Phosphorescence of mushrooms

[Foxfire]

Happened to have some dried mushrooms, leftovers from an earlier observations. These are partly the same ones that i once collected to get some overview of mushroom fluorescence (posts here and here). Was about to throw them away, but decided to do one more check for phosphorescence - a short glow immediately after the lightsource is turned off. 

 

As i remember i tried this briefly with fresh mushrooms and didn't saw anything. But because i've seen that sometimes a dead/dried plants can be phosphorescent, had an idea to try again after drying the shrooms. Months ago, i think i did not saw anything significant with dried ones either, so i just left them in a paper bag. But surprisingly, when checking them now again, the mushrooms have turned phosphorescent!

 

Did some testing and it appears that it's mainly affected by moisture. By placing one hard-dry mushroom outside the window, it turned leathery by absorbing some air moisture and were no longer phosphorescent. After i left the same mushroom on a warm radiator, where it dried up again, the phosphorescence property was restored again. To further confirm the moisture effect i wrapped the mushroom in a plastic bag while placing it outside - it still staid phosphorescent although it was about 20°C colder outside. So, no temp effects noticed. For the reason why there wasn't any significant phosphorescence when i checked them months ago i can only think that maybe they were not dry enough. 

 

Anyway, here are some pictures, arranged as:
Visible; UV (Baader U + chinese ZWB1 stack),
UV induced Vis phosphorescence; UViVis fluorescence

 

A cut-in-half and dried Lycoperdon excipuliforme. Some greenish glow in the stem area.

Some dried stems and caps

Phosphorescent, and one non-phosphorescent mushroom

Because i could not cover all the mushrooms at once with UV flashlight (UVBeast 365nm), the phosphorescence images are stacked-merged (in Gimp, lighten only). After placing the mushrooms under the camera, i illuminated-charged them almost one by one, took some number of pictures and merged them later. Not all of the mushrooms were phosphorescent.

 

Didn't expect that the phosphorescence colors can be different for mushrooms. The variety may be too small to generalize, but looks like the common is greenish, also yellowish glow (yellow is a surprise). Blueish may be rarer among the mushrooms. Nothing in deep red with Kolari 665 filter. The longest glow was visible almost about 10 seconds, but generally around 3 seconds. Mostly it was the gill area and stems.

 

So yes, now we know that mushrooms can be phosphorescent :)
 

And happy new year to all!

 

[ulf]

Interesting facts.
Thank you for sharing.

It would have been interesting to see how these mushrooms would look when fresh, in the same experiment.

The UV reflectance of flowers change very much when they are drying up.

 

I too wish everyone a Happy New Year!

[colinbm]

@Foxfire Really fascinating, thanks for sharing.

[colinbm]

This was advertised on FaceBook....
"The Fantastic Fungi"
https://fungi.foodrevolution.org/a/?affid=2&oid=2&WickedSource=Facebook&WickedID=23858898110350210&utm_source=facebook-ads&utm_medium=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_campaign=frn-l2-ff-conv-retargeting-film-cbo-20230606&utm_content=video-fffilm-c0055-t0003-t0015-t0005-h0001-h0003-d0001-learnmore-lp1&utm_term=l2-ca-vv_lpv180days-big6-18up-mf-manual-mix-conv-purchase-7dc1dv&fbclid=IwAR1QP-SG5thx3RDElM3XJ65JQNpVOxHwXvj21HxkpOAjmjWXcZY45_Qf1jg

[Foxfire]

@colinbm Thanks, for the link, i will look into it. Fungi are strange and fascinating organisms, i like especially the glowing and fluorescent ones.

 

As i understood the physics, compared to fluorescence, a phosphorescence should be with longer wavelengths than fluorescence. When looking at the images, can't really tell if it's there, maybe. Also maybe in the fluorescence images the phosphorescent compounds are masked by some other fluorescent stuff, or that what is phosphorescent is not so fluorescent. 

