Dear Lars-Henrik E Thank you for your reply and the description of interference. > >Of course particles can form waves, but there is a difference between >*forming* waves and *being* waves. Water can form waves, but that does >not mean that water *is* waves. No water is molecules... the molecules form the waves... < snipped "interference" description > >Exactly the same phenomenon is observable with light... >How could you explain this behaviour assuming that light is particles? In exactly the same way as it occurs in the water... Water is molecules, particles but sometimes exhibits the qualities of waves... because the particles are moving in waves. Same with light... It is particles and the particles sometimes move in waves. Why not? > >Returning to your question if waves could not be formed by particles. >Certainly - that was the case in the water example, where the waves >werer formed by water. However, light is not *formed* by photons, >light *is* the photons themselves. Water *is* the molecules of H2O... But they form waves... >If you tried to explain >intereference by light by postulating that light was a wave pattern >among particles, you would contradict your assumption that photons are >"shining particles". NO. They are still shining particles... They are just moving in waves. It seems to me much clearer than the quantum mechanics [although I must admit I don't understand that really -- I will have to read up on it] I may have missed something, but I can't see how photons, "shining particles" can't act in the same way as the water molecules and form waves which in turn form interference patterns. > >There are other experiments which agree with your opinion that light >is indeed made of particles. This apparent contradiction baffled >scientists until a theory was devised where light was described by >something which can have both wave- and particle-like aspects. The >connection between the two is made clear by a branch of physics called >quantum mechanics. > >Finally, I am not at all trying to attack your religion. Indeed, I >have a great deal of respect for it. I am opposing the idea that a >complete and final understanding of the physical world can be obtained >by reading holy scriptures How are you going to get a "complete and final understanding" then? The understanding science gives is far from complete and, by definition, never final. Everything is open to be revised and updated. Nothing is absolute. If you can find a perfect source of knowledge, absolute knowledge, that is different. The Vedic scriptures are not ordinary "holy scriptures". Of course the knowledge of God and heaven and how we can reestablish our relationship with Him is there and that is the main part, but there are also many Vedic scriptures containing scientific knowledge about this material universe. > - particularly when experience contradicts >those scriptures. The problem is experience can be a funny thing. We may perceive or experience something in a way that is completely different from it's real form. For example we could perceive the sun as a bright shiny ball in the sky a little bigger than a basket ball... But actually it's much bigger. So knowledge gathered via our senses is not perfect. But if we can find a perfect authority we can get the perfect knowledge... > Science describes the nature of the world, while >religion describes the nature of God. The world is but the external energy of God. If you understand God then you understand His energies as well. > This is, I believe, a sensible >division. The problem is science has missed God. They are trying to explain everything without God. And this universe has been created by God as a self-sufficient unit, but still behind everything is the energy of God. So science can only partially explain things. They try to explain the consciousness as a combination of chemicals... But you can't make anything conscious by combining chemicals. The consciousness is the symptom of the soul, the living spiritual energy which is moving everything in the universe. But science is ignoring the spiritual component, God and the living beings, the spirit souls. It's like trying to understand why your motor car drives to your office every morning without considering you, the driver. You can look in the motor and try to find the mechanical arrangement causing the car to navigate the freeways every morning and go to your office... But you will never find it, for it is you, the spirit soul who are driving the car.