@@vcv5021 , thank you kindly. So I guess I have to take that number and take that other number and / that number??? And then I get the years! Would you do me one more favor and tell me how many years it would take in comparison to light?
What I love about laboratory buildings is that you'll have this astounding, mind blowing technology that's just behind a boring grey door labelled "CUP".
This is mind blowing. When I graduated with my physics degree I never imagined I would live to see the day humanity could accomplish this! I would recommend doing a double slit experiment with this camera, it should be awesome!
@Bowhuntertexas I wouldn’t normally wade in, but this is a frustrating comment. Just because you can’t conceive how something works doesn’t automatically mean it’s fake. Physics isn’t the limitation here - your depth of understanding is.
@@flodgey Hawking doesn't have much to do with it, mate, apart from being a physicist. Plus, he's seen it. He passed away recently, not 60 years ago. Einstein would've cried tears of joy because he discovered the Photoelectric effect (for which he was awarded his Nobel prize), which shows that light consists of particles (refered to as quanta or photons). This can be seen here especially well in the trapped photon experiment where it bounced like pong.
Wouldn't you only be able to see a photon as a particle? If you're observing it from the gun all the way to the screen, it would have to behave like a particle the entire way, and it would only pass through one slit.
@@jeffn9952I doubt you would be able to see a “particle”, as a photon isn’t really a particle in the macroscopic sense of the word. But I’d definitely love to see this experiment.
It gets even more mind-blowing when you think about the fact that the observable universe is 93 billion light years across. Keep in mind that it's only the observable part.
@@swanihilator6748 yep, i personally believe that matter goes on forever. Considering it would be scientifically impossible for matter itself to have an end.
@@zxckon It goes on forever. But, then there's not enough heat displacement throughout the universe, and all life that relies on heat in some way ceases to exist.
@@swanihilator6748 And to think there are billions upon billions of 'Earth-like' planets that are within observable galaxies. I mean, the universe is so massive it can take several decades to reach one point to another, even while traveling at light speed. Yet, there are still imbeciles who 'refute' the existence of extraterrestrial species.
Seems like most people think that the universe is like the size of our solar system times a million 🤣 Yeah...MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH BIGGER.. And then that times 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. And then A LOOOOOOT more. The Earth is so small, it almost doesn't even exist.
I think it was, because how would the pulse stay collimated after bouncing off a curved surface a dozen times? Unless they cheated and just put flat sections of mirror where they calculated the ideal beam would hit...
It's almost hard to comprehend what a huge step this was in terms of technological development. The speed of light is the speed limit of the universe itself, there is now nothing in the universe that we know of that's too fast for us to see. That's genuinely mind blowing.
Uh, no, not the speed of light, but the speed of light in a vacuum. That's not what we see here. And when not in a vacuum, the speed of light is not the limit any longer, see the Cherenkov radiation.
@@sergeyromanov2116 isn’t speed of light in vacuo basically impossible tho, since nowhere in the universe is really a true vacuum? Obviously we can’t observe that, it doesn’t really exist in practical sense
@@brandonhughes4076 how does it matter whether it is possible in the real world? It's still the limit that cannot be beaten (whereas the speed of light in a medium can be both reached and beaten, as happens all the time, I gave you an example). So your response is a non sequitur, since it does not address my criticism of your comment.
@@saitoh5424 theoretically yes, but our models of special relativity and general relativity break down at speeds faster than the speed of light. General consensus among physicists is that it may be possible for something to be faster than the speed of light, but because the speed of light itself is impossible, nothing that’s slower than light will ever go faster and nothing that’s faster than light will ever go slower
When they said that if you fired a bullet through the same frame it would take years to get to the other side, I think that finally put the speed of light into a proper perspective for me
Mines only 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 but I wanted 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fps :(
I just came across from the video of Verisatium, saying that this kind of experiment is a two-way measurement (like the light that travel from A to B and the light going to lenses of the camera). He added that no one really measure one-way (hence, no one exactly knows the exact speed of light). I find it so fascinating. My mind blown.
I’m trying to figure out how it is posible too. I’ve watched Versatium’s video and he said clearly that doing this way the measurement, the real speed of light can’t be measured, my mind is blowing now.
@@haroldy.estrada9391 That's why they are shooting the beam of light through water bottles and dairy milk. Light slows down depending on what it's traveling through, so they slow light down just a fraction in order for it to show up on camera. You couldn't film light going it's true speed because cameras need to absorb that light in order to create the picture, so the camera would be taking pics faster than light can move.
