Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/05/02/new-camera-shoots-at-5-trillio.html
…
2 Likes
Don’t give Peter Jackson any ideas…
7 Likes
About 4.9 trillion per second then I need.
1 Like
Hm. I’m trying to get my head around this, because what I’m reading here doesn’t make much sense:
They claim to have filmed a group of photons by bouncing coded laser light pulses off them?
That’s theoretically possible, but not very likely (http://sciencequestionswithsurprisinganswers.org/2013/09/06/can-one-bit-of-light-bounce-off-another-bit-of-light/)
What am I missing?
1 Like
Pulse and photon aren’t synonymous. According to the article, they’re recording several sequential coded laser pulses, bounced off the subject, in a single exposure, and then cleverly separating each pulse’s image from the exposure to get around limitations in the exposure speed of the camera, which is presumably still mindbogglingly fast. A sequence of exposures is thus multiplied.
'Tis gangster.
3 Likes
Of course it was developed by Swedes, who according to some people aren’t real engineers. /s
1 Like
If the laser doesn’t pulse photons, what does it pulse?
From the article:
“the method involves exposing what you are filming (for example a chemical reaction) to light in the form of laser flashes”
I get that they are using a novel technique to sort out the different ‘frames’ from the one picture. I’m guessing it’s a very highly specialised version of separating red, green and blue components in a color picture, where every component was recorded with a minuscule time delay. And, of course, with many more components…
And therefore they must give the components some form of ‘signature’ to be able to extract them. And yes, this could possibly be done by some sort of laser pulse code.
But that would still be ‘shining photons on the subject and recording the reflection’.
And I’m wondering how they managed to reflect photons of a collection of photons…
It is photons. But it’s not a photon.
ETA: I’m trying to think of a better way to explain this. The article you linked to is something quite different which would not work for a photographic process. What happens here is that coded light is bounced of phenomenon that travel at or near the speed of light, not light itself. They’re not photographing bosons, they’re photographing bosons’ effects on fermions. In fact, even light-light scattering is a fermionic interaction, as the photons must first be transformed via pair production into fermions and then back into bosons via annihilation, thereby playing both roles in the interactive process.
But that is not what this camera does. Admittedly, I can see how the article might give that impression. I’m normally the first to criticize sloppy science reporting, but in this case most lay readers aren’t going to be familiar with the implications of the Pauli exclusion principle (though kudos to you for being better informed), so I’m not too bothered by it.
Anyway, hope the helps. Cheers.
2 Likes
Ken Burns and The Incorporated Kardashians present: WTFJHT and the chemical impossibility of putting neutral lipstick on That (WTFJHTT.)
[Opens with lit GI surgeon explaining the solipsism of the day]
DJ Says Slow it Down.
[And there it is, a very amazing stomach selfie with peeps of various inedible state actors.]
[Commentator:] “We used to say, we need to know where the electrons are. Here we have a lurid catalog of hydrogen, phosphorylation, everything and every frenetic timescale.”
[Pressure-washing sculptural symphony warms up; air-driven, all wearing swim goggles.]
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
