- #1
Strangerone
- 10
- 0
Is there any published theory that explain and proves why the speed of light is exactly 299 792 458 merters per second ? I do not know of any ! Do you ?
Best regards
Me :-)
Best regards
Me :-)
As Phrak mentioned this is a result of the http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/metre.html" . This definition was chosen because measurements of the speed of light immediately prior to this time had become so precise that the primary source of error was the uncertainty in previous standards for the meter.Strangerone said:Is there any published theory that explain and proves why the speed of light is exactly 299 792 458 merters per second ? I do not know of any ! Do you ?
The most popular FAQs seem to be the value of c, the reference frame of a photon, and the twins' paradox. I think that all of them are about once per week on average, but very "streaky" with the first in a streak quickly prompting two or three others and then it dies down for a month or so.epenguin said:Does this happen every week? (Or is it like London buses, which come rarely but then three at a time?)![]()
D'oh! You are absolutely right. And that one is actually even more frequent than it appears since it gets split between here and the QM forum.Fredrik said:That must be a great comment, because I was thinking almost exactly the same thing.But you forgot to mention the mass of the photon.
DaleSpam said:D'oh! You are absolutely right. And that one is actually even more frequent than it appears since it gets split between here and the QM forum.
Naty1 said:Maxwell's equations compute the speed of light as 1/(sq rt [(permittivity)(permeability)]
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
under "In Vacuum"...and played a big part in causing Einstein to develop special relativity
You seem to think that there is some reason for the value of these constants other than the choice of units. There is not.
(my boldface.)The usual treatment (e.g., Einstein's original work) is based on the invariance of the speed of light. However, this is not necessarily the starting point: indeed (as is exposed, for example, in the second volume of the Course in Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifgarbagez), what is really at stake is the locality of interactions: one supposes that the influence that one particle, say, exerts on another can not be transmitted instantaneously. Hence, there exists a theoretical maximal speed of information transmission which must be invariant, and it turns out that this speed coincides with the speed of light in vacuum.
There is only math related to these observed constants. But why does scientists accept this?
Naty1 said:while reading Wikipedia just now on Lorentz Transformations,
under DERIVATIONS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
I (accidentally) came across the following...
(my boldface.)
I don't doubt what is said, but neither do I understand it...this is kind of the point I was trying to make in my last post above...I've never seen a statement quite like this...Anybody know what the above text says about WHY the speed of information transmission must be invariant?
I do not think you understand it.Strangerone said:What is the exact physical reality behind these observed constants. Theres is, as far as I know, no published theory that can tell this. There is only math related to these observed constants. But why does scientists accept this?
*IF* you can prove what Landau says, that is that:Naty1 said:while reading Wikipedia just now on Lorentz Transformations,
under DERIVATIONS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
I (accidentally) came across the following...
...
I don't doubt what is said, but neither do I understand it...this is kind of the point I was trying to make in my last post above...I've never seen a statement quite like this...Anybody know what the above text says about WHY the speed of information transmission must be invariant?
If with "why light speed is what it is" you mean the *numerical value*, then, as others have explained, there is no deep reason, just choice of units. If you mean "It's a constant for a reason" and you are talking about the experimental fact (and not the theory, because in the theory it's constant as postulate), then we can discuss about it...Naty1 said:If I understand this comment correctly, I could not disagree more. The purpose of physics is to both explain how things work (say via math) and also why they work. We are not so good at the latter as the former, I think.
There has to be an underlying reason why light speed is what it is, regardless of units chosen...
Lights moves at "it's own pace" regardless of the units we choose to use to describe it's speed. It's a contsant for a reason and has a value for a reason. Electromagnetic waves propagate at "c" for a fundamental reason(s) that is as yet unknown. (I can guess why c is constant because if it varied a lot, nothing would be here...electromagnetic waves would take on a life of their own and atoms would likely never form or if they did would likely break apart immediately...)
And there is a mass energy equivalent involving lightspeed for reasons I have not seen...why should mass and energy be related by lightspeed? Exactly what causes mass? all of these are unanswered "why" questions.
Dale is (almost) correct. I say almost because a poor choice of standards will result in poorer comparison of experimental results. Dale is completely correct in that our choices are quite arbitrary. The meter is not an inherently better unit of length than a foot or a furlong or a light year.Naty1 said:If I understand this comment correctly, I could not disagree more.DaleSpam said:You seem to think that there is some reason for the value of these constants other than the choice of units. There is not.
This is a lay mischaracterization of science. Physics explains how, not why. While physicists are obtaining an ever deeper understanding of how the universe operates, at some point the answer to a "why" question is exactly the same answer you got when you kept pestering your parents: "because that's the way it is".Naty1 said:The purpose of physics is to both explain how things work (say via math) and also why they work. We are not so good at the latter as the former, I think.
