Independent of particles. Thatis particles exist in space, like air molecules; but they move around in space. They are not space itself, which is the logical outcome of Seasick's analysis. The matter Seasick needs to sustain light propagation must be dense in comparison to a wavelength of light which is sub-micron. So for all essential purposes the matter to sustain the propagation of light would be macroscopically continuous. That is akin to the old concept of ether. It does not make any sense to me. Space is space, and matter is matter, and never the twain shall meet, or something like that.

J

• We experience them as moving particles - tkorrovi - December 21, 2003 - 02:38 UTC
  • Light propagates in the absence of particles - yanniru - December 21, 2003 - 03:13 UTC
    • Vacuum is not exactly absence of particles - tkorrovi - December 21, 2003 - 03:39 UTC
      • Maxwell, Faraday, Michaelson, Planck - yanniru - December 21, 2003 - 04:03 UTC
        • So you cannot answer the question - tkorrovi - December 21, 2003 - 05:14 UTC
          • Quantum effects can stop light - yanniru - December 21, 2003 - 13:35 UTC
            • Re: - tkorrovi - December 21, 2003 - 15:40 UTC
      • No such "complete vacuum" - smartguy - December 21, 2003 - 21:09 UTC