Why is the sky blue? | Hacker News Reader

Why is the sky blue?

explainers.blog

813 pointsudit99270 comments

In The Cuckoo's Egg Cliff Stoll recounts an episode from the oral defense of his astrophysics PhD thesis. A bunch of people ask questions but one prof holds back until...

""" “I’ve got just one question, Cliff,” he says, carving his way through the Eberhard-Faber. “Why is the sky blue?”

My mind is absolutely, profoundly blank. I have no idea. I look out the window at the sky with the primitive, uncomprehending wonder of a Neanderthal contemplating fire. I force myself to say something—anything. “Scattered light,” I reply. “Uh, yeah, scattered sunlight.”

“Could you be more specific?”

Well, words came from somewhere, out of some deep instinct of self-preservation. I babbled about the spectrum of sunlight, the upper atmosphere, and how light interacts with molecules of air.

“Could you be more specific?”

I’m describing how air molecules have dipole moments, the wave-particle duality of light, scribbling equations on the blackboard, and . . .

“Could you be more specific?”

An hour later, I’m sweating hard. His simple question—a five-year-old’s question—has drawn together oscillator theory, electricity and magnetism, thermodynamics, even quantum mechanics. Even in my miserable writhing, I admired the guy… """

"Could you be more specific" is a great question to find out more what the person knows and how they thing. You give an answer that, just due to the nature of knowledge and the limitation of language, has some black boxes. And "could you be more specific" is basically asking to go through the black boxes.

Its like asking how does Java work or something like that? You can go from "The JVM interprets java byte code" to quite a lot of depth on how various parts work if you have enough knowledge.

i used something like this in unstructured technical interviews all the time.

"you type a phrase into google search, you press enter, get some results. tell me, in technical detail, what happened in that chain of actions"

the diversity of replies is fascinating, you learn a lot about a "full stack" candidate this way.

Feynman's classic "Why?" chain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

I'd probably spend at least 20 minutes just to get through how the keyboard works, much more if it's a USB-HID device.

Hah - that is exactly what I did. Someone asked me this question and after 5 minutes in the weeds of the debounce on the mouse click they said "look all we wanted was to find out if you'd ever heard of DNS, let's move on, that was great".

the good ones would usually follow up with, "how much detail do you _really_ want ;D"

I always wanted to talk about our lord and savior (BGP) but so far no one took the bait!

There is a chapter on why the sky is blue in The Feynman Lectures : https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_32.html

It's reminds me of that scene from Fargo: "He was kinda funny lookin'" ... "Could ya be any more specific?"

A great response is "What exactly do you want to know?", so we don't end up like Cliff giving answer after answer. In his case it was a great test question, but such a vague question is a horrible communication tactic if abused.

Having two older brothers who are famous trial lawyers, I can attest that it's both an effective line of questioning and a deeply infuriating one. What I learned is that up to a certain point, it's feigned ignorance probing whether one knows a principle behind a stated principle. Beyond that point, though, you can basically make shit up and they won't know the difference. Come to think of it, this is also the sleight-of-hand pulled by LLMs when you ask them for more and more detailed answers. The trick is knowing when your interrogator no longer knows the answer.

[edit] Also, in my family, you'd ask Dad these questions. And if he didn't know the answer, he'd pull out the Britannica, and have you look it up, then go over it with you until he understood it well enough to explain it. "No short answers" was his motto. (He was also a trial lawyer). Most people are just not equipped to handle cross-examination, and it's scary for them... but the primary reason is that they never learned to admit when they don't know the answer.to a question, and that admitting you don't know is not a failing, but actually a strength, especially if it impels your curiosity to go find the answer.

It also needs a bit of biology. Our eyes don't have a flat response over frequency, they're more sensitive to blue than violet. Violet gets scattered even more than blue, and the violet light does shift our perception of the color. But it does so less than it would if we had photoreceptors more sensitive to violet, so the resulting perceptual color depends not just on the intensity of the light at different frequencies but also on our particular biology. People with tritanopia (blue-yellow color blindness) don't have blue-sensitive cones (S cones) and thus to them there is no perceived blue. Not to mention the linguistic history of the word "blue" and why English uses "blue" instead of "青" or some other word, the questions around qualia & what it means to perceive color, etc.

The real question is, is the sky blue for everyone? Some creatures can see ultraviolet. Some lack color at all…

I puttered on a color interactive where, to emphasize this distinction between world-spectra vs brain-color, you could swap in color deficiencies, a non-primate mammal ( dichromats), and a monochromat.

this is fascinating because I'm red/green color deficient yet I have no problem seeing most reds or greens. I feel there's a "spectrum" of color that we all see and each of us is slightly different. My shade of green may not be your shade of green. Yet, when I point out my shade of green - it matches your shade of green because of our eyes. Even though we may be perceiving entirely different colors.

Most colorblind people aren't dichromats, they're so-called anomalous trichromats. Basically, the genes coding opsins in your eyes have a number of functional sites that tune the spectral sensitivity. Those sites are tuned as far apart as they can be in color-normal humans. Anomalous trichromats usually have a genetic error that causes their opsins' sensitivity curves to overlap more, which manifests as reduced color sensitivity.

This occurs in other animals as well.

Imagine a chromaticity diagram, but on a perceptual color space where long-range euclidean distance at least attempts to describe the magnitude of perceived difference (rather than the usual model artifacts) - so round-ish. Then decreasing perceived difference between red and green shows up as a smush to oval.

Some animals have more cone types than humans, especially various birds, so would probably see a violet sky.

We don't have this because common ancestor for all mammals lost all cones but one, perhaps due to being nocturnal, and a second was re-evolved as mammals became more dominant (after dinosaur extension). A third cone was evolved in primates due to a gene duplication that gave us our green cone

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269890...

maybe in 100M years we'll get a 4th cone or rod. Probably from nuclear mutation...

There's some evidence that tetrachromacy already exists in a few humans. If so we have the gene already. But why would it spread?

fringe theory just for a bit of fun: since screen use 3 colors diodes, maybe people with tetrachromacy would be less addicted to screens, making them both more grounded in real life and marginally more successful, leading to them having more children?

I have no idea how to test it. But in my heart I know that screens with RG, GB or RB color models would suck enough that any screen addiction would be cured instantly.

I wouldn’t be so sure, for a decade all we had was G and we used more and more of it until we died of dysentery outside Eagle River.

You were supposed to ford the river!

You know our supplies were:

1 axle.

1 wheel.

1 bundle.

100 boxes of ammo.

10,000lbs of bear meat.

2lbs of squirrel meat.

We sank like a rock.

