I've been waiting several days for this one to show up on my feed. I saw a few other news posts about this topic and thought to myself, "Anton will do a video on this soon!"
Mr. Petrov, you are one of my favorite podcasts because of your direct, straightforward approach. I believe you are earnest and have no agenda other than honest reporting of information.
still not clear how a single photon can "look" like anything, nor what that image actually represents. things having a visual appearance is such a macro-level, human interpretation of the universe I don't see (!) how it can apply at the quantum level of a photon.
The best way to think about this is through an analogy. First, we have the electromagnetic field, which is made up of two portions: the mode (a solution to Maxwell's equations), and the photon (a discrete amount of energy that can be placed into a mode or superposition of modes). In this case we limit ourselves to a single photon, meaning only a discrete amount of energy can be used. The mode effectively determines where the photon is most likely to be. Now the question that the paper here is interested in is "what does the mode look like?" As you thought you can't "measure/determine" the mode using only a single photon, however, you can if you use trillions that are identically prepared. If you've ever seen the double slit performed using a single photon where they produce an image of the interference by measuring many trials of the experiment (building up an image photon by photon), this is exactly the same. Just in the case of the double slit the mode has a shape that is determined by something that physically blocks the light.
@@QuantumFringing A single 360 cycle of EMF of a certain energy to essentially surmount the 'forward voltage' of the aether is why light can be in specific packets of minimum energy, but it is not a particle.
I love how you are the person from whom I get to hear so many amazing new things. It's as if, because you're the intermediary, they all get given a special compassionate spin.
Testing them is _always_ the foundation though - _that's_ what science _actually_ is, first and foremost it's empirical. Imagination as a way to generate _testable_ hypotheses is part of the science toolbox. Imagination pointed in any random direction, not so much.
I had quite a laugh when I read about it in the news, they said that scientists discovered what a photon looks like and referred to the 'photo' of it. Like it was actually photographed!
Yeah, it's nonsense, guessing on guessing on guessing. That how science has to be done, but then you create proof so it's no longer a guess, that hasn't happened here, and it won't, light isn't a particle, we just don't understand physics at the atomic level properly yet, hell we don't even know why a Crook's Radiometer works, more guesses.
Anton, you are my favorite break, from watching news the rest of my day! Your reports truly expand my mind. Ironically, like this particular video, I am 'enlightened'!! Every sense of the word in this case.
human brain prefers to give false positives rather than false negatives if youre seeing a tiger's eye, you need to react to a tiger, or you definitely die if you see a tiger's eye, but it isnt, you need to react like it's a tiger's eye anyway, because if you decide not to you may die. in nature false positives in thought and perception are selected for, but they get in the way of truth.
All I do is art and politics... and politics has become less and less about facts or logic and more on feelings. Your channel is like a shower for my brain. Thank you.
It's always been like that. In general, people are more easily convinced by means of feelings than by means of logic: the former is unconscious, the latter requires effort.
@@Juan-qv5nc Fundamentally I agree it has been like this forever. However I disagree when we talk about the current landscape because the key difference is social media and influencers.. and the very drastic difference in the ammount of viewers they get compared to regular media that has regulations. There is zero comparison and this is a very new to this time only thing on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity. It makes us all more stupid... plain and simple. Makes the newbs the expert and the experts the newbs and not in a good way. Anton is a breath of fresh air.
@@RANSOME99 I agree that is happening, but I wouldn't say it's the main contributer to increased emotion in politics. Mostly because "regular media" makes use of the same emotional appeals as the influencers do. I think people are becoming more emotional about politics because they are being pushed by algorithms into increasingly radical echo chambers where the opposition is misconstrued and demonized. People have lost faith that we're all trying to do what's right, and it causes a lot of vitriol
i wonder if many viewers truly understand how monumentally significant it is what Anton does here for us all , not only the selfless act of doing the research and creating the videos but the ability to translate and convey so much complex information in such a succinct and effective way ; he is earning his place amongst the greatest science communicators of all time , the likes of Carl Sagan and James Burke to name a couple legends imho
Not taking away from what he does as this channel rocks but there is NOTHING selfless about it - do you see his subscriber numbers? View counts? Patreon numbers? This is his JOB - and he's very successful at it and is likely making a very high 6 figure salary (depending on if he pays editors, etc). Great channel: Yes Selfless channel: No
Because you are a teacher AND you also give back so much to the rest of us in this great public forum, you are one of the smartest people on Earth right now. That and the cosmological knowledge, of course. ;-)
This is fascinating research. I totally appreciate how you break down these complex papers for us, so we can get a glimmer of just how amazing the discoveries are. Hope things are going well for you, Wonderful Anton! 💜🌏🌌
Since we're nice to Anton.... Anton, don't quit the ending music, I leave it on, the calmest music I ever ever ever listen to, and I always leave it on all the way through, I need that kind of therapy.
As soon as I saw the first article talking about this I immediately knew that it wasn't a real representation of a photon and that there was something more detailed behind. Then I immediately went on YT to see if you covered this in a video. Needless to say I'm not disappointed. And I was right.
