2 ms·

With my understanding of "the dual nature of light", a better headline would be "The first ever photograph of light as neither a particle or wave", i.e. if it w

With my understanding of "the dual nature of light", a better headline would be "The first ever photograph of light as neither a particle or wave", i.e. if it was a wave it wouldn't do this (hold a standing wave) and that (exchange quanta with electrons) at the same time. Why do I say "neither" is better than "both"? It makes light seem like something different, rather than something that spookily is two things depending on what you're doing. Feynman seemed to me to argue for just accepting that you're working with models of things that might not have human-scale analogues, and not to get caught up with what they "really" are.

escape_goat 12y ago
[This comment is from before a link to a poorly titled phys.org article was changed so that it pointed to the nature paper itself. He is not arguing that the title of the actual article is a bad title.]
- AndrewOMartin 12y ago
  It's true that I wouldn't have complained if the link originally pointed to nature.com (rather than originally pointing to phys.org and then being edited to point to nature.com) but it's also true that I wouldn't have had the time or ability to work through so much as the abstract, which I find utterly, utterly impenetrable, even with a non-trivial interest in physics, and make any comment at all. In its defense, the phys.org article embedded a video with a much more accessible explanation of what happened. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlaVHxUSiNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlaVHxUSiNk The video is imperfect, there are a number of unnecessary over simplifications and patronizing sounds and silly faces, but I still found it more informative than the article.