WELL, IT IS BOTH . Because we can justify some optic phenomenums of light by saying that it's a wave; like refraction , diffraction, and reflexion. you can also justify the fact that light transforms energy to matters by saying that it's a particule. (sorry if I made some mistakes in english . i study MQ in french ;) )
The ending of the video says: "sometimes light behaves like a particle and other times it behaves like a wave", but that's not really an accurate definition of light. Light are packets of photons, so its energy is discrete. However, these photons are described by a wave function. Then, it's not correct to say that light sometimes behaves like a particle and sometimes like a wave, but it take properties of both concepts and its behavior is defined by these properties.
According to me , Light (Photons) are accompanied by the wavefunctions which collapse differently based on the way the observations are made, thus if the observer is quite big ( As in Classical Physics ) the wavefunction collapses and thus we are able to witness particle nature of light and if the observer happens to be very small( As in Quantum Physics where slits are made unimaginably small) the wavefunction collapses to its other Eigenvalue which lets us see the wave nature of it.
I'm a Christian, Deal with it So you speak for all of Christianity? Wow. Such modesty. Appeal to ignorance and appeal to authority is *exactly* how Christians make excuses for the absolute disconnects between their supernatural world and the natural world the rest of us live in. Ignorance is knowledge. What is a soul? No Christian can say, but they "know" it exists. How do you tell which gods create the soul? No Christian can say, but they "know" it is their gods. Religious fallacy is the basis of Christianity and all other deistic faiths. You do know that's the difference between philosophy and theology, don't you? In philosophy, statements must be logically consistent. In theology, logical inconsistency, including outright contradictions like "we don't know, therefore we know" are permitted as "the will of the gods" any time and any place they are needed.
+Jean-Luc Dushimiye it is both, it is energized particles; the form of energy is 'm kinetic. but I don't know what kind of particle, that is why I'm here
Bullshit! Light is not particles at all. One experiment in video clearly shows that. Think about radio waves. They have the same nature as optical waves because they are oscillations of the same matter - physical field. But we don't assign any particles to radio waves. The optical light interacts with substances and our body a little bit different than any other waves. That's why it's so mysterious to modern science.
+yzhishko Bullshit!! You are and idiot!!! he said both ya moron which explains all experiments. it's a partial acting in a wave and that with any wavelength that is it extremely rare ( and talk about rare, its more likely that a superpossition will come out with another superposition. ) because the particles are moving in a wave so when they cross paths they miss the collision and when they do its not detectable.
manyakmami light has wavelengths that depend on the photons energy, photons inherently act as waves and move in a wave. That is why different sources of light can be different colors, they have different wavelengths
@@yuuurawizzard I think it's the myth that newton had his moment of epiphany about gravity when he was sitting under a tree and an apple fell on his head.
Sometimes it behaves like a particle and other times it behaves like a wave . But it isn't exactly like either ! Video starts and ends on the same entangled question 👏
It's just like water. Sometimes you get drops of water ( particles) and when you put them together , you get waves . Just my way of making sense of it.
That isn't the same thing. When you have a ripple in water, although the particles move up and down, they ultimately return to their original position resulting in a net 0 transfer of mass. However light physicaly travels from the source to its destination.
I'm also talking about individual particles acting like waves. That is because a wave is a behavior, not a thing. A particle actually never appears to be in multiple places. You will only ever find it in one place at a time. The waviness is in the description of where you expect to find it.
(Answer needed from TED ED itself) How light can act as a wave? (Because wave always requires a medium to move, just like a sound wave. And light also travels through vacuum). Does light contain any amount of physical matter? If light can sometimes be a wave, then can we believe in dark matter, present in vacuum to support the wave of light? How is light seen on microscopic level in a vacuum in contrast to a microscopic image of vacuum with no light? Or do I need to study something to get my answers?
This relates interestingly to a experiment that Veritasium did with a box and 2 slits. the thing about the wave/particle duality of certain forms of energy is the way the waves are different from normal waves of lower energy types. I think what explains the waves/particles of light would be something more akin to a particle/WAKE duality, the particle leaves behind a wave as it moves through a medium!
Is it possible that a photon is a particle that acts like a wave because it has a dark matter particle orbiting it, pulling it into an axial wave motion as it travels? And that perhaps the only reason for photons' max speed limit is the dark matter they're paired with? That could explain the double slit experiment results with some interaction between the dark matter and the detector. This could also explain the deflection of the axis of the particle's wave motion moving thru polarizing filters rotated less than 45 degrees apart. This could also explain why the universe is expanding from the central Singularity point of the Big Bang outward in all directions faster than the speed of light into previously completely empty universe space, given that there is no Dark Matter there yet.
Hello, after a long time. Hope you are doing great. Did you get the answer? I appreciate your theory of presence of dark matter but how to decide when light will behave as a particle or wave and at what conditions?
i know this is a joke but that happens everytime with things: "why do my patients die on me everytime i put a giant unwashed scissors in their bodies? must be god's plothole" or "why do rocks bounce off of water? must be god's plothole" or even "why do grounds all of a sudden sink? must be god's plothole" and everytime it is explained with science so what is different with this situation? but i have to admit it was a funny joke.
Who decided it has to be either a wave or a particle. it is what it is and is beyond explanation. The universe and nature are under no obligation to make themselves easy for our brains to understand or to act and behave like we want them to or expect them to
TheSpaceAce that's a pretty weak response. Water waves, which are made up of water molecules, do not scatter when interfering with each other, similar to how 2 or more light beams interact.
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.
One way to think of wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is that it is forming a blank canvas for us (atoms) to interact with; we have waves over a period of time and particles as an uncertain future unfolds. The mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of time with classical physics represents processes over a ‘period of time’ as in Newton's differential equations. In this theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents geometry, the Planck Constant ħ=h/2π is linked to 2π circular geometry representing a two dimensional aspect of 4π spherical three-dimensional geometry. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The charge of the electron e² and the speed of light c² are both squared for the same geometrical reason. We have this concept because the electromagnetic force forms a continuous exchange of energy forming what we experience as time. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light photon ∆E=hf energy is forming potential photon energy into the kinetic energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of what is actually happening. An uncertain probabilistic future is continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon energy.