I don't know if i'm missing something here. But isn't it the basic principle of seeing?..light reflects from something and falls on your eye or camera lense and it sees.. How can you catch something that is allowing you to see in the first place.
@@someonenoone6653 exactly. That's why no one really measures the exact speed. When we try to measure the speed of the light, we are going to use our eyes or camera and in order to measure that, we use our eyes or camera lens, light also travels to our eyes/camera lens while measuring (that will affect how we measure the speed of the light). Isn't it fascinating? Lol
Seems clear to me that you CAN measure the one-way speed of light. The light travels along a linear path with distance markers. Count the frames, measure how far the light travelled, and do the math. If the tiny variation in distance from the light to the camera (or in the lens, etc) would slightly stretch the timing, then adjust for it with the math - these are known variables! It's true that by the time the first few frames of light movement actually gets to the camera, the experiment might already be over. But that just means all frames are equally delayed (no matter what the speed is from experiment to camera). In my view, how can we say this is not an accurate way to measure the one-way speed of light? If the key factor is EXACT speed, then forget about it. Nothing can ever be measured EXACTLY.
Windows 7 is the best OS Microsoft has made, it's been downhill for them ever since. Be glad it wasn't a windows 8 which is by far the worst OS to exist.
@@Photologistic That is because Macs are made by Apple and Apple keep their products extremely minimalistic. There is literary nothing worth copying as doing so would be a downgrade due to removing features to fit the Apple theme.
@douglas wahid The guy with the anime shirt that the sjws bullied till NASA forced him to give a public apology? That alone shows why sjws are the scum of the Earth and should be thrown out of an airplane.
Unfortunately I don't think Gav and Dan really understand that this technique does _NOT_ involve real-time frames-per-second. It's a series of stills, with the timing advanced so many picoseconds for each successive shot. The record for _real_ -time successive fps is ~25 million and that's a framing-camera, technically, not a motion-picture camera. The fastest true motion-picture fps is 10 million fps, by Shimadzu's latest iteration of their HPV-X2 system.
@Dd Jim if you literally search on Google "what is the highest FPS your eyes can see" it will say 1000 FPS. So even more than what I said, and definitely more than your "PhD" friend
@@irigm6132 I'm pretty sure it's not just one lens, it's at least 5-6 to a ton more synchronized so perfectly against a mirror it looks like one camera. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong
@@clashmastr9895 when light pass through liquid it effect it's speed but still very much faster than anything in the world. If they had used multiple lenses and liquid many more transparent material still camera system is not fast enough to catch it, camera internal system which create frame works on electronic devices and speed of electron are too slow compare to light. This is a joke
The idea is based on a "streak camera", but extended in to 2D instead of 1D. They take a single image which captures some tiny duration of light propagation, but its time domain is spread across a spatial domain, so they essentially turn time into space, so it does not require an ultrafast processor. The resulting video is produced after the fact, based on the data captured.
@@bladepanthera Since we can't actually measure the speed of light atm that is the closest thing we can do, guestimate. Still mighty impressive what a gigabrain thought that up.
Moving off Windows 7 is way too scary for the old men running the show who didn't want to be on camera. They wouldn't be able to print their emails on Linux because they couldn't find a driver for their bubblejet printer
@@rodrigoreyesmorrell5792 well no, the definition of clickbait is literally to put a title / thumbnail not reflecting the content. This is an appealing title, it's not clickbait.
the dumb thing is that this camera doesn't do any of this like a normal camera. it records a little of the image sequentially for each several Pico seconds. then it moves a mirror and does it all over again with the next laser pulse a couple Pico seconds later. it's not actually filming at those speeds, it's reconstructing what it would look like to film at those speeds.
@@theezenith only took a couple of years to go from 10 trillion to 70 trillion. I don't get why though, there doesn't seem to be any point in going any further.
"I just feel like no human should ever have seen this" - Words right out of my mouth... It's too awestriking to be viewed so casually, feels like we cheated and invaded its privacy or a sanctuary of some sort
@@twotwizzler1466 Photons always travel at the same speed everywhere but by convention we say that light travels slower through glass, air ect. So light travels "faster" in the vacuum of outer space that it does in earth atmosphere because it is full of gas molecules that delay the photons. So technically the same speed just hindered by the atmosphere.
@@twotwizzler1466 it only goes slower because the molecules reflect it. For instance say we put you on a grass field. You have to walk to the other side. This is like light travelling through space. You take the shortest route and get there fastest. Now same field but this time obstacles everywhere. This is like light travelling through the atmosphere. You have to take a route around the obstacles. You will still take the shortest route, but because you have to go around the obstacles, the route is longer, thus you take more time to get to the other side of the field.
