Hot and Cold Light

This short essay is all about light and is really asking questions rather than proposing new theory.

It all stems from personal experience way back during WWII and observation of Searchlights and their attempts to illuminate the Bombers heading towards the city that I lived near, Coventry.

Those searchlight beams seemed to stop at exactly the same height. One could see the beams from quite a distance away reaching up into the sky. As they scanned back and forth clouds and occasionally an airplane would be illuminated, but quite often the beam would just stop and they always seemed to stop at the same height.

I have adjusted torch bulbs and lenses to improve lighting effects when riding a bicycle at night. I had seen the effects of adjusting car headlights. I have recently seen how bright LED torches can shine.

YET: all these methods of producing light have exhibited the same phenomena, the light stops if you shine it directly up. More importantly the beams stop at different distances (see photo example below).

The LED beams do not go very far at all yet are painfully bright if shone into your eyes.

Those WWII searchlights would blind you if you looked down the beam when flying a plane.

My question is therefore What is going on?

Especially what is making the LED light so bright yet it travels the shortest distance!

My tentative conclusion is the surface temperature of the substance that is emitting photons is somehow limiting the energy available to those photons thus the searchlight with significant surface temperature has much higher energy per photon than the cold LED produced photons from the LED torch.

This implies that there is not a standard that can be applied to a photon that does not allow for the surface temperature of the photon emitting object.

This then further raises the question about our star, where the surface is cooler than its atmosphere. We often see the surface yet rarely see its atmosphere, eclipse or satellite images.

Another evaluation metric becomes obvious now, that being the number of photons being emitted and the surface area and direction of those emitted photons.

This now changes my focus to look upon photons and perhaps dark energy.

Photons only become visible when they collide with something.

Now depending upon how large you consider infinity to be there are an infinite number of photons streaming away from the sun very second. These photons can be expressed in our local region as Energy-in-Transit.

We have very clever people who explain in real terms how much energy the earth receives per second kw/M². Can we work out how many photons that equates to? Multiply that number by the time taken for that energy to transit from sun to earth and you get a significantly larger value for infinity. Could this new value equate to dark energy?

This then raises the sceptre of Dark matter. Space is not empty. There are particles of STUFF very thinly scattered through that huge volume of space called ‘The Universe’.

Assign some numbers and try work out the mass of that very thinly scattered stuff and come up with another value for infinity. Could the difference between that infinity and the mass of all the known starts in the universe be close to, or equal to the theoretical value of Dark Matter?

Which brings me back to light. There is some theory that assigns a mass to a photon a very, very, very, very, very small mass. As there are an infinite number of photons existing as ‘Energy-in-Transit’ from all that we see in the universe how much do they mass?

I need a bigger better more accurate computer as mine keeps giving me new values for infinity!

I also need a more accurate way to work out standard deviations as +/- 5% times infinity is still a deviation of infinity.

Michael Clarke (Logician)


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (82)

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Michael,
    The problem is that light is an analog phenomena, not digital. It is a wave, there is no photon, and you can only approximate an analog system with digital units.
    Light is a disturbance that travels from an object through the electric and magnetic fields it produces to the fields of other objects. Its speed varies with the strength of these fields. Since the energy of light is a function of frequency/wavelength as energy is transferred to another object the f/w changes. Initially the absorbing object will emit a lower energy (longer wavelength) which will gradually shorten (increase in energy) as it gains energy until it approaches the energy of the incoming light. The rate of change of energy (wavelength) decreases as the difference in energy lessens. The wavelength emitted by the absorbing object gradually shortens but it will always be longer (less energy) than the wavelength absorbed because it radiates energy in all directions while receiving energy from one direction and energy must be conserved. Eventually the emitted wavelength will exceed the range of wavelengths absorbed and the light will disappear as the disturbance passes through it without reacting with the object (like radio waves). The beams of light end when all its energy has been converted into ;longer waves that pass through objects instead of being absorbed and reradiated by them..
    Herb

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Hi Herb,
      Why does the beam of energy reach that critical energy level at the same distance, which I think is somehow dependent upon the temperature of the source and not the frequency.

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Michael,
        I’m not sure about temperature at the source I would lean towards density of molecules. There is a sharp delineation between blue sky and black sky (when looking at the horizon from space) in the same area when the light is coming from the sun.
        Herb

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Michael,

    Good observations and thoughts and questions.

    I don’t know much but I know that there are two differences between the light of the search light and that of an LED is that the light of the LED. First the light of the EED is coherent (one direction?) and that of the search light is not. Second, the wavelength of a LED light has only one ‘wavelength’ and that of the search light has a spectrum of wavelengths.

    Ponder these differences.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Michael

      |

      Hi Jerry,
      I was referring to an LED torch which is focused and not a led laser pointer. I will try acquire one and see how far it goes up.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Michael,

      You are correct and I was confused. I did assume you were referring to ‘laser light(the red pointer light). But I was right in that a single diode either emits a narrow band of red light, green light, or finally blue light. For I know the discovery of the diode which emitted the narrow band (wavelength or frequency) blue light which permitted the LED Torch, which emits ‘white’ light to be invented.

      For I am quite sure that the LED Torch has an array of these many of these specific diodes which emit these three primary colors of light necessary to produce “white light’. And these photons randomly emitted in different directions when each is emitted. Thus, to concentrate the light it needs to be focused by reflecting surfaces.

      But your question involves the ‘sudden’ disappearance of ‘light’ at a given altitude which I doubt is as precise as you seem to claim it to be. there are two twilight classifications and the time that the ‘weaker’ one transitions to the ‘stronger’ is reported to occur in the morning. The human eye has a threshhod of the light needed for one read a newspaper.

      So I believe have clarified my answer to your questions about your observations.

      And I cannot image why you expect the light produced by a few 1.5 volt flash light batteries to produce the illuminating power of 1000 watt, or10,000 watt, or greater wattage spotlight

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Michael Clarke

        |

        Conclusions with-out observation.

  • Avatar

    Charles Higley

    |

    The energy of a photon is determined by its frequency as its wavelength can vary with the density of the medium. The range frequencies of light are indeed determined by the temperature of the light source. LEDs do get hot, but being such small volume they shed their heat easily. White light is white light and would have the same composition of frequencies, in general. You can get white-appearing light from just a few frequencies, but they are pretty much the same if produced by a black body.