They need special screens with four colors and the internet updated to make it more interesting for the tetrachromatic.

this is true of many human mutations with the development of medical care, its not like we face evolutionary pressure for many things

We already have mutations, generally in women, for tetrachromaticism, who usually have male relatives with severe or moderate color blindness, in which the X chromosome encodes a different green cone. So they end up seeing red, strange-green, green, and blue, where strange-green is somewhere closer to red than green.

Only a few on record but they tend to have absolutely insane color matching and color perception. One of note worked in the fashion industry and could match fabrics perfectly even in varying lighting (e.g. working under fluorescent but able to match colors that would stay matched in halogen/stage lighting)

I have that already ;) it actually looks like muddy puke green than green. However, green stop lights look more “white” than green.

Some reds look like brown. I hate reds. I’m not sure about the Pantone-like color matching but I definitely see different colors than most people. To the point where my flight license is restricted.

Dichromatic but not trichromatic.

how does dichromatism restricts flight license? no instrumental flights? no night flights? something about perceiving warning lights on some panels?

All three

Not sure if you'll see this but you should check color perception with any female relatives, they're much more likely than average to be tetrachromats!

> maybe in 100M years we'll get a 4th cone or rod. Probably from nuclear mutation...

There’s a Greg Egan short story (I think it’s ‘Seventh Sight’) where a bunch of formerly blind kids with cybernetic eyes hack the receptors to respond to wavelengths other than the traditional RGB. So perhaps it wont take millions of years.

How would Lieutenant Geordi La Forge from ST Next Generations see the sky with his visor?

You know that scene with the Nexus ribbon? Probably a huge version of that. But it depends on what timeframe we’re talking. Visor Geordi or Eye Optics Geordi?

There are differences in receptor behavior across species, but they are understandably clustered around the parts of the spectrum in which sol is most luminous. An earth-like planet orbiting a different star would likely have evolved photoreceptor arrangements which match that star instead. So after scratching the biology itch we'll probably need to talk about fusion byproducts in sol-like stars.

> they are understandably clustered around the parts of the spectrum in which sol [sun] is most luminous

That would be understandable but it’s not what’s going on: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Chemical/watabs.h...

Ah - so I guess that's why snakes have pit sensors for infrared.

I didn't know that about water, thanks.

dogs see violet better, so "normally" our sky would be blue to them. But because their eyes have only two types of color receptor, they see violet as blue, and our sky is also blue to them.

Same outcome, but for a different reason!

> An earth-like planet orbiting a different star would likely have evolved photoreceptor arrangements which match that star instead.

No, not really- the limitation is chemical, not evolutionarily-driven. Earth is very well lit in infrared, but it's very difficult to make a chemical that is biologically useful for seeing infrared because the wavelengths are just too long. Its very challenging to do more than the most primitive kinds of sensing in infrared. If our sun was much dimmer, we would probably be blind, but if not our eyes would still not see in far infrared. Same goes for ultraviolet- the energy is too high and molecular bonds are too weak. Seeing in visible light is a reversible reaction, but ultraviolet wouldn't be.

What you're saying is true of ocean animals, especially in the deep sea. They don't see red very well or at all, but the evolutionary pressure against seeing red is not terribly high except very deep where food is very limited.

There also is evolutionary pressure on our vision, but it has nothing to do with the sun. We're twice as sensitive to green since it is so common and important, but green comes from photosynthesis and not from the color of the sun. In a way, we are most sensitive to the least important color of light- the color that is not absorbed by plants. The wasted, useless byproduct of sunlight is what lets us identify food.

Plus, we actually basically only see in blue and green. The overlap between rods and red/green cones is huge. "red" and "green" as we perceive them are mostly fabrications of our neural circuits- if we were seeing them how our photoreceptors actually receive light, all shades of green/red would be very strongly mixed together. All shades of red would look significantly green except for the very farthest reds, which would look very dark because of low sensitivity.

I am positively excited about the upcoming first generation of humans who will have all their questions answered, correctly and in the way they can best understand, and as often and many of them as they want – and what that is going to enable.

The same anticipation of great things happening preceded the arrival of widely available internet, but all we really got was cat videos initially, and doomscrolling more recently. I don’t have much hope for great things anymore.

We got more than that. We got 24/7 surveillance.

I saw a Microsoft talk decades back, that was a dispirited "the people of India could be buying educational materials and... but no, all the money is in ringtones". For some kinds of business perspective, ok I guess. But for others, and for civilizational change, what's going on in the tail can matter a lot. Does China become a US engineering/science peer in early 21st C absent an internet/WWW?

Well, the thing is that the educational materials are largely free. That's why the people of India don't need to buy them.

Isn't that a better world than one where the ringtones were free?

Ah, perhaps I should have said something like "educational materials, and apps, and other useful things" (disapproving judgement in the original).

> Well, the thing is that the educational materials are largely free.

A triumph and fruition of these last decades of massive effort. Now we just need to deal with their quality (with commercial as bad as free). AI may help, by reducing barriers to content creation - you might for example, now more easily author an intro astronomy textbook, one that doesn't reinforce top-30 common misconceptions, something the most used (US; commercial) texts still don't manage.

I’m pretty curious. What are those too 30 misconceptions in US commercial astronomy texts? Is there a list somewhere? Or can you name some?

Sigh. One impact of AI will hopefully be more readily available systemic survey papers. [1] might-or-not be a good place to start... but it's paywalled (by the National Science Teacher Association no less), and I don't quickly see preprints/scihub/etc. Here's an old unordered list for browsing[2], and a more recent one[3]. Trumper did a series of papers asking the same few questions of various populations, to give a feel for numbers - like half not knowing day-night cause. Most lists are on subsets of astronomy, and most info on frequency on short lists. So... it's a mess. As are textbook reviews. Key phrases are "astronomy education research" and "misconceptions".

The one bit I explored was 'what color is the Sun (the ball)'. Asking first-tier astronomy graduate students became a hobby, as most get it wrong (except... for those who had taken a graduate seminar covering common misconceptions in astronomy education). So I libgen'ed the 10-ish most used intro astronomy textbooks in US according to some list. IIRC, it broke down roughly into thirds of: correct (white); didn't explicitly say but given surrounding photos, or "yellow" (as classification without clarification), there's no way students won't be misled; and explicitly incorrect (yellow). Hmm, bulk evaluation of textbooks against some criteria is another thing multi-modal models could help with.

(A musing aside re AI for systemic reviews. Creating one is a structured process. They have been very manpower intensive, so they aren't refreshed as often as is desired, nor consistently available. And at least in medicine ("X should be done in condition Y"), there's a potential for impact. I imagine close reads of papers isn't quite there yet. But maybe a human-AI hybrid process?)

