Science question: Is light comprised of waves or particles?

I asked a friend of mine a few weeks ago this very question, and he told me that from what he's heard though light has no measurable mass and though it behaves with wave like properties that scientists have discovered that objects that are illuminated by a light source gain a minute amount of mass due to the illumination.

So can anyone else shine some light on this (no pun intended) and tell me if they've heard about this phenomenon? I've never been able to find any mention of it anywhere else.

this questions sounds like a random scientific question.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=538644&pagenumber=2

It has relativistic mass (meaning that it has energy which can be transformed into mass [E = mc^2])

It does not have rest mass though since it cannot _be_ at rest (meaning that it does not exhibit/experience a gravitational pull)

It can be affected by gravity though because gravity essentially curves space-time. Since light always goes in a straight line relative to space-time, if it encounters a curvature in space-time it will continue going straight but since space-time is curved, "straight" will be curved as well. In the case of black holes, the curve is so steep that the "straight" path actually spirals down to a single point from the perspective of an outside observer.

it can have properties of either depending on how it is measured

hence, its relative. 😖hifty:

It is both, at all times. Scientists have know for decades that "wave" and "particle" are wrong when describing light. They terms stay around because it doesn't matter a lot of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I asked a friend of mine a few weeks ago this very question, and he told me that from what he's heard though light has no measurable mass and though it behaves with wave like properties that scientists have discovered that objects that are illuminated by a light source gain a minute amount of mass due to the illumination.

So can anyone else shine some light on this...?

Also to degrees well beyond incredibly miniscule, tell your friend that:
- Everything he sees is in the past.
- When he runs, he ages more slowly, gets heavier, and gets thinner in one dimension.

😮‍💨

Originally posted by Mindship
- When he runs, he ages more slowly, gets heavier, and gets thinner in one dimension

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Most people I know that run are loosing wheight 🙂

Correct, the heat and sweat you produce when running weight thousands (billions?) of times more than the kinetic energy gained by moving.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Most people I know that run are loosing wheight 🙂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Correct, the heat and sweat you produce when running weight thousands (billions?) of times more than the kinetic energy gained by moving.

...though if he drives on a sunny day, absorbing all those rays...

Originally posted by inimalist
it can have properties of either depending on how it is measured

Originally posted by Rascaduanok
This. Therefore light IS neither a wave nor particle, but behaves as a wave or particle depending on what you measure it with.

🙂

lol, thread about physics and its me people are quoting?

😉 I do think Sym covered it a little better

only sort of related, did you guys see the stuff about experiments where they were able to observe qualities of both in the same experiment?

Originally posted by inimalist
it can have properties of either depending on how it is measured*

*observed

😆

Originally posted by dadudemon
*observed

😆

actually, I'd very much hesitate to use "observed", because in the more "mystic" side of QM, people take the idea of "observation" literally, as in, a person has to "observe" (use their visual system to look at) for a quantum state to occur.

Measure, in terms of scientific methodology, is synonymous with observe. EDIT: I guess I am assuming what holds for bio/psych holds for physics... measurement might refer more to a quantitized DV whereas observe might be more for qualitative, but all experiments would require some sort of operationalizing of qualitative variables, and I am at a loss for what might be considered "qualitiative" at the level of photons...

ie - We observed an increase in behaviour X by Y, or, we measured an increase in behaviour X by Y. I wanted to emphasize that it was the measuring equipment and the process surrounding those that produced the results, not the act of humans observing.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, I'd very much hesitate to use "observed", because in the more "mystic" side of QM, people take the idea of "observation" literally, as in, a person has to "observe" (use their visual system to look at) for a quantum state to occur.

Measure, in terms of scientific methodology, is synonymous with observe. EDIT: I guess I am assuming what holds for bio/psych holds for physics... measurement might refer more to a quantitized DV whereas observe might be more for qualitative, but all experiments would require some sort of operationalizing of qualitative variables, and I am at a loss for what might be considered "qualitiative" at the level of photons...

ie - We observed an increase in behaviour X by Y, or, we measured an increase in behaviour X by Y. I wanted to emphasize that it was the measuring equipment and the process surrounding those that produced the results, not the act of humans observing.

It was just a physics joke. The term they use is "observe" when referring to observing it's wave or particle attributes. That's all it was. Nothing serious. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was just a physics joke. The term they use is "observe" when referring to observing it's wave or particle attributes. That's all it was. Nothing serious. 😄

no, I didn't take you too seriously, but, as I'm sure everyone is well aware, I have my grievances with physics. (and I like to talk)

you know, because **** physics

Originally posted by inimalist
you know, because **** physics

but..but....

physics is useful real-world "math"! 🙁 🙁 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon
but..but....

physics is useful real-world "math"! 🙁 🙁 🙁

I only believe in Boolean maths

Originally posted by inimalist
I only believe in Boolean maths

Originally posted by King Castle
why do you think physics is useless?

I don't

I have certain issues with the culture surrounding quantum physics, but it would be hard to argue against the field on a conceptual basis.

For instance, all science requires funding. In Psychology, even if what you want to study has nothing to do with clinical applications, you HAVE to find a way to link it if you want funding. So, the last place I worked at, the prof I worked for was doing low level perceptual stuff, with almost no application to real world stuff, and that was a significant factor in why she lost funding. (Funding agencies often do not have people of relevant fields look over your application)

In physics, especially quantum physics, I think the culture has swung toward "the weird". We run experiments that highlight where our theory becomes "strange", so that we can put out press releases like "Computer turns on before we turn it on". My problem with physics sort of stems from this. There is more interest in finding crazy things that people on the internet will talk about (ie. the observer) than in real theoretical understandings.

This is, of course, my layman opinion. However, I've been to a couple of QM presentations/lectures, and seen first hand, physcists who are much more interested in presenting things, such as well understood perceptual phenomena, in terms of QM because it just sounds so much cooler.