Basic Concepts: [What Is Light?

] [Light as a Wave] [Light as a Particle] [The Characteristics of a Photon]

[The Photoelectric Effect] [The Transverse Electromagnetic Wave (TEM)]
Reflection and [Introduction] [Reflection, Part 1] [Reflection, Part 2] [Refraction, Part 1] [Refraction, Part 2]
Refraction:
Lenses: [Introduction] [The Convex Lens]
Fiber Optics: [Introduction] [Fiber Optics, Part 2] [Fiber Optics, Part 3] [Fiber Optics, Part 4]
[Fiber Optics, Part 5] [Fiber Optics, Part 6]
Rainbows: [The Rainbow]

What is Light?
Throughout human history, light has been something most of mankind has taken for granted. It is
there throughout our lives for most of us, and (so we assume) will always be there in the familiar
patterns we experienced as we grew up.

In the past, and in many countries even today, phenomena such as solar eclipses have been cause
for great fear, because they represent a break in that familiar pattern, cutting off the light from the sun
for awhile, and who could be sure if the sun would ever come back? Even in countries where an
eclipse is an understood phenomenon, a solar eclipse is still an occasion for excitement and awe.

To gain any understanding of light itself, we need to step away from this mindset and examine
light from a more scientific and objective viewpoint. Let's start with a dictionary definition of light,
with some technical data included:

Light

The form of radiant energy that stimulates the organs of sight, having for normal human
vision wavelengths ranging from about 3900 to 7700 ångstroms and traveling at a speed of
about 186,300 miles per second.

One ångstrom = 10-8 cm (0.00000001 cm).

Of course, the above definition doesn't really tell us much. Before the speed of light and its
wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum were determined, the definition would have ended at the
first comma, and that really would have told us nothing about the nature of light.
 So, rather than look at more definitions, let's move on to explore some of the basic properties of
light as we know them today, so we can better understand not only how light will behave, but also
something of why it behaves as it does. This will give us a chance to predict how light may behave
under various circumstances and conditions.

Light as a Wave
The classical description of light as an electromagnetic wave makes some assumptions about its
nature, based on what could be observed at the time. Although some of these assumptions have
proven to be less than accurate as we learn more about electromagnetic phenomena, they make a good
starting point for our discussion about light in particular and electromagnetic waves in general. The
two basic assumptions were:

The frequency of the electromagnetic wave can be varied over the entire positive range, but
cannot be reduced to zero.

This seems intuitively obvious. A frequency of zero would mean no change in the strengths
of the electric and magnetic fields. But an electromagnetic wave reqires these fields to be
constantly changing in order to exist. And the idea of a negative frequency seems ludicrous.

The energy in the wave is continuously variable, with a minimum energy of any non-zero value,
and no maximum value.

This also seems intuitive. Looking at sunlight and comparing light intensity on a clear day
and a cloudy day, we note that the clouds block some of the sun's energy. The desert sun at
Noon is very intense, while the setting sun at extreme northern or southern latitudes is much
less noticeable. Yet it is the same sunlight, coming from the same source, so we know that
various factors encountered by sunlight must be removing some of the energy from it. We can
see, feel, and scientifically measure the difference.

Of course, other properties of electromagnetic radiation have also been determined, and a number
of theories and assumptions have been developed. These have been either confirmed or disproven by
experiment. Before we look at the circumstances under which the wave model of light (or any
electromagnetic wave) may break down, however, let's look at the wave model itself.

Since light was first recognized scientifically as a manifestation of electromagnetic energy, it can
be represented as a waveform, like this:
 If we think of this figure as representing the electrical energy present in the light waveform as it
travels in the direction of the arrow, it looks as if the energy level is becoming alternately positive and
negative, with momentary crossovers of zero electrical energy. In the basic model of light shown here,
this is in fact the case; as with all electromagnetic waves, light energy is constantly changing its form
between electrical energy and magnetic energy. The point of maximum magnetic energy coincides
with the moment of zero electrical energy. Beyond that instant, energy shifts again from the magnetic
field back into the electrical field, but with a reversal from the previous polarity. This continues as
long as that particular ray of light exists.

There are other "modes" of propogation which involve more complex interactions between the
electric and magnetic fields, but in all cases the Law of Conservation necessarily holds true: Energy is
neither created nor destroyed as it is transformed from one form to another; the total energy in the
wave must somehow remain constant throughout the full cycle.

NOTE: The sine wave shown here represents the strength and polarity of the electrical field
associated with the motion of this ray of light. The light itself, assuming no outside influences, travels
in the straight line indicated by the blue arrow. The light energy does not "wiggle" back and forth as it
moves along its path.

As an electromagnetic wave, light has some characteristics in common with all forms of
electromagnetic energy. These include wavelength, frequency, and speed of propogation. These
characteristics are actually related to each other, so that any one can be calculated if the other two are
known. Let's take a look at each of these characteristics:

Wavelength

Since light is a repeating waveform in motion, it is possible to measure the physical

distance between matching points of adjacent cycles of the waveform. This is shown here:
 The symbol used to represent this distance is the Greek letter "Lambda" ( ).

The wavelength can actually be measured between any two corresponding points on the
waveform. It is convenient to use the most positive point or the most negative point, both of
which are shown above. However, we could have just as easily specified two zero-crossing
points, so long as both crossed the zero line in the same direction.

Remember that the light itself does not wave back and forth along its path of travel. What
we are actually measuring here is the distance traveled through space by this ray of light,
while its electrical field goes from its maximum positive value, through zero to its maximum
negative value, and then through zero again to once more reaches its maximum positive value.

This distance is normally measured in meters (m) or some decimal fraction of a meter, such
as centimeters (cm). The correct units of measurement are meters per cycle (m/cycle) or some
appropriate derivation. In the case of light, the wavelength is so short that a specific distance,
called the ångstrom (Å), has been defined.

One Angstrom = 10-10 m or 10-8 cm.

Visible light has a characteristic wavelength in the range of approximately 3900 Å to 7700
Å. Electromagnetic energy outside this range is no longer visible to the human eye.

Speed of Propagation

The speed at which light travels through any medium is determined by the density of that
medium. The presence of matter, even transparent matter, will slow the light down. Even air
will have some effect, and glass has a more significant effect on the speed at which light will
travel through it.

Ever more sophisticated experiments have determined the speed of light quite accurately.
According to current knowledge:

Speed of light in a vacuum = 2.997925 ± 0.000002 x 1010 cm/sec.

As made famous in Einstein's equation, the letter c is used as a general symbol for the
speed of light.

Frequency and Period

In any electromagnetic wave, it takes time for the energy in the wave to change from
electrical format to magnetic and then back again. The amount of time required to do this
twice, covering one complete cycle, or wavelength of the signal is known as the period of the
 wave. Thus, the period of any wave, measured as some amount of time per cycle, is in fact the
time interval that corresponds to the physical wavelength of the signal.