[1] https://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=14009 [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20070209033543/http://www.physic... [3] appendix A of https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/2200/ [4] https://www.oranim.ac.il/sites/heb/SiteCollectionImages/pers...

s/systemic/systematic/g - oops.

> Systematic reviews are rigorous, transparent, and reproducible research studies that synthesize all existing evidence on a specific topic to answer a focused question and minimize bias. Unlike narrative reviews, they use predefined eligibility criteria, comprehensive searching, and critical appraisal to evaluate primary literature, often employing meta-analysis for quantitative results. [goog ai overview, edited]

I just did a crash course on lingustics by reading through a bunch of highly specialized articles.

30 years ago, just finding those articles would require spending many hours in the library (and that's if I'm lucky and the library has them).

It's definitely not just cat videos.

I grew up with Mr Rogers

Gen Z grew up with Mr Beast

We are proper doomed mate.

Me too but I don't think these sorts of Solved Society endgames are likely to show up. Basically presents the same issue with a utopia.

Progression and regression are always going to be at war with each other. There will always be humans that want to hurt instead of help, there will always be humans who TRY to help but ultimately hurt. There will always be misinformation, there will always be lies, and there will always be liars.

The good news is there will also always be people trying to pull humanity forwards, to help other people, to save lives, to eradicate disease, educate, and expose the truth.

I don't think society will ever be solved in the way you're saying because there will always be hurtful people, but there will also always be good people to keep up the fight.

... and due to that, people will not appreciate all the knowledge, we will take it as air - invisible but cut the access in a myriad ways and its a catastrophe.

We value what we achieve with effort, I would say proportionally to energy put in (certainly true for me, thus I like harder efforts in activities and ie sport climbing).

When is that going to be?

I presume you're referring to LLMs here, but if so, your presumption that their questions will be answered "correctly" seems a bit optimistic.

Does anyone have experience of early-childhood "Why?"-phase meets speech-enabled LLMs?

Startup wise, there's old work on conversational agents for toddlers, language acquisition, etc. But pre‑literate developmental pedagogy, patient, adaptive, endlessly repetitive, responsive, fun... seems a potential fit for LLMs, and not much explored? Explain It Like I'm 2-4. Hmm, there's a 3-12 "Curio" Grok plushie.

I childishly looked for a historical quote on how we should all be doing science at home now. Google referred me to a gorgeous article written by Isaac Asimov:

   While computers and robots are doing the scut-work of society so that the world, in 2019, will seem more and more to be “running itself,” more and more human beings will find themselves living a life rich in leisure.

  This does not mean leisure to do nothing, but leisure to do something one wants to do; to be free to engage in scientific research, in literature and the arts, to pursue out-of-the-way interests and fascinating hobbies of all kinds.

Fortunately our good friends at the Public Gaming Research Institute have republished the article originally published in the Toronto Star where Asimov imagined the world 35+ years in his future.

Unfortunately the link seems to contain some advertisements so perhaps google yourself to find a better source. I looked for a filetype:pdf but that didn't help me (although Gemini AI did helpfully summarise the same article).

We are definitely fortunate to live in a world with free access to information.

Unfortunately my skills at search are getting rusty.

Sometime around 1992, I wrote a college essay on how the Internet was going to wipe out ignorance and enable true democracy...

Ah, crickets! Just got the two nouns in the wrong order..

Hard truths are not desirable and I pity and envy your naitivity.

> who will have all their questions answered, correctly and in the way they can best understand

Highly unlikely as the feedback cycle used to train LLMs will choke off all future learning.

In other words if AI bots consume and regurgitate everything you publish on the internet what is the incentive to publish anything? No one will read it except the bots. The training datasets will either become stale (no longer learning anything new because nothing new and useful is published) or actively poisoned (because only bad actors will bother to publish).

And the generation constantly fed mostly correct information by AI will implicitly trust it further making poisoning of the models a high-value target.

Very few people will be left who understand how to think and have the motivation to do so. Even fewer will have the motivation and the means to publish to others.

What I love is that the question is child-simple but bottomless

I remember reading this - first thing I thought of too when I saw the headline.

A great story, though it seems a little odd to me since Rayleigh scattering was covered in my undergrad exoplanets course. I'd expect an astrophysics PhD to have a better first answer than "scattered sunlight".

Really cool article! Tangential:

> “Scattering” is the scientific term of art for molecules deflecting photons. Linguistically, it’s used somewhat inconsistently. You’ll hear both “blue light scatters more” (the subject is the light) and “atmospheric molecules scatter blue light more” (the subject is the molecule). In any case, they means the same thing

There's nothing ambiguous or inconsistent about this. In English a verb is transitive if it takes one or more objects in addition to the subject. In "Anna carries a book", "carries" is transitive. A verb is intransivite if it takes no object as with "jumps" in "The frog jumps.".

Many verbs in English are "ambitransitive" where they can either take an object or not, and the meaning often shifts depending on how it's used. There is a whole category of verbs called "labile verbs" where the subject of the intransitive form becomes the object of the transitive form:

* Intransitive: The bell rang.

* Transitive: John rang the bell.

"Scatter" is simply a labile verb:

* Intransitive: Blue light scatters.

* Transitive: Atmospheric molecules scatter blue light more.

TIL!

Debates whether to update the sidenote with an explainer on ambitransitive and labile verbs

Please do! It will fit the spirit of your splendid post, unpacking the complexity of a thing we take for granted (at least as native English speakers)

There are many verbs like this, and English is somewhat open toward using verbs that way, or becoming so.

Did English speakers say "this novel reads well" two, three hundred years ago?

Now do clam steamers and shrimp fried rice.

I'm familiar with "steamer clams", but not "clam steamers".

In "shrimp fried rice", "shrimp" is a noun adjunct [1], which is when you use a noun as an adjective.

The charming ambiguity comes from it being unclear whether "shrimp" is an adjunct noun modifying "fried rice" ("shrimp fried-rice") or modifying the past participle verb "fried" ("shrimp-fried rice").

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline#Headlinese

I thought the charming ambiguity came from "fried" either acting as an adjective or as a verb. These aren't just any shrimp, they're chef shrimp, and they've prepared some delicious fried rice for us. Isn't that incredible? Shrimp fried rice.

Right. It's a noun phrase either way. The question is whether it is rice that were fried by shrimp ("shrimp-fried rice") or fried rice containing shrimp ("shrimp fried-rice").

Yeah, they're usually just called "steamers". I put clam in front of them to disambiguate. But it's always bugged me. They're not steaming anything! They're getting steamed.

