Define the speed of light?
What is the speed of light?
(3 votes)
Loading...Similar Posts
More powerful grow light than needed?
Does it make sense to buy a powerful 4-600W LED for a plant light, say for a grow box measuring 80x80x180, and simply dim it? My thinking is that if you decide to buy a larger box, the light will still work. Or am I making a mistake somewhere? thank you in advance for your…
Calculate brake voltage?
ByStaysi20
Hello folks, What is the maximum braking voltage for incident light of wavelength 400nm? Can anyone help me here? thanks in advance!
Speed and time?
Anyone who has read my last questions will have heard the question at lightning speed and time. Let's assume I'm traveling at a high speed but slower than the speed of light. Time, say, in a train, passes more slowly than outside. This means I notice less time than people outside. If I drive for…
Can you live on Saturn's moon Titan?
Hello everyone I'm not sure if you can live on the moon Titan 😀
The so-called speed of light is the speed at which reality propagates. Nothing that has rest mass* can reach this speed, and only because photons do not have rest mass, they have this speed, therefore the name.
The name also comes from the fact that one thought earlier that the light needs a medium in which electromagnetic waves spread (like sound waves in air), the so-called ether. The question of what this aether was spatially defined led to the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was actually expected to measure different speeds of light in different directions at the speed of the Earth by the aether. Surprise: no difference, so no ether (unless it would happen to be stuck to the earth). This not only shows that there is no ether, but that this speed is a natural constant that is the same in all inertial systems and therefore cannot be overhauled, because if you try to overtake the beam of a flashlight by car, it is as fast as relative to the flashlight relative to the car.
Only here is the special relativity theory, which depicts quite simple mathematics (Lorentz transformations), which has the effect on times and lengths (and also the kinetic energy*) in moving systems.
*) Kinetic energy of objects with rest mass contains a term of Lorentz transformation such as times and lengths. If a vehicle is accelerated to the vicinity of the speed of light, an increasing proportion of the supplied energy goes to less and less speed increase and lets the vehicle always appear carrier for the external observer – the speed of light is never reached.
Jein. The reason why you dropped the ether was rather an application of Ockham’s razor.
Lorentz himself was, for example, a great advocate of ether theory, who came from Lorentz transformations named after him at the end of his theory of the mid-twisted ether. At the end, this is also consistent with the special theory of relativity, although it starts from the existence of an ether.
and
are only two different expressions. The naive idea of a stationary “medium” has just been falsified. And Ockham always prevails, because if you manage better without an assumption than with an ever more complicated assumption, you just drop it. This has already gone the epics of the geocentric world image. But answering the question would not have made this excursion easier.
What I want to say is that much we still use today comes directly from the ether theory and is therefore not wrong per se.
It is possible to drop the ether as a concept, but that does not make the Lorentz transformation less valid.
The Maxwell equations are still often to be found and these are even clear ideas concerning the ether. The similarity to differential equation from fluid dynamics does not come about somewhere.
The ether theory as such was naturally dropped because the ether in the end would have become unobservable, so it makes no sense to use it for descriptions.
The statement makes sense in the context of your answer, but you should not write my comment directly as a criticism of your answer.
The speed of light is the speed at which light, general TEM waves, spreads.
The speed of light is medium-dependent.
It is the speed with which light spreads. These are roundabout 300,000 km/sec.
In vacuum, in other media it can also be significantly slower.
https://www.sofatutor.ch/physics/videos/light speed
Lg
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the definition is right. It can be nothing faster than the speed of light in vacuum, but within a medium such as water it can be quite possible that certain particles such as electrons can be faster than the light under certain conditions. Maybe that’s a mistake on my part.
That’s perfect. The statement that nothing is faster than light is only valid in vacuum
With old definitions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=light speed