1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Light & Sight

  1. Feb 10, 2012 #1
    Light travels as waves
    Waves interfere with each other
    We see reflected light.
    We can see the source of light and the things illuminated but not the light inbetween Why?
    Light is reflected in all directions from all things why does it not interfere between the object we are looking at and our eyes, light is also reflected from the eyes which should also interfere with light coming in.
    Example throw a single pebble in a pond you get easily recognisable wave , same with 2 or 3 but throw a handful in and you just get a mess of waves.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 10, 2012 #2
    To see light, it has to reflect off something.
     
  4. Feb 10, 2012 #3

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Space is a 'linear medium' which means that the fields of one wa e fo not affect the fields of a wave it's crossing. So they don't modify each other.
     
  5. Feb 10, 2012 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That isn't correct:

    To see light, it has to hit your retina.
     
  6. Feb 10, 2012 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You answered your own question. When you throw a handful of pebbles into a pond you get a whole mess of waves instead of all the waves cancelling each other out because waves have to be perfectly timed and aligned to cancel each other out and neither a handful of pebbles, nor reflected light is coherent enough for that.
     
  7. Feb 10, 2012 #6
    Many thanks for the replies but still a bit confused.
    why does light have to reflect off something in order to become visible?
    In order to see something as a sharp image the light has to come in a straight line without any interference, so are we saying that this light is able to travel through what must be a mess of waves inbetween without interference, am not talking about waves cancelling out but being jumbled up for want of a better phrase.
     
  8. Feb 10, 2012 #7
    My mistake. I was thinking of it along the lines of you either have to look at the source of the light to see it, or it has to reflect off of something.

    In both cases, you need the light to enter the eye. It can't "pass near by".
     
  9. Feb 10, 2012 #8

    davenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    and expanding on that ....

    @ OP yes it travels as waves and thats fine to think of it as waves for some applications
    but it also travels as particles ... photons... and it those photons entering your eye that get detected.
    The more photons, the brighter the light.

    Dave
     
  10. Feb 10, 2012 #9
     
  11. Feb 10, 2012 #10

    cepheid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

     
  12. Feb 13, 2012 #11
    So am I right in thinking that light travels as waves from source but acts as particle when reflected? which is what we see.

    Still not sure why it does not interfere though.
    Think of a wave tank, standing at one end waves from other end are easy to make out, now add waves coming from top, bottom and sides plus from your end and all you get is turbulence and making it very difficult to make out individual waves.

    I do have another question about waves travelling from source but lets try to conclude this first.
     
  13. Feb 13, 2012 #12

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It also behaves as waves when reflected and as particles when it travels -if that's the way you want to explain it. Waves are certainly good enough for Optics and Radio studies You should stop trying to categorise this sort of thing. You'll find it's like trying to get hold of a bar of soap in the bath.

    Interactions between EM and matter can often be thought of, conveniently, is terms of Photons but, otoh, a lens is 'matter' and treating the action of a lens by considering photons would just be madness.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2012
  14. Feb 13, 2012 #13

    jim hardy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    """We can see the source of light and the things illuminated but not the light inbetween """

    how about a hologram ?
     
  15. Feb 13, 2012 #14

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How ABOUT a Hologram?
    Do you know how they work, Jim?
     
  16. Feb 13, 2012 #15

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Light can be explained as a wave in almost all aspects. Diffraction, reflection, and interference are all perfectly described by treating light as an electromagnetic wave. However, when light finally gets to something and is absorbed is can only be treated as a particle that gives all of its energy up and no longer exists. This is how the molecule in your eye's cone and rod cells works, it absorbs energy from the photon and changes shape, setting off a chain of events that ends with you "seeing" something. The key is that the light has to enter and interact with your eye. The reason we cannot see the light in between is that two waves don't "bounce" off of each other. One light wave passing by another does not reflect or refract off of it. (Other than normal interference effects which is not the same) Think of your water waves. If you make two waves they don't bounce off of each other and go in completely different directions or create new waves at the point they interact.

    Light can only interfere when the wavelength and such are almost exactly alike, meaning it is "Coherent". Normally light entering your eye does not meet this requirement. This is similar to why sound waves do not normally interfere and keep you from hearing the speakers in your TV.

    It may make it difficult, but it by no means makes it impossible to determine which wave is which. Your ears do this all day long.

    I recommend picking up a book on optics. I have several, including Optics for Dummies which is pretty nice. But any book about basic optics will be able to explain it all.
     
  17. Feb 14, 2012 #16
    Try reading this online article and note the illustrations:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_interference#Optical_interference

    You'll find a lot the relates to your questions like:


    "different points in the source" could be the gas molecules in a fluoresescent light, the filament in an incandescent light, or our local star, the sun....

    This relates to various 'points' having different energies, so the amplitude and frequency [color] also has variations...it's not easy to get monochromatic (single frequency) light....hence we see versions of 'white light' meaning light appears sort of white visually but is actually a combination of colors:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_light
     
  18. Feb 14, 2012 #17
    The nature of light is such that it enables us to see things but we don't actually see light itself.
     
  19. Feb 14, 2012 #18

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You rattled my cage a bit here. It would be much more accurate to say that white light (or, in fact many of the colours we see) consists of a combination of different WAVELENGTHS (or frequency, as you wish). i.e a SPECTRUM. There is so much confusion between colour and wavelength and this can lead to further confusion when it's taken further. 'Colour' is something that we allocate to single wavelengths or combinations of light with different wavelengths. 'Wavelength' means just one thing so it is worthwhile using that word when that's what is meant.
    Inhabitants of Planet Zog would agree 100% with our spectral analysis of a light source but, even allowing for any translation of actual words, they would not agree about colours (and neither would a Dog or Cow!) Not being picky, btw. It's far more important than that.
     
  20. Feb 14, 2012 #19

    cepheid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I can't say that I agree with this. When you see an object, it is because photons that are being emitted or reflected from the surface of that object are hitting your retina. The quanta of light (or, if you prefer, just the EM waves) are the things that are actually detected by your sensory equipment.
     
  21. Feb 15, 2012 #20
    Quote Drakkith
    This is similar to why sound waves do not normally interfere and keep you from hearing the speakers in your TV.

    Of course enougth speakers playing different sounds from different directions and all you get would be noise.

    So could it be said then that light travels as a wave but collapses to particle like on observation/ detection.
    Wavelength determines colour and energy is linked to wavelength so how does amplitude work? Would I be right in thinking that amplitude enables the wave to carry more energy per wave i.e 2x amplitude gives twice energy or similar to 2 waves travelling in partnership.

    Finally, I think, waves in 3d must propagate outwards spherically, as sphere grows energy should be spread out the same way a balloon gets thinner as its blown up, so taking the sun as source by the time light reaches earth we have a sphere with a radius of over 90 million miles, how does light maintain its integrity when spread out over such an area?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Light & Sight
  1. The light (Replies: 2)

  2. Light ? (Replies: 3)

Loading...