To slightly derail the thread. The original definition of the metre was 1/10,000,000 the distance from the North Pole to the equator. The intention was that by making the metre based on known physical constant (the radius of the Earth) there would be no need to make unreliable copies - since anyone with a knowledge of surveying could make their own standard.The meter is not an inherently better unit of length than a foot or a furlong or a light year...
The meter was, for a long time, the distance between two scratch marks on a metal bar kept under strict environmental conditions in some building in Paris. Copies of this metal bar were made (a source of error) ...
A much better approach is to define standards based on some known physical constant. The speed of light is one such physical constant.
Naty1 said:I don't doubt what is said, but neither do I understand it...this is kind of the point I was trying to make in my last post above...I've never seen a statement quite like this...Anybody know what the above text says about WHY the speed of information transmission must be invariant?
The usual treatment (e.g., Einstein's original work) is based on the invariance of the speed of light. However, this is not necessarily the starting point: indeed (as is exposed, for example, in the second volume of the Course in Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifgarbagez), what is really at stake is the locality of interactions: one supposes that the influence that one particle, say, exerts on another can not be transmitted instantaneously. Hence, there exists a theoretical maximal speed of information transmission which must be invariant, and it turns out that this speed coincides with the speed of light in vacuum.
I disagree. The original definition of the meter was inherently faulty in the sense that it was unrealizable and non-standard. The standard was unrealizable because the length of the surface of the Earth from the equator to the North pole is a heck of a lot longer than ten million meters -- how long is the coastline of Brittain? -- and varies with the line of latitude. It is a bad standard. Fortunately, it was never used.mgb_phys said:To slightly derail the thread. ... So in this way it was fundamentally better than earlier units.
Naty1 said:I don't think we should assume this a "acceptable", just that it reflects our current lack of understanding. Maybe when we eventually unify quantum theory and relativity we may gain insights as to how all the constants emerged from "nothing" at the start of the universe...maybe there are an infinite number of such combinations and only a few lead to viable universes, maybe there are only a fixed number of possibilities (analogous to the only three possible shapes of our universe, flat, spherical, saddle shaped) or maybe quantum foam has a group of rigidly fixed "constants" hiding...just waiting to pop out...
It's like asking "Why do scientists accept that we can't cure the common cold". It's because so far "virus's" are smarter than we are!
MeJennifer said:I do not think you understand it.
The question is only whether the speed of light is limited or unlimited. Clearly it is limited but the numerical value is completely arbitrary since it depends solely on the chosen units of measurement.
DaleSpam said:You seem to think that there is some reason for the value of these constants other than the choice of units. There is not. The values of all of the dimensionful fundamental constants are simply an artifact of our choice of units and are therefore completely arbitrary. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units" makes the convenient choice that all of these dimensionful fundamental constants are equal to 1.
It was good idea in theory!D H said:I disagree. The original definition of the meter was inherently faulty in the sense that it was unrealizable and non-standard.
cepheid said:I have that book (Theoretical Physics 2: "Field Theory") but I sincerely have never been able to understand that phrase. While it's an experimental fact that the "influences" we know are not transmitted instantaneously, why do we need to suppose a general validity of it?The usual treatment (e.g., Einstein's original work) is based on the invariance of the speed of light. However, this is not necessarily the starting point: indeed (as is exposed, for example, in the second volume of the Course in Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifgarbagez), what is really at stake is the locality of interactions: one supposes that the influence that one particle, say, exerts on another can not be transmitted instantaneously. Hence, there exists a theoretical maximal speed of information transmission,which must be invariant and it turns out that this speed coincides with the speed of light in vacuum.
Yes, there is always at least one arbitrary man-made convention at the bottom of any dimensionful physical constant.Strangerone said:There seem to be a manmade constant at the bottom of this bottle wherever I look ! First, the constant of C, then the constant "permittivity and permeability" related to the medium of space, and now the value of "ampere" which is a consequense of the "magnetic constant", also known as the permeability of free space, measured at exactly 4 x 10–7 henries per metre, 0 = 4 x 10–7 H/m.
How can you even express a dimensionful quantity like the speed of light without choosing units (let alone answering questions about why it is what it is)? Do you understand the difference between dimensionless and dimensionful quantities?Naty1 said:There has to be an underlying reason why light speed is what it is, regardless of units chosen...
This is exactly correct, and is precisely why I explicitly limited my comment to dimensionful physical constants only. As you mention, a complete Theory Of Everything would eliminate the current http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html" . That does not apply to dimensionful physical constants like c, which would still be defined by arbitrary man-made conventions even within a complete Theory of Everything.cepheid said:Your discussion of a "theory of everything" possibly leading to a greater understanding of what these "magic numbers" are is, as far as I know, only applicable to dimensionless fundamental constants. This is not the same situation at all as it is with the speed of light. The operative words in the OP's original question were why is the speed of light exactly what it is in metres per second?
Naty1 said:Anybody know what the above text says about WHY the speed of information transmission must be invariant?