>>12163367no, I'm not "just telling you".
I'm saying, light can be described mathematically, and that same description fits for ripples on water.
The only other thing you could be asking is "the 'wave description' fits for light, but is light actually a wave?", to which I would say I don't know.
Some people say there is an electromagnetic field, and light acts as a ripple in this field the same way water acts as a ripple on water.
Some physicists have a pilot wave theory, where a photon (particle) has it's trajectory altered by the electromagnetic fields ripples.
Others say that a particle is described by a probabilistic wave function, that when you measure the wave function, it gives you one of those weighted possibilities.
This is to say. The wave equation is derived from things every layperson would describe as a wave. Data on light is collected, and that data can be modelled by a wave equation. Whether that means that REALLY light is like a wave (in the way water ripples are), or whether it ONLY is described by wave equations (without actually being like water ripples), I don't think anyone knows.
If that doesn't answer your question, then you need to be more precise in your question rather than JUST TELLING ME that im not answering your question properly, trollboy
Also, i'm waiting for a more knowledgeable anon to shit on me for being a popsci cuck