[Foxfire]

7 hours ago, ulf said:

It would have been interesting to see how these mushrooms would look when fresh, in the same experiment.

The UV reflectance of flowers change very much when they are drying up.

Some of them (as fresh) can be found in the images of older posts i linked. A large images that may take same time to load. But yea, i might try to find them, that's an idea.

[dabateman]

5 hours ago, colinbm said:

This was advertised on FaceBook....
"The Fantastic Fungi"
https://fungi.foodrevolution.org/a/?affid=2&oid=2&WickedSource=Facebook&WickedID=23858898110350210&utm_source=facebook-ads&utm_medium=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_campaign=frn-l2-ff-conv-retargeting-film-cbo-20230606&utm_content=video-fffilm-c0055-t0003-t0015-t0005-h0001-h0003-d0001-learnmore-lp1&utm_term=l2-ca-vv_lpv180days-big6-18up-mf-manual-mix-conv-purchase-7dc1dv&fbclid=IwAR1QP-SG5thx3RDElM3XJ65JQNpVOxHwXvj21HxkpOAjmjWXcZY45_Qf1jg

Yes I think I watched that on Netflix. 

Since you got it as a Facebook ad, that means they know you recently looked at mushroom images.

Great times.

 

@Foxfire, these are interesting.  I will have to see if I can look at some mushrooms in various UV.

[Lou Jost]

10 hours ago, Foxfire said:

@colinbm Thanks, for the link, i will look into it. Fungi are strange and fascinating organisms, i like especially the glowing and fluorescent ones.

 

As i understood the physics, compared to fluorescence, a phosphorescence should be with longer wavelengths than fluorescence. When looking at the images, can't really tell if it's there, maybe. Also maybe in the fluorescence images the phosphorescent compounds are masked by some other fluorescent stuff, or that what is phosphorescent is not so fluorescent. 

Can you explain why the phosphorescence would have a longer wavelength than the fluorescence?

 

[Lou Jost]

This was very interesting. There is another related phenomenon called "Delayed fluorescence". The red chlorophyll fluorescence under UV light continues very briefly after the UV is turned off. It is very very faint, but I have been able to photograph it without much trouble by using a very fast lens and a monochrome camera. I'm not sure what is the difference between phosphorescence and delayed fluorescence.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19548111/

[Foxfire]

6 hours ago, Lou Jost said:

Can you explain why the phosphorescence would have a longer wavelength than the fluorescence?

 

It's easier to give a short, generalized answer - in case of phosphorescence there are more steps between absorption and emission and more energy is nonradiatevly lost, as compared to fluorescence. 

 

Going a bit more into details: after absorption, if the electron is exited and is on the way to fall back to the ground state, the spin value gets turned around. Because electrons occupy atomic orbitals in pairs and according to Pauli exclusion principle no two electrons in orbital can have the same spin values, it will hang a bit in a metastable state, until the spin gets turned back again (somehow), and it can fall back to pair the other electron that is waiting it in the ground state. 
In case of fluorescence the spin value stays always the same and absorbtion-emission is a more spontaneous and quicker process.

 

But that's about how i understand it at the moment. If anybody spots a mistake, please correct. 
There is a great book about fluorescence and phosphorescence: Molecular Fluorescence: Principles and Applications. This goes into details and i will recommend (second edition). Also the delayed fluorescence is explained there. It looks to be copyrighted, so maybe i will not provide a download link here.  

[Lou Jost]

2 hours ago, Foxfire said:

It's easier to give a short, generalized answer - in case of phosphorescence there are more steps between absorption and emission and more energy is nonradiatevly lost, as compared to fluorescence. 

 

Going a bit more into details: after absorption, if the electron is exited and is on the way to fall back to the ground state, the spin value gets turned around. Because electrons occupy atomic orbitals in pairs and according to Pauli exclusion principle no two electrons in orbital can have the same spin values, it will hang a bit in a metastable state, until the spin gets turned back again (somehow), and it can fall back to pair the other electron that is waiting it in the ground state. 
In case of fluorescence the spin value stays always the same and absorbtion-emission is a more spontaneous and quicker process.

