[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 59 KB, 221x247, 1280303847655.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1659970 No.1659970 [Reply] [Original]

So I'm just going to let this thread sink or swim because, hey, if nobody sees what's interesting about this they're stupid, scared or both.

Light is not a particle because its speed stays at a maximum constant in a vacuum. Big whoop you'd say until you get to the specific part "for all observers". Basically this means, in space, if you have 2 people and one is flying towards the other who is stationary at 1/2 the speed of light and the person who is traveling shines an extreme superpowered flashlight towards the stationary guy then the person who is traveling will see the stationary guy before the stationary guy sees the traveling guy even though those "photons" have to "bounce" off the stationary guy first before the traveller could see them.

If you don't understand this it's because deep-down, you don't want to. It doesn't make sense because YOU must make sense of it first, just like everyone else.

Still think you don't understand what I said or that I said something wrong? Let me paraphrase: light travels over a greater distance in a shorter amount of time for the traveller than it does for the stationary guy even though they'd be the same "photons". Light is simultaneously moving at 2 different speeds for 2 different observers. Wait no, that's not the right words: light travels 2 different distances in the same amount of time for 2 different observers.

>> No.1659976

*hint* DUALITY *hint*

>> No.1659979

come back when you've taken intro to modern physics 101

>> No.1659980

>>1659979
this guy doesn't know what I said.

>> No.1659984

>>1659980
exactly right, I don't

>> No.1659989

Light is mass. whats this particle bullshit?

>> No.1659999

>>1659976
the duality bit does nothing but confuse people therefore WE must use example. Try explaining how particles can be in 2 different places FIRST before you convincing people light can be a particle.

>> No.1660001

>>1659984
yeah, I know, its kinda obvious by what you said you don't know a dam thing about physics.

>> No.1660018

>>1660001
Maybe, but how much do you know about it?

>> No.1660019

>>1660001
(side note to observers - they don't cover special relativity in physics 101)

>> No.1660024

In relativity everything travels 2 different distances in the same amount of time for 2 different observers. It doesn't make a difference if it has mas or not or is a particle or not.

>> No.1660028

>>1660018
I'll be honest, I don't know a whole lot beyond the premise.

All laws of physics are the same for bodies in uniform motion. If not uniform then the laws are not the same.

>> No.1660029

addition to
>>1660018
for example
>. Basically this means, in space, if you have 2 people and one is flying towards the other who is stationary at 1/2 the speed of light and the person who is traveling shines an extreme superpowered flashlight towards the stationary guy then the person who is traveling will see the stationary guy before the stationary guy sees the traveling guy even though those "photons" have to "bounce" off the stationary guy first before the traveller could see them.
How did you come up with this conclusion?
and 2, how does that prove light is not a particle

and 3 what do you mean by light is not a particle?
do you mean that light is not composed of photons but just an electro-magnetic wave?

>> No.1660031

>>1660024
for pedagogical purposes it does and it seems a lot of people want to ignore that.

>> No.1660046

motherfucking De Broglie, do you know who is?

>> No.1660062

>>1660029
3.) I mean light is not a particle just as much as human bodies are in more than 1 location. If you accept, and more importantly vocalize, that 'things' made of "matter" can be in more than 1 location at an given time then I'll won't correct you if you say particle.

2.) If light is in more than 1 place then its not a singular pinpoint particle as particle inherently implies this to the uninitiated.

1.) I have faith in the people who tell me "Light moves at the same speed for all observers."

>> No.1660077

>>1660062
in short, it's all relative. You have 2 different explainations given one's frame of reference.

>> No.1660082

>>1660077
more than 2: there is more than 2 people on the earth.

>> No.1660088

>>1660077
EVERYTHING is relative

>> No.1660101

>>1660062
3.) I think you're talking about (may be wrong) quantum mechanic and all the superposition and things

2.) I'm guessing, might be wrong again, you're saying that things can only be at one place, not at two places at one time, therefore, light = not particle. again going back to QM superposition, which says, things can be at multiple place at same time before observed making your argument invalid in terms of QM point of view.

1.) Still not sure

>> No.1660107

>>1659970
How about a "Darwinian evolution exists" thread instead?

