World Expert Reveals Errors in Assessing LED Light Health Risks
Dr Nisa Khan, a respected international pioneer in LED lighting, has triggered consternation in the scientific community. Herein, she provides further insights as to why LED car headlights are a major risk to public health.
Recent appearances on tntradio.live by the world’s leading expert on LED lighting technology have triggered some blowback due to misunderstandings of the science.
A key to such misunderstands is that few critics have grasped that, somewhat like a laser, the critical point of energy intensity in an LED light (where there is most danger) is at the center of the beam.
Critics of Dr Khan’s health warnings have mistakenly focused their rebuttals referencing the off-center light from an LED and thereafter assuming a homogenous light intensity, forgetting that the on-center beam (more akin to that of a laser) is the very narrow field of maximum intensity, from where potential for serious injury exists.
Replying to commentators at Principia Scientific International (PSI) Dr Khan writes:
“Those who still feel like you need to understand further will have to wait until PSI brings you video lectures from me in the future – for which university credits maybe provided as well. These will be paid content as we must incur a good deal of expenses for generating these and these will provide better education over any university lectures currently available.”
Dr Khan explained that well-meaning colleagues, less knowledgeable of the science, have been putting forth demonstrably erroneous information to play down her warnings.
The false arguments proffered are known common red herrings emanating from professionals that belong to CIE, NHTSA, IES, Optica, IEEE, APS and just about all other academic, scientific, technical, and standard organizations.
Undoubted as a world-leading expert, Dr Khan has frankly no equal when it comes to such pronouncements on the scientific facts. Her cited links are to peer-reviewed, or better than peer-reviewed publications. To the few remaining critics prepared to come forward, Dr Khan responds:
“I have been fighting and winning the scientific arguments by all such organisations for nearly a decade now and I again challenge my critics to attempt to refute the science set out in the hyperlinks.“
Those links are as follows:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/M-Khan-36
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Why-Inorganic-LEDs-have-Inherent-Glare-and-Extremely-High-Luminance
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-LED-Illumination-Nisa-Khan-ebook/dp/B00I60M8X8
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8879542
https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/khan-paper.pdf
Confidently re-asserting her position Dr Khan declared:
“There are no peers for my work on LED and wireless near-field photometry and radiometry), you will note that LEDs, lasers, and flat wireless antennas generate beams with non-uniform power density in space and power density at the center of the radiators, be it optical or RF, is enormously larger than what they are off center. This is the basic characteristic of a laser, LED or directive antenna beam. Halogen, HID, and other lamps do not have these characteristics, even after lenses are used like in headlamps.”
In order to understand why at least a 1000W worth of radiant power is easily absorbed by a typical driver on a daily basis when they encounter cars with LED headlights, Dr Khan explains that to cogently debate her critics must have a background in both technical fields of Electronics and optoelectronics.
Electronics and optoelectronics – to address response time for light generation from LED chip devices. This is typically about microseconds. So, in one second, 1 watt of radiant power generated by an LED chip, aggregates to 1 million watts of radiant power absorbed by our body and eyes depending on how much of this radiant power is incident on our body parts.
Dr Khan explains:
“Power adds in time and space. And we need to do the proper calculus to determine just how much wattage is incident on us when we look at an LED light from typical distances and for how long. But even with crude under-approximation, my number of 1000W is nothing compared to what we are experiencing typically. Note that the speed of light is so fast that we can consider instantaneous eye detection of light coming to our eyes from car headlights.”
She clarified that, while lumens are what we see, the key here is the radiant power expressed in wattage that is absorbed by our body parts, whether our eyes sense them or not.
Having said that, LEDs generate typically 5 to 7 times more lumens within white light spectrum compared to halogen or incandescent counterparts for each electrical watt used to generate light.
“So, this too is more bothersome for LEDs when even lumen power is considered,” she added.
What is required for better understanding is to recognise that radiant power reaching our eyes are far more in the case of an LED headlamp compared to a halogen or an HID headlamp because of power concentration in space in a high or low beam is FAR more for an LED headlamp.
