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

originally posted by: NiZZiM
a reply to: roth1

Why would a wire out gas in a vacuum? They even say that they're just measuring the energy gain/loss of the electrons that interact with the photons not the wire itself. Links not workin for me so I can't see what the wires made of, but I doubt such low energy levels would cause out gassing.

Well in vacuum things act quite strangely compared to how we usually experience them. Outgassing is one such thing. Now hopefully not insulting anyones intelligence but i hope to provide a better answer than roth1 provided. Surface finish of materials and their cleanliness matters a great deal. Surfaces capture gasses, gasses freeze out, liquids sublimate, lots of interesting things.

Materials such as acrylic glass, you find actually absorb and hold onto lots of water and atmospherics within their bulk.

Getting them out is mostly a random thermal walk, and then an equally random thermal ejection from the surface of a material. This can be accelerated by heating, or giving the molecule just enough of a kick that it departs the surface and hopefully doesnt stick onto the next thing it comes into contact with (which usually it will)

Soooo out-gassing is an important thing to take into account when trying to achieve high vacuum and ultra-high vacuum. How it pertains to this experiment i am unsure of except maybe to reduce noise from the electrons hitting the materials involved rather than the photons, OR hitting the residual gasses that float around the chamber of the experiment.

Does this mean that being empirical, one way or another is not possible ? Kind of knocks dogmatic statements to the curb don't you think !

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Does this mean that being empirical, one way or another is not possible ?

Why would you conclude this?

a reply to: GetHyped

Well science at times would lead us to believe it is settled . Some science IMO is just as political and so works like a pendulum that will at some point take a different kind of consensus . Not all scientific inquire of course but the ones that shape the public's world views .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Believe what is settled? What does this have to do with empirical evidence?

a reply to: GetHyped

Is light a particle ? Is light a wave ? Can we know empirically ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yes, we've measured both properties. That's the definition of emperical.

a reply to: dr1234

No harm done, I merely trying to understand the quantum science and technology. Maybe I will read that book just to understand it better. Its fascinating that quantum sciences and biologies are going to be the next stepping stone of the future of all that comes.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: johnwick

Depending on whether they will be observed or not.

That is what makes the difference.

It was proved beyond doubt in the double slit experiment.

The presence or lack of an observer decides particle or wave form.

An observer can be a person or detector doesn't matter.

Yes I'm well aware of how it works. I'm glad you mentioned the fact that it's not just conscious observers which can collapse the wave function. Any detector placed at the slits will cause the photon to act as a point-like particle even if the results of the detector are never observed by a human being. That is just the result of entanglement and decoherence imo.

So does it just boil down to the simple fact that "There is no spoon"?

originally posted by: 0bserver1
"The first ever photograph of light as a particle and a wave "

Interesting experiment, but the claim it's the first ever photograph of light as a particle and a wave doesn't seem credible.

Look at these camera images uploaded in 2008 showing both particle and wave properties at the same time:

Interference pattern built up photon by photon

It shows how individual photons, transmitted through a double slit, form an interference pattern. It shows wave-particle duality of light.

The particle nature of light is photographed as a white point each time a photon strikes, and the wave nature can be seen in the interference pattern so both wave and particle properties are clearly visible at the same time. I'm not saying this video is the earliest photograph of light as a particle and a wave either, as I think this experiment was done even earlier in Japan.

I can't really say for sure which photograph should get that title, but I don't think it's the "photograph" cited in the OP video, which I'd call an "image" instead of a photograph. The series of 200 frames above in "Interference pattern built up photon by photon" is actual photography and not computer generated imagery.

If these camera images from 2008 don't prove the title of this thread is false, I'd like somebody to explain why they think otherwise.

a reply to: GetHyped

Yes, we've measured both properties.