While theoretical models can be powerful tools for understanding and predicting phenomena, their extrapolations should be approached with caution. The accuracy of these predictions depends on the validity of the underlying assumptions, the nature of the model itself, and the degree to which conditions remain consistent with those assumed in the model. Therefore, it is essential to critically evaluate any extrapolated results and recognize their limitations rather than assuming they are accurate representations of reality.
It's very strange that it would have a consistent shape at all. Mind blowing stuff. Being able to see the very source of why we have anything to see at all is absolutely fascinating. Thanks for the upload.
Which is as correct as any "picture" of a photon. The very idea is nonsensical, so might as well go all out and have them wear silly hats and mustachios.
That is true for all “particles and forces” 👍 or rather they are a result of the propagation of the shared medium (medium being the evolving substrate).
Anton quote: "This is not a picture of a photon" - I agree. It is misleading to speak of what a photon 'looks like'. A photon is just a unit of energy. If you can show me what a Joule 'looks like' then you can show me what a photon 'looks like'. [Edit: OK, 'unit of energy' (by which I meant a quantum of energy not an SI Unit) is too simplistic. It would be more accurate to call it an 'event' or an 'interaction' - an energy exchange event into or out of a quantum wave field involving that quantum of energy - an elementary boson to use the technical term - but the point I was trying to make briefly in layman's terms is that it makes no sense to speak of an 'image of a photon' or what a photon 'looks like']
A single photon should "look like" a tiny flash of light, so small and so brief your eye wouldn't even register it. Because that's what it is. To actually take a "photo of a photon" nonsense, because that would require smaller photons to reflect off it into the camera.
Photons are not “units.” Pick up a quantum physics textbook or attend two years at uni before you try and sound smart again by equivocating tangentially related things
Mr.smarty pants, photon is not "just a unit of energy" it is a hypothetical wave-particle, that has a function related to the energy of a EM wave, specifically it's frequency. E = hf, Basic 12th grade physics man... Also a Joule is a unit of energy so you can't visualise it in contemporary manner, but you can see things occur with 1 Joule.
Well, not the emitted photons themselves - the photons emitted by (one pathway of) uranium decay are gamma rays which are _way_ outside the visible spectrum (wavelengths _thousands_ of times shorter than UV light, so we can't see them). Sounds like you used a scintillation detector, an instrument in which ionising radiation (e.g. from decaying uranium) interacts with and excites atoms in a luminescent material, which then emits _visible_ photons. So the photons are _caused by_ radiation but they're not the actual photons _from_ radioactive decay. Still pretty cool though :).
@@luudest honestly it doesn’t tell us much, some yes but not much. imagine a shoe leaving an imprint in the sand, you won’t be able to imagine the shoe, or if you see a small burnt spot on a piece of wood, could you be able to discern from it how a fire looks like? so it might tell us some things, but imho not much. at least for now
Yes, I don't believe the actual visual representation is "scientifically helpful" . But if I understand correctly it's the actual information that was used to derive the image from, which is scientifically valuable ?
Wow! It looks like a Mandela! That makes total sense! Wave and particle combined! The sphere of influence is a particle but inside it is all wave! And the mandalas are snapshots of the evolving fluid wave inside! Absolutely stunningly beautiful!
- When I was a young child, I would look at ships passing through the Welland Canal in Canada. The ship would push a wave of water at its front. Did this show a particle (ship), wave (water bow) or both? - When a high energy wave passes near an atom, it may convert to an electron and positron pair. A higher energy wave may convert to a proton and anti-proton pair. Is light then just 2 subatomic particles circling one another, and the wave part is the "ether" pushed out of the way much like the mentioned water being pushed by the ship. - What about the "ether"? What is it? Does it exist" According to "The Uncertainty Principle", a particle may exist at a spot, exist temporarily outside this spot, exist far less more distant. Adding up all these temporary positions may be "the ether".
If we take Huygens’ Principle that says: “Every point on a wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² wave” Each point on the curvature of the wave front can represent the potential for a new photon ∆E=hf of energy, a new oscillation or vibration as a probabilistic future unfolds. Between every cause and effect there is the absorption and emission of photon ∆E=hf energy
Thank you Anton. This indeed a daunting topic. I thought a photon does not exist until it interacts with matter. If you can observe a photon, it is because it interacts with your eye >brain. But I don't know what I am talking about. Best wishes my friend.
You have a new subscriber here. This video came up in my recommended and as soon as I started watching I clicked subscribe right away, I'm looking forward to watchibg more. Thank you.
Well, it would be literally impossible to image a photon in a sense of "taking a picture" because you would need "smaller" particles to interact with it to get a clear "resolution" of the image (sry for all the quotes but photography truly isn't the right analogy for measurements where quantum mechanics are at play)
I feel like this data can be used to help explain the double slit experiment and the phemtosecond Lazer experiment leading to more discoveries. I love this.
I was always taught you can't "see" a photon because a photon is not a particle until it collides with something. It is only in the particle state when it interacts with another particle, like the electrons in the atoms of your retina. This is way over my head Anton.
@@nicolafiorillo4048 nah, he explains himself in the first couple minutes. Anton is a stand up science YT guy, I recommend him to anyone. I can't blame YTers for using clickbait, I just wish they would explain themselves like Anton does.
