when talking about seeing three rainbows... you can. with glasses or any lens(es) for that matter. if the visible light is intense enough with glasses a human can see 4. Just by the fact that the lenses might refract light to focus on the proper part of the retina at the same time the iris is focusing the light in the wrong part of the retina.
You were right to be skeptical. Seeing three rainbows is EXTREMELY unlikely, unless Keith either meant 1) a reflection rainbow (caused by the sunlight reflecting in a nearby body of water); 2) the supernumerary bands of the primary rainbow, or 3) a display of ice crystal halos. An actual third rainbow (as in: caused by a third internal reflection inside the water droplets) would not appear opposite from the sun but around it, and is so extremely dim that the naked eye can only spot it against the sun's glare in the most rare of occurrences. It's only been about ten years that they have even been photographed, and usually you need a lot of post-processing to get these higher-order bows to show at all.
@@Drabkikker I've seen and photographed rainbows or halos around the sun at least twice. No other rainbows visible though. Probably not what you're explaining, though I am an avid photographer these pics were taken with my phone. I used to be a roofer so was out under the sun every day.
You say, "I [the content creator] am frequently confidently wrong about things" and yet you titled your last Veritasium video "You're [the content viewer] Probably Wrong About Rainbows". So I guess you're frequently wrong … except when I'm watching your video, because then you're definitely right and I'm probably wrong. Are you sure about that?
It is possible to see more than two rainbows. When you have a body of water between you and the sun, the sun's reflection of the body of water can act as another "sun" capable of producing it's own rainbows.
I have a superb photo of a rainbow created by the sun's reflection off a body of water, Loch Morlich in Scotland. But I do have to say that the rain squall was very localised so that's the only rainbow that appeared to me
I have definitely seen triple rainbows before. It’s very rare, but it can happen. I think you may need a dark (thunderstorm) sky behind it to increase the contrast.
@@germansnowman Rainbows are kind of defined by the specific way the optics works. Not everything that looks like a curved spectrum in the sky is a called rainbow. So what you thought was a "triple rainbow" was probably a double rainbow and some supernumerary arcs. Doesn't make it any less awesome. I don't think I've ever seen that combination outside of a photo someone else took. You're lucky.
2:00 this is entirely wrong. This is Newton's famous "crucial experiment". The question was: does the prism seperate what is already in the white light, or does it color the light? What Newton did was to project the prism onto a screen with a second slit. When you place this so that only green light goes through the slit and through a second prism, will you get many colors on the second screen, or green only? Green only. This was what convinced most scientist that the colors of the spectrum are indeed present in the white light.
I always love it when two of my long-time subscribed channels get together for a video. Veritasium's rainbow vid was so in-depth that my head was spinning. Scientific skepticism was certainly front and center on this one. Love it. I believe Keith!
I think Newton used a second prism to demonstrate that the colours are 'pure'. The dispersion from the first prism cannot be further dispersed by the second. In other words: the colours that emerge from dispersion are 'pure' and distinct. They cannot be further dispersed.
3 rainbows would be possible if there were either a body of water involved (reflection bow), or two close rain showers with different sizes of raindrops which can lead to a splitting effect. Actual 3rd (and 4th) order bows are usually too near the sun and too faint to be visible, but have been photographed, as has the 5th order bow (which would be between the 1st and 2nd but usually so faint as to be difficult for even cameras to pick up).
The 3 intersecting "rainbows" at 7:10 are probably halos. This video has been up for 4 days now. I'm surprised no one has commented on this yet. Rainbows form opposite the sun, centered on the antisolar point. Antisolar at 1:00 PM would be well below the horizon, with a very short column of atmosphere (like a meter or so) between the observer and the antisolar point on the ground. Rainbows like this form in ocean spray, fountains, etc. You have to look down to see them. That illustration also shows the sun lying on the circles NOT opposite them. There are rainbows that form on the same side of the sun, but they are incredibly weak and weren't detected until recently (like 10-20 years ago). Halos form on the same side of the sun relative to the observer. The geometry is more complicated here because halos are formed by ice crystals. The primary halo centered on the sun is formed by ice crystals with random orientations. The halos that form arcs *intersecting* the sun and other halos are formed by ice crystals with specific orientations as they fall. Rainbows and halos are different. See "Rainbows, Halos and Glories" by Robert Greenler (1980) for more detail.
