|
|
|
Crazy awesome slow motion video of LIGHT (1 TRILLION frames per second)
- Thread starter rmemedic
- Start date
awyala
Guest
Awesome.
Couple of interesting points I thought of:
1) The light through the coke bottle is actually not real time, as the light travelling will not have reached the lens / sensor in real time. As the light moves through the bottle, it also radiates in all directions at that same speed. So technically it hasn't reached the sensor yet. When the light has moved through the bottle (let's say 10cm travelled) and assuming the sensor is also 10cm away from the bottle, that is when the first frame is actually registered. Meaning the whole event probably happens before it is actually recorded on the sensor.
2) As confirmed by the scientist afterwards, this requires massive computational and composite processing of the data after the fact. In essence nothing live as it were, but constructed.
3) I am curious how they factor in interference effect, even if they are able to release single photons. There must be massive amounts of collisions and interference between protons, especially when looking around corners. Interference would even be true if protons are fired 1 at a time. I would be intrigued to see how they compensate for this....maybe that's why the model was quite blobby. I wonder how many man / computer hours it took to compile the blobby man.
4) My interference question is slightly answered in the image of the "ripples" from the coke bottle. The scientists then "correct for the space warp". This I found interesting, that the image they actually get must then be re-worked to produce a manufactured image rather than a true image. The interference problem suggests that anytime energy is added to a system or situation, it alters the perceived reality of that system. Monitoring or observing actually adds energy or distorts the natural flow of energy and thus observing itself distorts reality. The theory goes on to suggest, nothing observed is actually reality! The scientist seems to confirm this, as they have to "correct" the image to produce what they think it SHOULD look like based on theory! Fascinating! Kind of like that age old question....."if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?", rather the question should be "...if there was no one there to observe it, would it have happened the same way if there was?"
Couple of interesting points I thought of:
1) The light through the coke bottle is actually not real time, as the light travelling will not have reached the lens / sensor in real time. As the light moves through the bottle, it also radiates in all directions at that same speed. So technically it hasn't reached the sensor yet. When the light has moved through the bottle (let's say 10cm travelled) and assuming the sensor is also 10cm away from the bottle, that is when the first frame is actually registered. Meaning the whole event probably happens before it is actually recorded on the sensor.
2) As confirmed by the scientist afterwards, this requires massive computational and composite processing of the data after the fact. In essence nothing live as it were, but constructed.
3) I am curious how they factor in interference effect, even if they are able to release single photons. There must be massive amounts of collisions and interference between protons, especially when looking around corners. Interference would even be true if protons are fired 1 at a time. I would be intrigued to see how they compensate for this....maybe that's why the model was quite blobby. I wonder how many man / computer hours it took to compile the blobby man.
4) My interference question is slightly answered in the image of the "ripples" from the coke bottle. The scientists then "correct for the space warp". This I found interesting, that the image they actually get must then be re-worked to produce a manufactured image rather than a true image. The interference problem suggests that anytime energy is added to a system or situation, it alters the perceived reality of that system. Monitoring or observing actually adds energy or distorts the natural flow of energy and thus observing itself distorts reality. The theory goes on to suggest, nothing observed is actually reality! The scientist seems to confirm this, as they have to "correct" the image to produce what they think it SHOULD look like based on theory! Fascinating! Kind of like that age old question....."if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?", rather the question should be "...if there was no one there to observe it, would it have happened the same way if there was?"
Last edited:
ROGO
Well-known member
Are you implying this is all just smoke and mirrors? 
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain sketching the blob" LOL
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain sketching the blob" LOL
awyala
Guest
Are you implying this is all just smoke and mirrors?
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain sketching the blob" LOL
No no, it's just interesting how the visuals are not "true" visuals or live action (just slowed down), but rather compiled and manipulated according to calculations and theories. Though presented as a simple video, it is actually not actually slow motion reality as initially presented. For example the light passing through the bottle doesn't actually reach the camera until it has actually completed its journey and dissipation. What is recorded is actually recorded after the fact. That idea I find interesting in a metaphysical way.
|
|
|
|
|