Vision is enabled by light scattering off of an object and taking a straight line path directly to your eye. On a clear day, nearly all of the light from an object makes it to your eye (assuming no large objects block the path).
But on a foggy day, the atmosphere is filled with droplets of water that redirect light in random directions if it hits them, blurring the image. As the fog gets thicker and thicker, faraway images become badly scrambled.
Suppose that on a foggy day there are roughly N droplet = 2 0 0 water droplets per cubic centimeter of atmosphere, and that each droplet is about d droplet = 2 0 μ m in diameter. About how far away can an object be located before 9 0 % of its image is scrambled by the fog?
Assume that when light scatters off of a water droplet, it goes off in a random direction.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
As we assume that when light scatters off of a water droplet, it goes off in a random direction I decided to consider the volume ratio which give an answer quite big .. The reality of the phenomenon is quite complex (refraction and transmission implied) thus I don't really know which method is the best. The truth must be between these two modelisations
Log in to reply
What do you mean here by the volume ratio? I'd love to see whatever calculation you're talking about.
Log in to reply
Instead of taking the cross section I considered the volume of a droplet.. I realize it is quite dumb but as light can still make it trough water (reflection ; transmission ; refraction), we can't say that a droplet totaly block a beam of light, thus you have to take into account the widht of a droplet (it's volume) i thought it could give me an approximate answer, andddd I was mistaking as the problem is way to complex to be treated this way. Considering the cross section is far more clever in this model. Anyway thanks for your contribution on this site :)
Could you please explain the reasoning behind the last step (taking the logarithm)?
Log in to reply
The probability that light travels unscattered for 1cm is 0.99937. The probability that light travels unscattered for x cm is 0 . 9 9 9 3 7 x as the light needs to travel the 1st cm unscattered AND the 2nd cm AND the 3rd, and so on, meaning that the probabilities multiply together.
What we want to do is find x where 0 . 9 9 9 3 7 x = 0 . 1 , i.e. the distance where the probability of light reaching the end unscattered is 0.1, which is equivalent to saying 90% of the light being scrambled by the fog. 0 . 9 9 9 3 7 x = 0 . 1 can be solved by using the logarithm shown above, i.e. x = lo g 0 . 9 9 9 3 7 0 . 1 = 3 6 5 4
So this is assuming that the drops don't overlap in the direction the light travels...
Log in to reply
This is assuming that the droplets don't overlap from the perspective of the viewer in the first cm the light travels . E.g. if the path is 2 cm, this approach correctly handles the (still very small chance) that a drop from the first cm and a drop from the second centimeter obscure the same spot. There is only a very small chance that drops already obscure the same spot in the first centimeter, as the 200 drops in that cubic centimeter only occupy 0.063% of the total area, so I would say that the approximation used in the answer is justified.
At the other extreme, let's say we do the math with a volume of the whole length by 1 cm 2 . The total number of droplets to consider is 20,000 droplets per meter. These need to occupy 90% of the 1 cm 2 area. I.e. we'd get ( 1 0 × 1 0 − 6 ) 2 × π × 2 0 0 0 0 × L / 1 0 − 4 = 0 . 9 ⇔ L = ( 1 0 × 1 0 − 6 ) 2 × π × 2 0 0 0 0 / 1 0 − 4 0 . 9 = 1 4 . 3 2 m.
In other words, for non-overlapping droplets we'd get a number of around 15 meters, which unfortunately is not in the multiple-choice answers. It might have been a nice trap for people who oversimplify the math...
PS: My answer was 36.646694 meters (if we include a whole lot of irrelevant digits). I think I did the math including the possibility that the droplets in the first centimeter also overlapped, but as you can see, the difference between the answers is quite small, and entirely irrelevant given that the diameter of the water droplets only has 2 significant digits.
Log in to reply
Ah, that would be a good wrong answer. I think I'll switch.
Exactly. Thanks. Myself, with another simplification, reached the answer of about 38m.
First, we will compute the distance a light beam must travel to intersect one droplet, on average. Let us call this distance L 0 . Instead of modelling the light ray as a line and computing its intersection with spherical droplets, it will be easier to consider only the centers of all the droplets and determine the expected number of points within a distance r d r o p l e t of our light ray. This defines a cylindrical region around our light ray with a volume of π r 2 L 0 ; if a droplet has its center within this region, it will intersect our ray and scatter it. Since the average density of droplets is N d r o p l e t = 2 0 0 per cubic cm, the expected number of droplets whose center lies within our region is π r 2 L 0 N .