In essence, this becomes a higher-level mathematical calculation, as Dr Khan explains:
“I can do the calculus to determine how much more it is for an LED headlamp vs. a halogen or HID headlamp. This is where the industry is clueless unfortunately. Further, the measurements everyone is doing are incorrect because they simply don’t have the detectors in the right places and the detectors at distances don’t work well for LEDs as they end up erroneously aggregating the power in space without accounting for the highly non-uniform spatial power density in LED headlights.”
For the case of LEDs, she explains, near field measurement must be done accurately and then these need to be extended to typical distances that exist between our eyes and LED headlights.
Not all the electrical power that goes into an LED or a laser converts to radiant power.
“Typically, the power conversion efficiency is about 20 percent; it can be much higher. But I’ll assume that to be the case for my general goal of underestimation of my nominal number of “at least 1000W”! So if you take the 20 percent conversion efficiency, 10 percent overlap of the radiant power from an LED headlamp over your eye when you look at an LED headlight from 2 meters away within a 30 percent solid angle zone, for a sec – what is the total radiant power your eye absorbed? Given the numbers I provided above, let me just say, “You do the math!””
Finally, Dr Khan asserts that has yet to be proper analysis of how our brains processes intense LED light that is hugely non-uniform in space and time and this is the part that gives many people migraines, epilepsy, temporary blindness and dizziness, and other abnormal feelings.
Does that sound familiar?
“Ask yourself, math or not, better light detection or not, color-temperature or not – do LED headlights bother you more than halogen headlights?”
Behind this is the reason that LED headlight peak luminance is more than one million nits whereas a halogen headlight’s peak luminance is around 40,000 nits!
“I have data on this more than most people do. Like man-made detectors, human eye detectors also vary, and some people’s eyes are simply saturated, and they don’t see light level beyond a certain amount. For them, tolerating LED headlights is much easier. However, my studies show that about 20 percent of the population simply cannot take LED headlights at all; another 50 percent put up with it; and about 30 percent likely aren’t bothered by it much.”
For the actual wattage used in a typical LED headlight, look here:
https://www.amazon.com/Fahren-Headlight-Headlights-Conversion-Waterproof/dp/B07NPMV1H5/ref=sr_1_11?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9bGl3brT9gIVD-DICh2jYg7GEAAYAiAAEgLDVfD_BwE&hvadid=583842092093&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9003676&hvnetw=s&hvqmt=e&hvrand=11966814815853993934&hvtargid=kwd-309776652137&hydadcr=7496_9586299&keywords=halogen+headlight+bulb&qid=1647737048&sr=8-11
Mind you, the trucks used more powerful LED lights!
Dr. Khan’s Challenge to Her Remaining Critics
“If you disagree with anything I said here and would like to challenge me in public, please do the following:
- Reveal your full name and affiliation.
- Bring yourself and any other expert on the subject to a public debate against me.
- In the public debate, I would like the best Bell Labs optical and RF scientists and engineers present. Further, I would like the best math professors who understand analytic functions and Fourier Transforms and Fourier Optics fully. These need not be anybody I know or have worked with in the past. I’ll ask you what you measure when you measure power from a flat radiative source and what that number means. I’ll ask you what you know about near-field photometry and radiometry. I’ll ask you what you know about visible, invisible, and not-so-visible optical radiation and what determines their visibility function for the human eye. I’ll ask you why a laser produces a pencil beam at the surface as shown in Figure 1 in the article written by Donald Nelson, R. J. Collins, and Wolfgang Kaiser. This article is referenced by the author of this article here. Please come prepared.”