I have always wondered about this. The verb for the first person is to 'see'. To a third person you 'show'

For the first person there is 'listen' (or 'hear'). Does English not have a corresponding word for the third person ?

What about Germanaic or Nordic languages ? Do they have a third person analogue of 'listen' ?

"tell"?

Ah! That's not bad but it's not the same thing. Good nevertheless.

I can 'show' (or point someone to a) a sight that I am not myself creating in anyway. The word I am looking for would mean to 'make you hear' in the same may to show is to make you see.

I showed him the distant tower.

I ??? him the faint sound.

play?

I played him the faint sound.

Yes that will indeed work in a few cases.

You appear to be looking for the word show, which is not specific to visual phenomena.

I see (pun intended)

As the sibling points out show works for audio as well. Also vision is directed while audio is not. You need to look at some thing specifically in order to see it, you do not need to turn your head, to listen, the sound needs just to be there. You might need to alter your perception filter for both.

AFAIK listen used to be used therefor[sic] but it has fallen out of use nowadays. From wiktionary:

> Listen the watchman’s cry upon the wall.

Edit: formatting

'Hear the watchman’s cry upon the wall' works the same way, no ?

I have clarified what I am looking for in a cousin comment.

Interesting. This is indeed a funny gap in the language.

"Show" work for any sort of visual thing you might want to present to someone. It's a bitransitive verb: it takes both a direct and indirect object in addition to the subject:

    "Bill showed Marsha her new car."
     ^^^^        ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ 
     Subject     D.Obj  Indirect Obj.

For an auditory thing, our common words seem to subdivide it based on the sound source: "tell" for presenting speech to someone, "play" for presenting something musical:

    "Amy told Fred a story."
    "Bill played Fred a song."

"Play" has grown to encompass recorded audio, so is probably the closest thing to an auditory equivalent to "show".

There is also "audition" which can be used transitively, but I don't think it works bitransitively. You can say "I auditioned a bunch of saxophone recordings.", but you can't audition something to someone.

Languages are so interesting, although I have zero talent in acquiring them. I don't care much for speaking them, pronouncing them right, but I do wish I could read some of the literature in their original language.

In Finnish you might use "kuunteluttaa". You start with "kuunnella", "to listen" and inflect it in the way that turn a verb into "make someone verb". This particular example is a little unusual, but the same thing is commonly used with e.g. "taste". It works with all kinds of verbs, so it comes handy when you want your car serviced or your house painted.

Thanks for showing :)

Labile verbs is a source of ambiguity of natural languages (only western ones?) that we are all accustomed to.

The bell rang should become The bell was rung, either way it means The bell rang another bell.

"the bell was rung" illustrates a cause (and introduces a question: who rang the bell?)

"the bell rang" illustrates an effect (the vibration and sound of the bell as it rings).

i think this is more an illustration of the ambiguity of the root word "ring", which can be an action by a subject upon an object, or to describe the behavior of the object itself.

That ambiguity results from the elimination of cases, other languages still have them (and I perceive English to have as well, I just treat them all as homonym). You wouldn't say that foo(a,b) has ambiguity, because foo(NULL, &b) and foo(&a, NULL) both exist.

In modern usage (e.g. in gaming communities) "carries" has become not only ambitransitive but also a noun.

If something "carries" or is "a carry", it means it is so strong it metaphorically carries the rest of the setup with it. For example:

> This card carries.

> These two are the carries of the team.

Interesting here is: Actually, for most blue butterflies, it’s not even a pigment-it’s just a trick of the light. Since blue is so rare in the biological world (hardly any plants or animals can produce real blue chemicals), they evolved structural colors. Their wings have these microscopic ridges that reflect blue light while canceling out other colors.

It’s basically the same reason the sky looks blue, just built into a wing. If you were to look at the wings from a different angle or get them wet, the blue often disappears because you're messing with that physical structure

Not just butterflies, birds too! But what selection pressure drove the evolution of these structural colors? Presumably signaling, the opposite of muted, camouflaging colors.

Also, as many might know, blue eyes are the result of a lack of pigment (eumelanin). The iris is translucent, but Rayleigh scattering preferentially backscatters blue photons. Green eyes have some pigment, making them a mix of brown and blue.

Also the blood veins that you see as bluish through the skin are blue for the same reason, due to light scattered in their walls.

I thought they are green.

Definitely more blue/purple.

It's also the trick employed by Iridigm, which Qualcomm acquired in late 2004 (i was there then).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometric_modulator_disp...

I'm curious how they were able to patent a technique invented by nature millions of years ago.

the displays have an array of switchable mirrors individually addressable, unlike nature in this case.

(but sort of like chromophores in an octopus or cuttlefish, perhaps).

I see, but those MEMs mirrors were already invented.

Inventions can be useful recombinations or applications of other inventions. They don't need to be wholly unique unto themselves. Indeed, the vast majority of them are not wholly unique.

We're talking about a millions year old invention here.

As far as the patent system is concerned, 20 years and a million years are the same thing. If you combine some million year old things in a new way, you can get a patent.

I wonder if the interference-based-blue of the morpho butterfly evolved because it's difficult to make blue pigment for some reason having to do the chemistry of our biosphere, or if it's an evolutionary response to humans who may have captured the blue ones and ground them up for pigment (much like we did with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple snails).

I'm not aware of any record of us having done so, but it's absolutely the kind of thing we would do, and there's much more pre-history than history when it might've happened.

Another great example of "structural" blue that can be created artificially by heating steel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhjiIPohUyw

I think we can simplify the answer to this question for most audience and say "the air is blue".

If they say, the air appears to be clear when I stare at something other than sky, the answer is you need more of air to be able to see its blue-ness, in much the same way that a small amount of murky water in your palm appears clear, but a lot of it does not.

If they ask, why don't I see that blue-ness at dawn or dusk, the answer is that the light source is at a different angle. The color of most objects changes when the light source is at a flat angle. And sun lights hits at a flat angle at dawn and dusk.

If they ask, what exactly is the inside phenomenon to see the sky color to be blue, then explanations like this blog are relevant.

If they ask, what exactly is a color, the answer is that it is a fiction made up by our brain.

Yes, I came here to say this. The whole topic drives me crazy. Air is just blue. Everything is a color because of some physics reason. Some birds have blue wings due to microscopic structures and how light interacts with them, rather than pigment.

If you took a large column of air into space and shined white light through it, it would be blue.

No, it would look red. The weird thing about air is that it's not reflection or absorption that gives the color, but scattering, and that means the color is strongly dependent on what direction you are looking at it from in a way that most transparent mediums aren't.

