Can You See Torch Light in Space?

[jobyts]

Is it true to say, in space (or in vaccum), you wouldn't be able to see the torch light, unless you point it to your eyes?

 

[Doc Al]

Since there would be nothing for the light to reflect off of, that would be correct.

 

[Hunterbender]

edited

Lol. That makes more sense. Thanks for the translation

 

[jshuford]

Doc Al is right, I guess I will just elaborate more on it.

In order to have fire, you need air. Since outer space is consider to be a vacuum (for all practical purposes), you won't have fire (hence no torch).

I don't get the eye portion. Personally, I don't think you can light it even if you point it to your eyes (or any part of the human body for that matter)

I believe he means a torch in the British sense, which is known to Americans as a Flashlight.

 

[Hunterbender]

I believe he means a torch in the British sense, which is known to Americans as a Flashlight.

Thank you.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't get the eye portion. Personally, I don't think you can light it even if you point it to your eyes (or any part of the human body for that matter)

Good point. We don't "see" light. Light is the means by which we see other objects. However a terminology problem arises when light from a light source is entering directly into you eyes without first reflecting off of something else. If we continue the logic of the term "see" then "seeing light" should only apply to a situation where light from source A reflects off light from source B allowing us to "see" light from source B. That's fiction.

However, looking directly into a light source is an undeniable light-eye interaction. You're doing it right now. If we don't "see" light, then are you unable to "see" most of your computer screen? If, on the other hand, we propose that all we ever "see" is light, then how are we aware of the objects all around us?

It's opening a can of words. Better to just accept the fact that the verb "to see" can be applied alternately to the illuminated and the illuminant, depending on the context, despite the dissonant logic.

 

[Steely Dan]

Good point. We don't "see" light. Light is the means by which we see other objects. However a terminology problem arises when light from a light source is entering directly into you eyes without first reflecting off of something else. If we continue the logic of the term "see" then "seeing light" should only apply to a situation where light from source A reflects off light from source B allowing us to "see" light from source B. That's fiction.

However, looking directly into a light source is an undeniable light-eye interaction. You're doing it right now. If we don't "see" light, then are you unable to "see" most of your computer screen? If, on the other hand, we propose that all we ever "see" is light, then how are we aware of the objects all around us?

It's opening a can of words. Better to just accept the fact that the verb "to see" can be applied alternately to the illuminated and the illuminant, depending on the context, despite the dissonant logic.

This post was way too philosophical, I think. We see when photons hit the eyeball. We don't see light from a flashlight in space because there are no particles for photons to bounce off of, so if it's not pointing towards the eyes those photons will never reach the eyeball.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This post was way too philosophical, I think. We see when photons hit the eyeball. We don't see light from a flashlight in space because there are no particles for photons to bounce off of, so if it's not pointing towards the eyes those photons will never reach the eyeball.

It was worth it for the line :"It's opening a can of words." You watch: in a year everyone will be saying that.

 

[Dadface]

But the reflector is itself a photon emitter-photons are absorbed from the source and some regenerated as the reflected photons

 

[zoobyshoe]

But the reflector is itself a photon emitter-photons are absorbed from the source and some regenerated as the reflected photons

Then my question becomes: to what extent can we consider all visible objects to be photon emitters?

 

[Hunterbender]

Then my question becomes: to what extent can we consider all visible objects to be photon emitters?

Now isn't that what dark matter comes down to? What potential object within the universe fails to serve as a photon emitter, which is the fundamental question of the MACHO-hunters (which had been discredited by a majority of physicists)

Tough question, which I highly doubt anyone knows the answer to (at the moment)

 

[Dadface]

A possible way to answer zoobyshoes question is in terms of energy supply and conversions.The torch bulb is continually being supplied by a relatively large amount energy input all the time while the battery lasts whilst the supply to the reflector originates from the torch bulb and is very much smaller by comparison.