Wave-Particle Duality of Light
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- 126 - Wave-Particle Duality of Light
In this video Paul Andersen explains how light can be treated as both a particle and a wave. Physicists use scale to determine which model to use when studying light. When the wavelength of light is equivalent to the size of the object a wave model is used. When the energy is equivalent to the energy of a photon a particle model is used.
Do you speak another language? Help me translate my videos:
www.bozemanscie...
Music Attribution
Title: String Theory
Artist: Herman Jolly
sunsetvalley.ba...
All of the images are licensed under creative commons and public domain licensing:
[1, Lucien Chavan. English: German-Born Theoretical Physicist Albert Einstein., or 1905[2 1904. Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Guerillero using CommonsHelper. (Original text : Cropped from original at the Historical Museum of Berne.). commons.wikimed....
1917, From: Arthur Shuster & Arthur E. Shipley: Britain’s Heritage of Science London. English: Isaac Newton, Based on a Painting by Kneller, [object HTMLTableCellElement]. A Temple of Worthies. commons.wikimed....
File:SS-Young.jpg, n.d. commons.wikimed....
gmaxwell, Original: Light Green Check Icon, Originally drawn in , recolored on 2007- -24 2005. This file was derived from: Yes check.svg. commons.wikimed....
Unknown. Advertisement in Moving Picture World, September 1916. Internet Archive. commons.wikimed....
User:Gmaxwell. English: Red “X”/Cross Logic Icon., September 18, 2005. Original version of Image:X mark.svg. commons.wikimed....
THANK YOU SO MUCH ILY SCIENCE DAD
Thank you so much Mr.Anderson. I am a 12th grade student in India. And you AP essentials videos are an immense help to me. Amazing how you help people all around the world. Keep up the good work. And, believe me you are an amazing teacher :)
Concise, well-organized, very approachable presentation. Thanks so much!
So basically an ok comparison is to think that light could be thought of as water?
In normal conditions we percieve water as waves, but when we use another scale it's really made of small packets of individual molecules that has specific amounts of energy.
im just a student but I think this is a great conceptualization
U cracked it Watson wtf. Can't believe i found this in the comments section
as a blind man I understand more about the elephant now, I mean the light now, I am a layman of science. Appreciate the simply clear explanation of light.
I appreciate the clarification due to my confusion.
great video
-a grateful high school student
The simplest explanation is that light is a wave with particle characteristics as a probabilistic future unfolds photon by photon. This idea is supported by the fact that light photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Kinetic energy is the energy of what is actually ‘happening’. The dynamic geometry of this process forms an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future continuously unfolding relative to the electron probability cloud of the atoms and the wavelength of the light.
Yeah, that's not how it works. ;-)
I think light is a form of electromagnetism and it is just waves, wave can resonance and knock electrons to higher energy levels, that explains that weak blue light vs. strong red light experiment.
I know I'm very late but I must say why this is incorrect.
I light was a wave, kinetic energy of electrons would increase as light intensity increases, but this was disproved.
If the wave model were true, light of any frequency would be able to eject electrons, which doesn't happen.
The wave theory describes energy as dependent on intensity. That would mean low intensity light would emit electrons eventually, when enough energy was gathered, but it always maintained spontaneous.
Thanks!
Is there any example to show refraction in particles?
it is better to construe light as neither a particle, nor a wave, but a superwave.
a superwave is more wavelike than anything that we ordinarily identify as a wave
a superwave not only moves in multiple directions at once, but also at multiple speeds at once
but just as we typically interact with only one of the "directions" of a wave, we also typically interact with only one of the "speeds" of a wave due to our localized position in velocity space
A superwave is in superposition in velocity space. It has a supervelocity, even though we don't see the full supervelocity all at once.
Thank you for this! I'm a new physics student, and we're currently learning about light behavior in my astronomy course!!! Great explanation :)
Very helpful; thank you! We're watching in an MFA cinematography class for review on the science of light.
