I am not a physicist. Please help me correct my understanding below:

I used to think that speed of light in vacuum is the maximum speed possible.

Now, I think even light may never travel as fast for pure vacuum may not even be anywhere.

In my limited understanding, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle wouldn't allow to say confidently whether a given location is actually vacuum at a given instant.

If this is true, for no smaller distance light couldn't travel at the upper limit.

Please educate me.

On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 12:34:01 PM UTC-4, Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
> I am not a physicist. Please help me correct my understanding below:
>
> I used to think that speed of light in vacuum is the maximum speed possible.
<snip>

Troll alert.

DO NOT STROKE THE TROLLS.

Report it as spam instead.

On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 9:34:01 AM UTC-7, Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
> I am not a physicist. Please help me correct my understanding below:
>
> I used to think that speed of light in vacuum is the maximum speed possible.
>
> Now, I think even light may never travel as fast for pure vacuum may not even be anywhere.

Special relativity is a classical (non-quantum) theory.

> In my limited understanding, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle wouldn't allow to say confidently whether a given location is actually vacuum at a given instant.
>
> If this is true, for no smaller distance light couldn't travel at the upper limit.
>
> Please educate me.

In quantum field theory virtual particles travel along arbitrary spacetime paths
(including faster than c).

--
Jan

On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 9:34:01 AM UTC-7, Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
> I am not a physicist. Please help me correct my understanding below:
>
> I used to think that speed of light in vacuum is the maximum speed possible.
>
> Now, I think even light may never travel as fast for pure vacuum may not even be anywhere.
>
> In my limited understanding, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle wouldn't allow to say confidently whether a given location is actually vacuum at a given instant.
>
> If this is true, for no smaller distance light couldn't travel at the upper limit.
>
> Please educate me.

The Dirac positronic sea, is mostly empty itself.

Thanks to gas laws near vacuum is about empty.

About Heisenberg, is about the statistical interpretation of
quantum mechanics. The uncertainty is only a statistical
interpretation, and how it's applied. The statistical interpretation
is most entirely effective especially because the formulas
result being cast in data that is also statistical, and some
usual statistical formuulas are well understood, that
the "particle numbers" have "addition fornula" that
happen mostly to reflect their "statistics".

There's a school where wave/particle duality actually
have that "the collapse of the wave function to the
particle value is real itself", attaching more than a
statistical interpretation, any "action not really at a
distance but just at the same time however so
contrived", that otherwise action is only the particles,
each only their establishment, existence, or flow,
the particles, statistics.

That electrons can be arbitrarily far away from the nucleus,
still is for that "vacuum is always volumnar", for usual
spacetime number fields with particle numbers that compose,
and usual paradoxes of motion and time, that somehow physics solves.

poniedziałek, 8 sierpnia 2022 o 18:49:21 UTC+2 JanPB napisał(a):
> On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 9:34:01 AM UTC-7, Bhushit Joshipura wrote:
> > I am not a physicist. Please help me correct my understanding below:
> >
> > I used to think that speed of light in vacuum is the maximum speed possible.
> >
> > Now, I think even light may never travel as fast for pure vacuum may not even be anywhere.
> Special relativity is a classical (non-quantum) theory.
> > In my limited understanding, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle wouldn't allow to say confidently whether a given location is actually vacuum at a given instant.
> >
> > If this is true, for no smaller distance light couldn't travel at the upper limit.
> >
> > Please educate me.
> In quantum field theory virtual particles travel along arbitrary spacetime paths
> (including faster than c).
>
> --
> Jan

You forgotten to mention:
virtual particle moves virtually.

Bhushit Joshipura <joshipura@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not a physicist. Please help me correct my understanding below:
>
> I used to think that speed of light in vacuum is the maximum speed possible.

Correct.

> Now, I think even light may never travel as fast for pure vacuum may not
> even be anywhere.

