of ether and humours comes to mind.

I personally think the concept of space-time, or at least how we define and understand it, is going to change drastically in the future.

>> No.9682306

>>9682216

the problem is that it's all fucking relative. if you keep accelerating to infinity in space you are only reaching a point where you have to expend more energy to go faster relative to your point of measurement. you can just change your relative point to something near your current speed and mathematically it all just goes back to normal.

>> No.9682329

If there wasn't a maximum speed then it would get really hard to calculate the physics on super fast objects for the computer that's simulating the universe. Same reason there's a minimum distance

>> No.9682337

>>9680082
That question doesn't make you a brainlet.

Unlike pi or e, it's not defined by a logical relationship.

>>9680089
Unlike the cosmological constant it's not a placeholder for undiscovered forms of energy or matter.

>>9680440
This is really just a fancy way of saying that nothing is faster than c because nothing can be less dense than the vacuum of space. Since c is the speed of light in a vacuum (least dense medium possible), this is already part of the definition so defining it mathematically and then saying QED is kind of gratuitous and a tad arrogant.

To answer your question OP, nobody really knows. Some people think of it as the limit to the propagation of information in the universe. This is supported by the fact that information can't be transferred through quantum entanglement (decoherence happens instantaneously [FTL]). This is known as the no-communication theorem. Some people look at this as evidence that we're in a simulation/emulation and that c is the maximum speed at which information can load. C could also be a side effect of our universe being in a false vacuum since the higher energy state of that vacuum would have some intrinsic density.

Keep asking the questions OP and don't let people call you a brainlet. I love you OP.

>> No.9682526

>>9680082
Hint: It's close to exactly 300,000,000 m/s but it's not quite there.

Think about what this could mean in the context of G-d.

You're close

>> No.9682529

>>9680082
obviously this speed is explained by some property of space-time such as its length or rigidity or etc.

>> No.9682531

>>9680082
The brainlet answer:
There's nothing faster than it that we know of. And all light moves at around the same speed. So it's a constant.

>> No.9682584

>>9682531
C is not a constant, it varies with everything else.

VSL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

just google to find other papers and such.

>> No.9682589

>>9680447
Shankar plz go

>> No.9682746

>>9682584
>C is not a constant, it varies with everything else.
Citations please. Your wikipedia link is not that.

>> No.9682779

Speed cannot be infinite. This would result in destruction of whatever matter or particle is moving. Light behaves in a way that moves at its pace due to the particle shape, size, and density. Don't worry about what happens when something is faster than light because it doesn't necessarily mean that it is faster than time. It merely means that, if light were to move faster, it wouldn't be observably static and, therefore (by our standards of time) would be chaotic, unpredictable, sporadic, and ultimately random. Other particles and adjacent theorems suggest that that's what happens when something is able to surpass C. You get a sort of popping in and out of existence sort of phenomenon but it's not really due to time. Only gravity impacts time.

>> No.9682804

>>9682584
It's close enough to a constant that you can call it constant relative to the slight variations. For the layman this is enough.
If you're super autistic then sure, don't consider it a constant and recalculate for different things.

>> No.9682810

>>9682804
It also depends on what you're trying to calculate.

>> No.9682816

A fundamental question. A good one. Great work OP, very few have the creativity to think like you do.

Simple answer.

Nobody knows why the value of C is what it is.

The person who can provide an answer to why light travels at this speed in a vacuum, and not some other speed, will likely uncover some fundamental property of nature which will be shattering in its impact upon our knowledge.

To you retards who cant understand OP's question. Jesus Christ, if there is just one thing you stupid fucking morons should just learn, it is to shut the fuck up.

>> No.9682821
File: 464 KB, 1211x1200, 1488420098046.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9682821

>>9680082
Anon what you don't understand is that there isn't some specific value of C which could be higher or lower. It's that the rest of the universe is all measured relative to this constant

C is "the maximum speed". It doesn't matter which measuring system you use and it doesn't matter that the number looks weird. The reality of C takes precedence over the measuring system we use to describe it. C is not a speed, it is "the speed". And all other speeds are merely fractions of C in [0.0, 1.0]

>> No.9682824

>>9682529
One of the few people in this thread who understands the question.

