Since light exhibits a wave-particle duality, does that make light 2 items or 1

Sometimes it looks like a wave and sometimes it acts like a particle because empty space is a fluid made up of particles called the higgs field.

Science is a language. In this language, it can be either one, depending on the most practice way of describing it. Consider chemistry: it only talks in terms of heat. For it, coldness doesn't exist. Now, clearly coldness exists, but not in chemistry, only heat, because heat is easier to talk about or measure. Likewise, whatever way is easier to describe light, physics will use. The only other way to think of it, I would call it's existential sense. But light as it appears to us is neither wave, nor particle, just warmth and brightness.

It’s scientific. In the meta physics level we can prove light does has wave-particle duality theoretically. It’s one thing two aspects.

For details please see Analysis of the Speed of Probability Wave (the first chapter of piggy’s new article Research on the Root of Quantum Mechanics).

I don’t know how to display the full context here because I am not able to use the software to show some mathematical calculation. What I can do is to show its abstract.

The beginning of the context is:
According to Duc de Broglie’s original idea, the frequency of probability wave γ = E / h, the wavelength of probability wave λ = h / p.

The speed of probability wave of a free particle could be calculated as below:
If v is the moving speed of the particle, then, the speed of the corresponding probability wave:
u = γλ = (E / h)( h / p) = E / p =…

The conclusion of the context is:
When v → 0, Lim u = 0,
When v → c, Lim u = c,
When 0 ＜ v ＜ c, v ＞ u

There are two hard problems as below:
1. What does the inconformity between “v” and “u” in case of 0 ＜ v ＜ c mean exactly in physics? It represents the wave state separating from the particle state? How lame it all sound. It’s too abstract and not understandable. It just means the concept of wavicle (wave – particle duality) in QM can’t establish in this situation. Why?
Seems there is a flaw here in QM.
2. And what does the conformity between “v” and “u” in case of “v → c, Lim u = c” mean exactly in physics? It should mean the concept of wavicle established in this situation. Why?


…
The Chen’s physics model for a released photon is “a section of electromagnetic wave travelling in straight line”, “a section” is from the angle of “particle” while “electromagnetic wave” is from the angle of “wave”. Of course v = u = c. Perfect conformity. Notice, at this moment, “u” changes to be the speed of electromagnetic wave rather than the speed of the “electric wave”.
For details please see Research on the Root of Quantum Mechanics

Light has only one nature which has some of the qualities of macroscopic matter and some of the properties of macroscopic waves. It really isn't either. This is what I was taught in college in the early 70s when I majored in physics. This has been well understood for a long time.

What about heavy?

Oh Lord, what’s “70s”? Perhaps in that day this little piggy was in kindergarten?

“isn't either” is not an answer / solution in physics.

Very good question in the right time. (it should be mass)
Any college in this world can solve these two problems in one way?

In the new era of meta physics, piggy can do it. But the pig is tired to repeat it. If physics destined to extinct, piggy just let it be.

Are you saying Brandon is a Catholic?

I always thought he was an Atheist.

So, your objection to my statement that light isn't the same as macroscopic matter and isn't the same as macroscopic waves but has its own nature, and that this has been well understood to be the explanation of wave/particle duality is what exactly?

Any college can answer that student Adesh’s question “what’s meant by the amplitude of wave function”?


QM and Relativity are both “standard” courses in college. But any college can solve the incompatibility problem between QM and Relativity?

Any college can research matter vs anti matter vs dark matter in one way?

Any college can tell me the mechanism of quantum entanglement?

Any college can tell me the mechanism of generation of neutrino?

Etc.

Any college can solve the above problems in one way?

Physics, piggy just leave it to donkey. Professional physicists around the world to review…Piggy hope he can bring eternity and glory to this galaxy. Shining like sun ray…
Perhaps bobsal can bring everything to guys with his Str# theory, including nice Budweiser.
Good luck guys.
That tramp in cosmos neila9876 now is very interested in the thread “theory of everything” in an “authentic” physics site elsewhere. He is trying to “hijack” it. Expand the pig’s universe.

The only nice budweiser looks like this.



Anything else is ****.

Fleeing the argument are we?

Htam posts occasionally.

I doubt his absence has anything to do with you.

