How can you see light that is traveling away from the observer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter simon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Observer
AI Thread Summary
Light can be seen when it hits a surface because the surface scatters some of the light back to the observer's eyes. In a dark environment, such as a salt flat, a beam from a torch or laser can illuminate the ground, allowing the observer to see the point of impact due to this scattering effect. If there are no particles or surfaces to reflect the light, such as in a vacuum, the light would not be visible to the observer. The discussion emphasizes that without scattering particles like dust or water vapor, light traveling away from the observer cannot be seen. Therefore, the visibility of light depends on the presence of surfaces that can reflect some of the light back.
simon
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
You are on a salt flat, away from the city lights, no moon and it is cloudy. It is pitch black, you can't see a thing. It is a salt flat so there is nothing for miles. You shine a torch so the beam hits a hundred meters in front of you onto the ground. If the light is traveling away from you at 300 kps and there is nothing to bounce off,back to the observer, then how can you see the light? Do the same with a laser, 500 metres, how can you see the point where the laser hits the ground, when it is traveling away from your eyes, and in a focused beam?
 
Science news on Phys.org
If there truly was nothing to bounce the light back, you would not be able to see the light.

- Warren
 
as experiments have proved that theory wrong would you like to try again?
 
...and if you replaced the 'salt flats' with a really good mirror, then you wouldn't see the light. But when it hits salt, or sand, or something bumpy, then some of the light bounces in every direction. That's why you can see it after the bounce.

If there's enough water vapor, smoke, dust, or whatever in the air, you'll be able to see the beam even before it bounces off the ground.

P
 
Originally posted by simon
as experiments have proved that theory wrong would you like to try again?
Uh.. excuse me? Which experiments?

- Warren
 
When I do this sort of experiment, like every night I am driving, I see light scattered off of the road in front of me. The ground is something whether it be salt flats or asphalt.
 
Originally posted by rocketcity
...and if you replaced the 'salt flats' with a really good mirror, then you wouldn't see the light. But when it hits salt, or sand, or something bumpy, then some of the light bounces in every direction. That's why you can see it after the bounce.

If there's enough water vapor, smoke, dust, or whatever in the air, you'll be able to see the beam even before it bounces off the ground.

P

when referring to the "beam" I am not referring to the light contained within the beam traveling from observer to object. As stated, the point where it hits the ground. Mirror does the same, so your guess is wrong. And no tiny bits of light do not bounce off sand, if that were true then if you did the same thing inside a room the amount of light generated by the reflection would be blinding, yet there is no difference between out in the open or direct contact.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by chroot
Uh.. excuse me? Which experiments?

- Warren

the one with the torch the laser and the mirror on a dark clouded night, with no moon, what other experiment would you expect? The question wasnt can you see the point of impact, but why can you see it.
 
Last edited:
You can see the point where the beam hits the ground because the ground scatters some of the light back to your eyes.

- Warren
 
  • #10
Maybe I got the wrong conclusion from all this: but basically you couldn't see light if there weren't any particles for it to hit? (when its not shining directly at you).

PS: I agree with the above answers.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Decker
Maybe I got the wrong conclusion from all this: but basically you couldn't see light if there weren't any particles for it to hit? (when its not shining directly at you).

PS: I agree with the above answers.

Yes you can as stated previously, in an experiment. You see the light that hits the ground be it torch or laser. Being at an angle whereby reflection is in the opposite direction.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by chroot
You can see the point where the beam hits the ground because the ground scatters some of the light back to your eyes.

- Warren
as already stated, in order for that to be true, it would mean that the value of the light energy of the one or two photons that magically come back to you would need to bee the same as the total value of all the other light that hits the surface, since you still see the point of impact with the same degree as if you were shining it directly at a wall.

What you are basicaly saying is that if a torch was shon at a surface at an angle of 179 degrees, that somehow a small amount of light is always no matter what, returned in your direction, yet despite the miniscul amount it still allows you to see the light at the same level as if all the light was bouncing back. If this were true, then if you were to turn your back and look at your hand, then the "reflected" light you claim exists, would illuminate your hand, but it does not, therefore you are wrong.
 
  • #13
Sorry, simon. You're wrong. If you shine your torch or laser into an infinite vacuum (the blackness of space is a pretty good approximation), there will be no particles to scatter the light back to your eyes, and you will not see the beam.

