FOR SCIENCE ! Thank you for your contribution Christian Slater your voice dub will never be forgotten!

Way over my head but here is where it was published in Nature Communications.

Fascinating science, but horrible video, just repeating the same thing incessantly over the single image.

I'd recommend swapping it out for this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlaVHxUSiNk

Good for what ails ya.

Much better video - agreed!
(I didn't know Mehdi Sadaghdar did science video voiceovers...)

ok, replaced...
now if it would only keep the old thumbnail...

Now you've got my up-vote.

Way cool.
Yea Science!

I never knew light sounded like that.

I was immediately apprehensive when the video stated that the light was confined to travelling along the nanowire and that it is reflected at either end and forms a standing wave. What is the photon interacting with at either end of the wire that reflects it?

The answer is that they haven't imaged light, but instead surface plasmons - oscillations of free electrons on the surface of the wire. Light is used to stimulate the plasmon, and the plasmon is used as a representation of light, which is imaged. However, electrons have mass and light does not.

A lot of reasonable people are calling this pop-science bullshit generated by the publicity department of whatever group published the study. Or rather, not that it's bullshit but that the explanation and headline are gross misrepresentations of what physical interactions are making the image.

So I'm guessing the rainbow 'wave' is the wave portion, and the squiggles under it are the photon? Or are the bumps on the 'wave' the photons? Anyone?

Uh, Einstein won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 for discovering the photoelectic effect, and was not the first to propose the idea of wave-particle duality nature of light...

Neither, they've stimulated an oscillation of the free surface electrons in a wire and taken a diffraction pattern of that standing wave of electrons, using an electron microscope. It's sensationalism.

"Photograph" I don't think that word means what you think it means.

IE: "CGI recreation" or "graphical representation"

A spark is electrons moving rapidly from one place to another. But we see the spark. We can't see electrons. We can only see photons. So what's going on? Is a spark electrons or photons, or both?

This is frustrating. I wish the video had explained the image itself. "Voila" it says, and gives you an image you don't understand, then it finishes. How did the process result in the image that's presented here, and what do the different elements in the image mean?