Did Einstein Say Light is Massive?

[brewer]

Arguing with a lunatic, hmmmm..........................

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That somewhat trivializes it.    In common parlance, fillingness and taste are two different properties which objects may possess. It is certainly possible for anyone object to have one but not the other.  The slogan in fact plays off the insinuation that they are usually not both found in the same thing so anything that possesses both is a neat thing.

Wave/particle duality says what in everyday experience are two mutually exclusive states of being in fact not only can simultaneously describe the same thing same, but in principle It is impossible for anything to be one without being the other.

Impossible? Dude! Ok, the wave exists, but you cannot prove the particle. Duality is not commensurability is it? Nothing can be or is, duality! Yet, everything is commensurability--is it not? Or is nature a crack eyed whore?

Wild guess:  You never leave your house without your favourite divining rod and a pack of Tarot cards, do you?

Boru

[polymath257]

I'm going to say that the reason we have wave-particle duality for light is because both descriptions work at different times. Which may mean that we just haven't found a "complete" mathematical expression for it. You won't get me denying JC Maxell's work, though.

It isn't just light though. It is *all* quantum particles. We have seen interference effects in *atoms*.

And it isn't just that we see these effects at different times. If you turn down the intensity of the incoming light in the double-slit experiment, you will detect individual photons *and* get an interference pattern building up over time.

The mathematical description we have is quantum mechanics. And the claims that it is incomplete (like those from Einstein) have been observationally shown to be flawed (EPR and Arrow's experiment).

The quantum world simply does not act via classical ideas of 'matter' or 'causality'. Thinking of photons (or electrons, or neutrons) as little balls flying around is just not a good image: it is classical.

[Fireball]

I'm going to say that the reason we have wave-particle duality for light is because both descriptions work at different times. Which may mean that we just haven't found a "complete" mathematical expression for it. You won't get me denying JC Maxell's work, though.

It isn't just light though. It is *all* quantum particles. We have seen interference effects in *atoms*.

And it isn't just that we see these effects at different times. If you turn down the intensity of the incoming light in the double-slit experiment, you will detect individual photons *and* get an interference pattern building up over time.

The mathematical description we have is quantum mechanics. And the claims that it is incomplete (like those from Einstein) have been observationally shown to be flawed (EPR and Arrow's experiment).

The quantum world simply does not act via classical ideas of 'matter' or 'causality'. Thinking of photons (or electrons, or neutrons) as little balls flying around is just not a good image: it is classical.

Anything I may have learned as an undergrad in my QM classes has evidently run out of my ears when I slept. It has been over 35 years, though. For that matter, I noticed this morning that I misspelled Maxwell, leaving out the "w". 

[AFTT47]

Sometimes there isn't enough Alex's. (Alexses?, Alexi?)

Don't think gravity and mass, think gravity and curved space.

Edit: No offense polymath, some of us just miss Alex.

Yes.

Gravity curves space.

Everything moving through space - regardless of its mass - follows the curve. So, nothing is free from the effect of gravity.

[brewer]

Sometimes there isn't enough Alex's. (Alexses?, Alexi?)

Don't think gravity and mass, think gravity and curved space.

Edit: No offense polymath, some of us just miss Alex.

Yes.

Gravity curves space.

Everything moving through space - regardless of its mass - follows the curve. So, nothing is free from the effect of gravity.

I knew I needed to buy one of those inversion boards.