How is this AP Physics?? I am in 9th grade taking a required science class and we are learning about this
After a chain of like 30 videos later this one was what tied some loose ends, i can die in ouece now
paul anderson! #best
I think the key to unlocking secrets of the universe, (understanding gravity electromagnetism and the fabric of space) lies in a different model of light and space, (the medium through which light propagates.) I don't see very strong evidence for the existence of the photon as we know it.
I agree with you. The photoelectric effect is not due to light being a particle. h x frequency = Joule-sec x cycles/sec = joules per cycle (or joules per wavelength). Light as a wave could cause the photoelectric effect by interacting with an electron at something like the resonant frequency of the electron in its orbit, to kick it to a higher energy level. A light wave at the right frequency and intensity could cause the photoelectric effect, while a light wave at a lower frequency, even if highly intense, would not. No need for light to be a particle.
I believe there is a different way to look at light as a wave or particle . = light travels in a straight line but in a spiral path , think of a slinky stretched out. If you view it from any direction top, bottom, sideways it looks like a wave . Viewed from head on it would look like a circle or a donut . [ This could be seen in a cloud chamber] The tightness of this spiral is the frequency of the color we see . This spiral is about three inches wide as seen in a shadow =The edges have a gray area of about one and a half inches. that is because half of the light is blocked depending where in the spiral the light blockage occurs .Half gets blocked out leaving a dimming effect = gray . Not a crisp line! The change of the width of this spiral in water and then back again in air allows it to resume it's speed ---- like a conservation of energy !
If Light acts this way I'll bet that the other electro magnetic waves do also . wmgip@comcast.net
I was a bit confused on some of the red X's under "particle". Did you see that "Dr. Quantum" animated video where the beam from a particle (electron) gun caused an --interference- (wavelike) pattern in the double slit experiment? I thought for sure that an "green check mark" would appear twice under "interference". timestamp: about 2:03
Because electrons also have wave particle duality
HOw can a particle bend from one medium to another? I only cannot imagine it with a wave either although I know light can bend, I just don't see it as a wave or particle like pattern.
I was a party once after having a few drinks and I let my guard down. Someone asked how polarized lenses worked and I blurted out: “they take advantage of the wave aspect of the wave/particle duality of light.”
Everyone looked at me like I had three heads.
Poor, dumb bastards. If you had been raised in my family, you’d understand that at age 8. Really.
thank you!!
I find it odd that Newton or Huygens never came up with the idea of light being a wave with particle characteristics when the absorption and emission takes place. Spherical 4π geometry will naturally form a three-dimensional process (three-dimensional space) that has to be squared r² if the process is relative to the surface of the sphere. This could give us a reason why so much is squared in physics, t², c², e², ψ² and velocity v² as in kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy. This process would form an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future continuously unfolding with the exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy. Also it would explain why the spheres only move in the forward direction!
Since light is not a wave with particle characteristics there was nothing for them to discover in that direction. ;-)
Wave DUALITY is like watching a PARTICLE "WAVE", qhile something "RLSE" waves BACK😮
Awesome explanation - thanks so much! :)
Thank you so much, very helpful.
Where is my post on butterfly
Using wave partial duality with insulated wings using the wave and little hole in dust lens law magnetic flux that binds the butterfly to the Schumann resonance ?
May be we don't understand "Photoelectric effect" and there is no duality, but light is just a wave?
i have my own thoughts on this. i think light or electrons and such are waves and only their excitations if energy is added "seem" like a particle, but it vanishes as soon as it interacts with something. think of the motion of light like sound in a material. in my opinion it's not light that moves but it's information / configuration. one could say, normal particles are "bound excitations" aka matter... and light or electrons are free flowing information packets that will behave like a particle when excited through external energy (observing aka. detecting). So think about this.... we are right now watching a pond from the side. We throw a stone into the pond to detect where the water is and as we detect the splash, we assume its position. What we don't see, is the pond. the splashing water is only the excitation through our interaction / detection (observation) with the stone and the waters surface. i am relatively sure that c is not some kind of "speed" but more like a limit of perception. it might even be just the "speed of time" but this will get complicated quickly and i am not finished thinking about this yet. To explain the double slit experiment with this... light behaves like a wave naturally, because its not altered through interaction til it hits the spot behind the slits. if you want to detect through which slit light is flowing, you're effectively interacting with that wave and you're building excitations with that and thus light will (til it hits the plate) act like a particle. Atoms are often displayed as spheres where some electron particles is circling around and in my opinion that's wrong. you got the bound excitations in the middle (aka protons neutrons etc.) and the "electron Pond" around. it's like the size of the pond that describes the amount of electrons. The amount of electrons is just the possible excitations through interaction with the "pond". What do you think about this?