Something to think about is definitions. What is the definition of a particle or a wave? It is definitions that makes it difficult to understand the nature of light. The definition of "particle" is "a tiny portion of matter". But what is "matter"? "Matter" is a quanta of energy at a given moment in time. What is energy? It is an abstract concept pertaining to potentials. What is a "wave"? It is a spatial description of movement of energy. It is how quanta changes position (x,y,z) over time. So in both cases, light is simplistically (meaning at the surface level of observation) a bundle of energy at a given position in space at a given moment in time. How it interacts with other quanta is the produced effect called "behavior". The "behavior" of light on a "surface" is to change the frequency of the light wave through interaction with the other quanta of energy wave (a portion of energy passing through and a portion changing direction or reflecting), with the resulting behavior being observed as "matter".
4:01 "Well light isn't really anything we're used to dealing with our everyday lives." Well..., actually light *"IS"* something we're used to dealing with our everyday lives.
Amazing video, but, WHY did you forget to mention Einstein? The one who contradicted Newton’s theory of light was Einstein, He helped to understand, with his theory of photons, that light behaves like a particle and like a wave. With his theory and analysis, he was able to prove that Newton was partially right, and helped a much greater understanding of light, specially the idea that lights bends to gravity. Relativity, photon theory, light as particle-wave theory, should be there in your video.
neither "particle" nor "wave" is not an answer to the question what the heck is a photon...what is an electromagnetic wave...what is it? What is it made out of? Strings of energy in the quantum field? I can't believe we've been pondering this stuff for well over a 100 years and we're stuck. I really sometimes feel like stuck in some George Lucas film about FORCE being the main protagonist...while nobody actually knows what that bloody FORCE is !!!?! Force = Energy ... potentials and spin and probability...I mean,as the saying goes 'if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you really don't understand quantum mechanics@ - that is indicative where our science is atm...nobody seems to understand what we're made out of...other than "electromagnetic waves" or "energy" or "potential" .... perhaps the answer trully is in the "Simulation theory"
The video and animation is great. I like it, however, I feel that someone not related with physics wouldn't ask him/herself if light is a wave. For most people is reasonable and intuitive to think of light as a particle. Then it would be great to show WHY it couldn't be a particle. (The video says it, but not in a language or as a experience that common people can recreate)
Actually while you're right about some photons being absorbed, some do reflect. For example, turn out the lights and shine a laser pointer on the surface of the pencil. Most of those photons will reflect as is obvious from the beam obeying the law of reflection. Some are dispersed by the imperfect surface, and I would suspect some would be absorbed and then re-emitted, although not necessarily with the same frequency (color).
what if light is both, a group of waves being trapped together, and moving through space like a particle, but in fact being many waves. But, they also act like a force, presenting energy, and power. Light waves might entirely be a new combination of force, waves, particles, and maybe other things we have yet to find.
But as with all these experiments that tried to show that light is a particle, can't thinking light as a wave also does the job?And one big question to ask.If light is a particle or partly a particle, how is it possible that the speed of light traveling through a the same material (water for example) be constant even though one is shot out of an extremely weak torchlight, while the other from a very strong flashlight. Only waves are able to have constant speed of induction (through fixed frequencies), and a wave made up of particles is not an explanation for this too in my opinion.
+Luyang Che no actually, because sometimes assuming light is a wave is not enough to explain its properties. for example, the "quanta" thing he talked about. If light is a wave, it cannot transfer energy in defined amounts, or "quantas". in that instance, it acts like a particle. I think the confusion arises from people ignoring the "acts like"; part of the sentence. light is never a particle, and it's never a wave. it's something else that we can't explain. but wave theory comes in handy when we are trying to explain and predict certain behaviours, and particle theory comes in handy in other instances. in reality light has no dual properties, we just don't have a unifying theory to explain all it's properties so we keep using the two theories we have.
Well, I dont exactly get it how light cant be transfering energy in defined amount when purely just a wave. Light works in many ways very similiar to sound, which is a wave. Even if light cant be just simply waves, if I am not wrong, the way the scientist came to the conclusion that light is in "quanta" (which came from the word quanity as I know it) just because there theory explain it, which I think is flawed, as though it can explain this phenonemon, it isnt proven to be only possible explanation, thus not a reliable explanation. Please correct me if you think anything I said is wrong.
no you are right in the sense that this "dual nature" explanation is flawed. Clearly, light cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time. We need a better theory, but we just don't have it yet. that's why we explain some properties of light (like quantal energy transfers) by using the "particle theory". imagine this; you know what a solid is, and you know what a gas is, but you've never seen a liquid before. and suddenly you discover a liquid. it's weird, because sometimes it acts like a gas (for example, it takes the shape of the container you put it in) but sometimes it behaves like a solid (for example it has a fixed volume). so you try to explain what a liquid is using these two terms; gas, and solid. obviously you need a better theory (i.e. you need to realise that the spacing of the atoms are not as dense as a solid and not as sparse as a gas, but lets say you don't know what an atom is). that's the same with light- we can explain it's behaviour with the theories we have, but they are flawed theories because they can't explain all properties at once. does that make more sense? :)
Luyang Che light interacts with other light with wavelengths, that is, light will always travel the same speed (speed of light) but when a photon has more energy it has a shorter wavelength.
