Why doesn't light move at an infinite speed?

[Astro_Will]

I understand it is physically impossible for anything to move at an infinite speed simply because infinity can never be reached but...

My understanding of physics is that as something interacts with the Higgs Field it is given mass and therefore requires more energy to move. However I'm also under the impression that photons are massless and therefore do not interact with the Higgs Field. But if this is true then what limits them to moving at c? Why not faster?

(I'm pretty new to physics so I apologise if this question is based off misinformation)

 

[phinds]

... what limits them to moving at c? Why not faster?

How fast would you like them to move? If they moved at twice what we now know as the speed of light, would you be happy? How about 100 times as fast ? Where do you stop?

It's either infinite or it isn't, and it isn't.

 

[Daniel1992]

I think the OP is asking why there is a speed limit on the speed of light. Saying 'beacuse it is' is not a very good answer.

 

[ShayanJ]

The point is that the OP thinks there is something acting on photons causing them to stop increasing their speed when they reach the speed of light.But that's wrong.Photons move as fast as possible.There is just no speed more than the speed of light in the observable universe and matter and energy always travel with a speed equal to or smaller than the speed of light.
Another point is that,photons just don't accelerate to reach the speed of light.At the moment of their creation e.g. in a pair annihilation,they're just created in motion with the speed of light.So maybe,just maybe,this question is irrelevant.

 

[bossman27]

C is just a physical constant of the universe, much like the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, etc. They are fundamental in the sense that you can't prove them from something else underlying them, they simply are the way they are and were discovered by careful observation.

It is worth noting that while massless, relativity implies that photons do have an energy/momentum corresponding to wavelength or frequency. This comes from the regular relativistic energy equations for a particle, where v = c and thus m = 0 by necessity.

 

[phinds]

I think the OP is asking why there is a speed limit on the speed of light. Saying 'beacuse it is' is not a very good answer.

It is THE ONLY answer. The posts subsequent to mine spelled it out with slightly more formality, but the bottom line is "it is what it is"

 

[kamenjar]

Think of the universe as a surface of an ocean with fixed depth.
Think of "EM waves" and "event propagation" as waves in that ocean.
Now think of anything else as a surfer.

Maximum wave speed in an ocean with fixed depth is constant.
Surfer can not travel faster than waves.

This, somewhat awkwardly, may give you the answer.

 

[ShayanJ]

I should say that I agree with phinds
In physics,sometimes we should say,its like this and there is no reason(at least yet)
The best example is QM.No one really knows what's happening but only it works.
And just maybe we're going to understand someday,what is QM.
That's because physicists are looking for a theory of everything.I guess they don't like it too.

 

[Fredrik]

Light has speed c by definition in both classical and quantum electrodynamics. So to ask why it has speed c in the real world is to ask why those theories are so good, i.e. why their predictions are so accurate. The only thing that can answer that is another theory. At present, there's no theory that answers that specific question. If we ever find one, people will just change the question and start asking why that theory is so accurate. Then we'd need another theory to answer that, and so on.

 

[bossman27]

The best example is QM.No one really knows what's happening but only it works.
And just maybe we're going to understand someday,what is QM.
That's because physicists are looking for a theory of everything.I guess they don't like it too.

"There's still a school of thought, that cannot believe, that atomic behavior is so different than large scale behavior. I think that's a deep prejudice; it's a prejudice from being so used to large scale behaviors... and they're always seeking to find, or waiting for the day we discover that underneath the quantum mechanics, there's some mundane, ordinary balls hitting or particles moving and so on. I think they're going to be defeated. I think nature's imagination, is so much greater than man's, she's never going to let us -- relax!"
-- Richard Feynman

This just seemed like an opportune time to drop an ol' Feynman quote. The moral of the story is that, as far as we can tell, nature just is the way it is, and we have to accept the fact that there may not be a satisfying "reason" that we have a particular value of c and not some other; but it's all part of the mystery that makes science (and particularly physics) so exciting and interesting.

 

[JustinRyan]

If you consider the time dilation experienced by a photon, they ARE moving at infinite speed. It is only the constraints of time as we experience it that c is finite. In the inertial frame of the photon, the beginning and end of its journey are simultanious.

 

[Fredrik]

If you consider the time dilation experienced by a photon, they ARE moving at infinite speed. It is only the constraints of time as we experience it that c is finite. In the inertial frame of the photon, the beginning and end of its journey are simultanious.

