Post by: guest39538 on 04/06/2016 09:03:37
Post by: evan_au on 06/06/2016 11:50:47
Quote from: TheBox
Does ''light'' give us night vision and allow us to see in the ''dark''?Yes.
A bit of ''light'' give us night vision and allow us to see in the ''dark''.
A lot of ''light'' give us day vision and allow us to see in the ''light''.
Too much ''light'' gives us sunburn and (in extreme cases) will blind us so we never see again.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/06/2016 16:27:51
Quote from: TheBoxDoes ''light'' give us night vision and allow us to see in the ''dark''?Yes.
A bit of ''light'' give us night vision and allow us to see in the ''dark''.
A lot of ''light'' give us day vision and allow us to see in the ''light''.
Too much ''light'' gives us sunburn and (in extreme cases) will blind us so we never see again.
You say a bit of ''light'' gives us night vision, then say a lot of ''light'' gives us day vision and allow us to see in the ''light''. which seems contradictory to the first part you said.
Should it not be that a lot of ''light'' gives us perfect ''night vision'' , meaning that although we think it is ''daytime'' it is still actually ''dark''?
How can we be sure that day vision is just not perfect night vision and a lot of ''light'' making ''dark'' seem to be ''light''?
And what do you mean by ''light''?, we do not see ''light'' in ''empty'' space we only see light ''interacting'' with ''matter'' , the ''light'' we don't see in space makes space ''gin-clear''.
How do we know that when we increase the intensity of ''light'' on a thing such as a dimmer switch, that we are not just intensifying our ''night'' vision?
''light'' allows us to see through the ''dark''? the light that passes through the space that is ''dark'' and ''opaque'' turns the ''dark'' space into ''gin-clear'' and not ''opaque''.
''dark space'' can be ''opaque'' or ''translucent'' relative to sight?
In simple terms how the hell do you know it is ''light'' outside of your head and you are not seeing in the ''dark''?
Does anyone disagree with that ''light'' allows us to see in the dark?
Post by: evan_au on 08/06/2016 12:17:38
No ''light'' give us no vision (we are blind).
Quote from: TheBox
You say a bit of ''light'' gives us night vision"Night Vision" is produced by "Rod Cells" in the retina. They are very sensitive, so they work well on a moonlit night.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell
Quote
then say a lot of ''light'' gives us day visionColor vision or daylight vision is produced by "Cone Cells" in the retina. There are 3 types of cone cells, roughly corresponding to red, green and blue colors. However, they are not very sensitive, and so color vision only works well in daylight.
This is why we don't see colors well at night.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
Quote
Should it not be that a lot of ''light'' gives us perfect ''night vision''?
How can we be sure that day vision is just not perfect night vision?
There is a disease called "Cone Dystrophy" where people don't develop any cone cells. So all they have is night vision, through their rod cells.
Bright daylight saturates the rod cells, so even dark objects are overpoweringly bright. These people experience severe discomfort trying to see in daylight - extremely dark glasses are required for them to navigate in daylight.
So a lot of light destroys night vision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_dystrophy
Quote
And what do you mean by ''light''?In physics, "light" mean electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 400 and 700 nm, or particles of light (photons).
In common language:
- "It is now light" means that the Sun is about to rise, and we can see easily
- "Turn on the light" means that we activate a device which produces visible electromagnetic radiation
Quote
we do not see ''light'' in ''empty'' spaceWe do see light passing through empty space, because we see stars, the Sun and the Moon through empty space.
Quote
How do we know that when we increase the intensity of ''light'' on a thing such as a dimmer switch, that we are not just intensifying our ''night'' vision?Because independent measurement equipment shows that the electrical power going into the lamp filament increases, the temperature of the filament increases, and that the power of visible light emitted by the filament increases.
These measurement devices do not rely on human night vision; they would normally use human daylight vision, but in principle, they could read out the results audibly.
Quote
the ''light'' we don't see in space makes space ''gin-clear''I think the gin is not providing you with any clarity into the physics.
I suggest you quit with the gin.
Post by: Colin2B on 08/06/2016 15:53:26
Does anyone disagree with that ''light'' allows us to see in the dark?If it is dark and we have a torch then the light from the torch allows us to see, but the area it shines on is no longer dark. If the sun is out, it is no longer dark.
There is obviously something about this topic which is giving you a lot of angst. Read through what Evan has written and see if you can pose one question at a time. Often we don't have time to answer multiple questions and so will pick the most important.
Note that you arn't using opaque in the sense used by most users of English, you clearly have your own definition which doesn't help communication.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/06/2016 17:27:20
[
Note that you arn't using opaque in the sense used by most users of English, you clearly have your own definition which doesn't help communication.
Thank you Colin for the advice and I will approach Evan's post with one question at a time.
I understand I am using opaque with a variation to the definition, that is why I have put opaque as ''opaque''.
Quote
opaque
ə(ʊ)ˈpeɪk/Submit
adjective
1.
not able to be seen through; not transparent.
