• Railcar8095@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s measuring speed, speed of light is 1 dumbass.

      Which proves God is American (anything except metric)

      • Teppa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 day ago

        I learned recently that it was the Babylonians who invented the hour and the minute as a unit of time, and they used base 60, which I thought was pretty neat. Then we created seconds and milliseconds in base 10.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 day ago

          IIRC, they picked 60 because it could be evenly divided into 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, and 1/6 which allowed them to stick to whole numbers more easily.

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 day ago

            If you use your thumb to count the sections of 4 fingers you get 12.

            Then you hold up a finger on your other hand. When all 5 are up you have 60.

            • RustySharp@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              24 hours ago

              I have never accepted this explanation. Yes, using base 12 is logical and well documented. But that means you’ve got 12 on the other hand as well. 144 would’ve made more sense.

              • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                It was defined around making trade easy, which very frequently relied on simple division of things measured to fixed units (because you had fixed sets of weights)

              • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                22 hours ago

                Yeah, what that user is describing is a mixed base system, which is pretty uncommon-- but then again, not for the people who invented time, since we have either 24|60|60 or 2|12|60|60 divisions for that. 5|12 would not be that weird.

        • Railcar8095@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Any idea how they tracked time? AFAIK solar clocks are not consistent during the year. I can imagine some sort of water clock, but they would need a master one to use as reference or very accurate specifications to reproduce.

          • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Solar clocks are consistent during the year because noon is always at local noon. They just stop telling time effectively early or later depending on the season (i.e. how long the sun is shining). You just measure time around noon and you are always accurate to local time (even the modern era navy did this). It only matters if you need to synchronize time from very far away, which ancient people didn’t really need to do do.

            • Railcar8095@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              I mean in the sense of measuring hours. Is it a constant angle from noon to 13:00, for example?

              Even the “local noon” would drift of you want you measure with constant hours of a24th of a day.

              • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                19 hours ago

                Is it a constant angle from noon to 13:00, for example?

                Within a margin of a few minutes (i think 15 minutes at the most).

                Even the “local noon” would drift of you want you measure with constant hours of a24th of a day.

                We are talking about a matter 20 to 30 seconds here.

  • Zwiebel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    1 day ago

    Because we tried to make the meter one 40-millionth of the earths circumference, failed, and ended up at a 299792458th of the distance light travels in a 60th of a 60th of a 24th of the time earth doesn’t take to make a full rotation.

    This one’s on us

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Having said that, we’re pretty lucky that using those pretty arbitrary values we ended up with a speed that you can approximate as 300 million m/s and be off by less than 0.1%.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        18 hours ago

        My understanding is that the person proposing the meter’s distance immediately caught their mistake but didn’t bring it up because they didn’t want people to think the system was flawed, not so much that the measurement was off.

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      23 hours ago

      At least one second has a simple origin, and totally wasn’t back-defined in 1967

      oh wait

      The current and formal definition in the International System of Units (SI) is more precise:

      The second […] is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium (Cs) frequency, ΔνCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the Cs-133 atom, to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit hertz, which is equal to s−1.[1]

  • teft@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    The speed of light is a tautology. We define it via how many meters light travels in a second. And we define the meter by the same measure. It’s just the distance light travels in 1⁄299792458 Of a second.

    • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • teft@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • teft@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • Morlark@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

              • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 hours 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…

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours 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

        • bitwolf@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          But isn’t the measurement of the speed of light our own proportion derived from the constant that is 1g of water at 1ATM?

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours 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

        • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          I was unaware that the person to whom I was replying, who claimed to be intimately familiar with the complete works of Feynman, needed instruction in how to “make use of” a fundamental constant of nature. If that is something you think is necessary, perhaps you should see to their instruction in such matters, as you are so confident in your faculties of condescending instruction.

          Furthermore, I am acutely aware of the existence and nature of dimensionless constants, thank you very much.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            For somebody who claims to be acutely aware, you really seem to have no idea what goes into calibrating measurement devices to be able to measure physical constants. In particular you have no idea how many other units go into calibrating them, and how you fundamentally can not get an accurate reading of a physical constant without that calibration. And for somebody claiming I’m the condescending one, you’re awfully rude yourself

            Just see the definition of the kilogram, and how it’s now defined in relation to time, c, and the planck constant.

