APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Sam » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:56 pm

I have an observation about the Belt of Venus I'd like to ask about.

Since I first noticed this, I have observed it every time I've clearly observed the belt of Venus (and had the time to stick around). Namely, once the height of the belt directly opposite the sun rises to about 20° and begins to noticeably fade, a similarly pink-colored (though with more brilliant orange in place of brown/purple) patch then begins to appear on the opposite side of the sky, about 30° above the sun's azimuth. It seems to brighten as the belt of Venus fades, and also sets a little bit, 5°-10° before itself fading away into the general blue of the twilight sky. What I think is interesting is that the sunward pink-orange patch begins to become noticeable at the same time that the thick of the belt of Venus starts to fade.

My idea is that the bright patch in the west is the other side of the belt of Venus in the east; that is, people half a time zone to the west are viewing this orange-pink glow as the pink-purple belt of Venus to the east. Is this plausible?

Thanks,
--
Sam

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by NoelC » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:34 pm

It's a beautiful shot, Luis. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Image

:)

-Noel

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:33 pm

Ann wrote:Chris, I'm most definitely not suggesting that our color vision works the way it does because it was designed to be the way it is.
I know... and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was just using "designed" in the sense that unlike designed systems, those which evolve are always suboptimal. There's no progression towards optimization, so we end up with odd results that seem counterintuitive at times (like having two of our three primaries practically on top of each other in the green part of the spectrum).
I'm interested in what you said about the atmosphere. You said it would require only minor changes to the atmosphere to make it look green. Can you give examples of changes that would actually make the atmosphere look green to our eyes?
For our atmosphere, it would require having some larger molecules than O2, O3, and N2 in the upper atmosphere. Something like chlorine or fluorine species would probably do, and could exist in low enough concentrations that they wouldn't make the atmosphere toxic. But really, I wasn't thinking so much of our atmosphere as of planetary atmospheres in general. A planet with an atmosphere similar to our own, but circling a K star rather than a G star should have a green sky- drop the temperature of the star by 1000 or 1500 K and you significantly reduce the ratio of blue to green spectral components. Green should be the dominant scattered "color" in the atmosphere in that case.

My real point here being that we can never see a star as green, under any circumstances (outside something like a filtering nebula around it). We can readily construct atmospheres, however, that allow for a green sky (and probably many other colors, as well).

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:13 pm

hotdigittydawg wrote:But then what about chlorophyll? My understanding is it looks green because it reflects that part of the spectrum rather than absorbs it. Since the sun peaks in the green (which I've just learned here today), why do you suppose plants reflect what I assume would be the highest portion of energy available from the (green) sun away from themselves? I'd think if chlorophyll was black it would be able to absorb considerably more (free) energy from the sun (not that I'm advocating a "designed" ecology).
Again, the reason is because the system wasn't designed. Photosynthesis is possible because there was some chemical already around that could be hijacked by evolutionary processes to function as a pigment for energy extraction from light. The fact that chlorophyll has little variation in structure across species argues for photosynthesis having only evolved once, and the complexity of the process largely locks things down.

As previously noted, evolution doesn't drive organisms to optimal designs, only to functional ones.

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by hotdigittydawg » Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:59 pm

Wow! I wasn't close at all, was I? I have a few more thoughts, though somewhat contradictory. I've seen the sky looking greenish before a tornado (very spooky), and of course someone mentioned green auroras (which I've never seen in person). But then what about chlorophyll? My understanding is it looks green because it reflects that part of the spectrum rather than absorbs it. Since the sun peaks in the green (which I've just learned here today), why do you suppose plants reflect what I assume would be the highest portion of energy available from the (green) sun away from themselves? I'd think if chlorophyll was black it would be able to absorb considerably more (free) energy from the sun (not that I'm advocating a "designed" ecology). But then maybe that's the problem - there is such a thing as too much!

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Flase » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:26 am

I believe the reason we don't really see green in a sunset is that the spectrum is too blurred. If you spread it out further, you might see more in-between colours.