When I turn out the ''light'' it is dark, relative to me ''dark'' is not ''transparent'' to my sight. ''light'' is needed to make ''dark'' ''transparent''. (''gin-clear clarity of ''empty space'').
Glass is not ''opaque'', water is not ''opaque'', space is not ''opaque'' when light is present.
We can see and observe that darkness exists in a shadow. I am now observing out of my window, the sun is shining and I can clearly distinguish where there is an ''edge'' of ''light'' that is ''adjoined'' to the ''edge'' of ''darkness'' , i.e the shadow off a neighbours house.
The shadow is at a distance away from me, the darkness/shadow I am observing is not inside my head, I am seeing and observing the shadow in it's exact location relative to the suns position in the ''sky''.
Darkness can not be just a thing where we can't see, darkness exists behind/under the light.
Try to understand this please, if you have any questions or do not understand please ask a question and one at a time, if you can understand the shadow then you will understand that darkness exists . I will ask Evan a question and it may help you understand me.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/06/2016 17:40:52
I should have added another boundary condition:
No ''light'' give us no vision (we are blind).
Thank you for the interesting post, I will take Colin advice and ask one question at a time , then maybe we can reach an equal understanding.
You say if there is no ''light'' that we are blind, I do not believe this to be true, I believe there is simply ''nothing'' to see and there is evidence that suggests this is the correct thought.
I have spoke before about a laser dot, even in absolute darkness, we can observe a laser dot at a distance ''interacting'' with a wall.
You will argue that photons are reflected into your eyes so this allows you to see and observe the laser dot.
I would disagree and say that all the space surrounding the laser dot was still ''opaque'', however between our eyes and laser dot the space was ''transparent'' and not opaque.
Between our eyes and the laser dot we do not observe a beam of ''light'', we only observe the dot.
It would be quite difficult to ''judge'' the distance the dot was away from you.
If we added smoke we would observe the beam of light but we would not observe a reflective ray or photons or any sort of light travelling towards our eyes, the beam is observed in it's exact location ' '''shining'' in the dark.
In the smoke filled room, it would still be relative absolute darkness, we could not see the walls but could observe the beam in the smoke.
So the question is how do you know you are blind in the dark when the dot suggests there just has to be something to see and seemingly we see objects in their exact location?
Post by: Colin2B on 08/06/2016 18:33:00
I would disagree and say that all the space surrounding the laser dot was still ''opaque'', however between our eyes and laser dot the space was ''transparent'' and not opaque.Before we go any further, we need to understand your meaning of opaque. From our dictionary opaque means light will not pass through that area. However, if someone stands to your right or left they will also see the dot so the space cannot be opaque - even by whatever definition you use - because between their eyes and the dot is transparent.
Post by: evan_au on 08/06/2016 22:09:12
Quote from: TheBox
When I turn out the ''light'' it is dark, relative to me ''dark'' is not ''transparent'' to my sight. ''light'' is needed to make ''dark'' ''transparent''.Let's try some more definitions:
"Dark" is the absence of light.
- The presence of light overcomes the darkness.
A "Transparent" medium allows any light to pass through.
- If light is present, you will see the light.
- If no light is present, you will see the darkness (ie the absence of light).
An "Opaque" medium means that it blocks transmission of light.
- Opaque overcomes the transmission of light.
- If there is an opaque substance between you and the light, opaque produces darkness.
Quote
I say that all the space surrounding the laser dot was still ''opaque'', however between our eyes and laser dot the space was ''transparent'' and not opaque.This is not correct.
- The area slightly away from the laser dot is dark (ie light is absent).
- The volume of air between your eye and the wall is transparent, because it faithfully transmits the glow of the laser dot (where it is present), and faithfully transmits the darkness (where the laser dot is absent)
- The volume of air between your eye and the wall is not opaque, because it faithfully transmits the glow of the laser dot (where it is present),
- I think your confusion arises because darkness can also be caused by the presence of an opaque medium between your eye and the source of light.
You can easily prove that the entire volume of air is transparent (and not opaque) by rapidly wiggling the laser beam so it travels all over the wall (followed by your cat, if you have one). This quickly samples the entire volume of space between your eye and the wall, and shows that the entire volume of air faithfully transmits the light (where the dot is shining) and faithfully transmits the darkness (where the dot is not shining). So the entire volume of air is transparent.
Quote
So the question is how do you know you are blind in the dark when the dot suggests there just has to be something to seeIf there is no light, we are blind. They demonstrate this on every cave tour; you should try it.
However, a dot of light is some light; there is something to see, so we are not blind.
Whether we are blind or not, the real world still exists around us; we just can't sense it by sight.
Quote
It would be quite difficult to ''judge'' the distance the dot was away from you.This is due to three effects:
- One eye can estimate the distance to close object by the amount of effort to focus. A wall is too far.
- Two eyes can estimate the distance to a nearby object by the amount they turn inwards. A wall is probably close enough, except for:
- A laser beam is coherent. It refracts from small crystalline areas of the wall, so the image is quite different between the two eyes. This makes it hard for your eyes to focus on a single object.