I think that nobody needs to waste their energy thinking about it because "what light is" has been well understood since 1949 latest. Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga were given the physics Nobel in 1965 for finding out.
If a wave is not a thing but a movement of something, how can light, which is something, be a wave?
So helpful...thanks!!!!
thanks boss
How can something in the universe be both a particle AND a wave?
I know right! I love thinking about it every now and then
No one knows, that's the fun part.
It's not both but it's neither. Light is a quantum field, which is a third and new phenomenon. You are welcome.
it is helpful
Please explain why even with supra threhold frequency and high intensity multiple photons cannot hit same electron? Why just one photon per electron at ALL frequencies all the time? Surely number of photons can be made to greatly exceed number of surface electron
Thank you so much. We science major needed this 'cause they are not teaching us 🥺💔
The answer is very simple. Light is a wave, not a particle. But altough it is a wave, it is still a quanta of energy, thus... It is absorved discretly. The wave travels, interferes with itself, but when it hits the wall, it is absorved in a single point.
The photoelectric effect showed that light cannot not be a wave in this situation.
If light was a wave, kinetic energy of electrons would increase as light intensity increases, but this was disproved.
If the wave model were true, light of any frequency would be able to eject electrons, which doesn't happen.
The wave theory describes energy as dependent on intensity. That would mean low intensity light would emit electrons eventually, when enough energy was gathered, but it always maintained spontaneous.
However, in many other cases like diffraction and interference that he described, light would act like a wave.
The answer is not simple at all, as light acts like a particle and a wave just in different situations. Currently we have truly no idea what light is.
@@jaydenmackenzie3222 If we emitted two waves (photons) in a close interval, wouldn't their fields superpose, making a wave with twice the intensity?
@@j.j.9538 that has nothing to do with all of the other points mentioned. Yes, a wave can emit electrons from a metal plate, but not as expected. The metal plate ejected electrons as if a particle had struck it.
@@jaydenmackenzie3222 it ejects electrons as if a particle had struck it, because the wave is absorved discrely by a single atom, like i said. It travels as a wave, but, when it gets absorved, it's instanteneous and at a random point.
@@j.j.9538 That still doesn't explain the three points in my original reply:
If light was a wave, kinetic energy of electrons would increase as light intensity increases, but this was disproved.
If the wave model were true, light of any frequency would be able to eject electrons, which doesn't happen.
The wave theory describes energy as dependent on intensity. That would mean low intensity light would emit electrons eventually, when enough energy was gathered, but it always maintained spontaneous.
You are right, light is a wave, but it is also a particle. It is unexplainable at this time.
You are awesome!
2:14 to 2:26 I'm afraid I'm confused on this Polarization checkbox. And why it doesn't apply to particles, but does to waves.
What does he mean by "traveling in one dimension"? And what does "polarization" mean exactly?
Does anyone know? Any insights would be appreciated :)
Could the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons be forming a blank canvas that life can interact with forming the possible into the actual? In such a theory the future would be coming into existence photon by photon with each new photon electron coupling or dipole moment!
Cool theory, I'm starting to believe we see reality into being, that consciousness is responsible for the universe, not the other way around. Borrowed from Dr Lanza, but also something I've been developing from insight over many years as well.
the particle is the surfer on the wave
chrisitan huygens name not there? why???
Who explained duality first ?
