Really neat video

[r4pt0r]

https://curiosity.com/paths/super-fast-cameras-nova-pbs/?utm_source=facebookDisc&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=2015q3fbMITCameraDiscMB#super-fast-cameras-nova-pbs

[Flymetothemun]

I've always heard of this camera but never saw a video on it. Really neat.

[Endersmens]

Wow. That was...amazing. I never thought I would witness light traveling like that.

[Norpo]

"Super Fast Camera"

...Understatement of the year award goes to PBS!

[Endersmens]

Having trouble deciding if this is real actually...someone made a good point about the way an eye (or camera) absorbs light. Hmm. Anyone have input?

[Endersmens]

This is the article that got me wondering. It mentions that we don't see light by casting our vision at it, we perceive light as it goes into our eyes. This is the same way a camera works. The author is arguing that we wouldn't be able to see the laser beam going through the bottle.

However, my mind has come up with a solution, albeit a mind boggling one.

So, the laser light enters the bottle. At the speed of the camera, it takes several seconds for the beam to go through the bottle, at the speed of light. Well, the way we can actually see the beam, is that the light bounces out of the bottle towards the camera, giving us a visual of the beam. If this is true, that means that however long it takes the beam to travel the distance of the bottle, it would take the light bouncing out of the bottle that long to travel that far, in any direction. So if the camera is say, 3 bottle lengths away from the bottle, it would take 3 times the amount of time it takes the beam to cross the bottle (in the camera playback) for the camera to actually see the beam. That means that even at that crazy camera speed, light is so fast that the camera can't see the light until it's already through the bottle!

Which gives a whole new perception to the video, we aren't witnessing the light go through the bottle, we're witnessing the visual of the light going through the bottle after the light has already passed through the bottle. Light is so fast that we will never be able to actually see the light as it passes through, due to the fact that our vision is limited by that very same speed of light.

Is my theory somewhat correct?

[cantab]

Pretty much. Although in special relativity ideas like "it's already through the bottle" become slippery.

And yeah, it's a bit of a fudge really for the reasons mentioned - the strobe analogy is a good one. It's still an awesome piece of work with potential uses, but it's not a straight high-speed camera.

On the topic of "seeing light", well you see anything when it either emits, reflects, or refracts light. Light itself can do none of those things, so indeed technically you're not seeing the light but the objects illuminated as the light pulse passes through. But this seems somehow pedantic. We seem quite happy to talk of seeing laser beams in real life, ignoring that actually you're seeing dust lit up by the laser.

[Endersmens]

Pretty much. Although in special relativity ideas like "it's already through the bottle" become slippery.

And yeah, it's a bit of a fudge really for the reasons mentioned - the strobe analogy is a good one. It's still an awesome piece of work with potential uses, but it's not a straight high-speed camera.

On the topic of "seeing light", well you see anything when it either emits, reflects, or refracts light. Light itself can do none of those things, so indeed technically you're not seeing the light but the objects illuminated as the light pulse passes through. But this seems somehow pedantic. We seem quite happy to talk of seeing laser beams in real life, ignoring that actually you're seeing dust lit up by the laser.

Yes, so much yes. I've had to argue that point for so long.

Glad my theory was mostly correct.

[Shpaget]

It's a stop motion camera, not a high speed one.

The "shutter" is fast, but the frame rate not so much.

[Plume & Akakak]

It's a stop motion camera, not a high speed one.

The "shutter" is fast, but the frame rate not so much.

Good remark .

Still fascinating though.