    The best solution to the question of why beams of light seem to stop at a given altitude goes back to why you are seeing the light beam at all. In space, a beam of light goes off into space until it hits something and some light is reflected back to the viewer, as with solar emissions bouncing off the Moon. The same is true in our atmosphere in which atmospheric dust and aerosol reflect light back to you and you “see” the beam, which is not true as you are seeing light removed from the beam and sent back downward.

    So, the amount of dust and aerosol in the atmosphere will determine the amount of light reflected back and thus, as altitude increases, the particle density decreases, particularly if there are higher altitude air streams that might have fewer particles, creating a ceiling to the particles.

    So, why does the LED beam appear not to be visible as far? It may be that, with the much narrower beam from an LED source is reflected back by fewer particles and thus the number of particles that limits your receiving enough reflected photons to “see” the beam is much closer to the ground.

    I used to sail in Maine a lot, including at night in the fog. Fog particles clearly stop a lot of light and reflect it backward, creating a blinding, useless back scatter. Thus, less powerful light beams are more effective as it decreases the backscatter by water particles.

    Even cooler, is the fact that lack of light goes perfectly through fog. If you turn our all lights as night on a boat in the fog, the ocean is blue-black and the land is black-black, which our night vision can easily detect and up to half a mile away. You can clearly see the shore and tree profiles of an island and determine your position. Passengers get really winky when you stop in the middle of a crossing and turn off everything and listen.

    GPS has taken all the fun out of fog sailing. Darn.

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      I agree that the light that I see is coming from collisions, however the attenuation is not linear, the beam does not get weaker as I observe it, it stops abruptly as if all the energy was dissipated at the same height and all those reflected photons are registering collisions at the same height.with non above them.

  • Avatar

    CD Marshall

    |

    This sounds like an excellent question for a physicist to answer and guess what? I’m not one.

    My guess would be reflection. We see because reflection of photons bouncing all over the place, we “see” light because of reflection. At some point in the atmosphere, reflection is reduced enough that we can’t see the light anymore and it becomes invisible to the naked eye.

    Hopefully a physicist will come in and give a more concise explanation.

    I do recall them saying something like this, “One does need to account for view factors. Recall that flux decreases as the inverse square law from a point source. ” In regards to visibility and illumination.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi CD,
      Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between reflection and absorption/re-emission. When energy encounters an object it can be transmitted (pass through without reacting with the object), reflected where it doesn’t penetrate the object and is redirected at an angle equal to the angle it strikes the object, or absorbed by the object adding to its energy and being radiated in all directions. When absorbed and radiated the wavelengths radiated can be very close to those absorbed giving the appearance of reflection. An object painted red will appear red because the red wavelength is reflected while other wavelengths are absorbed or transmitted. An object will also appear red if the energy absorbed is converted to the red wavelength (red glass) and emitted.The problem is that all three of these actions can occur at the same time with different wavelengths being reflected, transmitted, and absorb/re-radiated making it difficult to determine exactly what is occurring.
      What we do accept is that energy is conserved so at equilibrium the energy coming from the object will equal the energy striking it. It is the direction of the energy coming from the objects that best indicates which action is occurring but given the motion of gas molecules how can this be determined? IMO the light is being absorbed and re-radiated since gas molecules do not have a rigid structure (like the metal on a mirror) that would cause reflection.
      Herb

      • Avatar

        Michael Clarke

        |

        Herb, I agree with all of what you say, HOWEVER that does not explain why that beam Stops at the same height!

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Michael,
          The greater the frequency (shorter wavelength) the greater the energy of light, yet to see deeper into space infrared telescopes are launched into space enablling astronomers see further than they are can with telescopes that capture the shorter, more energetic, visible light. The reason the waves with less energy travel further is because there are more objects in space absorbing the shorter waves than the longer wavelengths.
          The reason the LED light beam is shorter may be because more molecules absorb that light and radiate it. For the spotlights emitting longer wavelengths there are less molecules absorbing energy and they travel further before they are absorbed. A LED torch with more energy (batteries) will produce a longer light beam than a smaller torch even though they are emitting light with the same frequency (energy) because they are emitting more energy and are able to transfer energy to more molecules. So the spotlights emitting longer wavelengths may travel further because less energy is absorbed by the gas molecules.
          Herb

          • Avatar

            Michael Clarke

            |

            Hi Herb, you seem to be saying what I suspected. The higher energy of the emitted light is due to the temperature of the emitting surface. An LED light may well be ‘HoT’ but it is not hot enough to melt the medium, while an arc light is very very hot.
            AND of course this does not come close to explain the different heights at which those beams stop!

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Michael,
            Temperature and “hot” I associate with kinetic energy which is one way energy is manifested when it encounters matter. Another way is the emitting of energy in the form of light and I don’t believe there is a linkage between them.
            The spotlights work because mirrors turn the radiated light into a directional beam so you could say the mirrors are the source of the beam and they can (produce” light without becoming “hot”.
            The beam stops not for a lack of energy but a lack of matter to produce light. The beams of light illuminating the bombers have different lengths depending on the angle from the source. Their ceiling is a result of the scarcity of matter in the atmosphere. If a bomber at a higher altitude was to enter the energy beam it would be illuminated even though the beam had disappeared.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Michael Clarke

            |

            Hi again Herb,
            Some thought provoking information there. I am reminded of night time Crocodile hunting. The high intensity beam reaches out over the water and becomes invisible at what seemed to be a set distance, around 150 yards. A crocodile would surface and be facing us, they are curiosity seeking predators. I see the crocodiles eyes even though it is two hundred yards away. Now crocodile eyes are not luminescent but great reflectors, Bang one dead crocodile.
            Unfortunately this illustrates that the energy is traveling 200 yards while the photons can only get back to me from 150 yards away!
            Is this illustrating the difference between energy and photons?