A dot of light from a torch (non-coherent light) would make it much easier to focus and estimate the distance.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereopsis
Post by: guest39538 on 09/06/2016 06:53:16
I would disagree and say that all the space surrounding the laser dot was still ''opaque'', however between our eyes and laser dot the space was ''transparent'' and not opaque.Before we go any further, we need to understand your meaning of opaque. From our dictionary opaque means light will not pass through that area. However, if someone stands to your right or left they will also see the dot so the space cannot be opaque - even by whatever definition you use - because between their eyes and the dot is transparent.
I understand Colin your definition, opaque is the closest word I can think of that closely describes what I refer to as ''opaque''.
My definition variation is - sight will not pass through that area, i.e a rainbow obstructs the vision and is ''opaque'' to sight.
Sight will not pass through darkness, the darkness is relatively ''opaque''.
A piece of thin low opacity coloured plastic is ''translucent'' to sight
Water is less ''opaque'' than milk to sight.
Ok?
Quote
However, if someone stands to your right or left they will also see the dot so the space cannot be opaque - even by whatever definition you use - because between their eyes and the dot is transparent.
Which shows that we can see in the dark and are not blind there just needs to be light interacting with something that allows us to see that something?
Yes the darkness is transparent and allows light to pass through, even without light the darkness is still transparent , however without light/matter interaction the darkness is ''opaque'', add a little bit of light i.e a dimmer switch, the darkness becomes ''translucent''?
Post by: Colin2B on 09/06/2016 09:07:58
This is due to you defining opaque differently to everyone else.
My definition variation is - sight will not pass through that area, i.e a rainbow obstructs the vision and is ''opaque'' to sight.
Sight will not pass through darkness, the darkness is relatively ''opaque''.
We do not consider that sight passes through anything, sight does not move through space, we believe it is light which moves.
As we said, how you define whether a room is dark or light depends on how much light is there.
Which shows that we can see in the dark and are not blind there just needs to be light interacting with something that allows us to see that something?
A dark room with a single torch beam will look light where the beam shines, and dark everywhere else because light from the beam is reflected back to the eyes, whereas where the beam does not fall there is no light to reflect back and so it looks dark.
Again your definition leading you to think that the space between you and an object changes, whereas we say it remains the same - always transparent to light, but if there is no light then we can't see anything.
Yes the darkness is transparent and allows light to pass through, even without light the darkness is still transparent , however without light/matter interaction the darkness is ''opaque'', add a little bit of light i.e a dimmer switch, the darkness becomes ''translucent''?
I understand that you don't believe in reflection or photons so if you want to discuss that you need to open up a new theory and we'll see what you say: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
At least I now understand why you believe what you do.
Post by: evan_au on 09/06/2016 10:24:09
Quote from: TheBox
opaque is the closest word I can think of that closely describes what I refer to as ''opaque'Since you seem to enjoy pseudo-mathematical malarky, I'll try to represent dark and light, transparent & opaque in pseudo-mathematical terms for you.
Lets assume we have a source of light (eg a laser pointer, a torch or the Sun), which can either be ON (1) or OFF (0).
The amount of light L illuminating the scene can be represented as follows:
a) Dark + Dark = Dark; L=0+0=0 (ie dark)
b) Dark + Light = Light; L=0+1=1 (ie light)
c) Light + Dark = Light; L=1+0=1
d) Light + Light = Light; L=1+1=2 (ie very light*)
Now let's assume that we have a medium M through which the light may travel (eg air, water or black cardboard), which may be either TRANSPARENT (1) or OPAQUE (0). The amount of Brightness seen by your eyes may be expressed as B=L*M.
The amount of Brightness seen by your eyes may be represented as follows:
e) Dark*Opaque = Dark; B=0*0=0
f) Dark*Transparent = Dark; B=0*1=0
g) Light*Opaque = Dark; B=1*0=0
h) Light*Transparent = Light; B=1*1=1
I think you are confusing equations (e) and (f).
They both give the same answer: They both suggest that the area outside a laser spot is dark.
However, getting the right answer is not enough in physics or mathematics - you must get the right answer for the right reason, otherwise you will end up with the wrong answer in other scenarios.
The right answer is that the air inside your house is transparent, and
- the laser spot appears light, as suggested by equation (h)
- the area away from the laser spot appears dark, as suggested by equation (f)
*This ignores the theoretical possibility of local light cancellation by anti-phase light.
Quote
i.e a rainbow obstructs the vision and is ''opaque'' to sight.I have no idea where the rainbow came from - it seems to have come out of thin air. Is it something to do with color vision??
But a rainbow does not obstruct light and it is not opaque - it is made of water droplets (transparent) in the air (transparent).
A rainbow is a source of light: sunlight reflected back towards your eye by the raindrops, and each color is refracted at a slightly different angle. It adds to the light from the background, as defined by equation (d).
I suggest that you take a closer look at a rainbow next time - you can see the background behind it, whether that be blue sky, clouds or hills.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/06/2016 15:18:56
My definition variation is - sight will not pass through that area, i.e a rainbow obstructs the vision and is ''opaque'' to sight.
