Sight and light travel are not the same.

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tim Layton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Travel
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of sight and light travel, particularly in the context of astronomical observations made by the Hubble Space Telescope. Participants explore the implications of light travel over vast distances, the perception of light from distant stars, and the interpretation of what telescopes actually observe. The conversation includes technical explanations, challenges to claims, and differing viewpoints on the understanding of light and sight.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the interpretation of Hubble's deep field images, suggesting that they do not represent events from the past but rather a limited view of current light travel.
  • Another participant clarifies that a light year is a distance measure and that much of the light observed from distant galaxies was emitted billions of years ago.
  • Concerns are raised about the visibility of stars and the darkness observed in space, with one participant explaining that the vast distances and small angular sizes of stars contribute to this phenomenon.
  • Technical aspects of telescope capabilities are discussed, including factors affecting signal-to-noise ratio and light gathering efficiency.
  • Participants debate the implications of the inverse square law on light intensity and visibility from distant stars.
  • One participant asserts that all observations involve seeing into the past, using examples like the light from a light bulb and the Moon to illustrate this point.
  • Another participant expresses a belief that telescopes do not see into the past, suggesting this view may stem from a misunderstanding of the concepts involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether telescopes see into the past and the implications of light travel over vast distances. There is no consensus on these points, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some claims made by participants rely on specific definitions and assumptions about light travel and perception, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes technical details that may not be fully resolved or agreed upon.

Tim Layton
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
You think Hubble's deep field is seeing what happened 14 billion light years ago and not zooming into what is currently happening? With the trillions of suns in each galaxy why is there so much darkness within a galaxy let alone inbetween galaxies? If Hubble was stronger it would see farther. If (visible) light could travel 14 billion light years, you would be blinded by the trillions of suns in the trillions of galaxies all coming at you at once. And if light scatters outward in all directions then how do you see an object, that far away (as a whole). Sight and light travel are not the same. I don't believe a telescope is seeing into the past, I would say it zooms into seeing the limited distance light can travel from an object.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
You have a lot of misunderstandings here. Let me try to list a few:

(1) A light year is a measure of distance, not time, so it makes no sense to say "billion light years ago".
(2)Much of the light we are seeing in the Hubble deep field was definitely emitted billions of years ago. Not 14 billion years ago, because the universe is not that old, but many billions of years ago.
(3) Visible light can definitely travel billions of light years. You are not blinded by the huge number of suns because only a very small fraction of the light emitted by each star reaches your eye.
(4) You do not need to see all of the light emitted by an object in order to perceive it as a whole. Think of the light bulb in your room. Only the light emitted in the direction of your eye enters your eye, but enough light reaches your eye that you can perceive the light bulb as having a physical extent.

Ask yourself, what are the odds that the many people who have studied astronomy over the centuries (millions of people, maybe more) have it all wrong and you have it right? Isn't it possible that you are the one who is confused? Try to set your prejudices aside and learn why astronomers believe the things they do.
 
Tim Layton said:
You think Hubble's deep field is seeing what happened 14 billion light years ago and not zooming into what is currently happening?
Yes, that's right.
Tim Layton said:
With the trillions of suns in each galaxy why is there so much darkness within a galaxy let alone inbetween galaxies?
Because space is big. Really, really big. Space is so big that every single star except for the Sun has an angular diameter of a tiny fraction of a degree across. Betelgeuse, the star with the larger angular diameter other than the Sun, is only ##1.5 x 10^{-5}## degrees across. So the vast majority of the time your line of sight is not falling on a star, but continuing on past it.
Tim Layton said:
If Hubble was stronger it would see farther.
By itself, "stronger" is a meaningless word when it comes to optics. If what was stronger? The magnification of the system? The light gathering capability? The power of the primary mirror? The HST is limited by the signal to noise ratio of its main sensor. This in turn depends on a huge number of factors. A more sensitive detector would enable it to gather light more efficiently and increase the SNR for any given exposure time. Less dark current or bias signal reduces the noise and leads to a better SNR. Increasing the diameter of the mirrors while keeping the focal length the same would put more light onto the sensor and increase the incoming signal, leading to a higher SNR. And there are several more factors.
Tim Layton said:
If (visible) light could travel 14 billion light years, you would be blinded by the trillions of suns in the trillions of galaxies all coming at you at once.
We would be if it weren't for the fact that the intensity of the light falls off as ##\frac{1}{r^2}##. For example, the intensity of the Sun's light here on Earth is about 1350 watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere. At a distance of 4 light years, about how far the nearest star to our solar system is, the intensity has dropped to ##1.56x10^{-11}## of what it was initially, which is about ##2.1x10^{-8}\frac{W}{m^2}##. And that's just at 4 light years. The Alpha Centauri system is actually a little over 4 light years away, so there aren't even any stars within 4 light years, and only a handful of stars within 10 light years. The inverse square law is a harsh mistress.
Tim Layton said:
And if light scatters outward in all directions then how do you see an object, that far away (as a whole).
Simple. Your eye (or the optics in a telescope) catches a small portion of the outgoing wavefront.
Tim Layton said:
Sight and light travel are not the same
I don't believe anyone who knows what they are talking about is claiming that they are.
Tim Layton said:
I don't believe a telescope is seeing into the past, I would say it zooms into seeing the limited distance light can travel from an object.
That is incorrect. Even your eye itself sees into the past. By the time the light from the lightbulb in your room is emitted, bounces off of the walls and other objects in the room, and then enters your eye to be detected, a small amount of time has passed. So you are already seeing slightly into the past, and you will see a little further if you go outside and look at something in the distance. The Moon is about 1 second away at the speed of light, something which mission control and the astronauts of the apollo program had to deal with during communications.
 
Tim Layton said:
Sight and light travel are not the same. I don't believe a telescope is seeing into the past

This is either a fundamental misunderstanding or a personal theory. Either way, it's not a suitable basis for discussion. Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
13K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K