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Michael,
            I don’t believe in photons or the particle nature of light. Light is a disturbance traveling through the electric (matter) and magnetic (energy) fields of an object to the fields of neighboring objects. When the disturbance enters the fields of a new object it is transferred in all directions to neighboring objects but that doesn’t mean it produces an image in all directions.
            When we see an image, like crocodile eyes or a tree, it is always coming towards us and because those wave are being transmitted in harmony, without interfering with each other, the image is preserved. In the space between our eyes and the object there are incalculable images being transmitted from innumerable sources in all directions which are not destroyed by the other waves traveling in the same space.This is the characteristic of a wave, not a particle. If we move closer there are more harmonic waves coming to our eyes making the image larger. Conversely a step back the spreading of the waves reduces the number of harmonic waves carrying the image making it smaller. We need to determine if the object we see is a large far away object or a smaller closer object which is difficult to do without a known reference.
            What we detect is not the energy (which is part of the medium in which the disturbance travels) but a change in the medium that causes a change in our receptors.
            As a wave traveling in a medium the speed of the wave is determined by the medium. Light travels faster in stronger magnetic field (dense) than in a vacuum (where the fields are larger and less dense). You can see this in water.when you look at a round ball half submerged. The submerged half looks larger and closer than the half in the air because the disturbance doesn’t travel in weaker fields
            So my theory of light is that it is not a transmission of energy but a change in the energy and electric (matter) fields that all objects radiate. No photons.
            Herb
            .

          • Avatar

            Michael Clarke

            |

            Hi Herb,
            I am a logician, I do NOT accept other peoples Math or theory without checking for myself.
            We seem to be of the same mindset, but I often find myself at odds with your ‘World’ view.
            I just submitted another light essay to PSI.
            The comments here have crystallized my focus, NOT my thoughts and certainly NOT my understanding of what I have observed.
            Photons exist, it is how we see stuff, Reflected energy or re-emitted energy?
            The energy/photon differential is poorly understood.
            Please keep suggesting alternate views!
            Thank you
            \Michael Logician.

  • Avatar

    JaKo

    |

    Hi Michael,
    The limited reach of an inexpensive “white” LED (whether simple ‘RGB’ or phosphor-converted) has nothing to do with actual emitting surface temperature. These LED’s don’t have the same spectral power distribution of a typical WWII military searchlight (carbon arc) light source. However, if you look at the latest automotive LED headlight technology (mostly composite) you would find their brightness and spectral characteristics are surpassing even the HID, not to mention Xenon (incandescent), technology; and their efficiency far surpasses the arc systems… and there are the latest solid state laser headlights (Audi & BMW) which beat even the latest LEDs… aka progress ;~)
    And I bet the military today use even more sophisticated (read expensive) light source technology than used in cars.
    Cheers,
    JaKo

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Please define Spectral power!
      Are you trying to say the temperature of the emitting surface does make a difference?

      • Avatar

        JaKo

        |

        Sorry for the delay Michael,
        I ran into your question by chance, so here is my brief answer:
        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/spd.html
        Temperature of the emitting surface “matters!” However, “measuring” this temperature in an LED is a bit tricky; most people dealing with LED SPD are concerned with resulting illumination at ~100m or with resulting color gamut and they are happy with the “equivalent,” not “real temperature.” While carbon arc is true 3k6 deg.C so no conversion/equivalence has been needed.
        JaKo

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Loving the comments. Thanks!

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Tiger by the tail come to mind?

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      And yet another source of Junk science. How much storage is required to store data at 1 trillion bytes per second?

      • Avatar

        T. C. Clark

        |

        Well, I disagree that it is “junk” science. He mentioned in the brief video that it is not the same “photon” being measured since all the “photons” are identical. I don’t believe that a search light cone ends suddenly…it may be the perspective of a viewer on the ground but photons have a long life….astronomers view photons that travel 13 billion plus light years….photons are forever young since their “clocks” do not move at the speed of light. I think you use the word infinity too casually….all finite numbers are minuscule in comparison to infinity. All the photons from a trillion plus stars for the last 13 billion years are supposedly a huge finite number…..but minuscule in comparison to infinity.

        • Avatar

          Michael Clarke

          |

          Thanks T.C.
          You raise some interesting points, I must remember to publish my essay on infinity and error bars, but back to your comment about those photons coming from 13 billion light years away. That huge number times the distance the earth travels in six months gives a base line of around 185 million miles yet those remote objects will not have any apparent movement because they are so far away the included angle is too small to measure. Another reminder to self. explain small and really small. I wrote the software for Extended Precision Floating Point math (96 bits wide) way back in 1975.
          Just try arrive at a value for just one of those remote objects as ‘Energy in Transit’.
          Good Comment, thanks.

          • Avatar

            Michael Clarke

            |

            Hi Folks,
            I will submits a critique of the expanding universe soon. The shape of the ‘Known’ universe is a computer generated construct!

        • Avatar

          Michael Clarke

          |

          Hi Again T.C.
          Junk science reporting versus junk science, which is which?
          A Byte is eight bits, well nine if you include a parity bit which all sensible systems do.
          For data to be transmitted through a medium requires a bandwidth large enough to accommodate those nine bits.
          My PC runs at 4.3 GHz. therefore the absolute maximum transfer rate of bytes from one part of it to another can be calculated. yes it had an information data highway 64 bits wide.
          I don’t think that a frequency of 9 Terra hertz is achievable!

          • Avatar

            T. C. Clark

            |

            The short video did not explain how exactly the end result was achieved…it was about the result. A super computer was used to try to understand the Wuhan Xi virus…also known as Covid 19 and after a week of crunching data…it came to conclusions that are not presented on this site…I am looking to increase my vitamin D levels…it doesn’t offer any bad side effect and it may be useful against the virus. The virus doesn’t look like some common cold or known flu type and some of the doctors believe it is primarily attacking blood vessels which would account for many of the bizarre symptoms.

          • Avatar

            Michael Clarke

            |

            How super is a super computer, can it receive data faster than any other computer ever and way beyond the perceived limits of data transfer achievements. Smoke and Mirrors spring to mind!

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    I’m not sure, but it might have something to do with the LED light spectra. It’s notably missing a big chunk of red light present in incandescent bulbs.

    Then we compare that to O2 and N2 spectrum characteristics.

    Maybe LED bulbs are designed to be more focused as well.

    You raised good questions, Michael.