Maybe if our eyes could see near infrared, we might not see so much red either (our cellphones can see near IR, which isn't usually a good thing).

It begs a question I've been trying to look up: what frequencies are filtered by the atmosphere?
I know UV and gamma rays are filtered out, or our skin would all have to be a lot blacker. Short wave radio is reflected by the stratosphere. What about visible wavelengths?

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Ann » Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:13 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
Ann wrote:Chris, I don't doubt for a moment that various evolutionary processes have led to the color vision that humans have today. I still believe that our three-color vision, where green is a primary color, has had an important survival value for humanity.
I don't doubt it. But evolution never optimizes a "design", it just takes advantage of what is already present, and pushes things in a certain direction. Our visual response is not ideal for survival in the different environments we evolved in. Our color vision is poor- it would be much better if we didn't have two green primaries and one low response blue one! If that system were designed, it would have to be considered a poor design.
Consider. Why is it that we never see stars as green?
I would say it is because their output is defined by blackbody spectra, and there is no blackbody spectrum which we can see as green.

This is different than sky color. It would only require minor changes to the atmosphere to make the sky green instead of blue.
Chris, I'm most definitely not suggesting that our color vision works the way it does because it was designed to be the way it is.

I'm interested in what you said about the atmosphere. You said it would require only minor changes to the atmosphere to make it look green. Can you give examples of changes that would actually make the atmosphere look green to our eyes?

Ann

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:50 am

Ann wrote:Chris, I don't doubt for a moment that various evolutionary processes have led to the color vision that humans have today. I still believe that our three-color vision, where green is a primary color, has had an important survival value for humanity.
I don't doubt it. But evolution never optimizes a "design", it just takes advantage of what is already present, and pushes things in a certain direction. Our visual response is not ideal for survival in the different environments we evolved in. Our color vision is poor- it would be much better if we didn't have two green primaries and one low response blue one! If that system were designed, it would have to be considered a poor design.
Consider. Why is it that we never see stars as green?
I would say it is because their output is defined by blackbody spectra, and there is no blackbody spectrum which we can see as green.

This is different than sky color. It would only require minor changes to the atmosphere to make the sky green instead of blue.

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Flase » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:29 am

Colour is a funny thing. Painters know of a thing called "atmospheric perpective", where the distant objects appear bluer when filtered through the atmosphere. For distant green hills, you need to add a lot of blue. Even stars high in the sky would have some amount of this...

What intrigues me about colour is how it might relate to acoustics, which I know a little bit more about. The way colours mix is different if it is additive or subtractive, but red and blue always make purple. If you look at a colour wheel with the rainbow on it, the indigo and violet are next to the red and the circle begins again. This is analogous to the piano keyboard where, if you double the frequency of the note, you get the octave above and the pattern repeats itself. That colour wheel also seems to repeat itself at about twice the frequency.

Many musicians have given musical pitches a colour, but not many have looked in the opposite direction. For example, in nature, a vocal cord, a twig, or any vibrating body has a sound enriched by the "harmonic series" which in its purest form is a theoretically infinite number of frequencies at the simplest of ratios.

The 1st harmonic is the frequency of the heard pitch (the standard pitch for a violin A string is 440Hz)
the 2nd harmonic is twice the frequency (an octave A), at half the amplitude
The 3rd harmonic is three times the frequency (another fifth, an E), at a third the amplitude
The 4th is two octaves
The 5th is two octaves and a third (a C#)
etc...

Do luminous bodies exhibit similar behavour?
If you create a colour image at twice or half the frequencies of normal RGB filters (UV or near IR), would we see magic?

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Ann » Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:22 am

Speaking of green stars, there is one that is supposedly green, namely Zubeneschamali, Beta Librae. Well, I don't believe in the supposed green color of that star at all. Beta Librae is a normal hot star, a main sequence star of spectral class B8V, with a temperature of about 12,000 Kelvin, double that of the Sun. The measured B-V index of Zubeneschamali is -0.071 ± 0.004, totally unremarkable for a star of spectral class B8V.
Image
I believe that if a large number of observers were shown Beta Librae through a telescope and were asked to judge the color of the star without being told what star they were looking at and without being asked to look for anything unusual, chances are that not a single person would report seeing any hint of green in the color of this star. Of course, this experiment should take place at a time and a place where Beta Librae was moderately high in the sky, so as to avoid unnecessary reddening.

