Why not both?

Adjust content blocking

hamhock

next random

Comment

ratin. . mrt

...

+2650

Views: 61820 Submitted: 12/21/2012

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (170)

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 170 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#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

#2 - techketzer

Reply -64 123456789123345869

(12/21/2012) [-]

Turns out it's neither.
Still thumbed.

#9 to #2 - techketzer

Reply -14 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Here, good folks, you can see how idiotic FJ can be at times.
What I said is perfectly right; light is neither particle nor wave, it is something beyond our power to describe that happens to exhibit properties of both light and wave, as described by quantum-electrodynamics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

There. Read. Learn. Emerge from ignorance.

#16 to #9 - iyr

Reply +6 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

I won't argue one way or the other, but spamming a wikipedia link doesn't make you right, it just means you're too ignorant of this subject to explain it yourself.

As Einstein said himself "If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough"

Good day, sir.

#37 to #16 - annogram

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

******* DEJA VU did you guys have an argument with eachother before?!

#32 to #16 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

didn't einstein also say that any schmuck can make something simple complicated and true genius is being able to take something complicated and break it down into simplest parts?

#116 to #32 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

That just means he didn't know quantum-electrodynamics.

#19 to #16 - techketzer

Reply -12 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Implying there is such a thing as intuitive understanding of quantum dynamics.
Clearly you know even less about the topic than I do.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

#23 to #19 - iyr

Reply +6 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

You missed my point entirely.

#25 to #23 - techketzer

Reply -10 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Sorry if that really is so.
Would you care to explain what you meant again? I promise to pay better attention.

#26 to #25 - iyr

Reply +4 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Like I said, I won't support nor disclaim your argument.
Spamming the same wikipedia article doesn't give you any credibility.

If you can explicitly cite or quote in scientific journals were it says light is neither particle nor wave, then you wouldn't be getting so much flak.

You're right, I don't know that much about quantum physics, but I'm curious about what you said.
Telling me "light is neither a wave nor a particle because scientists at cern blah blah blah. . ." would be much better than saying "light is neither a wave nor a particle because this wiki says so"

All I know is that light may behave as a wave or a particle at certain instances, but may have a physical composition that's neither.

#27 to #26 - techketzer

Reply -8 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

"All I know is that light may behave as a wave or a particle at certain instances, but may have a physical composition that's neither."

This isn't about my opinion at all.
Quantum electrodynamics has been the established scientific status-quo since the 1930's, as the wiki-article I linked explains in great detail and abundance of sources.

The same FJ that wages brutal war against creationists just flakked me for referring to the best documented scientific theory we is. This is nothing short of madness.

#83 to #27 - zasferta

-1 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#110 to #83 - techketzer

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Then at least one of us gains something by this idiocy overload.

#15 to #9 - mcstorms

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Photons are particles though

#20 to #15 - techketzer

Reply -5 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

They are not.

#14 to #9 - frienderman

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

But Einstein believed that in some instances light behaved as a wave, and in others as a stream of particles. You're right, but this post isn't about the current model, it's about Einstein's.

#21 to #14 - techketzer

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Then what's the problem with saying "Turns out it's neither. "?

#189 to #21 - frienderman

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

There isn't, but the Funnyjunk thumb gods have spoken and you are cursed. Sorry, mate.

#190 to #189 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

The whole bandwagon thing, no? Sad but true, I guess. Oh well.
On to more joyful things.

Merry Christmas, buddy. :)

#191 to #190 - frienderman

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

Merry Christmas to you too. Have a picture that illustrates your situation as a present.

#3 to #2 - radtroll

Reply -3 123456789123345869

(12/21/2012) [-]

Quantum mechanics 101: Wave–particle duality

#13 to #3 - techketzer

Reply -12 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

Science, you ************ whore. Suck and swallow; it's the only thing you're any good for.

#36 to #13 - radtroll

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

dear sir, I **** you not I DID study physics, radiation physics, and currently on quantum physics, I'm only going to explain this once so focus with me,, let me try to make my self clear:

what you are saying is exactly like someone who is saying that water, ice, and vapor, are not atoms but energy, it's true, but we are talking about what do we perceive with our sense as human beings.

the double slit experiment showed that a photon IS a particle, but it can be in 2 places at the same time, while the simple fact that we see different colors (also known as light with different frequencies) shows that it's a wave, it's not neither, it's BOTH!

now, my good sir, you can go **** yourself

#115 to #36 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Then I pity you for your epic failure at physics.
The time you put into your studies was obviously wasted.

#180 to #115 - radtroll

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my degrees

#184 to #180 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

You poor deluded soul.