About Dr M. Nisa Khan
M. Nisa Khan is the author of, “Understanding LED Illumination” (CRC Press, 2013) – a widely used university textbook around the world in the field of laser and LED engineering and solid-state lighting. She received the B.A. in physics and mathematics from Macalester College in 1986 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 1988 and 1992 respectively. During her studies, she worked as a research associate for 9 years at Honeywell Solid State Research Center in Bloomington, Minnesota. After completing her doctorate, she became a member of the technical staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories (now Nokia Bell Labs) in Holmdel, New Jersey, and spent most of her 6 years at the Photonics Research Laboratory at Bell Labs-Crawford Hill conducting pioneering work on 40-Gb/s optoelectronic and integrated photonic devices. Dr. Khan then worked on optical communication subsystems at several other companies, including her own venture-backed companies in New Jersey. In 2006, she started an independent research and engineering company, IEM LED Lighting Technologies, and has since been involved in innovation and technology development for making solid-state lighting more suitable for general lighting. She has written over 40 peer-reviewed research articles in IEEE, OSA, and AIP journals, presented numerous invited and contributed papers at OSA, IEEE, and APS conferences, notable international conferences in Europe and China, and has 10 U.S. granted patents as either first or sole author. Dr. Khan performed many feasibility field studies for LED display and signage industries and wrote over 50 LED column articles from 2007 to 2016 in Signs of the Times magazine, which has been serving the electric sign illumination industry since 1906. Dr. Khan’s original scientific contributions can be found in ResearchGate.net that highlight her discovery of why semiconductor lasers, LEDs, and RF antennas produce directional beams and she is the first to derive the closed-form, analytic equation for near-field electromagnetic radiation distribution from finite, flat radiation sources. This derivation along with the theory of Fourier Optics prove that LEDs, lasers, and flat RF antennas and their arrays are NOT point radiation sources no matter how far the observer is from a flat radiation source. This discovery is very notable and she explains with her new theory why high- power and high-brightness LED-based lamps – used for example as car headlamps – have tremendous glare that propagate directly into viewers’ eyes when their field of view substantially overlaps with the center optical axes of the headlight beams. Her discoveries have been validated by experiments and finite simulations many times over and stand as the only work that can help the auto headlamp industry upgrade their photometric standards for non-point sources that produce non-uniform luminance and radiance – and adopt appropriate measurement techniques that would disqualify all current LED headlamps for having too great a luminous intensity along the optical axes of both high and low beams. Similarly, her work suggests that current 4G and 5G wireless signals generate dangerous levels of electromagnetic radiation for cell phone users and for residents who live nearby antenna base stations. Source: bionicair.com
Dr Khan’s website address: www.iem-led.com
Listen to Dr Khan’s interviews, and other topical science and technology stories by Principia Scientific International’s senior team, at tntradio.live
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
According to Plank’s Law (untrue) the energy received from a light depends solely on its frequency/wavelength and its amplitude/intensity is irrelevant.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry and Herb:
In reference to the alleged atomic bombs, does it not seem strange to both of you that in almost 80 years, no country has deployed them other than in so called atomic tests. Don’t you think it a little suspicious that “Little Boy” relying on physics that had never been tested, then shipped halfway around the world, worked first try. That should by itself raise a flag. I refer you to the extensive data analysis done after the fire bombing Of Hiroshima and published by Michael Palmer MD in his book “Revisiting Hiroshima.” The book was quickly pulled from distribution but is available for download. It shows incontrovertible evidence that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the targets of traditional firebombing (napalm) not atomic weapons. I also recommend the recent book by Akio Nakatoni, “Death Object, Exploding The Nuclear Weapons Hoax.” He brings out (with photos) some little know facts contrary to what the court historians have stated. In areas close to ground zero many objects that should have been obliterated were left basically intact including flimsy window frames. Telephone poles were still standing and many trees survived and some are still there today. Of the 50 bridges in Hiroshima, only one was destroyed and the train station was in full operation in less (had to examine the tracks) than 48 hours over undamaged trestles. Also note that the Russian Aviation pioneer Alexander DeSeversky visited the area shortly after the attack (he believed the nuke hoax) and concluded that the damage to Hiroshima was entirely consistent with the bombings of the many other Japanese cities he had inspected. I wonder why? More information on the fake nuke tests is in the link below:
http://mileswmathis.com/trinity.pdf
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mark,
Because of the experiments done under the stadium in Chicago they were fairly certain the chain reaction would work with uranium. It was a long expensive process to purify uranium to a high enough purity to sustain the chain reaction, so they didn’t want to waste it by testing it. Plutonium was purely theoretical with no previous experimentation and since it was faster to produce the tested a plutonium bomb in New Mexico in order to make sure they wouldn’t be giving the Japanese an warning and ultimatum then not have the bomb work.