            While the second is the only base unit to be explicitly defined in terms of the caesium standard, the majority of SI units have definitions that mention either the second, or other units defined using the second. Consequently, every base unit except the mole and every named derived unit except the coulomb, gray, sievert, radian, and steradian have values that are implicitly at least partially defined by the properties of the caesium-133 hyperfine transition radiation. And of these, all but the mole, the coulomb, and the dimensionless radian and steradian are implicitly defined by the general properties of electromagnetic radiation.

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

            When the atom is irradiated with electromagnetic radiation having an energy corresponding to the energetic difference between the two sub-levels the radiation is absorbed and the atom is excited, going from the F = 3 sub-level to the F = 4 one. After some time the atom will re-emit the radiation and return to its F = 3 ground state. From the definition of the second it follows that the radiation in question has a frequency of exactly 9.19263177 GHz, corresponding to a wavelength of about 3.26 cm and therefore belonging to the microwave range.

            Oh so now we need to measure electromagnetic fields and charge to be able to hit the atom with light of the right energy to be able to measure time? And to verify the emitted frequency (both in and out) is right we need to define either energy (Joule, circular via either kilogram or Volt) or wavelength (directly circular)? Huh…

            Everything meaningful is defined as relative properties, as ratios to other forces and properties of nature.

            • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Again, I think you’re replying to the wrong person. I never disagreed with any of this. I literally learned all of this years ago. I appreciate your attempt to educate, but I’m unclear on its purpose. The dude claimed that the speed of light is defined based on the meter, and that that makes it a tautology. That is simply, provably false. Then the dude tried to move the goalposts. Never did I say that our measurements are anything less than relative. Never did I suggest that our derived units are not based on fundamental constants the nature of which can be only guessed at. Now, you’ve said that the statement I made didn’t tell the dude “how to make use of” dimensionless units, which is a complete non sequitur. If you feel that that lecture is an important one when a dude demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what c even is, that’s your own affair, and I invite you to give this lecture a few comment levels up to the guy who thinks that c is defined based on the meter.

        • SparroHawc@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          The two constants - the speed at which light moves, and the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of cesium - can be combined to define every measurement of time, length, and velocity. They are the constants by which everything else is defined.

          Throw in mass, which is easy - a certain number of atoms of a specific element will also have a universally constant mass. Combine it with the other two constants and you have force, energy, and work, and voila, you can describe nearly everything in classic physics.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            You can’t measure the cesium frequency without having other units defined.

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

            The classical behaviour of the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell’s equations, which predict that the speed c with which electromagnetic waves (such as light) propagate in vacuum is related to the distributed capacitance and inductance of vacuum, otherwise respectively known as the electric constant ε0 and the magnetic constant μ0, by the equation

            c = 1/(ε_0*μ_0)

            Based on this observation we chose what count of cesium oscillations to use to define the second and meter.

            But those constants are also defined relative to the others;

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

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

            https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5907514/

            Vacuum permeability μ0 = 4π × 10−7 Newton/Ampere^2

            Expressed in terms of SI base units, it has the unit kg⋅m⋅s−2⋅A−2. It can be also expressed in terms of SI derived units, N⋅A−2, H·m−1, or T·m·A−1, which are all equivalent.

            The new definition of the ampere fixes the value of e instead of μ0, and as a result, μ0 must be determined experimentally [BIPM 2016]. Similarly, the permittivity of vacuum ε0 = 1/μ0c2 must be determined experimentally (as it was before c was fixed in 1983). The product ε0μ0 = 1/c2 remains exact.

            And here;

            https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

            After Maxwell published his theory of electromagnetism, it became possible to calculate the speed of light indirectly by instead measuring the magnetic permeability and electric permittivity of free space. This was first done by Weber and Kohlrausch in 1857. In 1907 Rosa and Dorsey obtained 299,788 km/s in this way. It was the most accurate value at that time.

            Many other methods were subsequently employed to further improve the accuracy of the measurement of c, so that it soon became necessary to correct for the refractive index of air since c is light’s speed in a vacuum. In 1958 Froome obtained a value of 299,792.5 km/s using a microwave interferometer and a Kerr cell shutter. After 1970 the development of lasers with very high spectral stability and accurate caesium clocks made even better measurements possible. Up until then, the changing definition of the metre had always stayed ahead of the accuracy in measurements of the speed of light. But by 1970 the point had been reached where the speed of light was known to within an error of plus or minus 1 m/s. It became more practical to fix the value of c in the definition of the metre and use atomic clocks and lasers to measure accurate distances instead. Nowadays, the speed of light in vacuum is defined to have an exact fixed value when given in standard units. Since 1983 the metre has been defined by international agreement as the distance travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. This makes the speed of light exactly 299,792.458 km/s. (Also, because the inch is now defined as 2.54 centimetres, the speed of light also has an exact value in imperial units.) This definition only makes sense because the speed of light in vacuum is measured to have the same value by all observers;

            Observe how every measurement of c measures it relative to something else!