As I see it, there are three problems with this video: #1: Light does NOT "reflect." Light photons are ABSORBED by atoms in a mirror (or by atoms in a pencil) and are RE-EMITTED as NEW photons. All the arguments that light is a wave ignore the "waves" coming back from the wall, the pencil, etc. #2: When you are in a room, you have light coming at you from all directions, some of it direct from a light source, the rest of it from photons RE-EMITTED by the wall, the pencil, the floor, etc. I see some of the light, you see some of the light, my camera captures some of the light, but most of the photons just hit one thing after another until they are finally absorbed. #3: Photons will not crash into each other when two beams of light are crossed. They are too small and the relative distance between them is too great for such collisions to be noticeable. If they happen to get close enough to collide, they will likely be deflected by the other's energy field. Or they might pass through each other the way light passes through molecules in the air. A laser bounces light back and forth off of mirrors at each end inside the laser. Why don't the waves crash into each other? According to the wave theory, shouldn't the waves just pile up in the center of the laser? In reality, the photon particles hit the mirrors which generate new photon particles going in the opposite direction, and the photon particles pass each other because they are too small to have much risk of collision. Plus, as said above, if they have identical electrical charges they will deflect away from each other if they get too close.
With some of the amazing things the Greeks came up with it's hard to believe they thought that about light for a thousand years when there was no answer why it gets dark.
Can we at least make a new name of what light really is? Like.. something that behaves like a particle and also like a wave but is not a particle nor a wave.
Light is either a particle or a wave because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It states that the amount of information that you cannot know about the position and velocity of an object is a (tiny) constant (Plank's constant) because photons are so small, you can either know it's velocity, which translates to it's behavior and essentially it's wavelike information, or you can know about it's position, or it's particle-like information.
Wave's and photon's do not exist it's impossible. Wave's of what? Look up Theoria Apophasis on TH-cam, he also cover's extensively on Magnetism. That explanation's coming out of that guy's mouth with make your head fall off your shoulder's and flop on the floor
I think you make a good point, if light is a wave, then WHAT is it a wave OF? The reasonable answer is that it is a wave of electromagnetic field, not particles. The particles and the wave are both consequences of the electromagnetic field. A wave of electromagnetic field has no rest mass, but it contains energy, and so by energy/mass equivalence it can create a gravitational field as if it had rest mass.
Light is a wave-particle. When you observe it light it acts like a particle, but when you don't it act like a wave. It's just how quantum reality works.
Wave's and photon's do not exist it's impossible. Wave's of what? Look up Theoria Apophasis on TH-cam, he also cover's extensively on Magnetism. That explanation's coming out of that guy's mouth with make your head fall off your shoulder's and flop on the floor
That's not reality first it makes absolutely zero sense second that's how science works people act they discovered the secret of the universe until a guy comes some 100 years later to say that everything we thought is wrong and light turns out to be one totally different thing and obviously all of us will be wrong in the future
Human brain has limits just like your sight has limits you can't try to understand everything physics isn't the ultimate reality it will never be perfect we just try to understand as much as we can to help us in our lives but good luck trying to explain reality
Light is a wave traveling at little resistance, which is regarded as ballistic or particle like. Please check recent paper published at International Journal of heat and mass transfer, titled "Heat transfer at speed of sound"
Photons, and all matter are a particle-wave duality. Depending on what you look for in a photon, you will find it - This is one of the tenets of quantum physics. The particle is in a superposition of both states, meaning that it is, in fact, both at the same time. Simply by the act of observing it, you cause it to choose a state. Quantum mechanics is a state of mind equaled by no other. The correct answer to the question "Is light a wave or a particle" is yes
I have a hypothesis in favour of WAVE nature of Light. The rationale that we use against WAVE nature of light is that Photoelectric Effect is a function of FREQUENCY. And observation of Threshold Frequency is hard/impossible to explain considering Light a Wave. However, FREQUENCY is related to WAVELENGTH (λ = v/f). So perhaps, Photoelectric Effect is not actually a function of FREQUENCY at all, but rather a function of WAVELENGTH. On similar lines, there may be a concept of Threshold Wavelength (instead of Threshold Frequency). I.E. wavelenth needs to be sufficiently small to enable INTERACTION with electrons of a candidate element. Would this perspective continue to support Wave Nature of Light? (without getting into fuzzy concepts like Photon and Duality)?
Aha, I understood what they are saying! But now I have a headache and i am feeling dizzy😵 So I think Qûâñtum theories can be understood and not understood at the same time. Gosh, what am I thinking!!😲
At university I got a simple explanation. Both wave and particle description of light is models used to explain some behaviour of light. A model is just a simplified description.
no, this is the basis of heisenberg uncertainty principle. He came up with probability of measuring particle's and wave's momentum and position, thus resulting in inability to measure both of them. Hence, you either measure its momentum or position but not both of them. Particle and waves are different substances. Saying they both share the same properties is like saying that ocean wave is rock and rock is ocean wave. I mean, what??
Exactly. I think one of the prime drivers for the discoveries made by Einstein was a forthright insistence on rational intelligibility. That's why he didn't like quantum physics. If our 'model' for what light is isn't rationally intelligible there's a simple reason:it's not correct (or, at best is incomplete)If you watch videos like this or videos about the double slit experiment you hear expressions like, 'this runs contrary to common sense' or 'despite what our intuitions tell us...'. Rather than acknowledging that there's a problem with our models: namely that they're rationally contradictory and unintelligible, the criteria of intelligibility get's obscured by downgrading it to a desire for 'common sense' or for things to follow our 'common-sense' intuitions. At the same time the irrational gets elevated to the point of being mystically inaccessible to our minds, but none the less, amazingly valid. What a crock. Something that's in 2 separate places at the same time doesn't quarrel with common sense, it defies reason. And there's an easy way to explain where we are (if not what's going on specifically). We've discovered phenomenon experimentally that we can't yet explain. We just have to admit that we don't understand the results, and don't have a satisfying explanation for them. Keep the results, discard the explanatory bit (since it doesn't make sense) and try again! Maybe the particles are riding waves that we cannot readily detect (like beach balls at a wave pool. I know that's a childishly uneducated guess, but the central point is that as long as we're cunningly satisfied with irrational explanations, there's no urgent impetuous to think creatively, shift paradigms and upgrade our explanations. In quantum theory, it seems like there's a kind of eccentric distinction to the irrationality of current explanations. Isn't the universe weird! the more bafflingly irrational the explanation is the better.