The frequency of the wave is the inverse or reciprocal of the period. That is, the frequency
is the number of cycles of the waveform that occur in one second of time. For many years this
was simply measured in units of cycles per second. Recently, however, the specific name hertz
(abbreviated Hz) has been designated as the appropriate unit to indicate cycles per second.

In general equations, the letter f is used to indicate frequency in hertz.

The basic mathematical formula that relates wavelength, frequency, and the speed of light is:

c=f

The wave theory of light was happily adopted and accepted until it was found to fail to explain some observed
and measured phenomena, in consistent and repeatable experiments. The two phenomena that upset this model
are the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation. These two effects could only be explained by assuming
that light energy propogates as a series of independent "corpuscles," or bundles. This gave rise to the more
recent particle theory of light.

The Photoelectric Effect

Background

In 1887, the German physicist Heinrich Rudolf Hertz discovered an interesting property of matter.
This property is that physical materials emit charged particles when they absorb radiant energy (eg,
light). Of course, not all substances absorb radiant energy, and the ones that don't will not emit
charged particles. But it could readily be established that some substances do behave this way.

Hertz initially observed that the minimum voltage required to draw sparks from a pair of metallic
electrodes was reduced when they were bathed in ultaviolet (UV) light, such as from a mercury vapor
lamp. The more intense the UV light, the lower the required voltage became.

In the broadest sense, the substance in question can be solid, liquid, or gaseous; the radiant energy
must be visible light, UV; X-rays; or gamma rays (cosmic radiation). The charged particles can be
electrons or ions. However, in general practical use, the substance is a metal plate and the charged
particles are electrons.
 In any case, a second German physicist, Philipp Lenard, studied this phenomenon using a metal
plate, and in 1900 concluded that the charged particles emitted were the same as those found in
cathode rays. That is, they were electrons. By 1902, it had been shown that the resulting current
(called photoelectric current because it was caused by light) is proportional to the intensity of the
light causing it for any given frequency of light energy, and that the maximum kinetic energy
imparted to any electron is independent of the intensity of the light, but is directly proportional to the
frequency of the light.

In 1905, Albert Einstein worked out the primary equation involved, and by 1912, the requisite
measurements could be made with high precision. These experiments confirmed the conclusion that
light is not a continuously wave-like phenomenon, but rather involves particle-like "corpuscles" of
energy, now called photons, which are the quanta of electromagnetic energy.

The Experiment

The experiment itself is now performed in appropriate physics classes at most colleges and
universities, and possibly in some high schools. It isn't difficult to perform, and if proper care is used,
will give quite accurate results.

We begin with a photoelectric tube (or phototube), which is a vacuum tube containing a metal
plate curved into a half-cylinder (the anode) and a thin wire electrode (the cathode) along the axis of
the cylinder. The figure to the right shows this as seen from the top. We use a very sensitive meter,
 called a galvenometer (G), to measure the current passing through the tube, and a variable voltage
source (V) to control the voltage applied between the two electrodes inside the tube. Finally, we add a
light source (usually a mercury vapor lamp, but it can be an arc light or even a tungsten filament light
bulb), and a colored filter to limit the light striking the photoelectric tube to a single frequency.

With no light, of course, the current through the tube will be zero, regardless of the applied
voltage. (Yes, there is a slight capacitance between the metal plate and the wire, and a high enough
voltage will cause an arc. But the capacitance is very slight and will charge quickly, and we won't be
using anywhere near enough voltage to cause any problems.) So we turn on the light, place one of our
colored filters between the light and the phototube, and begin our measurements.

The first thing we note is that if we reverse the polarity of the voltage source V, increasing the
voltage or the intensity of the light will increase the current flow. This seems logical; the light is
"kicking" electrons off the metal plate, and they are attracted to the now positively-charged wire
electrode. The more light the more electrons, hence the higher the current.

However, when we make the wire electrode negative with respect to the metal plate as shown in
this figure, we begin to observe some interesting effects. First, red light, infrared (IR) radiation and
anything of a lower frequency will not excite the phototube enough to enable current to flow. You
pretty much have to get up at least to green light before you can measure a reaction. (This may vary
depending on the specific metal coating the surface of the curved electrode.)

Once you find a filter whose color allows current to flow through the tube, you can begin to take
your measurements.

Plotting the Results

For the experiment itself, the object is to find some voltage, V, which will just prevent any current
flow through the phototube. This is the stopping voltage, Vs which is just barely enough to prevent
any electrons emitted from the anode plate from reaching the cathode wire. Plot this point on a graph
showing voltage on the Y axis and the frequency of the filtered light on the X axis. Thus, you are
generating a graph of stopping voltage (Vs) as a function of the frequency of the light reaching the
phototube.
 Note: The graph shown to the right does not necessarily match the results you would obtain from
this experiment, although your results should be similar. The specific materials used in the phototube
will have a significant effect on your measured and plotted results.

One interesting fact here is that once you have set the applied voltage to Vs, increasing the
intensity of the light reaching the phototube (but not changing the filter) will not enable current to
flow again. This is a key point that we will examine more closely later on this page.

Next, we change the filter to some other color and as before seek to find Vs for this particular
frequency of light. Again, we plot this point on our graph. We continue this for every filter we have,
and then fill in the spaces between our plotted points. If we've been careful enough with our
measurements, we will find that the graph plots one of two ways. For all frequencies above a certain
minimum, we have a straight line showing a linear relationship between Vs and frequency. Below that
minimum frequency, there is no current flow at all, regardless of the applied voltage. If you did not
use any filters for these frequencies, this cutoff frequency will not appear directly on your graph.
However, you can find this point from your graph. The frequency at which Vs = 0 is the limit to which
you can take this experiment; lower frequencies of light will not affect the phototube.

What it All Means

There are two basic factors that control the results of this experiment. First, it takes a certain
amount of energy to free an electron from the surface of the metal anode of the phototube. This is
known as the work factor. Second, the arriving light clearly imparts a certain kinetic energy to the
freed electrons, which enables them to overcome the repulsion effect of the more negative cathode
wire, and still cause a current to flow through the phototube. It is that kinetic energy that we are
measuring when we adjust the applied voltage V to determine the precise value of V s. Let's look at
these two factors separately.

The Work Factor

When light energy reaches the metal anode, it may be sufficient to push an electron out of its orbit
around its parent atom, and move it towards the surface. If this electron is from an atom at the surface
of the anode, a certain amount of energy is still required to kick the electron away from the metal and
let it fly through space. This energy is a measure of the amount of work required to remove the
electrom from its initial environment. Therefore, it is known as the work factor of that particular
metal.

Different metals have different work factors, but the work factor of any metal is a characteristic of
the metal itself, and does not change for different frequencies of light. Thus, phototubes made of
different metal materials will have different work factors, but the work factor for any given phototube
will be constant in the experiment.

