High School Is E=mc² the Formula for the Speed of Light?

Click For Summary
The speed of light is defined as exactly 299,792,458 meters per second, which establishes the meter's definition. While E=mc² is a famous equation, it does not represent the speed of light; instead, c can be derived from electromagnetic constants as c = 1/√(ε₀μ₀). Historically, the speed of light was measured over a known distance, but modern definitions fix its value, making it a conversion factor in measurements. The latest SI unit revisions have altered the status of constants like ε₀ and μ₀, which are now subject to measurement rather than being exact values. Overall, the speed of light serves as a fundamental link between distance and time in physics.
TaurusSteve
Messages
24
Reaction score
16
TL;DR
Speed Of Light Formula
What is the equation/formula for the Speed Of Light? E=mc²? I thought it would be simple to find in a search.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's defined. There's no formula for it.

Historically it was measured by timing its flight over a known distance, just as you'd measure the speed of anything else. But modern understanding lead to the idea that you measure time and define the speed of light to be a specific value. Then distance units are defined in terms of how far light travels in a certain time.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
TaurusSteve said:
Summary:: Speed Of Light Formula

What is the equation/formula for the Speed Of Light? E=mc²? I thought it would be simple to find in a search.

The speed of light is, nowadays, defined to be exactly 299,792,458 metres per second; hence defining the metre.

You can also get it from the electromagnetic constants: ##c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}##
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog, jedishrfu and Ibix
Ibix said:
It's defined. There's no formula for it.

Historically it was measured by timing its flight over a known distance, just as you'd measure the speed of anything else. But modern understanding lead to the idea that you measure time and define the speed of light to be a specific value. Then distance units are defined in terms of how far light travels in a certain time.
Ah ok cheers!
 
Just to add - for any wave, its speed is its wavelength times its frequency, so ##c=f\lambda##. For electromagnetic waves, also ##c=1/\sqrt{\epsilon_0\mu_0}##, where the two constants in the square root are the permittivity and permeability of free space. These appear to be ways to calculate ##c##, and there are probably other formulae that didn't occur to me just now. But all of them have one thing in common - if you track through the measurements and calculations you make you will find that somewhere you used the defined value of ##c##, most probably when you measured a distance or length. So they are just complicated ways of hiding the definition.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog, vanhees71 and jedishrfu
Ibix said:
for any wave, its speed is its wavelength times its frequency

More precisely, its phase velocity is its wavelength times its frequency.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog, vanhees71 and jedishrfu
PeterDonis said:
More precisely, its phase velocity is its wavelength times its frequency.
True. But it's a distinction without a difference for light in vacuum as far as I'm aware, so I glossed over it in a B level thread.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog, vanhees71 and jedishrfu
TaurusSteve said:
Summary:: Speed Of Light Formula

What is the equation/formula for the Speed Of Light? E=mc²? I thought it would be simple to find in a search.
Physics just describes how things are. c is a constant as far as we know. That's all. No equation.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and jedishrfu
The speed of light equals 1. :-p
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes vela, vanhees71 and Omega0
  • #10
PeroK said:
The speed of light is, nowadays, defined to be exactly 299,792,458 metres per second; hence defining the metre.
Correct.
You can also get it from the electromagnetic constants: ##c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}##
This is correct in a sense of theoretical physics but it is not correct in the sense of measurement technology. ##\epsilon_0## or ## \mu_0## are meanwhile things we have to measure. They aren't given anymore as defined constants.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #11
True, it also shows that ##c## is just a conversion factor defining the system of units. In theoretical physics we set all the inconvenient conversion constants (##c##, ##\hbar##, ##k_{\text{B}}##,...) to 1. Exactly the same is done since last year in the definition of the SI units, only that one chooses somewhat more convenient values, defining practical units such that you get convenient values for physical quantities relevant in everyday life and engineering.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog and PeroK
  • #12
Omega0 said:
This is correct in a sense of theoretical physics but it is not correct in the sense of measurement technology. ##\epsilon_0## or ## \mu_0## are meanwhile things we have to measure. They aren't given anymore as defined constants.

I was under the impression that ##\mu_0## has the exact value of ##4 \pi \times 10^{-7}\ \mathrm{N/A^2}##, and since ##c## has an exact value so does ##\epsilon_0##.
 
  • #13
Mister T said:
I was under the impression that μ0\mu_0 has the exact value of 4π×10−7 N/A24 \pi \times 10^{-7}\ \mathrm{N/A^2},

It used to, but in the latest SI revision it is no longer exact.
 
  • Like
Likes Omega0 and vanhees71
  • #14
In fact the electrodynamic quantities got the "largest" redefinition. If I remember right units like the Ohm got redefinitions at the order of ##10^{-9}##. If needed, I can try to find the citations for this. I think it can be found at NIST and other national metrological institutes.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy
  • #16
Great! That's the link I've been after. First read the Brochure, which gives the formal definitions of all units (except the second) in terms of fixing fundamental constants. Only the second uses a "material constants", namely the hyperfine transition of Cs atomic states, i.e., fixing ##\nu_{\text{Cs}}##. All the units of course are linked together via the definition of the fundamental constants (which are in fact becoming just conversion factors from natural units to SI units), ##h##, ##e##, ##k_{\text{B}}##, ##N_{\text{A}}##, starting from the definition of the second.

To see how the definitions are realized in practice and about the contemporary accuracy, see

https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/mises-en-pratique/

There they give the uncertainty ##\mu_0## has now on p. 6 of the mises en pratique for the Ampere.
 
  • #17
vanhees71 said:
In fact the electrodynamic quantities got the "largest" redefinition. If I remember right units like the Ohm got redefinitions at the order of ##10^{-9}##. If needed, I can try to find the citations for this. I think it can be found at NIST and other national metrological institutes.
A nice thing for you to read (written in German) is the following: https://www.ptb.de/cms/presseaktuel...taebe/massstaebe-heft-14-masse-fuer-alle.html
In the printed version there is a nice extra brochure explaining the relations between the constansts in nature and the measurement process. I am not a collector but this edtion of the "Maßstäbe" is something I really recommend because of the big change in 2019. Sounds enthusiastic but for everyone able to read German: Get it!

PS: The extra brochure is especially awesome, it shows the dependency of the natural constants and the measurement process!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #18
The speed of light may be thought of as the "conversion factor between distance and time".

If we take the speed of light to be 3 x 10^8 metres/second this means that in spacetime, 3 x 10^8 metres of distance is equal to 1 second of time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
5K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
589
Replies
60
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K