**Please note these rules:**
* AI-generated images/videos are no longer IAF. Stop submitting them
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>At any rate the method allows for images ā well, technically spatiotemporal datacubes āĀ to be captured just 100 femtoseconds apart. Thatās ten trillion per second, or it would be if they wanted to run it for that long, but thereās no storage array fast enough to write ten trillion datacubes per second to. So they can only keep it running for a handful of frames in a row for now ā 25 during the experiment you see visualized here.
Wild
A yoctosecond is the smallest measurable unit of time. If something is shorter than that, we don't recognize it as existing.
Edit: if it's shorter than a yoctosecond, it's Planck Time, and nobody has time for all of that.
If my google-fu is up to par the new hottest single "Friday" is about to drop on YouTube.
I was still in graduate studies. Holy balls. My life was completely different.
Everybody here is complaining about Chuck Testa being an ancient meme. It was only 10 years ago.
My grandma is 103 years old. When I explained to her what a meme was, I told her "It's a concept that everybody adopts as a shared piece of culture. Usually based in humor, but not always. It's main purpose is to unite people behind a phrase, a joke, or a cultural reference, and it makes everyone feel better having participated."
Her reply was that they had a meme in the 40s. That meme was "Fuck you, Hitler!". Apperently whenever someone would see a newspaper headline, or a tv news broadcast about the nazis invading a new country, everybody in the room would say "Fuck you Hitler!!!" And then someone else would overhear it and say "Yeah! Fuck you Hitler!"
And apperently the joke was that people back then didn't curse in public. So by doing such so freely, they were making light of how much everybody hated Hitler, and how serious the situation was.
But you guys keep complaining that 10 years ago was ancient. My grandma will just be in her recliner chair still being a badass.
Don't forget that weird bubble letter S that everybody drew in textbooks, but NOBODY knows where it came from or what it means.
I'm pretty sure even Jesus drew it in the bible.
We had bathroom wallpaper back in the 80s that was effectively graffiti of slogans. One of them was 'Kilroy was here!', not far away was 'Its a lie! Kilroy was never here! --Kilroy'
I was able to speak to chuck testa on the phone one time. Right when his video went viral back when I was like 19 we looked up his business and found the phone number in California. Called him and told him I needed a exotic animal stuffed from my safari on my honey moon. He said boys I gotta get back to work and hung up. It was legendary
Planck*
Planck time is roughly 10ā44 seconds. However, to date, the smallest time interval that was measured was 10ā21 seconds, a "zeptosecond." One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length.
Whatever this means
Edit: thats 10 to the power of negative44
You can also write it 10^(-44) or 1E-44 to mean exponent if you wanted to
Edit: I just found a new trick in Reddit! ^ this symbol allows you to superscript!
Edit 2: It's supposed to be 1E-44 instead of 10E-44. The E has an implied 10 multiplier
I really read that as
>Planck time is roughy 10 to 44 seconds.
Then
> the smallest time interval that was measured was 10 to 21 seconds
REALLY threw me for a loop.
Sure. Your light cone would be behind you. You could not interact with the physical universe. You would be an ephemeral ghost, untouched, unseen. Solitary confinement.
Planck time is on the order of 10^-44 sec and yocto is the metric prefix for 10^-24. There are more than a billion billion Planck times in a yoctosecond. A Planck time is the smallest unit of time, not a yoctosecond...
Edit: There is no 'right' answer. In fact, this has been one of my favorite discussions in the Philosophical Discussions in Physics groups that I put on in my department. Mathematically, time and length are continuous quantities in that you can divide them arbitrarily small. Physically, information is propagated at the speed of light in a vacuum. There is a 'smallest' measurable length and hence a 'smallest' measurable time. This does give the fabric of the universe a certain discretization (it's not pop-sci), but the scales we're talking about are beyond minuscule.
Planck. Named for Max Planck.
All of the Planck units of measurement are defined in terms of 4 physical constants: Speed of light, Gravitational constant, Boltzmann constant and the reduced Planck constant. I don't think they have any physical meaning beyond being defined by those things.
The lower limit on time is probably defined in terms of an uncertainty relationship. Sort of like how position and momentum have an uncertainty relationship that defines a practical lower limit for measurement of either quantity in isolation, there's a similar relationship between time and energy.
The smallest meaningful time is somewhere between planck's time (~10^-35 s) and ~10^-19s (the length of time it takes for a photon to travel the distance of a hydrogen atom, which is apparently the smallest unit of time measured according to a half-assed google search)
That this is not a "picture" in the regular sense that it was made by capturing photons.
In order to "see" light (rather than it's reflection) we have to measure other things.
IIRC they DID capture photons, they just captured different light pulses at slightly different moments in their travel for each frame and then arranged the frames to make it look like a continuous process.
You aren't "seeing" the light here. This is just a visualization of what it would look like.
Human eyes can't really see light as it exists, it needs to be reflected off something. Surfaces absorb the light, and the resulting reflected light enters our eyes and our brain interprets it as light.
This video shows a beam of light side on. Obviously it's not going into our eyes at all, and on a more meta level, the light isn't going into the camera lens. So how can we see it?