If the arriving light energy bypasses the first layer or two of atoms at the surface and then frees an
electron, that electron will lose energy as it travels past other atoms before it is able to leave the
surface. This electron will have less kinetic energy traveling through the vacuum of the tube than one
released from a surface atom.
 The work factor varies from about 2.2 electron volts (eV) for lithium to 6.35 eV for platinum. Any
frequncy of light which cannot impart enough energy to the electrons in these metals to overcome the
work factor will fail to cause a current to flow through the experimental circuit.

Measuring the Kinetic Energy of the Electrons

Once an electron has been freed from the surface, it is still moving, and therefore has a certain
amount of kinetic energy. We can determine the kinetic energy of the most energetic electrons (often
designated kmax) by determining the voltage needed to just prevent them from reaching the cathode of
the phototube. The energy involved is then the product of the stopping voltage, Vs, and the electric
charge on the electron. That charge is a fixed, known value, designated by the letter "e.". Thus, the
product of the charge e and applied voltage V is designated eV and represents energy measured in
electron-volts.

So long as we keep our energy units in eV, our experimental stopping voltage, Vs, is a direct
measure of the energy needed to exactly cancel the kinetic energy of the free electrons, and hence of
the energy imparted to those electrons by the arriving light.

Interpreting the Experimental Results

Although the exact measured results you get will depend on the exact material coating the anode of
your phototube, your graph should turn out to be a straight line sloped to show that Vs increases with
the frequency of the light used for that measurement. The general equation for this type of line is:

Y = mX + B

In this equation, m is the numerical slope of the line, and B is the Y-intercept. In this particular
experiment, the general equation becomes:

kmax = eVs = hf - W

In this expression,

kmax is the maximum kinetic energy of any electron freed from the anode;
e is the charge on any single electron;
Vs is the stopping voltage at which conduction is just barely prevented;
h is a constant factor;
f is the frequency of light used in one particular step in the experiment;
W is the work factor of the specific material coating the anode of the phototube.
 Even if your filters do not include the specific color whose
frequency exactly matches the work function of your phototube's
anode, you can extrapolate this value by extending your graph to the
frequency (X) axis, which corresponds to Vs = 0. At this frequency,
hf = W. Any light at a higher frequency can be used in this
experiment. Light at a lower frequency cannot free electrons from the
anode of the phototube at all; there is insufficient energy in such light,
regardless of its intensity.

This inherent cutoff frequency varies according to the work factor

of the phototube's anode, but always works the same way. As a
consequence, it is not possible that light (or any electromagnetic
wave) can have continuously variable energy content. Rather, it must
be made up of small "corpuscles" of energy such that each "corpuscle"
either does or does not have enough internal energy to free one electron from the surface of the anode.
More intense light at that frequency has more "corpuscles", but they all have the same amount of
energy. If this last point were not true, the higher-energy "corpuscles" could still free electrons that
lower-energy "corpuscles" could not affect.

These "corpuscles" are the quanta of electromagnetic energy, and are named photons.

The remaining factor that can be determined experimentally from the graphed results of this
experiment is the slope of the line. This value turns out to be just about 4.135 × 10-15 eV·seconds —
which is Planck's constant. Since the freed electrons had a maximum kinetic energy of hf - W
electron-volts, the energy in the photon that kicked the electron loose must have been E = hf. This
expression relates the energy of the photon to its frequency throughout the electromagnetic spectrum.

The inescapable conclusion of this experiment is that light (or any electromagnetic radiation) is not
a continuous phenomenon as originally believed, but rather is made up of discrete "bundles" of
energy, now called photons, each of which exists independently of all other photons. It can give up its
energy to a physical object such as an electron, but does not transfer energy to or from other photons
or manifestations of energy. The energy content of the photon is proportional to its frequency (related
by Planck's constant), but is not controlled by anything else.

The Transverse
Electromagnetic Wave
The basic transverse electromagnetic wave, as shown to the left, involves both a varying electric
field and a varying magnetic field, appearing at right angles to each other and to the direction of travel
of the wave. This figure represents a single photon traveling through space (and time).

Note especially that the electric and magnetic fields are not in phase with each other, but are rather
90° out of phase. Most books portray these two components of the total wave as being in phase with
 each other, but I find myself disagreeing with that interpretation, based on three fundamental laws of
physics:

1. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.

The total energy in the waveform must remain constant at all times. Any deviation from
this condition constitutes a violation of this law.

The energy in a single photon is given by the expression:

E = hv = hc/n

In this expression:

E = energy of the photon

h = Planck's Constant
v = The frequency of the wave
c = The velocity of light in open space
n = The index of refraction of the medium (n = 1 for open space)
= The wavelength of the wave

If the photon is not moving through empty space, the index of refraction of the medium
must be accounted for, since it reduces the effective value of c.

The above expression leaves no room for fluctuations or variations in energy over time; it
implies that the energy of the photon is fixed, and is determined specifically by the frequency
(or wavelength) of the wave.

Furthermore, the phenomena of blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect show that
any electromagnetic wave is necessarily composed of independent photons, and is not really a
continuously-variable phenomenon of its own.

Now, if the two component waves are assumed to be in phase with each other, then the
total energy of the wave varies from some maximum value to zero, and then back up to the
maximum value. This requires that each photon send all of its energy somewhere else twice
per cycle, and then receive it back again, an I have yet to see any satisfactory explanation of
either where it goes or why it would come back to re-form the photon.

I've decided to end my argument page on the TEM dispute. The best assumption I ever got
from anybody was that the energy was in "another part of the wave." But since the wave is
necessarily composed of individual photons, that requires that photons trade energy back and
forth with each other. This makes no sense anyway, and is quite impossible in a laser beam,
where all photons are in phase with each other. Nevertheless, such photons must have the
same properties as they do in random light or any other electromagnetic wave.
 Beyond that, the electromagnetic wave is generated or emitted over time, so a different part
of the wave is not only at a different physical location, it was also created at a different time. It
can't very well be part of an energy transfer when it doesn't exist, or with another part of the
wave that also doesn't exist. Rather, once energy has been emitted, the amount of emitted
energy cannot simply change. We can emit more energy, but we cannot decrease the amount
of energy already emitted.

1. A moving electric field creates a magnetic field.

As an electric field moves through space, it gives up its energy to a companion magnetic
field. The electric field loses energy as the magnetic field gains energy. Thus, we see a gradual
transfer of energy from one form to another, but no loss or gain in the total energy of the
wave.

2. A moving magnetic field creates an electric field.

This is exactly similar to the second law listed above. A magnetic field moving through
space will transfer its energy gradually to a companion electric field.