Where you live really affects solar phenomenon. One of the things I love about living in East Tennessee now, a valley, versus Illinois where I'm from, plains, is the fog and haze that helps create solar halos and sun dogs much more often.
I think that what the image at 2:37 shows is that if you pick a single color from the output of the first prism at X and fine tune that selection at Y (I don't think this second collimation is actually required), that single color cannot be further spread into more colors by passing it through a second prism, meaning, those are the most basic colors posible, the primary colors, they are not a mix of any others.. BTW, a rainbow, in Spanish, is called an "arcoíris" or "arco íris" (it can be written both ways, joined or separate, meaning "iris bow".
B: "Can you figure that out, Derek?" D: "No. I can't make sense of it." B: "Alright, let's move on." This was my attitude to science for many years. I just skipped the difficult or inconvenient parts.
Well, I saw 3 rainbows at once just last month. It was a misty/ rainy sunrise situation in Goa, India. Saw the rainbow over the sea to the west from beach. Tried taking photos, but it's not very clear.
6:00 Clearly Derek has never seen Prof Walter Lewin's lecture on rainbows. D: In theory the number of rainbows you can see is unlimited, but lighting conditions make it so you usually only see one or two.
Ive seen 3 rainbows loads of times. If you can see 2 rainbows the correct way up, look for the one with the colours inverted. A normal rainbow, will always have another one with the colours inverted, once you realise, you can't unsee it. That's a double rainbow
Now you've done it, you've made me reflect on all my rainbow observations for the last 50+ years😇 --like Keith I've seen a 3rd rainbow arc in addition to a double rainbow --I've seen a rainbow near sunset on the Summer solstice (furthest NE it can ever be in Northern Hemisphere) --I've seen a rainbow on a November morning (near SW maximum) --Once, while riding with a friend to Rehobeth, Delaware in a misty, rain we both remarked that we seemed to drive THROUGH the red arc of a rainbow. --When cleaning the milk bulk tank as a kid on our dairy farm, I'd often use the the spray nozzle to make rainbows, but I don't think I ever made a double one (*easy way for Brady to show his kid an artificial rainbow!) --Also, I have seen three sun dogs on a clear winter's day like depicted in one of the drawings
You know how I knew this wasn't a Veritasium video? Because the title didn't tell me I'm wrong about something they just recently learned, I mean became an expert about.
I have lived in a few places and when I lived as in England as a child there were not a lot of Rainbows. I think they are just not a prone to the timing and of the kind of rain that causes good rainbows as often as some other places I've lived. It would make sense that Adalade would have simular weather to a few of the places I've lived where I saw more rainbows.
This is a good example of what turns a lot of people off to science. Derek's first reaction was to dismiss the claim of 3 rainbows, rather than to ask questions about the particular circumstances and attempt to consider how 3 rainbows might be possible. Its an all too common reaction from people that _think_ they know so much, that they lose any curiosity for new information that may contradict a conclusion they've already made.
All he had to do was have a little more curiosity than disdain for the new information, and ask a simple question about Keith's geographic location at the time of the sighting. That would have been enough to realize it is possible.
@@NG-VQ37VHR curiosity isn't as important as it is for a scientist to question established beliefs or test notions against science itself! Let's not be over sensitive about this! It's not like anyone was being persecuted here 😅 Just relax bro
@@NG-VQ37VHR You're right. It's a simple shift in perspective to yield much greater results. By collaborating on hypothesizing you gain much more than you do by demanding evidence when you know there isn't any of the type you require.
