Why do objects appear blurry in fog?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bassplayer142
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the phenomenon of objects appearing blurry in fog, exploring the underlying optical principles and atmospheric effects that contribute to this visual distortion. Participants examine various factors including light scattering, resolution, and the role of lenses in vision.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that light scattering off particles in fog causes objects to appear blurry and fade out, particularly at greater distances.
  • Others argue that normal distance vision is affected by atmospheric interference and the inverse square law, which they claim contributes to a loss of resolution.
  • One participant questions the application of the inverse square law in optics, asserting that it does not affect how light rays from a point source are focused by a lens.
  • Another participant emphasizes that resolution is determined by the perceiving device, whether it be a camera or the human eye, and that lens diameter affects brightness rather than resolution.
  • Some participants discuss the need for wider lenses to collect more light from distant objects, raising questions about the relationship between lens size and resolution.
  • There is mention of diffraction effects when light passes through an orifice, suggesting that optics can also influence resolution.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the concepts being discussed and indicates a need for further contemplation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of the inverse square law, the relationship between lens size and resolution, and the effects of atmospheric conditions on visibility. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on these topics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of resolution and the conditions under which diffraction effects become significant. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the interplay between optical principles and atmospheric effects.

bassplayer142
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
If you look at a laser beam you are seeing light that is bouncing off particles and scattering all over the place. It goes in all directions and some more then others. But if this happens wouldn't objects farther away get blurry and fade out. That is if all the light is being reflected away on its journey towards the target. If that is true it would explain why it is harder to see through fog.

Thanks
 
Science news on Phys.org
Not just in fog. Normal distance vision does involve distortion, if only in the loss of resolution caused by the inverse square law of EM propagation. In reality, atmospheric interference contributes greatly to the effect.
 
Danger said:
loss of resolution caused by the inverse square law
... huh?
 
Yes, the scattering of light from atmospheric aerosols like
fog, dust, smoke, clouds, et. al. is often a major limiting
factor in the maximum distance over which things are
visible.

"On a clear day you can see forever" is certainly true
under the best of conditions -- in the day looking
horizontally you should be able to see things out to
the horizon defined by the curve of the earth, ~ 35 miles.

On clear dark nights one can see very faint objects, and can
see the milky way galaxy's central band as
such a bright streak that it'd be enough to walk around
by the light of it on moonless nights.

Nowdays most often things are indistinct or invisible
after less than 10 miles or so due to smog / haze / etc.
near the cities.

The naked eye is defined to be able to see stars down to
9th magnitude, but it's rarely the case that that is possible
in recent decades due to light pollution scattering from
the atmosphere.
 
cesiumfrog said:
... huh?

Maybe distortion was the wrong word there. What I meant was that the photons reaching your eye are not in the same relationship to each other as they were when they left the object. They're farther apart, which drops the resolution.
 
Sorry Danger, that's not how optics works. The rays of light coming from a point source can be focused to a precise point by a lens, regardless of the distance. The inverse square law doesn't have any effect on that at all - if it did, telescopes wouldn't work. For a telescope, resolution is a function of aperature.

Maybe you need to see an opthomalagist...? :biggrin:
 
russ_watters said:
Maybe you need to see an opthomalagist...? :biggrin:

Wouldn't that be optometrist in this case? :wink:
 
I like 'anti-distortionologist'
 
russ_watters said:
Sorry Danger, that's not how optics works. The rays of light coming from a point source can be focused to a precise point by a lens, regardless of the distance. The inverse square law doesn't have any effect on that at all - if it did, telescopes wouldn't work. For a telescope, resolution is a function of aperature.
I don't dispute your expertise in this, but you're going to have to explain something to me. If the photons don't spread out, why do you need a wider lens to see something farther away? Isn't that a matter of collecting the light over a larger area to compensate? :confused:

By the bye, I do desperately need to get to my optholmologist (who also prescribes and sells lenses).
 
  • #10
Danger said:
Maybe distortion was the wrong word there. What I meant was that the photons reaching your eye are not in the same relationship to each other as they were when they left the object. They're farther apart, which drops the resolution.

russ_watters said:
Sorry Danger, that's not how optics works. The rays of light coming from a point source can be focused to a precise point by a lens, regardless of the distance. The inverse square law doesn't have any effect on that at all - if it did, telescopes wouldn't work. For a telescope, resolution is a function of aperature.

Lens diameter determines the brightness of the image. A larger lens will collect more light, but this doesn't tranlates into more "resolution".

Resolution is a function of the perceiving device. If it's a digital camera, then it's the resolution of the camera that determines resolution, regardless of the optics involved. If it's a human eye, then it's the number of receptors in the eye that determines resolution. This is assuming that the lenses used have perfect focus with no distortion.

Even with no atmosphere, the farther an object is away, the smaller the image (subtended angle). Since the image is smaller, then less receptors receive the image and resolution is effectively lowered. A magnifying lens can compensate for this by increasing the image size.

If the photons don't spread out, why do you need a wider lens to see something farther away?
You don't need a larger lens, just one with more magnification. The size of the lens determines brightness, not magnification.


Getting back to the OP, vision within the atmoshpere is limited because of scattering of light, and the effective clarity of atmoshpere over a large distance. In a heavy fog, normal vision may be limited to less than 10 feet (although you'd still see the difference between light and dark).
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Everything was ok except this, Jeff:
Jeff Reid said:
Resolution is a function of the perceiving device. If it's a digital camera, then it's the resolution of the camera that determines resolution, regardless of the optics involved. If it's a human eye, then it's the number of receptors in the eye that determines resolution. This is assuming that the lenses used have perfect focus with no distortion.
Optics affect the resolution as well due to the the fact that light will diffract when passing through any orifice: http://www.pk3.org/Astro/index.htm?scopes_resolution.htm

So aperature determines resolution as well as brightness (brightness when divided by focal length).
Wouldn't that be optometrist in this case?
Ehh, win some, lose some.
 
  • #12
russ_watters said:
So aperature determines resolution as well as brightness

Although to be fair - only when everything is diffraction limited, which in the real world is only true in high end microscopes (and space telescopes + chip fabrication mask printers).
 
  • #13
It still doesn't make sense to me, so I'm going to slink off somewhere and think about it for a while. :redface:
 

Similar threads

High School Why do farther away objects appear smaller
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
High School Why Do Events Freeze For Me at the Speed of Light?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
High School Do all events in my past lightcone have fewer past events in theirs?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
Undergrad How do mirrors create images despite scattered light?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School Why Do Objects Appear As We See Them?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School New Paradox Discovered, I Think
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
9K
High School Could you use LIGO-technology to measure gravitational redshift?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School Light and the black matter (Dark Matter)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Why Do Objects Bounce? Exploring Momentum and Energy Conservation
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Prove the velocity of a moving object is absolute in one IRF?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K