Filming light at ten trillion frames per second.

[Subduction Zone]

Why slow down light when one can increase the frame rate of your camera?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Framed I tell you.

I am not going to get a phone call now and have some demonic girl show up in seven days to scare me to death am I?

Seriously, very cool.

 

[dybmh]

Thank u for this. I have been intending to revisit of the wave vs. particle debate to see of there has been any progress in further defining the nature of light.

It seems this video demonstrates light behaving as a particle?

@Subduction Zone , Questions: Is light a wave? a particle? Neither? both?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank u for this. I have been intending to revisit of the wave vs. particle debate to see of there has been any progress in further defining the nature of light.

It seems this video demonstrates light behaving as a particle?

@Subduction Zone , Questions: Is light a wave? a particle? Neither? both?

I am not a physicist, but it has the properties of both. Perhaps it is a particle with a wave nature. Individual photons of light can be detected. I do believe that Einstein himself had an early "proof" of the particle nature of light. Let me see:

The dual nature of light as reflected in the Nobel archives

I guess so, he won a Nobel Prize for demonstrating the photoelectric effect.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why slow down light when one can increase the frame rate of your camera?

I love those guys!!

They are right up there with my favorite video YouTube Professor from Nottingham University.

 

[dybmh]

I am not a physicist, but it has the properties of both. Perhaps it is a particle with a wave nature. Individual photons of light can be detected. I do believe that Einstein himself had an early "proof" of the particle nature of light. Let me see:

The dual nature of light as reflected in the Nobel archives

I guess so, he won a Nobel Prize for demonstrating the photoelectric effect.

Thanks for this.

I am reading these articles as well:

Canon : Canon Technology | Canon Science Lab | Light is It a Wave or a Particle?

 

[Skwim]

Absolutely fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

I have to wonder how many photons were involved in each of the pictures.

.

 

[We Never Know]

Thank u for this. I have been intending to revisit of the wave vs. particle debate to see of there has been any progress in further defining the nature of light.

It seems this video demonstrates light behaving as a particle?

@Subduction Zone , Questions: Is light a wave? a particle? Neither? both?

The first ever photograph of light as both a particle and wave

The first ever photograph of light as both a particle and wave

 

[dybmh]

...Now I'm trying to figure out how to understand that light particles are "mass-less"

It's going to be a good day.. my brain is happy

 

[Subduction Zone]

...Now I'm trying to figure out how to understand that light particles are "mass-less"

It's going to be a good day.. my brain is happy

Worse yet, massless yet they have momentum.

 

[dybmh]

Worse yet, massless yet they have momentum.

Here's what i'm thinking:

Momentum and energy are related?
More energy = More momentum
Light is energy.
Light has momentum.

Energy is mass-less.

Light is a special type of energy that behaves like a particle when observed on a quantum scale?

Light is not a particle? Light is energy? It behaves like a particle on a very very very small scale?

 

[dybmh]

Photons are a unique type of particle not like particles of matter...

Calling them "particles" is a misnomer?

What are Photons - Universe Today

 

[exchemist]

Photons are a unique type of particle not like particles of matter...

Calling them "particles" is a misnomer?

What are Photons - Universe Today

Not a misnomer but a partial description, just as calling light a "wave" is a partial description. But wave-particle duality also applies to matter at the atomic scale, not just to light. It seems to be part of nature generally. Quantum theory describes how both wave and particle aspects fit together.

My physical chemistry tutor always used to say that radio engineers (he had been an amateur radio enthusiast) have little difficulty understanding quantum theory. When you add together a lot of waves of differing wavelength, you end up with something like a particle. That's basically how it works.

 

[dybmh]

Not a misnomer but a partial description, just as calling light a "wave" is a partial description. But wave-particle duality also applies to matter at the atomic scale, not just to light. It seems to be part of nature generally. Quantum theory describes how both wave and particle aspects fit together.

My physical chemistry tutor always used to say that radio engineers (he had been an amateur radio enthusiast) have little difficulty understanding quantum theory. When you add together a lot of waves of differing wavelength, you end up with something like a particle. That's basically how it works.

All this seems to be pointing back to Einstein's E=MC^2.