There is no "inertial frame of the photon" (see e.g. this post), and therefore no meaningful way to make sense of "the time experienced by a photon".

 

[JustinRyan]

Apologies for the conjecture contained in my post. And the spelling...eww

 

[tiny-tim]

Welcome to PF!

Hi Astro_Will! Welcome to PF!

I understand it is physically impossible for anything to move at an infinite speed simply because infinity can never be reached but...

That's not logical, and not true.

In special relativity, there is no reason why something going faster than light cannot reach infinite speed.

The only prohibition is on anything crossing the speed of the light.

My understanding of physics is that as something interacts with the Higgs Field it is given mass and therefore requires more energy to move. However I'm also under the impression that photons are massless and therefore do not interact with the Higgs Field. But if this is true then what limits them to moving at c? Why not faster?

I think everyone is missing the point.

A muon, say, interacts with the Higgs field, and therefore requires more energy to move than an electron does.

But that interaction does not specify any speed for the muon, nor does it limit the speed of the muon.

That limit (the speed of light) has nothing to do with the Higgs field, and the same limit applies to every particle.

 

[harrylin]

I understand it is physically impossible for anything to move at an infinite speed simply because infinity can never be reached but...

My understanding of physics is that as something interacts with the Higgs Field it is given mass and therefore requires more energy to move. However I'm also under the impression that photons are massless and therefore do not interact with the Higgs Field. But if this is true then what limits them to moving at c? Why not faster?

(I'm pretty new to physics so I apologise if this question is based off misinformation)

Hi Astro, welcome to physicsforums!

As you mention "Higgs field" I guess that you like to get a more meaningful answer than "because it is so". An answer that relates to models would be first of all that an infinite speed is not perceived as physical by most; a model that has infinite speed might be called magical. If we model everything as fields and waves (as is the case in SR and I think QFT), then this implies a finite velocity constant c for vacuum. And of course, no gravitational lensing could occur with c=∞.

See also https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=639979

 

[harrylin]

[..] In special relativity, there is no reason why something going faster than light cannot reach infinite speed.

The only prohibition is on anything crossing the speed of the light.

I'm aware that there have been papers making claims as you do. According to "orthodox" SR, c is the limit speed of nature for matter and the only speed of EM radiation. Thus it was said that "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
-http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

See also: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=645098

 

[Naty1]

So far we have no formal reason, no first principles, why the speed of light is what it is, nor why the electromagnetic force is so much stronger than the gravitational force, nor why the mass of the electron happens to be what we observe.

What we do understand is that if any of those were even slightly different values, we'd probably not be here...because either our universe would have come to an end before we had time to develop, or the universe might never have developed.

You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".

 

[tiny-tim]

So far we have no formal reason, no first principles, why the speed of light is what it is

yes we do …

the speed of light is the invariant speed of space-time

(ie, the speed which is the same for all inertial observers)

and everything else is measured relative to it ​

 

[phinds]

yes we do …

the speed of light is the invariant speed of space-time

(ie, the speed which is the same for all inertial observers)

and everything else is measured relative to it ​

But what gives it the exact value that it has? THAT, I think, is what everyone means when they say we don't have a reason for it being what it is.

 

[PAllen]

But what gives it the exact value that it has? THAT, I think, is what everyone means when they say we don't have a reason for it being what it is.

What gives it that value? Our choice of units (how big we are, how big things on Earth are, etc.). The only constants for which it is at all meaningful to ask "why that value" are dimensionless constants.

For light, the only meaningful question is actually the OP one (re-phrased a bit): why is there any finite speed which is observer invariant? I don't see any better answer than:

Under some broad symmetry assumptions, there are only two ways for space and time to behave: Galilean relativity (no finite speed is observer invariant) and Special Relativity (there is a finite observer invariant speed). Our world happens to be the latter.

 

[pervect]

But what gives it the exact value that it has? THAT, I think, is what everyone means when they say we don't have a reason for it being what it is.

We mostly try and point people who ask that into looking at why the speed of light has the value it does to look instead at why the value of the fine structure constant is what it is, because that's where they'll find the most serious discussion of the question in the literature.

The answer won't be too satisfying - we don't have any theory that predicts the value of the fine structure constant AFAIK. On the bright side, we do have some experiments testing the constancy of the fine structure constant, though the results aren't terribly conclusive (again AFAIK).