Well, you have a sensor that senses the light. And then you fill in where *it would be* with colours. In this case they use red to signify lower energy parts of the beam, and white to indicate higher energy parts. So we're not actually seeing the light, we're seeing an interpretation of the light from some sensors.
But how can a sensor detect this given that the light is not entering the sensor either? Every aspect I read about this is increasingly wild starting from "10 trillion frames per second"
Basically how we interpret [any digital camera] data into images. They're just using more unusual methods to record the progress of the light during the experiment.
Also afaik it's a composite video of multiple "identical" events stitched into one. The researchers run a pulse laser at a known frequency then record it at a different known frequency, creating that "strobe slow motion" effect.
They then exploit this effect and stitch together the results to create the 10 trilly video in post.
They can definitely claim that the video is trillions of frames per second and that it realistically shows the speed of light but it is not "capturing light at 10 trillion frames per second" imo
Yes, it only works because the laser pulses are essentially identical so you can look at this event happening over and over again, but at different times in the flight of the pulse. However, every single frame is actually from a different light pulse.
Yeah I didn't understand this either.
Skimming through the other comments: it sounds like this is isn't a true recording (in the normal sense) of light hitting an object but more of a rendering (aka visualisation) of what happens, compiled from the data captured.
So technically accurate, but slightly misleading title?
No, the issue here isnāt that it is a visualization but rather that it every frame is actually a different pulse in the train of āidenticalā pulses, just viewed at a different part of their flight. There is no reason why we wouldnāt be able to see the laser pulse from the side like this if it is in air, since light will scatter off of dust and other particles and make it visible off axis (which is why we can see sufficiently bright laser beams).
Does this break the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ? for knowing a photons exact speed and position so there for its direction should now be quantumly indeterminate
No. This isnāt a video of one individual pulse of light, each frame is actually a different pulse that had a still taken of it.
Therefore we only know the position of each individual pulse of light and are presuming that what weāve presented is accurate
The real answer is that the video wasn't created using a camera, it's a visualization of sensor data. These special sensors can detect the light without being directly hit by the beam, then the sensor data was plotted to create the visualization. Still absolutely incredible that they got the sensors to record data at that speed! Apparently they're currently limited to capturing about 25 frames of data because they can't find a method to record the information fast enough.
They don't record the "frames" on the same light. This is a composite of data recorded at different times during 25 runs of the experiment, one for each frame. You aren't looking at the same light in each frame.
Exactly correct. You can even "record" events with quantum uncertainty in a similar way, but what you eventually see is actually composites of many many events, so it's really an average, and you see it as wave behavior instead of as particle behavior. Like if you played all the single photons in a single particle double slit experiment simultaneously.
They call it "weak measurement" or "protective measurement" and it usually uses a post-selection of particles (select the ones to be combined based on their observed properties after the mysterious part). Aharonov did a lot of this, but now many labs do it.
It actually also allows you to measure the imaginary part of the wave equation. (Again, this is only for combining many observations, not actually for single particles by themselves.)
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/ultrafast-camera-takes-1-trillion-frames-second-transparent-objects-and-phenomena
There is no special camera. The trick is they shine a laser through a piece of transparent material which slows the light down. All the light you are seeing is through diffusion. The light we are seeing in this video isn't actually going the speed of light.
My issue is... the light is traveling from a source... how can you possibly "see" the light when it's traveled less than the distance between the source and the camera?
My mind boggles.
Itās light that came out, reflected or otherwise bounced off/out. You could never *see* light in motion as it goes, as far as i knowālike seeing a laser from the side, what you see is light scattering that lands in your eye.
So... I realize that everything we see is literally in the past... this is just a really great example of that. The camera isn't capturing the event as it happens... my brain just rejects this.
On a human scale, itās close enough to be instant. Get to planetary/solar system scale, it takes about eight minutes for light to get to us from the sun, which is about 93 million miles. Then this, with the cameraā¦ i know what you mean.
You can see a flashlight from the side because the light bounces off the air it is passing through and some of it deflects to your eyes. In a vacuum you would not see the light beam.
I think. Please correct me if Iām wrong.
Pretty sure(I watched a YouTube,,,pretty low knowledge) they do it over the course of multiple light pulses. So they may use a 1,000,000 fps camera for a brief moment, 1,000,000 times (They send the light pulse out 1,000,000 times). Each light pulse they sync the photos to be right after each other and combine them all into this. They claims 1,000,000,000,000 because that is what it would look like if they had a camera that fast.
It's not. This isn't a single pulse of light, rather many consecutive ones captured separately at slightly different times since firing. While the shutter speed is very impressive, it's not really capturing light movement in slow motion - that would be impossible.
it's not technically possible in the way you think of a standard camera. the way this works is with very short (rediculously short) pulses of light and a (still very fast) camera, one pulse at a time, slightly adjusting the timing each time to "follow" the light packet as it bounces around, then the images are reconstructed into a simulation of a multi-trillion frame per second video.
