For example, A 9mm bullet travels 380 m/s. Preconditions: The spark from the primer ignites the gunpowder. Gas converted from the burning powder rapidly expands in the cartridge. The expanding gas forces the bullet out of the cartridge and down the barrel with great speed. A photon travels 299,792,458 m/s. Preconditions:  What are they? Why does it travel at exactly that speed? Why not faster/slower?  Thanks.
5561
I was told that the Galilean relative velocity rule does not apply to the speed of light. No matter how fast two objects are moving, the speed of light will remain same for both of them.   How and why is this possible?   Also, why can't anything travel faster than light?
31799
This was discussed in an answer to a  but I think that it deserves a separate and, hopefully, more clear answer.  Consider a single photon ($\lambda$=532 nm) traveling through a plate of perfect glass with a refractive index $n=1.5$. We know that it does not change its direction or other characteristics in any particular way and propagating 1 cm through such glass is equivalent to 1.5 cm of vacuum. Apparently, the photon interacts with glass, but what is the physical nature of this interaction?  Let's not consider high-order effects like Rayleigh/Raman scattering.
15219
A question has recently come up that goes beyond my knowledge of special relativity.  Suppose a pilot has his foot on the gas pedal of a rocket ship and keeps it applied to achieve a constant acceleration, and he has a magical engine that can maintain the thrust needed to accomplish such acceleration even as the vehicle acquires mass.  He measures his acceleration at periodic intervals and sums it up as he goes.  Observers perceive the rocket to increase in speed and gradually approach the speed of light (but never reach it). Two possibilities are being debated for what the pilot observes, and my preference is for the first:   Time dilation gives him the impression that the summation of his readings are approaching light speed at a constant rate, but there is an asymptote involved here even in the inertial frame such that he never actually perceives himself to reach, let alone exceed, $c$, because time slows down to a crawl (as seen from the reference frame) before this can happen. Although to observers he is only approaching $c$, it is possible for the summation of the measurements on his accelerometer to indicate that he has surpassed $c$ and is now traveling faster than light.  From the reference frame he is approaching $c$ and his instruments in the inertial frame tell him that he has surpassed it.   I assume (1) is true beyond a doubt?  If so, is there a straightforward explanation for this?
113510
Can a free electron with a constant velocity V то move eternally at this rate in the inertial frame? The question arises from the fact that a moving charge creates near its trajectory varying electric and magnetic fields. Whether kinetic energy of electron is spent for it?
7705
I'm reading Nano: The Essentials by T. Pradeep and I came upon this statement in the section explaining the basics of scanning electron microscopy.     However, the equation breaks down when the electron velocity approaches the speed of light as mass increases. At such velocities, one needs to do relativistic correction to the mass so that it becomes[...]   We all know about the famous theory of relativity, but I couldn't quite grasp the "why" of its concepts yet. This might shed new light on what I already know about time slowing down for me if I move faster.  Why does the (relativistic) mass of an object increase when its speed approaches that of light?
42735
Is there any theoretical proof for the constant speed of light in all frames of references? I know it is experimentally proven but just curious.
40815
Minutephysics has a popular  called "How to break the speed of light". In the video it states that if you flick your wrist while pointing a laser that reaches the moon, that the spot of light on the moon will travel 20 times the speed of light. Now don't get me wrong, I do like their videos, just this one seemed a bit fishy to me. At first I thought it all practically made sense, then I realised something...  In my mind, I would think that light particles (photons) travel from the laser to the moon and bounces off the moon and back to your eye (it doesn't just stay there, in place, so you can't move it around). Now, what he is stating is that if you flick your wrist these photons that have travelled to the moon will move along with your wrist. Wouldn't these photons be bouncing off of other objects or still travelling to the moon by the time you flick your wrist? i.e. dissipating, therefore new photons will be travelling to the moon (from the laser directly).  For example: let's say you point the laser at the moon, and once it reaches the moon, you wait a couple of seconds and then flick your wrist. The laser that you have flicked will emit photons in every direction that your wrist was in, correct? i.e. The photons would shoot out in a straight line (unless disrupted) continuously, with your wrist taking no affect on the speed of the photons.  So back to the question, is this video wrong?
29313
I have just started special theory of relativity. The limiting speed known as speed of light fascinated me most. I asked my teacher:      Consider two massless objects moving in the same direction at the speed of light. What would be their relative velocity w.r.t each other?   My teacher tells me that their relative velocity would be zero. But then the speed of light is universal constant regardless of the motion of its frame of reference, so shouldn't their relative velocity be $c$? What is their relative velocity and how? Do objects moving at the speed of light obey law of addition of velocities?