These last two laws define the fundamental principles behind all electric motors and generators, as
well as transformers. In space or in air, however, they simply mean that the energy in each field
transfers itself to the other field, draining itself as it does so. Thus, by setting the two fields as sine
waves in quadrature (90° out of phase with each other), we can have a light wave that maintains a
constant energy level at all times, and still has its energy constantly being shifted back and forth
between electric and magnetic fields.

Incidentally, this phenomenon is not limited to light waves; any electromagnetic radiation behaves
the same way. The relationship between the electric and magnetic fields in the wave is also in keeping
with the phase relationship between voltage and current in a transmission line and in any antenna
system — the signal voltage (which produces the electric field) and the signal current (producing the
magnetic field) are in quadrature.

The traditional equations for field strength of the electric (E) and magnetic (B) fields in the
electromagnetic wave are:

E = Emsin(kx - t)
B = Bmsin(kx - t)
Em/Bm = c

In these expressions,

E = instantaneous electric field strength

Em = maximum or peak electric field strength
B = instantaneous magnetic field strength
Bm = maximum or peak magnetic field strength
kx = an arbitrary offset to the same point in any cycle of the wave
 = 2 f = wave frequency in radians/second
t = time in seconds
c = the speed of light

The two sine functions are quite standard when dealing in sinusoidal waveforms as in this case.
We could just as easily use cosine functions; the result would be effectively the same. It has simply
become standard practice to use the sine function. It would make no difference which function we
used if we were dealing with only a single field (E or B, but not both). The end result would be the
same. The only difference is whether we start at a peak of the wave (cosine) or a zero crossing (sine).

But in this case we have two related energy fields. By arbitrarily assigning the sine function to
both of them, traditional physicists have equally arbitrarily assumed the two waves are in phase. I
contend that it is just as valid to assign a cosine function to one while the sine function is still assigned
to the other. This gives us the following equations:

E = Emsin(kx - t)
B = Bmcos(kx - t)
Em/Bm = c

The only difference this makes is in the assumed phase relationship between the two waves,
putting them in quadrature with each other. The magnetic field does not change its properties in any
way; only its phase relationship with the electric field.

What this change does accomplish, however, is to make the total energy in a single photon a
constant value throughout its entire cycle. This now complies with the Law of Conservation of Energy
and with the equation for the energy of a photon.
 Reflection and Refraction
In talking about the fundamental nature of light, we indicated that light tends to travel in a straight
line, unless it is acted on by some external force or condition. The obvious next question is, "What
kinds of forces or conditions can affect light, and how?"

To answer this question, we start with what we can see in every day life. For example, we already
know first hand that light won't pass through the wall of a house, but it will go through a window.
Furthermore, some windows introduce noticeable distortion in what we see. Looking carefully at the
glass of such a window, we can see that it is uneven, perhaps with ripples across its surface.

We have also seen that some surfaces show accurate images of an actual scene nearby, while other
surfaces show distorted images, but most surfaces only show one or more colors no matter how we
look at them.

On top of that, some surfaces seem very much darker than their surroundings, while other surfaces
seem just as bright as their surroundings. Indeed, occasionally you can see something that looks
brighter than its surroundings, both at night and in broad daylight.

In the series of pages in this particular thread, we will first look at the phenomenon of reflection, by which light
bounces off of a surface and starts traveling abruptly in a very different direction.

Reflection, Part 1
When light reflects off a surface, it follows some rather basic rules which have been gradually
determined by observation. Consider the animation to the left. A ray of light approaches a reflecting
horizontal surface at an angle of 45°, bounces from the surface, and leaves at an angle of 45°.

So that we can agree fully on what we are talking about, we need to define a few terms:

Incident Light

Light approaching a surface is known as incident light. This is the incoming light before it
has reached the surface.
 Reflected Light

After light has struck a surface and bounced off, it is known as reflected light. This is the
light that is now departing from the surface.

Angle of Incidence

The angle at which a ray of light approaches a surface, reflective or not, is called the angle
of incidence. It is measured from an imaginary line perpendicular to the plane of the surface in
question to the incoming ray of light.

Angle of Reflection

Once the light has reflected from a reflective surface, the angle at which the light departs
from the surface is called the angle of reflection. This angle is also measured from a
perpendicular to the reflecting surface to the departing ray of light.

When light reflects from a surface, the angle of reflection is always equal to the angle of incidence.

When multiple rays of light approach a reflecting surface, each individual ray
behaves independently of all the others. Thus, in the figure to the left, each of the
three incident rays depicted has its own individual angle of incidence, and each
reflected ray has its corresponding angle of reflection. If all three angles of
incidence are the same and the surface of reflection is perfectly flat as shown, all
three angles of reflection will also be the same.

When the surface is irregular instead of flat, each ray of light still has its angle
of incidence and its angle of reflection. However, the angle is measured at the point
at which the light strikes the surface. Thus, as shown to the right, light striking an
irregular surface gets scattered in all directions upon reflection.
This is the case with ordinary walls and surfaces. Actually, this is all to the
good, because it is this scattered reflected light by which we can see such walls and
surfaces.
 What is far more interesting and useful is what happens when the surface is smooth but curve

Reflection, Part 2
Now that we have seen what reflection means and how light behaves as it reflects, let's take a look
at a couple of special cases. Here, we look at reflecting surfaces that are smooth but curved. As you
look at these examples, think of the distortions caused by the mirrors you might see in a fun house.
Mirrors bent like this are entertaining, but can also be quite useful.

If the reflecting surface is convex as shown to the left, parallel rays of light
striking the surface will diverge from each other evenly. This type of reflector
might be used to help illuminate a wider area from a single source of light, or to
reflect light onto a shadowed space and allow a wider spread of illumination.

If you look at your reflection in a Fun House mirror of this type, you will find
that the farther away you are from the mirror, the larger your reflection appears,
but your reflection is always right side up.

This type of mirror, with only a mild curvature, is used to allow a magnified
view of a limited area. A typical application is for makeup application, since it
allows closer and more accurate control of exactly where and how the makeup is
applied.

When the surface is concave as shown to the right, light coming towards the
mirror tends to converge towards a small area before continuing outward and
away from the mirror. If you look at your own reflection in such a mirror,
standing close you will see a normal but smaller reflection. As you back away,
your reflection gets smaller yet, until you find a point where your reflection
shrinks to a very small spot and nearly disappears! The point at this distance from
the mirror is called the focus of the mirror, because the mirror tends to
concentrate, or focus, all incoming light towards this point.

As you step farther back from the mirror, your reflection gets larger again, but
is inverted (upside down), because light from the bottom of the mirror is now
above your eyes, while light from the top is below your eyes.

If the mirror is shaped precisely as a solid, three-dimensional parabola, light

arriving in parallel rays will converge to a very tight point, which is the focus of
the parabola. This is the technique used in reflecting telescopes. It is also used in
the other direction in spotlights. By putting a powerful light source at the focus,
we can get a tight, parallel shaft of light to illuminate or highlight, for example, a
single actor on a stage.