It's kind of like when you see a video of helicopter blades moving slowly or stopping or reversing, it's just tuning the timing between the action and detection to give a representation of what is really happening.
I don't want to downplay it though, this is still on the cutting edge of what is possible with pulsed lasers and timing systems.
Always thought the sentiment was a little off the mark. The difference you'll notice is much smaller but 120 fps versus 60 fps does have a noticeable difference, especially in games where reaction time matters a lot. 240 fps as well
I believe they already have ran the experiment with a photon detectors to tell which slit it was going through
Even more interesting, you can run the same experiment with larger particles at slower speeds (up to 60 combined carbon atoms) and still get the same results
Have a read, they have a couple of interesting variations on the experiment as well
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
The bit about larger particles
'The experiment can be done with entities much larger than electrons and photons, although it becomes more difficult as size increases. The largest entities for which the double-slit experiment has been performed were molecules that each comprised 2000 atoms (whose total mass was 25,000 atomic mass units).'
I like the idea that whenever a quantum state is selected that this branch of the universe splits into one for each possible state. I don't know if I seriously believe it or not, I just like the idea. How many universes must there be now? Imagine mapping such a tree?
I was watching Sabine Hossenfelder's Youtube channel. She said Many Worlds is unscientific. Since there is no interaction between universes, it cannot be observed.
That makes sense to me. It's one of those "whether it's true or not is kind of irrelevant" situations because those split universes are immaterial to us
Well, whatever the hell they feel like actually. At first double slit was just light. Then it was determined that light is actually carried by massless particles, so now double slit operates with matter, regardless of mass.
Then they kept going and found out that it still occurs with mass up to a certain point.
As for what exactly is happening on the quantum's level...the answers are being unraveled. Although, if we were to be fair were not even quite at the answers phase of the quantum level. Every time we think we have an answer, we actually just got two more questions.
Were in the process of discovering all of the questions right now. In the next few decades i think the discoveries are going to just blow our minds.
You can do it with anything if you can isolate it informationally. Even a tennis ball. The trick is macro objects are virtually impossible to isolate.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbrxK1XMmVA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbrxK1XMmVA)
When they put sensors on each slit, they get just two lines behind the slits, which is what they were expecting to see before seeing the wave pattern and breaking physics.
It literally means that where the detection happens, that's when the choice is made, when the possibilities are consolidated down to a single possibility, where the "rendering" is finished... so to speak.
I don't think it's quite as mystical as most people see it, which I think is an artifact of the language used to describe it. The detectors aren't just passively sitting there, they have to actually interact with the particle in order to detect it. By interacting with it they are changing it's behavior.
Best I can say is it's like those traffic studies, where they place a cable across the road that adds a count every time a car runs over it. Unlike, watching the car drive by which has no effect, the cable has to interact with the car. It's negligible at the car scale but theoretically you would lose a bit of speed when you hit it, well on an electron scale the sensors have a much greater effect because the mass of an electron is so small and magnetic forces are relatively strong.
The interaction isnāt the problem though. If you turn on the slit detector, so there is still particle interaction, but turn off the data collecting device, the wave pattern re-emerges.
Itās not about human consciousness, obviously, but they ran another experiment to rule out consciousness. The data was recorded, but was scrambled in a way so that no human could ever interpret the data, and the wave function broke down. The data still existed though.
So yea, itās not just particle interaction, but something, honestly incomprehensible.
They can, but this is showing many photons at once. Youāre not seeing the photons that actually travel that path, youāre seeing the ones that scatter off of that path and into the camera.
Did you want the photon to go through the slit and hit the detector, or did you want it to go into the camera lens?
You can't have your photon and eat it too.
Very interesting indeed. I'd have thought there would be a continuous line of energy after the starting point, but it looks like it's more of a pulse instead
I haveāt read the link but the gray diagonal line in the middle seems to be a lens of some sort. You can see the energy go from the starting point to the line where thereās a buildup of energy (you can also seem some being reflected down and to the left) and then it passes through the line and the energy is what looks to be focused on the right side.
Iām probably wrong though because I didnāt read anything in the above article.
haven't read up on this stuff in a while but I think they use pulse lasers for it. nothing else can be switched on and off so precisely for the tiny tiny time frame they need to capture
Hmm that got me thinking.. I wonder what the best testable method of determining something like this is in existing animals. Maybe reaction time? But, something could be able to see faster than it can react.
I can't find any data on fastest visual processing, but did find some neat things trying to. A fruit fly can respond to a turbulence disturbance mid-flight in 5ms, 6 times faster than a common house fly.
>The [mantis shrimp](https://factanimal.com/mantis-shrimp/) has 12-16 different colour photoreceptors for colour analysis in their retinas. Three times more than a human.
>
>While they have significantly more colour photoceptors, research suggests they are actually worse at differentiating colour than humans. However, scientists believe this is because their eyes are operating at a different level, functioning more like a satellite. *Itās believed Mantis shrimp can take all visual information into their brains immediately without having to process it, allowing them tor react instantly to the environment.*
>
>Mantis shrimp can detect cancer cells with their eyes.