I googled "Beta Librae" and got this star. It doesn't look green to me.

Ann

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Ann » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:51 am

Chris, I don't doubt for a moment that various evolutionary processes have led to the color vision that humans have today. I still believe that our three-color vision, where green is a primary color, has had an important survival value for humanity.

But there is another reason why we don't ever see the sky as green (apart from auroras, which is another matter). The "transition sky", which is neither red, yellow nor blue, must be similar enough to the "unfiltered" light of the Sun to appear to be the same color of the same, namely white.

Consider. Why is it that we never see stars as green? It is because their light is similar enough to the light of the Sun that they appear white to us. Stars whose light output peaks in the orange or red part of the spectrum look (mildly) yellow. Stars whose light output peaks in the infrared part of the spectrum look yellow, yellow-orange, or, in extremely rare cases (Mu Cephei!) orangeish. Stars which have "polluted" their own atmospheres with large amounts of carbon, so called carbon stars, may block so much of their own shorter wavelengths that the stars in fact look red. I have seen only one such star, V Aquilae.

Stars which are much hotter than the Sun can indeed look bluish, although their color is never saturated, and very few people can detect their color without a telescope. If you have a telescope and look at a hot and relatively unreddened star, however, you can often detect a bluish cast to its hue.

But stars never look green.
Image
The Sun can be described as a green star, since its energy output peaks in the green part of the spectrum. But we don't see sunlight as green. We see it as white. On a mildly overcast day, when we can't see the blue of the sky, daylight is neither yellowish nor greenish. The color of daylight is still white, or a neutral gray.

Freshly fallen snow, which reflects most of the light that hits it equally, never looks green, even though it may reflect more green light than any other color. Snow either looks white to us, or, on a sunny day, yellow-white in the sun and blue in the shadows. (Or else it looks dirty and brownish.) It just never looks green. If you see a spot of green in the snow, it means some grass is peeking through.

Green auroras have an extremely strong peak in the green or yellow-green part of the spectrum, which is why we can easily see their color. (In fact, they may contain only green light.) But it is impossible for us to see with our own eyes that the light of the Sun peaks in the green part of the spectrum, so that sunlight and daylight is "really" green. It never looks that way to us. And no part of the twilight sky looks green, either.

Ann

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by orin stepanek » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:41 am

Nice job Luis; I really like today's picture! 8-)

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:29 pm

Ann wrote:I think that the answer is that green is a primary color to our eyes, which means that we will only see green if there is a strong peak in the middle of the spectrum. This is obviously not the case with any part of the twilight sky, which is a mixture of many wavelengths.
I think you've got part of the answer here, with respect to the mixture of wavelengths. Not so sure about the notion of green being a primary color in our visual system, though. In fact, two of our color sensors peak in the green- the M cones ("green") and the L cones ("red"). In addition, the rods also peak in the green.

I think what is going on is that we have an overall blue sky created by scatter off of air molecules (you can see the gradient in intensity from the top of the image all the way to the horizon). Then, you have a zone just above the Earth's shadow that is scattered red light from the opposite sunset (red because much of the blue has been scattered away). So there is no mechanism to isolate green light, and we therefore don't see green- but it doesn't depend on the primaries our eyes use.
The reason why green is a primary color to our eyes may have to do with survival. Plants on the Earth are almost always green, and where there is vegetation, there is probably water. Humanity undoubtedly spent hundreds of thousands of years surviving on the savanna, where our ability to detect the green color of plants was of critical importance.
Maybe. But many animals that are dependent on vegetation lack color vision, or lack the ability to specifically detect green hues. We almost certainly started with a single retinal pigment- something probably not very different from the rhodopsin found in our rod cells to this day, and which is found in all animal visual systems. Its peak is closely matched to the green maximum of the solar spectrum. The development of color vision must be a combination of evolutionary pressure and practical chemistry.