Ya know our generations aren’t just born to late to explore planet and too early to explore galaxy, it’s also been a drought in science since Einstein and quantum became a thing turn of last century. Hope that’s changing.
I wondered and was pleasantly impressed with how much more interesting the actual study was than the image - and I figured it was it's interaction 'ghost' or diagram - it would look different for other materials I bet
Except we don't actually know for sure that light is actually massless. All we actually DO know about it is that if it does have mass it's at an upper limit of 9.52 × 10^-46 kg.
You got that the wrong way, we accidentally discovered things and invented ways to consistently reproduce that discovery, that's the scientific process.
Then, we have muons and the potential use for communications: The idea is based on the unique properties of muons, subatomic particles that can penetrate deep into matter. By modulating a muon beam, it's theoretically possible to encode information and transmit it instantaneously, regardless of distance. However, there are significant technical challenges to overcome before this becomes a practical reality: Detection and Manipulation: Detecting and manipulating individual muons with sufficient precision is a complex task. Data Rate: Current technology limits the data rate that can be transmitted using muons. Background Noise: Background radiation and other interfering particles can hinder the detection and interpretation of muon signals.
Fascinating! Reminds me of the famous: 'Double Slit' experiment which revealed that photons/electrons singularly shot out of a tube appeared as 'either' particles or waves on a screen, based upon whether people watched the experiment taking place, or if they left the room and a camera recorded an entirely different result. Also makes me consider the Phantom DNA experiment which also had equally bizarre results. (category: shite they don't teach us in school).
You're incorrect about that. The difference gathered was from if you measured which slit a particle passed through which necessitates interacting with it. Interacting with it changed the results, not whether people were present or not. It's not witchcraft.
They do teach the double slit etc later in schools, just not before teaching all the other basics & neccessary bits you need to know, first, so you CAN understand what they are teaching you. There's just no point teaching about it first, before reaching a point where you will understand what it really means. And not too early, where it's easy for people to make weird assumptions about consciousness affecting it, etc. It has nothing to do with if you are in the room or not. It's meaning that, because they are so small, ANY interaction ( looking, measuring, poking it, photographing etc) affects it, so moves / changes it. ( Cos for you to measure/ "see" it, a photon has to hit it, and one either hit your eyeball, or measuring device etc. And that "hit" has momentum & energy, which affects it. ☮️🌏
The whole "observing things makes them change" is just poorly worded. What it should say is "you can't observe things without changing them". Since any observation requires some kind of interaction, which will have some effect on the item being observed. It's not magic.
Its fair to say that the "image" is a mathematical representation of a photon or a mathematical representation of a photon's "behavior"? I believe this could help us understand way more about photons, me can represent them as pseudo-particles and simulate its behavior as in the bottle and other different mediums like water, vacum etc...
0:27 "Based on some really complex modelling and re-creation, and based on what we understand about electro-magnetism and quantum physics" So, in other words, no. It is not an actual image of a single photon.
MRI and CT scanners do the same based on complex modeling of protons and radiation. They also produce images (photos in layman’s terms). This should be considered the same. As he said “assuming the model is correct…”
My friend, I dont even know for how long I have been watching you, and love your content, but would totally appreciate also a format that gets to the point a bit quicker...
In the fictional novel the three body problem, subatomic particles can be unfolded into planes which are bigger in surface area than celestial bodies like Earth. Funny how fiction often precedes discoveries. It will be cool to see how information dense these tiny packets really are.
woah, im one of the first 100 comments! what a time to be alive! the research paper about this is super short too! super, super cool! lovely to have anton talking about it!!
Light is perhaps the oddest thing ever. We can't see photons - their arrival is only proved by reflection. Interesting model, but is it actually a discovery? Models, these days, always deserve close inspection. I'm inclined to think this is good work, as wakes and waves seem to be complementary phenomenon.
I don't think "what a single photon actually looks like" makes any sense at all. That is language used to describe the effect of receiving countless photons reflected from a macroscopic object into our eyes, making signals processed by our brains. The photons are the medium of exchange.
How interesting.. It has all the features i always thought light should have. Core=The actual particle, Outer shell=quantum-electromagnetic field, Poles=Polarity that defines the orientation, and the movement direction of the light (positive &negative sides) And "the halo field" Outermost energy field, that acts as a medium for information transfer. (This field is weak and quite big. This is why in double split experiment, we might see 2 particles behind the slits, because by slitting this field, it creates a small "shadow" particle for the other slit. Because this energy cant travel alone, additional core is spontaneously created, and energy is splitted so that e=mc2 is not broken.)
Oh I have seen this one on my feed recently but disregarded it as a popular science clickbait bs. Now after seeing you doing a video on it, you have my attention, good sir.
The channel "The Slow Mo Guys" did a video a few years back, recorded at Caltech, of a laser beam passing through a vial of diluted milk, filmed at ten trillion frames per second.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
We appreciate you not running ads all the time Anton. Not that it's bad necessarily but extra thanks for not doing it
Instead of ads, he opts to use click-bait tactics. I prefer honest ads to dishonest title captions.
@@MrRobertX70Anton's titles sre honest! there is a difference between fake clickbait and a catchy intriguing tittle that sparks our curiosity!