We'll halt the discussion of reflection for now, and go on to refraction. That topic is somewhat less
intuitive than reflection, but is still reasonable once you identify in your own mind the essential
factors that cause this phenomenon.

Following the discussion of reflection, we will explore the more subtle phenomenon of refraction,
where light changes direction, but without reflecting from a surface. If you have already completed
the material on reflection, you can follow this link directly to the topic of refraction.

Refraction, Part 1

Refraction is the name given to the observed phenomenon that light changes
direction, or "bends," as it passes the boundary between one medium and another. This is
shown to the right, in a general sense.

Here, we see a beam of light traveling through air, until it meets a pool of water. It arrives at some
angle to the surface as shown. As it passes through the boundary, going from air into water, it actually
slows down. Since even a single ray of light has a finite thickness, the part that enters the water first
slows down first, causing the light ray to change direction to a steeper angle in the water.

If we change the angle at which the light enters the water, we find that the angle of the light in the
water also changes, such that we see no change at all if the light source is directly overhead so that the
entering ray of light is perpendicular to (in mathematical terms normal to) the surface. As we change
the entering angle more and more away from the perpendicular, we see that the ray of light in the
water has bent more and more away from the direction taken by that ray of light in the air.
 To describe this phenomenon mathematically, we will measure the angle of incidence, i, in the
same way we did when discussing reflection. Instead of an angle of reflection, however, this time we
have an angle of refraction, r. Both angles are measured from a line normal to the boundary between
the two media. However, unlike the phenomenon
of reflection, the angle of refraction is unlikely to be the
same as the angle of incidence in the general description
of refraction.

The basic Law of Refraction was first formulated

by Willebrord Snell in 1621. Consider the diagram to
the left. We see here two parallel rays of light in red. They
are passing through a boundary between air and water at
a measurable angle of incidence, i. The rays of light in the
water remain parallel, and are now leaving the boundary at a
measurable angle of refraction, r.

We now apply a little plane geometry and a small amount of trigonometry. We start by drawing
line AB at right angles to the right-hand ray of light, in air. This forms right triangle ABC, such that
angle BAC is equal to i. We also draw line CD at right angles the the left-hand ray of light, in water.
This gives us right triangle ACD, whose angle ACD is equal to r.

If we now measure the lengths of lines BC and AD along the rays of light, we find that these two
lengths have a consistent 4:3 relationship. That is, if we divide line BC into four equal parts, line AD
will be exactly three of these parts in length. This remains true for any angle of incidence greater than
0. (At i = 0, r also becomes 0, and no visible refraction occurs.)

Mathematically, BC/AD=4/3=1.33=n

where n is the index of refraction of water.

Using some basic trigonometry, we note that line AC in this figure is the hypoteneuse for both of
the right triangles we drew. Therefore,

BC = AC sin i
AD = AC sin r

and

AC sin i sin i
= = 1.33 = n
 AC sin r sin r

All materials through which light can pass have a measurable index of refraction, which is constant for the
specific material involved. For water, this index is 1.33.

The other two materials of greatest interest to the technical community are glass and plastic.
Although glass can be manufactured with any number of additives to control various physical
properties, its basic structure is silicon dioxide. The nominal index of refraction for glass is about
1.50, with higher numbers for specific additives.

Plastics can be manufactured with many different compositions, so there is no basic index of
refraction for the general category of plastic.

Refraction, Part 2
While Snell was defining his Law of Refraction, many scientists were trying to determine whether
light had a finite velocity, and if so, what that velocity might be. It took many years to develop
methods and instruments capable of performing such a measurement, and the earliest estimates were
of course quite inaccurate.

However, in 1849, H. L. Fizeau came pretty close, with a velocity of about 313,000,000 meters per
second (m/s) in air. In 1926, Albert Michelson refined this figure, and also measured the velocity of
light in water and in glass. His results were:

Air: 2.9979 x 108 m/s (use 3.00 x 108 m/s)

Water: 2.25 x 108 m/s
Glass: 2.00 x 108 m/s

If we compare the velocity of light in air to that in water, we find that:

C 3.00 x 108
= = 1.33
8
VWATER 2.25 x 10
 But wait a minute! That value of 1.33 is also the measured index of refraction of water, as
determined by Snell in 1621. Snell knew nothing about the velocity of light; he was measuring the
observable physical phenomenon. Are the two phenomena related?

In fact, they are directly related. It is because light slows down when it travels through water that
we even have the phenomenon of refraction. The relative velocity of light through water (or any other
medium) determines the extent to which that light is refracted at the boundary. Thus, we can calculate
the index of refraction of any material in either way: by measuring the velocity of light within that
material and substituting it for VWATER in the equation above, or by measuring the angles of incidence
and refraction and performing Snell's calculation. If both calculations are done correctly, the results
will be the same.

For instance, we can calculate the index of refraction of glass from the velocity of light, as above:

C 3.00 x 108
= = 1.50 = nglass
8
VGLASS 2.00 x 10

Actually, glass may be made with different additives, so the index of refraction of a specific piece
of glass may range from 1.50 to 1.60 or so. This can be very useful, as you can see if you look over
the section on fiber optics.

More recent tests using modern technology have shown that the velocity of light in air is actually
slightly less than in a true vacuum. By definition, nVACUUM = 1.000000. Current measurements show
that nAIR = 1.000290 with slight variations due to the fact that air pressure and density vary with the
weather.
Introduction to Lenses
In the section on reflection and refraction, we looked at the reflection of light from flat and curved surfaces, and
the refraction of light at a plane boundary between media of different densities. Now we ask the question,
"What happens if the refractive boundary between media is curved rather than being a plane surface?" We'll
examine the possibilities in this series of pages.

To the right is a cross section of a shaped piece of glass. Everyone has seen this sort of thing many times. It's a

circular piece of glass that's thick in the middle and thin around the edge.
Ideally, the curve of the lens cross section is parabolic. However, it is difficult and expensive to grind lenses to
that precise shape, so many lenses are ground with a circular cross section instead. This works acceptably for
many applications, since the "nose" of a parabola almost exactly coincides with a portion of a circle. However,
such lenses do not operate perfectly, and do introduce some distortion. In our discussion of lens optics, we will
assume ideal lenses for our calculations and descriptions, unless otherwise noted.

It's not necessary for a lens to be thicker in the middle than at the edges. Just the opposite is shown in the cross
section to the right. This type of lens also has its uses, and has a number of practical applications.

It is not necessary for the two sides of a lense to be the same. Often one side is simply flat. We can also have a
lens with a concave side and a convex side. In the latter case, the lens does not have to be the same thickness at
all points.
In this set of pages, we will look at various lenses to see how they behave and how they can be used in practical
situations.
 The Convex Lens
The most commonly-seen type of lens is the convex lens. This type of lens is often used for close
examination of small objects, such as rare stamps or coins. Children often use such a lens to
concentrate sunlight to burn small pinholes in pieces of paper. That result by itself shows the power of
concentrated light from the sun. But there must be more to it than that. Let's see if we can define the
behavior of lenses a bit more specifically.

