/sci/ - Science & Math

a particle with wave like properties

It's a wave.
Particles have mass. Light has no mass.

>>4793341
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+light+a+particle+or+a+wave%3F

The people who think it's a particle are just too dumb to understand wave mechanics.

I think in reality everything is a wave. Humans are just too dumb to understand how some things can be waves.

Light is like gender. It's not just "a wave" or "a particle", it's a spectrum, a wide range of expressions. Light is a social construct.

>>4793363
>social construct
wut

>>4793363
>>4793363
my /b/tard brain thought "shemale"
the OP is a good troll 5/10

neither.

>this thread

and I thought there were actually some scientists on /sci/. my bad.

So basically none of you are sure what it is?

Smallest possible packets of wave, in case of electomagnetic radiation (or light) photons and with mechanical wave motions phonons. Can be viewed as particles for sake of simplicity, since they have particle like behaviour.

>>4793384
there are, but we stay out of the particle vs wave threads becasue it attracts all the retards.

as for the answer, its a quantized wave. so its like a wave, but a little special. the particle properties are a direct result of the quantization.

Wave goodbye to the particle.

If it is a wave, it is a wave of what?

>>4793465
...?

>>4793465
A wave of energy.

>>4793465
It's a wave of photons, particles of light

>>4793495
>hurr

>>4793341
Light is bosonic matter.

>>4793494
so light is the manifestation of pure energy moving thru space?
I thought energy was a concept to describe movement. It is actually something which can expressed itself directly?

>>4793503
no, the guy is fucking with you.

>>4793503
I don't like how energy acts as a filler word in society.

It's got a specific definition damnit!

Here's a better question - Why do things make sounds when they hit each other?

... So it's a wave then?

>>4793341
light contains both wave and particle properties

Yet light is not both at the same time when observed. It displays particle light properties on some tests, and wave like properties on others. An unobserved light cannot be both at the same time because an unobserved light is in an undetermined state. Which means that it has presumed neither wave properties, nor participle properties.

I personally think Buddhist got this just down 2500 years ago. Their model of it reflects quite accurately.

>>4793465
Photons

>>4793524
I was with you until you mentioned buddhism...

Seriously wtf are you talking about there? Buddhism predicted 2500yrs ago that light had both particle and wave properties?

>>4793538
no, I said the model. the model can be applied to anything.

>>4793538
Model can be applicable to anything

>>4793341
Light (photon) like all other fundamental objects are "Quantum Fields".

That is our modern understanding of reality. All that particle/wave nonsense is very very old and incorrect. It is known to be complete bullshit and only mentioned to children for novelty.

\thread

Both

>>4793524
>quantum mysticism
>mfw people think this is legit

it's neither. Light is light, but disgustingly inferior human minds cannot comprehend that and have to compare it to either particles or waves. Losers.
Light is information.
Also (daily reminder) relativity is wrong

>>4793538
You should have heard by now how mysticism is trying to takeover quantum mechanics to prove their mysticism. Much as I hate mysticism, quantum mechanics works on the level of mysticsm, even if we dont want to admit it. Taoism/Buddhism/Advaita(sect of hindu that resembles buddhism) provide some alternatives to the current quantum paradoxes. Buddhism for some part provides some clues to solving the locality and quantum entanglement problem. Indra's Net is a perfect example of non-locality based universe that works perfectly with quantum entanglement.

>>4793564
Actually you have to go deeper than the simple mysticism of the east. Modern science has roots in religious garbage that still persists today. The first problem is the "you" vs "others" mentality. The problem was widely propagated by plato/aristotle through "form" and "essence." It has created the "I'm different from others" mentality that western civilization thrives on. It is because of this "you" vs "others" that quantum mechanics seems so mystifying to many people. This "you" vs "others" has been questioned by western philosophers due to the understanding of atoms(small atoms that everyone/thing is made up of). There are some theories that are created around the atom (all is one). This goes further with the quantum fields because in the quantum fields, all things are connected, there is no local region called "you" vs "others". What spooks many scientists are that it forces us to look outside the "you" vs "others" mentality that aristotle/plato proposes.

