this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2025
778 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

17190 readers
3190 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Acamon@lemmy.world 52 points 11 hours ago (26 children)

Anyone come up with a good measure of distance that makes the speed of light a nice round number? I like the metric system, but the meter feels pretty arbitrary. We could do better!

[–] unrealMinotaur@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 hours ago

I would like to give a massive shout out to the fact that a foot is only 5mm off from being a light nanosecond. (Pure coincidence, but imagine if the next God emperor of America changed the foot definition by 5mm to make a truly science based unit of measurement.)

[–] jumperalex@lemmy.world 36 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Not arbitrary.

Since 2019, the meter has been defined as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of ⁠1/299792458⁠ of a second, where the second is defined by a hyper-fine transition frequency of caesium.

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

[–] verdare@piefed.blahaj.zone 103 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I mean, that is pretty arbitrary. The reason the divisor is that specific constant is because we already had meters before we knew the speed of light.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 21 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

we already had meters before we knew the speed of light.

It's true.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the metric system.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

[–] msage@programming.dev 6 points 7 hours ago

Then the devil created Britain.

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 21 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Then it's lucky the numbers line up as well as they do, no?

[–] Morphit@feddit.uk 14 points 9 hours ago

299792458? That's amazing; I've got the same combination on my luggage!

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 23 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

One light year is 9.4607379e+15 meters, so there’s a power of 10 that could give us a unit of length close to 94 cm. That would not be as arbitrary.

But fuck me if we discover the speed of light in a vacuum has not been constant along the history of the universe, the c would be an awful base for cosmic distance, or very long term science.

But don’t worry, humanity doesn’t look like it will exist long enough to do very long term science.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] marcos@lemmy.world 17 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

You are correctly trying to say it's well defined, but you are complaining about the wrong comment. You should check the meaning of "arbitrary" again.

Anyway, it's not entirely arbitrary because it was created to represent a "round" fraction of the Earth's circumference that is similar to the length of a person's arms. But it deviated from that too, so it's subjective how much that counts.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 27 points 11 hours ago (6 children)

c is pretty round (universal symbol for the speed of light)

aside from that, nothing. as science and maths are mere attempts at describing the universe all our units are arbitrary, decided to be the way they are purely because you just need to pick something to be your reference point.

at no point has a true non-artificial unit emerged, there is no constant size of anything that could aid in that (one contestant for that title could be the planck lenght but that'ss just incredibly inconvenient to use. "honey could you pelase move the couch 6,25 × 1034 planck lengths to the left? [1m])

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 0 points 3 hours ago

Math isn't arbitrary. Otherwise there wouldn't be constant debate about whether it's a human creation or fundamental to any existence.

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Proton masses, the distance light travels in a vacuum in a certain time, and cesium oscillation times are quite constant.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

proton masses are rather small - inconvenient

the distance light travels at a certain time - then it'll just be based on our artificial units of time

cesium oscillation i don't know much about but from what i quickly read it's also about keeping time, 1s to be precise, which is still an arbitrary unit

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Asetru@feddit.org 7 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

I think it's (1 Planck length / 1 Planck time). If you take the smallest distance that exists and divide it by the shortest amount of time that can pass, you have exactly c.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

We do, light travels 1 lightsecond per second.

Oh, and 1 lightpicosecond is around 2.998mm.

100 lightpicoseconds is also very close to 1'.

[–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 15 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

In many advanced physics fields, they use an arbitrary unit system in which c=1, making equations easier to write down. E=m

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] turdas@suppo.fi 13 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (4 children)

The meter isn't really arbitrary, even when you ignore the redefinition posted by @jumperalex. It was originally defined as 1/10,000,000th the distance from Earth's pole to the equator, which is a pretty reasonable basis to use by 1791 standards.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 13 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

That's pretty damn arbitrary on a universal scale

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 20 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Speed of light in a true vacuum.

Speed of light through any non-vacuum decreases.

The speed of causality remains the same.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 7 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

is the speed of causality tied to speed of light in a vacuum, or independent of it?

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 19 points 9 hours ago

As I understand, the speed of light in vacuum is bound by the speed of causality. So, light would go at infinite speed, if it could (it being massless means any acceleration should result in infinite speed), but instead it goes as fast as the universe allows, which is the speed of causality.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

Speed of Causality is the absolute maximum speed. It's the theoretical maximum that any cause could propagate an effect. Speed of Light in a (perfect) vacuum happens to be equal to the Speed of Causality.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›