B Why does light move at the speed it does

[RobC]

Why does light move at the speed it does, why not half the speed or double?

 

[Herman Trivilino]

Why does light move at the speed it does, why not half the speed or double?

There's nothing special about the value. A change of units will change its value so that tells you its value depends on whatever (arbitrary) choice was made for the sizes of those units.

 

[RobC]

What I am saying is that why does it not travel at 150000 m/sec or 600000 m/sec ? Why 300000 m/sec ?
Sorry, should have added 000 to all the speeds.

 

[PeterDonis]

why does it not travel at 150000 m/sec or 600000 m/sec ? Why 300000 m/sec ?

Because we define the meter and the second the way we define them. It's not really meaningful to ask this kind of question about a number with units, since you can always change the number by changing the units.

A question that's more about an actual physical constant is a question about a dimensionless number, such as the fine structure constant--that's the one that is most closely related to the speed at which we observe light to move. But if you ask why the fine structure constant has the value it has, the answer is that we don't know: we don't have a theory that predicts that it should have a particular value, we just measure the value it actually has. (This measurement does not depend on our choice of units, since the fine structure constant is dimensionless.) So that's probably the best answer to the underlying question you are asking.

 

[RobC]

I have a feeling that there is something that we are missing and discovering why light travels at the speed it does has some fundamental significance,

 

[Ibix]

Another way to look at it is that relativity models space and time as part of a four-dimensional entity called spacetime. In this picture, the speed of light turns out to be the natural conversion factor between time and distance units. Just as it would be silly to use meters for left and right, feet for forwards and backwards, and fathoms for up and down, you can make a case that we should use the same unit for time and distance (e.g. seconds and light-seconds), which makes the speed of light "naturally" be 1.

Then your question is back to front. The question is - why do we use one second as a time unit and silly things like 3.3×10^-9 of a light second as a unit of distance? The answer, of course, is because we happen to be built on a scale where 3.3 light nano seconds is about as far as our monkey arms can reach and one second is about as fast as our monkey hearts happen to tick. So they are convenient units.

 

[mfb]

I have a feeling that there is something that we are missing and discovering why light travels at the speed it does has some fundamental significance,

It has as much significance as the conversion between miles and kilometers. In some places in everday life (mainly the US) you use miles, elsewhere you use kilometers, and if you want to convert between the two you need this conversion factor. The conversion factor is completely arbitrary and based on the definition of kilometers and miles.

In some places in everday life you use seconds, in others you use meters, and if you want to convert between the two you need this conversion factor. The conversion factor is completely arbitrary and based on the definition of seconds and meters. We could use light seconds instead of meters. That would be less practical, but then the speed of light would be just 1.

 

[Dale]

What I am saying is that why does it not travel at 150000 m/sec or 600000 m/sec ? Why 300000 m/sec ?

Because the BIPM committee met and voted to define the meter that way. There is no physical reason, it was just an arbitrary decision by a committee.

As @PeterDonis mentioned, what you probably actually want to know is why the fine structure constant has the dimensionless value it does.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

I have a feeling that there is something that we are missing and discovering why light travels at the speed it does has some fundamental significance,

It has no more significance than wondering why a meter stick has the length it has.

There are fundamentally important reasons why we need theories that explain the magnitudes of some quantities, and discovering those theories will indeed have fundamental significance. But the speed of light is not one of those quantities.

 

[pixel]

I think the replies may not be addressing RobC's initial question. Sure, you could change the units used for the speed of light and the value would change. I think he is asking why, if we stick to one particular set of units, the speed of light is what it is and not a different value. In other words, why is light as fast as it is. Of course, there's no answer to that.

 

[Dale]

I think he is asking why, if we stick to one particular set of units, the speed of light is what it is and not a different value.

That is the question answered. If you stick to one particular set of units then the speed of light is what it is and not a different value because you have chosen those units and are sticking to them.

If you want a non unit based answer then you need to ask a non unit based question. That would be regarding the fine structure constant as pointed out previously.

 

[pixel]

That is the question answered. If you stick to one particular set of units then the speed of light is what it is and not a different value because you have chosen those units and are sticking to them.