@@MrRobertX70you clearly didn’t watch the video
@@MrRobertX70 Wha? LOL!
@@mialotusmusic Some folks are handicapped in the brain-housing group.
I've been waiting several days for this one to show up on my feed. I saw a few other news posts about this topic and thought to myself, "Anton will do a video on this soon!"
…and what you read in the news is never really quite accurate, think the Yin and Yang of entanglement that wasn’t.
Anton is awesome 👍
Anton delivering the best coverage of the topic possible!
Photonic Lemons are real.
Mr. Petrov, you are one of my favorite podcasts because of your direct, straightforward approach. I believe you are earnest and have no agenda other than honest reporting of information.
Oh wow where’s his podcast?
Yeah what's this about a podcast
@@The_RC_Guru OK, OK, what am I supposed to call it, internet cops? A short, a post?
@@mikeottersoleno, its just that people associate podcast with hour, hours long talking sessions
Thanks! I can’t get enough of photons!
You must be enlightened.
@@HombreDeLaNorte A luminary even
@ hahaha 😂
I just can’t see a world without them
still not clear how a single photon can "look" like anything, nor what that image actually represents. things having a visual appearance is such a macro-level, human interpretation of the universe I don't see (!) how it can apply at the quantum level of a photon.
this isn’t a picture of the photon but more of its effect
it’s kinda like the explosion of an explosive
The best way to think about this is through an analogy. First, we have the electromagnetic field, which is made up of two portions: the mode (a solution to Maxwell's equations), and the photon (a discrete amount of energy that can be placed into a mode or superposition of modes). In this case we limit ourselves to a single photon, meaning only a discrete amount of energy can be used. The mode effectively determines where the photon is most likely to be. Now the question that the paper here is interested in is "what does the mode look like?" As you thought you can't "measure/determine" the mode using only a single photon, however, you can if you use trillions that are identically prepared. If you've ever seen the double slit performed using a single photon where they produce an image of the interference by measuring many trials of the experiment (building up an image photon by photon), this is exactly the same. Just in the case of the double slit the mode has a shape that is determined by something that physically blocks the light.
Had the same thought when i read the title of the video.
@@QuantumFringing A single 360 cycle of EMF of a certain energy to essentially surmount the 'forward voltage' of the aether is why light can be in specific packets of minimum energy, but it is not a particle.
This "single photon image" is not mentioned in the paper, and there are no materials that would even mention how it was constructed.
I love how you are the person from whom I get to hear so many amazing new things. It's as if, because you're the intermediary, they all get given a special compassionate spin.
I did mushrooms at school in grade 8 and carved this in a desk.
Prodigy :O
you better start saving your drawing bud, or better yet, try to find that desk and take a picture
Good school.
I've always wanted to try shrooms, but never had the opportunity. I HAVE seen Mescalito, though!
Traditionally, that is how these things would be discovered.
Blown away once more. I love all these revelations of physics.
Thanks Anton Petrov.
"Just make it round and shiny, they won't know. Not too round, though, that might make them suspicious."
😂
"We know it isn't round, or square, or green or silver."
finding this channel last year has been one of the best youtube discoveries I have made. huge fan great video
Once i was told imagination has no place in science. My response was "thats what science is! We imagine things then work out ways to test them!"
Whoever told you that doesn't know much about science.
@hm5142 the irony was they felt like I was the one who knew nothing.
Imagination is the biggest nation .....
Testing them is _always_ the foundation though - _that's_ what science _actually_ is, first and foremost it's empirical. Imagination as a way to generate _testable_ hypotheses is part of the science toolbox. Imagination pointed in any random direction, not so much.
I like Einstein's observation of, "Spooky action at a distance"!
I had quite a laugh when I read about it in the news, they said that scientists discovered what a photon looks like and referred to the 'photo' of it. Like it was actually photographed!
Yeah, it's nonsense, guessing on guessing on guessing. That how science has to be done, but then you create proof so it's no longer a guess, that hasn't happened here, and it won't, light isn't a particle, we just don't understand physics at the atomic level properly yet, hell we don't even know why a Crook's Radiometer works, more guesses.
lol how would that even work?
the news on tv?? simple explanations for....
When I first saw it on the news I kept wondering why they kept referring to it as a photo and then never elaborated..
Well, this is a photon-graphy in a sense.
Anton, you are my favorite break, from watching news the rest of my day! Your reports truly expand my mind. Ironically, like this particular video, I am 'enlightened'!! Every sense of the word in this case.
it's best to avoid the news now. it's entirely state sponsored propaganda now
Thanks!
Looks like an eyeball. The abyss stares back, indeed.
first thing I saw too lol :)
That's what I thought, as well.
human brain prefers to give false positives rather than false negatives
if youre seeing a tiger's eye, you need to react to a tiger, or you definitely die
if you see a tiger's eye, but it isnt, you need to react like it's a tiger's eye anyway, because if you decide not to you may die.
in nature false positives in thought and perception are selected for,
but they get in the way of truth.
Nobody blink !
I saw a lemon
All I do is art and politics... and politics has become less and less about facts or logic and more on feelings. Your channel is like a shower for my brain. Thank you.