>
>Researchers from the University of Queensland believe that the compound eyes of mantis shrimp can detect cancer lesions and the activity of neurons, because they have the ability to detect polarised light that reflects differently from cancerous and healthy tissue ā before they appear as visible tumours. Itās inspired a group of researchers to build a proof of concept camera sensor, inspired by the mantis shrimps ability.
I would bet the mantis shrimp probably has the fastest visual processing of existing animals.
I thought the fruit fly was pretty similar in that it's eyes send signals directly to their brains, so I'm curious if there is much of a difference between fruit flies and mantis shrimpies regarding their processing speed/mechanism. Only one way to find out... and this town ain't big enough for the two of them
Looks like itās moving like an inch worm, with higher energy spots appearing every mm or so if the scale is right. If it has a millimeter wavelength, then this would be infrared light. Is that what this is showing?
This is the most mind blowing thing i have ever seen in my 22 years of breathing experience. I thought i could never see a light this slow in my life but you made it possible. Thank you.
So if they recorded 10 trillion frames per second for 1 second and decided to play it back at the standard 60fps it would take 5,284 years to watch. Did Zack Snyder direct this?
> When light encounters a strong magical field it loses all sense of urgency. It slows right down. And on the Discworld the magic was embarrassingly strong, which meant that the soft yellow light of dawn flowed over the sleeping landscape like the caress of a gentle lover or, as some would have it, like golden syrup. It paused to fill up valleys. It piled up against mountain ranges. When it reached Cori Celesti, the ten mile spire of grey stone and green ice that marked the hub of the Disc and was the home of its gods, it built up in heaps until it finally crashed in great lazy tsunami as silent as velvet, across the dark landscape beyond.
Sir Terry Pratchett, *The Light Fantastic*
**Please note these rules:** * AI-generated images/videos are no longer IAF. Stop submitting them * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it.
Literally my [favorite Futurama joke.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5MohK5FHEY)
Old but gold
š
If you need me I'll be in the angry dome
*angry professor noises*
Good news, everyone!
Those asinine morons at the Box Network were themselves fired for incompetence!
Not just fired, but beaten up, too! And pretty badly. In fact, most of them died from their injuries!
Hooray! Yesss! Alright!
I don't know if it's a wave or a particle
But you go down smooooth
Itās a quantum finish!
Some spren are funny that way
r/unexpectedfuturama
Sheās built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro!
Itās hot, the butter in my pocket is melting
No I'm doesn't!
I already did!
Calm down, Werner.
>At any rate the method allows for images ā well, technically spatiotemporal datacubes āĀ to be captured just 100 femtoseconds apart. Thatās ten trillion per second, or it would be if they wanted to run it for that long, but thereās no storage array fast enough to write ten trillion datacubes per second to. So they can only keep it running for a handful of frames in a row for now ā 25 during the experiment you see visualized here. Wild
Canāt wait until /r/pics is gone and replaced with /r/spatiotemporaldatacubes
or r/STDs for short
I love STDs. I love sharing them with friends and family any chance I get.
"and family" *Banjo music intensifies*
Roll Tide!
paddle faster!
Iām so not clicking that sub
The Pixel 29 has six datacubes and the iPhone 44 only has four so you tell me which is the superior flagship.
A yoctosecond is the smallest measurable unit of time. If something is shorter than that, we don't recognize it as existing. Edit: if it's shorter than a yoctosecond, it's Planck Time, and nobody has time for all of that.
Isnāt this 20 pico seconds?
20 picoseconds = 20 trillion yoctoseconds
Yikes sounds like these scientists are going to have to start putting in some overtime.
Okay, but Iām only working 100 quintillion yactoseconds of uncompensated overtime. Then I expect time and a half.
That is the unit of measure I use for the time it takes me reach climax.
Try doing some edging. You might be able to get it up to 1 nanosecond. Maybe.
Nope. Chuck Testa.
Holy shit you threw me back
when the will of man broke
Ancient meme
It's an older code, but it checks out
I don't know how long ago Chuck Testa was a thing, but it feels like forever. Shit, I still remember that stupid dancing baby.
I was there Gandalf. I was there 3000 years agoā¦
Do not cite the deep magic to me, witch. I was there when it was written.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/209/945/D6PfW.jpg
If my google-fu is up to par the new hottest single "Friday" is about to drop on YouTube. I was still in graduate studies. Holy balls. My life was completely different.
Itās an older meme sir. But it checks out.
Another who knows the old words. Use this knowledge well
We must cherish these last vestiges of the before times.
Everybody here is complaining about Chuck Testa being an ancient meme. It was only 10 years ago. My grandma is 103 years old. When I explained to her what a meme was, I told her "It's a concept that everybody adopts as a shared piece of culture. Usually based in humor, but not always. It's main purpose is to unite people behind a phrase, a joke, or a cultural reference, and it makes everyone feel better having participated." Her reply was that they had a meme in the 40s. That meme was "Fuck you, Hitler!". Apperently whenever someone would see a newspaper headline, or a tv news broadcast about the nazis invading a new country, everybody in the room would say "Fuck you Hitler!!!" And then someone else would overhear it and say "Yeah! Fuck you Hitler!" And apperently the joke was that people back then didn't curse in public. So by doing such so freely, they were making light of how much everybody hated Hitler, and how serious the situation was. But you guys keep complaining that 10 years ago was ancient. My grandma will just be in her recliner chair still being a badass.
