Did Einstein Say Light is Massive?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello Haipe.

So..... how does/do your ideas about atomic things such as 'Cherenkov radiation'?

Cheers.

[Haipule]

Light is propagation of energy in a medium whether seen or unseen. Whether aether or glass. An electromagnetic waveform, with rarefactions and compressions, up down left right, not a particle. With a rate of induction not a speed. The medium exists but light does not. The unseen medium is usually called "Dark Energy" or aether and it's everywhere. E = MC2 is stupid!

We’ve been through this.   If you were born after 1880s you would have to be an uneducated ignoramus to sprout nonsense like this.    Are you an uneducated ignoramus or not?

If you are not, you should know not to say things like this.  If you are, you should know not to say anything.

Well, I love you too! Everyone else, Anomalocaris, is one of the smartest people I know! But, I'm going to win this. What's going to happen? Anomalocaris is going to PROVE to you that there is no such thing as light! He can't prove photons, phonons or gravitons(I just made him laugh). Dude, if I say propagation in a medium--do you deny this? Why? How? Rhetorical if you wish.

[Brian37]

There should NEVER be a dispute that matter exists. It does, otherwise we would not observe it. What science is constantly dealing with is the state between on and off when it comes to matter.

The argument is the fluctuation between states between on and off and the fluidity between those states.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There should NEVER be a dispute that matter exists. It does, otherwise we would not observe it. What science is constantly dealing with is the state between on and off when it comes to matter.

The argument is the fluctuation between states between on and off and the fluidity between those states.

Not to worry.  Haipule's stance on all things scientific hardly amounts to a 'dispute'.

Boru

[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.

[Brian37]

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.

The "Particle/wave" issue is like "less filling/tastes great" "You got my peanut butter in my chocolate" "you got my chocolate in my peanut butter".

[Anomalocaris]

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.

The "Particle/wave" issue is like "less filling/tastes great" "You got my peanut butter in my chocolate" "you got my chocolate in my peanut butter".

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.

[Haipule]

The "Particle/wave" issue is like "less filling/tastes great" "You got my peanut butter in my chocolate" "you got my chocolate in my peanut butter".

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?

[Anomalocaris]

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?

Duality is commensurable, maybe not in the colloquial languages based on untutored daily experience of the macroscopic world, but then reality does care for its alleged feasibility as inferred from colloquial terms.   In the language of mathematical description of outcomes of rigorous experiments that seeks to discover what really is all about,  it is commensurable.  

I certainly can prove a particle.   Again, science turned out to be smarter a hundred years ago than you are now:

Photo electric effect

[LastPoet]

Let me see if I can pull something out of my arse: Light is actually stopped and we ar moving past light at speed c.

That was easy.