I didn't understand it before now
Thanks,,👍
Power
No one finna talk about the elephant part?
we have light when the filament is actually destroyed do we have some other radiowaves emiting from our filament? yes.. so our waves are created by particles when they are destroyed or u can create a wild guess and say ur material entered another dimension! one thing is for sure u have waves when ur atoms electrons or whatever get smashed! and what wave actually means ? why do we say wave? so based on your agitaion of ur material u have waves
Th photoelectric effect has the wrong conclusion. Photons and Electrons exchange E and B field energy, they don't 'bump' into each other. The propagation speed of the wave is defined by the material it is travelling in. This is why photon propagation speeds back up after leaving glass.
WHY AND HOW THE CLEAR, THEORETICAL, AND TRUE PROOF OF THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS F=MA AS E=MC2: That SPACE is THEORETICALLY, ultimately, truly, and FUNDAMENTALLY QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL is proven by the CLEAR fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. This CLEARLY explains the term c4 from Einstein's field equations (regarding his general theory of gravitation). Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. The MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE AND the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE are thus NECESSARILY LINKED and BALANCED, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is necessarily possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. CLEARLY, I have mathematically, sensibly, and THEORETICALLY unified physics/physical experience; as E=mc2 is CLEARLY proven to constitute what is F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Very carefully consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is the EARTH/ground. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! By Frank DiMeglio
refraction cant be describe by particles model
Yes, that's an insight from 1801. It would take another 100 years before we would discover that the real solution is quantization of angular momentum.
Thks
Well to be honest duality is wrong...light is neither a wave nor a particle it s an excitation in the photon field, as we know from quantum field theory which is the best answer we have now. Excitation indeed permits to see light wave like and as a particle. Ofc it s incomplete.
Then how light can travel through a vacuum.
ANYONE know why some of my words have a line through them???
Ah yes, the trunk of an elephant is indeed S H A R P
He is holding a hand on the tusk.
There is one more. As light breaks the sound barrier, it compresses moisture creating a Mach cone. As it reaches mach1 the light particle makes a sonic boom so it's not just a duality but polyoligy of light
The wave particle duality looks to me like saying light is a square circle. If you look at it from a distance it looks like a dot, so a circle, but if you look at it from up close it looks like a square. But it can't really be both at the same time by the very definition of the terms square and circle.
Seems like bs to me. Seems like physicists don't really understand light very well.
There isn't a better explanation tho, as far as I know.
@@Thomalski WHY AND HOW THE CLEAR, THEORETICAL, AND TRUE PROOF OF THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS F=MA AS E=MC2: That SPACE is THEORETICALLY, ultimately, truly, and FUNDAMENTALLY QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL is proven by the CLEAR fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. This CLEARLY explains the term c4 from Einstein's field equations (regarding his general theory of gravitation). Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. The MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE AND the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE are thus NECESSARILY LINKED and BALANCED, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is necessarily possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. CLEARLY, I have mathematically, sensibly, and THEORETICALLY unified physics/physical experience; as E=mc2 is CLEARLY proven to constitute what is F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Very carefully consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is the EARTH/ground. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! By Frank DiMeglio
Are U saying that every manifest thing, object, event, is BOTH PARTICLE AND WAVE simultaneously, but wrought out in proof or manifest fact only upon the frame of reference of its packeted energy bundle, being the photon, OR its spatial moveability, being the wave: both being dependent on SIZE&DIMENSION? Or are YOU saying that there are some Objects, Events, Phenomena in the Universe that are SET APART as BEING BOTH, while more normal things must be EITHER OR: Either a Pure Particle, or A Pure Wave, but not BOTH?
yes exactly like that btw your more toned than my sister , I don't have a sister this shit is confusing iam out
Maybe the KYLE GOTT "Soap Opera" Quintet can explain it BEST in Shower Area ACTION!" Nuthin elucidates best then Shower Lab 101 on Wave-Particle Duality!
what the hell are you talking about bro
You must watch this U Tube Video: SHOWERING AT BMT, by KYLE GOTT, from 0:33/8:35 to 0:42/8:35 : The action of the QUINTET in their SOAP OPERA: "Are they really NUDE or are they still DRESSED, thus sneakily violating Hesienburg's U.P. that both Nudity and Concealment cannot simultaneous be exhibited at the same time interval! If the 5 shed their last vestiges of being clothed: the 5 underwear, and then reverted to the other state....! When as a Particle PHOTON, light is lain NAKED in the Shower, but when a WAVE, Light is FULLY CLOTHED.....! However if ALBERT joined, the El Groupo would then become a truly informative and exhibitionist "SEX"tet,revealing more clearly and in greater enhanced detail both the photon particle duality and the naked male-clothed......? as wells1
I would really like to show someone a few pictures i have. i honestly don't know what it shows. if your interested in taking a look and giving me some feedback, it would be awesome. they are interesting, to say the least, so let me know.