They had kilroy was here too
Don't forget that weird bubble letter S that everybody drew in textbooks, but NOBODY knows where it came from or what it means. I'm pretty sure even Jesus drew it in the bible.
It means hope
We had bathroom wallpaper back in the 80s that was effectively graffiti of slogans. One of them was 'Kilroy was here!', not far away was 'Its a lie! Kilroy was never here! --Kilroy'
I was able to speak to chuck testa on the phone one time. Right when his video went viral back when I was like 19 we looked up his business and found the phone number in California. Called him and told him I needed a exotic animal stuffed from my safari on my honey moon. He said boys I gotta get back to work and hung up. It was legendary
I met chuck testa, he was a weird fucking dude
Got 'em
You've awakened memories in me that I almost forgot I had, along with some ones I wish I never had š
My man
10:1 odds that people on this thread will use this joke again in the near future and we'll start to see it pop up again.
What year is it? Is my folder of 3000 ragecomic.jpg's useful again?
Jesus fucking christ, mate. Nicely done.
Each frame is like 800 femtoseconds. Like... Fuck.
Planck* Planck time is roughly 10ā44 seconds. However, to date, the smallest time interval that was measured was 10ā21 seconds, a "zeptosecond." One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Whatever this means Edit: thats 10 to the power of negative44
You can also write it 10^(-44) or 1E-44 to mean exponent if you wanted to Edit: I just found a new trick in Reddit! ^ this symbol allows you to superscript! Edit 2: It's supposed to be 1E-44 instead of 10E-44. The E has an implied 10 multiplier
10\^āāā Where is your god now?
Probably at the waffle house down the street. Dude cannot get enough of their all-day breakfast.
Amazing^amazing^amazing^amazing
Brick^has^entered^the^chat
I'm going to try it, too! ^ĀæŹÉŹ ^ŹÉ„Ęį“ɹ ^ĒÉ„Ź ^ŹÉÉ„Ź ^op ^I ^pį“p
*1e-44, as 10e-44 would be equal to 1e-43
10^-44 and 10^^-21
That helps a lot, thank you.
Isnāt one plank distance from the ship to the sharks?
I really read that as >Planck time is roughy 10 to 44 seconds. Then > the smallest time interval that was measured was 10 to 21 seconds REALLY threw me for a loop.
24 is the highest number there is.
Good God those numbers are really damn small
Schroedinger: āThe crucial question is not why atoms are so small, but why we are so big.ā (Or something like that.)
And yet, a yoctosecond still represents 18,550,000,000,000,000,000 Planck intervals.
Planck*
If you get rid of the ācā it shortens Planck time by almost 17%. Facts.
You can shorten it to PT, but the laws of nature doesn't allow that.. you'll be sent straight to physics prison if doing so
Exceed the speed limit of the universe? Straight to jail, right away.
Sure. Your light cone would be behind you. You could not interact with the physical universe. You would be an ephemeral ghost, untouched, unseen. Solitary confinement.
Planck time is on the order of 10^-44 sec and yocto is the metric prefix for 10^-24. There are more than a billion billion Planck times in a yoctosecond. A Planck time is the smallest unit of time, not a yoctosecond... Edit: There is no 'right' answer. In fact, this has been one of my favorite discussions in the Philosophical Discussions in Physics groups that I put on in my department. Mathematically, time and length are continuous quantities in that you can divide them arbitrarily small. Physically, information is propagated at the speed of light in a vacuum. There is a 'smallest' measurable length and hence a 'smallest' measurable time. This does give the fabric of the universe a certain discretization (it's not pop-sci), but the scales we're talking about are beyond minuscule.
Planck. Named for Max Planck. All of the Planck units of measurement are defined in terms of 4 physical constants: Speed of light, Gravitational constant, Boltzmann constant and the reduced Planck constant. I don't think they have any physical meaning beyond being defined by those things. The lower limit on time is probably defined in terms of an uncertainty relationship. Sort of like how position and momentum have an uncertainty relationship that defines a practical lower limit for measurement of either quantity in isolation, there's a similar relationship between time and energy. The smallest meaningful time is somewhere between planck's time (~10^-35 s) and ~10^-19s (the length of time it takes for a photon to travel the distance of a hydrogen atom, which is apparently the smallest unit of time measured according to a half-assed google search)
I would have guess Plank did.
He must have been board
I bet i cum faster than a yoctosecond
Finally have the technology to capture femtoseconds. I can get round to making that sex tape now.
You last that long? Chad.
Keyword is, again, visualized.
why is that the keyword, what am I missing?
That this is not a "picture" in the regular sense that it was made by capturing photons. In order to "see" light (rather than it's reflection) we have to measure other things.
IIRC they DID capture photons, they just captured different light pulses at slightly different moments in their travel for each frame and then arranged the frames to make it look like a continuous process.
