Quoting Post Topic is it possible to take a picture of light Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Descartes[/m] at 8:04 pm on July 2, 2009[quote]Thats actually a genuinely interesting inquiry....[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Light Assassin Posted at 8:03 pm on July 2, 2009 the instant it starts to expand from a source, and see the light like reaching to fill up a room or something?

Replies xIBRAiNSTORM Posted at 4:09 pm on July 7, 2009 i asked my science teacher something like this a few years back. i asked him if you could slow down a flim so much that you could see the light travelling up the filament in a lightbulb. he told me that you couldnt; but wouldn't explain why, he said i wouldnt get it... dick. getforless Posted at 4:04 am on July 5, 2009 no Elm Posted at 9:24 pm on July 4, 2009 Every picture is a picture of light. Light Assassin Posted at 8:45 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from shadowpool at 4:20 pm on July 4, 2009 You could fill a space with photosensitive atomic clocks, shine a light through, and use a computer to build an animation of the light. There must be a way to do it in analog though.  You'd have to find out a way to fold space like a paper crane.  Make an inch become a million miles, then every hundred thousand miles, fold the inch/megamile space to a point on photographic film in inch/inch space. Then turn on your flashlight. This is the sort of crap I'd be trying to do if I were a billionaire. . . exactly. if the speed were any slower it'd be so much easier to acomplish Emilybird Posted at 6:30 pm on July 4, 2009 i think its possible. but only if you knew what u wer doing proffesionaly shadowpool Posted at 4:20 pm on July 4, 2009 You could fill a space with photosensitive atomic clocks, shine a light through, and use a computer to build an animation of the light. There must be a way to do it in analog though. You'd have to find out a way to fold space like a paper crane. Make an inch become a million miles, then every hundred thousand miles, fold the inch/megamile space to a point on photographic film in inch/inch space.  Then turn on your flashlight.   This is the sort of crap I'd be trying to do if I were a billionaire. . . Raza say Posted at 11:46 am on July 4, 2009 What are newton's rings? Aren't they produced essentially on the same principle of reflection/refraction? Aren't those circles light to be precise? Rings  are produced when the second ray undergoes a phase change of 180 degree? Don't we actually see light! Light Assassin Posted at 9:10 pm on July 2, 2009 lost my train of thought. Light Assassin Posted at 9:10 pm on July 2, 2009 that's basically what I was thinking. since the light reaching the camera and reaching its destination are both traveling at the same speed then neither can beat each other. maybe if it was such a large area that the light telomere13 Posted at 8:21 pm on July 2, 2009 It's strictly impossible for a number of reasons.  Photography (digital and otherwise, as well as animals' eyes) works based on the fact that some materials (e.g. film) respond to light in certain ways.  Unless light actually reaches the film/retina/whatever, no image will be stored.  Thus, seeing light "spreading" would make no sense, because the "seeing" itself is defined in terms of the light reaching the camera.  The theoretical picture would be completely black until the light actually hit the lens. Also, the only time you can see a "beam" of light is when it is reflected off of some other scattering material (water vapor, dust, etc.)  The light scatters in random directions (effectively all directions) starting from the actual "straight" path of the "beam," and of the portion that is scattered (versus that which continues in a roughly straight or conical path) an even smaller portion reaches your eye allowing you to see the "beam." Zaxter Posted at 8:14 pm on July 2, 2009 try aejae Posted at 8:13 pm on July 2, 2009 try it Light Assassin Posted at 8:08 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from TheEverChanging at 8:05 pm on July 2, 2009 My gut reaction is no. I have only vague notions of how light works, but it strikes me that cameras don't work in a way conducive to such a photograph. well cameras capture light reflected from objects and use this light to dye the film, but for it to work the camera's shutter would probably have to be opening and closing at the speed of light and it would also have to be taken at such a precise moment that i find it highly improbable but any real picture of what I described would probably be the coolest thing ever TheEverChanging Posted at 8:05 pm on July 2, 2009 My gut reaction is no. I have only vague notions of how light works, but it strikes me that cameras don't work in a way conducive to such a photograph. Light Assassin Posted at 8:05 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Hontoshimu at 8:04 pm on July 2, 2009 no cos if you have a flash itll all be lit up and if you dont there wont be any light for the picture to be captured with ... I guess i should have used the intellectual forum. Most recent 15 of 22 previous replies displayed.