Now this is where mysticism comes in. Mysticism are known to be something that is outside the fields of science. Mystics are barbarians that dont know any science, they are illiterate hippies/druggies/etc. Atleast thats what the western intellectuals see them as. Now where the connection between quantum field and mysticism comes is their belief in "all is one" thing. Our modern civilization prides itself by trying to prove that its not a barbaric state and that we are scientific. We have labeled mystics as barbaric/nonsense speaking people that speak not an ounce of truth. What would happen to this pride if our understanding of the universe is wrong(we are a separate entity) and that mystics are right(all is one)?

>>4793629
hey, OT, but could you give me your email?
I plan on starting a 'project' in a while and am looking for people who understand these things the way you do, with this mentality.
No strings attached, i will just send you an email if the project ever starts and you will be able to choose for yourself if you want to join or not

>>4793629 continued
I suppose I didn't go into the reason for quantum mysticism yet. The reason there is some push for quantum mysticism is because they want the mystic's method and how it got to their solution to be known to the scientific community. Scientific community can reject mysticism for all it wants, but the point is that the "all is one" people are relaying some sort of truth. In essence, the proponents want mystic ideas to be acknowledge, opponents doesn't want science to be tainted by mystic ideas. Some people are divided, others dont care where the answer comes from as long as it provides a working foundation

>>4793577
>>4793577
>quantum mechanics works on the level of mysticsm

NOPE

>>4793647
use 420chan's /pss/ I go there sometimes(and the topics dont die as fast as /sci/). I dont use email.

>>4793668
noted

>>4793577
I think you are full of shit
>>Buddhism for some part provides some clues to solving the locality and quantum entanglement problem. Indra's Net is a perfect example of non-locality based universe that works perfectly with quantum entanglement.
explain

>>4793577
>>4793629
>>4793565
>>4793647
>>4793651

>>4793682
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net

Compare that with your understanding of Quantum Entanglement/Quantum Field/Bell's theorem

I suppose there are some more connections I can make with other quantum mechanic aspects with buddhist view of reality but thats for another subject


>>4793687
your lack of understanding of quantum mechanics is showing.

>>4793687
Theres a reason why Einstein said quantum mechanics was spooky.

>>4793699
You don't actually know any quantum mechanics, do you? You seem to be one of those kids with some shitty pop-science understanding, which is itself completely fucking wrong!

I suggest you actually take the time to learn quantum mechanics, before you start comparing some of its concepts (which you don't actually understand) to some shitty religious nonsense.

>>4793704

A wave with particle like properties. Everything else makes no sense. You don't have tiny bits of light matter shooting at you from the sun. It's a fucking wave.

>>4793708
Explain your reasons. You havent explained anything other than "you dont seem to know." You seem like you're bullshitting

>>4793726
>implying I am making any positive assertions

You ask me to explain why Anon's bullshit is false? Instead of just asking Anon to explain why he thinks his bullshit is true?

WTF is wrong with you? Do you have no critical thinking skills what-so-fucking-ever?

>>4793734
>logical and reasonable assertion
>OMG BULLSHIT
>explain why its bullshit
>OMG I DONT HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT CAUSE ITS WRONG AND YOU DONT HAVE CRITICAL THINKING SKILL

Light, it's just the photons emitted by the atoms when their electrons move from the high electronic levels to the lower levels. And simultaneously, they move and emit photons that are light. Photons are the light basically. Here, you're confusing light with the atoms and electrons.. The light is a FUCKING WAVE YOU IDIOTS. If you don't believe me go do some wikipedia research you fucking lazy asses

>inb4 >yes

>>4793714
Not OP. but when ever this comes up in science classess, discussions with other students answers given like yours are what i hear most often.

in this case, is it fair to say that matter is particle with wave like properties?

and to go one further, does it even really matter weither light or matter have wave like or particle like properties its all just energy(waves)

>>4793749
>comparing quantum mechanics to eastern religions
>logical and reasonable assertion

Do you not know what "logical" and "reasonable" means?