The OP can clarify for us what he is asking, but I don't think it's so much about the value of the speed of light as the property of speed that it has. In other words, what makes light as fast as it is and not faster or slower. If he were asking about sound waves in a medium, we could discuss the elastic properties of the medium etc. to try to explain why sound has the particular speed it does. So light is an electromagnetic wave. The speed of an em wave is given by 1 divided by the square root of (με) where μ is the permeability and ε is the permittivity of the medium. So the speed of light in vacuum is determined by these properties of vacuum. You could of course then ask why these properties are what they are, etc. and will reach a point where you just have to accept that that's the way the universe works and "why" questions can't always be answered.

 

[Nugatory]

So the speed of light in vacuum is determined by these properties of vacuum. You could of course then ask why these properties are what they are, etc. and will reach a point where you just have to accept that that's the way the universe works and "why" questions can't always be answered.

Yes - and that point is reached when you get to the value of one the unitless constants that PeterDonis mentioned in post #4.

 

[Dale]

but I don't think it's so much about the value of the speed of light as the property of speed that it has. In other words, what makes light as fast as it is and not faster or slower.

But "as fast as it is and not faster or slower" refers to the value that the speed has. The only property it has is that it is invariant. "Faster or slower" is not a property but a value, and hence is just a question of units.

The speed of an em wave is given by 1 divided by the square root of (με) where μ is the permeability and ε is the permittivity of the medium. So the speed of light in vacuum is determined by these properties of vacuum.

Those are also artifacts of the SI system of units and are set arbitrarily by a vote of the BIPM committee. Those constants don't even exist under other unit systems.

Again, the real physical question is not about the speed of light but about the fine structure constant. For example, you might want to know why the speed of light is 27 million times faster than the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. That is a dimensionless ratio and if you dig down enough, that will depend on the dimensionless fine structure constant, not the dimensionful speed of light.

 

[pixel]

For example, you might want to know why the speed of light is 27 million times faster than the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. That is a dimensionless ratio and if you dig down enough, that will depend on the dimensionless fine structure constant, not the dimensionful speed of light.

Suppose I want to know why the speed of light is not, say, 30 million times faster than the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow instead of 27?

 

[Dale]

Suppose I want to know why the speed of light is not, say, 30 million times faster than the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow instead of 27?

Again, that is actually a question about the fine structure constant. The dimensionful constants, like c, factor out.

 

[pixel]

"Faster or slower" is not a property but a value, and hence is just a question of units.

A pitcher throws a ball and it takes a certain amount of time to reach the catcher. The next pitch arrives in less time. Is it not faster? Has anyone mentioned units?

 

[Ibix]

A pitcher throws a ball and it takes a certain amount of time to reach the catcher. The next pitch arrives in less time. Is it not faster?

Depends on the frame of reference.

I think @Dale's point is that c isn't just any old speed. It's the only natural speed standard, so is involved in the definition of the units. So asking "why isn't c 6×10⁸m/s" is, in fact, asking why the metre isn't 50cm long. The only questions that we can't turn around like that are about dimensionless quantities such as α. And the only answer we can give to such questions is to take two grand unified theories and call us in the morning.

 

[Dale]

A pitcher throws a ball and it takes a certain amount of time to reach the catcher. The next pitch arrives in less time. Is it not faster? Has anyone mentioned units?

"certain amount of time"

 

[pixel]

"certain amount of time"

Yes, and using any units for that time.

 

[Dale]

Yes, and using any units for that time.

Using any units is not the same as not using units.

There are two ways to assign meaning to a phrase like "certain amount of time". One is to pick a system of units and express it as a dimensionful quantity "the amount of time is 34 s". The other is to pick some other physical reference and express it as a dimensionless ratio "the amount of time is 34 times the amount of time required for this watch to tick".

Questions of the first type (dimensionful->speed of light) wind up being about the unit definitions, not the physics. Questions of the second type (dimensionless->fine structure constant) are independent of units so they can probe the physics.

 

[Nugatory]

A pitcher throws a ball and it takes a certain amount of time to reach the catcher. The next pitch arrives in less time. Is it not faster? Has anyone mentioned units?

The ratio between those two speeds is dimensionless because the units cancel. As with the question about the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of an unladen swallow posed above, if you grind through the physics (this will involve some serious biomechanics and biochemistry because a pitcher's arm is a very complex system, unsuited for thought experiments) you will eventually find that that ratio is what it is because of the value of one or more of the fundamental unitless constants of nature.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

I think he is asking why, if we stick to one particular set of units, the speed of light is what it is and not a different value.

