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

originally posted by: ErosA433
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.

the used an electron microscope to make the picture, but it is a picture

We might comprehend the wave-like nature of light when there are many photons involved (standings waves, interference pattern, etc.) but what about a single photon, produced and used for an experiment on its own? How is it like a wave, as well as being a particle?

I'd love to ask the scientists who took this image to repeat the experiment with only a single photon being used.

a reply to: 0bserver1

I would question what effect taking the measurement/photograph has on the light. By looking you force potential into a measurable outcome. Photons exist all over the place until you actually take a look.

Imagine an electron not moving existing in empty space.

How is it attached to the EM field? What does the EM field appear like surrounding it?

Electrons can never be not moving, electrons intrinsically vibrate, for...no...reason?

Imagine an electron intrinsically vibrating in empty space.

How is it attached to the EM field? What does the EM field appear like surrounding it?

Is the electron just moving in place up and down? How and why?

An electron alone in empty space would vibrate...how and why?

If an electron alone in empty space could stand exactly still, what would be the minimum quantity of non nothing (substance) that you would have to introduce into the region of this lone electron, to get it to move, thus defaultly produce EM radiation?

Once you choose the substance you wish to use, imagine that substance traveling towards the lone electron, planck length by planck length, and keep note of how the substance itself is attached the EM field, and how the EM field appears surrounding it, as it approaches our electron.

If the substance you have chosen is producing EM radiation, we can imagine that before the substance physically touches our lone electron, its EM radiation it is producing, which you know how it is appearing surrounding the substance and how the EM field is attached the substance, so you should also know how the lone electrons em field is appearing surrounding itself, and therefore how the substances EM radiation will interact with the lone electrons local EM field.

So play by play, we are all carefully watching this event unfold, planck length by planck length, so we get all the details, and we see the substances em radiation heading towards the lone electrons local EM field...

and does the substances em radiation interact with the lone electrons EM field?

or does it interact with the physical body the electron itself?

When the substances EM radiation finally interacts with the lone electron/lone electrons local field; is the lone electron moved in the direction the substance was traveling, and the substances EM radiation was traveling?

When a substance is traveling forward is EM radiation produced traveling forward?

When the substances EM radiation finally interacts with the lone electron/lone electrons local field; and the lone electron is subsequently accelerated in (what direction?) some direction; where does the EM radiation which caused the lone electron to accelerate, go exactly, how is its path altered, direction altered?

And; how exactly does the local EM field surrounding the lone electron respond to the lone electron being accelerated via EM radiation from the substance? In which directions surrounding the lone electron at T exactly prior to lone electron acceleration through T exact instance of lone electron acceleration, does the EM radiation generated from the acceleration of the lone electron propagate?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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.

Wow, so this really is a big deal, thanks so much for the info.
I find science and especially QM to be making most remarkable
and intriguing discoveries all the time, and QM in particular
seems to me to be q quite humble field of science.

Thanks again,

Rebel 5

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Somehow I remember this video.. but somehow it's different from this one. But I find it remarkable that they now seem to proof Albert Einstein theory about light being particles and waves at the same time.

great video from the leiden university. .



a reply to: rebelv

They photographed the particle in particular. .something that's almost weird considering that you need light to make a picture from an object I'm still trying to figure that part out myself..

Pretty sure photons aren't particles. Here are some physical experiments to prove it. www.conspiracyoflight.com... Just sayin.

a reply to: LibertyKrueger

Who's DM Marett?

originally posted by: Ultralight
Does this lend more credibility to the John Titor story??

I can barely handle news about my universe, let alone a multiverse.

No. Our universe is divided into multiple perspectives, which sometimes leads to believe there's a multiverse when looking to these pictures. The mulriverse is just a theory whatsoever.

a reply to: 0bserver1

Wow, I always wonder how big a photon is, and the strange 90 degree angle between electrical field and magnetic field. I think photons are ghost electrons

a reply to: LibertyKrueger

Yes they don't have mass but behave as particles and sometimes as waves. Naugty creatures

A photon at rest...has no "rest mass" --- but when the photon is in motion, it does have a particle like property that has mass. For example: When a flashlight is turned on, the photons exhibit a thrust projecting from the light bulb --- which means that a photon has mass when in motion. A couple other examples: Polar photon jets coming out of certain black holes, exhibit a thrust at near the speed of light --- Same goes for a possible photon propulsion unit onboard an interstellar capable starship.

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.

But the observation device is a proxy instrument of consciousness, therefore it knows it will be observed.

So where are the photographs?
Do they release the pictures?

What confuses people about light being a paticle is not only that it isn't it is that they call the measurement tool a photon. A thing that doesn't really exist. Just a measurement metric. This photon has never been identified as to any of it's properties and has zero mass. It is merely a measurement tool. Partical you see is a reaction to heat or energy. Light doesn't create matter. That's obsurd. It affects matter. Light from a fire, static electricity, glowing metal, flouressence , boi luminescent and so on. Are these creating a new matter not on the charts that have no atomic structure or weight? No. reply to: johnwick

a reply to: Blue Shift

Theirs a problem with regards to your statement. When we are asleep and dream we are still operating as an observable consciousness. Only the observable environment ,isn't the same one we are in before we fell asleep. Which by definition makes it another observable reality.