Erik l For a particle the dimension, by definition, does not matter. For a wave it must. There are actually a lot of reasons though that something cannot exist for which the wave model and the particle model are accurate, and they are mostly of the form "It's this way not that way." The math we use to describe them is different. Therefore something cannot be both.
+Matthew Helm Imagine a boat gliding through an infinite lake. You could experience it as an object moving through space, but you can also measure the waves in the lake. I think we have a wrong picture about space being empty, it's more like a field, a 3D structure, and light is traveling through it, and the interaction with it causes this duality of wave/particle effects. But you can't separate the boat and the waves, they coexist and are part of the same action: light traveling through space-time. What do you think about this?
CornerrecordZ Light is actually two types of waves oscillating perpendicularly to each other. One is electric wave which is formed by charged particles. The second is a magnetic wave that is formed by the movement of electrons. When these two waves oscillate perpendicularly to each other electromagnetic waves are formed.
Photon of light is a particle with associated EM wave. Since wave & particle move at light speed, Photon moves as particle-wave system. When an object moves in space it creates waves in the fabric of space since space is an energy field with physical structure.
Wave is just a way that can push energy without actually moving, like surfers move around on waterwaves. What wave actually consist of? I have no clue, but my guess would be: nothing.
No, Bill Gaede is far from any model of reality. It's a crackpot hypothesis that's quickly and easily refuted with more accurate and reliable theories.
Yes. Something like in between. It has both wave and particle properties which manifest as either depending in the nature of the interaction. Very weird stuff.
Quantum Light (h) is a dualistic quantum particle that in the cosmic vacuum can fly at a constant speed (c=1). In this movement, light uses its linear spin and it does not produce electromagnetic waves. Light behaves like a corpuscular. But light can behave like a wave if it uses its angular rotation (the torque required to accelerate angularly around the axis of rotation). In this situation, the speed of the light is faster than the constant. The speed is c>1. This situation is explained by Lorentz transformations. The problem is that we do not know the geometric shape of the light quantum.
I'm glad they shed some light on this subject
That was quite the elucidation.
hello from the world that exists 6 years after this comment
*rim shot*
What a glowing review
@@jrhooman 😂👌
Me : What is light a particle or a wave?
TED : YES
they’re actually explained just fine
@@alireardon6664 they would literally have to explain quantum mechanics in an understandable way
@@alireardon6664 the explanation is okay, but indeed not detailed, as they have to keep it simple for everyone imo
WELL, IT IS BOTH . Because we can justify some optic phenomenums of light by saying that it's a wave; like refraction , diffraction, and reflexion. you can also justify the fact that light transforms energy to matters by saying that it's a particule. (sorry if I made some mistakes in english . i study MQ in french ;) )
@@Angel-oq5bs so define a particle..
Light is a WAVICLE
don't know english
Everything is wavicle :)
Lol
@@redox_reaction_phox sayin' to whom buddy?
@@universeisheregaming6400 1st: im a girl
2nd: im talking to the original comment
that plaster on Newton's head is a brilliant detail!
Ikr
+ABHI The apple.😂😂
Is that because of the apple??
surely😝
I was just about to say that! Brilliant!
“I dunno lol maybe?” - Quantum physicist
😂😂❤
did i ask bro
@@kiranmatadeen did he told you bro
Lmao
Nice lmao
Classic TED
Is light a particle or a wave?
Thats a good question
**queue outro music**
I thought this was just me for a second. I was ready to pass the link along while watching, but then it just ended. I felt... shortchanged.
Both light is wave as well as particle
This video answers the given question, then again it does not ...
@@awr1001 schrodingers video
My question wasn't answered either.... 😑
The ending of the video says: "sometimes light behaves like a particle and other times it behaves like a wave", but that's not really an accurate definition of light.
Light are packets of photons, so its energy is discrete. However, these photons are described by a wave function.
Then, it's not correct to say that light sometimes behaves like a particle and sometimes like a wave, but it take properties of both concepts and its behavior is defined by these properties.
@HD_Cat u have a large brain
Photon acts like a particle!
Light = photon
Light acts like a particle too.
According to me , Light (Photons) are accompanied by the wavefunctions which collapse differently based on the way the observations are made, thus if the observer is quite big ( As in Classical Physics ) the wavefunction collapses and thus we are able to witness particle nature of light and if the observer happens to be very small( As in Quantum Physics where slits are made unimaginably small) the wavefunction collapses to its other Eigenvalue which lets us see the wave nature of it.
You said there same thing
Your explanation really it make sense.
That's the guy! He's also done a few others on the nuances of color and light.
just pin this comment.
My M8 they will never dude😋
@Varanus komodoensis e
😀
Why don't you pinning it
ابن الهيثم ❤ الله يرحمه كان عالم كبير .. ان شاء الله يجي اليوم الي يطلع من بلداننا علماء بشطارته واكثر يرفعون الأمة
So we don't know what the fuck it is
It's a God Created occurrence
I dont know what it is, therefore god created it. We dont know things, therefore god exists.
Christians disgust me
PapaKay lol not how we think
I'm a Christian, Deal with it So you speak for all of Christianity? Wow. Such modesty.
Appeal to ignorance and appeal to authority is *exactly* how Christians make excuses for the absolute disconnects between their supernatural world and the natural world the rest of us live in.
Ignorance is knowledge. What is a soul? No Christian can say, but they "know" it exists. How do you tell which gods create the soul? No Christian can say, but they "know" it is their gods.
Religious fallacy is the basis of Christianity and all other deistic faiths.
You do know that's the difference between philosophy and theology, don't you? In philosophy, statements must be logically consistent. In theology, logical inconsistency, including outright contradictions like "we don't know, therefore we know" are permitted as "the will of the gods" any time and any place they are needed.