Because of the (arbitrary) choice that was made for the sizes of those units.

In other words, why is light as fast as it is. Of course, there's no answer to that.

Exactly.

 

[nitsuj]

Why does light move at the speed it does, why not half the speed or double?

A question that's more about an actual physical constant is a question about a dimensionless number, such as the fine structure constant--that's the one that is most closely related to the speed at which we observe light to move. But if you ask why the fine structure constant has the value it has, the answer is that we don't know: we don't have a theory that predicts that it should have a particular value, we just measure the value it actually has. (This measurement does not depend on our choice of units, since the fine structure constant is dimensionless.) So that's probably the best answer to the underlying question you are asking.

Why must a mass-less particle travel at c...what about the relationship of momentum, mass and energy means a photon must "go" c?

Does anything about that relationship imply that light cannot go less than c, or faster?

 

[Ibix]

Why must a mass-less particle travel at c...what about the relationship of momentum, mass and energy means a photon must "go" c?

Does anything about that relationship imply that light cannot go less than c, or faster?

Mass is the modulus of the energy-momentum four vector, which is tangent to the particle's worldline. If the mass is non-zero then the particle's worldline is timelike. If it is zero then the particle's worldline is null.

So "it has zero mass" is, in relativity, just another way of saying "it travels at the speed of light".

 

[nitsuj]

Mass is the modulus of the energy-momentum four vector, which is tangent to the particle's worldline. If the mass is non-zero then the particle's worldline is timelike. If it is zero then the particle's worldline is null.

So "it has zero mass" is, in relativity, just another way of saying "it travels at the speed of light".

k, just checking that light moves at the perfect speed!

 

[checksix]

Perhaps the answer that the OP was looking for is that the reason light travels at the speed it does, is because the universe is apparently constructed with a speed limit. Light, being massless, can travel faster than anything else, but it cannot travel faster than the speed limit. Physicists call this speed limit "C" ("celeritas" = Latin for "swiftness"). The actual units (meters per second, miles per hour, etc) are a human construct, but the underlying speed "C" is part of the structure of our universe.

 

[Grinkle]

This thread makes me wonder if there is an anthropic argument as to why the speed of light is as many orders of magnitude away from our everyday experience as it is. If there is any link between the chemistry that makes humans possible, the speed of light, and the values of things like the fine structure constant, then maybe there is a more satisfying answer for the OP. Something along the lines of - 'The only values of the fundamental constants that can support chemistry that enables Life As We Know It puts the value of c roughly where we observe it'.

 

[FactChecker]

Perhaps the answer that the OP was looking for is that the reason light travels at the speed it does, is because the universe is apparently constructed with a speed limit. Light, being massless, can travel faster than anything else, but it cannot travel faster than the speed limit. Physicists call this speed limit "C" ("celeritas" = Latin for "swiftness"). The actual units (meters per second, miles per hour, etc) are a human construct, but the underlying speed "C" is part of the structure of our universe.

I agree. On the simple side, if the speed of light is not infinite, then it must have some speed,c. But that leads to the question of why the speed is c. A more complicated answer is that c is related to other constants of electromagnetism, μ and ε, as @pixel pointed out in post #12. They may not explain the constant c but they all go together in a coherent system. So the value of c does not stand alone, it is intimately related to the strength of fundamental electromagnetic forces.

 

[Dale]

A more complicated answer is that c is related to other constants of electromagnetism, μ and ε,

Those are also just a question of units, set by arbitrary convention, with no other content. They don't even exist in some unit systems.

it is intimately related to the strength of fundamental electromagnetic forces.

This is the fine structure constant, at least in any physically meaningful sense.

 

[FactChecker]

Those are also just a question of units, set by arbitrary convention, with no other content. They don't even exist in some unit systems.

Many questions about magnitude are dependent on units. That does not make them all meaningless questions.

 

[PeterDonis]

Many questions about magnitude are dependent on units. That does not make them all meaningless questions.

No, it just means they don't always mean what the people asking them think they mean. The people asking them often think they are asking a question about physics, when they are really asking a question about human conventions like choices of units.

 

[FactChecker]

No, it just means they don't always mean what the people asking them think they mean. The people asking them often think they are asking a question about physics, when they are really asking a question about human conventions like choices of units.