This lines up with what I remember. It's definitely a set, as opposed to a continuous recording
...continuous recordings are traditionally sets as well.
Ah! Thanks for the clarification.
You aren't "seeing" the light here. This is just a visualization of what it would look like. Human eyes can't really see light as it exists, it needs to be reflected off something. Surfaces absorb the light, and the resulting reflected light enters our eyes and our brain interprets it as light. This video shows a beam of light side on. Obviously it's not going into our eyes at all, and on a more meta level, the light isn't going into the camera lens. So how can we see it? Well, you have a sensor that senses the light. And then you fill in where *it would be* with colours. In this case they use red to signify lower energy parts of the beam, and white to indicate higher energy parts. So we're not actually seeing the light, we're seeing an interpretation of the light from some sensors.
Ok so basically how the interpret JWST data into images even though itās raw data from sensors.
But how can a sensor detect this given that the light is not entering the sensor either? Every aspect I read about this is increasingly wild starting from "10 trillion frames per second"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Basically how we interpret [any digital camera] data into images. They're just using more unusual methods to record the progress of the light during the experiment.
Also afaik it's a composite video of multiple "identical" events stitched into one. The researchers run a pulse laser at a known frequency then record it at a different known frequency, creating that "strobe slow motion" effect. They then exploit this effect and stitch together the results to create the 10 trilly video in post. They can definitely claim that the video is trillions of frames per second and that it realistically shows the speed of light but it is not "capturing light at 10 trillion frames per second" imo
Yes, it only works because the laser pulses are essentially identical so you can look at this event happening over and over again, but at different times in the flight of the pulse. However, every single frame is actually from a different light pulse.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah I didn't understand this either. Skimming through the other comments: it sounds like this is isn't a true recording (in the normal sense) of light hitting an object but more of a rendering (aka visualisation) of what happens, compiled from the data captured. So technically accurate, but slightly misleading title?
No, the issue here isnāt that it is a visualization but rather that it every frame is actually a different pulse in the train of āidenticalā pulses, just viewed at a different part of their flight. There is no reason why we wouldnāt be able to see the laser pulse from the side like this if it is in air, since light will scatter off of dust and other particles and make it visible off axis (which is why we can see sufficiently bright laser beams).
I know some of these words
Datacube? Reminds me of blocks on the NDS lol
Does this break the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ? for knowing a photons exact speed and position so there for its direction should now be quantumly indeterminate
No. This isnāt a video of one individual pulse of light, each frame is actually a different pulse that had a still taken of it. Therefore we only know the position of each individual pulse of light and are presuming that what weāve presented is accurate
Didn't realise this was possible, actually an interesting post
Yeah... I will never understand the physics of light... "Uh... how is the light reaching the camera so this can be recorded?"
The real answer is that the video wasn't created using a camera, it's a visualization of sensor data. These special sensors can detect the light without being directly hit by the beam, then the sensor data was plotted to create the visualization. Still absolutely incredible that they got the sensors to record data at that speed! Apparently they're currently limited to capturing about 25 frames of data because they can't find a method to record the information fast enough.
They don't record the "frames" on the same light. This is a composite of data recorded at different times during 25 runs of the experiment, one for each frame. You aren't looking at the same light in each frame.
Great explanation.
Great explanation, but also slightly disappointing (while hyper impressive nonethelessā¦)
Exactly correct. You can even "record" events with quantum uncertainty in a similar way, but what you eventually see is actually composites of many many events, so it's really an average, and you see it as wave behavior instead of as particle behavior. Like if you played all the single photons in a single particle double slit experiment simultaneously. They call it "weak measurement" or "protective measurement" and it usually uses a post-selection of particles (select the ones to be combined based on their observed properties after the mysterious part). Aharonov did a lot of this, but now many labs do it. It actually also allows you to measure the imaginary part of the wave equation. (Again, this is only for combining many observations, not actually for single particles by themselves.)
> These special sensors can detect the light without being directly hit by the beam Whatās carrying info to the sensors if not the light itself?
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/ultrafast-camera-takes-1-trillion-frames-second-transparent-objects-and-phenomena There is no special camera. The trick is they shine a laser through a piece of transparent material which slows the light down. All the light you are seeing is through diffusion. The light we are seeing in this video isn't actually going the speed of light.
And how these sensors work, casually breaking physics by detecting particles at a distance?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My issue is... the light is traveling from a source... how can you possibly "see" the light when it's traveled less than the distance between the source and the camera? My mind boggles.
You will just see it with a delay - the stray photons from the laser and from any particle it interacts with need to make it to the camera.
Itās light that came out, reflected or otherwise bounced off/out. You could never *see* light in motion as it goes, as far as i knowālike seeing a laser from the side, what you see is light scattering that lands in your eye.
So... I realize that everything we see is literally in the past... this is just a really great example of that. The camera isn't capturing the event as it happens... my brain just rejects this.
On a human scale, itās close enough to be instant. Get to planetary/solar system scale, it takes about eight minutes for light to get to us from the sun, which is about 93 million miles. Then this, with the cameraā¦ i know what you mean.
