Captured Light. Really amazing. I love science!.. so you're telling me they have a camera that has a framerate of 10 billion or some large number, but the best container they could get was a coke bottle nailed  fucking science
x
Click to expand

Comments(158):

[ 158 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#57 - lolkizza (02/27/2013) [+] (6 replies)
so you're telling me they have a camera that has a framerate of 10 billion or some large number, but the best container they could get was a coke bottle nailed to a peice of wood?
#66 - fefe (02/27/2013) [+] (8 replies)
its impossible for anything to move faster than the speed of light
#67 to #66 - patdunn (02/27/2013) [-]
Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.
#98 - ayenon (02/27/2013) [+] (16 replies)
Each colored bar represents a photo being taken on the timeline. The light is shot through the bottle hundreds or thousands of times (6 times here for simplicity), and takes photos at intervals each time. By the end, you have a full series of images that you can string together into a movie ( in this gif it's the rainbow at the end)   
   
   
made the gid just then, dont hate
Each colored bar represents a photo being taken on the timeline. The light is shot through the bottle hundreds or thousands of times (6 times here for simplicity), and takes photos at intervals each time. By the end, you have a full series of images that you can string together into a movie ( in this gif it's the rainbow at the end)


made the gid just then, dont hate
#4 - grimmapple (02/26/2013) [+] (11 replies)
i don't remember where exactly this happened, but I did see the initial talk given about it. In a dark room, some guys shot as close to a single photon of light from a laser pointer as they could, and then, with a camera taking 10 billion photos a second, they viewed the light as it traveled through this coke bottle. There are theories of how they can use this for seeing into rooms from the hallways, without blasting radiation into random locations, more efficient medical scans and other stuff. I'm getting a lot of use out of this picture recently.
#26 - octobadger (02/27/2013) [+] (6 replies)
In order to this this the frame rate would have to be faster than the speed of light. The camera would actually time travel.
In order to this this the frame rate would have to be faster than the speed of light. The camera would actually time travel.
#27 to #26 - anonmynous (02/27/2013) [-]
Umm... the camera is not moving. And yes this is real. It takes light approximately 1 nanosecond to travel the distance in this video so you need a camera that can essentially take one shot ever 10 pico seconds to produce a video like this.
#138 - goodpsize (02/27/2013) [-]
**goodpsize rolls 55**
User avatar #112 - zevran (02/27/2013) [+] (6 replies)
Er, I doubt this is legit. Don't know much about the specifics of why this wouldn't work. But I doubt serious scientists would conduct such an experiment in a cola bottle.

Unless the Cola marketing budget is way bigger than I though of course.
User avatar #87 - Rockycrack (02/27/2013) [+] (11 replies)
For all those ********* saying you cant travel faster than light
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
Light travels slower through water. Cherenkov radiation are due to electrons moving faster than light.
You can't travel faster than light IN SPACE
#132 - artificialego (02/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #47 - luidias (02/27/2013) [+] (3 replies)
ITT people not understanding the difference between framerate and the velocity of light.

the frame rate does not depend on velocity because it does not have a displacement component. The frame rate is based entirely on the interval between each frame (i.e it only has a time component and a unit-less 'number of frames' component). Basically, you just need a camera that takes multiple frames in the amount of time that it would take the light beam to travel from one end of the field of view to the other.

tl;dr Stop saying that this is impossible because "the camera needs to travel faster than light". that's not how it works.
User avatar #49 to #47 - luidias (02/27/2013) [-]
P.S. what I believe the scientists did in this case was capture different portions of the light beam travelling at a time, then stitched it together to make a full video. Their system was fully repeatable, so they can record different portions of many identical light beams. this enabled them to emulate an even higher framerate than technically possible.
#20 - heafi (02/27/2013) [+] (2 replies)
There is one aspect of slomo photography that always confuses me.    
Shouldn't it be impossible to take so many pictures per second, because to slow it down so much, parts of the camera would have to move faster than light (which is impossible).   
   
