Why not both?

#6 - phanact

Reply +143 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

#137 - thebaker

Reply +40 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Beware, bellow me there are a lot of people who think they know something about physics.

#169 to #137 - EdwardNigma

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Hey, I know something about physics.

If you let go of an object, it goes down, because gravity n' ****.

YOUR MOVE ************.

#144 to #137 - joshfletcher

Reply +8 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

"It's not going to put mustard on itself."

#157 to #137 - makethingsworse

Reply +9 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

I red all that ****, and not a single person explained to me how magnets work.

#140 to #137 - Sunset

+11 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#43 - occamsrazor

Reply +38 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

******* pissed me off watching an episode of Big Bang Theory where Sheldon had to figure out something on why photons behave some way and the big answer is that they behave like both waves and particles, Einstein figured that out over a hundred years ago 1905 theory of special relativity you lisping cunt. And now a word from James Franco.

#44 to #43 - theblackcrow

0 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#46 to #43 - anon id: 53622c7c

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Obv. this show makes idiots feel smart. It is actually very stupid, sheldon is one of hte dumbest people I know

#62 to #43 - shaunrnm

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

That is not what relativity is. Its to do with how the speed of light is the same, no matter whether the frame of reference is moving or not

#63 to #43 - braddlesxp

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

if you actually met sheldon in real life he would appear stupid as ****

#117 to #43 - anon id: 5a9025ea

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

The whole point was that he forgot they acted as both. He was looking at it in one way only . Which is stupid considering he's meant to be clever but still... Brain Freeze?

#152 to #43 - anon id: 9e3409db

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

It was probably talking about electrons duality, double split experiment probably

#105 to #43 - girguy

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

"Theory of relativity you lisping cunt"

#79 to #43 - anonymoose

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Don't even get me started on that episode.

He was making a model of an atom where the neutrons and protons were ball pit balls. In that size ration, the atoms first electron shell would be +50km away.

#126 to #43 - shadowgandalf

Reply +11 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

But... The Big Bang is just a sit-com. It's not supposed to actually show a real physicist. Sheldon is just the producers stereotype of how mad scientists think.

#72 - wailguy

Reply +28 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Visible light simplified,

Isaac Newton thought the visible light was only made from particles, or as he named them "Corpuscles."

Thomas Young thought that visible light was only a wave.

Einstein with all his swagarific **** discovered that when light is shining on a metal (with the amount light being above the energy threshold of the metal) the negative charge of the metal decreased. This means that electrons are being knocked off the metals surface via visible light. (The photoelectric effect) Except a wave is energy, IE not physical. It could not possibly knock electrons off the metals surface. Einstein couldn't explain this, and so he named it the "Ultraviolet catastrophe." Later on in his life, he saw no reason why waves and particles couldn't coexist in light. He went on to discover that it is the Photons in light that knock the electrons from the metals surface.

Visible light isn't only a wave, nor is it only made from particles. Although this isn't a real word, the best way of describing it, is as a "wavicle."

TL;DR Visible light consists of both photons and waves. Every other comment with theories that it is one or the other are ******** incorrect. Also, saying "Quantum physics" on the internet doesn't make you look smart.

#74 to #72 - physicsdude

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

It is one or the other depending on how you measure it. You can measure light where it has no wave properties what so ever. And do a slightly different experiment where it has no particle properties what so ever.
Fx doubble and single slit experiments.

#81 to #74 - mylazy

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

I want to trust you because your name is physics dude, but I don't see how anything can be one or the other simply based off of your method of measurment. You can choose to measure only one part of it, but that wouldn't change the properties it has. Please explain further.

#97 to #81 - physicsdude

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Well it is hard to explain further. It's called the complimentarity principle. We simple just don't know how it works, so the best guess is to say that it depends on how we measure it.
The examples i mentioned.
Using the double slit experiment the light will behave as if it was a wave.
Using the single slit experiment the light will behave as if it was a particle.
Due to it being light. Something so small in energy and size. We can only observe it by measuring it. We don't know where the wave or particle is from when it is emitted to when it hits. So we don't know anything about it during this time.
All we know is that sometimes it behaves solely as a particle sometimes only as a wave, depending on how we chose to measure it.

To clarify a bit. How do you measure a particle of light? You can't see it before it hits your eye. So you only know it hits your eye and where it comes from. You know nothing in between. So you can only guess as to what happens in between. Yes quantum mechanics is ****** up, but since you can't observe the particles or waves you have to guess from what you measure.

#99 to #97 - mylazy

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

For your second paragraph, I already knew that. I figured that out myself not all that long ago. As for your first paragraph, I am going to have to say that the properties of light don't change depending on how you measure them. Simply put, the different tests have different properties because the properties of light cause them to react differently to the two situation. The light is still the same, therefore the properties don't change depending on measurement, and we can simply say that light is both a particle and a wave, and the properties it displays depends on the situation.

#100 to #99 - mylazy

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

That's just the way that makes sense to me though.

#188 to #100 - physicsdude

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

"That's just the way it makes sense to me though". Yes that is your interpretation. All we can actually say is that depending on how you measure it light acts differently. True light might be neither particle nor wave but something different that we just don't know yet. But all we know now is how light acts when we measure it so the simplest explanation is that it acts as light or particle depending on how we measure it.

#106 to #81 - gunzas

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGFwN1nfvK4
This video explains the measurment problem.
It gets even better.

If we observe an action the result is A
If not - B
So if we aren't observing an action - it's B , right? But then at the last second we "Open" our eyes and it becomes - A so in short we traveled backed in time and changed what happened by just observing an action.

#111 to #106 - gunzas

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

14:00 the exact moment.

#164 to #72 - anon id: 592c1a07

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

The photoelectric effect showed, to add to what wailguy said, showed that light can only come in discrete packets of energy in the form of momentum. So we have the packets of energy with zero mass, traveling as a wave form, but able to impart momentum as if it had mass, like a particle.

#186 to #72 - Haentar

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Quick correction - The "Ultraviolet Catastrophe" is actually based around black body radiation (when something that is heated gives off light), and led to the idea that light has to be released in multiples of a minimum amount of energy (I might be wrong, but I think they're called quanta).

#167 - edzeppelin

Reply +24 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

#129 - LoneWhiteWolf

Reply +22 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

#150 - olofski

Reply +20 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

TO TACO BELL!!

#124 - loulougia

Reply +19 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Oh sweet new reaction pic.

#134 - skyrn

Reply +18 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Here's an explanation of the duality of liight using ambigrams.

#192 to #134 - anon id: b5511f8f

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/25/2012) [-]

Wavicle! :D

#73 - physicsdude

Reply +13 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Einstein was firmly AGAINST light(and everything actually) behaving as particles and waves, depending on how you measure it.
It was Niels Bohr who made the current theory that light is either waves or particles depending on how you measure it. The theory is called the copenhagen-interpretation.
Einstein was even on his death bed against the idea that light behaved as particles or waves depending on measurement.

#75 to #73 - pariahlol

Reply +4 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

photoeletric effect? That was his work

#76 to #75 - didactus

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

He was also the one who proved the existence of the photon so saying he was against it is quite stupid.

#98 to #76 - physicsdude

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

He was against it being both. He said it had to be either of, or something different, it couldn't be both.
Also he was against quantum physics, which is undoubtably the most succesfull theory of physics ever created.

#149 to #98 - didactus

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

I know he disliked Quantum theory, but I never mentioned it. The reason some people say is because he said you couldn't predict the outcome of Quantum theory's calculations.

#96 to #73 - godoftheanons

Reply +4 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

I dip Copenhagen snuff. Am I relevant?