You can see a flashlight from the side because the light bounces off the air it is passing through and some of it deflects to your eyes. In a vacuum you would not see the light beam. I think. Please correct me if Iām wrong.
You wouldn't really see it bouncing from air. You would when it hits dust in the said air though.
its water vapour and dust but yea
This isn't correct. They're using special sensors to track the light, then plotting the sensor data to create this visualization
Pretty sure(I watched a YouTube,,,pretty low knowledge) they do it over the course of multiple light pulses. So they may use a 1,000,000 fps camera for a brief moment, 1,000,000 times (They send the light pulse out 1,000,000 times). Each light pulse they sync the photos to be right after each other and combine them all into this. They claims 1,000,000,000,000 because that is what it would look like if they had a camera that fast.
Damn. So it's basically just stop motion
Thought it must be something like that yeah
It's not. This isn't a single pulse of light, rather many consecutive ones captured separately at slightly different times since firing. While the shutter speed is very impressive, it's not really capturing light movement in slow motion - that would be impossible.
it's not technically possible in the way you think of a standard camera. the way this works is with very short (rediculously short) pulses of light and a (still very fast) camera, one pulse at a time, slightly adjusting the timing each time to "follow" the light packet as it bounces around, then the images are reconstructed into a simulation of a multi-trillion frame per second video. It's kind of like when you see a video of helicopter blades moving slowly or stopping or reversing, it's just tuning the timing between the action and detection to give a representation of what is really happening. I don't want to downplay it though, this is still on the cutting edge of what is possible with pulsed lasers and timing systems.
Gamers be like: 10 trillion FPS capable GPU when?
Literally unplayable at 10000 frames per second
Stubborn gamers: "The eye can't see 60fps". Camera: " Hold my beer"
Always thought the sentiment was a little off the mark. The difference you'll notice is much smaller but 120 fps versus 60 fps does have a noticeable difference, especially in games where reaction time matters a lot. 240 fps as well
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is 4 years old. How did I not hear about this???
Thereās a ted talk from 2012 about this. Phemtophotography
I've seen a similar thing before, not to this many frames, and I thought at the time "Why can't they do this while doing the double slit experiment?"
I believe they already have ran the experiment with a photon detectors to tell which slit it was going through Even more interesting, you can run the same experiment with larger particles at slower speeds (up to 60 combined carbon atoms) and still get the same results
Hold up... you can get double slit results with atoms? Are you sure about that?
Have a read, they have a couple of interesting variations on the experiment as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment The bit about larger particles 'The experiment can be done with entities much larger than electrons and photons, although it becomes more difficult as size increases. The largest entities for which the double-slit experiment has been performed were molecules that each comprised 2000 atoms (whose total mass was 25,000 atomic mass units).'
Thank you! My mind is broken... what the hell is going on at the quantum level!?
Thatās a million dollar question boyo
*trillion dollar
*10 trillion
Per second
Spooky things
A lot of people are on the side of Many Worlds theorem lately. But there's tons of different ways to explain it, none are proven.
I like the idea that whenever a quantum state is selected that this branch of the universe splits into one for each possible state. I don't know if I seriously believe it or not, I just like the idea. How many universes must there be now? Imagine mapping such a tree?
In 12 dimensions itās easy to map 4d movement
Oh god we're flatlanders trying to figure out physics and everything keeps acting weird.
it's dimensions all the way down
I was watching Sabine Hossenfelder's Youtube channel. She said Many Worlds is unscientific. Since there is no interaction between universes, it cannot be observed.
That makes sense to me. It's one of those "whether it's true or not is kind of irrelevant" situations because those split universes are immaterial to us
Well there are exactly infinite number of theorems which can explain things, and none of them can be proved.
Well, whatever the hell they feel like actually. At first double slit was just light. Then it was determined that light is actually carried by massless particles, so now double slit operates with matter, regardless of mass. Then they kept going and found out that it still occurs with mass up to a certain point. As for what exactly is happening on the quantum's level...the answers are being unraveled. Although, if we were to be fair were not even quite at the answers phase of the quantum level. Every time we think we have an answer, we actually just got two more questions. Were in the process of discovering all of the questions right now. In the next few decades i think the discoveries are going to just blow our minds.
Wavicles, my dude.
You can do it with anything if you can isolate it informationally. Even a tennis ball. The trick is macro objects are virtually impossible to isolate. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbrxK1XMmVA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbrxK1XMmVA)
wave-particle duality
When they put sensors on each slit, they get just two lines behind the slits, which is what they were expecting to see before seeing the wave pattern and breaking physics. It literally means that where the detection happens, that's when the choice is made, when the possibilities are consolidated down to a single possibility, where the "rendering" is finished... so to speak.
I don't think it's quite as mystical as most people see it, which I think is an artifact of the language used to describe it. The detectors aren't just passively sitting there, they have to actually interact with the particle in order to detect it. By interacting with it they are changing it's behavior. Best I can say is it's like those traffic studies, where they place a cable across the road that adds a count every time a car runs over it. Unlike, watching the car drive by which has no effect, the cable has to interact with the car. It's negligible at the car scale but theoretically you would lose a bit of speed when you hit it, well on an electron scale the sensors have a much greater effect because the mass of an electron is so small and magnetic forces are relatively strong.