As has been said, in the real word, air molecules, dust, water vapor, and other particles scatter light. Of course, when your beam hits the ground, more light is scattered, in all directions.

- Warren
 
  • #14
Originally posted by simon
And no tiny bits of light do not bounce off sand


Umm...thats how human sight works, light bounces off of stuff. Well actually that's the simplified version. More specifically the light excites the molecules of said sand (and some of the photons are absorbed and others bounce off, giving the sight of the red dot) that then release a certain wavelength of light that is the color of the sand.

However it is an inefficient process (as all antural processes are) meaning that the amount of light reflected is less than the amount recieved. Some of the received light is transformed into heat for example, rather than ebing reflected as visible light.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by simon
And no tiny bits of light do not bounce off sand, if that were true then if you did the same thing inside a room the amount of light generated by the reflection would be blinding, yet there is no difference between out in the open or direct contact.

Yes, the light does bounce off the sand. And it also does so off the walls of a room. If you were to place an object and a light in a room with white walls the object will be better lit than if the same light and object were place in open space. This is because the light reflecting off of the wall helps to illuminate the object. (This effect is call radiosity.)

The light is not blindingly bright because even a white wall does not reflect all of the light, but only a portion. The rest is is absorbed and converted to heat.

This heat is radiated off to both the inside and outside of the room. (Which is why the room doesn't just keep getting warmer and warmer. It will heat up just to the point where the heat being lost to outside the room equals the heat gained from the light.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by chroot
Sorry, simon. You're wrong. If you shine your torch or laser into an infinite vacuum (the blackness of space is a pretty good approximation), there will be no particles to scatter the light back to your eyes, and you will not see the beam.

As has been said, in the real word, air molecules, dust, water vapor, and other particles scatter light. Of course, when your beam hits the ground, more light is scattered, in all directions.

- Warren

You can't seem to get this through your head, I am not taling about the BEAM of light that can be seen when it hits dust or smoke particles in the air. I am talking about the point where the beam of light hits the ground,that illuminates the surface area, that point and that point only, so vacuum is irrelevant as the same effect would occur on the dark side of the moon if you shon a torch onto the surface of the moon away from you.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by franznietzsche
Umm...thats how human sight works, light bounces off of stuff. Well actually that's the simplified version. More specifically the light excites the molecules of said sand (and some of the photons are absorbed and others bounce off, giving the sight of the red dot) that then release a certain wavelength of light that is the color of the sand.

However it is an inefficient process (as all antural processes are) meaning that the amount of light reflected is less than the amount recieved. Some of the received light is transformed into heat for example, rather than ebing reflected as visible light.

179 degree angle, so your assecrtion won't work.
 
  • #18
The angle is irrelevant. Some of the light is scattered directly back to the light source. Some of it hits your eyes.

- Warren
 
  • #19
I think you are correct, we do not get your point.

Are you telling me that I cannot see my head lights hit the road? Just what are you saying?
 
  • #20
Originally posted by simon
If this were true, then if you were to turn your back and look at your hand, then the "reflected" light you claim exists, would illuminate your hand, but it does not, therefore you are wrong.

The reflected light does illumnate your hand. But since this reflected light is only a small percentage of the light striking the spot of the ground, this illumination is very slight and in most cases will be below the eyes ability to see.(If the Light is very bright to start with, and you are very close to the spot on the ground, it will be visible. Shine a flashlight on a wall in a dark room, and hold your hand out of the beam but close to the wall and you will see it lit up by the light reflected off the wall.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by franznietzsche
Umm...thats how human sight works, light bounces off of stuff. Well actually

Umm...well actually if you had cared to read what it was referring to, it was referring the previous statement, therefore was not saying that light is not reflected off sand but only at that angle. And umm that is not how you see.
 
  • #22
The reflected light does illumnate your hand. But since this reflected light is only a small percentage of the light striking the spot of the ground,

No it does not, do the experiment yourself with a laser to make it easier instead of just guessing and making stuff up.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Originally posted by Integral
I think you are correct, we do not get your point.

Are you telling me that I cannot see my head lights hit the road? Just what are you saying?