The bombs were detonated in the air to maximize the area affected. This means that the force over ground zero was vertical rather than horizontal. Towers, telephone poles, concrete building, railroad tracts, and bridges are build to withstand vertical forces not horizontal so they remained standing.
According to Curtis LeMay the Airforce was running out of targets to bomb with conventional bombs and it is hard to distinguish the damage done by the two types of bombs. Despite the damage done by the air war and the fact that the U.S. submarine attacks had completely cut Japan off from supplies (they are attacking junks and fishing boats) and the people were starving there was no thought of surrender. Even after the two atomic bombs were dropped and they knew their power they were reluctant to surrender. It was only after Russia broke off talks with Japan, declared war on them, attacked them in Manchuria and the concession that they could keep the emperor (with no power) that the Japanese acknowledge the complete hopelessness of their situation and surrendered.
The reason the bombs have not been used since is because they are terror weapons not military ones. A multiple megaton explosion that leaves an area uninhabitable for decades or centuries is of little practical use in war other than to scare the shit out of enemies. We’ve been lucky. With tactical (smaller) nuclear warheads and neutron bombs I expect we will see this change shortly. Hopefully I’ll be dead before it happens because it is sure to escalate.
Herb
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
That is the conventional explanation but the fact is they could not get them to work according to Nakatoni. Palmer goes over all of the reports and also destroys the narrative. It is clearly evident that the official photos made public of the alleged nuclear tests were faked as shown in the Mathis article I linked. Herb, you need not worry about a nuclear strike. It is just more fear porn, just like the fake virus. Everything the Zionists do is a lie and a fraud. Like NASA’s fake Apollo landing money laundering operation and the magic airliners that penetrated multiple floors of reenforced concrete and steel, without even bending a wing and with the plastic nose cone even exiting the other side of the building. Never before done, just like the fake atomic bombings and the fake moon landings. It is truly like Reagan’s (brought to Cal. by the Chicago Mob) CIA director Casey told him:
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” ~ William Casey, CIA Director 1981 to 1987
Thanks for the reply.
Mark
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Marl,
I am not afraid of a nuclear attack. I have a desk upstairs. When I was in school we were taught that in case of a nuclear attack we should get under our desks for protection.
Herb
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
I remember all of that nonsense. People were building nuclear fallout shelters and afraid the ICBM’s would be launched at any minute. The MSM was always (and mcNamara, later Kissinger) telling us how powerful and advanced the Soviets were and we had to get the best deal we could (Hegelian dialectic). Later I read Anthony Sutton’s (Hoover Inst. Stanford) book “Wall St. and The Bolshevik Revolution” in which he laid out how the USSR was totally dependent on western (primarily U.S.) agricultural, financial and technological aid. In 1989 Russia was producing less grain than in 1917 under the Czar. In the 1950’s the entire country of Russia had less automobiles than Spain, then noted for it’s backwardness. Sutton was invited to speak at a Rep. Convention but when he exposed this information, he was blacklisted and forced to resign his position. Also recall also the fake missile crisis under JFK to frighten the herd. The U.S. has maintained a base in Cuba since the early 1900’s and Castro an operative.