Why make a thread about common fucking knowledge you dolt?

>> No.1660118

i dont claim to know much, but as you move closer to the speed of light and time effectively stops, couldnt this account for the particle being " in 2 places at once"?

i mean. if time had stopped for the universe around me, yet i could still move freely, i could be walking on earth, and then be standing on the moon, in what would appear to be the same time to anyone outside my frame of reference. (assuming that it were possible to see me)

>> No.1660127

>Basically this means, in space, if you have 2 people and one is flying towards the other who is stationary at 1/2 the speed of light and the person who is traveling shines an extreme superpowered flashlight towards the stationary guy then the person who is traveling will see the stationary guy before the stationary guy sees the traveling guy even though those "photons" have to "bounce" off the stationary guy first before the traveller could see them.
The travelling person is not shining the light on himself, therefore he would not be visible to the stationary person. The stationary person would obviously notice (the notions such as "notice" and "person" are idealistic here) the light first, as it bounces off of him and part of it goes back to the traveller.
And they would both be able to measure its speed and certify that it is constant.

When they see it is irrelevant.

>> No.1660132

wait, how can something be moving at two different speeds

doesnt that mean its in 2 places at once? That seems impossible.

Also shouldnt stationary guy be able to see travling guy, cause when the light from the flashlight hits stationary guy, he can see the light.

Look, OPs post is a disaster area, and I dont think I can understand what he is trying to say without some kind of diagram

>> No.1660138

>>1660132
>Look, OPs post is a disaster area, and I dont think I can understand what he is trying to say without some kind of diagram
It seems to me like he's trying to say that the traveller will see the stationary person first, which doesn't make sense, since photons have to bounce off of the stationary person before reaching the traveller.

So I presume this is some confusion over how vision works and what a constant is.

>> No.1660157

>>1660118
exactly
>>1660132
The light shone by traveller would arrive at the stationary one's observation after the light reflected off him and arrived at the traveller's observation. It's basically a paradox like something leaving a room before it has entered it but you need more than 1 observer for this to be an observable truth.
>>1660107
because you're an arrogant CUNT who doesn't understand what common knowledge means.
>>1660127
>>1660132
The traveller is holding the flashlight, the stationary person doesn't see the flashlight until after the traveller sees him.

>> No.1660165

>>1660101
If a person doesn't understand QM superpositioning then it is useless to refer to light as a particle when you are going to explain the nature of how it works.

>> No.1660181

You cannot say "he saw it before" if the time between the two events are less than what the light needs to from one to an another. It makes just no sens with the principle of relativity.

It is like saying "at the same time" for two events. It just make no sens.

>> No.1660190

>>1660132
> if the time between the two events are less than what the light needs to from one to an another
I'm sorry I don't understand this, could you paraphrase?

>> No.1660206

>>1660138
Light enters the travellers eyes before it enters the observers eyes and the constant is the MEASUREMENT of the speed meaning its the same for both (all) observers and the distance it travels is relative meaning its different between the observers.

Thats it.

>> No.1660225

even people who "know" all this special relativity, meaning know the words used to describe it, can't understand it or refuse to, meaning they can't conceptualize and paraphrase it.

>> No.1660230

>>1660225
I can, but only in French.

>> No.1660235

>>1660157
>The traveller is holding the flashlight, the stationary person doesn't see the flashlight until after the traveller sees him.
That's absolute nonsense, the light shone by the traveller bounces off of the stationary person first, then it comes back to the traveller.

>The light shone by traveller would arrive at the stationary one's observation after the light reflected off him and arrived at the traveller's observation. It's basically a paradox like something leaving a room before it has entered it but you need more than 1 observer for this to be an observable truth.
There's nothing paradoxical here and no, the light would not be observed by the stationary person after the traveller has seen the stationary person.

>> No.1660240

>>1660230
If that's the case for more than just you than that explains where a lot of the confusion comes from: foreigns trying to explain physics with english. In which case, that's very helpful to know for future reference.

>> No.1660252

>>1660235
you need to study up. The main reason I posted this was that I found everyone's explanation or summary lacking what I'm saying here which directly confronts the breakdown of the conventional physics.