Everything ( all matter ) can be described in terms of energy?

 

[exchemist]

All this seems to be pointing back to Einstein's E=MC^2.

Everything ( all matter ) can be described in terms of energy?

No, it can't. Energy is a useful property of systems, for analysing the behaviour of matter, but things have many other properties which knowing their only energy does not help you with.

E=mc² is another thing entirely.....well maybe not entirely.......
The long form of Einstein's equation is: E² = (mc²)² + p²c². (m is mass, p is momentum, c is the speed of light).

For matter at rest, this reduces to E=mc². For light, which has no mass, it reduces to E=pc.

One of the basic concepts of quantum theory is that there is a wavelength associated with a "particle", which is related to its momentum by de Broglie's relation: p=h/λ (λ is wavelength and h is Planck's constant). If we apply that to E=pc, we get E = hc/λ. But for any wave the relationship between speed, wavelength and frequency, ν, is c= νλ, i.e. c/λ= ν.
So E (= pc = hc/λ ) = hν. Et voila, this is Planck's relation, describing how the energy of a photon depends on its frequency.

But remember, energy is not stuff. It is just a property of a physical system. So things are not "made of energy". They have energy, as one of their properties, along with mass, electric charge momentum, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it can't. Energy is a useful property of systems, for analysing the behaviour of matter, but things have many other properties which knowing their only energy does not help you with.

E=mc² is another thing entirely.....well maybe not entirely.......
The long form of Einstein's equation is: E² = (mc²)² + p²c². (m is mass, p is momentum, c is the speed of light).

For matter at rest, this reduces to E=mc². For light, which has no mass, it reduces to E=pc.

One of the basic concepts of quantum theory is that there is a wavelength associated with a "particle", which is related to its momentum by de Broglie's relation: p=h/λ (λ is wavelength and h is Planck's constant). If we apply that to E=pc, we get E = hc/λ. But for any wave the relationship between speed, wavelength and frequency, ν, is c= νλ, i.e. c/λ= ν.
So E (= pc = hc/λ ) = hν. Et voila, this is Planck's relation, describing how the energy of a photon depends on its frequency.

But remember, energy is not stuff. It is just a property of a physical system. So things are not "made of energy". They have energy, as one of their properties, along with mass, electric charge momentum, etc.

I don't know if it was Feynman or if he was quoting another physicist, but it is useful to remember anyway: "Energy is merely bookkeeping."

 

[dybmh]

For matter at rest, this reduces to E=mc². For light, which has no mass, it reduces to E=pc.

Thank you for that informative complete answer.

 

[exchemist]

I don't know if it was Feynman or if he was quoting another physicist, but it is useful to remember anyway: "Energy is merely bookkeeping."

Yes I've heard that one too, though I'm not sure who said it.

But there is widespread misunderstanding about this - and actually E=mc² doesn't help, as it superficially can give the impression that "matter is energy", when what it is talking about is mass and energy, mass being again just one property of matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I should add that one of the reasons that energy is thought to be bookkeeping is due to the theory of relativity. A photon does not have a set value. If one is moving towards a source of photons those photons will have a higher energy than if one is moving away from that source of photons. If they were only one discreet packet of set energy one would think that they would be the same in all cases. But when you hear of light being Red Shifted, that means because the distance between the observer and the source is increasing the photons have less energy and have lower frequency than if the distance was remaining constant. It all works out in Relativity. The books balance. But if one thinks of energy as an unchanging physical object one will find that it does not match observations.

 

[dybmh]

I should add that one of the reasons that energy is thought to be bookkeeping is due to the theory of relativity. A photon does not have a set value. If one is moving towards a source of photons those photons will have a higher energy than if one is moving away from that source of photons. If they were only one discreet packet of set energy one would think that they would be the same in all cases. But when you hear of light being Red Shifted, that means because the distance between the observer and the source is increasing the photons have less energy and have lower frequency than if the distance was remaining constant. It all works out in Relativity. The books balance. But if one thinks of energy as an unchanging physical object one will find that it does not match observations.

I noticed the following term in my research of light and gravity..

"photon mass-at-rest"

Can a photon be motionless?