What is the physical law or property that limits the speed of light to 186,282.397 miles per second in a vacuum? Why can't it go faster? I'm aware of things like Group Velocity and Einstein's velocity addition formula, but those things don't explain the phyiscal limiting property. Does it have to do with the way energy works on the quantum level?
2006-10-06 03:01:14 · 6 answers · asked by Trek Lover 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
The speed of light in a vacuum is a basic property of the universe. It was derived theoretically by Maxwell. Here is a quote from wikipedia:
The greatest work of Maxwell's life was devoted to electricity. Maxwell's most important contribution was the extension and mathematical formulation of earlier work on electricity and magnetism by Michael Faraday, André-Marie Ampère, and others into a linked set of differential equations (originally, 20 equations in 20 variables, later re-expressed in quaternion and vector-based notations). These equations, which are now collectively known as Maxwell's equations (or occasionally, "Maxwell's Wonderful Equations"), were first presented to the Royal Society in 1864, and together describe the behaviour of both the electric and magnetic fields, as well as their interactions with matter.
Furthermore, Maxwell showed that the equations predict waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that travel through empty space at a speed that could be predicted from simple electrical experiments—using the data available at the time, Maxwell obtained a velocity of 310,740,000 m/s. Maxwell (1865) wrote:
This velocity is so nearly that of light, that it seems we have strong reason to conclude that light itself (including radiant heat, and other radiations if any) is an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the electromagnetic field according to electromagnetic laws.
2006-10-06 03:15:03 · answer #1 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe all sides must be seeking to turn out their view on this case. Deciding who has the load of evidence handiest relatively is smart while a controversy suits right into a specific elegance and it is permitted that one aspect is USUALLY real, thus the opposite aspect must have the load of evidence. In the case of the present neutrinos-vs-velocity-of-mild debate, I do not believe there may be any analagous arguments. Personally, I believe our estimates of the ideal velocity prohibit will simply have got to be revised, and the neutrinos will simply were going a bit of in the direction of the ideal velocity prohibit than the ray of sunshine used to be (in spite of everything, mild in most cases does no longer honestly journey on the ideal velocity prohibit, by way of glass for instance it handiest travels at approximately part of that velocity.)
2016-08-29 07:03:34 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best way to think about it is to accept it as a fact; the speed of light is a universal physical constant, demonstarted by experiment. And then enjoy thinking about all interesting consequences of it like relativity of time.
2006-10-06 04:06:51 · answer #3 · answered by Seshagiri 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question, but I do not believe that science will be able to answer that. Think about the following; why is it 186,282.397 and not 123?
A more interesting question could be: is the speed of light constant or does it change with time?
2006-10-06 03:26:52 · answer #4 · answered by Dr. J. 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think we can answer this question. it's like asking why the gravitational constant of the universe is what it is. If it were different, the universe would be radically different. perhaps there is some universe somewhere with a different speed of light, perhaps not. Science has trouble answering "Why"
2006-10-06 03:19:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given that you have absolutely no follow up questions, yes, yes it does
2006-10-06 03:09:12 · answer #6 · answered by crimsonphoenix 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