how could [this] be, and if it were a particle, wouldn't it have mass? Matter? Weight? Etc... I did this because i believe that all science supports what the Gospel says, we just haven't applied it quite right.
"D&C 131: 7-8
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; 8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.
He went on to describe how he knew the truth and that science would support the gospel. And then he ended with this lovely line “Which means that, yet again, the gospel is right, and my teacher is wrong!”
So I commented on his blog describing the characteristics of light and this idea hit me. My comment to him was, verbatim this:
Light is neither a Particle [n]or a wave. Light is something that we do not fully understand. Sometimes it acts as a particle acts and sometimes it acts as a wave, but those characteristics are only useful to help us understand light in our lives. After all, we don't know that Gravity exists, but if there is some force out there with the same force and abilities as Gravity but more, is it still not useful for us to understand how what we call gravity works in our lives? Consider the true nature of light to be a mystery of God.
As you said, according to your professor and his Einstein reference, then actually your professor is right, but so are you.
Then my thoughts started to apply this to the MoHo dilemma and this is what I cam up with. With light we often struggle to grasp the fact that it can be both a particle and a wave at different times, but if we see that it is neither, but something else that acts like both of these contradictory items at different times based of off laws that we can not fully understand and grasp it seems so much clearer.
As we know that Light = Truth, isn’t it possible for there to be a similar quantum mechanic for truth? Is it possible that what a Peter Priesthood Mormon and a spiritual Post Mormon Moho believe truth to be, which is often contradictory to each other be accurate purely because our view of truth is imperfect? I have been so concerned with trying to find the right answer that I have been assuming that there is ONE right path. Perhaps the real Truth is that both are right. That rather than a fork in the road that leads me one of two 180 degree paths, this is merely a stone in the stream. Either way the water passes doesn’t matter, because the destination doesn’t change.
Ralph Waldo Emerson took the road less traveled, but did he have a destination in mind? With a destination in mind, perhaps I have come across what seems to be two roads, but they really are two parts of the same path but I have been determined to force a way through the brambles blazing my own path with all of the pain of such an activity, but having no results because my blazing is what isn’t on the path.
Did I carry that metaphor too far? Did any of that make sense? It did to me and so I think that I might be getting some sort of closure on things. And am finding some things out. And it is good.