>>4793763
but einsten showed that photons behave as particles(photoelectric effect, pretty sure there was a nobel prize for this too).

>>4793766
see >>4793552

Just because you don't understand what a quantum field is, doesn't make it any less true. Read a fucking book kid.

\thread

>>4793769
I dont think you know what those are. If you were a judge you would have to excuse yourself from the case for having a strong bias.

>>4793769
Seems like you're the emotional type, ironically a laughing Data fits your response to this subject perfectly.

>>4793768
Hertz

>>4793774
>quantum mechanics
>religion

>>4793778
>mfw religion tells that there is a sun and a world
>mfw science says that there is a sun and a world

>mfw science is obviously right and religiously wrong, hence there are no sun/world and there are sun/world.

I can make analogies like this all day till you realize what you're doing

>>4793774
>thinks requiring proof is a bias

Nice religious thinking bro!

>>4793769
u seem to have a findemental understanding of how our existance and reality works?

>>4793781
I only get emotional when your sister refuses to swallow. Shit makes me mad dawg! Not as mad as you though...

>>4793787
>implying science proves anything
Do you not know what science is?

>>4793795
>i always come normal and leave with a mental disablity.

>>4793791
>>4793788
When did you know you were different? Is it hard leaving with a mental disability?

so while we are on the topic.

Is conciousness a wave or a particle?

>>4793793
No. I don't have time for science, your mom is a 24 hours job. Bitch constantly dick drunk!

>>4793793
Actually lemme rephrase. Science builds models based on empirical data, not proofs.

>>4793795
>>4793800
>>>/b/

>>4793798
I cum the same way with your mom dawg. She rides the cock so much, I leave that shit sore and disabled. Shit fucking hurts!

>>4793341
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Photons are not thought of as "little billiard balls" but are rather viewed as field quanta – necessarily chunked ripples in a field, or "excitations", that "look like" particles.

\THREAD

>quantum mysticism

>>4793341
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yplCob7_Ck

/thread

fuck these /b/tards

>>4793806
>cantstoppissing.jpg

>>4793819
whats so faliable about quantum mysticism? what makes you so sure we can actually be aware of all the consequences of the universe we live in?

'particle' or 'wave' is merely a human observation of the phenomena 'energy'.

>>4793838
im fairly sure someone has already tried to imply this.

>>4793565
what isnt information? is it fair to say that not everything is made of energy, but that energy is made of information, ergo everything is just information?

>>4793844

See what I did there?

>>4793629
why cant science and religiobn coexist? regardless there is no way of knowing wiether quantum mysticisms makes some valid aurguments about the nature of our universe. You seem illogical in blamming druggies and hippies and it is illogical to assume they are inferrior.

Are you aware of the eight circuit model of conciousness? and not intellectuals are not druggies.

>>4793855
are you too a msytic?

>>4793859
Religions and science both makes claims. Obviously not all those claims are same. Simplify both sides enough, you'll see something similar to each sides. By that time, will religion still be called a religion? Will science still be called a science?

>>4793859

Science and religion both exist because both fail to exactly explain the universe. Fix that problem and there will be no need to co-exist. Interestingly enough, it's not that difficult. We just need to employ logical thinking, and the vast majority of humans are currently incapible of doing so.

>>4793865
the reason they fail is because people apply logical thinking. the moment you need to invoke axioms of any sort in your explanation you're giving up the accuracy of your claims.

>>4793867

If we simply take the axiom that everything is energy, we do not sacrifice logical thinking, and from this idea we can create and prove such a huge array of truths that the primary axiom must be correct. An axiom can also be a logical statement following from the primary axiom.

>>4793874
axioms such as "everything is energy" is a huge leap of faith.

>>4793874
You're suggesting our desired form of logic is inherently circular. Are you sure you know what you want?

>>4793880
precisely, this is why I personally have a big issue with axioms.

