There are proposals for a quantum of time that would provide the basis for a fastest process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > I just realized that they missed an opportunity. Rather than a soda bottle, > they could have used a bottle of cheap wine. Then each frame would be pico > de gallo. > > > > On 12/14/2011 3:23 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/14/2011 2:40 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank, no, there are processes that are done on a faster time scale. >>> There are attosecond lasers , that are capable producing ~80 attosecond >>> pulses. (1 attosecond is 10^-18 s - 0.000 000 000 000 000 001 s) >>> As of 2010, the shortest time interval measured is 12 attoseconds. >>> This is at least 1000-10000 times faster than the scale of the >>> MIT's camera. >> >> >> And if you do well in their lab, they give you an attoboy. >> >>> >>> But what is interesting, is that essentially this group does an analog >>> of the "HDR", but in the times space: they repeat the same images >>> of a nanosecond process over a span of an hour or so, - to get >>> 3D picture of the process. >> >> >> Aha! It's not so much a 10^12 hertz frame rate, but that they take >> multiple exposures at picosecond accuracy and precision. I was wondering >> how they'd actually detect individual photons. >>> >>> >>> You can read about that here (general audience level): >>> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/trillion-fps-camera-1213.html >>> >>> For more technically inclined, - you can see the presentation here: >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKu20y1f_RU >> >> >> It looks like the actual videos are at about 22:00 minutes in. IIRC, a >> nanosecond is about a foot, so that whole movie represents something >> like half a nanosecond. >> >>> >>> Mark, thanks for posting it. >> >> >> Maybe they could team up with the lytro folks and do terahertz >> lightfield movies, to back process a three dimensional model of the path >> of a photon. That's probably good for a CPU cycle or two. >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Igor >>> >>> >>> Tue Dec 13 23:56:20 EST 2011 >>> knarftheriault at gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> 'Cause any more would just be extravagant. (and probably theoretically >>>> impossible - I'm thinking that time can't be divided into smaller >>>> increments) >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> frank >>>> >>>> --- Original Message --- >>>> >>>> From: Mark Roberts<mark at robertstech.com> >>>> Sent: December 13, 2011 12/13/11 >>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"<pdml at pdml.net> >>>> Subject: How many fps is enough? >>>> >>>> Would one TRILLION frames per second be sufficient? >>>> >>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57342136-76/shutter-speed-demon-camera-takes-trillion-frames-per-second/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Larry Colen [email protected] (from dos4est) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
