this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
346 points (93.2% liked)

Science Memes

10988 readers
3114 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

But doesn’t relativity explicitly state that c is the speed of light in a vacuum, and travelling through other mediums explicitly changes and is explained by relativity?

I am 100% a layman and do not know the answer.

[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not really no. Special relativity explains the relationship between space and time. General relativity expands on this to account for gravitation.

One of the postulates (i.e. assumptions) of relativity is that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers. But the theory doesn't actually require any particular value for c, it only needs it to be constant. And it doesn't explain the behavior of light in a medium at all.

In fact, relativity doesn't explain the mechanism by which light interacts at all, that is the domain of Quantum Electro Dynamics.

[–] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

Wow that is so interesting. So am I understanding that relativity explains space, time and gravity’s interactions with one another, while quantum science explains interactions with much smaller objects like matter?

[–] ziggurism@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

the speed of light expressed in units of distance per time, is a dimensionful quantity so it probably doesn’t mean anything to say some theory does or does not predict a value for it. The value is entirely determined by how big you choose your yardsticks and sundials to be, which is arbitrary convention.

It is only meaningful to talk about theoretical predictions of the values of constants if they are dimensionless, like the fine structure constant.

However relativity does suggest as a natural point of view that space and time are just orthogonal directions in a unified spacetime. In this point of view, relativity gives you the option of measuring your timelike and spacelike coordinates with the same yardstick (which you may still choose arbitrarily). And then relativity does predict its value. It’s 1. No units.