Talk:Tyndall effect

Section 1 from 2007

What exactly does it mean to "scatter better"? 128.62.87.163 07:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a better way of saying that would have been "scatter more", instead of scatter better. meaning that with an equivalent intensity, a blue light will have more scattering happening than a red one (and less light transmitted as a consequence) Palleas 13:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this process different to Rayleigh Scattering? I'd heard of Rayleigh scattering before this, but I cannot see the difference, surely either there is a subtle distinction I've yet to notice or one is made obsolete by the other. fildon, 6th of March 2007

Same thing, Tyndall's work predates Rayleigh but Rayleigh explanation is more comprehensive and he gave it a theorical background, so credit goes generally to Rayleigh. - phe 00:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing: Tyndall effect refers to scattering within a medium containting suspended particles (i.e. colloids) such as dust. The sky would look blue even if there was no dust because of Rayleigh scattering - an interaction of light and the air molecules themselves. Jawshoeaw 04:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)jawshoeaw[reply]

I agree with Jawshoeaw. The Rayleigh scattering, as I understand it is provoked by the medium absorbing a part of the incident light and re-emiting it by resonnance. Whereas the Tyndall effect does not happen with the medium itself, but with suspended particles in it. A way of perceiving that is that the rayleigh scattering is always present (as long as there is light), whereas the tyndal effect appears only when the medium as particles (dust, droplets...) in it Palleas 13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebula bank?

What is a nebula bank? I can't find this anywhere on the Internet - should it be removed? Jason7825 21:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rayleigh Effect vs. The Tyndall Effect

Actually, it is the same thing. Only Rayleigh's study of the effect was more sufficient than Tyndall's. I believe the reason for this is because Rayleigh had more resources than Tyndall, but that does not discredit him. He still was more accurate in his findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.39 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not the same thing. We're talking about the definition of Scientific Term, not the politics of who was credited with discovering what. That debate is relevant only to John Tyndall's contribution to Rayleigh scattering. For correct definitions of Tyndall Effect, see :

The image with the opal is used on both pages, Tyndall and Rayleigh. The description of the image on both pages attributes the effect contradictory to that described on the page. But then the Rayleigh effect is explicitly described as NOT being the same as the Tyndall effect. --87.173.1.95 (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The picture caption at the bottom says the beams of light are caused by Tyndall scattering, but the paragraph next to it says this is better described as reflection. Which one is correct? TWCarlson (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the WP article on crepuscular rays has a gallery of images where more or less the same phenomenon is described as an example of crepuscular rays rather than Tyndall scatter. I think both of these articles need the intervention of someone knowledgeable in physics. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the offending photo, which is either no example of Tyndall scattering or else a poor example that has other things going on in it. By the way, the photo was inserted on 23 Dec 2011. Seanwal111111 (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had put up a wrong photo of tyndall effect. it is actually depicting Crepuscular rays. So I deleted the photo .Sorry for the inconvinience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psgs123xyz (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"However, this is more like reflection, not scattering, as the macroscopic particles become clearly visible in the process."

Wait, why can't macroscopic objects be described as scattering light? Seems to work ok for small-angle scattering where the size of the particle is >> than the wavelength of the incident light. Admittedly, it still wouldn't be Tyndall scattering. So this may not be the best place to mention it. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 14:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyndall cone?

Tyndall cone redirects here but the word is not used anywhere. Urhixidur (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this

Tyndall has developed many ways to analyse substances using light, and they seem not to have proper names nor are explained clearly enough. This article is linked from a few articles that use "Tyndall effect" as an explanation of the blue structural coloration in several species of animals, because few pieces of literature name such colors as "Tyndall blue". The article about structural coloration itself doesn't link to this article about the Tyndall effect. The sunbeam article also lists a name "Tyndall rays" as the alternative name for sunbeams. The article about John Tyndall lists many of Tyndall's experiments where Tyndall used sources of light to analyse substances. Tyndall did much more work on these topics than just the discovery of Rayleigh scattering, and the naming resulted in a lot of confusion. Wikipedia should be here to clear up this kind of mess, not make it worse. According to this article, the link from COVID-19 pandemic#Transmission isn't related to the effect discussed here, even though it is related to the work of Tyndall and his discoveries. 37.225.41.14 (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statements of animals having color caused by Tyndall scattering are based on old research, and modern analysis that thoroughly examines the materials on nanoscale and in full spectra shows that Tyndall effect, as described in this article, plays no role, and instead the color is caused by other forms of structural coloration or fluorescence. It would seem that the term "Tyndall blue" has been used for many kinds of blue coloration that couldn't be explained by presence of pigment molecules. The reason why Tyndall effect in this article seems to be so similar to Rayleigh scattering is that from mathematical point of view they are very similar, but distinguishing between the two requires deep investigation. As such, all of these articles that link to here, or refer to any of the research from Tyndall, should be reexamined to check if modern research has provided more accurate explanations of the phenomena. The tools and methods that Tyndall has devised should also be distinguished from the topic discussed in this article, because they currently seem to be more important than the various phenomena that still are sometimes called using a name that includes "Tyndall" in it, and when that happens, people shouldn't be all directed to this single article that more often than not doesn't have much to do with what the people are trying to learn about. 37.225.41.14 (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Scatter Needs More Explanation

in that the intensity of the scattered light is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the wavelength, so blue light is scattered much more strongly than red light...

So the 4th power of the wavelength of blue light is somehow special, but why? How? You can also raise the wavelength of red to the fourth power, but the article doesn't explain the significance of the resulting number. 2600:1700:5B2C:A090:3111:682E:5CD6:AF1 (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]