1

Given the importance of the speed of light to so many in areas of science, engineering, computing, etc. and so many areas of daily life, particularly for example with the electromagnetic spectrum that continues to skyrocket in value, I have been unable to find a specific LaTeX symbol for the "invariant speed" of relativity theory, often represented by an italic c followed a subscript 0. From a LaTeX perspective, the closest code I've found to represent what is often coded as \textit{c}_0 is:

\newrobustcmd{\clight}{$c_{\scalebox{.8}{${\text{\tiny 0}}$}}$}

but the above code is problematic when imbedded in other LaTeX math functions, which has led me to post this question. What am I missing?

Update: David's comment prompted me to look into the basis of c_0, given the common usage as simply c, e.g. E=mc^2. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#cite_note-BIPM_SI_units-14, footnotes #9 and #10, for details on how c_0 appears in 'The International System of Units (SI)' et al. Based on David's comments, perhaps a better fit to how c_0 is portrayed in SI would be using \footnotesize in lieu of \tiny in the above \newrobustcmd, (also removing the $'s ) e.g.:

\newrobustcmd{\clight}{c_{\scalebox{.8}{{\text{\footnotesize 0}}}}}

I'll be the first to admit, c_0 was new to me, as I imagine it is to others. As pointed out in the above footnotes #9 and #10, however, it's not unheard of, and for my purposes c_0 stands opposite to c_{\text{medium}} for materials, such as c_{\text{glass}} (glass fibre) where the refractive index is not equal to 1.0.

All this would be so much simpler if there existed an official LaTeX symbol representing the speed of light through a vacuum, as opposed to my attempts to jig up a resemblance to a reference in an SI document to represent the "invariant speed" of relativity theory.

IMHO, c_0 simply does NOT do Einstein's seminal discovery, and all the groundwork by those before him, justice, particularly when considering all of the effort that LaTeX so carefully represents for symbols of similar stature.

Update 2: Lest I misjudge a solution for which I am neither qualified nor experienced, the following is a snapshot from p. 112 'SI Units' in the above mentioned link:

Two instances of c_0 symbol from the The International System of Units (SI) (PDF) (8th ed.) 2006 which under greater magnification becomes:

Larger c_0 image as it appears in SI.

Under greater magnification, I see 2 issues: 1) The fonts I get using Mico's answer (which I recognize are a function of my system default fonts) do not match what appears in the SI, but more to the point, 2) to my eye, the 0 subscript is somewhere between c_{\scriptstyle 0} and c_{\scriptscriptstyle 0} in size (as I see it, closer to c_{\scriptstyle 0}, but then again my eyesight is not the best).

As an aside, I would feel more comfortable if a physicist with some understanding of semiotics, linguistics or whatever is appropriate could weigh in. I'm even puzzled about the \clight name for such a macro. The underlying assumption of "through a vacuum" is such a powerful condition (akin to '0K' (zero K, not 'OK') which theoretically exists but I understand is practically unattainable) that I'd be a bit remiss to check off on a less-informed LaTeX behavior, despite the years of expertise and experience that DCarlisle, Mico and others bring to the table. (I am so much out of my element here.)

Clearly DCarlisle, Mico and others have nailed the LaTeX syntax to assist in defining the issue, offering perfectly agreeable answers and solutions.

But I'm open to, would like to see, and would appreciate any additional comments and suggestions that are relevant.