Sight will not pass through darkness, the darkness is relatively ''opaque''.
Quote from: Colin
This is due to you defining opaque differently to everyone else.
We do not consider that sight passes through anything, sight does not move through space, we believe it is light which moves.
Please slow down, I did not even finish replying to Evan's post there is a lot to get my head around and to question in just that first post and now there is even more.
I agree that light seemingly moves from
although I also believe it is the ''tip'' of ''light'' that moves , I am unaware of any movement after the ''tip'' has reached it's destination although I am aware of waves which I feel is an invert process of ''force'' of once the ''tip'' has reached it's destination. You say ''you'' do not consider that sight passes through anything, yet we can not see through brick walls but can see through glass, the glass is transparent but the brick wall is opaque, the space between your eyes and the glass is transparent also and like the glass we can see through the space. However we can not see through the brick wall it is opaque, like we can not see through the dark because that is not see through like the glass but more like the brick wall and ''opaque'' although the dark remains transparent to light like it remains ''transparent'' to sight, light allow us to see through the dark.
Things that are transparent and allow light to pass through also allow sight to pass through although I do not mean in a sense that there is any travelling involved of/from the eyes.
Sight ''passes'' through water like light passes through water.
Please just reply with an ok if you now understand that bit and what I mean by sight passes through, if not please further question before I answer the rest of the post , thanks.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/06/2016 15:36:03
Quote from: TheBox
And what do you mean by ''light''?
Quote from: Evan
In physics, "light" mean electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 400 and 700 nm, or particles of light (photons).
I am well aware that ''light'' is electromagnetic radiation and also the CBMR which we have yet to discuss in this thread which I feel is later required.
I must correct you though in that wavelengths between 400-700nm is visible light observed as spectral content like the colours of a rainbow, that is different to the electromagnetic radiation observed passing through space, in that is observed to be ''invisible'' light, there is also ''invisible'' light such as radio waves, so to be clear in our understanding we must be certain that we refer to visible light or invisible light rather than a group terminology of just light.
ok?
Quote from: thebox
we do not see ''light'' in ''empty'' space
Quote from: Evan
We do see light passing through empty space, because we see stars, the Sun and the Moon through empty space
So you claim that you can see visible light of 400-700nm passing through space?
I can see stars because they are visible light, I do not observe visible light between me and the star , I observe invisible light do you disagree with this observation?
Post by: evan_au on 09/06/2016 22:35:55
Quote from: TheBo
My definition variation is - sight will not pass through that area....The Greek philosopher Empedocles believed that there was a fire in your eyes that came out and illuminated the world around you. In such a theory, vision would not pass through an opaque object.
I do not mean in a sense that there is any travelling involved of/from the eyes.
This theory was not totally discredited until the time of Newton.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory_(vision)
Perhaps what you mean is a "line of sight", which is a geometrical construct linking an illuminated object to your eye; it is effectively the path along which light will pass from the object to your eye, providing there is no opaque object in the way.
Quote
I must correct you though in that wavelengths between 400-700nm is visible lightYes, I could have phrased that better. I suggest:
In physics:
- "light" means electromagnetic waves, or particles of light (photons).
- "visible light" means light with wavelengths between 400 and 700 nm
- Other forms of light that are not visible to the human eye include radio waves, microwaves, infra-red, X-Rays, and gamma rays
Quote
wavelengths between 400-700nm is visible light observed as spectral content like the colours of a rainbowThe same wavelength range can produce colors like white, magenta and cyan, which are not present in the rainbow.
Quote
I do not observe visible light between me and the star, I observe invisible light do you disagree with this observation?When I look at a star, my eye detects visible radiation which has passed through empty space - the atmosphere is spanned in less than 1 millisecond of a journey that may have taken hundreds of years (eg in the case of Betelgeuse).
When a radio telescope looks into space, it detects invisible light like microwaves (which includes the CMBR and radiation from dust clouds) which has passed through empty space - and again, the atmosphere is spanned in the last 1 millisecond of that journey.
So I disagree with your assertion - I see that both visible and invisible light pass freely through empty space (although I need a computer to translate the invisible wavelengths into a wavelength range that my eyes can see).
Post by: guest39538 on 10/06/2016 05:31:16
So I disagree with your assertion - I see that both visible and invisible light pass freely through empty space (although I need a computer to translate the invisible wavelengths into a wavelength range that my eyes can see).
Thank you for your reply but I certainly feel you side stepped the question, do you or do you not see visible light of 400-700nm passing through space?
The obvious answer is no, we do not see visible light passing through space, we see space as relatively ''empty'' space, do your eyes work differently to mine or the random people I ask in real life?
and moving onto your further post -
Quote from: Evan
I have no idea where the rainbow came from - it seems to have come out of thin air. Is it something to do with color vision??
But a rainbow does not obstruct light and it is not opaque - it is made of water droplets (transparent) in the air (transparent).
