what is the speed of light relative to?
>>16964732Any inertial reference frame.
>>16964734then how is light always traveling at a constant speed?
>>16964736as in, how is light always traveling at exactly the same speed regardless of reference frame. sorry for my shitty wording
>>16964738It's a consequence of Maxwell's equations that describe electromagnetism. You can work out the speed of light from that and it turns out to be a constant and frame-independent. Now you could then ask why are Maxwell's equations true? Well they arise from Quantum Electrodynamics. But follow the rabbit hole further and you then ask why is Q.E.D true? The best answer we have is that it's just how the universe works.
>>16964751maxwell derived c from classic ed, not qed, it isc = 1/sqrt(e0*u0)e0 is permittivity of free spaceu0 is permeability of free spaceat the time c was V for him, the velocity of eletromagnetic force
>>16964738>how is light always traveling at exactly the same speed regardless of reference frameIs it? There's no way of proving or disproving this
>>16964850>There's no way of proving or disproving thisNo shit. Are you new to science?
>>16964855That's not what I'm talking about. Even if there was an absolute reference frame and light would only move with c relative to that frame, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and the standard interpretation.
>>16964732Einsgtein was a fraud, he explain this with the notion that "different observers see different realities" and "the only realitiy is 4dim space time" as if some mathematical construction can be a reality.>>16964874>an absolute reference frame and light would only move with c relative to that frameYes
>>16964874>we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and the standard interpretation.We can though.
>>16964901No
>>16964905Then explain how spin arises purely from the quantum mechanical formulation.
>>16964907it doesn't
>>16964908Then where do you think the phenomenon comes from?
>>16964910sciencesloptubers made it up
>>16964907Spin is a fundamental property of the universeorSpin is a mathematical trick to solve a nasty equation
>>16964915Post your findings when you performed e.g. the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
>>16964919My findings show that reality isn't real and is merely an illusion.
>>16964919An experiment that strongly suggest non-local effects isn't that great to verify special relativity
>>16964918>>16964925Why involve yourself in such a thread if you're totally apathetic to science or knowledge?
>>16964929>>16964918 is me>>16964925 is a glowie trying to poison the well
>>16964929because the thread is about the speed of light and not whatever you schizos are on about
>>16964928The point is not to verify special relativity. It is to exhibit a phenomenon which cannot be explained by traditional quantum mechanics, but is compatible with quantum field theory.I'll ask again, are you new to science?
>>16964931Well, I already answered your question in the very first post. Your incorrect follow-up claims are easily disputed by the concrete experiments which you regard as "schizo babble".
>>16964932Spin pops out if you quantize the relativistic energy-momentum relation. That's not QFT yet
>>16964732>I don't even understand relativity and criticise a strawman at middle school physics levelthat's not even worth my time
>>16964732cool it with the anti semitism
>>16964732the vacuum
>>16964910same place electric charge does: god
>>16964779> maxwell derived c from classic edwell done, you are furiously agreeing with that post.the point is that maxwell can then be derived from qed
oh god fucking godhigh school algebra is sooooooooo hardlinear algebra is sooooooooooo hardthe lorentz transform is soooooooooo hardhow will I ever understand this basic bitch level shit?better post a dumbass troll thread on /sci/ instead
>>16965421problem?
Energy is smaller than light, so light would follow its own energy signature.
