Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Feynman, item 1, about light, corpuscles, particles.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: This is Feynman lecture notes item 1. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Feynman tells us Newton felt that light was made of corpuscles, particles, not waves.

 

I WOULD TRADE NOW ON:
bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 552.50 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 465.90 centrica AT APPROX 144.80 g4s AT APPROX 252.60 gkn AT APPROX 300.80 glencore AT APPROX 349.00 m&s AT APPROX 310.60 morrison AT APPROX 211.80 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 832.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 597.00

THIS IS NOT TRADING ADVICE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Newton's reasoning was wrong, but he was right that they are particles. Unification: Feynman explains that you can demonstrate by seeing different intensities of light being measured with a photo-multiplier. When measuring dim light with a photo multiplier, the energy came in 'lumps', rather than a tiny bit dribbling in all the time. Lumps, separated by gaps. So it became very clear that light is corpuscular, light consists of particles, not waves, as some long after Newton came to theorise, wrongly.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 15:29:56 on 3/10/2017

Related points:

References:

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.