Is anyone alse here just for fun and not because of a homework or assignement?
besttttt :D thanks sir---
Is there anything this man can't teach?
Photoelectric effect can be explained with RESONANCE PHENOMENON A WAVES too
As the freq of light wave matches with electron freq, only then it starts absorbing energy & keep absorbing untill it goes into a new stable energy state
eg us swing a pendulum only at its natural freq &keep going untill it will enter a new states of just spinning in a circle & will continue to spin in circle for ever
i think the same, i really don't understand the need of the particle model.
This is a false dichotomy fallacy. It may be the case that light could be neither. We want our models to work so bad we use these ham-fisted definitions anyway.
Mmmmm... Ham
absolutely, honey. physics does that all the time, the case in point being just an example. science, and physics in particular, is just the means we have to describe the world around us. the models are just models, and by so they are imperfect. before the discovery of the photoelectric effect, in the late 19th century if I'm not mistaken, light as a wave was the widespread conception, because it worked. it checked out, until it didn't. classical mechanics can't even begin to describe the entirety of the universe, and it was still used for everything for years because it's the model that they had. we now have general and special relativity, and quantum mechanics, and in spite of that the classical model is still taught in classrooms today. take the model of the atom. it has changed at least 4 times over the last hundred years. that however does not stop highschool intro to chem teachers from using a dated model to help students understand. this is wrong, they say. this is not how it looks like. but now you understand an approximation of what the atom is, and before you didn't know what an atom was. it may be the case that light is neither a wave nor a particle. but for now, the wave-particle duality allows us to explain things, to understand things, to calculate and predict things. for now, it serves as a perfectly good stand in for whatever light might actually be, if not this. and if we ever discover that light is entirely something else - until then. great comment, shawn.
@@pickle962 I posted that 4 years ago and your comments are a bit patronizing I'm a retired physicist I taught physics for almost 10 years. Because the models don't always work we actually know that the wave-particle duality is incorrect though in some cases (not all by any stretch) useful for predicting things with limited accuracy.
The entire point of science is to eliminate randomness for predictions as much as possible. Imagine if you just randomly selected stock portfolios rather than base your choices on upcoming likelihoods. You'd almost certainly end up broke given enough time.
The weather or not light will reflect or pass through glass is not well predicted by saying there's a 50/50 chance a photon will pass through the glass. Because you'll be wrong half the time or all the time depending on your philosophy about light interacting with reflective glass. If you reject the photon model you can accurately say half the light passes through the glass and half is reflected (assume none is absorbed for simplicity). By using the photon model my prediction in this case is less accurate. Additionally if you only go along with popular theory science can never grow. By trying new models we may discover more accurate ways to predict things.
Anyone here for school (RLSS)
Which type would be best for communication with the future ? And if we could do that , the recipients might be more advanced , and answer back and tell us all kinds of crap .
The duality was more Newton vs Huygens.
In space (vacuum) it is a wave in air (atmosphere) it is more a particle.
But yeah high school physics suck these days.
Why is noone talking about the pilot-wave-model? It seems to me much more intuitive than the idea of instantly collapsing wave functions.
ANYTHING is more intuitive than "collapsing wave function" - Four blind men checking an elephant seems more likely than collapsing wave functions - It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry every time I hear this codswallop taught to wide eyed students.