It's always been like that. In general, people are more easily convinced by means of feelings than by means of logic: the former is unconscious, the latter requires effort.
That sounds horrible
The worst is when psychological evals state “I feel that..” when opining/assessments.
@@Juan-qv5nc Fundamentally I agree it has been like this forever. However I disagree when we talk about the current landscape because the key difference is social media and influencers.. and the very drastic difference in the ammount of viewers they get compared to regular media that has regulations. There is zero comparison and this is a very new to this time only thing on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity. It makes us all more stupid... plain and simple. Makes the newbs the expert and the experts the newbs and not in a good way. Anton is a breath of fresh air.
@@RANSOME99 I agree that is happening, but I wouldn't say it's the main contributer to increased emotion in politics. Mostly because "regular media" makes use of the same emotional appeals as the influencers do.
I think people are becoming more emotional about politics because they are being pushed by algorithms into increasingly radical echo chambers where the opposition is misconstrued and demonized. People have lost faith that we're all trying to do what's right, and it causes a lot of vitriol
i wonder if many viewers truly understand how monumentally significant it is what Anton does here for us all , not only the selfless act of doing the research and creating the videos but the ability to translate and convey so much complex information in such a succinct and effective way ; he is earning his place amongst the greatest science communicators of all time , the likes of Carl Sagan and James Burke to name a couple legends imho
Not taking away from what he does as this channel rocks but there is NOTHING selfless about it - do you see his subscriber numbers? View counts? Patreon numbers? This is his JOB - and he's very successful at it and is likely making a very high 6 figure salary (depending on if he pays editors, etc).
Great channel: Yes
Selfless channel: No
And somehow he manages to crank out a high quality video every day... that's an impressive schedule.
totes. i hear ya big dawg. represent! woof woof woof.
@@ross-carlson I hate to agree with you, but I have to agree with you.
Thank you for all the great info and visuals. Your voice is so relaxing. It makes listening before bed an enjoyable way to learn something new. ✨
Because you are a teacher AND you also give back so much to the rest of us in this great public forum, you are one of the smartest people on Earth right now. That and the cosmological knowledge, of course. ;-)
The ghost looks like a lemon.
Great. Now imagine the billions of tiny lemons that fly through your eye's lenses and crash into the back of your eyeball every day. 🍋🍋🍋 > 👁👄👁< 🍋🍋🍋
A lemon that is an eye, but also HAS an eye.
Biofield
Acceptable.
Ghost lemon is the new ghost pepper
Great video! I saw an article on this a few days ago.
This is fascinating research. I totally appreciate how you break down these complex papers for us, so we can get a glimmer of just how amazing the discoveries are.
Hope things are going well for you, Wonderful Anton! 💜🌏🌌
I like how you show a photon emitting beams of light, like it is emitting smaller photons.
This is the ONLY explanation I've seen so far that shows how they got the 'image'. Well done!
Since we're nice to Anton.... Anton, don't quit the ending music, I leave it on, the calmest music I ever ever ever listen to, and I always leave it on all the way through, I need that kind of therapy.
me too
As soon as I saw the first article talking about this I immediately knew that it wasn't a real representation of a photon and that there was something more detailed behind. Then I immediately went on YT to see if you covered this in a video. Needless to say I'm not disappointed. And I was right.
While theoretical models can be powerful tools for understanding and predicting phenomena, their extrapolations should be approached with caution. The accuracy of these predictions depends on the validity of the underlying assumptions, the nature of the model itself, and the degree to which conditions remain consistent with those assumed in the model. Therefore, it is essential to critically evaluate any extrapolated results and recognize their limitations rather than assuming they are accurate representations of reality.
Amen, this should serve as a starting point for thought experiments on how to accurately garner diverse datasets.
That's why it's called the religion of science
Nah just make some shit up like dark matter or dark energy if the math doesnt work 😉
OP nailed it.
Glad to see more and more people understanding this. And here I thought critical thinking was dead.
It's very strange that it would have a consistent shape at all. Mind blowing stuff. Being able to see the very source of why we have anything to see at all is absolutely fascinating. Thanks for the upload.
I have this vision of photons running along on little bitty feet leaving quantum footprints in the universe
Which is as correct as any "picture" of a photon. The very idea is nonsensical, so might as well go all out and have them wear silly hats and mustachios.
Lol
It should not be a particle, but a phenomenon caused by the perturbation in the medium, causing an effect on the substrate it is propagating through.
I love how you've worded this
Bro chose to speak premium English
That is true for all “particles and forces” 👍 or rather they are a result of the propagation of the shared medium (medium being the evolving substrate).
Nope
Without mass?
Beautiful animations, very fascinating video :)
Hey just wanted to say keep up the good work bud your channel is how science should be and I'm glad someone knows this.
Anton quote: "This is not a picture of a photon" - I agree. It is misleading to speak of what a photon 'looks like'. A photon is just a unit of energy. If you can show me what a Joule 'looks like' then you can show me what a photon 'looks like'.
