Relativity: Is "c" Speed in Vacuum Only?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the speed of light, denoted as "c," in the context of relativistic calculations. Participants explore whether "c" refers strictly to the speed of light in a vacuum or if it can also apply to light traveling through different media, such as water. The conversation touches on concepts of time dilation and the implications of using different values of light speed in relativistic equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if the speed of light in relativistic calculations is strictly the speed in a vacuum or if it can also refer to its speed in a medium, such as water.
  • Another participant asserts that the speed of light in a medium is less than "c," but the invariant speed in relativistic equations remains "c" (299792458 m/s).
  • A later reply clarifies that while particles can exceed the speed of light in a medium, they still travel slower than "c," leading to the phenomenon of Cherenkov radiation.
  • Further contributions explain that the fundamental constant for relativistic calculations is fixed and that the slowing of light in a medium can be understood through classical and quantum mechanical perspectives.
  • One participant humorously acknowledges the complexity of the explanations provided, indicating a mix of technical understanding and light-heartedness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the speed of light in a vacuum is the constant used for relativistic calculations, but there is some debate regarding the implications of light speed in different media and the nature of light's behavior in those contexts.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include the dependence on definitions of speed in different contexts, the complexity of quantum mechanical interactions, and the nuances of how light behaves in various materials, which remain unresolved.

Jimber-Jaw
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi all. New to PFs. I deal in (exotic) human biology, which happens to have put me at the intersection of fields and, in this instance, conceptually more challenging physics. I'm presently involved in a comparative analysis of biological versus physical time contraction-dilation. I happen to have a question for the experts on relativistic time dilation, if I may cut-the-chase:

Does the speed of light term in relativistic calculations strictly only refer to its speed in a vacuum or could it also be that in a substance, say, e.g., water, where it's speed happens to be some 25 % less?

Thanks, much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
c is the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light in a medium is < c.
 
Thanks
 
Jimber-Jaw said:
Does the speed of light term in relativistic calculations strictly only refer to its speed in a vacuum or could it also be that in a substance, say, e.g., water, where it's speed happens to be some 25 % less?

The question is not completely clear:

If you mean the speed of light than the answer is yes, it is less c in a medium.

If you mean the invariant speed in relatistic equations than the answer is no, it is always 299792458 m/s.
 
I meant the second one. Thanks.
 
Jimber-Jaw said:
Does the speed of light term in relativistic calculations strictly only refer to its speed in a vacuum or could it also be that in a substance, say, e.g., water, where it's speed happens to be some 25 % less?
It is possible for a particle to move faster than the speed of light in a material, but still slower than c (the speed of light in vacuum). When that happens you get a very characteristic radiation called Cherenkov radiation.
 
Thanks Dale. Specifically, I was wondering whether the speed of light term, c, was actually a constant, such that only it's value in a vacuum coukd be used for relativistic calculations or whether one could use its value through matter.

Thanks all, I think Dr. Stupid resolved it for me: if you tinker with relativity, always use the value for a vacuum.

... moving on and without sucking up more oxygen.
 
To concur with previous posts the fundamental constant for the purpose of relativistic calculations etc is fixed. In another sense the speed of light doesn't really slow down.

The slowing of light as it passes through a medium can be thought of classically as the response of the charge in the material lagging behind the externally applied electric field so that the sum of the external field and the displacement field falls behind. The wave slows, but the wave isn't purely the free electric field. It includes the responding field from the moving charges which can be slow.

In a QM sense, if the electronic energy states in the material had a transition with the correct energy the light would be absorbed. By the uncertainty principle on a short enough time scale the allowed energies are not well determined. A photon will be temporarily absorbed into virtual electronic state for a period of time until the uncertainty in the transition energy falls to below the energy difference to the nearest allowed transition at which point the photon must be reemitted. The delay from the virtual absorption grows as the energy of the virtual state approaches the energy of a real allowed transition because it takes longer for the uncertainty to resolve that the virtual absorption is not allowed. Thus the speed of light slows ( and the index of refraction grows) as the photon energy approaches an absorption line (or edge, or let's say feature) which is one way to explain dispersion.
 
Your physical kung-fu just scared the bejesus out of my biological kung-fu :nb) :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K