Why we can't use particle to prove light everytime???

[liger]

Why we can't use particle to prove light everytime???

Sometimes we use magnatic field to prove some property of light although light is a particle. Why????? :eek2:

[infamous]

Why we can't use particle to prove light everytime???

Sometimes we use magnatic field to prove some property of light although light is a particle. Why?????

I'm not sure I understand your question liger, you must also remember that light has what is called a wave/particle duallity. BTW, you must be careful not to double post, it is contrary to forum policy.

[Qfwfq]

That's right Liger, you should have used edit. Also your question isn't clear at all. Let's see if this can help:

 

Light is the electromagnetic field, which means both electric and magnetic field. The associated particle is the photon which has no electric charge, so it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic field. In other words, the electromagnetic field isn't self-interacting.

[liger]

sory please.and Thank you for your answer

[UncleAl]

Illucid.

 

Light is trivially a wave - diffraction, Poisson's spot, quantum eraser experiments. Light is trivially a particle - photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, pair formation. So?

 

Buckminsterfullerene, C60 with molecular weight 720.64 and 90 C-C bonds, with every carbon sharing three bonds, is assuredly a discrete particle. It diffracts through a grating nice as you please,

 

http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/matterwave/c60/