[Edit: OK, 'unit of energy' (by which I meant a quantum of energy not an SI Unit) is too simplistic. It would be more accurate to call it an 'event' or an 'interaction' - an energy exchange event into or out of a quantum wave field involving that quantum of energy - an elementary boson to use the technical term - but the point I was trying to make briefly in layman's terms is that it makes no sense to speak of an 'image of a photon' or what a photon 'looks like']
Maybe the picture should be framed and titled "Ce n'est pas un photon" (if I've got my French right...).
A single photon should "look like" a tiny flash of light, so small and so brief your eye wouldn't even register it. Because that's what it is. To actually take a "photo of a photon" nonsense, because that would require smaller photons to reflect off it into the camera.
Photons are not “units.” Pick up a quantum physics textbook or attend two years at uni before you try and sound smart again by equivocating tangentially related things
Mr.smarty pants, photon is not "just a unit of energy" it is a hypothetical wave-particle, that has a function related to the energy of a EM wave, specifically it's frequency. E = hf, Basic 12th grade physics man... Also a Joule is a unit of energy so you can't visualise it in contemporary manner, but you can see things occur with 1 Joule.
@@renakunisaki Kinda. And the "smaller" photons don't interact with the "bigger" photons.
So not a photon itself, but its shadow. Very interesting, keep up the great work!
35 years ago in school we had a little box that had some uranium and a lense and you could see the decay emit photons.
Well, not the emitted photons themselves - the photons emitted by (one pathway of) uranium decay are gamma rays which are _way_ outside the visible spectrum (wavelengths _thousands_ of times shorter than UV light, so we can't see them).
Sounds like you used a scintillation detector, an instrument in which ionising radiation (e.g. from decaying uranium) interacts with and excites atoms in a luminescent material, which then emits _visible_ photons. So the photons are _caused by_ radiation but they're not the actual photons _from_ radioactive decay. Still pretty cool though :).
@anonymes2884 yes it used phosphorus dome. I forgot to mention that. I just forgot the name of it.
ALWAYS LIKED how Anton comes across as just 'a regular guy' discovering the things he speaks about
as we follow along with the video...
6:11 What does this image tells us? Is the photon round? Is it a sphere? What do the colors denote??
green apple flavor
Lemon 🍋
@@luudest honestly it doesn’t tell us much, some yes but not much. imagine a shoe leaving an imprint in the sand, you won’t be able to imagine the shoe, or if you see a small burnt spot on a piece of wood, could you be able to discern from it how a fire looks like? so it might tell us some things, but imho not much. at least for now
Yes, I don't believe the actual visual representation is "scientifically helpful" . But if I understand correctly it's the actual information that was used to derive the image from, which is scientifically valuable ?
@ yes, i am sure we learned a lot of new information . i meant solely on the visual aspect
We are truly living in the future. Momentous stuff!
Wow! It looks like a Mandela! That makes total sense! Wave and particle combined! The sphere of influence is a particle but inside it is all wave! And the mandalas are snapshots of the evolving fluid wave inside! Absolutely stunningly beautiful!
its not from the paper. its an artist's interpretation.
- When I was a young child, I would look at ships passing through the Welland Canal in Canada.
The ship would push a wave of water at its front.
Did this show a particle (ship), wave (water bow) or both?
- When a high energy wave passes near an atom, it may convert to an electron and positron pair.
A higher energy wave may convert to a proton and anti-proton pair.
Is light then just 2 subatomic particles circling one another, and the wave part is the "ether" pushed out of the way much like the mentioned water being pushed by the ship.
- What about the "ether"? What is it? Does it exist"
According to "The Uncertainty Principle", a particle may exist at a spot, exist temporarily outside this spot, exist far less more distant.
Adding up all these temporary positions may be "the ether".
Two particles orbiting each other as they travel... if you plot their relative positions, it would be a wave... 🤔
5:07 "obviously this is not an actual picture of a photon"
If we take Huygens’ Principle that says:
“Every point on a wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² wave”
Each point on the curvature of the wave front can represent the potential for a new photon ∆E=hf of energy, a new oscillation or vibration as a probabilistic future unfolds. Between every cause and effect there is the absorption and emission of photon ∆E=hf energy
Thank you Anton. This indeed a daunting topic. I thought a photon does not exist until it interacts with matter. If you can observe a photon, it is because it interacts with your eye >brain. But I don't know what I am talking about. Best wishes my friend.
You have a new subscriber here. This video came up in my recommended and as soon as I started watching I clicked subscribe right away, I'm looking forward to watchibg more.
Thank you.
TY Anton. Absolutely fascinating.
Hey man I hope you’re doing well. It’s always good seeing a post from you
So... that's like trying to take a picture of the bomb, but the best you can do is a birdseye view of the explosion.
Well, it would be literally impossible to image a photon in a sense of "taking a picture" because you would need "smaller" particles to interact with it to get a clear "resolution" of the image (sry for all the quotes but photography truly isn't the right analogy for measurements where quantum mechanics are at play)
Measure the shape of a puddle by measuring bird flight times who travel over it.
@@edgedgOne of the best analogies I've read.
@@mlpreiss ❤
Weirdly that's what I kind of thought a photon would look like.
Finally FIRST to like your video. Awesome, as always! 😊
Fabulous explanation of the work! Thanks!
can somebody please explain what is being depicted in fig a and b at 2:40 ? XD whats up with the sacred geometry?