I'm not sure that we have succeed in this goal, I rather suspect from these remarks that we haven't. Maybe you can provide some insight as to why people ignore the FAQ? Or other ideas which might lead to an improvement of the FAQ? Umm - assuming you've read it. That might be the first question, have you actually read the thing?

 

[Naty1]

Or other ideas which might lead to an improvement of the FAQ? ...

I, for one, rarely remember about FAQ's...I don't have the lists memorized regarding topics covered and for this one you said it:

The answer won't be too satisfying...

This existing FAQ explanation is too obtuse. A novice asking about the speed of light will never get it...In fact don't get it. I have yet to see anyone asking the question who is interested in the units used...

I read an explanation in one of the popular physics books for the public [by Kaku, Greene, Susskind, one of them] which still makes good sense too me...I can try to find it if it would be helpful, but it seems some knowledgeable people here don't like it...

Every time I post something along the lines of what I read, because it made sense and helped me understand there are missing pieces in our understanding, something like

"no one knows from first principles why we have the four forces, the mass of the particles we observe, nor why space and time even exist" etc somebody in the forums objects. It's as if the Standard Model of particle physics, for example, emerged from some overarching fundamental theory rather than largely from empirical observations.

Another idea might be to work the big bang singularity into a reply, along these lines:

"At the moment of the big bang which it is generally believed initiated this universe, conditions emerged which led to the universe we observe today. Why we see the exact characteristics from those initial conditions is not yet understood. It may be that when general relativity and quantum mechanics are reconciled at that initial condition, we will have a better insight. Right now we don't have good mathematics to describe exactly what happened; all we have is what occurs after that moment."

 

[tiny-tim]

Hi Naty1!

This existing FAQ explanation is too obtuse. A novice asking about the speed of light will never get it...In fact don't get it. I have yet to see anyone asking the question who is interested in the units used...

There's two faqs (in two different threads) …

I think pervect meant the other one. ​

 

[PAllen]

This existing FAQ explanation is too obtuse. A novice asking about the speed of light will never get it...In fact don't get it. I have yet to see anyone asking the question who is interested in the units used...

Think about what it means to ask this without referring to units that relate to happenstance features related to humans and earth. You are forced to think in terms of dimensionless ratios that factor out units. Further, they must be fundamental dimensionless ratios - asking how many times faster light moves than I can run may be dimensionless but is totally silly. You are then led to something like the fine structure constant which is a fixed dimensionless quantity in all systems of units that involves c.

 

[pervect]

The FAQ I had in mind was "Why does c have a particular value, and can it change?"

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511385

Short answer:

Because c has units, its value is what it is only because of our choice of units, and there is no meaningful way to test whether it changes. These questions are more meaningful when posed in terms of the unitless fine structure constant. Nobody knows why the fine structure constant has the value it does, and there are controversial claims that its value may have changed.

Do you still think?

This existing FAQ explanation is too obtuse. A novice asking about the speed of light will never get it...In fact don't get it. I have yet to see anyone asking the question who is interested in the units used...

I'm not sure what people are trying to ask when they ask this question, or what sort of experiment could answer their questions. I have the feeling it may be more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

I have the feeling that if we asked the people themselves what sort of experiment we should run to answer the question we'd get blank looks.

But it seems when we suggest an experimental approach (and, in the process, point them towards the literature, in a place they might not have thought to look) we get a "that's not what I meant" reaction.

So - what's up with that?

 

[Jeronimus]

A great question has been asked by OP. I don't think that I've seen a convenient answer yet.
The speed of light could be 600000km/s and yet we would arrive at a similar theory of relativity.

What is clear to me is, that by saying object A will always travel at speed X seen by any observer from within any frame of reference absent of gravity, it follows that every other object will travel below that speed X if you want to preserve causality and logic.

I can only guess, that the speed of light is somehow connected to fundamental properties of space itself.

I wonder what Einstein had to say about this if anyone has a link to it. He certainly asked this question himself.

 

[pervect]

A great question has been asked by OP. I don't think that I've seen a convenient answer yet.
The speed of light could be 600000km/s and yet we would arrive at a similar theory of relativity.

What is clear to me is, that by saying object A will always travel at speed X seen by any observer from within any frame of reference absent of gravity, it follows that every other object will travel below that speed X if you want to preserve causality and logic.

I can only guess, that the speed of light is somehow connected to fundamental properties of space itself.

I wonder what Einstein had to say about this if anyone has a link to it. He certainly asked this question himself.

Did you read the FAQ I mentioned,
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511385

Did it answer your question? If not, what experiment - if any - would answer your question?