Is it something to do with colour vision? Colour is the only vision we have, we only see colour and light in colour form. A rainbow is not opaque it is transparent, but a rainbow obstructs the line of sight and is ''opaque'' relative to sight.
A rainbow is not made of water droplets, a rainbow is a ''projection'' from a water droplet at a 45? degree angle to the incident ray.
Do you see the rainbow is different to the space that surrounds the rainbow?
Also mentioned earlier was a point about being blind when there was no light, I have had chance to think about this, would ''you'' then say we was part blind if the dimmer switch was turned down to half of the power giving half the luminosity?
Post by: evan_au on 10/06/2016 12:09:24
Quote from: TheBox
do you or do you not see visible light of 400-700nm passing through space?Yes, I see it.
But since I don't like boiling and freezing my lungs at the same time, I prefer to view it through a window of air about 100km thick.
Quote
would ''you'' then say we was part blind if the dimmer switch was turned down to half of the power giving half the luminosity?No.
It is said that Rod cells are about 100 times more sensitive than Cone cells.
- So if you turned the dimmer down to 1%, the cones would struggle, and we would start to become color-blind.
- And if you turned the dimmer down to 1% of 1%, then the rods would be struggling too, and we would start to become blind.
- And if you turn all light off, we would become blind.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell#Sensitivity
Quote
Colour is the only vision we haveNot so; we also have night vision, which comes from the Rod cells.
There is a third type of vision that has been investigated in detail only since the 1990s. This acts below the conscious level to control pupil size and the circadian rhythm, among others.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_retinal_ganglion_cells
Quote
Do you see the rainbow is different to the space that surrounds the rainbow?
The astronomer William Herschel discovered infra-red by placing a thermometer off the end of the visible rainbow, past the red. He found that the thermometer showed a temperature rise.
A similar effect occurs beyond the violet, with ultra-violet radiation.
So I believe that the visible rainbow is not fundamentally different to the space which surrounds it, which consists of a spectrum of light which is invisible to unaided humans (although parts of this invisible spectrum are visible to snakes and bees).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
Infra-red is my favorite color [;)]...
Post by: guest39538 on 10/06/2016 18:02:11
Quote from: TheBox
do you or do you not see visible light of 400-700nm passing through space?
Quote from: Evan
Yes, I see it.
Ok! let us ''stick'' with this for a moment and I will ask you to describe your observation of ''empty'' space which you claim to see ''light'' that is in the range of 400nm-700nm.
Below is an illustration and fact of what the wavelength's of 400nm-700nm looks like with sight that you claim to observe in the ''empty'' space between your eyes and object.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Quite clearly the wavelength's of 400nm-700nm are not observed in ''empty space'' unless we see a rainbow.
Do you still claim to see the wavelength of 400nm-700nm passing through space?
added-
Quote from: Evan
Since you seem to enjoy pseudo-mathematical malarky, I'll try to represent dark and light, transparent & opaque in pseudo-mathematical terms for you.
ok
Quote from: Evan
Lets assume we have a source of light (eg a laser pointer, a torch or the Sun), which can either be ON (1) or OFF (0).
ok
Quote from: Evan
The amount of light L illuminating the scene can be represented as follows:
a) Dark + Dark = Dark; L=0+0=0 (ie dark)
b) Dark + Light = Light; L=0+1=1 (ie light)
c) Light + Dark = Light; L=1+0=1
d) Light + Light = Light; L=1+1=2 (ie very light*)
Dark + Dark? just L=0=D where L is light and 0 equals intensity and D is darkness ?
D+m1+1c=L
I will try to work out your version , the kids are playing up sorry.
Quote from: Evan
*This ignores the theoretical possibility of local light cancellation by anti-phase light.
What does this mean?
Quote from: Evan
They both give the same answer: They both suggest that the area outside a laser spot is dark.
Yes it is dark but the dark is also transparent at the same ''time''. You see the dot through the dark? which is ''opaque''and ''transparent'' ,
Post by: Colin2B on 10/06/2016 22:09:00
.....describe your observation of ''empty'' space which you claim to see ''light'' that is in the range of 400nm-700nm.He already has. Reread all of reply 14.
Note that a mixture of wavelengths can create the colour of the light we see from a star. It does not have to be all the separate colours of the rainbow unless we separate them with a prism.
You see the dot through the dark? which is ''opaque''and ''transparent'' ,Something cannot be both opaque and transparent. Your misuse of words is confusing you.
The reason for what you see has also been explained before. You can't keep asking for explanations of things that have already been explained, either try to understand the explanation or post an alternative theory.
Post by: evan_au on 10/06/2016 23:42:19
Quote from: TheBox
Quite clearly the wavelength's of 400nm-700nm are not observed in ''empty space'' unless we see a rainbow.
There is an astronomical instrument called a spectroscope which breaks the light up into a rainbow of colors. It breaks the light up into far more bands than the meagre 3 bands which can be seen by the human eye. The spectrum is usually created by a prism or a grating, using all the light collected by a large telescope.