 

But that's about how i understand it at the moment. If anybody spots a mistake, please correct. 
There is a great book about fluorescence and phosphorescence: Molecular Fluorescence: Principles and Applications. This goes into details and i will recommend (second edition). Also the delayed fluorescence is explained there. It looks to be copyrighted, so maybe i will not provide a download link here.  

Thank you for that clear answer!

 

It does make me wonder how an electron changes its spin. If that can happen, why would the Pauli exclusion principle ever work (for two electrons)? If there were two in the same state with the same spin, one of them could change and then the condition would be satisfied. So the principle would not actually have consequences (for two electrons). ????

[Foxfire]

1 hour ago, Lou Jost said:

It does make me wonder how an electron changes its spin. If that can happen, why would the Pauli exclusion principle ever work (for two electrons)? If there were two in the same state with the same spin, one of them could change and then the condition would be satisfied. So the principle would not actually have consequences (for two electrons). ????

Hopefully there's somewhere a good explanation what the heck is this electron "spin", once i read about it that actually there is nothing spinning around. I can imagine that spin is something like electric charge, opposites attract, same ones repel, + and - equals neutral. But the spin must be rather different, in a way that somehow a - can change into +. How this happens, sounds like a mystery, but it would need some energy to 'turn the spin around'.

[StephanN]

Why not try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics),  or any reasonable good book about quantum mechanics, instead of speculating about the nature of spin?

[Andy Perrin]

Yeah, this isn’t some unknowable mystery, there are plenty of popular books, textbooks, and websites which all explain spin very well. (If you want spin, which is quantum mechanical, to obey classical rules and intuition, you are bound to be disappointed, however. Keep in mind that quantum mechanics is the more accurate description of nature, and classical physIcs is the approximation, not the other way around.)

 

I took this Coursera course on QM and it was decent:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/quantum-physics

[Foxfire]

13 minutes ago, Andy Perrin said:

Yeah, this isn’t some unknowable mystery, there are plenty of popular books, textbooks, and websites which all explain spin very well. (If you want spin, which is quantum mechanical, to obey classical rules and intuition, you are bound to be disappointed, however. Keep in mind that quantum mechanics is the more accurate description of nature, and classical physIcs is the approximation, not the other way around.)

 

I took this Coursera course on QM and it was decent:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/quantum-physics

If the spin is explained very well, can you please explain it with about max 3 sentences? Thanks.

[Andy Perrin]

The problem with that request is that you need context from understanding the rest of quantum mechanics up to the point where you discuss spin. You can’t expect to understand division if you don’t know how to subtract. You can’t understand Queen Elizabeth I’s reign if you don’t understand Henry VIII’s. Things like “what’s a wavefunction?” and “what does it mean to take a measurement in QM?” and “what is a superposition of states?” have to be understood beforehand. 
 

Also, I’m pretty sure you understand that and are just making an unreasonable request to be a troll. Less of that, please!

[Foxfire]

@Andy Perrin Troll or not, at least i tried. It's that often the explanations for similar quantum mechanics related things end up somewhere there. This is like giving an impression that there is actually no full understanding, no one knows.  But lets nevermind this, it's great that from mushrooms we got to discuss about quantum mechanics.

[Andy Perrin]

It’s not that nobody knows, it’s that QM is so far from our usual intuition that the only real way to “get it” is to work through the math. That’s why all the popular books feel unsatisfying, since they skip the math. 

[StephanN]

Don't feed the troll. That's what we used to say in the ancient history, when there were newsgroups.

 

Anybody really interested in qm, go and read Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, etc. Or, even if this sounds arrogant, just accept that you can't understand everything. The things I can't understand, fill while encyclopedias.