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Thank You Zoe.
      While I do not as yet follow your mathematical explanation for the Earths ‘UN-Natural’ warmth. I can see where you are coming from.
      When the UN-knowns approach the Known s error bars all bets are off!
      Michael Logician

  • Avatar

    Gus

    |

    I have the feeling that the reason beams all stop at the same altitude is linked to humidity layers in the atmosphere, in the same way that clouds often (not always) plateau in layers when you look out the window of an airplane. Below the cloud the air is less humid (light goes through) and when you reach the cloud layer there is a “wall” of humidity in the sky (blocking light penetration). Then read the comments above photon collisions and back scatter.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Gus and Michael,

      I agree that you (Gus) are pointing to a real probable influence. Here, I have to assume that the altitude at which the visible evidence of the the spotlight cannot be seen is at an altitude where the atmosphere is quite cold and the atmospheric density is quite low. Hence,, any snowflakes which might form and any other small, but dense, particles would settle to some lower altitude where the density of the atmosphere slows the settling rate. And if there are few (or no) tiny dense particles to scatter the light of the search light, there is little matter to scatter the light so it can be seen.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Jerry,
        During the war spotlights were used in deserts where there was no water or humidity and in the middle of the ocean where there were no particles. This would indicate that the beams of light were visible because they were reacting to the gas molecules in the atmosphere. The universal gas law says that the colder the gas molecules the more dense the gas. The higher the altitude the greater the kinetic energy of the gas molecules and the lower the density of the gas.
        Have a good day,
        Herb

      • Avatar

        Michael Clarke

        |

        The problem here is that those WWII search lights reached about 30,000 feet. my LED torch reaches about one Hundred feet.

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Do Feelings belong in a scientific discussion?
      Yes cloud conditions, or perhaps Humidity levels cause some effects but those pesky light beams always stop at some specific height.

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Feelings in a scientific discussion!

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Hi Gus and PSI, ers.
      This has been the most stimulating discussion this year, YES Vitamin D3 and HCQ was personally interesting , but this really reaches my hind brain the bit that thinks!
      I can see neurons firing here and there, just as in my brain, the reactions are rather different however!
      I see what I am looking at while others look at and react.
      Michael Logician.

  • Avatar

    Charlie

    |

    Let us quantify what is happening here.
    First , the energy of electromagnetic (EM) waves is the frequency times Planck’s constant. E = hf = hc/λ where h = 6.62610^-34 Joule-seconds. So when you know the “f”requency or wavelength λ of the light you know the energy. Assuming white light, all colors are represented so you sum all the “h”s for the total “E”. But that’s mess, for illustration (pun intended) let’s simplify to a single f or λ as you wish. Now, that tells you the energy per photon, so how many photons, N, at “f” do you have? Easy: N = Power/(hf) or N = Pλ/(hc). So for an example you can consider one frequency (or wavelength) and work it out. Visible light is about 380 to 740 nanometers. It’s that simple. Now the hard part: Calculate from the light beam how many you see, and as previously mentioned by another, all you see is what is reflected back to you because what went out it scattered in air, and some photons land on your eyeball. You cannot see then light that is not landing on your eyes, which is why the light travelling in a vacuum you cannot see, as it has nothing to bounce off of to go to you, until you look at the light source. But, what is actually there can be calculated of course by diffusion, transport, or ray tracing methods. So just because you cannot see it does not mean it’s not there, it is that none is scattered back to your baby blues. It is much more accurate to calculate knowing a few things like the medium – air – it travels through. Yes, it essentially falls off from a point source radiating in all directions proportional to 1/(rr), r being the distance, but the point of a flashlight or search light is targeted so it’s a bit different, yet knowing a few things, easy and accurate to so calculate. So be careful, you cannot draw a conclusion as to what is going on based on what you *see because you see only what you see; for the rest you need the physics calculations, and measurements, which are not all that hard.
    So those searchlight beams “stopped” because not enough photos were reflected back at you. Yet then, when a bomber passed through the light, say 1000 feet above where you saw it, it was reflected and you saw the bomber and downed it with ack-ack. So it is incorrect to say it “stops” when shined upwards; no it does not, the scattered light just cannot make it back to you. Those other comments, yes indeed, the surface temperature is related to the light energy as the photons emitted have a temperature-color relationship, read about black body radiation. Other comments related photon mass (no, just energy and momentum they have) and something about junk science on Youtube? Agree, Youtube needs to be verified, never take at face value, so when it’s MIT…..That was an MIT video, so it is factual and yes they do have enough storage for that data rate. Obviously, because they did.

    hope this helps…..

    r/
    Charlie

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Charlie,

      I believe I understand and agree with what you have written.

      However, part of Michael’s concern involves light produced by LEDs (cold light). It seems your reference was to the ‘hot’ light where the photon’s are emitted because of the matter’s temperature.
      But I be live I understand that a given diode emits only photons having a narrow band of wavelengths (frequency) produced by electrical energy.. And I believe I understand that until individual diodes were manufactured which emitted one of the three primary colors (blue, green, red) white light could not be produced.

      My question is: Are many of the ‘thermal’photons having the wavelengths (frequencies) of the secondary colors missing in the white light produced by only the photons of the primary colors?

      I believe I understand that the secondary photons are missing.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Charlie

        |

        Jerry, if we consider a light having left the surface where it was created, if it is 530 nanometers (a nice green) it doesn’t matter if it was from incandescent, or LED, or fluorescent or a searchlight in London. It’s 530 nm. It has no memory of how it came to be. Yes, the LED could only generate in certain spectrum ranges and then later it was figured out how to make the other colors and for white several different colors are combined. Lasers too as of a coherent nature and given frequency and blue and green and red lasers are created. So any visible light producing thing will indeed cast off that light in a “single” wavelength (that laser) or many, and also the amount (power or the amplitude at that frequency) in any frequency varies as well. So once created it just “is”. I don’t know what you mean by ‘secondary’ but maybe that’s the other frequencies you didn’t intend to create but did because it’s not perfect. A frequency measuring device can tell you of course what that spectrum is. The intensity = power of that wavelength, and in white light it’s usually said all colors are combined to create white. But of course that varies, but a good standard is the color temperature scale related to a black-body emmiting at a given temperature such as 10,000Kelvin to 3,000K for example where the color temperature change is seen clearly. So as that changes there is more light of this frequency generated and less of that other frequency so the light you see striking your eyeball is a combination of what is actually emitted and what you see. Of course, since your eyes lie to you via your brain, what you see is not actually what is there – you only see what you see, and nothing more; but wait there is more – you go red and beyond than into infrared and you feel the heat.