+Jean-Luc Dushimiye it is both, it is energized particles; the form of energy is 'm kinetic. but I don't know what kind of particle, that is why I'm here
The animation on this is gorgeous! Like all ted Ed videos, about 50% of my attention is being awe struck by the animation
You explain complex topics like this in such a fun and interesting manner which makes me want to love science and explore it 😀
Samee
believe me you dont want to
Light isn't sometimes that sometimes this. it's both! Wave and Particle, acting in Harmony
Bullshit! Light is not particles at all. One experiment in video clearly shows that. Think about radio waves. They have the same nature as optical waves because they are oscillations of the same matter - physical field. But we don't assign any particles to radio waves. The optical light interacts with substances and our body a little bit different than any other waves. That's why it's so mysterious to modern science.
+yzhishko Bullshit!! You are and idiot!!! he said both ya moron which explains all experiments. it's a partial acting in a wave and that with any wavelength that is it extremely rare ( and talk about rare, its more likely that a superpossition will come out with another superposition. ) because the particles are moving in a wave so when they cross paths they miss the collision and when they do its not detectable.
absolutely incorrent.
manyakmami
That
Is
stupid
manyakmami light has wavelengths that depend on the photons energy, photons inherently act as waves and move in a wave. That is why different sources of light can be different colors, they have different wavelengths
the bandage on Newton's head was a nice touch - anybody else catch that?
isaiah baggett what's its significance?
Don Jefé the injury caused by Apple falling on his head
Dr. Manoyana ucho ....oh gr8 i noticed it bt couldnt make it out...
@@yuuurawizzard I think it's the myth that newton had his moment of epiphany about gravity when he was sitting under a tree and an apple fell on his head.
No, you are the only genious
Nature-What do you want to become light , particles or wave?
Light -Yes
What do you mean by nature
Nature?
Sometimes it behaves like a particle and other times it behaves like a wave .
But it isn't exactly like either !
Video starts and ends on the same entangled question 👏
Thank you Colm. I've struggled with this concept for quite some time. Your explanation has helped to open the door to Quantum Physics for me.
Gassendi said: "Light is a particle"
Hooke said: "Light is wave"
Planck said: "Why not both"
If you value your sanity, do not read the comments.
AGREED
Thank you for warning me
I think this is true for most videos’ comments
Thank you
i lost my sanity a long time ago
Colm Kelleher has a lot of lessons here... and they are the best always :)
Thanks to him and to the creative animators...
"I dunno"
-Ted ed
It's just like water. Sometimes you get drops of water ( particles) and when you put them together , you get waves . Just my way of making sense of it.
That isn't the same thing. When you have a ripple in water, although the particles move up and down, they ultimately return to their original position resulting in a net 0 transfer of mass. However light physicaly travels from the source to its destination.
Light is diffrent ...it's special
No definitely not😂
Wiowoooooowww. Thats a good one😄
Asmaa
اجل يا اختاه عندك حق
1:53 I guess that APPLE fell on newton's forehead....
Just wow. The way you explain is excellent.
I'm also talking about individual particles acting like waves. That is because a wave is a behavior, not a thing. A particle actually never appears to be in multiple places. You will only ever find it in one place at a time. The waviness is in the description of where you expect to find it.
(Answer needed from TED ED itself)
How light can act as a wave? (Because wave always requires a medium to move, just like a sound wave. And light also travels through vacuum). Does light contain any amount of physical matter? If light can sometimes be a wave, then can we believe in dark matter, present in vacuum to support the wave of light? How is light seen on microscopic level in a vacuum in contrast to a microscopic image of vacuum with no light? Or do I need to study something to get my answers?
Me trying to reply and ignore the fact it said only Ted Ed: Well it is-
Mamta: NO
@@andrewli8173 Thanks for your attention Andrew, but can you be more specific?
thanks God for making channel like Ted ed
Light is an energy which is itself invisible but makes other things visible.
then how are we able to see light rays
This relates interestingly to a experiment that Veritasium did with a box and 2 slits. the thing about the wave/particle duality of certain forms of energy is the way the waves are different from normal waves of lower energy types. I think what explains the waves/particles of light would be something more akin to a particle/WAKE duality, the particle leaves behind a wave as it moves through a medium!
I don't like when they make videos about stuff without a definitive answer.
But I like knowing it anyway.
Keep up the good work
محمود مجدي 👑
Didn't learn anything new but still drawn to watch just to enjoy the way it was presented.
Is it possible that a photon is a particle that acts like a wave because it has a dark matter particle orbiting it, pulling it into an axial wave motion as it travels? And that perhaps the only reason for photons' max speed limit is the dark matter they're paired with? That could explain the double slit experiment results with some interaction between the dark matter and the detector. This could also explain the deflection of the axis of the particle's wave motion moving thru polarizing filters rotated less than 45 degrees apart.
This could also explain why the universe is expanding from the central Singularity point of the Big Bang outward in all directions faster than the speed of light into previously completely empty universe space, given that there is no Dark Matter there yet.
Hello, after a long time. Hope you are doing great. Did you get the answer?
I appreciate your theory of presence of dark matter but how to decide when light will behave as a particle or wave and at what conditions?
This is an interesting theory!
@@nevanjohn Thank you my friend.
Interesting theory, but the issue is that electrons and other atoms also behave in the same way.
Are they all too connected to dark matter?
Reasonable theory. On a side note for anyone....when is a photon a wave? Answer without referencing the double slit experiment.
Short answer : both
Long answer: both but not both
Longer answer: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNDDD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTH
Petition to call it a wavicle
Where is the usual narrator? His voice is so calming
Quantum mechanics, god's plot hole in the universe.
i know this is a joke but that happens everytime with things: "why do my patients die on me everytime i put a giant unwashed scissors in their bodies? must be god's plothole" or "why do rocks bounce off of water? must be god's plothole" or even "why do grounds all of a sudden sink? must be god's plothole" and everytime it is explained with science so what is different with this situation?
but i have to admit it was a funny joke.
are you related to Aditya Saraff
Or rather, a limitation of our mind; Just like how understanding integration is beyond a dog's limits
Who decided it has to be either a wave or a particle. it is what it is and is beyond explanation. The universe and nature are under no obligation to make themselves easy for our brains to understand or to act and behave like we want them to or expect them to
What if light travels as photons in the form of waves?