Setting this to one and solving for L 0 , we find that L 0 ≈ 1 5 . 9 meters (this calculation left as an exercise to the reader). It follows that at any distance L , we expect to find L 0 L droplets in our path. However, just knowing the expected number of droplets does us no good (yet) - we want to know how many beams are scattered, which requires knowing the probability that there are no droplets in our path.
We can model the droplets as being independently and identically distributed. Therefore, the expected number of droplets intersecting our path of length L can be modeled as a Poisson distribution with a rate parameter of λ = L 0 L . We want 9 0 % of the light rays to be scattered, meaning that the probability of no droplets must be 0 . 1 . The probability that no events occur in our Poisson distribution is 0 ! λ 0 e − λ = e − λ , which we set equal to 0 . 1 . Solving yields λ = ln 1 0 ≈ 2 . 3 0 3 , and therefore L = λ L 0 ≈ 3 6 . 6 meters .
Another method, giving slightly different results, but with the same order of magnitude: consider the volume ratio of the droplets
r = 1 0 − 6 N d r o p l e t × 3 4 × π × r d r o p l e t 3
r = 8 , 4 × 1 0 − 7
Let us now discretize the problem, by considering that space is filled with elementary cubes of the same volume as the droplets, and that any given cube may or may not contain a droplet (but there are no overlapping of a droplet on several cubes). The dimension of such elementary cubes is:
d e f f = r d r o p l e t × ( 3 4 × π ) 1 / 3
d e f f = 1 , 6 1 × 1 0 − 5 m
If droplets are randomly distributed in space, r is then the probability of finding a droplet in any given elementary cube.
Now if we observe an object from a distance l , the rays of light need to crosse d e f f l elementary cubes without hitting a droplet. The probability of such an event is:
p ( l ) = ( 1 − r ) d e f f l
When this probability is 1 0 % , 9 0 % of the rays of light do not get (directly) to us, and so 9 0 % of the image is scrambled. This happens when:
l ≈ 4 4 m
Hey, really nice approach, like the way your brain works!
Most realistic approach to this question.
p = 0.000628319 is the ratio of scattered light per centimeter. So the distance is ln(1-0.9)/ln(1-p) = ln(10)/p = 3665 cm.
Let convert every measure to meters. Suppose a photon traverses 1 meter. Suppose in this meter, no droplets hides behind any other droplet. There are 200x100^3=200,000,000 droplets with a total area of 200,000,000x(1/4 400 pi 1E-12) = 0.0628... The change for a photon hitting a droplet in that cubic meter id 0.0628.. The change of hitting a droplet in n meters can be expressed as: p(n)=p(n-1)+(1-p(n-1))x0.0628... where p(1)=0.0628... p(35)=0.90318. So at 35 meters, 90% of the photons is scattered.
Note that in this recursive formule the factor (1-p(n-1)) accounts for droplets behind each other: the surface left becomes smaller and smaller.
From a recursive formula, one derive an explicit formula. In this case p(n)=-(1-P)^n+1, where P is the change per unit of length for hitting a droplet and n the number of such units. For P=0.0628 per meter, it follows 0.90=-(1-0.0628)^n+1 -> n=ln(0.1)/ln(1-0.0628)=35.501... units of length is 35.5... meters. If you take 1 cm instead of 1 meter, P=0.000628 per cm which gives 3666.3... units of length is 36.65... meters If you take 1/200 of a cm (where we have on average 1 droplet so no assumptions that droplets don't hide), P=3.13E-6 per 1/200 of a cm, which gives 733306 unit is 36.66.. meters.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
The total cross-section area of the droplets in 1 c m 3 is: ( 1 0 × 1 0 − 6 ) 2 × π × 2 0 0 = 2 π × 1 0 − 8 ( m 2 )
Hence as the light travel for 1cm, the ratio of scattered light is: 1 0 − 4 2 π × 1 0 − 8 = 2 π × 1 0 − 4
As the light travel for 1cm, the ratio of unscattered light is: 1 − 2 π × 1 0 − 4 = 0 . 9 9 9 3 7 (approximately)
So the distance in cm is: l o g 0 . 9 9 9 3 7 0 . 1 = 3 6 5 4 (approximately)
Thus the answer is 35m