Is light wave or particle?

Question

Well well well. Scientists claim that it is dual in nature . They also refuse that it is simultaneously both particle and wave.
But actually the Truth is Light is both Particle and matter simultaneously. Then why light behaves as particle at times and behaves as wave at other times?
Because of the inablility of the medium to adapt or perceive the odd nature of light.

I derived this conclusion from a Vedic Principle Called Acintya Bheda Abheda proposed by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in describing God (Krishna)

Many philosphers and theists advocated God as Impersonal whereas some advocated God as Personal . Chaitanya Mahaprabhu proposed that God is simultaneously Personal and Impersonal ie One and Different from his creation.
And this theory fits exactly with light and this also explains the transcendental nature of light because God is Transcendental too.

Please give your humble responses and Conclusions

Answer 1

"Is light wave or particle?"



It is neither, and both. Gross macroscopic beings think a wave involves a displace medium, and a particle is confined to a regions of space... like a billiard ball. So the definitions do not apply to quantum objects in a statistical population of system Universe, where spacetime (position, momentum) is a property of system Universe.



"Well well well. Scientists claim that it is dual in nature ."



It is just a definition problem.



"They also refuse that it is simultaneously both particle and wave."



Most of them don't. Those "wars" were largely over after early in the 20th century.



"But actually the Truth is Light is both Particle and matter simultaneously."



There is no "Truth" in Science, only Religion, Law, and Philosophy. Science is stuck with falsification as our only tool.



"Then why light behaves as particle at times and behaves as wave at other times?"



Particle behavior talks about features of the quantum object itself. Wave behavior talks to how the quantum object fits into the Universe. The duality arises from failed / inadequate macroscopic definitions.



"Because of the inablility of the medium to adapt or perceive the odd nature of light."



No, this "duality" arises for electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, and molecules larger than C-60 buckyballs. It isn't just light.



"I derived this conclusion from a Vedic Principle Called Acintya Bheda Abheda proposed by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in describing God (Krishna)"



Yes, we must work through thousands of years of misconception, to get to more simple truths. Start with the teachings of Buddha. The words we choose, stand between us and understanding. They are as much enablers, as they are blinders.

Answer 2

No. It is ALWAYS one or the other. If we observe wave nature we see no particle nature. Conversely, if we see particle nature, we see no wave nature.



There are over 20 ways to Interpret quantum behavior. Wave-Particle is just one of those ways.



Don't like Wave-Particle, then how about Many Worlds or Probability Wave (The equation does not describe a wave, but the probability of finding the quantum at a given location.) or Copenhagen (The quantum is a fog when unobserved that collapses to a location when observed.), etc. All of those and many others avoid Wave-Particle.



Science and Religion are NOT in conflict. The Scientific Method cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science is silent on the subject. So, believe what you wish.

Answer 3

"They also refuse that it is simultaneously both particle and wave."



Sorry, you have your facts wrong. A quote from the link:



"Now, for the first time, researchers have devised a new type of measurement apparatus that can detect both particle and wave-like behavior at the same time."



Light is certainl;y not "trnascendental" and it is not clear why you would describe it as such.



Science can say nothing about the existence of God and it is misguided to think otherwise.

Answer 4

if it is simultaenously, why do they only measure either wave or particle, not at the same time? can u measure god of is everything yet nothing