They'd still collide when two beams of light crossed each other, causing scattering which doesn't happen.
Top 5 The thing is it works with single atoms too
TheSpaceAce that's a pretty weak response. Water waves, which are made up of water molecules, do not scatter when interfering with each other, similar to how 2 or more light beams interact.
What are you even trying to say?
Isnt that basically like saying a chair in the form of a table therefore saying its actually a table?
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.
Listen the song : Waves Of Light - Brian Cox
One way to think of wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is that it is forming a blank canvas for us (atoms) to interact with; we have waves over a period of time and particles as an uncertain future unfolds. The mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of time with classical physics represents processes over a ‘period of time’ as in Newton's differential equations.
In this theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents geometry, the Planck Constant ħ=h/2π is linked to 2π circular geometry representing a two dimensional aspect of 4π spherical three-dimensional geometry. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The charge of the electron e² and the speed of light c² are both squared for the same geometrical reason. We have this concept because the electromagnetic force forms a continuous exchange of energy forming what we experience as time. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light photon ∆E=hf energy is forming potential photon energy into the kinetic energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of what is actually happening. An uncertain probabilistic future is continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon energy.
Light is neither a wave nor a particle. But it shows properties of either, depending on its energy.
Something to think about is definitions. What is the definition of a particle or a wave? It is definitions that makes it difficult to understand the nature of light. The definition of "particle" is "a tiny portion of matter". But what is "matter"? "Matter" is a quanta of energy at a given moment in time. What is energy? It is an abstract concept pertaining to potentials. What is a "wave"? It is a spatial description of movement of energy. It is how quanta changes position (x,y,z) over time. So in both cases, light is simplistically (meaning at the surface level of observation) a bundle of energy at a given position in space at a given moment in time. How it interacts with other quanta is the produced effect called "behavior". The "behavior" of light on a "surface" is to change the frequency of the light wave through interaction with the other quanta of energy wave (a portion of energy passing through and a portion changing direction or reflecting), with the resulting behavior being observed as "matter".
So are you a particle or a wave
Light: yes
¡En física, me divierto mucho aprendiendo con la Sra. Kim!
4:01 "Well light isn't really anything we're used to dealing with our everyday lives."
Well..., actually light *"IS"* something we're used to dealing with our everyday lives.
He actually said 'Well light isn't really LIKE anything we're used to dealing with IN our everyday lives' 😅
Amazing video, but, WHY did you forget to mention Einstein? The one who contradicted Newton’s theory of light was Einstein, He helped to understand, with his theory of photons, that light behaves like a particle and like a wave. With his theory and analysis, he was able to prove that Newton was partially right, and helped a much greater understanding of light, specially the idea that lights bends to gravity. Relativity, photon theory, light as particle-wave theory, should be there in your video.
Me: *Soo.. what is light?*
Physics: *Yes*
neither "particle" nor "wave" is not an answer to the question what the heck is a photon...what is an electromagnetic wave...what is it? What is it made out of? Strings of energy in the quantum field? I can't believe we've been pondering this stuff for well over a 100 years and we're stuck.
I really sometimes feel like stuck in some George Lucas film about FORCE being the main protagonist...while nobody actually knows what that bloody FORCE is !!!?! Force = Energy ... potentials and spin and probability...I mean,as the saying goes 'if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you really don't understand quantum mechanics@ - that is indicative where our science is atm...nobody seems to understand what we're made out of...other than "electromagnetic waves" or "energy" or "potential" .... perhaps the answer trully is in the "Simulation theory"
I LOVE THIS GUY HE SHOULD DO EVERY COMMENTATION
Let's not goona neglect the fact that we are also wave & particle at the same time
The video and animation is great. I like it, however, I feel that someone not related with physics wouldn't ask him/herself if light is a wave. For most people is reasonable and intuitive to think of light as a particle. Then it would be great to show WHY it couldn't be a particle. (The video says it, but not in a language or as a experience that common people can recreate)
Actually, all matter is both wave and particle. And all objects emit radiation (light), just in the infrared red spectrum
Actually while you're right about some photons being absorbed, some do reflect. For example, turn out the lights and shine a laser pointer on the surface of the pencil. Most of those photons will reflect as is obvious from the beam obeying the law of reflection. Some are dispersed by the imperfect surface, and I would suspect some would be absorbed and then re-emitted, although not necessarily with the same frequency (color).
I asked this to my father when I was in 2nd grade and he laughed and said it would take too long to explain
if after 10 minutes of explaining and you respond with a "huh?!" i would just say "ahh don't sweat it, maybe an other time."
Awesome illustration & explanation, thanks👏🏽👏🏽
مين جي من كتاب م محمود مجدي
This guy's explaining is soo good!
what if light is both, a group of waves being trapped together, and moving through space like a particle, but in fact being many waves. But, they also act like a force, presenting energy, and power. Light waves might entirely be a new combination of force, waves, particles, and maybe other things we have yet to find.
we need to study light heavily, so we can find hope in developing Lightsabers
Do you have any idea how little this video satisfied my curiosity.
But as with all these experiments that tried to show that light is a particle, can't thinking light as a wave also does the job?And one big question to ask.If light is a particle or partly a particle, how is it possible that the speed of light traveling through a the same material (water for example) be constant even though one is shot out of an extremely weak torchlight, while the other from a very strong flashlight. Only waves are able to have constant speed of induction (through fixed frequencies), and a wave made up of particles is not an explanation for this too in my opinion.
+Luyang Che no actually, because sometimes assuming light is a wave is not enough to explain its properties. for example, the "quanta" thing he talked about. If light is a wave, it cannot transfer energy in defined amounts, or "quantas". in that instance, it acts like a particle. I think the confusion arises from people ignoring the "acts like"; part of the sentence. light is never a particle, and it's never a wave. it's something else that we can't explain. but wave theory comes in handy when we are trying to explain and predict certain behaviours, and particle theory comes in handy in other instances. in reality light has no dual properties, we just don't have a unifying theory to explain all it's properties so we keep using the two theories we have.