Pure vacuum has nothing to do with it.
Light always travels at c, microscopically speaking,
even in transparant media like water.
It is the interference of amplitudes that creates the appearance of a
macroscopic wave that travels more slowly.
(see under 'extinction theorem')

> In my limited understanding, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle wouldn't
> allow to say confidently whether a given location is actually vacuum at a
> given instant.

Irrelevant.

> If this is true, for no smaller distance light couldn't travel at the
> upper limit.

'c' doesn't exist, as a physical quantity.
It is merely a conversion constant between unfortunately chosen units.
In natural units it equals 1

Jan

On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 12:02:58 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Bhushit Joshipura <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not a physicist. Please help me correct my understanding below:
> >
> > I used to think that speed of light in vacuum is the maximum speed possible.
> Correct.
> > Now, I think even light may never travel as fast for pure vacuum may not
> > even be anywhere.
> Pure vacuum has nothing to do with it.
> Light always travels at c, microscopically speaking,
> even in transparant media like water.
> It is the interference of amplitudes that creates the appearance of a
> macroscopic wave that travels more slowly.
> (see under 'extinction theorem')
> > In my limited understanding, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle wouldn't
> > allow to say confidently whether a given location is actually vacuum at a
> > given instant.
> Irrelevant.
> > If this is true, for no smaller distance light couldn't travel at the
> > upper limit.
> 'c' doesn't exist, as a physical quantity.
> It is merely a conversion constant between unfortunately chosen units.
> In natural units it equals 1
>
> Jan

How could you watch light propagating
in the vacuum of curved space?

poniedziałek, 8 sierpnia 2022 o 23:06:07 UTC+2 mitchr...@gmail.com napisał(a):
> On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 12:02:58 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Bhushit Joshipura <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am not a physicist. Please help me correct my understanding below:
> > >
> > > I used to think that speed of light in vacuum is the maximum speed possible.
> > Correct.
> > > Now, I think even light may never travel as fast for pure vacuum may not
> > > even be anywhere.
> > Pure vacuum has nothing to do with it.
> > Light always travels at c, microscopically speaking,
> > even in transparant media like water.
> > It is the interference of amplitudes that creates the appearance of a
> > macroscopic wave that travels more slowly.
> > (see under 'extinction theorem')
> > > In my limited understanding, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle wouldn't
> > > allow to say confidently whether a given location is actually vacuum at a
> > > given instant.
> > Irrelevant.
> > > If this is true, for no smaller distance light couldn't travel at the
> > > upper limit.
> > 'c' doesn't exist, as a physical quantity.
> > It is merely a conversion constant between unfortunately chosen units.
> > In natural units it equals 1
> >
> > Jan
> How could you watch light propagating
> in the vacuum of curved space?

light is invisible.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 12:53:15 PM UTC-7, Alsor wrote:
> poniedziałek, 8 sierpnia 2022 o 23:06:07 UTC+2 mitchr...@gmail.com napisał(a):
> > On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 12:02:58 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Bhushit Joshipura <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am not a physicist. Please help me correct my understanding below:
> > > >
> > > > I used to think that speed of light in vacuum is the maximum speed possible.
> > > Correct.
> > > > Now, I think even light may never travel as fast for pure vacuum may not
> > > > even be anywhere.
> > > Pure vacuum has nothing to do with it.
> > > Light always travels at c, microscopically speaking,
> > > even in transparant media like water.
> > > It is the interference of amplitudes that creates the appearance of a
> > > macroscopic wave that travels more slowly.
> > > (see under 'extinction theorem')
> > > > In my limited understanding, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle wouldn't
> > > > allow to say confidently whether a given location is actually vacuum at a
> > > > given instant.
> > > Irrelevant.
> > > > If this is true, for no smaller distance light couldn't travel at the
> > > > upper limit.
> > > 'c' doesn't exist, as a physical quantity.
> > > It is merely a conversion constant between unfortunately chosen units..
> > > In natural units it equals 1
> > >
> > > Jan
> > How could you watch light propagating
> > in the vacuum of curved space?
> light is invisible.

until it gets into your eye...