Is water a particle or a wave?

AI Thread Summary
Water is fundamentally a molecule (H2O), thus classified as a particle. It serves as a medium for wave transmission, such as when waves are created by throwing a rock into it. The discussion highlights that perception of water's behavior can vary based on the scale of reference: at a human level, it behaves like a wave, while at the atomic level, it is a particle. Below the molecular level, the relevance of water diminishes as the focus shifts to its constituent parts. Ultimately, the nature of water as a particle or wave is context-dependent, influenced by the scale of observation.
keihatsu
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Is water a particle or a wave?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
H2O is in fact a molecule (read: particle).
 
Water can act as a medium for transmitting waves (for example throwing a rock in the water produces waves), but it isn't a wave itself. In fact all matter can act as a medium for transmitting waves(sound can travel through air and even solids and liquids).
 
does this not depend on which scale of reference you're referring to? At our human level water is a wave (or at least behaves as one) at the atomic level water is a particle (h20) and at the super subatomic level water once again can be said to be a wave because the super strings or energy oscillations that theoretically make up the atoms of that molecule are waving energy oscillations.
 
Theheretic said:
does this not depend on which scale of reference you're referring to? At our human level water is a wave (or at least behaves as one) at the atomic level water is a particle (h20) and at the super subatomic level water once again can be said to be a wave because the super strings or energy oscillations that theoretically make up the atoms of that molecule are waving energy oscillations.

Anything below the molecular level is irrelevant to the question, because then you are no longer dealing with water itself, but its constituents.
 
DThielke said:
Anything below the molecular level is irrelevant to the question, because then you are no longer dealing with water itself, but its constituents.

yes but in regards to the thread starter's original question, the fact that he asked about particles/waves seems to imply that he MAY be interested in knowing what "water" is at its molecular level and below since it's pretty common knowledge that a molecule is not a 'wave' in and of itself but could perhaps be comprised of waves of oscillating energies at the far smaller level.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top