From this spectrum you can tell a wide variety of information, like the star's temperature, chemical composition and even how many planets it has.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
However, my eyes collect only a small amount of light. While some of the brightest stars show a bit of color (eg Betelguese, a red giant), most stars are too dim to activate your Cone cells, so you see them only in monochrome, using your Rod cells.
My eyes aren't a grating; they are a prism, but the chromatic aberration is so slight that I don't notice it (and I suspect that the wiring of the retina to the brain partly cancels the chromatic aberration).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration
So, for multiple reasons, I do not see the stars as a rainbow.
Quote
Do you still claim to see the wavelength of 400nm-700nm passing through space?Yes. I believe that the light from stars at night contain all the colors from 400 to 700nm (and more beside).
The closest I have come to seeing these colors for myself is when I created star-trails with a long exposure on old-fashioned color film.
For a gallery of spectacular star-trails, see: http://www.lincolnharrison.com/startrails/
Quote
Dark + Dark?If you are in a dark room (the room lights are off: L1=0), and you turn off your laser pointer (L2=0), the total illumination Lt=L1+L2=Dark+Dark=0+0=0
Quote
Yes it is dark but the dark is also transparent at the same ''time''. You see the dot through the dark? which is ''opaque''and ''transparent''You are getting confused between the different concepts here:
- The level of illumination L determines whether the wall is bright or dark
- But the Brightness you perceive (B) is also affected by the transparency of the Medium M. The Medium can be opaque or transparent.
In the case of the laser dot, the central area is bright. The surrounding area is dark.
The medium (plain air) is transparent, in both cases.
This leaves an area on your retina which is bright, surrounded by an area which is not bright.
As all the mathematics textbooks say, I leave extension of this model as an exercise for the reader: incorporating non-binary illumination and transparency, and the inverse-square law.
Post by: evan_au on 11/06/2016 03:03:23
Quote from: TheBox
Quite clearly the wavelength's of 400nm-700nm are not observed in ''empty space'' unless we see a rainbow.
There is one star which is bright enough to fully activate our cone cells - the Sun.
This light travels to us through 150 million km of empty space.
But you should never look directly at the Sun - it is so bright that it will burn out our Cone and Rod cells.
It is safe to use a "pin-hole camera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura)" to project an image of the Sun onto white cardboard.
You will notice that the Sun is not rainbow-colored. It is a single color, which could be (rather technically) described as "black-body radiation with a color temperature around 5700K".
Other stars have quite different black-body temperatures, resulting in the wide range of colors shown in the star-trails.
If you project the Sun's light through a prism (or raindrops), you will see it split up into its component colors. But this is a property of a dispersive medium.
Empty space is not a dispersive medium, so we see the visible light (400-700nm) from the Sun and other stars travelling through empty space without forming a rainbow.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/06/2016 07:22:37
Bang my head against a brick wall, this is worse than talking to a brick wall, the answers you provide anyone can search on google, you are avoiding my queries, I am not making a new theory Colin so stop trying to force discipline on me that I am querying.
My question is being sidetracked with again stereotypical ''waffle''.
To all the readers of this thread, please join in and tell these people that they do not see spectral content in ''empty'' space.
Evan tut tut, for some reason you are trying to justify your sidetrack by mentioning stars and the spectral content of stars, you then perceive that spectral content travels from a star to your eye and you see this spectral content as spectral content passing through space, if this were true then you would not see the star because the space would not be crystal clear it would be coloured, I give up, you win and keep your lies .
i see my television, i see my monitor, i see myself , I can see a rainbow, but I do not see coloured air.
Quote from: Evan
Empty space is not a dispersive medium, so we see the visible light (400-700nm) from the Sun and other stars travelling through empty space without forming a rainbow.
True empty space offers no resistance, but
''so we see the visible light (400-700nm) from the Sun and other stars travelling through empty space without forming a rainbow. ''
Contradictory, see and without forming a rainbow, how do you see it if it does not form a rainbow?
I am sure you mean detect it?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/06/2016 07:43:40
Something cannot be both opaque and transparent.
Quite clearly you are not a scientist Colin and an amateur scientists whom became a moderator, you do not know what you are talking about, opaque, even to your definition is transparent, you have not considered x-rays or radio waves that pass through opaque things.
You are giving out false information in the main section like Evan did earlier with the explanation of light which in respect he corrected.
Please correct your error for the public who are learning.
Post by: evan_au on 11/06/2016 08:44:07
Quote from: TheBox
you have not considered x-rays or radio waves that pass through opaque things.When we talk about an "opaque" or "transparent" medium, we always use this term with respect to some radiation.
If the form of radiation is not stated, we would assume visible light - and most of this discussion has been focused on visible light (400-700 nm).
When you consider neutrinos, almost anything is transparent to them (short of a neutron star or black hole).
Quote from: Colin2B
Something cannot be both opaque and transparent.Opaque vs transparent is a rather binary distinction. Real matter is more nuanced:
- Empty Space is perfectly transparent to all wavelengths of light that we are likely to find on Earth.
