you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 74 points 7 months ago* (11 children)

c is a measurable constant, not some unit that is arbitrarily defined. Like Boltzmann's Constant, or the ground state hyperfine transition frequency of the Cesium-133 atom... it just... Is.

Therefore, it is a useful tool to define units. You claim it is a tautology because we write it in units of meters per second, while the meter is defined based on c. This is easily disproven, as you can represent the speed of light in any unit of velocity. It is a fundamental constant, derivable through experiment without any units a priori.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (6 children)

    It’s not about the units i used. It’s about using something to define itself. The same problem happens when you use c to define empty space since empty space can define c.

    Once you decide which units are used in maxwells equations then the electromagnetic permeability and permissivity pops out as a proportions of c.

    Read more Feynman if you don’t believe me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    That may be, and I've been meaning to dig into my copy of the Lectures, but that's moving the goalposts. You said that it was a tautology because it was defined by the meter, and the meter was defined on it. That statement is demonstrably false.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Everything in physics is defined by relative properties. Scale all fundamental units by the same factor and we can not detect any change in behavior whatsoever

    Speed of light may be constant, but we can not make measure it through any other means then by measuring it in terms of ratios against other constants

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I used the meter because that’s generally what is used for measurement in scientific endeavors. There was no goal post moving if the statement applies for all SI measurements.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Literally the entire point of the comment that you're responding to is that it isn't true for the metre, and it isn't true for any SI units.

    Your entire claim of tautology rests on the assertion that the speed of light is defined by something external to light itself. That's false. It remains false irrespective of which SI measurements you swap in.

    Just because the speed of light can be expressed in terms of SI units, doesn't mean its definition depends on them. Which is the point that wolframhydroxide was making.

    This directly disproves your original assertion of tautology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Every metric of speed of light is necessarily relative to other things. Even if you define as 1, now you must be able to know what one unit of time is relative to one unit of distance, and if you do not know that then you do not know that your speed of 1 means.

    All fundamental units are defined relative to each other in physics, and all other units are defined relative to the fundamental units.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit

    definition of base units

    Even the Cesium time standard is defined relative to electric fields which are defined by time and distance and charges, and charges are defined by energy defined by force defined by time and distance and more....

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    It's not useful to tell somebody it is constant without a way to make use of it. Without knowing how it's defined relative to other things we can't use it.

    The thing about all the absolute physical constants is that they are almost all based on units defined relative to other things. Unitless constants (defined only as a ratio) are extremely rare (like the fine structure constant) - but even then you have to make up units to measure them (although you can still agree on unitless values with somebody else who chose different base units for measurements).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant

    Edit: the most obvious immediate reason Wolfram here is fully wrong is that Cesium frequency is defined as the frequency you measure when light of the correct energy/wavelength is emitted against the atom, to then measure the corresponding returned light of the right energy/wavelength.

    To determine what that wavelength should be with your instruments you can measure things like the electric field and charges - which depends on units that are all defined relative to each other, and as soon as you start fixing some units (like when you have measured the energy state differential in the atom) then you will realize you have defined ratios between the units

  • source
  • parent