#93 to #36 - lordroscor

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Seriously, thank god for you. You are the only one who gives reasoning other then the man who needs to "....go **** yourself." on the field he is arguing. Everyone else against him just calls him a retard while you use proof to prove it. But kudos to him for trying. And everyone else who probably has no knowledge on the field at hand should just shut the f*** up.
+1 thumb

#66 to #13 - shards

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

>Implying wikipedia is always right about everything

#113 to #66 - techketzer

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Scroll down to the articles sources and see your doubts dispelled.
Or don't and live in ignorance, your choice.

#87 to #13 - zasferta

-1 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#112 to #87 - techketzer

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Feynman, Richard Phillips (1998). Quantum Electrodynamics. Westview Press; New Ed edition. ISBN 978-0-201-36075-2.

There.
Better, faggot?

#28 to #2 - ningyoaijin

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Go be stupid somewhere else.

#29 to #28 - techketzer

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Take a spoonful of your own advice, ********.

#30 to #29 - ningyoaijin

Reply -3 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Are you really that upset that you're wrong?

#31 to #30 - techketzer

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Me being wrong doesn't elicit anything more than "Huh. Would you look at that, I ****** up once more" from me.

Everyone ignoring me when I present superior evidence generations of people worked for is what makes me mad.

#34 to #31 - ningyoaijin

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

The conclusion those "generations of people" reached is that light behaves both as a wave and a particle, and you're saying it's neither, which is wrong.

#39 to #34 - techketzer

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Use your brain for once. If it behaves like a wave, it's no particle.
If it behaves like a particle, it's no wave.
If it behaves like a particle half the time and like a wave the other half, it can't be either, can it?

#40 to #39 - ningyoaijin

Reply -5 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Yeah, your logic is just wrong. It's sometimes a wave, and other times it's a particle. They're two ways of describing how something can behave, it's not a description of what something is, categorically. How can you not understand that?

#107 to #40 - techketzer

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Complete ********.
I don't know where you went to school, but you should sue the **** out of 'em for what they did to you.

Light is neither wave nor particle, merely happens to exhibit properties of both at different times. There is just no other way to put it.

#181 to #107 - ningyoaijin

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

There's just no way of arguing with idiots. I'm done here.

#185 to #181 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

What you actually mean is that you've run out of arguments.
I don't blame you; no one could defend your ridiculous notion against the scientific work of a century of the brightest minds humanity had to offer.

#78 to #2 - anon id: a3322d67

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

"The great Danish physician Niels Bohr suggested a solution conciliating both theories. He just came to the opinion that light had dual, wave - particle nature. In no experiment we see both characteristics at the same time. Sometimes light acts like a wave and some other times like a particle. To understand what light is one must take its both characteristics into consideration. Neither the theory of particles (photons) nor the wave theory of light are correct if considered alone. Only combining these two one gets a full and proper one."

#109 to #78 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Yes. To describe how light behaves, not what it is, though.

#103 to #2 - girguy

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

#4 to #2 - erbwie

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

#12 to #4 - techketzer

Reply -11 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Prove that bold claim.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

#118 to #12 - erbwie

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

$Young's Double Slit Diffraction en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment$

Young's Double Slit Diffraction

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

#120 to #118 - techketzer

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

"Young's experiment, performed in the early 1800s, played a vital part in the acceptance of the wave theory of light, vanquishing the corpuscular theory of light proposed by Isaac Newton, which had been the accepted model of light propagation in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, the later discovery of the photoelectric effect demonstrated that under different circumstances, light can behave as if it is composed of discrete particles. These seemingly contradictory discoveries made it necessary to go beyond classical physics and take the quantum nature of light into account."

Did you even read the article you just linked?

#121 to #120 - erbwie

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Light = Photons and Electrons existing in an extremely close proximity. Photons have wave properties, electrons have particle properties. Quantum electrodynamics is a theory, wave-particle duality is a principle.

mfw I can't deal with this anymore.

#123 to #121 - techketzer

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Wrong.
"Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of energy emitted and absorbed by charged particles, which exhibits wave-like behavior as it travels through space."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

#86 to #12 - zasferta

-2 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#7 to #2 - waffies

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

... what do YOU think it is???

#10 to #7 - techketzer

Reply -12 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

Light is a thing our words and terms are incapable of describing; it is neither wave nor particle while displaying behaviors of both in diffenet situations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

Suck it, faggot. Anyone with a high-school education should know that.

#22 to #10 - anon id: bf6acedd

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

My High school must've been very inadequate, I have never learned quantum mechanics...and I'm in college, I am beginning to worry.

#24 to #22 - techketzer

Reply -5 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

It was the year of graduation, but we students made presentations on that exact topic of quantum-electrodynamics.

#84 to #10 - zasferta

-2 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#57 to #2 - anssi

Reply +13 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

This thread: everyone who's right is thumbed down because majority is wrong.

Light can't be both waves and particles at the same time, it's actually some composition that we're not familiar with at this moment. It's something between waves and particles.

#101 to #57 - techketzer

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

...thank you.

#104 to #101 - anssi

Reply +4 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

This just proves FJ's stupidity once more