>> No.1660263

This is why this board sucks so much.
Don't get me wrong, it's good to have a non-religion thread for a change.
But it seems nobody here has even a basic grasp of special relativity or quantum mechanics.
Sad.

>> No.1660265

>>1660263
and it seems like another person is going to act they know better without explaining SHIT... AGAIN.

sadder

>> No.1660270

>>1660263
correct me
>>1660265
if I'm interpreting you wrong

>> No.1660273

>>1660235
I think I get what he's saying.

I believe what he means is that the traveler sees the stationary observer in, Oh, a millisecond, (or a small amount of time) And the stationary observer sees the light after a greater measurement of time.

If you played their experiences side by side, then the traveler would notice the stationary observer before the stationary observer noticed the light. Like if you played a recording from both parties side by side on a tv screen.

>> No.1660274

well gents I think we should give OP a 8/10 for some nice trolling

>> No.1660276

>>1660273
thanks millions for the help anon.
It's people like you who allow me to keep faith in (certain parts of) 4chan.

>> No.1660279

>>1660274
I don't know. There aren't THAT many replies, and relativity is a bit too easy.
This doesn't warrant an 8 out of 10.

>> No.1660281

>>1660274
I'll go ahead and let you have the rest of that fraction (the reciprocalolol).

>> No.1660300

so yeah, in conclusion, Physicists use the Feynman diagrams and particles to explain what they can't observe or detect because they all like "fucking waves how do they work?"

This is where probability comes in.

>> No.1660315

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjHJ7FmV0M4

>> No.1660340

>>1660273
>I believe what he means is that the traveler sees the stationary observer in, Oh, a millisecond, (or a small amount of time) And the stationary observer sees the light after a greater measurement of time.
Which light are you even talking about? The one that bounced off of the stationary person?

>>1660300
Behaving like a flamboyant spoiled brat does not supplement your arguments.

>> No.1660347

>>1660340
>Behaving like a flamboyant spoiled brat does not supplement your arguments.
you're right, it doesn't, but Feynman does

>> No.1660350

>>1660347
So, Feynman said light behaves like a wave.
So what?

>> No.1660360

>>1660350
light IS waves just like the radio signal - it spreads out in directions leaving no divergent wholes in the wake of its spherical event.

Keeping trying to play with words, I'll let you know how you are doing.

>> No.1660361

>>1660347
In no way does the video support your point of view. It doesn't even address it.

>> No.1660364

>>1660360
>light IS waves
It's also particles. Welcome to physics, 90 years ago.
>just like the radio signal - it spreads out in directions leaving no divergent wholes in the wake of its spherical event.
You may want to retype this in English.

>> No.1660367
File: 70 KB, 750x600, challenger_disappears.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1660367

>>1660350
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjHJ7FmV0M4#t=50s

and there you GOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo..................

bye, bye

>> No.1660368

>>1660360
Well, so have you ever heard of the photoelectric effect? Particle-wave-dualism? De-Broglie waves?
Feynman could have gone on and talked about this, but I guess this interview was just the wrong time and place to bring it up.

Light (like particles such as electrons, neutrons etc.) behaves like a wave in some circumstances, and like a particle in others. But it doesn't (or at least has not been shown to) do both at the same time.

Maybe you don't like it (it does, furtunately, not matter), but that's how it is.

And don't think you can discard it with one video of Feynman you found on YouTube.

>> No.1660370

>>1660367
Good to see you aren't trying.

>> No.1660374

>>1660367
Are you trying to prove that you're dense? How many times do you have to be told about the duality of light before the information reaches your brain?

Or maybe you're one of those teenagers who thinks pretending to be a retard is A-class humor?

>> No.1660379

>>1660374
Whichever of these two it is (inb4 false dichotomy is false), OP is a fag.

>> No.1660381

God damn you sci

I tried wrapping my head around the first half of this thread, then I find out in the second half that the first half was posted by shitheads who dont know anything

>> No.1660385

>>1660368
by now I'm loosing care just as fast you guys are gaining it.

A lot of you keep on trying to assert there's this particle but none of you are providing any explainations yourself.