Ok, so the air would be red from one angle, blue from another. In each case, that is what color the air “really” is, in the same sense that a butterfly’s wings are blue (but not from every angle)

Except that one is transmissive and the other reflective. They're not the same kind of thing. TBH I feel like a demo like this is the only way to get an intuitive feel for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xx7sPPTu3Y .

(I agree that just going on about Rayleigh scattering is probably overly obtuse: at least not without explaining that scattering is part of how color is formed in the first place. But it's also not just a case of 'well air is blue like apple juice is orange')

As confusion elsewhere on this page illustrates, one also needs to clarify absorption. "It's just blue" sky and "it's just blue" stained-glass have quite different behavior. Both side scatter some blue, but while one mostly transmits the rest, the other mostly absorbs the rest, for very different experiences peering through it.

So perhaps "clear with a blue tint"?

Liquid oxygen has the same color.

"Air is blue" works surprisingly well as a first approximation, in the same way "the ocean is blue" works until someone asks why

I think the color of the ocean is an even more interesting subject than the color of the sky. There is even more interesting physics involved.

And biology. The amount of plankton in the water can tint the color noticeably .

Yes, to all the the scattering, the sky has, you have water and other material relevant for absorption in the path. In the end even the colour of the ground might matter. In the past some people said, that the sea is blue, because it's a reflection of the blue sky, but that covers only a part of the problem.

The air is most definitely not blue. It is a shade of orange. https://pace.oceansciences.org/images/EarthAbsorptionEMSpect...

Isn't it the water that is blue? Water is mostly clear, but it is very very slightly blue.

Here is a wonderful lecture with real-world demonstrations of the effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a0FbQdH3dY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

I do have a question though.

The article says:

> blue and violet have the closest frequencies to a “resonant frequency” of nitrogen and oxygen molecules’s electron clouds

I thought it was more to do with the photon frequency matching the physical size of the air molecules? Or is that the same as its resonant frequency?

Fs is the frequency at which whatever your measuring is most efficient at vibrating

So it’s a combination of the composition of the thing and the environmental coupling with other vibrating things

Size and material composition are the primary factors

So for this case, the photon spectrum interact with nitrogen-oxygen mixture most efficiently at the frequency that reflects blue

I mostly studied sound frequency mixing with static objects (matching or cancelling the fs of room/space with the fs of a driver) but the principles of resonance hold across media

Air molecules are much smaller than the wavelength of visible light, by several orders of magnitude. This is why you can't resolve individual molecules in an optical microscope, and why photolithography with visible light doesn't go down to molecular feature sizes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a0FbQdH3dY&t=2038

Direct link to timestamp 33:56

> Of course, a reasonable question is why are blue and violet absorbed so strongly by these dust particles?

> Well, those are the only photons with enough energy to bump the dust molecules’s electrons up to a new energy state.

This is also why posters in a window turn blue. The warm-colored organic pigments that produce the yellows and reds do that because they absorb blue light and UV. And that light has the energy to knock apart their bonds and break them down. The dyes that absorb the lower energy waves, passing through blue, last longer resulting in bluing.

It's also not just why the setting or rising sun is red, but why it's yellow when high in the sky. The sun doesn't look yellow when viewed from outside the atmospheric veil.

The article has a section on "why are clouds white?", but it doesn't really address the reason I thought that question should be covered.

It just says that clouds act like a collection of randomly-oriented prisms, such that whenever light of any wavelength comes into the cloud, it is dispersed from the cloud evenly in all directions.

This would explain why a cloud was white if even white light was coming into the cloud. But the rest of the article establishes that the light coming into the cloud is predominantly blue and purple. Why isn't that also true of the light leaving the cloud?

Well, no; what's coming into the cloud is sunlight, filtered through the atmosphere. It scatters that light and so it has that color. The same like a heap of powdered salt in the palm of your hand, held up to the sun.

Clouds illuminated by the setting sun aren't white.

> Well, no; what's coming into the cloud is sunlight, filtered through the atmosphere. It scatters that light and so it has that color.

The model the article describes is:

1. The sun puts out a bunch of light.

2. Light that is lower-energy than blue light fails to be effectively scattered by the atmosphere, and follows a path from the sun to you.

3. Light at the levels of blue and up is effectively scattered by the atmosphere, and comes to you from a random direction.

So if you look toward the sun, you receive light that has been depressed of its blue-and-up wavelengths, and the sun appears to be yellow. If you look away from the sun, you receive light that has been enriched in blue-and-up wavelengths, and the sky appears to be blue. Crucially, the sky looks blue because it is sending you more blue light than the background level.

A cloud that isn't between you and the sun is getting its light from the sky background, which is blue. Why is the cloud not blue? It can disperse all the light it receives evenly, but that light is enriched for blue-and-up wavelengths.

Here's a different presentation:

1. Imagine a conceptual sunbeam originating from the sun and passing through the sky high over your head.

2. This sunbeams low-frequency components ("reds") continue on in their straight path, making them invisible to you.

3. The high-frequency components ("blues") are scattered by the atmosphere, going in random directions. When you look at the sunbeam, you can see these scattered blues, making the sky blue.

4. A cloud floating up in the atmosphere is illuminated by some direct sunbeams, which are "red".

5. It's also illuminated by the scatter from the atmosphere, which is "blue".

6. Do those two sources balance out exactly such that the light exiting the cloud has the same profile as light exiting the sun?

If you look at the solar radiation spectrum chart in the section "Why isn’t the sky violet?", you can see that sunlight is not evenly distributed along the visible spectrum--it emit more blue than red, and at sea level it's closer to evenly distributed. So the light that reaches the clouds is still mostly white light.

I think it may also relate to chromatic adaptation. To be white it doesn't need to be any exact absolute color just the color our brain sets our white point to.

Not answering this question but I found an interesting short paper about how at sunset and sunrise the color gamut of shadows doesn't fully overlap with the direct illumination color gamut due to the differences in the paths the light takes:

Hubel. 2000. The Perception of Color at Dawn and Dusk.

https://library.imaging.org/admin/apis/public/api/ist/websit...

The cloud is getting light from both the sky background and direct sunlight.

> s sending you more blue light than the background level.

The background level is black! No air, no scattering. d > A cloud that isn't between you and the sun is getting its light from the sky background, which is blue. Why is the cloud not blue?

The cloud is bathed in intense, direct sunlight which is slightly yellow, and it is exposed to a small amount of scattered blue light. It could be that this mixture whitens the color, essentially reconstituting the light.

Why does white paint look pure white? Or snow on the ground? Same reason. It's reflecting the sky blue in a small amount, plus the yellowish sunlight.

