From: into@oblivion.nothing.com   
      
   RichD  wrote in news:1e4f8d14-13ad-437f-b53b-   
   7ea19bbf6baf@googlegroups.com:   
      
   > This isn't a usual question for this board, but there   
   > are people here who know some physics.   
      
   I'm not a professional. Just a science minded layman.   
      
   One thing I've learned in all the stuff I've read about   
   physics, particularly when it comes to quantum stuff, is   
   to realize that you can't always make sense of it. Science   
   describes the universe in terms that don't always answer   
   'why' (if it ever does).   
      
   Part of the problem is that none of our theories or   
   descriptions are complete or accurate. They are all   
   approximations at some level.   
      
   In other cases, they are merely descriptive constructs   
   with no meaning in reality. Quantum spin is a good   
   example. We call it 'spin', but nothing is spinning at   
   all in the sense of revolving around itself. It's just   
   a label attached to a property we can measure with an   
   instrument.   
      
   Photons are a lot like that. Newton gave us corpuscles   
   which biases us towards tangible little balls of light   
   bouncing around the universe like billiards on a table.   
   Other scientists gave us waves, cyclical motions moving   
   tangentially across a non-existent ether. (or does it   
   exist?)   
      
   Which is correct? Particles? Waves? Wavicles? If history   
   is any lesson, my vote is that they're probably all wrong.   
      
   Each description only serves to attach a label to some   
   property of how packets of energy are transported from   
   one location to another. What really happens is something   
   else. But these labels are good enough for us mere humans   
   to be able to relate concepts and ideas to each other.   
      
   You may call the sky 'blue'. I may call it 'blorg'. So   
   long as each of us knows what the other means by these   
   words, we can convey useful descriptions and understanding   
   to each other when I say "the sky was a beautiful shade   
   of blorg today". It matters not that we are unable to say   
   exactly what it means when something is 'blue' or 'blorg'.   
   But those terms can still be used to denote the property   
   of something that has blorgness.   
      
   Photons express properties both as particles and as waves.   
   When talking about single photons, it is easier to discuss   
   particles even though we have equations that can include   
   wave-like properties such as frequency. When talking about   
   countless zillions of the buggers spreading across space   
   (whatever THAT is), it is easier to use wave descriptions   
   to approximate the results of what really happens.   
      
   Maybe not an answer for you, and maybe you already understand   
   all this, but this may still be good for some conversation.   
      
   Brian   
   --   
   http://www.earthwaves.org/forum/index.php - Earth Sciences discussion   
   http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism   
   Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)