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by luigi » Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:17 pm

Ann wrote:
hotdigittydawg wrote:
drollere wrote:this is a very familiar effect to landscape painters (such as myself). in transparent watercolors and glazed oil paints, it raises the tricky problem of painting the transition from blue sky to yellow horizon without introducing any obvious green ... which in paints is produced by mixing yellow and blue.
This statement begs the question, 'Why is it we don't see any green in that transition zone between the yellow and the blue?' My guess is the answer would be something like, 'Because the oxygen absorbs that portion of the spectum of visible light and therefore it's not reflected back to our eyes.' Am I close?
I think that the answer is that green is a primary color to our eyes, which means that we will only see green if there is a strong peak in the middle of the spectrum. This is obviously not the case with any part of the twilight sky, which is a mixture of many wavelengths.

The reason why green is a primary color to our eyes may have to do with survival. Plants on the Earth are almost always green, and where there is vegetation, there is probably water. Humanity undoubtedly spent hundreds of thousands of years surviving on the savanna, where our ability to detect the green color of plants was of critical importance.

But the sky is never grassy green or leafy green, so we don't see it as green.

Ann
Ann, maybe it's in our genes as I'm fascinated about the idea of green things in the sky.
I've never seen an Aurora but I would love to see one. (someday, someday)
And then there's airglow but I don't think you can see it visually, I have photographed airglow from a really dark location but I don't remember seeing it with my eyes.

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Ann » Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:56 pm

hotdigittydawg wrote:
drollere wrote:this is a very familiar effect to landscape painters (such as myself). in transparent watercolors and glazed oil paints, it raises the tricky problem of painting the transition from blue sky to yellow horizon without introducing any obvious green ... which in paints is produced by mixing yellow and blue.
This statement begs the question, 'Why is it we don't see any green in that transition zone between the yellow and the blue?' My guess is the answer would be something like, 'Because the oxygen absorbs that portion of the spectum of visible light and therefore it's not reflected back to our eyes.' Am I close?
I think that the answer is that green is a primary color to our eyes, which means that we will only see green if there is a strong peak in the middle of the spectrum. This is obviously not the case with any part of the twilight sky, which is a mixture of many wavelengths.

The reason why green is a primary color to our eyes may have to do with survival. Plants on the Earth are almost always green, and where there is vegetation, there is probably water. Humanity undoubtedly spent hundreds of thousands of years surviving on the savanna, where our ability to detect the green color of plants was of critical importance.

But the sky is never grassy green or leafy green, so we don't see it as green.

Ann

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Royal » Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:49 pm

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned (maybe I missed it) the old trick of tilting one's head 90 degrees, which seems to accentuate the difference in chromaticity.
I have tried it, even on the photo, and it seems to work. Is it psychological, or it it physiological?

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by geckzilla » Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:21 pm

But there is green there.

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by hotdigittydawg » Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:17 pm

drollere wrote:this is a very familiar effect to landscape painters (such as myself). in transparent watercolors and glazed oil paints, it raises the tricky problem of painting the transition from blue sky to yellow horizon without introducing any obvious green ... which in paints is produced by mixing yellow and blue.
This statement begs the question, 'Why is it we don't see any green in that transition zone between the yellow and the blue?' My guess is the answer would be something like, 'Because the oxygen absorbs that portion of the spectum of visible light and therefore it's not reflected back to our eyes.' Am I close?

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:24 pm

McFrost69 wrote:Luis;
As a fellow panoramic photographer, I must congratulate you on a stunning example of the Belt of Venus. It is marred only by the position of the crescent moon. I will accept your explanation of a stitching software error, since such things can and do happen when stitching large images. However, it is physically impossible for a cresent moon to appear in the position it does in your panoramic image. I would suggest you submit the un-edited and un-cropped version of your panoramic or even just the frame in which the moon originally appears for examination.
I don't believe there is any problem here with respect to the position of the Moon. When the image was made, the Moon was 50° in azimuth north of the Sun. That places the Sun just below the horizon not far from the left edge of the image- where there is no shadow visible. When the conditions are right, I've seen the Belt of Venus circle the horizon, disappearing only very close to the Sun... certainly covering more than 300° of azimuth.