 

[bahamagreen]

It's a good question.

I have a one foot diameter globe across the room. Knowing its diameter, and the Earth's diameter, I can imagine a light beam moving radially away from the globe and imagine the same "scale" as a light beam moving away from the Earth. At the globe scale, light moves about 25 feet per second. To imagine it that way, I have to imagine myself as being quite big.

The question "Why is c the magnitude it is?" is really asking "why am I the size I am?"

If we were very small, like particles, c would look fast. If we were the size of galaxies, c would look slow... the Milky Way and Andromeda would be like two dinner plates 20 feet apart with light taking 2,5 million years to cross...

The anthropomorphic principle suggests we have to be some size...

 

[Jeronimus]

Did you read the FAQ I mentioned,
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511385

I guess the right question would be why the fine structure constant is of that value after reading this

Did it answer your question? If not, what experiment - if any - would answer your question?

Interesting question, but i am thinking less of an experiment but more of a geometry of space-time itself in which light would be some kind of upper limit of something while everything else would stand in relation to it rather than light having a fixed value just because.
Ill description because i don't even know if that makes much sense. It's rather a burp of my intuition.Assuming light would travel at only 1m/s. All observers at rest in any arbitrary IFR away of gravity would see it travel at 1m/s. Therefore, everything else would travel below that speed, then what would be the differences in our universe?

 

[bossman27]

I believe I heard Feynman suggest this possibility in an interview, but it's interesting to consider the possibility that at some time in the future, our physical laws could be viewed within a kind of evolutionary context. Is it conceivable that the laws of physics as we observe them now are the "evolutionary" product of some earlier conditions in which the governing physical laws were different?

I don't mean that last bit as a rhetorical question. I'm an ignorant (by comparison) undergraduate, and I'm curious as to whether that is, in any sense, a viable question for future physicists.

 

[PAllen]

I believe I heard Feynman suggest this possibility in an interview, but it's interesting to consider the possibility that at some time in the future, our physical laws could be viewed within a kind of evolutionary context. Is it conceivable that the laws of physics as we observe them now are the "evolutionary" product of some earlier conditions in which the governing physical laws were different?

I don't mean that last bit as a rhetorical question. I'm an ignorant (by comparison) undergraduate, and I'm curious as to whether that is, in any sense, a viable question for future physicists.

See Lee Smolin's Fecund Universes hypothesis for an instantiation of this idea. Unfortunately, since it actually makes testable predictions, it has run into difficulties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

 

[nitsuj]

A great question has been asked by OP. I don't think that I've seen a convenient answer yet.
The speed of light could be 600000km/s and yet we would arrive at a similar theory of relativity.

What is clear to me is, that by saying object A will always travel at speed X seen by any observer from within any frame of reference absent of gravity, it follows that every other object will travel below that speed X if you want to preserve causality and logic.

I can only guess, that the speed of light is somehow connected to fundamental properties of space itself.

I wonder what Einstein had to say about this if anyone has a link to it. He certainly asked this question himself.

A great guess,

And imo is the kinda fundamental question the op is asking.

It has to do with length & time, what they "are" / how they're defined.

And it is "fundamental" to spacetime, the name is literal. Perhaps Lengthtime would be more clear.

Infinite speed? can something be infinitely short in length, or an infinitely small amount of time*? This is all the same rhetoric as infinite speed. And to the point that has already been made, it's either infinite or it's not. Basically causality. either cause precedes effect or it doesn't.

Also a fair way to conclude an FoR for a photon is nonsense.

 

[thetexan]

I also don't understand why. Why 186000mile per second? Why could it not have been 1000000 miles per second. Is there something that physically stops a photon at 186000? What is the limiting factor?

tex

 

[arindamsinha]

My thoughts on this are as follows:
- Light (or broadly energy) has a physical existence in space (though not necessarily mass), and is therefore quantized in some way
- A quantum can travel very fast, but the very fact that it has to 'travel' means it cannot be at two places (origin and destination) at the same time
- If light had infinite speed, then the same quantum of light would have to be everywhere in the Universe at the same time (having bounced of something or the other and been redirected infinitely) - since travel time is zero, origin and destintation cannot be distinguised

This is why light (or anything) must have a finite speed.

 

[arindamsinha]

I also don't understand why. Why 186000mile per second? Why could it not have been 1000000 miles per second. Is there something that physically stops a photon at 186000? What is the limiting factor?

tex

That one is because of the way we have defined the units - meter (or mile!) and second. Define meter and/or second differently, and the speed would be different.