I don't think that the OP was asking why c was the magic digits 299792458. That is clearly dependent on units. He was asking why it is 299792458 m/s = 186282 mi/sec = etc. etc. etc. and not slower or faster. In any space-time coordinate system, the speed of light is determined and it is proper to ask if there is more logic connected to it than simply measuring it. Just saying that it depends on units doesn't tell him anything he didn't already know..

 

[Dale]

He was asking why it is 299792458 m/s = 186282 mi/sec = etc. etc. etc. and not slower or faster.

Because: http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/metre.html

 

[FactChecker]

Because: http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/metre.html

I will not debate the concept of slower or faster with you. If someone asked you why a bicycle was slower than a 2000 horsepower drag racer, would you say it is because of units?

 

[PeterDonis]

If someone asked you why a bicycle was slower than a 2000 horsepower drag racer, would you say it is because of units?

As has already been said in this thread, ratios of speeds are dimensionless numbers so questions about them are questions about physics, not units.

 

[FactChecker]

As has already been said in this thread, ratios of speeds are dimensionless numbers so questions about them are questions about physics, not units.

And a ratio of 1 is equality, so c = 1/√μ₀ε₀ is saying something. Steering the discussion into units is just distracting.

 

[PeterDonis]

a ratio of 1 is equality

A ratio of two speeds, yes.

so c = 1/√μ0ε0 is saying something

Huh? This isn't a ratio of two speeds.

 

[Nugatory]

Many questions about magnitude are dependent on units. That does not make them all meaningless questions.

It would be easier to respond with a concrete example. What is a question about magnitude that meets all of the following criteria?

1) The answer is dependent on units.
2) The question is not, even on on closer examination, better framed as a question about the ratio of two magnitudes (so that the units cancel).
3) The question meets your standard for being "not ... a meaningless question".​

I submit that any such question will turn out to be about how we're defining our units, not about how the universe works. For example:

And a ratio of 1 is equality, so c = 1/√μ0ε0 is saying something.

It is. It's saying that we've defined the quantities $\mu_0$ and $\epsilon_0$ in such a way that if we ever find that the inverse square root of their product is not equal to $c$ then we need to find a more accurate meter stick; the one that we're using doesn't conform exactly to the standard definition of the meter. Compare this behavior with the fine structure constant and you'll see the difference.

 

[nitsuj]

There was allot of mention about the fine structure being the reason "the speed of light is what it is". are all fundamental forces not constrained to c? Do all those forces have their independent physical reason that by chance constrains them to c?

wiki says that electromagnetic and strong force have been confirmed to be mass-less.

 

[nitsuj]

It would be easier to respond with a concrete example. What is a question about magnitude that meets all of the following criteria?

1) The answer is dependent on units.
2) The question is not, even on on closer examination, better framed as a question about the ratio of two magnitudes (so that the units cancel).
3) The question meets your standard for being "not ... a meaningless question".​

I submit that any such question will turn out to be about how we're defining our units, not about how the universe works.

lol Why are the loud parts of movies too loud, and the quite parts too quite? Natural units please.

 

[mfb]

This thread makes me wonder if there is an anthropic argument as to why the speed of light is as many orders of magnitude away from our everyday experience as it is. If there is any link between the chemistry that makes humans possible, the speed of light, and the values of things like the fine structure constant, then maybe there is a more satisfying answer for the OP. Something along the lines of - 'The only values of the fundamental constants that can support chemistry that enables Life As We Know It puts the value of c roughly where we observe it'.

Chemistry as we know it does not allow macroscopic things to move fast (a significant fraction of the speed of light) in a natural way. The energy involved in chemical reactions is of the order of binding energies, binding energy divided by mass is of the order of $$\alpha^2 \frac{m_e m_p}{(m_e+m_p)^2} \approx \alpha^2 \frac {m_e} {m_p} = 2.90 \cdot 10^{-8}$$ where $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant, $m_e$ is the electron mass and $m_p$ is the proton mass. Note how it is dimensionless - it is small compared to 1, and its value is the same in every unit system. It tells you chemical reactions don't have sufficient energy to accelerate something to relativistic speeds in a realistic way.
The motion of humans is driven by chemical reactions. We have to be slow - or, in other words, the speed of light has to appear very fast to us.

 

[MistySaa]

Why does light move at the speed it does, why not half the speed or double?