He did the exact opposite of dismissing the claim. First, he asked how that was possible, then he asked for photographic evidence. If you think it's somehow a criticism of science that a scientist will question a claim made casually in conversation, I think you fundamentally misunderstand science. If Keith showed Derek a photo and Derek rejected _that_, then we'd have a failure of the scientific method. But I fear there's no convincing someone who would come to an Objectivity video and try to cast doubt on science as a whole.
Regarding Brady's theory of there being fewer rainbows now.. I imagine it's likely that he spent considerably more time both outside and without distractions as a kid, so might simply have noticed more rainbows than he does now.
2:45 That's because there are. Technically, 5 is a few orders of magnitude low; but, practically. Next time you see a rainbow, count them. 5. Also, I heard that Newton added the two colors to make it add up to seven because he was a Christian and wanted it to add up to the holy number.
Third and Fourth order rainbows were predicted and finally photographed in 2011. They appear in the direction of the sun. Take a look at "Professor Walter Lewin: Rainbows and Blue Skies" for a definitive guide to learn about rainbows and how they work.
Thanks for sharing such valuable information! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
I saw a white rainbow. It was very cold (below -15C) so I'm guessing that the refraction/reflection was done by tiny ice crystals. Very beautiful I have a picture somewhere.
Regarding 3 rainbows- I wonder if global climate and the effects of industry and air quality has diminished our ability to see rainbows? Like, maybe seeing a third, partial band was more common in pre-industrial world because the atmosphere was subtly different. Edit: OMG! I just hit send when Brady paraphrased my hypothesis directly to Derek! Hah.
Hi-res pictures and letters from this video (on Patreon): www.patreon.com/posts/117429842
when talking about seeing three rainbows... you can. with glasses or any lens(es) for that matter. if the visible light is intense enough with glasses a human can see 4. Just by the fact that the lenses might refract light to focus on the proper part of the retina at the same time the iris is focusing the light in the wrong part of the retina.
I’ve seen the video. This is awesome.
For the record: I am frequently confidently wrong about things, just ask my pub trivia team. Thanks for having me, Keith and Brady!
The Royal Society’s own motto is 'Nullius in verba' or 'take nobody's word for it'. :)
You were right to be skeptical. Seeing three rainbows is EXTREMELY unlikely, unless Keith either meant 1) a reflection rainbow (caused by the sunlight reflecting in a nearby body of water); 2) the supernumerary bands of the primary rainbow, or 3) a display of ice crystal halos. An actual third rainbow (as in: caused by a third internal reflection inside the water droplets) would not appear opposite from the sun but around it, and is so extremely dim that the naked eye can only spot it against the sun's glare in the most rare of occurrences. It's only been about ten years that they have even been photographed, and usually you need a lot of post-processing to get these higher-order bows to show at all.
@@Drabkikker I've seen and photographed rainbows or halos around the sun at least twice. No other rainbows visible though. Probably not what you're explaining, though I am an avid photographer these pics were taken with my phone. I used to be a roofer so was out under the sun every day.
I was so disappointed when Brady didn’t say “Darren from Veristablium” but I guess the RS archives bring out his best behavior.
You say, "I [the content creator] am frequently confidently wrong about things" and yet you titled your last Veritasium video "You're [the content viewer] Probably Wrong About Rainbows".
So I guess you're frequently wrong … except when I'm watching your video, because then you're definitely right and I'm probably wrong. Are you sure about that?
I love how Keith just casually wheels out newton's actual notebook. Absolutely brilliant.
That just blows my mind! And it's probably a normal workday for Keith.
It is possible to see more than two rainbows. When you have a body of water between you and the sun, the sun's reflection of the body of water can act as another "sun" capable of producing it's own rainbows.
I have a superb photo of a rainbow created by the sun's reflection off a body of water, Loch Morlich in Scotland. But I do have to say that the rain squall was very localised so that's the only rainbow that appeared to me
I have definitely seen triple rainbows before. It’s very rare, but it can happen. I think you may need a dark (thunderstorm) sky behind it to increase the contrast.