In some scientific units, the meter and second are treated as equal, and in those the speed of light is 1.

And, of course, as long as it is finite, it must have SOME specific value based on any set of units.

 

[Austin0]

Did you read the FAQ I mentioned,
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511385

Did it answer your question? If not, what experiment - if any - would answer your question?

Interesting link.
" In these units, the speed of light equals 137.0359991. But this number is simply the inverse of the fine structure constant, defined as e2/ħc, where e is the fundamental charge and ħ is Planck's constant over 2π." This is a pretty amazing "coincidence"
But of course the fine structure constant is equally quantitatively inexplicable so no real help.

Units may be arbitrary but the real numbers are directly if not absolutely exactly correspondent to the real world. So it would appear that this relationship is as fundamental as pi=3.14 Aren't the permittivity and permeability of vacuum essentially the attributes of spacetime that determine the speed of light??

 

[tiny-tim]

the speed of light is fundamental to space-time

it is the ratio between space dimensions and the time dimension

the minkowski metric is (cdt)² - dx² - dy² - dz²

logically, speed should be dimensionless (no units),

and we should put c = 1, to put the four dimensions on an equal footing​

but then a car going at what we call 108 kph, or 30 m/s, would have a speed of 0.0000001, which is really inconvenient!

so, for convenience, we define distance so that our speedometers show sensible numbers

(btw, µ_o, the permeability of the vacuum, is also defined for convenience …

it's 4π 10^-7 henries/metre …

the 10^-7 is there only to avoid all those zeroes, eg going into a shop and asking for a 0.0000003 amp fuse!)

 

[nitsuj]

the speed of light is fundamental to space-time

it is the ratio between space dimensions and the time dimension

the minkowski metric is (cdt)² - dx² - dy² - dz²

logically, speed should be dimensionless (no units),

and we should put c = 1, to put the four dimensions on an equal footing​

but then a car going at what we call 108 kph, or 30 m/s, would have a speed of 0.0000001, which is really inconvenient!

so, for convenience, we define distance so that our speedometers show sensible numbers

(btw, µ_o, the permeability of the vacuum, is also defined for convenience …

it's 4π 10^-7 henries/metre …

the 10^-7 is there only to avoid all those zeroes, eg going into a shop and asking for a 0.0000003 amp fuse!)

That's a great way to put it. We when think of speed as laypeople, it's how fast is this compared to that. which is completely different from what c is.


If something moves it must exists at all "points" along it's path (some amount of time & for some length), that is "appear" continuously. To go faster than c is to "teleport" or not exist for a time/length.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Thus it was said that "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
-http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Why didn't you bring up this quote by Einstein when I was arguing this very same thing in the locked thread about SR versus galilean relativity and the twin paradox one.
If I had known this was stated by Einstein in his seminal paper on SR I could have saved me a lot of posts explaining precisely that the velocity of light in SR plays the part , physically, of infinitely great velocity (in classical mechanics).
Now your position then strikes me as purely cynical if you already knew that Einstein quote.

 

[Alesak]

I've found this interesting link: Why the speed of light is invariant.

What they seem to say is that finite speed of signal(here light) is necessary for universe to allow discrete space and time(ie Planck length and Planck time). More precisely, their postulate says it is possible to observe events apart at least Planck length or happening at least Planck time after each other.Intuitively, I understand speed of light as exchange rate between time and space. If you want to move faster through the space, you need to pay for it with time! (meaning you experience less time)

 

[Mordred]

Definetely an interesting article

 

[harrylin]

Why didn't you bring up this quote by Einstein when I was arguing this very same thing in the locked thread about SR versus galilean relativity and the twin paradox one.
If I had known this was stated by Einstein in his seminal paper on SR I could have saved me a lot of posts explaining precisely that the velocity of light in SR plays the part , physically, of infinitely great velocity (in classical mechanics).
Now your position then strikes me as purely cynical if you already knew that Einstein quote.

You were not arguing that same thing but a misunderstanding of that same thing. After that thread was locked I offered you to continue our conversation in private which you thought not needed. The issue was your claim that in classical mechanics "light speed is infinite", "it takes no time for light signals to travel". In Maxwell's electrodynamics on which SR is based, light propagates at c=3E8 m/s.

 

[haushofer]

I've found this interesting link: Why the speed of light is invariant.

