final nail in the coffin for me a93

[quote="@DonaldB"]not even disscussing this any more GB as no one here has any experience shooting macro, its just wasting my time.

Light is a wave, not a particle. However, when light energy is measured, the measurements give discrete amounts, which we call photons, and can be interpreted as a particle. The likelihood of measuring that energy has quite a bit to do with the wavelength of that light (where that wavelength is a function of the "color" of the light, with "red" having about twice the wavelength as "blue", and "green" splitting the middle). In the case that the wavelength is larger than a pixel, then it becomes more likely for adjacent pixels to record the light rather than the pixel located nearest the wavelength peak, thus resulting in diffraction blurring. This is where we get the Airy Disk from, by the way.

In any case, no one here has said, or implied, that diffraction does not reduce resolution. In fact, we all acknowledge it without hesitation. What we are saying is that having more pixels will still increase resolution, albeit with less and less increase as the diffraction increases and/or pixel size shrinks (you may have heard one or more of us use the term "diminishing returns"). However, in no case does more smaller pixels result in less resolution than fewer larger pixels. So, if the photos show greater resolution from the sensor with fewer larger pixels, the cause is something other than pixel size, and it is this point -- determining what the other cause(s) may be -- that we are arguing about, whereas you are wrongly fixated on pixel size being the culprit.

If you can explain how a "normal" lens differs from a macro lens with regards to resolution, diffraction, and pixel size, please spell it out!

Imagine if Neil Armstrong would only listen to other people who had set foot on the Moon. 😟

Same and same! That said, what I want pretty badly (but have no money for at this time) is a Z8 + Tamron 35-150 / 2-2.8. That would count as a "last camera/lens" combo for me!

we really still don't understand what it is, but we can see it as both
actu.epfl.ch/news/the-first-ever-photograph-of-light-as-both-a-parti/

here is another interesting artical
www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-filmed-a-sonic-boom-of-light-for-the-first-time

[quote="@GreatBustard"]
[quote="@DonaldB"]not even disscussing this any more GB as no one here has any experience shooting macro, its just wasting my time.

Not quite. Light is a particle and on a certain level - some of its properties can be explained by a simple wave model. Such things as diffraction is one. However, QED (Quantum Electrodynamics ) perfectly explains diffraction without any mention of wave.

chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Quantum_Tutorials_(Rioux)/05%3A_Diffraction_Phenomena/5.19%3A_A_Quantum_Mechanical_Interpretation_of_Diffraction

There are simple every day observations of light that can't be explained by viewing light as a "wave." For example partial reflection.

A very good reference on light or more importantly the interaction between radiation and matter and more importantly very readable, see
www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter-dp-0691125759/dp/0691125759/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Good ... 'bye!

Well, inasmuch as we "know" anything, modern physics definitely posits light as a wave. From your first article:

The scientists shot a stream of electrons close to the nanowire, using them to image the standing wave of light. As the electrons interacted with the confined light on the nanowire, they either sped up or slowed down. Using the ultrafast microscope to image the position where this change in speed occurred, Carbone’s team could now visualize the standing wave, which acts as a fingerprint of the wave-nature of light.

However, the article continues:

While this phenomenon shows the wave-like nature of light, it simultaneously demonstrates its particle aspect as well. As the electrons pass close to the standing wave of light, they “hit” the light’s particles, the photons. As mentioned above, this affects their speed, making them move faster or slower. This change in speed appears as an exchange of energy “packets” (quanta) between electrons and photons. The very occurrence of these energy packets shows that the light on the nanowire behaves as a particle.

This shows that it is the process of measurement that results in the particle notion of light. That is, while the light itself is a continuous wave, when we measure the light, we always get discrete results, and thus interpret these results as measuring "photons" of light. This is the famous Measurement Problem.

Of course, we can get really metaphysical about all this. For example, what does it mean for something to be "real", or, more to the point, "physical"? For example, the electron, also a wave (per modern physics) but measured as a discrete particle with identical properties no matter which electron we measure, has angular momentum. However, numerous experiments performed on the size of an electron show that whatever size it has (if any) is way, way, way too small to have the amount of angular momentum that it does (else it would have to be spinning faster than the speed of light). Thus, we disassociate the angular momentum of an electron from any connection to a physical "spin".

In the end, all we have is mathematics to describe the results of our measurements. What "reality really is", inasmuch as such a thing as "reality" even exists at all, is simply our best guess based on what we think we know at the time. After all, if you look at the history of science, one thing has always been true: what we believed to be "reality" has not only proved to eventually be wrong, but often absurdly wrong, as in, what we previously believed to be "the truth" is nothing even remotely like what we now believe to be "the truth", and it's more than a little arrogant to think that we will ever know. What may well happen, however, is we will "know" as much as we'll ever know, so that will become our understanding of "reality" from there on out. But the machines we make will be able to understand far more than us, but will not be able to explain it to us, as we will be incapable of understanding (like a human trying to explain something to an ant). But the machines will reach their limits, too, ad infinitum.

For now, though, light is probabilistically measured as a particle as described by a deterministic wave function. That should be easy for Don to understand, anyway. 😁

[deleted]

Well said. For example we quite happily view QE charts where one axis is scaled in wavelength and the other axis is based on photon capture.

Not sure how any of that, to include anything in the Wikipedia article, is at odds with what I've said. For example, interference is incompatible with particular nature. On the other hand, we measure EM energy in discrete quanta (photons), which is at odds with a wave description, but more the domain of the Measurement Problem linked to above.

Well, it's hard to argue with that, so I can't say I disagree! 😁

[deleted]

Rather than say light is both wave and particle, I would say that light propagates as a wave and is measured as a particle. However, in the Pilot Wave model, a "guide wave" pushes a particle around, allowing one to say that light is actually a particle. So far as I'm aware, it is consistent with wave collapse upon measurement, but the wave would then necessarily need to be physical (as opposed to a probability amplitude), but not something that could be measured directly -- only measured by the particles it is pushing. Well, at the very least, no more sus than dark matter. 😉

[deleted]

However, the HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) cannot explain diffraction around a barrier, because there is no finite constraint on the particle's position (e.g. light diffracting on the edge of a wall).

Actually, it's the opposite, is it not? That is, partial reflection is an issue for the particular model of light, not the wave model.

[deleted]

I though a photon was a fluctuation in the electromagnetic quantum field?
(But don't ask me to explain that).