22258
Let's say we have a cloud of dust which is a lightyear across and someone shoots a beam of light from point A to B , why it is not possible for an observer far far away to see the light while it travels through the cloud at the speed of light?
13637
Drift velocity (explained to me as how fast the electrons are moving) is really slow. My book says the electrons move at around 10 mm/ s.  If electrons move so slowly how do circuits work so fast? If you make a basic circuit with just a light bulb, the bulb lights up almost immediately after you connect the wire to the positive terminal.
122698
I'm working off the article, . I think it's well-written, but I'm not convinced about this part:     So what is causing the change in the particle’s behaviour?      In the example given above, when electrons are fired at a fluorescent screen, when we bombard the electrons with photons the interaction changes the state of the system catastrophically as, despite lacking mass, photons do carry momentum.   Here the author strongly implicates the momentum of photons as being responsible for the collapse. But is that correct to say?  I have read that the  verified that obscuring which-way information restores wave-like behavior. So it feels to me it's more about some "outer" state (perhaps well-characterized as "information") that we don't yet understand that collapses the system, not per se the photon-electron interaction.  Or am I wrong, and in fact for example, the process of obscuring in the quantum eraser experiments somehow "undoes" the photon-electron interaction or restores the quantum state through another interaction?
102759
Looking at the refractive index of glass, it's around $1.6$.  Then the speed of light $x$ through light should be given by $$ 1.6 = \frac{3.0\times10^8}{x}, $$ so $x$ is about $2\times10^8~\mathrm{m}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$  The frequency is kept constant, so the wavelength must adapt to suit the slower speed, giving a wavelength of $2/3$ the original.  Does this mean that when passing through glass, say red light (wavelength $650~\mathrm{nm}$) changes to indigo ($445~\mathrm{nm}$), as $650 \times 2/3 = 433~\mathrm{nm}$, or is my logic flawed somewhere?
112034
Speed of light may be obtained by inspecting the wave equation derived from Maxwell's equations making Lorentz transformation and special relativity necessary to mediate.  My questions are:  a) Without assuming that $\mu_0$ and $\epsilon_0$ are constant, do we have any theoretical proof that speed of light is constant?  b) Do we have any experiment in high speed condition that proves the constancy of $\mu_0$ and $\epsilon_0$?  c) Do the values of the constants depend on properties of the vacuum or frame (e.g. velocity)?
65200
Wikipedia has this page on  using planets. In some cases this effect was used to accelerate the spacecraft to a higher velocity. This diagram shows this in a very oversimplified manner.   That got me thinking that if light is affected by gravity, and if it slingshots around the black hole/massive object, can't it gain a higher speed than $c$? What limitations are stopping it from doing this?  Forgive me if the answer to this question is pretty straight-forward or staring-you-in-the-face kind. I haven't fully understood the mechanics of the gravitational slingshot fully yet, but I couldn't wait to ask this. Note: If it is possible (I highly doubt that!), could you provide an explanation using Newtonian mechanics, I'm not very familiar with general relativity because I'm in high school.
22829
The title says it all.  If I was on a bus at 60 km/h, and I started walking on the bus at a steady pace of 5 km/h, then I'd technically be moving at 65 km/h, right?  So my son posed me an interesting question today: since light travels as fast as anything can go, what if I shined light when moving in a car?  How should I answer his question?
13475
I was thinking that maybe photons loss energy naturally when they travel great distances.  Or maybe the mass of all matter is increasing over time and therefore photons emitted in the past are necessarily less energetic.  Or is the expansion of space backed up by so much other evidences that trying to find another explanation is completely foolish?
50612
So, I'm traveling to another star 100 light years away in my spaceship. This ship has a solar sail pushed by a laser beamed from my home star system, so can achieve a velocity close to c. It's also got a robust parachute to slow down with.  I understand that if I measure light coming from my origin star, it will always still seem to be streaming past me at light speed (but will red shift as my speed increases). Light coming from my destination star also travels past me at light speed, and will become increasingly blue shifted as I gain speed.  I also understand that an observer checking on my speed at my origin or destination will always find it to be less than c.  However, will I perceive that in terms of the time it apparently takes me to reach my destination, my speed was greater than c? In other words, will it seem to take less than 100 years to reach the destination? 10 years on my watch, say. Or 1 year. Or a week?  Ie, as far as I'm concerned, while light keeps zipping past me at light speed, do I continue to accelerate unabated to an arbitrary apparent speed?  If not, how do I notice my continued acceleration being prevented?