- Clear Air is very transparent to visible wavelengths of light (including red and green laser pointers).
- Pure water is fairly transparent - if there is no algae or pollutants, you can see quite a few meters deep.
- Glass is somewhat transparent to visible light - but if you look from the side, the very dark green color shows that it strongly attenuates visible light over just 1 meter, and it attenuates some wavelengths more than others (giving the green hue).
- Both water and glass can exhibit total internal reflection at their boundaries, and partial reflection in other cases.
- Both water and glass are dispersive media, and can produce rainbows.
- Finely divided water (eg fog) and glass (crushed glass powder) refract the light in so many directions that it no longer forms an image. Such a material is called translucent.
- A clay-brick wall is opaque to visible wavelengths, but somewhat attenuates VHF radio waves and X-Rays (ie it is partially transparent and partially opaque at these wavelengths)
So the lesson here is that transparent air is not opaque.
Quote from: TheBox
how do you see it if it does not form a rainbow?Have you had your eyes lasered?
This does form a grating, and if the gratings were fine enough, would form a rainbow around every luminous object.
But most people don't have a diffraction grating burnt into their eyeballs, and they do see most things without seeing a rainbow effect around them.
Quote from: TheBox
I am sure you mean detect it?I have a digital camera, and a digital sensor for my telescope. We speak about both of them detecting light.
But when I am talking about my eyes, I talk about seeing the light directly (even if I am looking through the eyepiece of my telescope).
Post by: guest39538 on 11/06/2016 08:55:00
But this discussion has mostly been about empty space and air, and these are both transparent to visible light, not opaque.
So the lesson here is that transparent air is not opaque.
Air is transparent and so is space, however what is the air if not ''opaque'', is it when L=0 and it is dark?
The air in the dark certainty looks opaque to me in the dark?
Quote from: Evan
But when I am talking about my eyes, I talk about seeing the light directly (even if I am looking through the eyepiece of my telescope).ok, so look through your telescope and observe the moon, you can see the moon and see the spectral content of the moon, between your eyes and the moon what do you see?
I see ''empty'' space and no spectral content in that space.
Post by: evan_au on 12/06/2016 07:42:26
Quote from: TheBox
I see ''empty'' space and no spectral content in that space.This is where the contrast between transparent and opaque becomes significant.
In general:
- Something that is transparent does not absorb nor emit light (at that wavelength). You can see light from objects beyond it.
- Something that is opaque both absorbs and emits light (at that wavelength). You can't see light from objects beyond it.
So both empty space and clear air are transparent (to visible light)
- They do not absorb nor emit light (at visible wavelengths).
- You can see the wall beyond the clear air
- You can see the glow of the laser pointer beyond the clear air
- The clear air does not emit any wavelengths (spectral content) in addition to those emitted by the laser pointer
- You can see that the wall is dark outside the dot of the laser pointer
- The wall can "see" (be illuminated by) the laser pointer in your hand, beyond the clear air.
- You can see the Moon beyond the empty space
- The empty space does not emit any wavelengths (spectral content) in addition to those emitted by the Moon
- You can see the Moon and the Wall with no extra rainbow colors.
Quote from: TheBox
how do you see [a star] if it does not form a rainbow?If you look at a rainbow, you will see bands of color. These are "pure" colors (Red, Orange, yellow, etc); you will see 6 of them (if you live in the USA) or 7 (if you live in the UK).
If you have a look at the star trails (http://www.lincolnharrison.com/startrails/), you will see streaks of many different colors. But these streaks of different color don't come from a single star; each trail is a single color and comes from one star. And none of these streaks are the "pure" colors of the rainbow; these are all mixtures of pure colors, with the exact mixture determined by the temperature of the star.
So stars come in many colors, but they don't come in rainbow colors.
Quote from: Colin2B
Something cannot be both opaque and transparent.There is an exception to this usual rule in the materials used in lasers - these are able to sustain a temporary "population inversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion)" of the electrons, where the electrons stay at a high energy state for an unusually long time (for an electron - it still seems short to humans).
- When the electrons are in the ground state, it is opaque (to the "pump" wavelengths). Any light in this wavelength range will be absorbed, boosting the electrons into the excited energy state.
- When the electrons have all been boosted into the excited state, there are no electrons left in the ground state, and so the material becomes more transparent to the pump wavelengths.
- Wait a long time, and all the electrons will all return to the ground state, and the material becomes opaque again.
But lasing materials are rather rare exceptions.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/06/2016 07:54:45
Quote from: TheBoxI see ''empty'' space and no spectral content in that space.This is where the contrast between transparent and opaque becomes significant.
In general:
- Something that is transparent does not absorb nor emit light (at that wavelength). You can light from objects beyond it.
- Something that is opaque both absorbs and emits light (at that wavelength). You can't see light from objects beyond it.
So both empty space and clear air are transparent (to visible light)
- They do not absorb nor emit light (at visible wavelengths).