If you are in a dark enclosure like a cave or barn, and sunlight is streaming in through a small aperture, if you hold some white object up to that light, it doesn't look the same as if you do that outside because it's not illuminated by the blue sky, only by direct sunlight.

Moreover, the shadowed parts white object sitting outdors, exposed to sunlight. tend to be tinged with blue.

> The background level is black!

By "the background level", what I mean is the emission spectrum of the sun.

(And by "more blue", I mean in a relative sense, not an absolute sense.)

From space the Sun is basically white, but once you're under the atmosphere you've already lost a chunk of the blue end of the spectrum to scattering

For the sunset example then, a natural question (for me) is then why isn't the sky green in the transition from blue sky to red sunset sky?

Because the color of the sky is determined by a shifting mixture of wavelengths, not a single shifting wavelength.

Basically, the scattering process that "remove" blue from the spectrum also removes green, albeit to a lesser extent. There are some greenish and yellowish wavelengths in the sunset sky, but they're dominated by red, so the overall color appears red or orange.

In order for the sky to look noticeably green, there would have to be something that scattered reds and blues, without significantly absorbing green.

If you try to interpolate between sky-blue and orange using graphics software, the result depends on what "color space" you're using. If your software interpolates based on hue, you might see green (or purple) in the middle. But that's not physically realistic.

A realistic model is to interpolate each wavelength of the continuous spectrum separately. Interpolating in RGB color space is a crude approximation to this. And if you try the experiment, you'll see that the midpoint between sky-blue and orange is a kind of muddy brown, not green.

Your intuition isn’t far off; there is an angle where the weight of green relative to the sum over wavelengths sees a local maximum. But it doesn’t dominate. In that transition zone, there is still an overlapping, transitioning abundance of redder and bluer wavelengths, adding with the green. Consequently, you see red, going into a red+green transition (== oranges, yellows), go into into a green+blue transition (== cyan), which already has few photons relative to the red and yellow zones, so it’s a dark/weak cyan, before it blends into the darker blue of the night sky.

You won't get a green sky, but at least there is a meteorological optical phenomenon called the green flash around sunset. To see it, I think, you have to know what you're looking for - and you need good conditions.

It can be - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flash

That's refraction not scattering though.

Blue + Green + Red = White

Green + Red = Yellow

Red = Red

That is the natural transition from overhead sun to sunset as each higher energy wavelength gets cut off more and more. When blue is mostly gone and green starts to fade we call it the Golden Hour.

So green doesn't get its own clean window the way blue-at-noon or red-at-sunset does

One technical point about resonance: the fourth-power law only applies when the driving frequency (i.e., the frequency of visible light) is far below the resonant frequency (which is in the UV region of the spectrum). The approximation breaks down the closer you get to the resonant frequency and also above.

I was confused about how a monotonic function (f^4) could possibly describe a resonance phenomenon (which ought to have a strong local extremum), and this is the answer.

I went down this rabbit hole a while back — there's a fascinating history of various scientists' investigations into the blue sky, across many decades, with some back-and-forth between Russia and Europe. Einstein eventually made a connection between it and the seemingly-unrelated issue of "critical opalescence," by showing that the fluctuations of densities is responsible for the scattering, not just a simple "individual molecules floating in space" analysis that Rayleigh originally performed. But funnily, for an ideal gas (such as our atmosphere), the formula works out to be the same.

So, "Rayleigh scattering" is the common term still used today, but there is a deeper reason for the formula being correct — it remains correct even when molecules are relatively close together, such as in the lower layers of our atmosphere.

I found this nice paper[1] giving an overview of the timeline, various discoveries, etc: http://users.df.uba.ar/bragas/Web%20roberto/Papers/sobelman%...

I have a related but deeper question about sun and colors:

Sunlight in space is considered white. When it reaches earth surface, it's considered a warmer color. Why human eyes that never (during evolution) saw sunlight without the atmosphere, consider it true white, and not colder color?

I think at this point you need to consider how the human eye see color. It's not like each wavelength gets picked up and then communicated perfectly.

(I'm going to skip over some basic stuff, and use some generalities)

Each Cone in the eye responds to a range of frequencies. This means that things that unless it's on the extreme low, or high, end of the frequencies that the human eye can discern you are going to have two, or all three, Cone types responding. The strength of those responses is what your brain uses to interpret the color that you see.

The real problem is that out in space there is no attenuation of sunlight, it's bright. Super crazy bright. It basically overloads all of your Cones, and Rods, all at once, there is no way for your brain to find a signal of "oh there's more higher wavelengths here so interpret bluer than normal" because all of the signals got maxed out. If you max out all of the signals, you get white. It doesn't matter that in absolute terms there's more blue, the lower and mid frequencies are also maxed out.

IIUC, saturation is a (not uncommon) distractor here. As you get the same observation when desaturated by a neutral filter. Even on the "ground" with low air mass (Sun vertical, at altitude, etc).

Is it considered a warmer color on the surface?

Mid-day sun in a clear sky is very white, in the 5k-6k color temperature range. It's hard to get a sense of how white it is because of how bright it is. In fact, the color temperature on the surface can be even higher than in outer-space!

Compare this to a "warm" light bulb, which is around 2.5K. Sunrise/sunset is also around that range.

Perhaps the "warm color" sun mindset comes from the only times that people can look directly at it. That is to say, around sunrise or sunset.

Perhaps because one's world is often blue-lit? While whole-hemisphere illumination generalizes as warmer, local conditions vary. Absent direct (yellow-ish) sunlight, outdoor daylight illumination can be quite blue-ish. I've had fun recently with photos in a park under clear blue skies, shadowed by tall buildings... but with a gap, resulting in a narrow strip of bright sunlit ground. My phone will take a bit of sunlit snow as its whitepoint, and provide a blue-tinted world. Similarly for sunlit buildings in background.

In space, there is only direct sunlight. On Earth, you have to consider illumination from the whole sky.

On Earth, the sun's disc at noon appears yellow-ish due to being white minus some blue light scattered away by the atmosphere. But there is also the rest of the sky illuminating the ground, as you can still easily see in shadowed areas. That is blue light from the sky hemisphere.

It very approximately adds back up to white overall for something exposed to direct sun and the whole sky, depending on the sun's position in the sky.

Implementing an atmospheric shader in three.js is a fun way get an understanding of the interaction of the different scattering components, light, and observer’s position. Plus you get a pretty cool effect to play around with after you’re done.

The explanation that made it click for me a while ago was by someone who implemented a shader https://www.alanzucconi.com/2017/10/10/atmospheric-scatterin... — the explanations that don't end up producing an image all seemed to skip over one detail or another.