The figure to the right shows a double convex lens with several rays of light approaching from its
left. We show each ray as a different color here, simply to more easily follow each ray's progress. We
will assume that the lens is made of glass with a nominal index of refraction of 1.50.

The rays are parallel as they approach the lens. As each ray reaches the glass surface, it refracts
according to the effective angle of incidence at that point of the lens. (See the pages on refraction for
the definitions and descriptions of these terms.) Since the surface is curved, different rays of light will
refract to different degrees; the outermost rays will refract the most.

As the light rays exit the glass, they once again encounter a curved surface, and refract again. This
further bends the rays of light towards the centerline of the lens (which coincides with the green light
ray in the figure).

We will assume that each convex surface is spherically ground, but that the portion of the sphere
actually used coincides with the ideal parabolic shape. Also, we will
What is a rainbow?
Author Donald Ahrens in his text Meteorology Today describes a rainbow as "one of the most spectacular light
shows observed on earth". Indeed the traditional rainbow is sunlight spread out into its spectrum of colors and
diverted to the eye of the observer by water droplets. The "bow" part of the word describes the fact that the
rainbow is a group of nearly circular arcs of color all having a common center.

Where is the sun when you see a rainbow?

This is a good question to start thinking about the physical process that gives rise to a rainbow. Most people
have never noticed that the sun is always behind you when you face a rainbow, and that the center of the
circular arc of the rainbow is in the direction opposite to that of the sun. The rain, of course, is in the direction
of the rainbow.

What makes the bow?

A question like this calls for a proper physical answer. We will discuss the formation of a rainbow by raindrops.
It is a problem in optics that was first clearly discussed by Rene Descartes in 1637. An interesting historical
account of this is to be found in Carl Boyer's book, The Rainbow From Myth to Mathematics. Descartes
simplified the study of the rainbow by reducing it to a study of one water droplet and how it interacts with light
falling upon it.

He writes:"Considering that this bow appears not only in the sky, but also in the air near us, whenever
there are drops of water illuminated by the sun, as we can see in certain fountains, I readily decided that it
arose only from the way in which the rays of light act on these drops and pass from them to our eyes.
Further, knowing that the drops are round, as has been formerly proved, and seeing that whether they are
larger or smaller, the appearance of the bow is not changed in any way, I had the idea of making a very
large one, so that I could examine it better.
 Descarte describes how he held up a large sphere in the sunlight and looked at the sunlight reflected in
it. He wrote "I found that if the sunlight came, for example, from the part of the sky which is marked AFZ

and my eye was at the point E, when I put the globe in position BCD, its part D appeared all red, and
much more brilliant than the rest of it; and that whether I approached it or receded from it, or put it on my
right or my left, or even turned it round about my head, provided that the line DE always made an angle of
about forty-two degrees with the line EM, which we are to think of as drawn from the center of the sun to
the eye, the part D appeared always similarly red; but that as soon as I made this angle DEM even a little
larger, the red color disappeared; and if I made the angle a little smaller, the color did not disappear all at
once, but divided itself first as if into two parts, less brilliant, and in which I could see yellow, blue, and
other colors ... When I examined more particularly, in the globe BCD, what it was which made the part D
appear red, I found that it was the rays of the sun which, coming from A to B, bend on entering the water
at the point B, and to pass to C, where they are reflected to D, and bending there again as they pass out of
the water, proceed to the point ".

This quotation illustrates how the shape of the rainbow is explained. To simplify the analysis, consider
the path of a ray of monochromatic light through a single spherical raindrop. Imagine how light is refracted
as it enters the raindrop, then how it is reflected by the internal, curved, mirror-like surface of the raindrop,
and finally how it is refracted as it emerges from the drop. If we then apply the results for a single raindrop
to a whole collection of raindrops in the sky, we can visualize the shape of the bow.

The traditional diagram to illustrate this is shown here as adapted from Humphreys, Physics of the Air.

It represents the path of one light ray incident on a water

droplet from the direction SA. As the light beam enters the surface of the drop at A, it is bent (refracted) a
 little and strikes the inside wall of the drop at B, where it is reflected back to C. As it emerges from the
drop it is refracted (bent) again into the direction CE. The angle D represents a measure of the deviation of
the emergent ray from its original direction. Descartes calculated this deviation for a ray of red light to be
about 180 - 42 or 138 degrees.

The ray drawn here is significant because it represents the ray that has the smallest angle of deviation of
all the rays incident upon the raindrop. It is called the Descarte or rainbow ray and much of the sunlight as
it is refracted and reflected through the raindrop is focused along this ray. Thus the reflected light is diffuse
and weaker except near the direction of this rainbow ray. It is this concentration of rays near the
minimum deviation that gives rise to the arc of rainbow.

The sun is so far away that we can, to a good approximation, assume that sunlight can be represented by
a set of parallel rays all falling on the water globule and being refracted, reflected internally, and refracted
again on emergence from the droplet in a manner like the figure. Descartes writes

I took my pen and made an accurate calculation of the paths of the rays which fall on the different
points of a globe of water to determine at which angles, after two refractions and one or two reflections
they will come to the eye, and I then found that after one reflection and two refractions there are many
more rays which can be seen at an angle of from forty-one to forty-two degrees than at any smaller angle;
and that there are none which can be seen at a larger angle" (the angle he is referring to is 180 - D).

A typical raindrop is spherical and therefore its effect on sunlight is symmetrical about an axis through
the center of the drop and the source of light (in this case the sun). Because of this symmetry, the two-
dimensional illustration of the figure serves us well and the complete picture can be visualized by rotating
the two dimensional illustration about the axis of symmetry. The symmetry of the focusing effect of each
drop is such that whenever we view a raindrop along the line of sight defined by the rainbow ray, we will
see a bright spot of reflected/refracted sunlight. Referring to the figure, we see that the rainbow ray for red
light makes an angle of 42 degrees between the direction of the incident sunlight and the line of sight.
Therefore, as long as the raindrop is viewed along a line of sight that makes this angle with the direction of
incident light, we will see a brightening. The rainbow is thus a circle of angular radius 42 degrees, centered
on the antisolar point, as shown schematically here.

We don't see a full circle because the earth gets in the way. The lower the sun is to the horizon, the
more of the circle we see -right at sunset, we would see a full semicircle of the rainbow with the top of the
arch 42 degrees above the horizon. The higher the sun is in the sky, the smaller is the arch of the rainbow
above the horizon.

What makes the colors in the rainbow?