Well, I dont exactly get it how light cant be transfering energy in defined amount when purely just a wave. Light works in many ways very similiar to sound, which is a wave.
Even if light cant be just simply waves, if I am not wrong, the way the scientist came to the conclusion that light is in "quanta" (which came from the word quanity as I know it) just because there theory explain it, which I think is flawed, as though it can explain this phenonemon, it isnt proven to be only possible explanation, thus not a reliable explanation.
Please correct me if you think anything I said is wrong.
no you are right in the sense that this "dual nature" explanation is flawed. Clearly, light cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time. We need a better theory, but we just don't have it yet. that's why we explain some properties of light (like quantal energy transfers) by using the "particle theory".
imagine this; you know what a solid is, and you know what a gas is, but you've never seen a liquid before. and suddenly you discover a liquid. it's weird, because sometimes it acts like a gas (for example, it takes the shape of the container you put it in) but sometimes it behaves like a solid (for example it has a fixed volume). so you try to explain what a liquid is using these two terms; gas, and solid. obviously you need a better theory (i.e. you need to realise that the spacing of the atoms are not as dense as a solid and not as sparse as a gas, but lets say you don't know what an atom is). that's the same with light- we can explain it's behaviour with the theories we have, but they are flawed theories because they can't explain all properties at once.
does that make more sense? :)
Great analogy, that explains a lot, thanks! :)
Luyang Che light interacts with other light with wavelengths, that is, light will always travel the same speed (speed of light) but when a photon has more energy it has a shorter wavelength.
This guy's voice is awesome.
Mr Mahmoud Magdy
As I see it, there are three problems with this video:
#1: Light does NOT "reflect." Light photons are ABSORBED by atoms in a mirror (or by atoms in a pencil) and are RE-EMITTED as NEW photons. All the arguments that light is a wave ignore the "waves" coming back from the wall, the pencil, etc.
#2: When you are in a room, you have light coming at you from all directions, some of it direct from a light source, the rest of it from photons RE-EMITTED by the wall, the pencil, the floor, etc. I see some of the light, you see some of the light, my camera captures some of the light, but most of the photons just hit one thing after another until they are finally absorbed.
#3: Photons will not crash into each other when two beams of light are crossed. They are too small and the relative distance between them is too great for such collisions to be noticeable. If they happen to get close enough to collide, they will likely be deflected by the other's energy field. Or they might pass through each other the way light passes through molecules in the air.
A laser bounces light back and forth off of mirrors at each end inside the laser. Why don't the waves crash into each other? According to the wave theory, shouldn't the waves just pile up in the center of the laser? In reality, the photon particles hit the mirrors which generate new photon particles going in the opposite direction, and the photon particles pass each other because they are too small to have much risk of collision. Plus, as said above, if they have identical electrical charges they will deflect away from each other if they get too close.
رجالة عبدالمعبود
With some of the amazing things the Greeks came up with it's hard to believe they thought that about light for a thousand years when there was no answer why it gets dark.
So we can say light is basically waves acting like particles ryt???
This video really brightened my understanding
if u didn't watch the video yet, light is both a particle and a wave
Best channel
Can we at least make a new name of what light really is? Like.. something that behaves like a particle and also like a wave but is not a particle nor a wave.
It's called electromagnetic wave
awesome...
Then what do you call electrons? These behave like waves when not observed and they behave like particles when observed.
Ok I get it. it is a pwave , a parve or quantumwave you name it. Both e- and photons are qwaves.
it's called a wavicle
Light is either a particle or a wave because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It states that the amount of information that you cannot know about the position and velocity of an object is a (tiny) constant (Plank's constant) because photons are so small, you can either know it's velocity, which translates to it's behavior and essentially it's wavelike information, or you can know about it's position, or it's particle-like information.
so it is a partiwave
omg the bandaid, my deepest respect.
That's the exact reason this is called wave-particle duality. Yeah, i'm showing off as someone who learn quantum physics
Wave's and photon's do not exist it's impossible. Wave's of what? Look up Theoria Apophasis on TH-cam, he also cover's extensively on Magnetism. That explanation's coming out of that guy's mouth with make your head fall off your shoulder's and flop on the floor
I think you make a good point, if light is a wave, then WHAT is it a wave OF? The reasonable answer is that it is a wave of electromagnetic field, not particles. The particles and the wave are both consequences of the electromagnetic field. A wave of electromagnetic field has no rest mass, but it contains energy, and so by energy/mass equivalence it can create a gravitational field as if it had rest mass.
Light is a wave-particle. When you observe it light it acts like a particle, but when you don't it act like a wave. It's just how quantum reality works.
Wave's and photon's do not exist it's impossible. Wave's of what? Look up Theoria Apophasis on TH-cam, he also cover's extensively on Magnetism. That explanation's coming out of that guy's mouth with make your head fall off your shoulder's and flop on the floor
That's not reality first it makes absolutely zero sense second that's how science works people act they discovered the secret of the universe until a guy comes some 100 years later to say that everything we thought is wrong and light turns out to be one totally different thing and obviously all of us will be wrong in the future
Human brain has limits just like your sight has limits you can't try to understand everything physics isn't the ultimate reality it will never be perfect we just try to understand as much as we can to help us in our lives but good luck trying to explain reality
رجاله عبدالمعبود ❤❤❤❤
2:52 Woah........ I feel dizzy
Light is a wave traveling at little resistance, which is regarded as ballistic or particle like. Please check recent paper published at International Journal of heat and mass transfer, titled "Heat transfer at speed of sound"
just ate a bagel
awesome
ppppp
How was it?
Photons, and all matter are a particle-wave duality. Depending on what you look for in a photon, you will find it - This is one of the tenets of quantum physics. The particle is in a superposition of both states, meaning that it is, in fact, both at the same time. Simply by the act of observing it, you cause it to choose a state. Quantum mechanics is a state of mind equaled by no other. The correct answer to the question "Is light a wave or a particle" is yes
isn't light just the disturbance in the electric field
I have a hypothesis in favour of WAVE nature of Light.