What they seem to say is that finite speed of signal(here light) is necessary for universe to allow discrete space and time(ie Planck length and Planck time). More precisely, their postulate says it is possible to observe events apart at least Planck length or happening at least Planck time after each other.


Intuitively, I understand speed of light as exchange rate between time and space. If you want to move faster through the space, you need to pay for it with time! (meaning you experience less time)

You don't experience less time. Everything is normal in your frame of reference. It's only when you compare your clock with that of twin you could see a difference, depending on the relative movement between you and your twin.

 

[Alesak]

You don't experience less time. Everything is normal in your frame of reference. It's only when you compare your clock with that of twin you could see a difference, depending on the relative movement between you and your twin.

Of course, but speed also is only when you compare (change of) position to your twin.

It's all really weird anyway. Any of you more experienced guys "feel" you undestand SR very clearly?

 

[TrickyDicky]

You were not arguing that same thing but a misunderstanding of that same thing.

Not at all, but if you thought so that adds further reasons for you to have mentioned the Einstein quote.

The issue was your claim that in classical mechanics "light speed is infinite", "it takes no time for light signals to travel".

I made a lot of qualifications to your simplifying quotes. I said that in classical mechanics the velocity of light c o f SR acts (conceptually) as if it was an infinite velocity. How is that different from the Einstein quote apart from using the word "act" instead of "play the part"?

In Maxwell's electrodynamics on which SR is based, light propagates at c=3E8 m/s.

I specifically referred to classical mechanics not Maxwell electrodynamics, the discrepancy of the latter with classical mechanics was precisely the starting point for Einstein to develope SR.

 

[Fredrik]

Any of you more experienced guys "feel" you undestand SR very clearly?

Yes, I have to say that I do. There are still problems that I find difficult, like the one in the thread bcrowell started the other day. It involves an indestructible submarine moving at a relativistic speed in indestructible water in a very large tank that's accelerating in a direction that's perpendicular to the motion of the sub in the tank. What kind of masochist even comes up with these problems? But when it comes to basic stuff like the twin paradox, it all feels very simple now.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

My thoughts on this are as follows:
- A quantum can travel very fast, but the very fact that it has to 'travel' means it cannot be at two places (origin and destination) at the same time
- If light had infinite speed, then the same quantum of light would have to be everywhere in the Universe at the same time (having bounced of something or the other and been redirected infinitely) - since travel time is zero, origin and destintation cannot be distinguised

This is why light (or anything) must have a finite speed.

What can we say about the wave function? How serious are the results of experiments by which a quantum entity is in every point of the universe?

 

[ZapperZ]

At this point, it is worth reminding people of the PF Rules, and our rules prohibiting speculation based on unverified ideas.

If you are presenting your "thoughts", and it is based mainly on "tastes" or guesses, rather than valid physics or peer-reviewed papers, then it should not be posted here.

Zz.

 

[harrylin]

Not at all, but if you thought so that adds further reasons for you to have mentioned the Einstein quote.

He said the same as we did, and you did not understand it; how could it help? If you now understand it thanks to that, then I should have mentioned it - but apparently that is not the case.

I made a lot of qualifications to your simplifying quotes. I said that in classical mechanics the velocity of light c o f SR acts (conceptually) as if it was an infinite velocity. How is that different from the Einstein quote apart from using the word "act" instead of "play the part"?

It is the other way round from what you mean with that: in classical mechanics the limit speed is much faster than the speed of light (infinite), while in SR it is equal to the speed of light. And I had also answered that here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4112328&postcount=21

I specifically referred to classical mechanics not Maxwell electrodynamics, the discrepancy of the latter with classical mechanics was precisely the starting point for Einstein to develope SR.

Maxwell's electrodynamics was used with classical mechanics. I interpret the thread-locking to mean that the moderators do not want us to elaborate more on that topic on this forum, and it is only somewhat related to this thread; thus from me just one last elaboration here.
For disambiguation, let's give the limit speed its own symbol, L.

1a. In classical mechanics there is no limit speed: L=∞
1b. In Newton's light theory, the speed of light V is relative to the source: V<∞
1c. In Maxwell's electrodynamics, the speed of light V is a vacuum constant: V=c
2. In SR the speed of light V is a vacuum constant that equals the limit speed: V=c=L

I can be reached by email.

 

[RedSonja]

Virtual particles may propagate at speeds larger than c, but relativity prohibits that any information is transferred at velocities larger than c.