The entire panorama looks like it covers about 80° of azimuth.

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by McFrost69 » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:54 pm

luigi wrote:I'm the Photographer here to clarify.
The shots were taken after sunset.

The moon has a "C" shape in the south hemisphere when it is in crescent phase, in other words becoming a full moon.
We say "C = creciente" in spanish here.

Now I can tell you I didn't touch anything because I don't want to touch anything when I send a photo to APOD. In the photo version at my website I cloned some poles that I thought could be distracting in a big print but I sent the original version with the poles to APOD :D (don't touch it Luis!)

If the moon is not in the right place then it's something the stitching software did and I didn't notice and I hope it's not a big problem. :oops:

Luis;
As a fellow panoramic photographer, I must congratulate you on a stunning example of the Belt of Venus. It is marred only by the position of the crescent moon. I will accept your explanation of a stitching software error, since such things can and do happen when stitching large images. However, it is physically impossible for a cresent moon to appear in the position it does in your panoramic image. I would suggest you submit the un-edited and un-cropped version of your panoramic or even just the frame in which the moon originally appears for examination.

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by drollere » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:52 pm

this is a very familiar effect to landscape painters (such as myself). in transparent watercolors and glazed oil paints, it raises the tricky problem of painting the transition from blue sky to yellow horizon without introducing any obvious green ... which in paints is produced by mixing yellow and blue.

we should also appreciate the splendid visual summation this effect creates of the blackbody spectrum, cool at the horizon to hot in the sky. i believe every hue can be matched by a correlated color temperature. only the cyan or cerulean hues between yellow and blue would be out of place.

this seems pretty obviously a photograph taken at sunset. not only is the crescent moon in the correct reversed position for the southern hemisphere, the density of particulates is rather high for morning air.

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by BMAONE23 » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:05 pm

One thing I notice that really stands out to me is the Moon. Everytime I see the moon near the Belt of Venus, it is nearly full and not a crescent moon as is shown in the image. It is also too high above the belt to be eclipsed.
Presumably, the setting sun is off to the left of the image as the Earth Shadow is most apparent to the right which places the crescent moon as rising near the belt

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by Redbone » Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:44 pm

I stand corrected! After further thought, indeed the left and right are reversed when looking at the moon from Northern and Southern hemisphers. Learned something new, thanks.

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by owlice » Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:26 pm

Luis, it's a spectacular picture (but you already know I think so)!! I was so pleased to see this as today's APOD!

Re: APOD: The Belt of Venus Over Mercedes... (2012 Feb 07)

by luigi » Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:13 pm

Redbone wrote:
Flase wrote:
Ann wrote:Judging from how the crescent Moon at far right is illuminated in this image (it is illuminated on its left side), the image seems to be taken in the morning, and the dark blue Earth shadow is sinking as the Sun is rising.
Hahaa! You're wrong! Argentina is in the southern hemisphere where everything is upside down. Water spins around a plug-hole backwards, people walk upside down and the Sun and Moon appear towards the North, seeming to move backwards...
Image

This is, of course, wrong, and Ann is correct, it is morning. The full Moon always rises at sunset, the new Moon always rises at sunrise. This being a few days before the new moon, it is rising just before sunrise.
I'm the Photographer here to clarify.
The shots were taken after sunset.

The moon has a "C" shape in the south hemisphere when it is in crescent phase, in other words becoming a full moon.
We say "C = creciente" in spanish here.

Now I can tell you I didn't touch anything because I don't want to touch anything when I send a photo to APOD. In the photo version at my website I cloned some poles that I thought could be distracting in a big print but I sent the original version with the poles to APOD :D (don't touch it Luis!)

If the moon is not in the right place then it's something the stitching software did and I didn't notice and I hope it's not a big problem. :oops:

Top