• Neato@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s light as an aggregate wave. Photons, actual light, always travel at c. What’s happening in a medium is the rapid absorption and readmission of photons. The probability of admission is based on structure of material causing things like lens or mirrors to work.

          You can think of it as the photons having to jump between platforms before the can continue running at c.

        • there1snospoon@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • ziggurism@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year 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.

            • there1snospoon@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              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?

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, they don’t. They can get absorbed and re-emitted, and the space they are moving though can compress sideways. But they can’t make curves at all.

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s basically all that refraction is. A dead giveaway is that light doesn’t move at the speed of light in them.

        • Neato@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes.

          Don’t think about individual photons. Think about billions of them with destructive and constructive interference. The probabilities of all the sitting l additive waves of light.