# Exploring Particle/Wave Duality in Photons

• I
• ndvcxk123
In summary, the light from different objects that hit the pinhole at the same time is still reflected in different colors, but it would have been a blur if photons hit the glass all at once.
ndvcxk123
TL;DR Summary
Issue: How can precise refraction for each of billions of angles happen when slot is narrowed near photon-size?
(Beginner) - W.o. going into particle/wave duality, we know the resultant image came ONLY through something going through this nano opening we left uncovered. We also see that the resultant image still neatly shows diff. colors. But ALL the objects reflecting are sending different colors simultaneously at this nano-opening - My prediction would have been a blur. Saying that photons do not interfere much is unsatisfying, as they hit the glass all AT ONCE, right ? They can't be sequential. (Or, well, at that small size pinholes don't create images?) There is a paper by Slater and W. Weinstein, but could not access it. Thx !

Sorry: what are you talking about ? Can we have a diagram or something ?

russ_watters and DaveE
BvU said:
Sorry: what are you talking about ? Can we have a diagram or something ?
Come on Dave, you know what a pinhole is, :) (this is a small one) - the prob. is what happens at the spot on the lens where diff. light, from diff. locations crowds in there all at once.

russ_watters
If the pinhole is comparable in scale to the wavelength of light you get diffraction patterns, not images.

ndvcxk123, berkeman and russ_watters
berkeman said:
It looks like you still have similar confusions as in your previous thread:

ndvcxk123 and berkeman
ndvcxk123 said:
TL;DR Summary: Issue: How can precise refraction for each of billions of angles happen when slot is narrowed near photon-size?

W.o. going into particle/wave duality
Trying to use a very old fashioned notion like that is really not the best way to approach a very basic classical optics problem. You have to believe me when I say this; you will be chasing your own tail, trying to do it that way .

ndvcxk123
Ibix said:
If the pinhole is comparable in scale to the wavelength of light you get diffraction patterns, not images.
Yeah, thx, I thought that only happened in double slit, but I saw it happens w. single one too....

weirdoguy said:
(Q: Studies optics? No.) - Prev. thread (total novice) my confusion was about "overloading" of each portion of lens w. all radiation sources. Now, (my new confusion :) ) is that if you narrow it down to just one tiny spot, that one should still be massively overloaded, so the process assigning the refrc. angle, (nec. to get a good image on the pixel receptor) should also be overloaded, (as well as the spot). (I realize it is at very, very small scale). What intrigues me too is how non-radiating portions of an image (like the fine details of tiny black tree branches are preserved, so despite the overload, the positioning around those is so precise.

ndvcxk123 said:
Yeah, thx, I thought that only happened in double slit, but I saw it happens w. single one too....
It happens any time light goes through any aperture (this is why images of stars often have rays in telescope photos - it's diffraction caused by the secondary mirror mounts and/or mirror features). It's just easiest to produce and see in something like the double slit.

ndvcxk123
sophiecentaur said:
Trying to use a very old fashioned notion like that is really not the best way to approach a very basic classical optics problem. You have to believe me when I say this; you will be chasing your own tail, trying to do it that way .

Thx, am going to look more into refraction...hv. nice wknd.

ndvcxk123 said:
(Q: Studies optics? No.) - Prev. thread (total novice) my confusion was about "overloading" of each portion of lens w. all radiation sources. Now, (my new confusion :) ) is that if you narrow it down to just one tiny spot, that one should still be massively overloaded, so the process assigning the refrc. angle, (nec. to get a good image on the pixel receptor) should also be overloaded, (as well as the spot). (I realize it is at very, very small scale). What intrigues me too is how non-radiating portions of an image (like the fine details of tiny black tree branches are preserved, so despite the overload, the positioning around those is so precise.
You are still insisting on looking at this as a 'corpuscular' phenomenon. You are bothered about the idea of "Overoading". Air, glass, plastic and water are all linear media. Until you get so much power flowing through them that the material starts to melt / spark / burn then you can say pretty confidently that all these media can handle as much light as you want to chuck through them. So - NO overloading can take place. Overload is a meaningless descriptor. Light can travel through (dust-free) air in all directions with no interaction between the waves. You only see a torch beam because of dust and water droplets which scatter.
Because we are dealing with a wave phenomenon, we can say that everything that lets light pass through it will cause some diffraction and the resulting pattern of light that gets through it will be modified. But, for large objects and big holes (apertures) the diffraction will only be seen as very subtle fringes around any small image.

A ray diagram will work to predict what happens in most systems until you are trying to resolve very fine detail (e.g. two stars or two thin tree branches, very close together and at a great distance)

"non-radiating portions of an image" are treated no differently from radiating light sources by optical systems. A lens / mirror / pinhole knows no difference.

But, from what you have been writing here, it looks as though you have insisted that your personal model has to be the correct one.

• Quantum Physics
Replies
36
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
3K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K