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
Unfortunately Max Planck didn’t understand Maxwell’s Equations and Gauss’ Laws in their entirety. Planck had no idea about power and energy density properties in space. For Planck and most other physicists in the 20th and 21st centuries, all natural things happen at an immeasurable, tiny point rather than over finite amount of space. Really? This grave error has caused many mistakes in modern physics, quantum physics, particle physics and many claims from these disciplines are falling apart one by one. What a waste of time, money, and ENERGY it has been for the error that Planck made! I recommend reading the works of Wallace Thornhill from the Electric Universe group or the Thunderbolt Project and find out for yourself what I am talking about regarding the mistakes of modern physics.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hello Dr.Nisa,
It is not only modern physics that is wrong. Newton’s First Law: All objects will travel in a straight line unless a force acts upon them id wrong. in a 3 dimensional universe there are no “straight lines’ and with even light traveling in a curved path. How do you determine a “straight line”?. The premise should be: An object will maintain its energy unless it loses or gains energy. An object orbits because it is in equilibrium with the energy field of the object it orbits. An apple falls because it is not and moves into a higher energy field to gain energy.
The basic formula F=M1M2/d^2 is also the wrong formula, at least for magnets.
Herb
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
Hello Herb Rose,
Yes I am aware and talked about these in a public forum in the past. Much more is also wrong with mainstream physics. Regards, Dr. Khan
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dr. Nisa,
Since you deal with light I would like to explain why there is no photon or particle nature of light, but light is a disturbance (wave) in the electric (matter) and magnetic (energy) fields that objects radiate.
The creation of the photon was the result of not understanding the photoelectric effect. In metals and crystals electrons are already disassociated from atoms and are held in place by ionic or metallic bonds. A distortion of these bonds by either mechanical pressure (piezo electric effect) or change. in electric or magnetic fields (photoelectric effect) can dislodge these electrons causing a current.
The behavior of the electric (matter) force is opposite to that of the magnetic (energy) force. When two opposite magnetic poles are attracted to each other the internal force between them decreases and they combine to form a larger magnet with a stronger and larger radiated energy field.
When two opposite charges are attracted to each other the force becomes internal and the strength and size of the radiated electric fields deceases as they become a neutron. The opposite occurs when similar poles/charges approach each other.
When energy is added to an object the attractive force between it and its neighbors cause them to move towards each other which in turn causes the repelling force between their electron fields to increase. When the energy flows (equalizing) the repelling force pushes the objects apart setting up an oscillation, electromagnetic wave.
Herb
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
Mr. Rose,
Your understanding is good indeed. A photon is only useful to me for the purpose of quantifying EMR under certain circumstances. This approximation can be acceptable given other parameters of a system. If one uses Maxwell’s Equations, Gauss’s Laws, proper boundary conditions, finite parameters of a finite system, one doesn’t need to resort to photon counting for estimating EMR power density in space and time and every other useful system parameters can then be quantified from this. Phase quantification can also be done by quantifying the electric field distribution in space and time. Electric and magnetic fields are related by means of Maxwell’s Equations. I am aware of most if not all the mistakes made in mainstream physics and electrical engineering that all got started because Maxwell likely didn’t explain what Maxwell’s Equations say in plain English. He couldn’t have because he didn’t write the equations. Oliver Heaviside did!
Jerry Krause
| #
Dear MS Khan:
While doing a post.doc. at Cornell University I learned that it was NOT PROPER in an academic community to refer to a fellow person with a Ph.D. degree as Dr. Instead the male professors referred to each other as Mr. so and so and I referred to these professors as Professor so and so because I was not a professor. You are correct I should not have been so informal. But you should not have referred to me as Dr. because I am neither a medical doctor nor a dentist. Instructor Krause mighwork because I was an instructor of chemistry for 20+ years.
