Skip to main content

How was the physics of rainbows discovered?

Rainbows have been there for billions of years, and people have been noticing them for the whole time there have been people (either about 200,000 years if you only include modern Homo sapiens or more like 2 million if you include some of our closest ancestors).

Aristotle in 4th century BC knew that water droplets bend light, and was able to explain why the shape of a rainbow is round based on the fact that we see the light that was bent go into our eyes at the appropriate angles, but it was just a brute fact for him; he had no idea why the angles were what they were or why rainbows were in many colors.

The physics behind them wasn't actually explained until the early 14th century, independently by a Persian mathematician named Kamāl al-Dīn Fārisī and a Dominican monk named Theodoric of Freiberg.

Much of those discoveries were in turn lost for centuries until they were independently rediscovered by Rene Descartes in the early 17th century.

What they figured out was that water's refractive index is such that there are two ways that light can be bent by a spherical droplet of water; one bends at a maximum of 42 degrees, the other at a minimum of 51 degrees. Those are the two edges of a rainbow.

It wasn't until Isaac Newton that we explained why they show all the colors in a row; this is because the refractive index of water isn't actually constant over all wavelengths, so long wavelengths (red) are bent a little bit less than short wavelengths (blue). Thus, the light entering our eyes is spread out based on its colors.

The story still isn't done, because we didn't actually have a complete theory of refractive index until the early 20th century with the advent of quantum physics. Even today there are some unsolved problems in quantum physics.

In this sense, the "discovery of the rainbow" really covers just about the entire whole of human existence---we knew they were there as long as we have been around, we've learned more about them in every generation of science, and we still haven't quite figured out everything about how they work.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more