Four blind men checking an elephant? FOUR? and BLIND!? .. and checking (wait for it) a fucking ELEPHANT!!! When in the name of all that's holy does this ever happen? ..."Er, Joe, John, Eric and Dave, can you do me a favour please - Can you go over there and check what that smell is" - "Why can't you go?" "Can't you see I;m blind!?" "No - we're blind as well." "Oh - well anyway, I'm busy - Just go and do it will ya, - I made the sandwiches" "What sandwiches?" (three days later) "We're back!" "Well, what is it?" "Er, there's some disagreement actually..." MORAL OF THE STORY IS - NEVER ever send four blind men on an identity mission - in fact, don't even send them to buy a loaf - I mean, if FOUR of the fuckers can't work out who keeps eating all the sandwiches that Bill made (sorry, did I not introduce Bill?) there's not much point them buying loaves anyway.
Are these the same blind men who tiled my bathroom?
Perhaps a good question might be.... "If, for some bizarre reason, you were forced to completely destroy the notion of one or the other, which would it be and why?" An insane scientist, after pulling various levers and meddling with powers beyond his comprehension etc. turns to you (strapped into a torture chair) and forces you to destroy either the wavelength or the particle theory. For reasons known only to himself. And his deformed assistant. Or something....
try to make a joke:
Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more that your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love?
No it can not be both and you know it. Sorry it wasnt helpful . picture was super great concept need more study. But thank you shearing great visual animations sir🙏
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Light waves have superposition, meaning their amplitudes add or subtract, but they don't "interfere" with each other. Photoelectric effect is entirely a function of the boundary conditions imposed by the atom upon the electron and tell us nothing about the light wave other that it happened to have the correct energy to overcome those boundary conditions (or it didn't). Any photon generated by an electron dropping into a potential well is at the discrete energy defined by the atom's boundary conditions upon the electron, but again, has little to do with the light itself. Quit teaching falsehoods.
Light is always a wave. There are no particles. In the whole known universe, not a single particle.
tnks teacher! But If light made from particle , why one light wave moves through the way of the other(interferance)
Light is not made of particles. Light "moves trough itself" because the electromagnetic field is linear, i.e. it does not have self-interactions for optical frequencies and common intensities.
It depends on the property you're observing.
That's also not how it works. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 this is Schrodinger's cat all over again.... The Cat (Light) is either, both and neither dead (wave) or alive (particle).
@@siloxxx It does, for sure, reside on the same level of ignorance.
Thing is though, it's an ELEPHANT! The wave model works for the photoelectric effect: it's resonance, like an LC circuit or natural frequency in a structure. Is it coincidence that the "UV catastrophe" and the "Photoelectric Effect" both manifest at UV frequencies? The solid lattice is over-driven; like thixatropic paint or a the yield point of a metal when it starts to plastically deform; the issue is parameterization of the classical models for BBR & PE. If Planck & Einstein had some electronics and/or mechanical engineering they would've been more cautious with the leap to energy quanta based on convenient mathematical gymnastics. Nature is built using quanta, heck just look at the periodic table, but not in EM radiation! FWIW, your videos are fantastic BTW.
chrisitan huygens name not there? why???
chrisitan huygens name not there? why???
WAVE OR PARTICLE; Psy Phy Physics from a science fiction writer
Why do I look at waves not particles? Looking at waves, not particles shows the weaknesses and problems yet to be solved in quantum mechanics, also the clues to move forward.
More and more I see the particle as a SUBSET of the wave. The particle is most probably in the crests and troughs, that means it is part of the wave. The particle is almost never in the nodes of the waves. There seems to be some type of duality here where the particle seems more mass like, and the wave, more energy like. Could almost say one is in space time, the other in a dimensionless point.
The quantum world is never cut and dried - so that for me means spin, superposition of waves, destructive interference of waves, virtual particles, magnetic properties, direction of the waves, orbitals, binding energy, charge properties and particle wave duality: they are all going on at once, and everywhere in the atom at the same time.
It seems to make more sense that light is a particle that travels on waves of something else..what? Is the question
Perhaps waves of "space/time" and perhaps the photons themselves drive the direction of entropy through this spacetime😂😂😂 I doubt it but would be a fun thing to run an experiment to see if this would be the case
Light is a quantum field. There are plenty of books about these fields in the physics library... but beware... they are among the hardest science books that have ever been written. What light is not is either a particle or a wave.
bladee city