Faster Than Light?

[phillip1882]

this claims a trillion frames per second. isn't that faster than light?

[exchemist]

 

this claims a trillion frames per second. isn't that faster than light?

A frequency is not a speed. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by exchemist

[ralfcis]

I think the real question to ask here is why isn't that light pulse length contracted. Supposedly if you were able to shoot a bullet near c, the Raskar photography would be able to see it length contracted. It's a rhetorical question, no one here has the skills to explain why the light pulse is not length contracted. I myself know length contraction is a total fraud but I'm not sure how relativity would explain how the pulse isn't length contracted but a bullet would be.

 

I posted this question on the physics stack exchange but the chances of getting a definitive answer there are very slim.

Edited September 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[phillip1882]

 

A frequency is not a speed.

well for example if i played a trillion notes per second,my fingers would need to move at that speed.

there must be some aspect of the camera that's moving at that speed.

[GAHD]

Nope. This kinda camera work is solid-state. Majority of the frames are created by having a bunch of different apertures, kinda like how they filmed the matrix slow-motion-spin-around scenes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-018-0044-7

https://www.livescience.com/65113-fastest-camera-captures-speed-of-light.html

Playing ten-trillion notes-per-second isn't hard if you have a trillion pianists on a trillion pianos doing that 10-finger mash.

[exchemist]

well for example if i played a trillion notes per second,my fingers would need to move at that speed.

there must be some aspect of the camera that's moving at that speed.

What speed? You have not mentioned any speed.  

 

But you can work out how far something moving at the speed of light can travel, if it has to do it 10¹² times per second.

 

Light travels at 3 x 10⁸m/sec so an object moving at the speed of light would be able to travel 3 x 10⁻⁴m, i.e. 0.3 mm. Let's say it is only reasonable for anything material to move at 1/3 the speed of light. So that would put a practical limit at the order of 0.1mm.

 

Certainly that is too small to be a conventional camera shutter, but what is the technology used here? If it is some solid state process, as GAHD says, then one is talking of a rearrangement at the atomic or molecular level, which involves physical movement at the scale of 10⁻¹⁰ of a metre. (Typical interatomic distances are of the order of 0.1 nm.)

 

But if it is solid state, then the limit won't be due to this, but to the rate at which the change (from transparent to opaque and back) propagates through the material in response to the stimulus that makes it change state - presumably an electrical impulse. I think we'd need to know more about the technology before commenting further, but I don't see why it would be impossible.

Edited September 23, 2019 by exchemist

[GAHD]

HAH. I posted this in the popsci news feed a few months back after all...Canadian science and engineering tends to be an interest of mine.

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35678-femtosecond-imaging-lets-watch-a-laser-pulse/



 

[exchemist]

HAH. I posted this in the popsci news feed a few months back after all...Canadian science and engineering tends to be an interest of mine.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35678-femtosecond-imaging-lets-watch-a-laser-pulse/

 

 

 

 

So you did! 

 

I must say that I can't follow the Nature article at all. It is clear there are a lot of specialised concepts and methods involved in this that one would have to read up first. 

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

?? Do these pictures support bohemian theory > globules of light being absorbed and re-emitted rather than wave particle duality! I see no wave in the pictures :)

Wave refers to uncertainty. Uncertainty can be removed entirely, one has to increase the coherence time in one of these puppies:

 

 

And guess what? I know how to do it, you have a deleterious bi-brane, areas where the two branes are perpendicular cancel out, each brane is a fractal or fractional dimension between 4 and 6.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

One end of time begins infinitely diffuse, the end of time we emerge from, at leas this version of "we", was like an infinite onion layer

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

I've worded this in other ways as well. In more technical terms.

[ralfcis]

There is no wave visible not because of the usual quantum physics BS rational for everything that is not understood by explaining things with a theory that is not understood but because they run the experiment over and over until they get enough light to  create the pulse you see. It is a composite pulse so it's going to blur the waves together.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

There is no wave visible not because of the usual quantum physics BS rational for everything that is not understood by explaining things with a theory that is not understood but because they run the experiment over and over until they get enough light to  create the pulse you see. It is a composite pulse so it's going to blur the waves together.

Oh no, trust me, there's a way that's new to us. Why do you think NASA took that article off its page?

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

I found it, venturing into the dark pits of insanity and tugging it out

[GAHD]

There is no wave visible not because of the usual quantum physics BS rational for everything that is not understood by explaining things with a theory that is not understood but because they run the experiment over and over until they get enough light to  create the pulse you see. It is a composite pulse so it's going to blur the waves together.

No, that's a single pulse not many pulses. They USED to do multy-pulse and them mix-and-match to try and reconstruct things. Also, you're looking at a macro image of something with a nanometer wavelength and amplitude...you would not "see" a wave in that scenario. The only reason anything is seen at all is because what they send the pulse though is a cloudy medium which refracts the coherent beam. I think they used a bit of milk in water IIRC?

 

The camera picks up the diffraction though a special kind of lens, kinda like a Fresnel lens, which puts the image from different sections onto different receptors over time. That's half the magic of how it captures so many frames so fast. The other half of the magic is a computer cluster assembling all the different receptor signals with timestamps into a movie.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

No, that's a single pulse not many pulses. They USED to do multy-pulse and them mix-and-match to try and reconstruct things. Also, you're looking at a macro image of something with a nanometer wavelength and amplitude...you would not "see" a wave in that scenario. The only reason anything is seen at all is because what they send the pulse though is a cloudy medium which refracts the coherent beam. I think they used a bit of milk in water IIRC?

 

The camera picks up the diffraction though a special kind of lens, kinda like a Fresnel lens, which puts the image from different sections onto different receptors over time. That's half the magic of how it captures so many frames so fast. The other half of the magic is a computer cluster assembling all the different receptor signals with timestamps into a movie.

And there's a newer method that tells the whole story of what qubits of the preons are entangled and to where and for how long. Also tells where the fractal curve strings are perpendicular, the straight strings entangle the diced 3 dimensional curves are concentric and make up the state of the particle for a time.

Edited September 24, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[ralfcis]

I like GAHD's explanation much better.