"Intensity distribution for (a) the (5, 0, 4) and (b) the (8,
0, 3) pseudomodes plotted as function of 0
I feel like this data can be used to help explain the double slit experiment and the phemtosecond Lazer experiment leading to more discoveries. I love this.
I was always taught you can't "see" a photon because a photon is not a particle until it collides with something. It is only in the particle state when it interacts with another particle, like the electrons in the atoms of your retina. This is way over my head Anton.
correct, this os basically clickbait
@@nicolafiorillo4048 nah, he explains himself in the first couple minutes. Anton is a stand up science YT guy, I recommend him to anyone. I can't blame YTers for using clickbait, I just wish they would explain themselves like Anton does.
I’m 52. We’ve come so far just in my lifetime. When Anton started on UA-cam I was in kindergarten 😊
His channel was started in 2011, first video 2012-2013, you were born 1972. You sure?
@ Oh yes quite certain. ‘Here’ where we are in this world but in one of our alternate timelines a quasar distorts Earth’s calendars/clocks 🤓
Watched your videos since the beginning, though why is the whole comment section thirst bots right now
bots run on scripts, so as soon as its released they flood the comment section, but after a while we start getting normal human comments in too
What a photon might “look” like is already a bit of a mind bender.
I'm surprised the mainstream media didn't call it a photograph of a photon. Actually, I'm sure they did.
Anton. I find it amazing that you can show us avery interesting video every day. Super! Thanks
Ya know our generations aren’t just born to late to explore planet and too early to explore galaxy, it’s also been a drought in science since Einstein and quantum became a thing turn of last century. Hope that’s changing.
It's funny how the small is so big. Thanks for explaining this, good teacher.
It has what appears to be internal structure... now that is truly strange (unless its an illusion slash I'm misinterpreting something)
I wondered and was pleasantly impressed with how much more interesting the actual study was than the image - and I figured it was it's interaction 'ghost' or diagram - it would look different for other materials I bet
Crazy We got an image of a photon before GTA 6
Noooo 😭
the real question right now is if LLMs will create GTA 6 before GTA 6...
Thanks I hate GTA games
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Didn't think I'd find a GTA 6 comment here so quickly, FFS I'm dying 😭😂😂
Fascinating,great video, nice presentation ,thanks Anton 👍❤
Except we don't actually know for sure that light is actually massless. All we actually DO know about it is that if it does have mass it's at an upper limit of 9.52 × 10^-46 kg.
Sure. In the physical world, all data points come with error bars.
If photons have mass, how can they travel at the speed of light?
@@akashbond862 ...by having a mass upper limit of 9.52 × 10^-46 kg.
It's an incredibly incredibly tiny mass, but it's still mass.
‘Is this what a single photon looks like?’ Hang on, I’ll get my glasses.
Everything started with an accidental discovery so we invented thinking of ways to accidentally discover more and it's called scientific process
You got that the wrong way, we accidentally discovered things and invented ways to consistently reproduce that discovery, that's the scientific process.
Wrong
@@SekiberiusWelkeshcorrect
@@SekiberiusWelkesh ratio
Serendipity has such an impact on humanity, you can't dismiss it as happenstance.
Then, we have muons and the potential use for communications: The idea is based on the unique properties of muons, subatomic particles that can penetrate deep into matter. By modulating a muon beam, it's theoretically possible to encode information and transmit it instantaneously, regardless of distance.
However, there are significant technical challenges to overcome before this becomes a practical reality:
Detection and Manipulation: Detecting and manipulating individual muons with sufficient precision is a complex task.
Data Rate: Current technology limits the data rate that can be transmitted using muons.
Background Noise: Background radiation and other interfering particles can hinder the detection and interpretation of muon signals.
Thats a glowing lemon
Quantum is well beyond my skill level, yet I still find it interesting.
Thank you, Anton. I think I understand it a bit better.
Fascinating! Reminds me of the famous: 'Double Slit' experiment which revealed that photons/electrons singularly shot out of a tube appeared as 'either' particles or waves on a screen, based upon whether people watched the experiment taking place, or if they left the room and a camera recorded an entirely different result. Also makes me consider the Phantom DNA experiment which also had equally bizarre results. (category: shite they don't teach us in school).
You're incorrect about that. The difference gathered was from if you measured which slit a particle passed through which necessitates interacting with it. Interacting with it changed the results, not whether people were present or not. It's not witchcraft.
They do teach the double slit etc later in schools, just not before teaching all the other basics & neccessary bits you need to know, first,
so you CAN understand what they are teaching you.
There's just no point teaching about it first, before reaching a point where you will understand what it really means.
And not too early, where it's easy for people to make weird assumptions about consciousness affecting it, etc.
It has nothing to do with if you are in the room or not.
It's meaning that, because they are so small, ANY interaction ( looking, measuring, poking it, photographing etc)
affects it, so moves / changes it.
( Cos for you to measure/ "see" it, a photon has to hit it, and one either hit your eyeball, or measuring device etc.
And that "hit" has momentum & energy, which affects it.