 

Nuff said

[Lou Jost]

 

17 minutes ago, StephanN said:

Don't feed the troll. That's what we used to say in the ancient history, when there were newsgroups.

 

Anybody really interested in qm, go and read Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, etc. Or, even if this sounds arrogant, just accept that you can't understand everything. The things I can't understand, fill while encyclopedias.

 

Nuff said

 I think it is normal to ask for simple explanations about things. Someone who has not studied quantum mechanics might not be aware of the challenges of quickly explaining a deeply mathematical theory.

[Andrea B.]

Yes, it is quite normal to ask for simple or summary explanations of complex topics. Please, members, don't poke at anyone who does. Be understanding and  kind.

 

****

 

I often think that quantum models are misinterpreted. That is, the "model" is taken to be the "reality". I think there are usually a few gaps between a "model" and its "reality". Models help us describe reality and predict real outcomes, but models are models. 

 

****

 

Can videos be made of phosphorescence if high ISO settings are used? This would be a nice way to present phosphorescence. And, yes, I need to try this myself!!  I have a couple of phosphorescent minerals here - somewhere.

[colinbm]

There is this discussion on Fluorescent Minerals group on FaceBook on the fluorescence & phosphorescence reactions with different temperatures, freezing, normal room temp & hot rocks....unfortunately there is a rock tumbler working in the background.
https://www.facebook.com/nicholas.viltrakis/videos/709001848005979?idorvanity=7350268570

[Lou Jost]

33 minutes ago, Andrea B. said:

 

I often think that quantum models are misinterpreted. That is, the "model" is taken to be the "reality". I think there are usually a few gaps between a "model" and its "reality". Models help us describe reality and predict real outcomes, but models are models. 

 

While that's true, the model is weird because reality is weird. The weirdest parts of QM actually do not depend on the current version of the theory. The weirdness of non-locality is a feature of reality. See Bell's Inequality, which I think is one of the deepest and most brilliant  (and yet one of the most simple) results in the history of human thought.

 

This has sometimes been explained by comparing with socks or pizzas:

https://hackaday.com/2015/11/11/what-do-bertlmanns-socks-mean-to-the-nature-of-reality/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.07596.pdf

[Foxfire]

1 hour ago, Andrea B. said:

Can videos be made of phosphorescence if high ISO settings are used? This would be a nice way to present phosphorescence. And, yes, I need to try this myself!!  I have a couple of phosphorescent minerals here - somewhere.

Tried also a video, but without much success. It's the short duration and weakness of the glow that makes it harder to capture. For pictures here i used about ISO 3600 and a wider aperture,  f5.6 or smth. 2 sec exposure, but the exposure is not so relevant if long enough.

 

Edit: or mostly ISO 6400

 

--------------------

To ones interested in electron spin and quantum physics, in relation to how phosphorescence works a better wikipedia articles to start with would be Spin transition or Hydrogen line, but a spin flip is only part of the thing.

[Andy Perrin]

7 hours ago, Andrea B. said:

 

I often think that quantum models are misinterpreted. That is, the "model" is taken to be the "reality". I think there are usually a few gaps between a "model" and its "reality". Models help us describe reality and predict real outcomes, but models are models. 

 

****

 

Can videos be made of phosphorescence if high ISO settings are used? This would be a nice way to present phosphorescence. And, yes, I need to try this myself!!  I have a couple of phosphorescent minerals here - somewhere.

 

 

Andrea, you are correct that models differ from reality, but the main types of weirdness of quantum mechanics (like only being able to predict probability distributions) match real experiments better than classical physics does. It’s a more accurate theory than classical physics. Quantum mechanics does differ from reality in certain ways also, and this is why quantum field theory was invented (which is different from quantum mechanics despite also having the word “quantum” in the name).

—

Regardless of all that, phosphorescence is really cool and I like the photo sets above! It’s interesting that moisture interferes with it.