Thank you for clearly stating what you consider about the scholarship of quantum physicists such as Erwin Schrodinger (Erwin, did you personally know him) and Heisenberg to specifically name a couple of the quantum physicists of whose scholarship you clearly do not respect. For you have given PSI readers a clear choice. Should they respect your scholarship and that of Herb Rose or that of the quantum physicists who have won Nobel Prizes??? And more practically significant in my judgement, those who designed and had constructed according to their detailed plans, the first three ‘atomic’ bombs which worked the first three times they were tested. However, must give credit to the chemists at Oak Ridge who enriched the isotope ratio of hydrogen atom which these quantum physicists had reasoned was necessary for their BOMB to work!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
Dear Dr. Krause,
Referring to me as Ms. Khan is fine because you do not know me. I addressed you as Dr. Krause because you have a Ph.D. You may follow what Cornell considered as a practice. People in my profession with our background do not necessarily follow such practice. I am not writing to Schrodinger or Heisenberg and as such I do not have to address them. I am not here to pick little fights or play games with anyone. I wish to maintain professionalism here and answer to questions people may have for this article. With respect to what works when quantum mechanical formulations are used for approximating atomic behavioral calculations is in no way a validation of quantum mechanics. If you believe they do, please write a scientific paper and explain your analysis. I shall not be replying to your comments here any further as I do not see any relevant intention with respect to this article.
Sincerely,
Dr. Nisa Khan
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The first three atomic bombs were from enriched uranium (1) and purified plutonium (2) not hydrogen. The explosion were a result of uncontrolled chain reactions of atoms splitting and had nothing to do with E=mc^2. The reason for Einstein’s letter was not to discus science with FDR but to use his celebrity status to get funding.
The Heisenberg uncertain principle and quantum mechanics are magic spells used by physicist to get the answer they want. Just because you don’t know something’s velocity and position doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a position and velocity.
With velocity there is an assumption of constant speed in a direction. In the subatomic realm the strength of the magnetic and electric field are so great how can any matter with an electric charge (proton (+), electron (-), and neutron (+ & -) ever move at a constant speed and constant direction?
Winning a Nobel prize is the result of supporting the orthodoxy of current theory not of good science (not believing the experts).
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you for correcting my historical knowledge of the first three NUCLEAR BOMBS which did work the first three times they were tested; even if neither of the three were a hydrogen bomb.
However, since you then wrote: “The explosion were a result of uncontrolled chain reactions of atoms splitting and had nothing to do with E=mc^2.” You need to explain to PSI readers what were these extremely greater, than any bomb before, explosive forces due to if not for the very rapid conversion of matter to energy as the equation clearly and definitely defines as a relationship between matter and energy!!!
Finally, “Winning a Nobel prize is the result of supporting the orthodoxy of current theory not of good science (not believing the experts).” I ask YOU Herb: What have ‘these experts’ done that I should believe the WORDS that they only write (argue). Aristotle and his fellow philosophers and the POPE were not IDIOTS but do you still believe that the Earth STANDS STILL??? This and other Wrong scientific ideas have been proven to be absolutely wrong by simple observations and not by any argument. Why cannot you understand (accept) these historical facts???
Not that the following is of critical importance, but I do not know where this comment will end up because many comments do not have the reply button on which to click.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Dear MS. Kahn:
As I believe you know, PSI was founded John O’Sullivan and others because could not get their ideas published in the established SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. If you use PSI’s search engine and know the right words (ask John) you can do a literature search and read some of the many essays which have been published here since in 2016 John invited me to submit them.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The explosion was a result of the release of the “binding energy holding the nucleus together when a neutron collided with the nucleus.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Nisa,
First, I am Jerry Lee Krause, born at Clear lake, SD. USA. I am a nobody even if I earned a Ph.D. degree (1969) in Physical Chemistry (Oregon State University). And I do not write this comment to debate you. For according to my understanding of SCIENCE is that it is totally based upon reproducible observations.
And I see you wrote (2:24 pm): “Your understanding is good indeed. A photon is only useful to me for the purpose of quantifying EMR under certain circumstances.” Then after describing what these certain circumstances are, you conclude: “I am aware of most if not all the mistakes made in mainstream physics and electrical engineering that all got started because Maxwell likely didn’t explain what Maxwell’s Equations say in plain English. He couldn’t have because he didn’t write the equations. Oliver Heaviside did!”