        So to answer the question there are no thermal photons per se; thermal (heat) or LED or fluorescent source relates only to how they are generated, not what they are.

        Hope this helps.

        Charlie

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Charlie,

          Thank you for your comments. Cannot say I agree or disagree. But you stimulated some thoughts.

          There are at least two types of energy–thermal and electrical. Alchemists (one but right now I do not remember the name) and invented the battery. With this battery the electrolyzed matter and disco red that certain compounds were composed of more elementary matter. For example, water was composed of the element matter (elements) of hydrogen and oxygen.

          Electrical energy is cold energy and thermal energy is hot energy as Michael defines the types of energy.

          More mention of polarized light iso very good and seldom recognized. Reflected and scattered light is polarized as Feynman taught. All one needs to see this is some Polaroid matter which I see what it can do but do not understand how it does it. But I suspect that Michael might to explain how it does.

          What seems important to me is that of the solar radiation incident upon a water surface, a quantity equal to that reflected from the surface is not reflected from the surface and instead penetrates the surface and is transmitted through the water until is scattered (or absorbed) by solid particles (or maybe bubbles of gas) in the water.

          Have a good day, Jerry.

    • Avatar

      Herb Roser

      |

      Hi Charlie,
      My first disagreement is that gas molecules reflect energy rather than absorb and re-radiate.
      The second is with the antiquated concept of a photon or particle nature of light. It comes from association of energy with matter and energy must be a form of kinetic energy.
      The photoelectric effect (cited as disproof of the wave theory) is just another version of the piezo electric effect where an electron in a metal or crystal (already disassociated from an atom) is caused to flow because of a distortion of the ionic bond holding it in place. Instead of a mechanical distortion an electric-magnetic wave of the right size causes the current. The only proof of its existence comes from science founded on its existence. Light is wave where a change in the magnetic (energy) field causes a change in the electric (matter) field which then causes a change in the magnetic field. The electric and magnetic forces have similar behavior, but opposite actions.
      Herb

      • Avatar

        CD Marshall

        |

        Hi Herb (Roser?) is this Herb Rose?

        Big difference between fermions and bosons and I’m not just talking about integer spin.

        The PEP (Pauli Exclusion Principle) only pertains to fermions, as the Bose-Einstein statistic pertains to bosons. This significance is inclusive to how these particles behave at lower energy/frequency/wavelength.

        So much of QM is theoretical. A photon is a phenomenon that has perplexed science for a very long time. Just as current climate science is partly perplexed by temperature, heat ans energy in the politcal arena and what a spectral line can and cannot do in re-interacting with the Earth’s surface.

        The biggest significant difference in reflection to absorption is transference of energy. Reflection does not interface with the mass to exchange energy, as I understand it, and that photon is still ‘massless’ until it does.

        Unless of course I am not following your fundamental train of thought here?

        Cheers,
        CD.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi CD,
          I am a skeptic (my mother use to say ornery) and this has led to me not accepting the interpretations of the experiments that gave rise to both the photon and quantum mechanics. This means I have a unique perspective on physics.
          The contention that the photoelectric effect reputes the wave theory of light because of the time necessary to transfer enough energy to an electron to dislodge it from the atom is not valid. In crystals and metals (where the photoelectric effect occurs) electrons are already separated from the atoms and are held in place by bonds (ionic and metal) so all that is necessary to cause the electron to flow (current) is enough energy to distort the bond. The photoelectric effect is another version of the piezo electric effect where the bond is distorted by changing electric-magnetic field of the right size rather a mechanical distortion.
          The electrons in an atom are not just held in place by the electrical attraction between the positive protons in the nucleus and the negative charge of the electron. When an electron moves in a magnetic field it is pushed in a circular path (right hand rule). The magnetic field resists the electron from moving away from the nucleus acting as a confining force. When you increase the velocity of the electron (add energy to it) you also increase the strength of the confining magnetic field. It is this coupling of the energy of the electron and the strength of the confining force that produces the quantum effect. The laws of physics are the same regardless of size. We just have the wrong laws.
          If you were to make a model of the solar system the size of the Earth you would need less than 200 grams of matter to make your model. The same scarcity of mass applies to the atom. When objects interact it is primarily an interaction between the fields of the matter (electric) and energy (gravity and magnetic) fields associated with the mass. When objects are reflected they are unable to break the fields surrounding the object, when they are absorbed they become part of the field and the object, and when they are transmitted they pass through the fields with no interaction.
          I hope this helps to explain where my comments come from and that I have a different starting point for interpreting phenomena.
          Herb

          • Avatar

            Michael Clarke

            |

            Hi Herb,
            Your argument perfectly illustrates my problem.
            This is one of Math and the limitations of measurement.
            When the inherent measurement errors approach the number values of your measurement ability, the conclusions become , well guesses or fantasy.

      • Avatar

        Charlie

        |

        Herb, not sure I follow you. I guess it doesn’t matter if you consider incident light is reflected or absorbed and re-admitted; there is a certain probability of both and either. It depends on the materials and such. What matters is what reaches your eye is only what you see (fact, by definition) plus what you cannot see. So in reality if the spectrum and power of light emitted was known then the properties of the air+humidity+dust+etc. you could theoretically calculate what is at any given point at any given time. And measure it too. So you definitely cannot trust your eyes to tell you what is there, it has to be measured at least, and since the modeling is so good these days, calculated. You can call a “photon” antiquated if you want to; it doesn’t matter what you call it, it matters what it “is” or what it represents. That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.. And the energy from light is definitely not kinetic, no one has ever claimed that – it’s electromagnetic energy that can be converted to kinetic energy and vice versa. The interactions of the electric and magnetic components is well understood and easy to calculate and measure. Of course the popular example of that is polarized light which turns the 2-planes of waves into 1-plane waves. Nevertheless, the piezo electric and photo electric effects are different mechanisms and like many things in nature, overlap in certain areas – but certainly not entirely so that are not the same thing. Thining of them as “sets” of phenomena, there is an area of overlap of the two “circles” where they are the same but the two circles represent the two different phenomena.