The issue all comes from the Law of the Excluded Middle. From that axiom we get logic, the scientific method, maths, language, everything. So you either have nothing or one big unjustifiable leap of faith, making nobody better than religious or faith based. Not a criticism on either sorry.

Sadly even this criticism isn't entirely accurate by nature of requiring language to convey. Still, you'd need to invoke the very axiom to use that for support of using it, being a circular argument.

tl;dr fuck absolute truth it's garbage.

>>4793886
An axiom of a system cannot be a logical theorem of the same system.

>>4793880

Perhaps, but if the concequences of this are able to completely explain everything and correct any mistake, on every area. If we can use to this to create a correct general theory for everything and understand the universe, and if the practical applications agree, do you not think that proves that it's not a leap of faith?

>>4793887
Axioms are theorems whose proofs consist of stating the axiom.

>>4793887

This means that communication is illogical by definition, because the attatchment of meaning to each word can be regarded as a separate axiom.

>>4793890
No, axioms are statements defined to be true and are used a building block. If you construct a theorem proving the axiom, you only did so through a circular, therefore invalid, argument.
>>4793897
sure, if you want to see it that way. There's nothing in nature to support words should have meaning over others.

>>4793909

We could even say the concept of axioms and the invented logic behind them are invalid... which makes things interesting

>>4793909
>axioms are statements defined to be true and are used a building block.
This is correct.
>If you construct a theorem proving the axiom, you only did so through a circular, therefore invalid, argument.
You are confused. In a logical system in which X is an axiom, X is also a theorem of that system, and the proof is simply to state X. Of course it is invalid to apply this proof in logical systems which do not take X as an axiom.

>>4793917
To elaborate, axioms are considered theorems because that makes it easier to reason about logic. It might seem strange, but it's similar to why we consider zero a number.

>>4793917
You're right about it being a theorem of the system, but it has no proof. If it did, it wouldn't be required to be an axiom.
>>4793921
no they're considered axioms because they have no proof. You shouldn't need to add more axioms to make some random human construct such as logic make sense. the more you do that the more you're convolution your axiomatic system and taking away its explanation capacity.

>>4793964
The proof is simply stating the axiom. It might not be a proof in the conventional sense in that it doesn't tell you anything you hadn't already accepted, but formally, it's still a proof.

>>4793998
What argument form does it require. I know you don't want to say it. Go on.
>evading my other points

>>4793998
I'll give you a hint, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Both/neither

Sometimes it displays properties of a particle, sometimes it displays properties of a wave.

>>4794020
I don't care what your other points were, I just dropped by to correct
>An axiom of a system cannot be a logical theorem of the same system.

light is particle
light is wave
light is both particle and wave
light is neither (particle or wave) nor both (particle and wave)

light is simply undeterministic

light is a magic

light is a bastard. lets just settle with it being particles which travel in a wave. in most cases this appears to be the observable truth

>>4794052
Can we agree it's a trivial theorem of a system then? (whatever use/validity that might have) since it's proof requires a non sequitur
>dealing with Axiomatic Defense Force

this thread

light is a state of matter described as travailing as waves but deterministically a form of matter

>>4793341
rhythm is a dancer

Light particles are massless particles, called Photons. They are particles, however, they do travel like waves.

Light is a particle moving as if it were a wave.

>>4795203
>particle
>massless

0/10
too obvious
not even rustled

>>4795219
You clearly don't know anything about optical physics. Any physicist will say Photons have no mass.

>>4795225
Then they aren't particles and if you read the thread you would of seen how all the physicists say it's a wave.

>>4795228
Wave of particles.

>>4795229
Wave of energy.

it's all relativity and reference frame. I mean, no mass? quantum mass more like. Other wise why does it have inertia or force? It's all a matter of probability on a quantum scale, making it look like a wave propagating. It's just more likely they'll end up in a similar spot and that probability looks like a wave.

I'm not the best at communicating with a keyboard. sorry if i sound aspie.

do you see now why i said people who know what they are talking about stay out of these threads?

this retardism knows no bounds.

>>4795306
>implying this isn't an intillectual thread