Very nice beer...izzy sir. Piggy is droolling. haha

The pig not yet dead. haha

The Czech beer was nationalised shortly after the fall of communism to stop the Americans getting hold of it for the name.

Catholic? Atheist? Piggy “isn't either”.

Actually, the conclusion of “light has wave-particle duality” in Analysis of the Speed of Probability Wave is the conjunction of ideas of Du de Broglie and Einstein, while the Chen’s physics model for a released photon is htam’s idea.
The formula is Du de Broglie + Einstein = htam
The left side is touching the elephant from the second fundamental natural system, while the right side is touching the elephant from the first fundamental natural system.
Coincidence again? Or Sciences are all INTERCONNECTED?

Any college can answer these two questions “why light has wave-particle duality”, while “why a glass seems has no wave-particle duality” in one way?

Actually it’s very simple, explicit and understandable if people are willing to touch the elephant from an alternative angle.
Actually , what does the inconformity between “v” and “u” in case of 0 ＜ v ＜ c mean exactly in physics? It just means the concept of wavicle (wave – particle duality) in QM can’t establish in this situation. in Analysis of the Speed of Probability Wave is also the conjunction of ideas of Du de Broglie and Einstein, while the spherical electromagnetic wave as a whole doesn’t demonstrate wave characteristic is htam’s idea.
Piggy is very tired to repeat them.
The formula is also Du de Broglie + Einstein = htam
The left side is touching the elephant from the second fundamental natural system, while the right side is touching the elephant from the first fundamental natural system.
Coincidence again? Or Sciences are all INTERCONNECTED?

Science has passed the cross roads entirely in 2023. It’s just human can’t solve the problems they are facing…They are “heavy accumulated and hard to go back”.
After the crossroads are two roads extending in two different directions. Which road to go is up to one’s own choice. 呵呵

Matter, touchy and feely

Those “authentic” guys / the “mainstream” consider light is not a kind of matter at present, perhaps.
But in the new era of meta physics & the new era of PRESENCE – PROPERTY, the Chen’s Physics Model of Elementary Particle demonstrates the released photon (or say light) can also be considered as matter, just it’s in the energy released matter state. (The electron, positron, proton, rabbit, pig, etc, are in the energy deposited matter state.)
Once upon a time, piggy saw a guy talked about matter state in PHF galaxy. But piggy felt that scenario was artificial game, theory for theory.
Whether a scenario / idea is excellent, at lease appropriate, it’s to see whether it can do something substantial / useful.
Piggy’s scenario of division of matter state should be a pro nature one, it disclosed actually Du de Broglie and Einstein both ignored the effect of matter state. It explicitly explained two physical problems: the relativistic principle is not applicable to the released photon; in case of 0 ＜ v ＜ c, the concept of wavicle (wave – particle duality) in QM can’t establish.

If piggy’s scenario of division of matter state is wrong, then, Du de Broglie + Einstein is wrong either. Then, the whole frame of modern physics would collapse.

We are having a chat only. All opinions for reference. Piggy hopes you can catch up with the development of history. Have a lovely day. May Lord bless you. Amen.

Relevant reference materials:
The conception of two fundamental natural systems:

1. The PRESENCE – PROPERTY natural system; (If something presence in this cosmos, it must have its own inherent property. For example, a pig grows long nose, while a rabbit has a short tail.)

2. The PRESENCE – PRESENCE natural system (interaction such as gravity). (Actually movement is relative, a rabbit moves relative to a pig, the pig moves in the counter direction relative to the rabbit. So, the affair of movement belongs to this natural system too. The representative theory in this respect is the Mass Point Dynamics.)

(Note: The terminology for PRESENCE should be “matter state”.
Matter state 1: Spherical electromagnetic wave. It’s the physics model for such elementary particles as electron, positron, proton, etc. Construct a model of spherical electromagnetic wave in this way: circle type of standing electromagnetic wave on any normal cutting plane of the small sphere. Then, the energy of the electromagnetic wave is confined / deposited on the small spherical surface. (Simplified physical model is the “circle type standing wave”.)
Matter state 2: A section of electromagnetic wave travels in straight line in the speed of light c. It is the physics model of a released photon.)

It is a combination of both. Photons and high frequency electromagnetic waves. An interesting thought. A photo cell will produce electric currant when exposed to light from an incandescent bulb. If photons have mass is the filament losing mass when it gives off light?