My two cents would be, 'because that's the upper limit of how fast something can go in this deeply intricately functional universe, and that's exactly the speed it must be. And doesn't need to be faster'. Relative to other things moving, it's very very very fast, and it's the limit for how fast something can go. And light travels as fast as something can possibly go.

If the upper limit was, say, half that speed, perhaps the universe would break down, wouldn't be able to function as it does.

But light wouldn't travel at that speed, because, let's say, the 'laws of physics' spontaneously arise interdependently, because that's 'the only way it can be'. Like an intricate expanding origami taking full form, every part leaning on each other as it opens. Or pops into existence.

I might be making some technical errors here, i.e. about the specific generation of the laws of physics, but it's meant to give perspective to the issue anyway.

 

[Dale]

And a ratio of 1 is equality, so c = 1/√μ₀ε₀ is saying something. Steering the discussion into units is just distracting.

It is saying a tautology in SI units and it is literally a meaningless statement in many other unit systems where not all of the terms are even defined. You simply cannot avoid a discussion of unit systems in this context.

I will not debate the concept of slower or faster with you. If someone asked you why a bicycle was slower than a 2000 horsepower drag racer, would you say it is because of units?

As @PeterDonis mentioned the ratio is dimensionless, so it holds for any system of units. I also mentioned this above in the discussion about the ratio of the speed of light to the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. There are unit-independent ways to look at this, but they all trace back to the fine structure constant, not c.

 

[Dale]

There was allot of mention about the fine structure being the reason "the speed of light is what it is". are all fundamental forces not constrained to c? Do all those forces have their independent physical reason that by chance constrains them to c?

wiki says that electromagnetic and strong force have been confirmed to be mass-less.

There is only one speed which is invariant. So any massless particle will go at that invariant speed, regardless of its other properties. If that speed is infinite then you have Galilean relativity, and if it is finite then you have Einstein's relativity.

If it is finite (as experiments show it is) then it sets a natural scale of speed. Hence natural units set it to 1. That applies for all interactions, not just EM.

However, when you dig into questions about the speed of light and get people to really identify what they are interested in it is typically anthropomorphic things like how many heartbeats would it take for me to walk the distance that light can travel in one heartbeat. These things are governed by chemistry and therefore the fine structure constant.

If they were interested in questions of nuclear physics and related time and distance scales then the other coupling constants would describe the meaning of the speed of light.

 

[PeterDonis]

There was allot of mention about the fine structure being the reason "the speed of light is what it is".

For a "B" level thread that's about the best we can do. Getting into the details of the Standard Model, as your questions do, probably deserves a separate thread at the "I" or even "A" level.

 

[Grinkle]

@nitsuj I enjoyed the book below.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0224061356/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It will give you enough background to know if you are interested enough to pursue more math-based discussions. You can probably find a lot of freely available background on the internet, and I now see a much less expensive Kindle version of the above title available, too.

 

[nitsuj]

For a "B" level thread that's about the best we can do. Getting into the details of the Standard Model, as your questions do, probably deserves a separate thread at the "I" or even "A" level.

I just meant to highlight the relationship between energy, mass and momentum. Seems a simply put way to explain why a thing, such as light goes the speed that it does. Not to further probe the mechanics different fundamental interactions, which would of course, determine the speed of said thing to go c. My reasoning is based on "a photon isn't mass less because we can't move with it." in other words that mass is fundamentally different than energy.

 

[nitsuj]

@nitsuj I enjoyed the book below.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0224061356/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It will give you enough background to know if you are interested enough to pursue more math-based discussions. You can probably find a lot of freely available background on the internet, and I now see a much less expensive Kindle version of the above title available, too.

It looked interesting so read some reviews most which said it is good, though one I read pointed out silly errors...as a layman its kinda tough to find a good science read that doesn't fill the head with incorrect poorly conveyed concepts.

for the price it looks like a safe bet!

 

[Arkalius]

I feel like this question is really just reducible to asking why fundamental constants have the magnitudes that they do, instead of different ones. This starts to lead down a path of metaphysics and philosophy. There may not be an objective answer to those questions, or at least, it may not be an answer we are capable of discovering. Some like to imagine there was a supernatural intelligence fiddling with metaphorical dials, fine tuning our universe into a particular state. To me, the only honest answer to the question we have right now is "we don't know".