When an entity under consideration possesses multiple, perhaps many, characteristics we need to consider the situation that arises for entities that only possess some of those characteristics.

Just to be clear, I am using the word characteristic in its common or garden meaning of quality or property or similar, not in the specialised mathematical meaning to to with the wave equation.
Equally I am using duality in a broader sense than just in the wave/particle apparent dichotomy, as it applies to all sciences, not just light.

I am of the opinion that the so called wave/particle duality issue has been 'blown up (inflated) out of all proportion', being seized upon by the media as some sort of inscrutable mystic woo.

In other science we comfortably accept duality and say 'it depends upon the circumstances' and move on to consider those circumstance.

Here are a few examples.

Chemistry : Is aluminium acid or alkali ?

Biology : Is a vurus dead or alive ?

Materials Science : Is concrete a stron or weak material ?

Electrical Science : Is a hole a particle or a wave ?

Biological Science : Is a fungus a plant or an animal ?

Visual Science : Optical Illusions : Is the picture the external corner of a cube or the internal corner of a box ?

Chemistry : Is compound X covalent or ionic ?

My question for discussion is; "Are we making too much fuss about light duality so that the it has achieved mystic status that brings so many to misunderstanding ?"

1 hour ago, studiot said:

When an entity under consideration possesses multiple, perhaps many, characteristics we need to consider the situation that arises for entities that only possess some of those characteristics.

Just to be clear, I am using the word characteristic in its common or garden meaning of quality or property or similar, not in the specialised mathematical meaning to to with the wave equation.
Equally I am using duality in a broader sense than just in the wave/particle apparent dichotomy, as it applies to all sciences, not just light.

I am of the opinion that the so called wave/particle duality issue has been 'blown up (inflated) out of all proportion', being seized upon by the media as some sort of inscrutable mystic woo.

In other science we comfortably accept duality and say 'it depends upon the circumstances' and move on to consider those circumstance.

Here are a few examples.

Chemistry : Is aluminium acid or alkali ?

Biology : Is a vurus dead or alive ?

Materials Science : Is concrete a stron or weak material ?

Electrical Science : Is a hole a particle or a wave ?

Biological Science : Is a fungus a plant or an animal ?

Visual Science : Optical Illusions : Is the picture the external corner of a cube or the internal corner of a box ?

Chemistry : Is compound X covalent or ionic ?

My question for discussion is; "Are we making too much fuss about light duality so that the it has achieved mystic status that brings so many to misunderstanding ?"

I don’t think we are. But the media? Yes, possibly, at least in the UK where the journos mostly seem to be arts graduates.

My impression from reading le Figaro on hols is that French media are a lot more science-literate. They seem to write on science assuming readers have at least A level understanding and don’t talk down to them. It may be that British media are an outlier. Britain seems still not to have quite shaken off the old notion that science is all a bit working class: a discipline in which one has to do things with one’s hands, my dear.

I do think many popularisers of science tend to stress knowledge: that we now know the way things really are, rather dogmatically. Not many of them speak of models and the use of alternative models to fit the situation at hand.

We have a tendency to want things to fit into convenient categories, so such duality will arise when that doesn’t happen. Such categorization might work most of the time but nature is messy and doesn’t always conform to these simple characterizations.

So the exceptions are interesting, but we shouldn’t make a fuss over the existence of them

2 hours ago, swansont said:

We have a tendency to want things to fit into convenient categories, so such duality will arise when that doesn’t happen. Such categorization might work most of the time but nature is messy and doesn’t always conform to these simple characterizations.

So the exceptions are interesting, but we shouldn’t make a fuss over the existence of them

But we should, at least, take them into consideration since we don't know everything...

It's normally slowm on a Monday so thanks to those who have already responded.

I seems we are all agreed that wav/particle duality is no biggie yet I still see most textbooks and articles making a big song and dance about it.

Contrast with a chemistry text that says Aluminium can act as either an acid or an alkali, depending upon the chemical environment. We call this behaviour amphoteric.

Followed by some example reactions

Edited August 18Aug 18 by studiot