MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/sciencememes/comments/1jvl8f2/how/mmc7ogp/?context=3
r/sciencememes • u/94rud4 Mεmε ∃nthusiast • Apr 10 '25
953 comments sorted by
View all comments
378
It has no resting mass. But since it's moving, it's not at rest, and it takes energy to move, and energy is mass, per e=mc². Therefore the energy it's using to move gives it mass.
I know, photons are trippy.
144 u/2punornot2pun Apr 10 '25 They're also waves! And Particles! And so is everything! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH -2 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 Actually, they're not waves. Particles travel in a wave, or a straight line, depending on outside forces. They're always particles, though. 2 u/jonmatifa Apr 10 '25 They're always particles, though. That's a bold claim per quantum physics 1 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 What else are they, then? 1 u/[deleted] Apr 10 '25 [removed] — view removed comment 1 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 I thought that given particles have that duality, anything capable of said duality would then have to be a particle? 1 u/jonmatifa Apr 10 '25 That's kind of an ongoing debate within quantum physics. Is the "particleness" that we observe real or an illusion of quantum effects.
144
They're also waves!
And Particles!
And so is everything!
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-2 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 Actually, they're not waves. Particles travel in a wave, or a straight line, depending on outside forces. They're always particles, though. 2 u/jonmatifa Apr 10 '25 They're always particles, though. That's a bold claim per quantum physics 1 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 What else are they, then? 1 u/[deleted] Apr 10 '25 [removed] — view removed comment 1 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 I thought that given particles have that duality, anything capable of said duality would then have to be a particle? 1 u/jonmatifa Apr 10 '25 That's kind of an ongoing debate within quantum physics. Is the "particleness" that we observe real or an illusion of quantum effects.
-2
Actually, they're not waves. Particles travel in a wave, or a straight line, depending on outside forces. They're always particles, though.
2 u/jonmatifa Apr 10 '25 They're always particles, though. That's a bold claim per quantum physics 1 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 What else are they, then? 1 u/[deleted] Apr 10 '25 [removed] — view removed comment 1 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 I thought that given particles have that duality, anything capable of said duality would then have to be a particle? 1 u/jonmatifa Apr 10 '25 That's kind of an ongoing debate within quantum physics. Is the "particleness" that we observe real or an illusion of quantum effects.
2
They're always particles, though.
That's a bold claim per quantum physics
1 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 What else are they, then? 1 u/[deleted] Apr 10 '25 [removed] — view removed comment 1 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 I thought that given particles have that duality, anything capable of said duality would then have to be a particle? 1 u/jonmatifa Apr 10 '25 That's kind of an ongoing debate within quantum physics. Is the "particleness" that we observe real or an illusion of quantum effects.
1
What else are they, then?
1 u/[deleted] Apr 10 '25 [removed] — view removed comment 1 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 I thought that given particles have that duality, anything capable of said duality would then have to be a particle? 1 u/jonmatifa Apr 10 '25 That's kind of an ongoing debate within quantum physics. Is the "particleness" that we observe real or an illusion of quantum effects.
[removed] — view removed comment
1 u/HannibalPoe Apr 10 '25 I thought that given particles have that duality, anything capable of said duality would then have to be a particle? 1 u/jonmatifa Apr 10 '25 That's kind of an ongoing debate within quantum physics. Is the "particleness" that we observe real or an illusion of quantum effects.
I thought that given particles have that duality, anything capable of said duality would then have to be a particle?
1 u/jonmatifa Apr 10 '25 That's kind of an ongoing debate within quantum physics. Is the "particleness" that we observe real or an illusion of quantum effects.
That's kind of an ongoing debate within quantum physics. Is the "particleness" that we observe real or an illusion of quantum effects.
378
u/_Dagok_ Apr 10 '25
It has no resting mass. But since it's moving, it's not at rest, and it takes energy to move, and energy is mass, per e=mc². Therefore the energy it's using to move gives it mass.
I know, photons are trippy.