RosesBouquet
  • 569
  • 3
  • 13
  • 6
    I suppose the natural question is why not c_0 ? you should remove the outer $ from your definition so it can be used in math (and use $\clight$ if you are not in math), You can also remove the inner $ as they are not doing anything in that context) but I don't see why you use a text 0 or make it so small: .8\tiny is .8*5= 4pt which is "barely readable" – David Carlisle Jan 19 '22 at 23:14
  • 1
    I guess I've never seen the speed of light written as c_0, only as c alone. – Herb Schulz Jan 20 '22 at 00:41
  • "c_0 simply does NOT do [...] justice" ... We usually don't discuss whether or not you should use one style or the other here (the LaTeX team prefers the "normal" c_0 style, as you can see above), we discuss "if you want to typeset this in (La)TeX what can you do". Anyway — – user202729 Jan 20 '22 at 05:05
  • you're just looking for \ensuremath. (should be safe as the command doesn't take any parameter) – user202729 Jan 20 '22 at 05:05
  • Actually, "normal" math commands doesn't work properly in text mode without the surrounding $ anyway, so just drop the $ would be the usual behavior. ■ By the way (@​RosesBouquet) you should write "@DavidCarlisle" in the comment, see How do comment @replies work? - Meta Stack Exchange – user202729 Jan 20 '22 at 05:08
  • @user202729 and HerbSchulz: Thanks for the comments. I'm no physicist, and my years in engineering never hinted at the full import of what c_0 represents. I don't like using metaphysical term like transcendental, but the impression I get from even just a cursory reading is the "invariant speed" of relativity theory is just that. With the JWST at one end, to GHz bandwidth overlap that affects commercial aviation worldwide at the other (and so many other examples), the manifestation of what c_0 means in our lives is everywhere! IMHO there's a reason why SI and others use a proper version of c_0. – RosesBouquet Jan 20 '22 at 05:26
  • @DavidCarlisle: Thanks for the tip on removing the $'s. Worked perfectly, particularly when using \noteworthy ... saved me HOURS of pulling out my hair. If you can post your comment as an answer, I can upvote to give you credit. Thanks! – RosesBouquet Jan 20 '22 at 05:28
  • "Proper version" maybe that's just the default way math formulas in e.g. Microsoft Word looks like? – user202729 Jan 20 '22 at 05:31
  • Although it looks like you're not the only one to think that. fonts - Mathptmx - number subscript too large - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange – user202729 Jan 20 '22 at 05:32
  • @user202729 - that's essentially the issue I saw when I compared the LaTeX c_0 to the symbol that appears in the SI. But dare I say, the impression I now have is that there is so much more to c_0 than just the 'speed of light'. I'm not suggesting that the "invariant speed" of relativity theory needs it's own symbol. But I lean toward a careful rendering that reflects the unique nature of Einstein's (and other's) discovery. – RosesBouquet Jan 20 '22 at 05:52
  • 1
    No sorry you could self answer but the markup here should be c_0 or if you feel 0 is too big c_{\scriptscriptstyle 0} certainly don't use \scalebox or \tiny here apart from anything else it will prevent the 0 changing size if the math is \large or in superscripts etc. – David Carlisle Jan 20 '22 at 08:02

1 Answers1

3

I gather that your main issue is that the glyph 0 looks "too big" when it's placed in a subscript position to the right of c or m. If this interpretation is correct, you could try rendering 0 in \scriptscriptstyle (for a 50% linear reduction in size) instead of the default \scriptstyle (which entails a 30% linear size reduction).

enter image description here

For this approach to generate sensible outcomes, \clight and \restmass should occur while in displaystyle or textstyle mode. Don't use the macros in \scriptstyle, let alone \scriptscriptstyle, mode.

\documentclass{article} 
\usepackage{amsmath} 
\newcommand\clight{\ensuremath{c_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}}
\newcommand\restmass{\ensuremath{m_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}}
\begin{document}
$c_0 \ m_0 \ \clight \ \restmass$ \clight \ \restmass
\end{document}
David Carlisle
  • 757,742
Mico
  • 506,678
  • Depends on how much effort you want to put in can make mathchoice too. – user202729 Jan 20 '22 at 08:16
  • 1
    @DavidCarlisle -- thanks for the edit! (I had forgotten that \ensuremath has been part of the LaTeX format for a while.) – Mico Jan 20 '22 at 08:16
  • @user202729 -- I'll let the OP speak up on wheher he/she foresees use cases of \clight while in scriptstyle or scriptscriptstyle mode... – Mico Jan 20 '22 at 08:18
  • 3
    "for a while" yes, since 1994 :-) – David Carlisle Jan 20 '22 at 08:18
  • @DavidCarlisle - I guess my earlier comment managed to reveal that I've been using LaTeX since well before 1994 -- and also that I haven't been paying close enough attention, over the years, to which macros have been migrated to the format since then... – Mico Jan 20 '22 at 08:19
  • 1
    @user202729 actually use of this as in in subscripts is Ok as is, it doesn't get smaller but then neither does the 2 in x^{x^2}} the fact that nothing gets smaller than scriptscriptstyle is by design, so we have a chance to read it in paper without zoom facilities – David Carlisle Jan 20 '22 at 08:20