If you guys aren't going to explain why you think it's a particle then I don't need to explain why I think its a wave. If you think its both, you STILL don't explain shit like my first responder.

I've done this for a few days in a row and all of you just keep saying particle without saying how or why; you just throw out jargon and expect that it proves your point. I have elaborated by forming my own example as to how it cannot be a particle with respect to conventional knowledge; time and time again all of you in favor of Duality or Particles never provide any thoughts of your own - you only parrot things you've heard thus I'll parrot Feynman with just as much authority.

>> No.1660387

>>1660381
see
>>1660263

>> No.1660396

>>1660385
>A lot of you keep on trying to assert there's this particle but none of you are providing any explainations yourself.
Have you ever used a TV remote or an automatic door?

>If you guys aren't going to explain why you think it's a particle then I don't need to explain why I think its a wave.
It's a particle because it behaves exactly like a particle when it's interacting with, for example electrons, which it can knock out of their orbits.

>I've done this for a few days in a row and all of you just keep saying particle without saying how or why;
Because we operate under the assumption that when you discuss something, you should have at least a modest understanding of the topic. You seem to have done absolutely no homework on the subject.

>> No.1660398

>>1660364
btw that was suppose to be holes not wholes. I can understand how that might be confusing.

>> No.1660404

>>1660385
since you like authority so much:
Einstein himself was the person who proposed that light behaves like particles. He was working on the so-called photoelectric effect (rather, he gave an explanation for it, others did the experiment).

Short summary:
By shining monochrome light on a metal plate, you could eject electrons. The higher the intensity, the higher the number of ejected electrons. The velocity of the electrons (or rather, their kinetic energy) however, only depends on the frequency of the light. This lead Einstein to believe the light was quantized according to the relation E=hv that Max Planck found five years earlier. So light had to exist in some kind of small packages, aka photons.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

I'm gonna repeat it: EINSTEIN said it.

>> No.1660410

>>1660396
Have you ever used a TV remote or an automatic door?

Is this suppose to be some kind of rhetorical question? Looks like you're one of the scared ones who doesn't want to elaborate as well.

Looks like I'm loosing interest faster and faster.

>> No.1660433

>>1660404
you interpret what you repeat wrong. It's not that it comes in tiny packages, its that it cannot be reduced any further just as it cannot travel any faster in a vacuum.

You're basically trying to say "a single molecule of water cannot wave by itself because it is particle" totally ignoring the fact that you don't know what an isolated molecule of water would do out in nature.

>> No.1660443

>>1660433
"By assuming that light actually consisted of discrete energy packets, Einstein wrote an equation for the photoelectric effect that fit experiments."

>> No.1660461 [DELETED] 

>>1660443
>Photoelectric effect
>Study of the photoelectric effect led to important steps in understanding the quantum nature of light and electrons and influenced the formation of the concept of wave–particle duality.[1]

>Wave-particle duality
>Orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this ostensible paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer.

It's the limitations which Feynman refers too when he refers to our eyes as PINHOLES.

>> No.1660468

>>1660443
>Photoelectric effect
>Study of the photoelectric effect led to important steps in understanding the quantum nature of light and electrons and influenced the formation of the concept of wave–particle duality.[1]

>Wave-particle duality
>Orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this ostensible paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer.

It's the limitations which Feynman refers too when he said our eyes are PINHOLES and also when he says the bug in the pool discerns where everyone is based on the up and down movement of the water.

Why don't you go back to Newton too while your at it... I think someone in this thread said I need to catch up to the 90s, funny how they haven't read your post yet.

>> No.1660485

>>1660468
>Why don't you go back to Newton too while your at it
Particle-wave-duality, and the existence of photons, are still accepted nowadays, you know.

>In the modern Standard Model of particle physics, photons are described as a necessary consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

You are clinging on this one video of Feynman, and claim that I interpret everything the wrong way. Have you ever considered that you are the one who interprets Feynman incorrectly?
And as I said before:
>Well, so have you ever heard of the photoelectric effect? Particle-wave-dualism? De-Broglie waves?
Feynman could have gone on and talked about this, but I guess this interview was just the wrong time and place to bring it up.