Or did they just make photos of multple tries and put them togehter?
There is one aspect of slomo photography that always confuses me.
Shouldn't it be impossible to take so many pictures per second, because to slow it down so much, parts of the camera would have to move faster than light (which is impossible).

Or did they just make photos of multple tries and put them togehter?
User avatar #21 to #20 - allamericandude (02/27/2013) [-]
It's not really a trillion frames per second, it's just a very clever simulation. And you don't need fast moving parts, you just need a very precise timing mechanism. The video of the bottle wasn't taken all at once. The bottle is lit with a laser that fires very short pulses, and the camera is triggered to take a picture of these pulses--but it only captures a [nearly] one dimensional horizontal strip of the entire scene. As more pulses are fired, the camera pans down and completes the image.

That's my botched explanation, at least. Here's a proper article about it:
www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/is-this-really-one-trillion-frames-per-second/
#155 - alucardshellhound (02/27/2013) [+] (1 reply)
**alucardshellhound rolled a random image posted in comment #51 at Wingardium Pubertyosa! **
#110 - thatguyuknowtheone (02/27/2013) [+] (2 replies)
calling shenanigans want sauce
User avatar #42 - amegaara (02/27/2013) [-]
why the hell is everyone thinking the camera is moving faster than light speed you can clearly see that the camera is stationary in the gif
#150 - fefe (02/27/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Remember Sun-Baby from Teletubbies? I just realised, it's their God.
Sun-Baby watches over them but why is it always laughing? You see it created the Tele-Verse and The Teletubbies. They live freely and happily but everyday when that Sun-Baby rises up, it's not laughing because it's happy to see it's creation at work, no, Sun-Baby is plotting their destruction. They have sinned and gone against the Tele-Bible. Tinky-Winky was gay, an affront to Sun-Baby God, it clearly states that in the Tele-Bible. They ignored Sun-Baby, forgetting it was what forged their existence. Sun-Baby was angered and destroyed the Tele-Verse. This is what happens when you ignore our God. Do you want to end up like the Teletubbies? PRAISE GOD!
Teletubby Apocalypse, it happened. It was a full on Tele-Caust, it was brutal. You try to deny it but we all know what happened.
DAMN YOU SUN-BABY AND YOUR SADISTIC TUBBY SLAUGHTERING! HOW CAN YOU SMILE ABOUT THIS? DO YOU HAVE NO SOUL SUN-BABY!
#153 to #150 - kafudamapla (02/27/2013) [-]
Remember Noonoo from Teletubbies? I just realised, it's their hoover.
#85 - mrmoxie (02/27/2013) [+] (2 replies)
Scientists should stop dicking around with stuff like this, and find a damn cure for cancer.   
/b/ would be so much healthier.
Scientists should stop dicking around with stuff like this, and find a damn cure for cancer.
/b/ would be so much healthier.
User avatar #96 to #85 - frolacosta (02/27/2013) [-]
Because a scientist who is an expert in physics and light will know how to cure cancer won't they
User avatar #25 - McBalls (02/27/2013) [+] (1 reply)
And the didnt think to take the ******* label off?
#28 to #25 - anonmynous (02/27/2013) [-]
It probably helps so you can see the illumination, if they filmed this going through empty space you couldn't see it because you can see a laser beam from the side.
User avatar #12 - ragdollrade (02/26/2013) [+] (2 replies)
This makes no sense though. As if we were to see a photon travelling in that picture, we would in fact see nothing as the light would not have reached us yet. It would still be travelling in that line, and since photons do not interact with themselves light could not radiate from light travelling. What we're seeing here is some travelling object that radiates light.
User avatar #14 to #12 - oniryuuko (02/26/2013) [-]
Actually, they sent the light through a liquid filled with another material to scatter the light.
From a comment below:
www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html
[ 158 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)