        Regards,

        Charlie

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Charlie,
          Thanks for your reply.
          I think have a different concept on the purpose of science. To me the purpose of science is not to describe what is happening but to clarify reality. Saying the sun and stars orbit the Earth gives a perfect description of what is happening but doesn’t describe reality and lead to further understanding. The photon doesn’t clarify the nature of light, just gives a name to the unknown creating an ambiguity allowing for a changing description to describe different behaviors.
          Looking for a connection between the piezo electric effect and the photoelectric effect is no different than Newton connecting a falling object with an orbiting object. It is an effort to find a common causation for seemingly unrelated events.
          There is a difference between a right answer and a correct answer. There are multiple answers for quadratic equations but the correct answer is the one that describes reality.
          The formula for the force between magnets, F=M1M2/d^2, gives the right answer but the correct formula (which can be shown by experimentation) that describes reality is M3=(M1+M2)/d where M3 is the strength of the magnet being created as the two magnets combine and d is the distance from one magnet to the magnetic field of the other magnet. By using this answer and recognizing that the magnet and electric force have opposite actions it provides clarity on how light is propagated and energy is transferred.
          Herb

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Thank You Charlie,
      I will clean the dust off my slide rule and do some calcculations, but I do follow your argument.
      Those WWII search lights were Carbon Arc light sources. My incandessant torch is tungsten, my LED is mostly silicon. Three very different power to temperature to frequency sources.
      I agree that I am seeing light caused when the beam strikes other stationary matter and light gets scattered some of which gets back to my eyes. This also explains why on a foggy night a high intensity beam becomes useless due to secondary scattered light.
      I think I can accept that those beams stop becoming visible to me because the energy required to create a photon coming back to me must have a specific value and at some point high up the beams no longer have that required energy. If I used a light amplifier I would see a different stopping point!
      The thrust of my essay was to try evaluate the ‘Energy in Transit’ but my calculator cannot derive sensible numbers for the light from the moon and gives up entirely if I try get sensible numbers of ‘Energy in Transit’ from the sun.
      I could not get sensible answers as to the homogenization of the Sun’s radiant energy!
      The Black Body measurements done by NASA are so small scale when compared to the sun’s surface, ignoring the sun’s atmosphere, that the error bars become way bigger than that which I was trying to evaluate.

      • Avatar

        Charlie

        |

        Michael, not sure I follow the comment “Foolish will always accept what scientists say” Well, of course in general terms one is foolish if you take without reasonable evidence and ability to independently determine something yourself anything on any topic that is stated/written. The nice thing about sciency things is if such and so thing is reported, then, you can go look for it yourself. If it is reproducible by many, then, it goes into the reasonable assurance bin. If it cannot be verified then it’s iffy. And if new evidence is uncovered later that changes it, great. We now know more than we did before. So science – if you call it a representation of how the universe, small to great, behaves – is always correct; humans just have to figure it out with the limited tools we have. And often we don’t do so well or it takes a long time to get to the bottom line.

        r/
        Charlie

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      The foolish will always accept what ‘scientists’ say they achieved!

  • Avatar

    Finn McCool

    |

    So how come you can see road lights from the ISS?

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Finn, and Michael;,

      Good question! Because Michael has seemed to not like my expanations, I challenge him, the logician, to give Finn a possible answer to his question. I would very much like to see Michael’s answer.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      I

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi PSI Readers,

      Michael Clarke and I have had extended email conversations. There is no doubt that he is brilliant and I am not. But I believe a fact is that Einstein stated: “It’s not that I’m so smart, its just that I stay with problems longer.”

      Another fact is that Richard Feynman, a brilliant Scientist, made a fundamental blunder in the first lecture of ‘The Feynman Lectures On Physics’. And one can still read this blunder because it has not yet been corrected.

      To a chemist Avogadro’s Number (6.023 X 10^23) is a big deal. For the chemist accepts that in 18 ml of water (or 18 grams) there is Avogadro’s Number of water molecules. Which obviously forces the chemist to accept that a molecule of water is very, very, tiny But, Feynman, the physicist did not tell his students about this very, very, big number until the 41st lecture.

      What does this have to do with Michael’s article? How many of you have ever seen the Milky Way? The Milky Way is maybe composed of maybe Avogadro’s Number of stars which Newton recognized has to each be very, very, distant from each other so the gravity of a star’s great, great, mass would have a minimum influence upon the motion of other stars.

      The Hubble Telescope in space observes random dust clouds in space that existed billions of light years before stars actually were formed.

      And Michael knows, because of these common Hubble images, it is very difficult to explain the source of the light which allows these images to be seen.

      Hence, I believe (but don’t know) this is the source of Michael’s pondering about the light he has seen with his ‘naked’ eyes.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Michael Clarke

        |

        Hi Jerry,
        Please see my reply to Finn.
        Regarding that mythical Avogadro’s number!
        Remove or add a micro droplet of water to that 18ml of water and re-calculate, you will get a very different answer. This is because the 18ml as measured is subject to measurement accuracy which is significantly larger than the size of the micro-droplet.
        In Essence this is why I am a logician. I do NOT accept other peoples mathematical statements easily, I pick up stones and look underneath. I try to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’, this is an extremely difficult process and I don’t think I have ever really succeeded in that endeavor.
        Close but not gold star.
        Regards
        Michael Logician.

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Michael and Herb,

        It seems both of you choose to live in the artificial world of your minds where there is no uncertainty associated with actual measurement (observation) in the world in which we all actually live.

        I know that Michael has had actual achievements; but Herb what achievements have you shared with the PSI Readers? The achievements of Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, etc. are known yet you claim they are wrong.

        Newton wrote that he could not explain the cause of gravity, but he knew the physical evidence (inexact as it actually is) that his theory of universal gravitation could explain.