> the explanations that don't end up producing an image all seemed to skip over one detail or another.

Implementation can be wonderfully useful as both a test of, and a forcing function for, really understanding something. At least when ground-truth (ie tests) is available.

The interesting part is not that much Rayleigh scattering - it is obviously very important, but the better question was on WHAT THE HELL light is scattered. Rayleigh had some ideas, like some "dust" that is in the atmosphere, etc.

One day, long time ago, a now forgotten Polish physicist Marian Smoluchowski [1], was on the walk in the Alps Mountains (except being physicist he was a professional mountain climber/hiker), he looked at the sky and said - no freaking way, there is no dust over there.

So he started thinking and thinking (and Albert Einstein said, after premature death of Smoluchowski, that he was the best thinker he knew) and this moved him into consideration of fairly fresh and new branch of physics at that time - quantum mechanics.

As it turned out, that was it. He figured out that light is scattered on quantum fluctuation of the air density, what explained fully blue color of the sky as well as gave a birth to critical opalescence theory.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Smoluchowski - if Smoluchowski hadn't died early, in 1917 from dysentery, he would have been better known, as he would have been awarded three Nobel Prizes (in physics and chemistry), as researches he did were awarded (other guys get the prize).

If you think about it "because air is blue when you look at it from the side" is about all the explanation we'd require if the sky was some normal object like an apple. Nobody asks "why is wood brown?" as if it's some deep question, but "why is the sky blue?" is somehow given greater gravitas, as if the reason is more mystical. I guess because the sky is so big and uniform?

It could also be this sorta thought:

"There's air in my room, it appears transparent. The sky is made of air, it appears blue. Why the difference"

Although dogs can see violet better than humans, the sky appears blue to them like it does to us, not violet (despite violet being closer to the resonance frequency of N and O atoms).

That's because dogs only have two types of cones (color receptors) in their eyes, blue and yellow, not three as we do, so they see violet as blue.

Therefore, the sky is blue to us and to dogs, but for different reasons!

Here's one: why does sunlight appear "sharper" or "harsher" during cold winters?

The reason, I believe, is that cold air tends to be drier, and drier air scatters less, leading to more of the overall flux you receive coming straight from the sun rather than from the diffuse source of the sky around you. But I'm not certain of this.

The mental model that helps visualize why the sky is blue—blue photons flying in every direction—is also the mental model that helps understand the greenhouse effect.

Visible light passes through the atmosphere, gets absorbed by the ground, and then re-radiated at infrared (IR) wavelengths. Atmospheric gases like water vapor, methane, and CO2 cause a certain amount of that IR light to shoot in every direction. So a portion of inbound solar energy gets trapped bouncing around inside the atmosphere for a while before it finally makes it out.

Basically the greenhouse effect is the sky glowing in infrared in addition to blue. We can’t see infrared, but we can feel it with our skin. It feels like warmth.

Great article! I have to admit I had also heard of "Rayleigh scattering", but didn't really know more than that, until today.

Actually, I liked it so much that I went to the homepage of the blog, only to find out that this is the only article. Oh well... I hope there will be more to come!

There will be! Requests welcome!

(I will almost certainly do one on quantum mechanics, but that's such a big explanation that I want to do some simpler ones first)

This level if geekiness is amazing. I hope more, a lot more, Americans can get into STEMS with this level of passion. It's sad that in the past few decades more and more people seemed to forget that STEM is a pillar of the modern civilization that we enjoy.

The sky isn’t blue. It’s transparent. That’s why you can see stars that aren’t blue at night. When struck by sunlight at the right angles it appears blue, but saying it is blue is like saying the ocean is green when a bucket of it clearly isn’t.

If something appears blue, it is blue. That’s all color is.

Also, if you took a sufficiently large quantity of air and put it into empty space and shined very bright white through it, it would experience rayleigh scattering—-meaning that air, when you have enough of it and shine a bright enough light through it, is blue.

By that logic the sky is near-Planck length ultraviolet, because if I put a sufficiently large quantity of it immediately beside a supernova it goes way past blue.

Color is a property something has under certain conditions, it is not a property of what that something is under all conditions.

Perhaps "transparent with a blue tint"?

I’ll allow “transparent with an occasional blue tint under the current conditions of its nearest star”.

Does that confuse sales staff when shopping for clothes? ... :) The general observation being that sometimes educational descriptions of things get hedges which wouldn't usually be applied in everyday life. Yes, the nice red shirt will look black under some lighting, like some meters underwater... but it usually isn't mentioned. Yet for example, colors of unfamiliar objects in education content can get an "appears" hedge -"it appears white", rather than the more usual, simpler concept of "if its light looks white, it's 'white'".

I dislike with passion the answer "because Rayleigh scattering". When someone asks why, especially if a child asks, the default answer should be the simplest correct answer:

Because it's the color of the atmosphere, specifically nitrogen and oxygen! It's technically correct to state this.

Gasp! But aren't nitrogen and oxygen usually described as "colorless"? Well, yes but... If they were perfectly colorless, the sky would be black. It's technically more correct to describe them as nearly colorless and very slightly blue. Very slightly because you need to see through kilometers of atmosphere to perceive the blue. It doesn't matter if the color is caused by absorption, or reflection, or (Rayleigh) scattering of certain wavelengths. The "color" of an object is simply the color you perceive with your eyes. If you perceive blue, it's technically correct to say its color is blue.

It's like saying plants are green because green is the color of chlorophyll. And in the case of chlorophyll, the color is caused by absorption not by scattering. But the physics is irrelevant. Green is its color.

Q: But sunsets/sunrises are red & orange not blue! A: the simplest answer is: color of an object can change under different light conditions. Specifically in this example, when seeing the sun through not kilometers but hundred of kilometers of atmosphere, all the blue-ish wavelengths have been scattered in random directions so only the red-ish wavelengths remain, thus the atmosphere is illuminated by progressively redder and redder light as the photons travel longer and longer distances through the atmosphere.

I'm surprised that there were downvotes. This is an excellent answer, and better interfaces between linguistic definitions of color and physicists' than saying "Rayleigh scattering impacts blue more than red"!

At least my mental model of color before I learned the details in physics and chemistry was that of a property of surfaces, so your explanation wouldn't have served me. I would have expected, that the light becomes blue as part of the transition from "empty space" into "air", not as part of the "flight" through the air.

"a property of surfaces"

You can conceptualize Rayleigh scattering exactly like you did so it doesn't conflict with my explanation: as light hits the "surface" of nitrogen and oxygen molecules, it "reflects" (scatters) blue wavelengths.

