>>12313915>I linked you to an article That is not from an accredited source. They even state so in their terms of service.
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en>3. Content We Host >You may find some material objectionable or erroneous: Because we provide a wide array of content that is produced or gathered by fellow users, you may encounter material that you find offensive, erroneous, misleading, mislabeled, or otherwise objectionable. We therefore ask that you use common sense and proper judgment when using our services.
>Our content is for general informational purposes only: Although we host a great deal of information that pertains to professional topics, including medical, legal, or financial issues, this content is presented for general informational purposes only. It should not be taken as professional advice. Please seek independent professional counseling from someone who is licensed or qualified in the applicable area in lieu of acting on any inform
>>12313494>Wtf are you trying to say hereWtf are you trying to say when you say "photon is a discrete quanta"? Quanta/Quantity of what? What is the total?
>Did you perhaps mistake science and math?No, I'm not a physicist.
>There is no such thing as "proof" in science. Science is based on evidenceOh I see. Let me rephrase it then. "May I see some empirical evidence of a photon particle?"
>The idea of photons behaving as discrete energy packets has not been disproven...but there's no evidence of a photon being discrete or "quantity". As you say, an idea.
>also provides testable predictions that fit the observed data very wellhow is a photon testable or observable? What experiment showed this?
>It's a sound idea with practical uses and you don't really provide any valid criticism of it.So sound that you still have yet to provide empirical evidence of a photon and instead gawk at how sound of an idea it is. It's like a TV preacher telling me how good "the word" is.
