Physics Today
Jump to Content
Increase text size Decrease text size
  • Sign In
  • View Items in Cart View Cart
  • Advanced
  • Keyword
 
  • Home
  • Print Edition
  • Daily Edition
    • News Picks
    • The Dayside
    • Physics Update
    • Singularities
    • Points of View
    • Politics and Policy
    • Science and the Media
    • Obituaries
    • We Hear That
    • Events Calendar
  • Advertising
  • Buyer's Guide
  • About us
    • Our mission
    • Our people
    • American Institute of Physics
    • Member societies
    • Register
    • Subscribe
    • Submit content
    • Marketing reprints
    • Rights and permissions
    • Help/FAQ
    • Change mailing address
    • Contact us
  • Jobs
    • Job Seeker Login
    • Search Jobs
    • Post Resumes
    • Career Resources
    • For Employers
    • Success Stories
    • Resume Templates
    • About Us
    • Advertising
    • Display Advertising
    • Employer Resources
    • Banner Advertising
    • Security Tips
Follow us: Facebook    Twitter    rss    E-mail alert
  • Table of contents
  • Past issues

yellow star Featured Jobs

  • Search jobs
  • Post jobs
Letters

Somewhere Under the Rainbow

March 2004, page 15

I would like to thank E. Blaise Saccocio for the beautiful picture of the double rainbow in the November 2003 issue of Physics Today (page 10). However, he is incorrect when he states that the dark zone (known as Alexander's dark belt) between the rainbows is due to interference.

The dark belt can be understood from geometrical optics. The primary (lower) rainbow represents an extreme value of the angle at which light rays are scattered after being internally reflected once by a raindrop. If a viewer on the ground looks at the top of the primary rainbow, and then lifts her head a little higher, she sees a dark sky because no light rays emerge from water droplets at angles steeper than the rainbow angle. The sky is not completely dark in the belt because of scattering due to more than one internal reflection and to light from the sky and the landscape.1

One rainbow phenomenon that must be explained by interference is the presence of supernumerary bows beneath the primary rainbow. A partial explanation of that phenomenon was given in 1838 by George Airy.2 If you look carefully, you can see one supernumerary bow (the narrow white band) underneath the primary one in Saccocio's photo. As with many topics related to rainbows, the supernumerary bow is still actively researched.3

References

  1. 1. See, for example, M. G. J. Minnaert, Light and Color in the Outdoors, Springer-Verlag, New York (1993), p. 197.
  2. 2. G. B. Airy, Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc. 6, 397 (1838).
  3. 3. See, for example, C. L. Adler, J. A. Lock, D. Phipps, K. Saunders, J. Nash, Appl. Opt. 40, 2535 (2001) [INSPEC].

Chuck Adler
(cladler@smcm.edu)
St. Mary's College of Maryland
St. Mary's City

The text accompanying E. Blaise Saccocio's double rainbow picture should have pointed out the existence of supernumerary rainbows clearly visible inside the primary rainbow. Although the primary and secondary rainbows are explainable in terms of geometric optics, the supernumerary rainbows are not, because they are a manifestation of light interference within a raindrop. In fact, it was an observation of supernumerary rainbows that prompted Thomas Young to perform the famous double-slit experiment in 1801, which confirmed the wave nature of light and led to his explanation of these rainbows in 1803. For more information and pictures, see references 1 and 2.

References

  1. 1. Raymond L. Lee Jr, Alistair B. Fraser, The Rainbow Bridge: Rainbows in Art, Myth, and Science, Pennsylvania State U. Press, University Park, PA (2001); see especially chap. 8, available at http://www.usna.edu/Users/oceano/raylee/RainbowBridge/Chapter_8_1.shtml.
  2. 2. M. Sawicki, P. Sawicki, Phys. Teach. 38, 19 (2000). Available at http://www.jal.cc.il.us/~mikolajsawicki/rainbows.htm.

Mikolaj "Mik" Sawicki
(mikolaj.sawicki@jal.cc.il.us)
John A. Logan College
Carterville, Illinois

Saccocio replies: For 20-odd years, having read Jearl Walker's paper and a number of its references,1 I have attributed the rainbow's dark zone to optical interference. A closer reading more clearly reveals that the mechanism is refractive, just as Chuck Adler and Mikolaj Sawicki point out. Both their understandings are supported by Walker;2 my earlier reading likely did not focus on that part of his discussion. Walker's paper is highly detailed and describes what is and is not observable both in nature and in laboratory rainbow-simulation conditions. My thanks to Adler and Sawicki.

References

  1. 1. J. D. Walker, Am. J. Phys. 44, 421 (1976) [INSPEC].
  2. 2. Reference 1, p. 424.

E. Blaise Saccocio
Bellbrook, Ohio

  • Article Tools
  • Enlarge text   Enlarge text
  • Shrink text   Shrink text
  • Comment on this articleWrite a letter to the editor
  • Free this month
  • Acoustics Experiment Shows Why It's So Hard to Make Out the Heroine's Words at the Opera
  • Hubble Sacrificed in Wake of President Bush's New Space Vision
  • Publish or Perish--An Ailing Enterprise?
  • New Books
  • Letters
  • Most popular articles
  • Gedanken experiment: Levitate a physics sitcom?
    Points of View
  • Nanoplasmonics: The physics behind the applications
    February 2011
  • Half-quantum vortices
    Physics Update
  • Quantum criticality
    February 2011

 



SERVICES
Physics Today Jobs
Physics Today Buyers Guide
Event Calendar
Obituaries
DAILY EDITION
The Dayside
News Picks
Science in the Media
Politics & Policy
Singularities
Physics Update
Points of View
THE MAGAZINE
This month in print
Institutional subscriptions
Information for advertisers
READER SERVICE
Register
Sign in
Subscribe
Email alert
MORE INFO
FAQ
Contact us
About Physics Today
Privacy Policy
Marketing reprints
Rights and Permissions

Copyright © by the American Institute of Physics - All rights reserved

Find articles by AUTHORNAME

This PublicationThis Publication
ScitationScitation
SPINSPIN
ScitopiaScitopia
Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
PubMedPubMed