@@rubensteinfinsteraarhorn9028 the video even beyond: filming the traces of the void previous to the existing world at 100 googol gets frames per second (1 googol is 10 raised to the power of 100)
@@VeryUsefulGadgets edit: for all confusing people there, I’m rewording it, so if we say that we freeze world that much that in 6 seconds for our perception would pass 50 picoseconds for surrounding world, the ratio per second would be 8.33 picoseconds of surrounding world per 1 second of our perception, now we take 1 real second and divide it by 8.33 picoseconds which would be 0.12 seconds that would be difference between speed of our perception and time that would go, so it would be in picoseconds 120000000000 which for us would be like seconds, now if we convert it into a years it would be 3805 years for our perception, so yeah technically its cap but practically if you would be in freezing time you will go insane and loose count.
@@tarmoheinonen4645 nothing in the universe can cross the speed of light. But in order to capture the speed of light you need a camera whose lens can capture photoes otherwise open and close faster than speed of light. So its impossible
I think you're right that the light has to bounce off the milk and scatter towards the camera which takes additional time, but that's happening continuously as the beam travels from left to right so although there is an additional delay, I don't think it changes the overall *rate*. Therefore I disagree, I think we are actually seeing "the speed of light".
Yeah but it’s not real time. It’s taking a single photo from one pulse of the laser. It then sends another pulse and takes another photo slightly later and then all the photos are stacked and turned into the video. So it’s not slow mo strictly
if that was real time it would take atleast thousands of years to walk 4 centimeters you would be able to move so fast in real time your legs would explode off
Imagine how much we are missing. How much we are un aware of. Walking around say Las Vegas at night, at literally the time span of one blink you your eye you have missing hundreds of trillions of events happening right in front of you.
@@djgynee Agreed. I plan on working in astrophysics, but not really my point, more observing space in general. and honestly if all cameras could have this power, imagine what we could do with our observational technology while studying far away objects. Of course it'd have taken years to reach us, that's obviously what a light-year is but if our cameras were this powerful we could probably see everything
Kind of mind blowing to see how fast light is moving and to realize we are so far from the sun that it takes 8 minutes for the light to get here. I don’t think my brain can fully grasp that kind of distance.
@Henry Paluck thanks mate. Have a look at special relativity. If you were moving at the speed of light (either you found infinite energy lying around or you are massless) then you don't experience time. Obviously from anyone on Earth's perspective you would you be moving away at light speed.
@Zavier Alfretzie exactly like that Interstellar movie. You may be able to get anywhere in space instantly for you but errything you knew and loved gonna be gone by the time you get there.
@@kurtpachernegg3140 If you could, quote "travel at that speed" (which implies motion), you would get there in 4.37 years, since that is the time it takes traveling from Earth to Alpha Centauri at light speed. But realistically, if you talk about "traveling" in a figurative sense, you could theoretically get there in an extremely small amount of time (if you can achieve near-100% efficiency). However, a massless human would still experience time. [Correction: I did not properly consider time dilation, which means less time would pass for you, but for everyone and everything else that time would still pass during your travel. Essentially you would be ~4 years younger than a human staying on Earth]
Honestly it is so extreme and incredible that I dont feel mindblown... I just feel like I can't get a grasp on how fast that thing is, my mind is trying to compare it to things I know, to make it more real and it is a bit frustrating not to be able to 😂
@@JohnnyBGoode-xn9mo Hm, let me try something, you tell me if that tickle your brain - Light cover in one second more distance that you probably will ever travel in your life (if you are in the average travel distance of a human being) - Light travels in one second what you would travel in 14 days at commercial airliner speed (around 900 kph). With a back of the envelope estimation, that means you would have to travel nearly non-stop from airport to airport around the world for at least 20 days if no more (with landing, take-off; waiting for the next plane and so on) in order to match what light can travel in a mere second.
The second one was a 1 femtosecond laser pulse. To put that in perspective there are more femtosecond in 1 second than there have been seconds since the beginning of the universe.
Its not like they claimed light is only a partical. Einstein used the duality of light to consider it as a partical(photons) wave to prove the photo electric effect.sorry for my English. Not my first language
Unfortunately, that's not possible - the technique requires exceptionally precise timing between the light pulse and the camera, which can only currently be achieved using lasers (which only emit a single wavelength and thus have no spectrum to split).
I was under the impression.that the laser only shoots one burst at a time and then they advance the timing between each frame. Stitch it all together as if it were a stop motion animation.