I was talking about the understanding of a child, which didn't learned physics and chemistry yet, so there are also no atoms. Of course now I know about them, but at the same time, what I used to call a "surface", simple doesn't exist anymore.

Good explanation of Rayleigh scattering, but I find many summaries miss that the scattering cross-section goes as wavelength, which is why blue light is so much more affected than red.

"To whom have I given blue from my sunbeam?!?" might be another fun question. I explored it as a potential interactive, to see, geographically, where your direct sunlight is donating sky blue-ification. Especially around sunset - IIRC, think a 100 km neon tube, at 7ish km altitude, near-end 150 km up range, with a 15-ish km wide ground footprint with 3/4-ish of the ground-impinging light, and the rest of a 100 km wide path with the 1/4-ish.

I noticed once I took a ferry ride at night in a big city and one of the buildings had a company name written on it with bright blue lights and I couldn't read it; too blurry. I couldn't focus my eyes... And I have perfect vision. I had no issues with other colors. Not sure if it's something to do with my eyes specifically or human eyes in general or because of this effect associated with the blue color.

So, does that mean, and bear with me here, that… air is blue?

Oxygen actually - liquid O2 is blue. So to me a 100mi deep mix of 20% O2 may as well be blue :)

Not discussed but should be:

Prior to the great oxygenation event, Earth's sky was not blue; it was likely red-orange, carbon dioxide and methane being primary components.

Surely it would have still been mostly nitrogen.

Yes! He answers why the sky isn't violet, love it!

In terms of "qualia", its the other way round probably? Like the way we see colours would have evolved (within the available environment of wavelengths and scatterings and the possibilities with rods and cones) so that the things we want to see are more likely to stand out. So we see the sky as blue because leaves are green and berries are red.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV-KiTAAcrY

This was great as it went farther than Rayleigh scattering. On this topic you have to watch this fantastic undergrad physics lecture demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJG-rXBbmCc&t=1674s

Back in my youth, after the Internet became common but before Wikipedia, I tried to discover the answer to this and came away disappointed again and again. Every article I could find simply stated "because light scattering", and barely much more.

How does scattering work? Why does light scatter? _What does scattering even mean in the context of light?_

Yes! This is exactly why I wrote this article :)

Any other questions give you the same disappointment?

How can light "bounce off" something if it doesn't have mass?

The rest mass is zero but photons have momentum when moving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens%E2%80%93Fresnel_princi...

The light "beam" we perceive is the result of infinite circular waves. The points were the light is not are points where they cancel each other out. We had that as part of the school curriculum, do you not have that, or did you forget?

At least there is an answer, a long answer, but we can explain it. Try answering to corollary question: why is the night sky black? We dont have any good answers to that one.

The big bang ... expansion ... something something ... dark energy....

This was both very informative, easy to understand, and fun to read! That's a winning combo. I now know a bit more about why the sky is the color it is.

Thank you for making it. :)

(The blog post, that is, not the sky. If you made the sky - please let me know!)

Thoroughly enjoyed reading this too! Kudos and shout out to the author Erik Kennedy. One can definitely see the care and love. We hope to see more of this style the future

Kind of reminds me of worrydream (Brett Victor), better explained and neil.fun vibes (and many others I can’t recall right now)

The slider in the first demo under "What's so special about blue" is broken; the colors are correct when the slider is all the way to the left or right, but not when it's in the middle.

Is the source for the blog, open? What do they use to make the interactive charts? Vibe coded new stuff, or based on some existing framework?

Anyone else immediately think of this commercial?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbKsC4GCT5k

*Since blue is the shortest wave length...*

Some of the demonstrations are not working correctly, at least on my machine (Windows + MS Edge). Any demo with a "reference image" is not correctly updating the reference.

This is a really great piece, the bit at the end showing why IR works in smokey environments and guessing the planet's composition based on color was really good.

Very well explained. I love the in-depthness of the article.

This is the kind of post you send someone when they ask a "why" question and you want them to come back smarter instead of just satisfied :)

Why is the sky black?

- at night (of course)

- there are ~1 septillion stars that are all shiny

If the universe was infinite and eternal you’d expect the night sky to be white - all the gaps between stars would be filled in with stars further away.

this! guess this is the definitive proof that the visible universe is finite

This is the kinda website I’d love to subscribe and follow. Unfortunately, this is the only article for now. And it has no RSS (neither Newsletter).

Ditto. I just finished it and thought wow I hope everything was explained to me like this. Hope this site goes well.

It does have an RSS feed at https://explainers.blog/feed.xml

Awesome graphics. Looking forward to more articles.

Funniest memory re: Rayleigh scattering: in anime show Aldnoah Zero, the uber-genius protagonist mansplains about it to a high profile girl, basically completely out of blue. An impostor of the girl later appears on an in-universe pirate broadcast, making an agitating environmentalism talking point using a technically incorrect explanation of the phenomenon that isn't consistent with the fact. The ever-right protagonist immediately notices it, having enlightened the girl previously on that exact topic, and it leads to actions.

Like, dude, as if anyone would care about such a highly technical point, like eg some React framework quirk or race condition mitigation for specific generation of Intel procesdor or a semi-well known edge cases with btrfs inode behavior, even if I had been on that exact camp.

Hi, I'm interested in what's next from your blog. It would be really nice if you'd include an RSS feed in it.

Looks like there's an RSS feed at https://explainers.blog/feed.xml

Brilliant explanation and beautifully presented. I wish I had a technical writer who could write up our business case this well!

I'm the writer of the article, and happy to chat. Email is my username at gmail.

Your blog layout, particularly on desktop, is brilliant.

My day job is UI design, so I especially appreciate this

(Is there something in particular you're referring to? I feel like sticky nav and sidenotes aren't particularly unusual?)

> I feel like sticky nav and sidenotes aren't particularly unusual?

Not unusual, but you used them with taste and restraint, like the rest of your layout and animations. That's something that HN comments like, I think. Notice the distinct lack of "OMG some fancy presentation trick ! Litteraly unviewable!" comments that often happens when an unusual layout is presented (and often with reason; but sometime to a fault).

I guess the main praise your page UI is that it looks, well, like a page. But augmented I guess ?

Personnally I really like the way you used a grid to separate the content from the nav. I like that you used both the left sidebar for nav and for the header number (re-using the same space for multiple purpose feels elegant, because those purpose are secondary to the content, if that makes sense). And I like that the grid anchors your eyes by fencing the different chapters along with the nav. (and now that I mention it, it feels weird that the headings are outside their chapters, but it didn't felt like that upon first reading).