>> No.1660509

>>1660485
I'm not clinging to just Feynman's video, I'm only deferring to him because I just so happened to parallel what he said in that video.

Duality came after Einstein and QED, which came after duality, is what people try and staple their particles to. Feynman diagrams have lines and arrows and Feynman (the lines representing "photons" are not drawn with arrows), after all these developments we discuss, did that video where he specifically says "light is not an arrow".

>> No.1660528

>>1660509
>Duality came after Einstein and QED
It didn't. Get your facts straight or get out.

>> No.1660547

>>1660509
Who cares what Feynman did or said? That's not how science works.

>> No.1660543

>>1660528
sorry that you read that wrong
>Duality came after Einstein
next
>QED, which came after duality

anything else?

>> No.1660554

>>1660547
I'm glad you said it and not me.

Listen though, I've got to run for a bit so you all please behave and don't go too wild while I'm gone.

>> No.1660555

>>1660410
>Is this suppose to be some kind of rhetorical question?
No, and if you were a bit interested in the topic, you'd read up on how they work. I'm going to give you a tip now: photoelectric effect.
>Looks like you're one of the scared ones who doesn't want to elaborate as well.
Because this is high school textbook level knowledge. You should have learned this in high school.

>Looks like I'm loosing interest faster and faster.
That's great, because I care so much about whether this interests you or not.

>> No.1660561

>>1660554
>Listen though, I've got to run for a bit so you all please behave and don't go too wild while I'm gone.
Quit it with the flamboyant tone and show some respect for the fact that people are even willing to spend time explaining anything to you.

>> No.1660585

>>1660554
>I have failed and am running away

>> No.1660614

>>1660554
Let Richard Feynman himself elaborate on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OEzyEfzgg&feature=related

he tells you to get the fuck out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw&feature=related

>> No.1660655
File: 2 KB, 126x126, 1279306353357.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1660655

This is a troll thread and you should all realize this. If this isn't a troll thread, OP is simply presenting a theory to deny the existence of the elementary force-carrier particle for the electromagnetic force, the photon, coupled with arrogant undertones.

>> No.1661317

back

>>1660585
riiight, I just have all the time in the world for you non-descriptive faggots.

>>1660614
Nice choice in video; you made my position harder to debate.

In that video of yours he's speaking to a group of physicists in Australia. In my video he's holding an interview speaking to the lay-man, which is what I'm trying to do. It's really hard to discern exactly what he's saying BETWEEN both videos (the last link is just some shit made into a macro) especially since in one video he says light is a wave and in the other one he seemingly contradicts himself saying a particle is a wave and 2 particles are then treated as particles. If you are keen though you can understand that he's saying is this: a particle is a wave of amplitude which in turn (no pun intended) a wave of probability and (here's where the clarification is) a particle is a particle only when there is more than one particle because particles are only particles, photons or electrons or whatever, when they are defined in time relative to other particles and by that I mean when you take one frame of time and you compare one point of the 'geometric wave', not the probable one, to another point on the wave, which is from the same source, within the same state-time. Why? Space-time! The wave can interfere with itself by virtue of quantum grid points separated by space and therefore separated by the amount of time it takes energy to travel that space. Think of a cresent wave crashing into itself, interfering with itself and figuratively that is what is going on.

I don't think I simplified his explanation but hopefully I may have clarified it as those comments, both his and mine, are very, no scratch that, EXTREMELY challenging to relate to other people.

>> No.1661318
File: 99 KB, 612x698, 1282240672333.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1661318

>>1660655
>>1660655
I only made this thread to help people with little to no understanding of physics but it seems that I instead have to counter endless waves of eager trolls worried desperately about making an impression rather than an elaboration because they are trying to distract any would be reader from the rest of the thread ("Light is a particle, OP is a trollfag and I don't need to explain any of this!").

Gee is it any wonder why you see so many religious threads?

>> No.1661333

ITT:
>OP: "Everyone is fuckin stupid! LOLOL"
>Everyone on whole board: "No... that's fucking wrong. You're a dumbass."
> OP "well, um, nuh uhh."