@@germansnowman Rainbows are kind of defined by the specific way the optics works. Not everything that looks like a curved spectrum in the sky is a called rainbow. So what you thought was a "triple rainbow" was probably a double rainbow and some supernumerary arcs. Doesn't make it any less awesome. I don't think I've ever seen that combination outside of a photo someone else took. You're lucky.
2:00 this is entirely wrong. This is Newton's famous "crucial experiment". The question was: does the prism seperate what is already in the white light, or does it color the light? What Newton did was to project the prism onto a screen with a second slit. When you place this so that only green light goes through the slit and through a second prism, will you get many colors on the second screen, or green only? Green only. This was what convinced most scientist that the colors of the spectrum are indeed present in the white light.
I was hoping someone would point this out so I didn't have to! 😁
I knew it was wrong but did not have this context, thanks!
Umm I believe his name is Dirk from Veristablium 0:04
Nope, Kirk from Venezuela.
Was looking for this comment. It was close enough to "Dirk"
Keith is so amazing. I mean, he is a librarian and not a scientific expert on every topic, but still he can give answers to so many questions
I always love it when two of my long-time subscribed channels get together for a video. Veritasium's rainbow vid was so in-depth that my head was spinning. Scientific skepticism was certainly front and center on this one. Love it. I believe Keith!
I think Newton used a second prism to demonstrate that the colours are 'pure'. The dispersion from the first prism cannot be further dispersed by the second. In other words: the colours that emerge from dispersion are 'pure' and distinct. They cannot be further dispersed.
3 rainbows would be possible if there were either a body of water involved (reflection bow), or two close rain showers with different sizes of raindrops which can lead to a splitting effect. Actual 3rd (and 4th) order bows are usually too near the sun and too faint to be visible, but have been photographed, as has the 5th order bow (which would be between the 1st and 2nd but usually so faint as to be difficult for even cameras to pick up).
There's something profoundly funny about Keith going "I've seen third order refractions" and Derek mashing 'X to doubt' as fast as he can
I would accept almost anything Keith told me as fact without any question lol
"Derek accepts nothing"
points to a page from the 1600s with a crude drawing. comedic genius.
THIS is what TH-cam is for!!
That was both marvelously entertaining and information rich.
Keith is a wizard!
The 3 intersecting "rainbows" at 7:10 are probably halos. This video has been up for 4 days now. I'm surprised no one has commented on this yet.
Rainbows form opposite the sun, centered on the antisolar point. Antisolar at 1:00 PM would be well below the horizon, with a very short column of atmosphere (like a meter or so) between the observer and the antisolar point on the ground. Rainbows like this form in ocean spray, fountains, etc. You have to look down to see them.
That illustration also shows the sun lying on the circles NOT opposite them. There are rainbows that form on the same side of the sun, but they are incredibly weak and weren't detected until recently (like 10-20 years ago).
Halos form on the same side of the sun relative to the observer. The geometry is more complicated here because halos are formed by ice crystals. The primary halo centered on the sun is formed by ice crystals with random orientations. The halos that form arcs *intersecting* the sun and other halos are formed by ice crystals with specific orientations as they fall.
Rainbows and halos are different. See "Rainbows, Halos and Glories" by Robert Greenler (1980) for more detail.
Keith would make an excellent science documentary presenter.
Where you live really affects solar phenomenon. One of the things I love about living in East Tennessee now, a valley, versus Illinois where I'm from, plains, is the fog and haze that helps create solar halos and sun dogs much more often.
Dirk of Veristabulum?
My goodness this name is still embedded in my brain.
Oh, you mean Duke from Versailles?
I think that what the image at 2:37 shows is that if you pick a single color from the output of the first prism at X and fine tune that selection at Y (I don't think this second collimation is actually required), that single color cannot be further spread into more colors by passing it through a second prism, meaning, those are the most basic colors posible, the primary colors, they are not a mix of any others.. BTW, a rainbow, in Spanish, is called an "arcoíris" or "arco íris" (it can be written both ways, joined or separate, meaning "iris bow".