The rationale that we use against WAVE nature of light is that Photoelectric Effect is a function of FREQUENCY. And observation of Threshold Frequency is hard/impossible to explain considering Light a Wave.
However, FREQUENCY is related to WAVELENGTH (λ = v/f).
So perhaps, Photoelectric Effect is not actually a function of FREQUENCY at all, but rather a function of WAVELENGTH.
On similar lines, there may be a concept of Threshold Wavelength (instead of Threshold Frequency).
I.E. wavelenth needs to be sufficiently small to enable INTERACTION with electrons of a candidate element.
Would this perspective continue to support Wave Nature of Light? (without getting into fuzzy concepts like Photon and Duality)?
DUALITY!
I hate how so many people misinterpret this concept. "Has properties of both" is not synonymous with "can interchange at will."
You are right. I explain this in my vid,
Demythologizing Quantum Theory 1: Wave-Particle Duality in Light
I will have to watch. Thank you.
Aha, I understood what they are saying! But now I have a headache and i am feeling dizzy😵 So I think Qûâñtum theories can be understood and not understood at the same time.
Gosh, what am I thinking!!😲
At university I got a simple explanation. Both wave and particle description of light is models used to explain some behaviour of light. A model is just a simplified description.
At 1:45 those particles looks like the energy plasma that emit from a hero's hands in anime.
fuckin weeb
no, this is the basis of heisenberg uncertainty principle. He came up with probability of measuring particle's and wave's momentum and position, thus resulting in inability to measure both of them. Hence, you either measure its momentum or position but not both of them. Particle and waves are different substances. Saying they both share the same properties is like saying that ocean wave is rock and rock is ocean wave. I mean, what??
Can we accurately describe light as exclusively a wave or just a particle?
No.
Are the two mutually exclusive?
Yes.
Exactly. I think one of the prime drivers for the discoveries made by Einstein was a forthright insistence on rational intelligibility. That's why he didn't like quantum physics. If our 'model' for what light is isn't rationally intelligible there's a simple reason:it's not correct (or, at best is incomplete)If you watch videos like this or videos about the double slit experiment you hear expressions like, 'this runs contrary to common sense' or 'despite what our intuitions tell us...'. Rather than acknowledging that there's a problem with our models: namely that they're rationally contradictory and unintelligible, the criteria of intelligibility get's obscured by downgrading it to a desire for 'common sense' or for things to follow our 'common-sense' intuitions. At the same time the irrational gets elevated to the point of being mystically inaccessible to our minds, but none the less, amazingly valid.
What a crock. Something that's in 2 separate places at the same time doesn't quarrel with common sense, it defies reason. And there's an easy way to explain where we are (if not what's going on specifically). We've discovered phenomenon experimentally that we can't yet explain. We just have to admit that we don't understand the results, and don't have a satisfying explanation for them.
Keep the results, discard the explanatory bit (since it doesn't make sense) and try again! Maybe the particles are riding waves that we cannot readily detect (like beach balls at a wave pool. I know that's a childishly uneducated guess, but the central point is that as long as we're cunningly satisfied with irrational explanations, there's no urgent impetuous to think creatively, shift paradigms and upgrade our explanations.
In quantum theory, it seems like there's a kind of eccentric distinction to the irrationality of current explanations. Isn't the universe weird! the more bafflingly irrational the explanation is the better.
Why would they be mutually exclusive?
Erik l
For a particle the dimension, by definition, does not matter. For a wave it must.
There are actually a lot of reasons though that something cannot exist for which the wave model and the particle model are accurate, and they are mostly of the form "It's this way not that way." The math we use to describe them is different. Therefore something cannot be both.
*****
How?
+Matthew Helm Imagine a boat gliding through an infinite lake. You could experience it as an object moving through space, but you can also measure the waves in the lake.
I think we have a wrong picture about space being empty, it's more like a field, a 3D structure, and light is traveling through it, and the interaction with it causes this duality of wave/particle effects. But you can't separate the boat and the waves, they coexist and are part of the same action: light traveling through space-time. What do you think about this?
Answer the question 'where did life get sight from?' (like the evolution of sight, the first animal to have sight, how we see things and stuff)
A WAVE OF WHAT?? ?? ??
Eletromagnetic
gabriel luiz That doesn't answer my question...
wave of water
gabriel luiz haha still doesnt answer my question...
CornerrecordZ Light is actually two types of waves oscillating perpendicularly to each other. One is electric wave which is formed by charged particles. The second is a magnetic wave that is formed by the movement of electrons. When these two waves oscillate perpendicularly to each other electromagnetic waves are formed.
Photon of light is a particle with associated EM wave. Since wave & particle move at light speed, Photon moves as particle-wave system. When an object moves in space it creates waves in the fabric of space since space is an energy field with physical structure.
Yes, that was 100% false. ;-)
After the discovery of photoelectric effect, Einstein showed that light is neither a wave nor a particle but a wave packet.
Wave is just a way that can push energy without actually moving, like surfers move around on waterwaves. What wave actually consist of? I have no clue, but my guess would be: nothing.
so is light something separate that shares some properties with wave and some properties with particles?
*waves
No, Bill Gaede is far from any model of reality. It's a crackpot hypothesis that's quickly and easily refuted with more accurate and reliable theories.
Yes. Something like in between. It has both wave and particle properties which manifest as either depending in the nature of the interaction. Very weird stuff.
Yeah, they really brightened my day.
They really filled the void here. Now the question is, as we all know, how can we get a Dyson Sphere around the sun ASAP?
Quantum Light (h) is a dualistic quantum particle that in the cosmic vacuum
can fly at a constant speed (c=1). In this movement, light uses its linear spin
and it does not produce electromagnetic waves. Light behaves like a corpuscular.
But light can behave like a wave if it uses its angular rotation (the torque required
to accelerate angularly around the axis of rotation). In this situation, the speed
of the light is faster than the constant. The speed is c>1.
This situation is explained by Lorentz transformations.
The problem is that we do not know the geometric shape of the light quantum.