Are the predictions of the two slit experient stlll valid for lightslowed down in a substrate?

Light has been shown to move less than the speed of light through some
substrates.

Has anyone tested to see if the conventional results of a two slit
experient still hold while

moving through such a substrate ?

Dear mquasi:

wrote in message
...
Light has been shown to move less than the
speed of light through some substrates.

c_medium c_vacuum

Yes.

Has anyone tested to see if the conventional
results of a two slit experient still hold while
moving through such a substrate ?

A moving apparatus through honey, say? Not possible.

Fizeau showed that light travelled at c_medium + v_medium though,
if that helps, it it should return a non-null MMX result.
http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relf...ments.html#III

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
| Dear mquasi:
|
| wrote in message
| ...
| Light has been shown to move less than the
| speed of light through some substrates.
|
| c_medium c_vacuum
|
| Yes.
|
| Has anyone tested to see if the conventional
| results of a two slit experient still hold while
| moving through such a substrate ?
|
| A moving apparatus through honey, say? Not possible.
|
| Fizeau showed that light travelled at c_medium + v_medium though,
| if that helps, it it should return a non-null MMX result.
| http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relf...ments.html#III
|
| David A. Smith

Sagnac showed that light travelled at c+v and c-v though,
if that helps, and it (it (it (it))) does return a non-null MMX result so
****in' good we now have ring laser gyroscopes which help
a helluva lot.

Why did the useless ******* Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

On Aug 2, 3:30*am, " wrote:
On Jul 31, 7:36 pm, wrote:

Light has been shown to move less than the speed of light through some
substrates.

* I hope you meant-

* "Light, while moving through some substrates, has been shown to move
at less than the speed of light in vacuum."

* However, note that usually the term "medium" is used rather than
"substrate" since the latter implies a solid material, while the
former includes gases, liquids, and plasmas.

* And you are correct for media with refractive index or = 1.

Has anyone tested to see if the conventional *results of a two slit
experient still hold while
moving through such a substrate ?

* Why would it be relevant to the outcome of a two-slit experiment to
move the experimental apparatus through said medium?

* Mark L. Fergerson

I think I was misunderstood. I was not addressing the aether or ether

I was addressing a solid media in which that experients have shown
like to slow down.

I believe the media was a solid crystaline structure.The MMX of course
is subject to accuracy.

I am doing a thought experiment in which I postulate that the
invariance of the speed of light

Is due to photons inability to penetrate the boundaries of the time
dimension better known as the light cone.

photons for instance ejected from a atomic orbital instantly or
limited by this boundary and lose all causality

hence the property of quantum weirdness as it violates the causality
of space and time bounded by 4-space.

So I further postulate, if light moves through a solid media which is
at rest at c it loses it's quantum wierdness because

it is still contained by 4-space. The MMX apparatus would have to be
integral to the crystaline media.