Why is the speed of light what it is?

cybernomad
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I'm a newbie here - this is my first post - and have interest in physics. Now we understand if force ‘a’ is applied to mass ‘b’ for ‘c’ seconds we can determine it velocity in the absence of any friction or other force.

So my question is do we have a similar fundamental understanding of the speed of light of why it is what it is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We do know that the speed of light is \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0 \epsilon_0}}

\epsilon_0 is the permittivity of free space, \mu_0 is the permeability. The speed of light is a cosequence of these two numbers via maxwell's equation.

Of course, you can always ask why these parameters have the values they have. (But in general one can always keep asking "why this? why that? why the other thing?).
 
cybernomad said:
So my question is do we have a similar fundamental understanding of the speed of light of why it is what it is?
Speed is (measurement unit)/(measurement unit). The fact that the speed of light happens to be the seemingly random number 299792458 m/s is a result of mankind's choice of units for time and space, which is obviously not Nature's preference. These units are often redefined in relativistic calculations so that the speed of light becomes exactly 1, which is probably more in line with the system of units that Nature prefers.
 
The numerical value of the speed of light of course depends on our choice of units for distance and time. Nevertheless the speed of light has a sort of magnitude that is independent of those units, because we can relate the traveling of light to other physical phenomena.

For example, the speed of light (in whatever units) is such that it takes about 4.3 times as long for light to travel from Earth to Alpha Centauri, as it does for the Earth to travel once around the sun, as measured in the Earth's reference frame. Why not 43 times as long, or 4300?

As far as I know there is no generally accepted explanation for why light travels at the first speed and not the other ones. I can't even think of any non-generally-accepted explanations, off the top of my head.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Back
Top