☮️🌏
The whole "observing things makes them change" is just poorly worded. What it should say is "you can't observe things without changing them". Since any observation requires some kind of interaction, which will have some effect on the item being observed. It's not magic.
iv seen the headlines, but wanted to see Anton talk about it!
lol - all these clever comments below, and my first thought ''huh, weird how it looks like an eye''
nah, looks like a cell
Nah, looks like a lime.
Its fair to say that the "image" is a mathematical representation of a photon or a mathematical representation of a photon's "behavior"? I believe this could help us understand way more about photons, me can represent them as pseudo-particles and simulate its behavior as in the bottle and other different mediums like water, vacum etc...
It tickles me to no end that a photon is basically just a quantum lens flare. :D
More guesswork, how can light be a particle when all EMF of wavelengths above and below light are not particles.
0:27
"Based on some really complex modelling and re-creation, and based on what we understand about electro-magnetism and quantum physics"
So, in other words, no. It is not an actual image of a single photon.
Like he said it's the remainings of the photon put together to form this image. so basically the negative of a photon
its fake, we even don't know it exists, only based on experiments and sketchy theory.
MRI and CT scanners do the same based on complex modeling of protons and radiation. They also produce images (photos in layman’s terms). This should be considered the same. As he said “assuming the model is correct…”
@@yoppindia If QM is fake, then yes.
An image is just a visual reproduction. My interpretation of what you meant was that it's not an image of an actual photon, but it is an actual image.
Something tells me a Nobel Prize will be in the futures of the scientists working on this study. Just a hunch. :)
So,
Photons are Limes.
Cool.
Obligatory "When I was 14 I had a dream photons were limes so therefore I actually figured out all of physics years ago".
Now put one in a quantum coconut.
My friend, I dont even know for how long I have been watching you, and love your content, but would totally appreciate also a format that gets to the point a bit quicker...
Maybe unexpected, but not “accidental.”
ok, fair, since "accident": an event that happens by chance
Im interested in how this might apply to wave function breakdown in the double slit experiment
Anton:" This is not a physical photon, and this is not a picture of a photon."
Also Anton: "Discovery reveals an image of a single photon."
It's not contradictory it's just beyond you
In fact, there is no explanation of what this "image" really is anywhere in the internet.
Thank you Anton, for another wonderful video. And thanks again for that great smile at the end ... it makes my day !! God Bless.
After realizing subatomic particals aren't uniformally round . I wonder how deep can information be incoded
7
hum, elaborate more?
Its a question to think about
I dunno, before I thought about that _too_ much I might learn how to spell both "particles" and "encoded". Journey of a thousand miles and all that...
In the fictional novel the three body problem, subatomic particles can be unfolded into planes which are bigger in surface area than celestial bodies like Earth. Funny how fiction often precedes discoveries. It will be cool to see how information dense these tiny packets really are.
Thanks!
woah, im one of the first 100 comments! what a time to be alive! the research paper about this is super short too! super, super cool! lovely to have anton talking about it!!
Over the years, I have come to accept incoming photons. It is the Putons that are so difficult to understand...
Light is perhaps the oddest thing ever. We can't see photons - their arrival is only proved by reflection. Interesting model, but is it actually a discovery? Models, these days, always deserve close inspection. I'm inclined to think this is good work, as wakes and waves seem to be complementary phenomenon.
Hi Matey, great job your doing. But does it have the same footprint while being observed and not?
I don't think "what a single photon actually looks like" makes any sense at all. That is language used to describe the effect of receiving countless photons reflected from a macroscopic object into our eyes, making signals processed by our brains. The photons are the medium of exchange.
Antons the man. I've never seen that before
You know what they say: "When life gives you lemons..."
You invent a combustible lemon that *BURNS LIFE'S HOUSE DOWN!*
Make photonade
How interesting.. It has all the features i always thought light should have. Core=The actual particle, Outer shell=quantum-electromagnetic field, Poles=Polarity that defines the orientation, and the movement direction of the light (positive &negative sides) And "the halo field" Outermost energy field, that acts as a medium for information transfer. (This field is weak and quite big. This is why in double split experiment, we might see 2 particles behind the slits, because by slitting this field, it creates a small "shadow" particle for the other slit. Because this energy cant travel alone, additional core is spontaneously created, and energy is splitted so that e=mc2 is not broken.)
So the photon is a little green ball with the Green Lantern Corps symbol ingraved in it? Hardlight constructs, here we go!
This is way Kool :)
Quantum shadow puppets :P
Like looking at the shadows/images of the photon at the tailing edge of the quantum event horizon :P
I thought about focusing millions miles of light in and spot the size of a beach ball. And i realized light itself might be dark energy
A photon has momentum. This energy is transfered to the material it impacts.
dang, that... that kinda makes sense! woah
Nope, it interacts with matter. That's why we can see and be warm.
100% not dark energy.
Oh I have seen this one on my feed recently but disregarded it as a popular science clickbait bs. Now after seeing you doing a video on it, you have my attention, good sir.
Can it be shown while it’s performing double slit magic ?
All these decades and they still haven't upgraded their hardware to triple slit?
The channel "The Slow Mo Guys" did a video a few years back, recorded at Caltech, of a laser beam passing through a vial of diluted milk, filmed at ten trillion frames per second.