It's not a question of how things should/should not behave.
It's about how things do behave.
By and large, light acts like a wave, such as in her laser experiment or my streetlamp one. The 'wave' isn't meant to give a physical reality, but a 'phenomenological' explanation.
But under certain conditions that explanation breaks down -- such as in the real double slit experiment (where light still acts like a wave, but in a different way), or in things like (quantum) shot noise, where really sensitive detectors experience a base-line level of noise because the wave packets (or particles) are coming at slightly random intervals.
In the same way, your assertion that Newtonian Gravity is wrong is... misguided. His model explains almost everything relevant to our world except things like GPS systems and laser gyroscopes. In those cases a slightly different conception of gravity/acceleration needs to be developed. Which it has been -- but phenomenologically and with a mountain of physical evidence behind it.
... that was the point that I was making. Newton's equations work, in the sense that they describe very precisely what we observe in the solar system. If you can re-interpret them in terms of density/buoyancy... then great. In and of themselves, they are simply equations.
You can even project the equations onto a flat earth, if you want to... One big problem will be that the 'Coriolis force' (responsible for the spirals of hurricanes) would then become a real force. In a globe earth model, Coriolis is an artifact of the spinning of the earth. In a flat earth model it would have to be a physical force. (which, of course, might be interpretable as density/buoyancy variations, although it's not immediately clear to me how that would be done -- this is a me-problem)
As for photons, look up Quantum Shot Noise -- very low intensity light will impinge on detectors in discrete packets. Are those discrete packets not-waves. Shrug -- I'd have to look at the experiments more closely, but I suspect they are waves, just highly confined ones.
Personally, I think of light as a wave, because its non-wavelike behaviour is restricted to very precise, and almost meaningless, observations.
As an aside, you seem quite sincere, which, on the internet, is refreshing.
This is... insane. She's missed the point of the 'double slit' experiment.
She's pretty to look at though, so I guess it will get clicks.
By the way, if you're near a street lamp and you pull a hair in front of your eyes, you'll get the same effect that she's talking about.
Women...physics... not even once....
What? Why?
It's not a question of how things should/should not behave.
It's about how things do behave.
By and large, light acts like a wave, such as in her laser experiment or my streetlamp one. The 'wave' isn't meant to give a physical reality, but a 'phenomenological' explanation.
But under certain conditions that explanation breaks down -- such as in the real double slit experiment (where light still acts like a wave, but in a different way), or in things like (quantum) shot noise, where really sensitive detectors experience a base-line level of noise because the wave packets (or particles) are coming at slightly random intervals.
In the same way, your assertion that Newtonian Gravity is wrong is... misguided. His model explains almost everything relevant to our world except things like GPS systems and laser gyroscopes. In those cases a slightly different conception of gravity/acceleration needs to be developed. Which it has been -- but phenomenologically and with a mountain of physical evidence behind it.
Again: chicks... physics...
... that was the point that I was making. Newton's equations work, in the sense that they describe very precisely what we observe in the solar system. If you can re-interpret them in terms of density/buoyancy... then great. In and of themselves, they are simply equations.
You can even project the equations onto a flat earth, if you want to... One big problem will be that the 'Coriolis force' (responsible for the spirals of hurricanes) would then become a real force. In a globe earth model, Coriolis is an artifact of the spinning of the earth. In a flat earth model it would have to be a physical force. (which, of course, might be interpretable as density/buoyancy variations, although it's not immediately clear to me how that would be done -- this is a me-problem)
As for photons, look up Quantum Shot Noise -- very low intensity light will impinge on detectors in discrete packets. Are those discrete packets not-waves. Shrug -- I'd have to look at the experiments more closely, but I suspect they are waves, just highly confined ones.
Personally, I think of light as a wave, because its non-wavelike behaviour is restricted to very precise, and almost meaningless, observations.
As an aside, you seem quite sincere, which, on the internet, is refreshing.