No I am trying to point out that according to the current theory of light, the phenominom I have pointed out would be impossible, therefore that theory can't be correct, it has a flaw that has not yet been accounted for.
What percentage of light from a laser could you possible expect to return to you, by hitting the odd angle of sand? .00000000000001% if you stretch your imagination to the limits? Yet no matter how you move the laser, or gat an assistant so that it is at a 90 degree angle to you and 1 degree angle from the ground, you will be able to see that point where it hits the ground, with the same degree of brilliance as if you shon it straight down.
Also if you are able to see the point of impact of the torch light because of reflected light, then it is saying that there is sufficient light being reflected to illuminate that area sufficiently for you to see it , therefore the amount of light being "bounced back" would be sufficient to illuminate your hand to the same degree, but it doesnt.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Originally posted by simon
No I am trying to point out that according to the current theory of light, the phenominom I have pointed out would be impossible, therefore that theory can't be correct.
LOL.. you practically pushed the button for me.

- Warren
 
  • #25
It's not magical, it's logarithmic.

During the daytime, we are illuminated by 'blinding' amounts of sunlight: thousands of watts per square meter. It really is blinding when you step out into the sun from a dark room, but your eyes adjust until it doesn't seem that bright anymore.

At night, when there are thousands of kilometers of Earth and iron between us and the sun, none of it hits our eyes directly. But some of it bounces off of the moon. It's traveling away from us, and it bounces off of the moon and scatters in every direction. Some of it bounces in our direction, and so we see the moon by reflected light.

The amounts really are miniscule, simon. Roughly speaking, a sunny day is one hundred times as bright as indoor lighting, and a hundred thousand times as bright as moonlight. If this doesn't seem right, it's because our eyes are not linear detectors. We'd never survive if they were, so we have the ability to adjust our aperture size, and use a redundant system of cone and rod cells of various sensitivities and distributions.

You asked what percent of the laser I think gets reflected back to my eye. I can calculate that amount for you. What most of us are saying is that the reflection at the air-salt interface should be treated as a diffuse, as opposed to a specular, reflection. That means that the light energy will be divided equally among all directions, all 'one hundred and eighty degrees', as you put it. But 180 makes a half circle, what we really mean is the half of a sphere that makes up every direction above the ground. This is measured not in degrees but in steradians.

So one hundred percent (roughly) of the light is spread out over 2 pi steradians. (4 pi steradians = one whole sphere; also, white salt will reflect close to one hundred percent of incident red light.)

How many steradians is your eye at a distance of (say) 200 m? Divide its cross-sectional area by the square of the distance from the source.

I found several websources listing the aperture area for the human as 1000 square millimeters, but this is 10 square centimeters, and far too large. Perhaps this is the surface area of the entire eye?

I'll use one square centimeter, or 0.00001 square meters. Then the solid angle occupied by a 200 m distant eye is

0.00001/(200)^2 = 2.5 * 10^-10

Divide this by the total solid angle, 2 pi, and you have the fraction of light from the diffuse reflection that actually makes it into the eye: about 4 * 10^-11, or one part in 25 billion.

I understand simon's point completely: how can one part in 25 billion be enough to see? But remember that the whole amount of laser light shining into your eye is much brighter than the sun, and the diffuse reflection can be dimmer than the moon and you could still see it. In fact, many people can perceive brightness levels that correspond to only tens of photons per second.

How many photons would make it into your eye from the laser in the salt flats?

The power of the laser is probably half a watt, or half a joule per second. It is made up of red photons, with a wavelength of 650 nm, and thus a frequency of (c/650*10^-9) = 4.6 * 10^14 Hertz. This means that each photon has an energy of

E = h f = (6.626 * 10 ^ -34 Js) * 4.6 * 10^14 Hertz = 3 * 10^-19 Joules.

Thus, to make 0.5 Joules, it takes 1.64 * 10^18 photons per second of red light. But only one in 25 billion of these bounces off of the salt and comes exactly back to your eye: this means that your eye is being struck by 'only' 65 million photons per second. As I've mentioned above, this is easily above the minimum levels that the human eye can perceive.

Your doubts were well-founded, but the eye is much more robust than you give it credit for. It can handle the intense sunlight, but can get by on a few million or even a few hundred photons per second. You are correct in saying that if you keep subjecting light to diffuse reflection, you won't be able to perceive it any more--maybe you'd see your hand by the light of the reflected torch, maybe not. (I've seen my hand, and even read street signs, by the light of the sun diffusely reflected off of the moon and then the street sign.) But this doesn't mean the light isn't there, it just means it's finally been spread to thin to perceive.