- You can see the wall beyond the clear air
- You can see the glow of the laser pointer beyond the clear air
- The clear air does not emit any wavelengths (spectral content) in addition to those emitted by the laser pointer
- You can see that the wall is dark outside the dot of the laser pointer
- The wall can "see" (be illuminated by) the laser pointer in your hand, beyond the clear air.
- You can see the Moon beyond the empty space
- The empty space does not emit any wavelengths (spectral content) in addition to those emitted by the Moon
- You can see the Moon and the Wall with no extra rainbow colors.Quote from: TheBoxhow do you see [a star] if it does not form a rainbow?If you look at a rainbow, you will see bands of color. These are "pure" colors (Red, Orange, yellow, etc); you will see 6 of them (if you live in the USA) or 7 (if you live in the UK).
If you have a look at the star trails (http://www.lincolnharrison.com/startrails/), you will see streaks of many different colors. But these streaks of different color don't come from a single star; each trail is a single color and comes from one star. And none of these streaks are the "pure" colors of the rainbow; these are all mixtures of pure colors, with the exact mixture determined by the temperature of the star.
So stars come in many colors, but they don't come in rainbow colors.
I know stars do not come multi coloured like a rainbow you misunderstand my meaning.
You seem to understand clear air because the air has a low refractive index and does not ''compress'' the ''light'' to form visible wavelengths.
We have to have a clear line of sight to observe ''things'', I deem if we do not have a clear line of sight in that such as where a rainbow obstructs the line of sight, the once clear air is now ''opaque'' relative to sight where the rainbow occupies. Our line of sight is obstructed which also shows us that ''something'' is obstructing the ''light''.
I am not sure if you understand my ''argument'' about opaque or not?
Post by: Colin2B on 12/06/2016 09:42:35
You seem to understand clear air because the air has a low refractive index and does not ''compress'' the ''light'' to form visible wavelengths.I don't know what you mean by this. This is not why air is transparent to visible light.
We have to have a clear line of sight to observe ''things'', I deem if we do not have a clear line of sight in that such as where a rainbow obstructs the line of sight, the once clear air is now ''opaque'' relative to sight where the rainbow occupies. Our line of sight is obstructed which also shows us that ''something'' is obstructing the ''light''.I understand your argument about the rainbow,( although I have posted a picture in another thread of yours that shows you can see through a rainbow.) what is happening here is that the light reflected by the water droplets is brighter than what is behind, note that the background is usually very dark clouds, if you have a white house behind part of the rainbow light from the house will be brighter and you won't see the rainbow so clearly - mixing of light.
I am not sure if you understand my ''argument'' about opaque or not?
What I don't understand is why you consider dark areas eg shadows to be opaque.
Consider a light in the centre of a room. Light off, room and bulb dark. Turn dimmer switch up slightly there is a little light but the corners of the room are still dark (further away from light=less light =darker)
The more you turn up the light the brighter the room becomes. Light from the bulb is hitting the walls and some is bouncing off in all directions, when this bounced light hits your retina you 'see' the wall. Where the light is obstructed eg by opaque furniture there will be a shadow=less light=darker. You can even stop the light with your hand and cast a shadow. It is not the air changing from transparent to opaque, but the amount of light illuminating the wall and other objects to cause light and dark.
Post by: evan_au on 12/06/2016 14:05:19
Quote from: TheBox
You seem to understand clear air because the air has a low refractive indexBy this reasoning, I also have an excellent understanding of Solar System space, because the Solar Wind has an even lower refractive index than air.
- And it suggests that I have an even better understanding of intergalactice space, which has an even lower refractive index than Solar System space.
- By the way, I also think I have a reasonable (if classical) understanding of light propagation through water, glass and diamond, all of which have a far greater refractive index than air.
Quote from: TheBox
air has a low refractive index and does not ''compress'' the ''light'' to form visible wavelengths.Perhaps you are getting confused here by the relationship between the wavelength and frequency of light, and the refractive index of the material through which it is passing?
When light enters a material with a higher refractive index (ie a higher refractive index than a vacuum), the speed of light slows down, which also compresses the wavelength proportionately.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices
For example, as soon as light strikes a diamond, it slows down by a factor of 2.4, and the wavelength also reduces by a factor of 2.4. But as soon as the light exits the diamond, it returns to its original speed and also its original wavelength.
When it comes to wavelength, the only material that matters is the gel inside your eye, because this is the material through which light is traveling when we see it. But this is about as transparent as air.
The frequency of the light has not changed when it was in a vacuum (with refractive index n=1), in the air (n=1.000277), in glass (n≈1.5), in diamond (n≈2.4), or in the gel of your eye (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/eyescal.html) (n≈1.3). It is the frequency of light that determines the energy of the photons. It is the energy of the photons which determines whether the photon will trigger a red, green or blue Cone cell in your eye (or none at all), or reach a Red, Green or Blue sensor in your camera.
So I don't care what material or sequence of transparent materials the light has passed through, if the photons are in the visible frequency range, you will still be able to see it (provided it is bright enough).
This is how you can see the same colors when you are in air, when you are wearing contact lenses, when swimming underwater, and also when a spaceman is in his spacesuit.