C is infinity thus electrons can be in two places at once

[dadnoonan]

My thought experiment is this:

The slit experiment showing photons are
particles and waves leaves out a constant that is wrong.

c in a vacuum is 187kph because vacuum is a medium.

c is infinite in true nothing. Our sample time of an electron
Thus gives probabilities not definates.

The slit produces a pattern like water waves because the photon
Is interacting with its medium.

How am I incorrect in this basic assumption? I am aware it
Destroys any equation so something is missing. why is c so
Limited if it is not in a medium like water we call a vaccum?

 

[DaveC426913]

c in a vacuum is 187kph

You might want to check up on your facts. I'm pretty sure that light is faster than the average race car.

The rest of what you've written makes as little sense. Vacuum is not a medium.

 

[dadnoonan]

Apologies as the unit of speed of light.

That is the question, why is a vacuum not a medium
Light travels through it creating interference

Light in vacuum is limited just as in glass or any other medium.
We fail at the basic assumption a vacuum is empty.
The calculations work out with c based on glass the same since
We are deriving from experiment the velocity of photons.

I understand the wave as probiblity where the photon is
but I am having g trouble defigning a vacuum as we assume it.

 

[strangerep]

dadnoonan,

This is exactly the "aether" debate that was going on over 100 years ago. People couldn't understand how light could propagate in "nothing".

Special relativity showed that the "vacuum is a medium" concept (i.e., the "aether" concept) is unnecessary. (Also indicated by the Michelson-Morley experiment, and others.)

Your question probably belongs over in the relativity forum. They can probably suggest a suitable textbook.

 

[dadnoonan]

Thank you very much! I've looked into this only a bit. I know the maths play out as not necessary
Even in the vastness of space having every electron know information
about the others is what I was trying to reconcile. Ignoring the math
(Not overlooking simply for simplicity sake of the question)
Where is physics on how this works across spacetime?

Heading the reccomended direction.

Thanks for the insight!

 

[jadrian]

dadnoonan,

This is exactly the "aether" debate that was going on over 100 years ago. People couldn't understand how light could propagate in "nothing".

Special relativity showed that the "vacuum is a medium" concept (i.e., the "aether" concept) is unnecessary. (Also indicated by the Michelson-Morley experiment, and others.)

Your question probably belongs over in the relativity forum. They can probably suggest a suitable textbook.

couldnt the stuff feynman dicovered in vacuum effect c?

 

[strangerep]

couldnt the stuff feynman dicovered in vacuum effect c?

Not sure what you're talking about. If you're referring to virtual particles,well they're not real. Rather they're just a mathematical artifact of trying to treat the vacuum of the free theory as being the same as the vacuum of the interacting theory. Only the latter is physical.

Afaik, there's still no experimental evidence against the postulate of special relativity that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.

 

[strangerep]

Even in the vastness of space having every electron know information
about the others is what I was trying to reconcile.

They don't, in general.

Try this Wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_causation

 

[dadnoonan]

The reason for more experimentation.
Empty vacuum as in hawking radiation. Kinda what the LHC
Is doing, by virtual particles. That's the not empty part I am at.
Like we are the the pudding model in our understanding.
Aren't we at levels now that should prove which is correct in our
Universe? Dark matter and more the dark energy is making a vacuum seem less empty
Special realitivity doesn't say its empty, simply not necessary.

I apologize greatly for the disjointedness of my free association thinking.

Hydrogen for example, positrons here then gone. I am going over 1928 reading again
And of I am correct I will be proven wrong which proves my thought is rightly
Flawed and my universe does it exist sadly.

 

[granpa]

Even in the vastness of space having every electron know information
about the others is what I was trying to reconcile. Ignoring the math
(Not overlooking simply for simplicity sake of the question)
Where is physics on how this works across spacetime?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

in a holographic universe every person, every dust mote, every particle contains all the information of the whole universe within itself

 

[DaveC426913]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

in a holographic universe every person, every dust mote, every particle contains all the information of the whole universe within itself

No it does not.

Did you read the article you linked to?

 

[granpa]

every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography#Holography_vs._photography

When a photograph is cut in half, each piece shows half of the scene. When a hologram is cut in half, the whole scene can still be seen in each piece

 

[DaveC426913]

every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography#Holography_vs._photography

When a photograph is cut in half, each piece shows half of the scene. When a hologram is cut in half, the whole scene can still be seen in each piece

While that may be true, that is not what the Holographic Principle is about.

In a nutshell, the Holographic Principle states that, for a given volume of space, all the information contained within that volume can be encoded on the surface of that volume. A direct derivation of this is that the upper limit of the amount of information that the volume of space can contain is limited to how much can be encoded on its surface.