P
 
  • #26
Originally posted by simon
179 degree angle, so your assecrtion won't work.


You're making the assumption that the ground is a planar surface, something that does not occur in reality. The individual silica molecules are three dimensional, non planar and vastly larger than a photon. Its the angle at which the photon strikes these molecules that matters, not the angle at which it strikes the overall surface. So the angle is not necessarily whatever you measure it to be because the surface is actually more fractal in nature than it is planar, thus of course it does not reflect at that angle. There is nothing there to contradict the current theory of light. However i do commend you for at least looking for an experimental reason to discard the theory.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
What a problem, guys? Present a surface of reflection (your road) as an ideal mirror. You’ll see surrounding subjects, but you can not see road itself . It will not return any photon at your side and will seem absolutely black. The real surface has the set of roughness which reflects enough light in the opposite direction.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
What a problem, guys? Present a surface of reflection (your road) as an ideal mirror. You’ll see surrounding subjects, but you can not see road itself . It will not return any photon at your side and will seem absolutely black. The real surface has the set of roughness which reflects enough light in the opposite direction.

like i said, its a fractal surface, not a prefect planar reflector.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by simon
No I am trying to point out that according to the current theory of light, the phenominom I have pointed out would be impossible, therefore that theory can't be correct, it has a flaw that has not yet been accounted for.
Sorry, simon, but what you have made abundantly clear is you have no understanding of even the basics of how light works. You are wrong and you are ignoring those who have quite adequately explained why.
 
  • #30
Originally posted by russ_watters
Sorry, simon, but what you have made abundantly clear is you have no understanding of even the basics of how light works. You are wrong and you are ignoring those who have quite adequately explained why.

...well so much for being patient with him.
 
  • #31
Intersesting how people seem so obsessed with trying to prove new ideas wrong, and even expect that somethinng that has taken years to figure out, they can find the solution to without even needing to think- such genius.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by simon
Intersesting how people seem so obsessed with trying to prove new ideas wrong, and even expect that somethinng that has taken years to figure out, they can find the solution to without even needing to think- such genius.

First off i did commend you for looking for a reason to discard the theory. Secondly you're idea makes the wrong assumption that the salt flat is a 2 dimensional planar surface. its not. Its a fractal surface simliar to talus slope. Read Chaos by Gleick for more info on that, also see the the famous paper on the length of the british coastline ( i think it was mandelbrot). The same principles apply to the salt flat, and as a result the light does not strike the surface at the angle you measure. The average angle opf reflection can be calculated based upon the fractal dimension of the flat (for a talus slope it is 2.7, so i imagine the flat would be close to that)but it suffices to say that rocketcity's calculations demonstrate the point adequately. The factal structure is why the light reflects like that. You need to stop thinking about a quantum phenomenon as existing at the human level. At the human level photons are insignificant, you have to examine a phenonmenon like light and light scattering at the quantum level at which it occurs in which case the fractal nature of the salt flat becomes clearly important.
 
  • #33
franznietzsche,

It's not at all necessary to characterize the salt flat as having any fractal structure.

It's very simple: salt grains are three dimensional crystals. Some of their faces will happen to be oriented properly to reflect incoming light 180 degrees, directly back to its source.

- Warren
 
  • #34
Originally posted by simon
Intersesting how people seem so obsessed with trying to prove new ideas wrong, and even expect that somethinng that has taken years to figure out, they can find the solution to without even needing to think- such genius.
That isn't at all what we're doing - this is not a new situation for existing laws of physics. It is (has already been) quite easily explained.
...well so much for being patient with him.
3 pages is enough. Time for tough love.

Plus, I'm sick and therefore irritable today.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
It would seem Simon got the best of the two Mentors, for three pages of this crock is every bit as much the fault of the response. The best return for this thread would have been no response at all. Surely you could have left poor Simon in the dark on that desert with a salty taste in his mouth, but nooooooooooooooooooo! You had to drag yerselves down to that desert, and save him, or eat him alive ... whichever comes first :-). This in my opinion ... puts you in the same class as Simon, where clearly he got the best of you. :wink:
 
  • #36
UltraPi1,

Open communication is the only way for us to evolve. If current theories are ALL correct, why hasn't unification happened? Something must change, perhaps only perspective. The mentors on this forum do not need their cage rattled so as to develop disdain for people who ask questions, however ignorant they might seem. The conversations that degrade into angry exchanges already have them at arms length. How much further until their existence is pointless?