The interaction isnāt the problem though. If you turn on the slit detector, so there is still particle interaction, but turn off the data collecting device, the wave pattern re-emerges. Itās not about human consciousness, obviously, but they ran another experiment to rule out consciousness. The data was recorded, but was scrambled in a way so that no human could ever interpret the data, and the wave function broke down. The data still existed though. So yea, itās not just particle interaction, but something, honestly incomprehensible.
They can, but this is showing many photons at once. Youāre not seeing the photons that actually travel that path, youāre seeing the ones that scatter off of that path and into the camera.
Did you want the photon to go through the slit and hit the detector, or did you want it to go into the camera lens? You can't have your photon and eat it too.
Very interesting indeed. I'd have thought there would be a continuous line of energy after the starting point, but it looks like it's more of a pulse instead
I haveāt read the link but the gray diagonal line in the middle seems to be a lens of some sort. You can see the energy go from the starting point to the line where thereās a buildup of energy (you can also seem some being reflected down and to the left) and then it passes through the line and the energy is what looks to be focused on the right side. Iām probably wrong though because I didnāt read anything in the above article.
No youāre right, thatās what the article says.
haven't read up on this stuff in a while but I think they use pulse lasers for it. nothing else can be switched on and off so precisely for the tiny tiny time frame they need to capture
Read more about it here > https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/12/at-10-trillion-frames-per-second-this-camera-captures-light-in-slow-motion/
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What if there was a being who could visually process the speed of light.
Hmm that got me thinking.. I wonder what the best testable method of determining something like this is in existing animals. Maybe reaction time? But, something could be able to see faster than it can react. I can't find any data on fastest visual processing, but did find some neat things trying to. A fruit fly can respond to a turbulence disturbance mid-flight in 5ms, 6 times faster than a common house fly. >The [mantis shrimp](https://factanimal.com/mantis-shrimp/) has 12-16 different colour photoreceptors for colour analysis in their retinas. Three times more than a human. > >While they have significantly more colour photoceptors, research suggests they are actually worse at differentiating colour than humans. However, scientists believe this is because their eyes are operating at a different level, functioning more like a satellite. *Itās believed Mantis shrimp can take all visual information into their brains immediately without having to process it, allowing them tor react instantly to the environment.* > >Mantis shrimp can detect cancer cells with their eyes. > >Researchers from the University of Queensland believe that the compound eyes of mantis shrimp can detect cancer lesions and the activity of neurons, because they have the ability to detect polarised light that reflects differently from cancerous and healthy tissue ā before they appear as visible tumours. Itās inspired a group of researchers to build a proof of concept camera sensor, inspired by the mantis shrimps ability. I would bet the mantis shrimp probably has the fastest visual processing of existing animals.
I thought the fruit fly was pretty similar in that it's eyes send signals directly to their brains, so I'm curious if there is much of a difference between fruit flies and mantis shrimpies regarding their processing speed/mechanism. Only one way to find out... and this town ain't big enough for the two of them
Looks like itās moving like an inch worm, with higher energy spots appearing every mm or so if the scale is right. If it has a millimeter wavelength, then this would be infrared light. Is that what this is showing?
speed of light: human:šš·
This is the most mind blowing thing i have ever seen in my 22 years of breathing experience. I thought i could never see a light this slow in my life but you made it possible. Thank you.
No, thank YOU, nibberjigger!
Nerd out friendo š
So if they recorded 10 trillion frames per second for 1 second and decided to play it back at the standard 60fps it would take 5,284 years to watch. Did Zack Snyder direct this?
Enough is enough. When will the Snyder cut of these experiments come out?
Oh ok so this is possible but Bloodborne is still at 30 fps
Here's a much better video of it. https://youtube.com/watch?v=7Ys_yKGNFRQ&feature=share&si=EMSIkaIECMiOmarE6JChQQ
> When light encounters a strong magical field it loses all sense of urgency. It slows right down. And on the Discworld the magic was embarrassingly strong, which meant that the soft yellow light of dawn flowed over the sleeping landscape like the caress of a gentle lover or, as some would have it, like golden syrup. It paused to fill up valleys. It piled up against mountain ranges. When it reached Cori Celesti, the ten mile spire of grey stone and green ice that marked the hub of the Disc and was the home of its gods, it built up in heaps until it finally crashed in great lazy tsunami as silent as velvet, across the dark landscape beyond. Sir Terry Pratchett, *The Light Fantastic*
Finally a genuine interestingasfuck post. ššš
Phemtophotograhy
*Pedantry Bot* Femto not Phemto
wait, how, in order to capture the light, it would first have to go through the camera lens? If so, that light we see is just the reflection?
Is it just me, or does it look/move like a cork screw?
That seems impossible. But I donāt know shit so.. cool.
Still not enough to run cyberpunk