The traditional description of the rainbow is that it is made up of seven colors - red, orange, yellow, green, blue,
indigo, and violet. Actually, the rainbow is a whole continuum of colors from red to violet and even beyond the
colors that the eye can see.

The colors of the rainbow arise from two basic facts:

  Sunlight is made up of the whole range of colors that the eye can detect. The range of sunlight colors,
when combined, looks white to the eye. This property of sunlight was first demonstrated by Sir Isaac
Newton in 1666.
 Light of different colors is refracted by different amounts when it passes from one medium (air, for
example) into another (water or glass, for example).

Descartes and Willebrord Snell had determined how a ray of light is bent, or refracted, as it traverses regions of
different densities, such as air and water. When the light paths through a raindrop are traced for red and blue
light, one finds that the angle of deviation is different for the two colors because blue light is bent or refracted

more than is the red light. This implies that when we see a rainbow and
its band of colors we are looking at light refracted and reflected from different raindrops, some viewed at an
angle of 42 degrees; some, at an angle of 40 degrees, and some in between. This is illustrated in this drawing,
adapted from Johnson's Physical Meteorology. This rainbow of two colors would have a width of almost 2
degrees (about four times larger than the angular size as the full moon). Note that even though blue light is
refracted more than red light in a single drop, we see the blue light on the inner part of the arc because we are
looking along a different line of sight that has a smaller angle (40 degrees) for the blue.

Ana excellent laboratory exercise on the mathematics of rainbows is here, and F. K. Hwang has
produced a fine Java Applet illustrating this refraction, and Nigel Greenwood has written a program that
operates in MS Excel that illustrates the way the angles change as a function of the sun's angle.

Ben Lanterman has made available several beautiful photographs of rainbows on the web.

What makes a double rainbow?

Sometimes we see two rainbows at once, what causes this? We have followed the path of a ray of sunlight as it
enters and is reflected inside the raindrop. But not all of the energy of the ray escapes the raindrop after it is
reflected once. A part of the ray is reflected again and travels along inside the drop to emerge from the drop.
The rainbow we normally see is called the primary rainbow and is produced by one internal reflection; the
secondary rainbow arises from two internal reflections and the rays exit the drop at an angle of 50 degrees°
rather than the 42°degrees for the red primary bow. Blue light emerges at an even larger angle of 53 degrees°.
his effect produces a secondary rainbow that has its colors reversed compared to the primary, as illustrated in
the drawing, adapted from the Science Universe Series Sight, Light, and Color.

It is possible for light to be reflected more than twice within a raindrop, and one can calculate where the
higher order rainbows might be seen; but these are never seen in normal circumstances.
Why is the sky brighter inside a rainbow?
Notice the contrast between the sky inside the arc and outside it. When one studies the refraction of sunlight on
a raindrop one finds that there are many rays emerging at angles smaller than the rainbow ray, but essentially no
light from single internal reflections at angles greater than this ray. Thus there is a lot of light within the bow,
and very little beyond it. Because this light is a mix of all the rainbow colors, it is white. In the case of the
secondary rainbow, the rainbow ray is the smallest angle and there are many rays emerging at angles greater
than this one. Therefore the two bows combine to define a dark region between them - called Alexander's Dark
Band, in honor of Alexander of Aphrodisias who discussed it some 1800 years ago!

What are Supernumerary Arcs?

In some rainbows, faint arcs just inside and near the top of the primary bow can be seen. These are called
supernumerary arcs and were explained by Thomas Young in 1804 as arising from the interference of light
along certain rays within the drop. Young's work had a profound influence on theories of the physical nature of
light and his studies of the rainbow were a fundamental element of this. Young interpreted light in terms of it
being a wave of some sort and that when two rays are scattered in the same direction within a raindrop, they
may interfere with each other. Depending on how the rays mesh together, the interference can be constructive,
in which case the rays produce a brightening, or destructive, in which case there is a reduction in brightness.
This phenomenon is clearly described in Nussenzveig's article "The Theory of the Rainbow" in which he writes:
"At angles very close to the rainbow angle the two paths through the droplet differ only slightly, and so the two
rays interfere constructively. As the angle increases, the two rays follow paths of substantially different lengths.
When the difference equals half of the wavelength, the interference is completely destructive; at still greater
angles the beams reinforce again. The result is a periodic variation in the intensity of the scattered light, a
series of alternately bright and dark bands."

Mikolaj and Pawel Sawicki have posted several beautiful photographs of rainbows showing these arcs.

The "purity" of the colors of the rainbow depends on the size of the raindrops. Large drops (diameters
of a few millimeters) give bright rainbows with well defined colors; small droplets (diameters of about
0.01 mm) produce rainbows of overlapping colors that appear nearly white. And remember that the models
that predict a rainbow arc all assume spherical shapes for raindrops.

There is never a single size for water drops in rain but a mixture of many sizes and shapes. This results
in a composite rainbow. Raindrops generally don't "grow" to radii larger than about 0.5 cm without
breaking up because of collisions with other raindrops, although occasionally drops a few millimeters
larger in radius have been observed when there are very few drops (and so few collisions between the
drops) in a rainstorm. Bill Livingston suggests: " If you are brave enough, look up during a thunder shower
at the falling drops. Some may hit your eye (or glasses), but this is not fatal. You will actually see that the
drops are distorted and are oscillating."

It is the surface tension of water that moulds raindrops into spherical shapes, if no other forces are
acting on them. But as a drop falls in the air, the 'drag' causes a distortion in its shape, making it somewhat
flattened. Deviations from a spherical shape have been measured by suspending drops in the air stream of a
vertical wind tunnel (Pruppacher and Beard, 1970, and Pruppacher and Pitter, 1971). Small drops of radius
less than 140 microns (0.014 cm) remain spherical, but as the size of the drop increases, the flattening
becomes noticeable. For drops with a radius near 0.14 cm, the height/width ratio is 0.85. This flattening
increases for larger drops.
 Spherical drops produce symmetrical rainbows, but rainbows seen when the sun is near the horizon are
often observed to be brighter at their sides, the vertical part, than at their top. Alistair Fraser has explained
this phenomenon as resulting from the complex mixture of size and shape of the raindrops. The reflection
and refraction of light from a flattened water droplet is not symmetrical. For a flattened drop, some of the
rainbow ray is lost at top and bottom of the drop. Therefore, we see the rays from these flattened drops
only as we view them horizontally; thus the rainbow produced by the large drops is is bright at its base.
Near the top of the arc only small spherical drops produce the fainter rainbow.

What does a rainbow look like through dark glasses?

This is a "trick" question because the answer depends on whether or not your glasses are Polaroid. When light is
reflected at certain angles it becomes polarized (discussed again quite well in Nussenzveig's article), and it has
been found that the rainbow angle is close to that angle of reflection at which incident, unpolarized light
(sunlight) is almost completely polarized. So if you look at a rainbow with Polaroid sunglasses and rotate the
lenses around the line of sight, part of the rainbow will disappear!