>> No.9683223

>>9680089
fine structure constant is also fucked up

>> No.9684188

>>9680082
Does light travel at c?

>> No.9684839

>>9681364
Matter, energy, spactime and C are all intimately linked. That is literally what GR and SR revealed.

>> No.9685019

>>9680447
nuclear physics phd here. I can't even remember the last time I explicitly wrote a c. Maybe in a quals problem.

>> No.9685031
File: 6 KB, 445x431, 1315625368311.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9685031

christ.
all massless particles travel at the speed of light. It's not arbitrary. and it's not a literal speed limit. But obviously you can't go faster because the particle is already the lightest it can be (massless)

>> No.9685049

>>9685031
>massless particles travel at the speed of light
true
>It's not arbitrary.
Debatable. Why is it 3e8 m/s and not 2e7 m/s?
>But obviously you can't go faster because the particle is already the lightest it can be (massless)
that's word salad. that isn't physics.

>> No.9685060

>>9685049
it's arbitrary in a different sense. It's just a measurement taken based on an arbitrary number system. Based on this number system we get a certain measurement. and that measurement is the same for massless particles

>> No.9685061

>>9685049

why cant light travel faster than the speed of light?

>> No.9685099

>>9680082
First of all, stop trying to reason it out. What 'makes the most sense' is NOT how the truth of ideas is established. Whether it makes sense to you or not is irrelevant.

Second, see >>9680084

Lastly, c is constant precisely because it doesn't depend on your velocity. Light always travels away from you at a specific velocity, which we have denoted c. Since light is the first thing to be observed to travel at this velocity, it is colloquially known as the speed of light. But as modern physics has shown us, any particle with zero mass can travel at the speed of light. Gravitational waves, for example, also travel at the speed of light.

You're confusing the semantics. The speed of light was named so because, big fucking surprise, it was the velocity of light. It wasn't until later that physicists established that the speed of light was constant. It then was decided that this constant would be referred to as "c", and the velocity of light, v_L, is v_L = c.

>> No.9685728

>>9685060
number system has nothing to do with it
Dumbest comment I've seen for a while,
and that's saying a lot

>> No.9686027

>>9685049
>Debatable. Why is it 3e8 m/s and not 2e7 m/s?
meter was previously defined by the distance of a meridian arc, then since the earth changes over time so did the definition of a meter, so we kept rebasing it to something else (but each time we'd make it so the definition of a meter was around the same)

eventually we moved to light, since it's constant
we defined it in such a way that the meter is around the same length it was before and such that it's based off light

>> No.9686093

>>9682329
But what about the universe the computer is in?

>> No.9686114

If you point two flashlights at each other, aren't the photons from one moving at 2C relative to the photons from the other?

>> No.9686157

>>9686114
Nope

>> No.9686272

>>9686027
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.9686296

>>9686272
yeah well here's your answer
>we don't have an exact reason

>> No.9686370
File: 1.53 MB, 420x314, perfecto.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9686370

>>9686296

>> No.9686453

What are all these people saying no one knows why C is C? It dropped out of Maxwell's equations before Einstein was sucking tit.

>> No.9686461

>>9680082
why is 1 = 1 and 2 = 2
the speed of light is based on metres which we defined in the past, probably on something like "the lenght of three wrists" or something.
seconds are defined based on days, and days is based on the rotation of earth

the speed of light is just entropy, don't think too much about it

>> No.9686516

Science is not a religion, unless you can't explain why.

>> No.9686522

>>9686453
Because that doesn't resolve the question, just kicks the can down the road, asking the same question in a different way: why are the permittivity and permeability of free space what they are?

>> No.9686568

>>9686461
>the speed of light is based on metres
>seconds are defined based on days
Before you start posting blatantly incorrect information, couldn't you just take a 10 sec google search to educate yourself

>> No.9686743
File: 112 KB, 573x572, 64321659.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9686743

>>9685728
>number system isn't relevant to a question involving numbers
also>>9685049
>why is the length of my dick 4 inches?!!?
>why not 5 inches?!?
because that's what we we measured your peepee as based on what we define as an inch.
the speed of light c is a measured value for all massless particles

>> No.9686768

>>9686461
The metre is defined as 1/10000000th of the distance from north or south pole to the equator