Only a fool critisizes someone for helping others.


LPF
 
  • #37
Originally posted by UltraPi1
It would seem Simon got the best of the two Mentors, for three pages of this crock is every bit as much the fault of the response. The best return for this thread would have been no response at all. Surely you could have left poor Simon in the dark on that desert with a salty taste in his mouth, but nooooooooooooooooooo! You had to drag yerselves down to that desert, and save him, or eat him alive ... whichever comes first :-). This in my opinion ... puts you in the same class as Simon, where clearly he got the best of you. :wink:



and i thought i was an elitist...
 
  • #38
I am not sure if I got Simon's question right (it is a little difficult to discern exactly what the question is) but if I did, you seem to misunderstand what he is asking.

He isn't asking why he can see the dot.
He is asking why he can see the dot the same regardless of what angle the light reflects off the surface and what angle he views it at.
Since the surface refects the light in a scattered pattern, his contention is that as the angle of approach, and the angle of the observer changes, so should the intensity of the reflected spot of light.

Is this right, Simon?
(See the poorly drawn attached image. By the way, that is a three-legged stool that guy on the right is standing on.)

It seems that Simon is saying that all 5 observers in this picture will see both reflected dots (assuming identical lasers) as not only having the same intensity and shape, but all 5 observers will see the dots as the same intensity and shape with respect to each other's point of view.
In other words, observer 1 will see two identical dots that are identical to the two dots that observers 2-5 will see.

What Simon is claiming is that since the dots are being reflected in many different directions by the intricate sand surface, each observer should have a different number of photons aimed directly at his/her eyes so each observer's impression of the intensity and shape of the dots (s)he sees should vary from the next observer's (of course, not taking into account physical differences in each observer, as if eack of those five positions were all specifically Simon himself).

Is that what you were trying to ask, Simon?

Click here for image

(edited to add the URL, because I couldn't see my attached image)
 

Attachments

  • laser-reflection.gif
    laser-reflection.gif
    4.3 KB · Views: 534
Last edited:
  • #39
Where's my attached image?

I guess I will have to upload it and post a link.

Edited to say that I posted a link to the image in the above post.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Originally posted by 8LPF16
If current theories are ALL correct, why hasn't unification happened? Something must change, perhaps only perspective. The mentors on this forum do not need their cage rattled so as to develop disdain for people who ask questions, however ignorant they might seem.
[maybe out of context, but important, nonetheless] The question here of course is: how much? How much do our current theories need to change to unify them? Important question, clearly.

Though many on the TD forum would like us to believe the changes will be massive and sweeping, it just can't be that way. There may yet be some profound change in our understanding of the underlying mechanisms, but that will likely change very little about how the current theories work - because they do work. They work extremely well. Any new theory will obviously need to agree with the existing ones and the massive body of evidence that supports them.
 
  • #41
He is asking why he can see the dot the same regardless of what angle the light reflects off the surface and what angle he views it at.
Well, he doesn't. If he did, interior decorating using light would be useless. In reality, no material scatters light in a perfectly uniform fashion. Hence, for example, photographers can use white pieces of paper to provide soft lighting for a scene. And increasing the distance does diminish the intensity of the light, or reflected light. This effect is not very noticable on the small scales he talks about. The roughness of the surface simply makes it hard to notice. The shape of the dot also does change, but the small size of the dot makes it harder to see.

Then we somehow came to the classic symptoms of paranoic-narcissitic-arrogant-crackpotism.
 
  • #42
Then we somehow came to the classic symptoms of paranoic-narcissitic-arrogant-crackpotism

Isn't that contagious?

LPF
 
  • #43
Originally posted by FZ+
Well, he doesn't. If he did, interior decorating using light would be useless. In reality, no material scatters light in a perfectly uniform fashion.

Oh, I know.
I am not arguing that at all.
I know he was wrong in his basic assumptions.
I am just saying that I think that was his point/question, and he seemed to be getting agitated because people were not answering that question.

If he hasn't left for good, maybe he can clarify that.

Are you around?
 
Back
Top