Other Questions about the Rainbow

Humphreys (Physics of the Air, p. 478) discusses several "popular" questions about the rainbow:
 "What is the rainbow's distance?" It is nearby or far away, according to where the raindrops are,
extending from the closest to the farthest illuminated drops along the elements of the rainbow cone.
 Why is the rainbow so frequently seen during summer and so seldom during winter?" To see a rainbow,
one has to have rain and sunshine. In the winter, water droplets freeze into ice particles that do not
produce a rainbow but scatter light in other very interesting patterns.
 "Why are rainbows so rarely seen at noon?" Remember that the center of the rainbow's circle is opposite
the sun so that it is as far below the level of the observer as the sun is above it.
 "Do two people ever see the same rainbow?" Humphreys points out that "since the rainbow is a special
distribution of colors (produced in a particular way) with reference to a definite point - the eye of the
observer - and as no single distribution can be the same for two separate points, it follows that two
observers do not, and cannot, see the same rainbow." In fact, each eye sees its own rainbow!!
Of course, a camera lens will record an image of a rainbow which can then be seen my many people!
(thanks to Tom and Rachel Ludovise for pointing this out!)
 "Can the same rainbow be seen by reflection as seen directly?" On the basis of the arguments given in
the preceding question, bows appropriate for two different points are produced by different drops; hence,
a bow seen by reflection is not the same as the one seen directly".

What are Reflection Rainbows?

A reflection rainbow is defined as one produced by the reflection of the source of incident light (usually the
sun). Photographs of them are perhaps the most impressive of rainbow photographs. The reflected rainbow may
be considered as a combination of two rainbows produced by sunlight coming from two different directions -
one directly from the sun, the other from the reflected image of the sun. The angles are quite different and
therefore the elevation of the rainbow arcs will be correspondingly different. This is illustrated in a diagram
adapted from Greenler"s Rainbows, Halos, and Glories. The rainbow produced by sunlight reflected from the
water is higher in the sky than is the one produced by direct sunlight.
What is a Lunar Rainbow?
A full moon is bright enough to have its light refracted by raindrops just as is the case for the sun. Moonlight is
much fainter, of course, so the lunar rainbow is not nearly as bright as one produced by sunlight. Lunar
rainbows have infrequently been observed since the time of Aristotle or before. A graphic description of one
was writen by Dr. Mikkelson.

Rainbows and Proverbs

There is a delightful book by Humphreys entitled Weather Proverbs and Paradoxes. In it, he discusses the
meteorological justifications of some proverbs associated with rainbows, such as "Rainbow at night, shepherd's
delight;Rainbow in morning, shepherds take warning,"If there be a rainbow in the eve,It will rain and leave; But
if there be a rainbow in the morrow It will neither lend nor borrow", and Rainbow to windward, foul fall the
day; Rainbow to leeward, damp runs away."

The meteorological discussion Humphreys presents is appropriate for the northern temperate zones that
have a prevailing wind, and also for a normal diurnal change in the weather.

Experiments
William Livingston, a solar astronomer who has also specialized in atmospheric optical phenomena suggests the
following: "Try a hose spray yourself. As you produce a fine spray supernumeraries up to order three become
nicely visible. "Try to estimate the size of these drops compared to a raindrop. ..."Another thing to try. View a
water droplet on a leaf close-up - an inch from your eye. At the rainbow angle you may catch a nice bit of
color!"

In Minnaert's excellent book Light and Colour in the Open Air you can find a number of experiments
on how to study the nature of rainbows. Here is an illustration of one of his suggestions. Other
demonstration projects are listed here .

Meg Beal, while a seventh-grader, prepared a science fair project that illustrated the nature of rainbows.
The Beal family provided a photograph (1MB) of her excellent demonstration.

For those wanting to try to demonstrate the nature of a rainbow in a classroom, here are examples.

An informative tutorial on optics can be found here.

I am indebted to William C. Livingston, astronomer at the National Optical Astronomy Observatory in

Tucson Arizona for his expert assistance in preparing this paper, and to Seth Sharpless for his critical
reading of the manuscript. Charles A. Knight, an expert on rain at the National Center for Atmospheric
Physics, provided valuable guidance on the interesting properties of raindrops.

References
Ahrens C. Donald, Meteorology Today West Publishing House ISBN 0-314-80905-8
Bohren, Craig [Link] in a Glass of Beer Cp. 21,22 Stephen Kippur Publisher ISBN 0-471-62482-9
Boyer, Carl ,B. The Rainbow From Myth to Mathematics, Princeton University Press 1959 ISBN 0-691-
08457-2 and 02405-7 (pbk) Dover
CoVis, 1995: Light and Optics
Descarte, René, 1637, Discours de la Méthode Pour Bien Conduire Sa Raison et Chercher la Vérité
dans les Sciences (second appendix) La Dioptrique
Fraser, Alistair B., 1972, "Inhomogenieties in the Color and Intensity of the Rainbow", Journal of
Atmospheric Sciences, 29, 211.
Greenler, Robert, Rainbows, Halos, and Glories, Cambridge University Press 1980 ISBN 0 521 2305 3
and 38865 1 (pbk)
Humphreys, W. J., Physics of the Air, McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1929
Humphreys, W. J.,Weather Proverbs and Paradoxes, Williams and Wilkins Company 1923
Johnson, John C., Physical Meteorology, MIT Press 1954 LCC 54-7836
Lee, Raymond L. The Rainbow Bridge
Lynch, David K. and Livingston, William, Color and Light in Nature Cambridge University Press, 1995
Lynch, David K. and Schwartz, Ptolemy, "Rainbows and Fogbows" Applied Optics 30, 3415, 1991
Magie, W.F. ed, A Source Book in Physics 1935
Minnaert, M., The Nature of Light and Color in the Open Air, Dover 1954
Nussenzveig, H. Moyses, "The Theory of the Rainbow", Scientific American 236, 116, 1977
Planz, Brian, 1995 Rainbows
Pruppacher, H. R. and Beard, K. V., 1970, Quart. J. Royal Meteor. Soc. 96, 247
Pruppacher, H. R. and Klett, J. D. 1978, Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation, Reidel Publishing
Company
Pruppacher, H. R. and Pitter, R. L., 1971, Atmos. Sci. 28, 86
Science Universe Series (David Jollands, ed) Sight, Light, and Color Arco Publishing Inc. 1984 ISBN 0-
668-06177-4
Strom, Karon; 1994 Rainbows
van Beeck, J.P.A.J., 1997, Rainbow Phenomena: development of a laser-based, non-intrusive technique
for measuring droplet size, temperature, and velocity CIP-Data Library Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven (ISBN 90-386-0557-9)
Wicklin, F.J. and Edelman, P. Circles of Light The Mathematics of Rainbows