I lol'd.
OP, really, don't post until you learn some physics

>> No.1661352 [DELETED] 

>>1661333
>I'm not going to say what's wrong about anything because I can't but OP is still a faggot. TRUST ME GUYS, JUST LOOK HOW NON-NONCHALANT I AM!!

>> No.1661355

>>1661333
>I'm not going to say what's wrong about anything because I can't but OP is still a faggot. TRUST ME GUYS, JUST LOOK HOW NONCHALANT I AM!!

>> No.1661372

>>1661355
> responds to an "OP is a faggot post"
> obviously insecure
> will respond to this

>> No.1661393

>>1661372
Its like I said, I don't care if this thread sinks of swims. If you get kicks out of it at the same time then I can't help that.

>> No.1661426

>>1661393
>I don't care if this thread sinks of swims.
Which is obviously why you keep on bumping it.

>>1661317
>If you are keen though you can understand that he's saying is this: a particle is a wave of amplitude
Every wave has an amplitude and every particle can be represented as a wave.

>a particle is a particle only when there is more than one particle because particles are only particles,
This sentence doesn't make any sense. If there was only one particle in the entire Universe, noone would be there to study it and observe it, because it would not be possible to detect, but you can say the same thing about waves.

>> No.1661461

I think I understand OP's argument here. It's easier to understand if you expand the difference. Say there's 1 light year apart and the guy flying is still going .5c. Now when he shines the light, it leaves HIM at c, so someone observing outside our universe not confined by relativity would see the light travelling at 1.5c. For the stationary observers, the light only travels at c. So from the guy the shined the light's perpective, the light would reach the stationary observer SOONER than the observe would observe the light reaching him. Now I believe this works itself out with the time dilation since time is not passing the same for both of them. It's not necessarily 2 different observation.

>> No.1661511

>>1661426
Thanks for the more serious reply.

>Which is obviously why you keep on bumping it.
It can also be called responding and I do so eagerly in order to better represent and better share the concepts which I have asserted to be true in light of those who read but do not post themselves.

>Every wave has an amplitude and every particle can be represented as a wave.
right, the wave best represents the amplitude of light but there is also the geometrical shape it takes on as a whole when it moves out in uniform motion from a source.

>This sentence doesn't make any sense. If there was only one particle in the entire Universe, noone would be there to study it and observe it, because it would not be possible to detect, but you can say the same thing about waves.
Halfway agree with you. What I was trying to point out was you need more than one particle before it is practical to consider a particle as a particle where you need to say "this point acts on that point" in order to specify some relationship between different points of spaces that contain energy SO YOU MAY then specify some non-typical quantum behavior. At the quantum level shit isn't like marbles, water waves, air pressure, rubber bands, magnets or glue - those are all just figurative descriptions and with acknowledgement of that, and also with the acknowledgement that it is best to avoid semantics where possible the previous cases being the absence of the pairing figurative with wave, I assert that wave mechanics can describe the nature of everything just perfectly. My main beef is people who would use the word particle and not recognize that a particle is merely a point on a wave.

Anyways catch me tomorrow

>> No.1661529

OP light travels at a constant speed it's the limit
and light doesn't travel 2 different distances in the same amount of time for 2 different observers

light travels at a constant speed just time seems slowed for the observers

here is an example:
a spaceship travels close to the speed of light 99,99%
when the ship turns his lights on he'll see the light going away from him with the speed of light
but if a stationary observer looks at the ship for him it would look like the ship and the light from his lights travel at the same speed this would be because the ship would look like it's frozen in time

note: this is only theoretical example just to get your head over the ideas. the theory of relativity predicts that the faster you go the shorter you'll look like to a stationary observer and your mass would seem a lot heavier(not only time is relative to the observer)

>> No.1661553

>>1661529
catch me tomorrow I'll explain better then about the distance the light is 'reaching' out from flashlight.
>>1661461
precisely, time is not the same for both of them.
****tomorrow I'll move on to wavelengths and velocity connecting coexisting probability coordinates. I'm feeling pretty good after thrashing a kajillion trolls today but also pretty tired.

>> No.1661566

Didn't Einstein say that light quanta* are streams of particles but sometimes act like a wave?

*I'm only calling them (photons) "light quanta" because that's what he called them.