Uncertainty Principle and Photography ! Reply

A presentation from 7 years ago ! When Physics had revived one more time in my dreams. (No I did not actually present this, but made this into a ppt nevertheless)

The following understanding was achieved years after I had made this presentation. hence what you see in the presentation (from 2008 Sept) is mere interesting observations, and my “uncanny” ability to see ahead that uncertainty principle is somehow connected (because perhaps photons) and years later after a good deal of review I realized indeed so.

Relativistic Quantum Mechanics is whats needed to understand photography while all these times we were basing our discussions on Non-Relativistic Quantum Principles. The photon did not like this.

It suggests, why a moving object becomes fuzzy when you take its picture. Speed bears an uncertainty with momentum (hence energy ) just like time with energy and position with momentum. But for photons which are always ultra-relativistic we should not talk about its positions. Due to speed (relative motion of objects such as your hand moving, while other body parts being still)   energy and momentum are uncertain. Hence position becomes uncertain.

(Do not confuse between position of photon vs position/location on your image although its connected to wave-function collapse BEFORE or AFTER the observation ? is the question you should be asking, BEFORE the observation no sense of photon’s position, but AFTER collapse we do see only a particular outcome in terms of fuzzy images.)

Photography is based on the detection of photons. Photons are easy to misinterpret as these are a bunch of special quantum. They are not like other quantum mechanical particles. eg they are NOT electrons.

How is a photon different from an electron while both electrons and photons are dual entities? That is they are both to be realized as wave as well as particles? Here is the most basic elucidation of their properties. A photon is more like a wave even if its both wave and a particle. An electron is more like a particle even if its both wave and a particle. That is basically so because the photons never carry mass, and as a consequence their speed is always as high as it can be, which is found to be 300,000 km per second.

Its erroneous to call photon’s REST frame into consideration for that reason. Its not a particle if we are to think classically, particles must carry mass and by effect of their mass, momentum. But while they are mass-less they do have momentum. This property is described in one article on my website, which I will find and link, if you are interested.

But to the contrary the electron does have some mass even when its at rest. (Photon can never attain rest and can never attain mass, it can only have momentum and energy as long as its single and traveling in vacuum). So one can bring the electron to rest in some way.

How does that affect photography? The basic laws of nature are different for electrons and photons for this reason. The very uncertainty principles that we chose to describe the electrons must first be changed in a special way before they can be applied on the photon. The difference is electron being more particle like due to its possible slower motion, does not describe the photon as the latter is never a slower candidate.

Hence the Non-relativistic forms of Uncertainty Relation are to be changed into the Relativistic Uncertainty Relation. Only then photography can be properly understood. In this special latter case of photon, the regular momentum-position uncertainty relation is no longer valid. How can you describe the photon, which never comes to rest; with “its” POSITION? It does not have a position. Hence position-momentum uncertainty is to be changed.

Its recast-able into a speed-momentum form — and position-energy etc for particles with mass. A form which I have worked out in much detail in one of my research work, available on my website (here: mdashf.org).

Hence a constant speed results in a blurred momentum, a blurred energy and a blurred position. Depending on various other parameters such as “time” (cameras have time lapse and images of objects have time parameters built in their situations), the probability patterns of a camera image changes depending upon the relative motion between observed and observer (camera and object whose image is taken)

Due to relative motion between camera and object (such as a bird) one is definitely going to get a blurred image. This is the reason the moving parts of a body whose picture is being taken might produce a fuzzy image while the parts that are still, always produces a sharp image.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s