Photography as an expression of quantum physics?

sk66

sk66

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,557
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I was watching "Einstein's Quantum Riddle" on PBS last night; and it occurred to me that a photograph is made from particles of light, which exhibit the wave-particle duality characteristic of quantum physics. And that a photograph is actually a Quantum Object.

I.e. there is not one thing about a photograph that can be stated as fact until it has been observed. Not its' sharpness, exposure, depth of field, or colors. Not its' signal to noise ratio, nor the amount of light it emits/reflects; and most certainly not it's meaning.
And once it has been observed, all of those "facts/realities" are intrinsically entangled with (dependent on) the observer and when/how the photograph was observed. Perhaps they are not "facts/realities" at all; because they may/will all be different for the next observer.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see the programme (different country etc) but recall that Einstein didn't believe in the existence of quantum physics - one of the very few areas where he was proved to be wrong.

But yes, I agree that the quantum physics wave-particle duality observation of light does seem to fit in with photography as we know it- but the rest of your points seem to me to be just opinions or perceptions, and I always struggle with the concept that nothing actually happens unless it's observed to happen.
 
Well since the whole universe is a quantum continuity and a photograph exists within the universe then yes, a photograph, like an atom, a star and a galaxy is a quantum object.
 
Or, as Alfred Bester put it: "Quant Suff"? :naughty:
 
I've read a few books on quantum physics and although I won't pretend to understand it all it's an intriguing subject with the duality of light baffling enough on its own. Quantum entanglement is another even stranger thing.

I heard a piece on the radio some time ago about the belief some have that our reality is a simulation and that there's good argument behind this. I meant to read up on that but so far haven't as I'm happy enough with my reality as I perceive it.
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
but the rest of your points seem to me to be just opinions or perceptions,
Click to expand...
Everything about a photograph is based on perception. E.g. the sharpness, DoF, and SNR of/in an image actually changes with how an image is viewed.
Garry Edwards said:
and I always struggle with the concept that nothing actually happens unless it's observed to happen.
Click to expand...
Me too, but that's not the only option...
 
Garry Edwards said:
I always struggle with the concept that nothing actually happens unless it's observed to happen.
Click to expand...
That's what used to drive poor old Schrodinger to distraction, the whole purpose of his position was that by reducing the observer-driven notion to the point of absurdity some people were led to the misinterpretation of quantum theory.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I always struggle with the concept that nothing actually happens unless it's observed to happen.
Click to expand...

I thought that this was more the problem that in the quantum world, the act of observation is an interference that fixes the state of a system which up until that point could have existed in a number of different configurations. Until you make that observation, you might as well consider the system to be occupying all its possible states simultaneously because any of them could occur at any time. Which is not at all the same thing as saying the system actually occupies all its states simultaneously, or a thing only magically happening because you are observing it. Frankly I'm with Einstein when it comes to the weirder end of quantum physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top