A key word in this last statement is: “likely’. Richard Feynman gave an address at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences during which he stated at length, that its central theme was summarized by his statement: “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainly–some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.” You just endorsed this statement when you used the word “likely”
And, being a chemist, I must admit I do not understand the quantitative reasoning of the physicists to whom you refer. But I do claim to understand the uncertainty of Schrodinger’s mathematical analysis of the hydrogen atom.
Have a good day. Jerry
Have a good day
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
Dear Dr. Krause,
You may refer to me as Dr. Khan. You do not know me. I appreciate your note here as every note brings me some information. Erwin Schrodinger never solved a finite problem in his life. Quantum mechanical formulations as they stand in mainstream don’t present any finite analysis either. So how big is an hydrogen atom and how big are the constituents in an hydrogen atom? Without having the knowledge of the size and temporal characteristics of an atom or what have you, how can anyone analytically determine any uncertainty of the hydrogen atom even at equilibrium or in a steady-state condition? I wonder if the quantum physicists realize the importance of analytic functions in terms of their natural behaviors? Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is not analytically accurate although anyone should grasp that we aren’t able to measure the exactness of an entity in space and time simultaneously.
Mark Tapley
| #
The Pakistani let you know Jerry, You can refer to her as Dr Khan – hows that for illuminating things.
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
FYI. I am not Pakistani. I would encourage people to be professional; professionalism similar to what I was taught in my catholic high school in Minnesota and in the fine academic higher education institutions in Minnesota.
Phil
| #
Thanks for posting.
As a layman I now have a clue as to why an increasing number of intense white headlight beams for me are so unbearable. Halogen are bad enough but these LED ones are seriously dangerous.
The empirical view…
Reply
VOWG
| #
Yes, very dangerous.
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
You are welcome. You are right. The reason why halogen headlights are also not recommended to be experienced too often is because halogen lights are beamed up using strong reflectors and lenses to produce a very high brightness or luminance value of about 40,000 nits. A human eye generally feels comfortable with 300 nits under general ambient illumination. Normal halogen brightness on average is about 500 to 1000 nits and that is why they feel more comforting if they are behind a nice shade. Fluorescent tube lights have about 220 nits and they are very soothing for the eye. Fluorescent tube lights of course don’t have the good color spectrum – but they are more efficient compared to incandescent and halogen lights and one should minimize their time under fluorescent lights. LEDs on the other hand, due to their inherent directionality, very high peak luminance and nonuniform spatial luminance, are inappropriate for any general illumination. LED headlights, stadium lights, warehouse ceiling lights are downright dangerous for a number of reasons. Be well!
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
You are welcome. I thank my partner and co-worker John O’ Sullivan for writing this article and bringing my words and work in the public domain. Hopefully we can bring about a positive difference soon.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Hi,
Is there a measurable way of assessing light damage to an eye?
Have such test and measurements been performed comparing LED / Halogen lights on say, Rats / other animals?
Geraint
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
No. Can’t get my points across to any medical professional, any lighting professional or even any physics/EE professional because they are all afraid of solving finite problems and use calculus in their analysis and detector measurement apparatus. I can teach all this as the subject material doesn’t exist out there and I have been fighting my adversaries on proper science and mathematics adoption issues for nearly 10 years now.
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
Dear Mr. Rose, Mr. Tapley and Dr. Krause,
May I respectfully ask you to not comment on subjects that aren’t related to LED lighting or wireless radiation from flat antennas? This is a forum where I and others would like to discuss the science, engineering and mathematics of LED lighting and wireless radiation and any harms, potential or not, associated with them. I understand that this maybe a popular site and you are tied to many emotional feelings around your own work, knowledge and beliefs. But please if you need to express them, do so in your own written articles or others’ articles on the subjects you are discussing here. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Nisa Khan
Reply