Capturing Light Leaving Its Source: Is it Possible?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ABHoT
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Source
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the feasibility of capturing light as it leaves its source using high-speed cameras. Participants conclude that light can only be detected once it interacts with a detector, making speed irrelevant for capturing the light itself. The concept of using a shutter to capture light pulses is challenged, with the consensus that even at high frame rates, the light would travel significant distances between frames. Additionally, the idea of using dust to visualize light scattering is explored, but ultimately, the notion of filming light in motion remains impractical.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of light behavior and detection mechanisms
  • Familiarity with high-speed photography techniques
  • Knowledge of laser technology and its applications
  • Basic principles of optics and scattering phenomena
NEXT STEPS
  • Research high-speed camera specifications and frame rates
  • Explore the principles of light scattering and its visualization
  • Investigate the physics of light detection and interaction with materials
  • Learn about advanced imaging techniques in optics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, optical engineers, photographers interested in high-speed imaging, and anyone exploring the nature of light and its detection.

ABHoT
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Will it ever be possible to use a high enough speed 'camera' to film light leaving a source?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
No, because light is only detected when it actually hits a detector. Speed is irrelevant.
 
What else than light, is a camera filming ?

Actually a camera IS a detector for light. :wink:
 
Last edited:
Do you mean high enough speed as in the "speed" of a camera? That is, how quickly the picture taking action is?

And actually yah, as russ said, it's irrelevant, the light has to hit the detector/film before it can be detected.
 
I believe you may be able to see a pulse if the laser light is directed away from you and is scattered off dust...but I'm not sure what you'd see since the laser would move as much forward as the scattered light moved towards you at the same time. My guess is that you can't make a shutter move fast enough to resolve anything like this (even at 10,000fps, the light pulse would move 30km between each frame).
 
So don't use a shutter... Or perhaps more to the point: what activates the shutter - a light sensor...?
 
Matterwave said:
I believe you may be able to see a pulse if the laser light is directed away from you and is scattered off dust...but I'm not sure what you'd see
See http://128.183.240.121/apod/ap060125.html".
Here, a shutter time of some weeks would be enough for a sharp picture. Size does matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, since they are very very far away and produce very large shockwaves, we can see this using slow shutter speed since even though the light has moved millions of km in the time between pictures, millions of km on that scale isn't too large. I thought the OP wanted to see something like a laser shooting out of a laser pointer though...
 
Thanks. I was originally thinking of a sphere of light leaving a light bulb. I guess if it was dark and the air was full of dust and you could get that many frames. :\
I understand a bit better now.
 
  • #10
I think I need to drop the seeing is believing when it comes to light and stop imagining filming it traveling for it to still be so.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
783
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
489
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
8K