            The very fundamental constants in which we define c requires experimental measurements which we only can perform by already having other units defined and measuring things like forces relative to them! Even our choice to fix our units so c has a value more precise than we can measure simply means we choose to transfer the measurement errors into the less precise units, the non-fixed units

            This does not make our measurements of c perfectly precise, it still retains measurement errors of c, but whenever we increase the accuracy in measuring c we choose to force that deviation from prior measurements into the other units depending on it. Similar to how you could first make an inaccurate calculation with Pi = 3.14 and then repeat it with hundreds of decimals, you choose to not let other numbers change Pi and let Pi change every else

            You’re also, separately, wrong about mass because it depends on measuring the gravitational force. The definition of mass has changed;

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

            The kilogram, symbol kg, is the SI unit of mass. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.62607015×10−34 when expressed in the unit J⋅s, which is equal to kg⋅m2⋅s−1, where the metre and the second are defined in terms of c and ΔνCs.

            The Joule and Newton and Planck constant are all defined relative to each other!

            … But you can also define Joule in terms of Ohm, in turn defined by Volt, defined by… The meter, second, Ampere (defined as a given number of charges per second), and… The kilogram.

            And if you look at vacuum permeability again, which defines the speed of light, that too depends on the damn Newton which once again is defined circularly as ratios to other measured constants!

            Tldr: Yes some properties of spacetime are absolute.

            However, they are absolute RATIOS defined relative to each other. We took something we could measure reliably and then fixed some of these values relative to our most accurate measurements, and then derived all other values from those based on our measurements of what the ratios must be.

    • magz@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      a second is defined as the time it takes for a caesium atom to oscillate exactly 9192631770 times, at least according to the SI. a meter is then defined, as you said, as the distance light travels in 1/299792458 seconds, which corresponds to some large number of oscillations of those caesium atoms. these numbers are pretty much arbitrary though, we just picked them to match our previous, less precise, definitions of meters and seconds. but using oscillations of caesium atoms and speeds of light in your is completely equivalent to using meters and seconds, except that the latter units are more familiar to us

    • Undearius@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      This got me thinking if we defined the metre to be a more round number, like 1⁄300000000.

      It would shrink the metre by 0.6918mm.

      Now I’m curious about what implications that would have.

    • hansolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The small thing defines the big thing that defines the small thing that defines…

      • Sunforged@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s deeper than that as we have instruments to measure things we can’t personally perceive.

        From everything we know it’s quite literally the limit the universe can update. For the photon moving at light speed time quite literally doesn’t exist. When you look up at the stars, for the photons hitting your eye balls their experience is that creation to reception is instantaneous. The millions or billions of years we perceive it traveled doesn’t exist at that speed.

        I just think that’s neat.

        • bananabenana@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          18 hours ago

          That’s beautifully written. I like the idea that I receive cute lil interstellar photons. The stochastic nature of the universe means I am being irradiated by an interstellar object thousands of years away. They started a journey from a star thousands of years ago, crossed the vast expanse of space without hitting anything, pierced our planet’s atmosphere as our planet and system hurtle through space, and was then absorbed by a single cone cell in my eye. It almost feels unbelievable.

  • Lumidaub@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    A mile is 0.000000000000**1701** light years. How d’you like them Kaferian apples?

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m a dumbass? I’m not the one deciding all speed should be scaled to a fraction of the fastest thing that exists, dipshit.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s a convention in theoretical physics to adopt so-called “natural” units. In the natural system of units, measures of length, time, and mass are chosen so as to make the speed of light and the gravitational constant 1. Or sometimes it’s the speed of light and Planck’s constant.

      Anyhow, this makes the resulting measures of length, time, and mass completely nonsensical to any human scale problem. But it makes physics equations much shorter to write down, because you can drop all of the c’s, G’s, and h-bars and whatnot.

      For example, the famous E = m c^2 becomes E = m. Energy is mass. Voila.