        And some might question that E = m c^2 but the three bombs that the quantum mechanists designed worked the first three times they were tested

        There is talk (writing) and there is doing. And, Michael, when you contributed your achievements, you did so on the basis of your real world observations. And when you tested, that which you had reasoned on this basis, it worked.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Michael Clarke

          |

          Hi Jerry,
          To Link me with others is both a compliment and a denigration!
          I am a LOGICIAN, I am like other logicians, who before me ‘Looked’ and ‘Saw’!
          something wrong with the perceived ‘Scientifically’ accepted notion of ‘How things ARE!
          I have far more questions than answers!
          I ‘look’ and try understand what I ‘see’.
          This has been the most stimulating conversation I have had in ages.
          Thank you all!
          Michael Logician.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Jerry,
          Why of you link the quality of ideas with the credentials of the author? Good ideas an observations can come from anyone and need to be judged on their merits not their authors. The utterly stupid scamdemic and GHG crisis are a result of the work of highly educated and credentialed idiots. People believe their interpretation of evidence instead of examining the evidence and determining for themselves what it means.
          You are particularly adept of only accepting evidence that agrees with your beliefs and citing some dead “expert” to bolster your beliefs whether or not the quote has anything do with subject or not.
          There are theories that provide a right answer but not the correct answer. Newton’s theory of gravity seems to provide accurate results but the behavior of his force defies all reason. The data (mass of planets) used is derived from his formula not evidence so how could it not give the right answer?
          You need to consider the state of knowledge and evidence when theories are proposed, not treat them as gospel to see how they stand up to new discoveries.
          I believe in simplicity and reason (do not quote Einstein whose work had nothing to do with simplicity or reason (by the way atomic bombs are the release of the binding force of the atom’s nucleus not the conversion of mass into energy.)) and look for solutions that satisfy both evidence and reason. (the correct formula for the force between magnets (which Newton and others used for their forces) is not F=M1M2/d^2 but M3 (the magnet created two magnets merge)= (M1+M2)/d where d is the distance from one magnet to the magnetic field of the other magnet.)
          So Jerry I will continue using reason to determine the validity of theories and you will continue to use the gospel as revealed by past prophets. Here’s a solution to your angst. Don’t read what I write.
          Herb

        • Avatar

          Michael Clarke

          |

          Oh My!
          Jerry, you in that high ivory tower who lost sight of the ground way back when.
          I may not have good vision, but I can ‘See’ at what I ‘Look’ at!
          \Michael Logician.

        • Avatar

          Charlie

          |

          Spot on, Jerry!

          have a good day, Charlie

      • Avatar

        Michael Clarke

        |

        As I recently said elsewhere to Nancy Pelosi, ‘When in a hole stop digging!’
        Jerry I will explain my pondering ‘s, but need to ‘EDUCATE” people to ‘Look’ and ‘See’ which are two very different animals, to mix metaphor’s!
        This Universe has Rules!
        This Universe has rules that cannot be broken!
        This Universe has rules that are poorly understood!
        I lift up stones and dot ‘i”s and cross ‘t’s. in an attempt to make sense of what I see when I look at something!
        Michael Logician.

        • Avatar

          Matt

          |

          In the majority of cases, you may inform but never be able to educate.

          • Avatar

            Michael Clarke

            |

            Thank You Matt,
            small but significant praise is appreciated!

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Hi Finn,
      What a great OBSERVATION!
      I think the answer is we/you/the astronauts are looking at a LIGHT source and not at reflected or re-emitted light.
      Back to my slide rule.

  • Avatar

    MattH

    |

    The apparent terminal point of the beam may be the point at which a significant amount of light reflected back to the observer is absorbed and blocked by atmospheric particles, the level of reflected light reaching the observer being of a quantum equal to other night time light sources, therefore being indiscernible.
    I was wondering about the light source remaining static, but the observer moving towards the visual termination point of the beam.
    To what ratio does the beam extend it’s range compared to the observer moving towards the apparent beam terminal point? Presumably until the light beam leaves earth’s atmosphere where there are no more particles to reflect signals of the beam.

    I look forward to Michael’s thoughts on infinity. If space is infinite there are other life forms out there. If there are no other life forms out there space is not infinite.

    It is unfortunate people use the term “to educate” when they mean “to inform”. I can be informed on how to tie my shoe laces yet never be educated.
    Alas, the same can be said of people using the word “change” when they mean “alter” or “evolve”,
    Evolve is to stand on the shoulders of giants (thank you Jerry) and to see further, progress. Change is often to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To replace with something else.
    If mother nature changed things the way people (politicians) do then all life on earth would be extinct.

    My annual rant.
    Regards Matt

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Matt,
      Evolve, to me, means to change to better utilize existing conditions (or knowledge in the case of theories) but by becoming more specialized adaptability is lost and when conditions (or knowledge) changes the evolving may lead to extinction. The giant panda’s reliance on bamboo as a food source makes its survival depend on the survival of the bamboo.
      Civilization has evolved but has become dependent on technology. What will happen if technology is rendered useless? Civilization will be destroyed.but have we reached the point where humanity will also cease to exist just like the giant panda?
      Herb

      • Avatar

        Matt

        |

        Hi Herb. Whilst pedantic I argue that change is the replacement with one thing for another. Change our underwear but the underwear is not evolving. Change the oil in our automobile motor.
        I absolutely concur with your understanding on adaptive specialization. I would suggest though that some of this is from genetic mutation rather than change. Quasimoto understood devolution as opposed to evolution.
        Colony Collapse of bees illustrates specialization causes efficiencies as well as vulnerabilities.
        A specialized disease killing bamboo does potentially wipe out the panda where a bear that eats berries, fish, animals, fruit, roots shoots and leaves is going to be laughing all the way to it’s lear.
        And the same could be true for humans. Like bees the specialization of societies has efficiencies but also a vulnerability if one part of the colony collapses. A super Carrington type event or plague, or war, would suggest those who live independently, farming, hunting, gathering, and using combustion for cooking may have better long term viability odds.
        Good on you Herb. Matt

        • Avatar

          Spelling

          |

          Lair.

  • Avatar

    Joseph E Postma

    |

    Charles Higley provides the correct answer:

    https://principia-scientific.com/hot-and-cold-light/#comment-39100

    Michael Clarke responded partly with:

    “I agree that the light that I see is coming from collisions, however the attenuation is not linear, the beam does not get weaker as I observe it, it stops abruptly”

    No, attenuation/extinction/scattering is not linear, it is exponential. It only appear to stop “abruptly” but if you were to plot the beam brightness on a log scale and using a measurement device more sensitive than your eye then you would see a linear slope line of beam brightness with distance from the source. It only appears abrupt to the eye. In log scale space it is linear.

