/diy/ - Do It Yourself

>>1729741
In reality, all "wave" behaviour of particles can be described via simple probability of individual particles, with enough computational power. But at macro scales this appears to be a wave, as seen by the double-slit experiment with light and electrons. And the Heisenberg uncertainty principle blurs this further, so we can and do discuss particles as "wavepackets".

so is it "Waves of water" or what? A wave is still what something doe
Absolute waffle.
Somewhat. I suppose there is "charge and discharge" but all that means is "it does more of the same thing".

>rambles on about mathematical descriptions

But I don't care about that. Just tell me what the math is for. "Waves of what?" Yes I'm familiar with the drop experiment which proved what
was never empirically validated. There was never any actual empirical evidence of an electron particle and the drop experiment made a horrible assumption that electric fields and gravity were different to begin with despite no explination to gravity. Oh and also that oil somehow magically maintained its own density in perpetuity, not based on the conditions it was subjected to. Basically it proved oil can be levitated in an electric field.

>The model of EM waves works pretty damn well because not only theoretical physicists, but commercial radio producers, radio hams, anyone designing high frequency PCBs, optical engineers, etc. take Maxwell's equations into account in their work way or the other.

Which tells me what an "EM wave" does but doesn't tell me what it is. A

>While you're back here telling people that their equations and laws are wrong

They can't be wrong, they're descriptions. It would be like calling me wrong for saying that the "sky is blue". I'm not wrong, it's just that the answer doesn't accurately pertain to what the sky really is.