Am I wrong to think as a particle as a thing and a wave as a function ? To me a wave seems to be a effect of a disturbance .

this is interesting because up until now we have only been able to either see it as a wave or as a particle, which it actually is.

but did they actually take a picture of both @ the same time or is it a double exposure

since it is actually a standing wave, then i would say it's a double expsoure

Lol Op, it looks like a computer generated image. But the average temperatures on the earth in the summer, when compared between the northern and southern hemispheres makes it abundantly clear that the sunlight consists of something digital, namely photons.
a reply to: 0bserver1

a reply to: bigx001

This is still a statistical analysis, there is no 'exposure' so to speak as in a conventional image, but an analysis, this graphical dictation is the resulting data.

a reply to: 0bserver1

Responsible observing is a practice which is directly related to this phenomenon.

a reply to: 0bserver1

Fascinating. I thought The Uncertainty Principle
claimed you couldn't know both. Has that Principle
now been proven incorrect or maybe I'm wrong,
its been a long time since I studied Quantum Mechanics.

Rebel 5

a reply to: rebelv
I wouldn't say the uncertainty principle has been proven incorrect.
As far as I know it still applies to things like position and momentum.

You're correct that a long time ago it was also thought to apply to waves versus particles, but this paper talks about some experiments in the last decades of twentieth century, and ways we need to re-think the exclusivity (or lack thereof) of wave versus particle observations:

Updating the wave-particle duality

The wave-particle-duality, the fundamental component of the new quantum formalism in Bohr’s opinion, must be reformulated by incorporating the results of some experiments accomplished in the last decades of twentieth century....

Today, it is clear that intermediate particle-wave behaviours exist and, in addition to that, there are single experiments in which both classical wave-like and particle-like behaviours are showed total and simultaneously on an individual system.

I think it's translated and lost something in the translation but hopefully you can get the general idea if you wish to read that.

originally posted by: roth1

As the electrons pass close to the standing wave of light, they "hit" the light's particles, the photons. As mentioned above, this affects their speed, making them move faster or slower.

BS, light is not a particle, it is a wave.

Read, it excites particles, it was aimed at a different substrate. Does air have particles? IS not Oxygen and Hydrogen made up of proton electron and neutrons? What they claimed as the particle. What was the wire made up of? Was the temperate of the light enough to excite anything or make something out gas?

Not discounting any research that has been done. Just the conclusion they found.

I will be posting a real article later on this subject to clarify all the misconceptions.

Joke/ Scientists tested a frog. they cut off his legs. They said jump. The frog did not respond. They then concluded that when you cut off a frogs legs it then becomes deaf.

If it's that simple I'm looking forward to you explaining the double slit experiment where light manifests as a particle.

originally posted by: AllIsOne

originally posted by: roth1

As the electrons pass close to the standing wave of light, they "hit" the light's particles, the photons. As mentioned above, this affects their speed, making them move faster or slower.

BS, light is not a particle, it is a wave.

Read, it excites particles, it was aimed at a different substrate. Does air have particles? IS not Oxygen and Hydrogen made up of proton electron and neutrons? What they claimed as the particle. What was the wire made up of? Was the temperate of the light enough to excite anything or make something out gas?

Not discounting any research that has been done. Just the conclusion they found.

I will be posting a real article later on this subject to clarify all the misconceptions.

Joke/ Scientists tested a frog. they cut off his legs. They said jump. The frog did not respond. They then concluded that when you cut off a frogs legs it then becomes deaf.

If it's that simple I'm looking forward to you explaining the double slit experiment where light manifests as a particle.

I thought that is exactly what i did. I said the particles are already there, they did not come from light. Do you dispute that everything is made up of protons, electrons and neutrons. Or that dust particles ect.. don't already exist in the air ? Or the object with the double slit is not made of something? All matter is exited by energy. That is a fact.

originally posted by: roth1
Do you dispute that everything is made up of protons, electrons and neutrons.

Light isn't. Those things have mass and light doesn't. In fact ~95% of the universe is not baryonic matter (like protons, neutrons).