    The eye is the other factor here. The eye is auto-adjusting itself constantly, changing its aperture, at night time typically this means going for as full of aperture as possible. So it will pick up the brightest things such as the beam nearest the surface, and although there is still light traveling out above where it appears to abruptly cut off, there is of course still light there, it is simply that you’re eye and brain can’t detect it. The brightness of the beam near the surface “helps” the beam to wash out into the background at altitude…as far as your eye can tell.

    So:
    1) Attenuation/extinction/scattering is exponential (this is real astronomy here…a huge concern for us…as we need to know all about how light is being extincted/scattered/attenuated/etc. when it passes through various mediums to our telescopes…the mediums being interstellar dust and gas, zodiacal dust, nebular dust and gas, stellar gas and metals, etc etc etc). On a log scale extinction makes a straight line with a slope.

    2) The eye (sensitivity) is linear. It is also variable aperture. A linear detector measuring an exponential source will manifest an “abrupt” cut off at the sensitivity level of the detector.

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Joe and Michael,

      Hopefully Michael, a logician, doesn’t dismiss what you, an astronomer, clearly wrote. For I doubt it could been stated more simply and completely.

      Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Joe, Very informative answer. Many thanks!

      • Avatar

        Matt

        |

        Astro Scissor Cyst. One who snips out malignant speculative growth of poorly informed conjecture on Astro Physics. There is a whole universe of interactions to interpret.

        Thanks Joe, and CD, for giving your time in contributing.

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Thank You Joseph, your explanation is by far the best offered here and fits with what I thought would be the case if I used a light amplifier to view a beam from a distance. I would be able to see the spread and the scattered light much more clearl, the focused light would be visible for a larger distance.
      So Thank you again.

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Michael and others,

    This morning I was reminded there is an alternative explanation to Michael’s observation that the searchlight beams seemed to stop at exactly the same height.

    What I saw was a smoke (haze) which formed an almost level horizon above the natural horizon of the Cascade Mountains. Similar to the one which can be seen in photo 2 of the following link.

    https://principia-scientific.org/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-three/

    And it said a picture is worth a thousand words.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Michael Clarke

      |

      Hi Jerry, your smoke haze photo is looking at a source of light. My observations are looking away from a source of light. This is why street lights are visible from space.
      Michael

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Michael,
    After more thought I have decided the beams of light are not the result of gas molecules absorbing and re-radiating the light but is caused by the scattering the light by the nano droplets of water in the atmosphere.
    Because water reflects, refracts, and transmits visible light (fog) it scatters that light making the beam visible. If you shine a laser pointer into a crystal ball dots of red light will be visible at multiple locations. When the beam first hits the sphere some of it is reflected while the rest enters the crystal and is refracted. When the refracted beam reaches the concave surface of the sphere some of it is again transmitted through the surface while the rest is reflected repeating the process and causing the light disperse in multiple directions. Liquid water droplets would cause the same scattering making a light beam visible.
    Gaseous water does not exist below the boiling point of water (James McGinn) so the evaporation of water is in the form of nano droplets of liquid water. If you read Dr. Gerald Pollack’s book “The Fourth Stage of Water” his experiments show that water is actually a liquid crystal formed as negative hydroxyl ions form a crystal structure surrounding the liquid water and H3O+ ions in the droplet’s center. The number of hydroxyl ions and crystal structure grows as infrared energy is absorbed increasing the external negative charge of the crystal causing the droplet to rise in the atmosphere transporting energy through the troposphere. At the troposphere-stratosphere boundary the kinetic energy (to determine the kinetic energy use the universal gas law (P is gravity not atmospheric pressure) dividing the temperature at the altitude by its density) reaches the second melt point of the liquid crystal causing the nano droplets to release their energy (thermal and electric) and condensing into larger liquid droplets.
    Where these nano droplets disappear is where the light beam ends. Since particles absorb visible light and convert it to kinetic energy or only reflect it only in one direction it seems to me that water nano droplets offer a better explanation for the observed light beam and its ceiling than particles.
    Herb

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Herb,

    To prove how foolish I am, I will comment about about your comment. Which I consider to still not be valid. This morning there was no smoke haze between the crest of the Cascades and my point of observation; but there were diffuse condensed ‘nano’ water droplets (thin clouds) a little above the horizon between the Sun and the crest of the Cascades. And before sunrise I could see two peaks (elevations more that 10,000ft and about 60 miles from my observation point) being backlit by the twilight of the sky. So, this morning the sun did not rise as a red disk but as the conventional bright ‘yellowish’ light. And because of this bright light I could not see the diffuse condensed droplets of the thin clouds.

    Hence, I must conclude the smoke particles of yesterday’s smoke bank we not near the size of the smoke haze through which the red disk of the sun rose yesterday’s morning.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Jerry,
      I do not understand your reasoning.
      On a cloudy day have you ever seen a beam of sunlight coming through a gap in the clouds? What is reflecting that light so you can see the beam?
      Have a good day,
      Herb

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Herb,

      Michael could ‘see’ the path of the search lite up to a certain, consistent altitude.at some distance from the search lites (yes, this is assumed). But the atmosphere must must have been hazy (very diffuse).

      The fire engine red sun I see as it rises ever the horizon defined by the crests off the Cascades have to tase through 50 plus miles of diffuse smoke particles which create what we term a hazy atmosphere. As the sun rises above the horizon (level, smooth) defined by clearly visible smoke bank, the path of direct light of the sun passing ‘through the haze decreases slowly and then more rapidly.

      “What is reflecting that light so you can see the beam?” Diffuse particles of matter significantly larger than the atmosphere gas molecules.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Jerry,
        When I see the sun rising it is also red even though there is no fire or smoke. If you were observe the sun rising over the Atlantic ocean or setting over the Pacific it would appear red even though there are no smoke particles. There is a shift in the light making making the sun appear larger and the wavelengths longer.
        Beams of light, whether from a spot light or the sun, are white light. White light indicates all wave length are being scattered which indicates to me that the light is being scattered by liquid (not gas) water nano droplets as solid particles would absorb some wavelengths.
        Have a good day,
        Herb
        .

Comments are closed

Share via