So good to see Brady Numberphile and Dirk from Veristablium in the same video.
This is oversaturation of smart people in a single video for my geekness.
I wish for more.
B: "Can you figure that out, Derek?"
D: "No. I can't make sense of it."
B: "Alright, let's move on."
This was my attitude to science for many years. I just skipped the difficult or inconvenient parts.
Well, I saw 3 rainbows at once just last month. It was a misty/ rainy sunrise situation in Goa, India. Saw the rainbow over the sea to the west from beach. Tried taking photos, but it's not very clear.
6:00 Clearly Derek has never seen Prof Walter Lewin's lecture on rainbows. D:
In theory the number of rainbows you can see is unlimited, but lighting conditions make it so you usually only see one or two.
Oh neat, it's Dirk from Veristablium!
Oh no, 500 people already made that reference :(
Ive seen 3 rainbows loads of times. If you can see 2 rainbows the correct way up, look for the one with the colours inverted.
A normal rainbow, will always have another one with the colours inverted, once you realise, you can't unsee it. That's a double rainbow
Now you've done it, you've made me reflect on all my rainbow observations for the last 50+ years😇
--like Keith I've seen a 3rd rainbow arc in addition to a double rainbow
--I've seen a rainbow near sunset on the Summer solstice (furthest NE it can ever be in Northern Hemisphere)
--I've seen a rainbow on a November morning (near SW maximum)
--Once, while riding with a friend to Rehobeth, Delaware in a misty, rain we both remarked that we seemed to drive THROUGH the red arc of a rainbow.
--When cleaning the milk bulk tank as a kid on our dairy farm, I'd often use the the spray nozzle to make rainbows, but I don't think I ever made a double one (*easy way for Brady to show his kid an artificial rainbow!)
--Also, I have seen three sun dogs on a clear winter's day like depicted in one of the drawings
All the Tims be like: Oh look it's Pretty Derek
The Duke from Venezuela!
Also seen third order rainbows and white rainbows. Interestingly enough I’ve also seen a full moon rainbow where the full moon is the light source
I have seen three rainbows from the top of Mt Snowdon in a fog during the morning. Looking down into the valley below. The centre was round.
Always enjoy seeing Derk on other channels.
We were very pleased he visited us. A second video is on the way.
@@ObjectivityVideos ooohhh, the White Gloves of Destiny™, perchance? 👀
There are lots of photos of triple rainbows; I've taken some myself.
Defintly seen Dereks video already. Great collab
You know how I knew this wasn't a Veritasium video? Because the title didn't tell me I'm wrong about something they just recently learned, I mean became an expert about.
Keith, were the multiple rainbows over water? I have seen rainbows where some of the arches are generated from a reflection off a body of water.
Oh wow, assuning the "Olau in Silesia" is modern day Oława in Poland, that's not far from me! I did not expect it in an Objectivity video.
Three rainbows can be the result of another type of source, like reflection of the sun from a lake.
David of Vestibulium?
I have lived in a few places and when I lived as in England as a child there were not a lot of Rainbows. I think they are just not a prone to the timing and of the kind of rain that causes good rainbows as often as some other places I've lived. It would make sense that Adalade would have simular weather to a few of the places I've lived where I saw more rainbows.
This is a good example of what turns a lot of people off to science. Derek's first reaction was to dismiss the claim of 3 rainbows, rather than to ask questions about the particular circumstances and attempt to consider how 3 rainbows might be possible.
Its an all too common reaction from people that _think_ they know so much, that they lose any curiosity for new information that may contradict a conclusion they've already made.
All he had to do was have a little more curiosity than disdain for the new information, and ask a simple question about Keith's geographic location at the time of the sighting. That would have been enough to realize it is possible.
I mean his first instinct was to ask for evidence! 🤷♂️
@@NG-VQ37VHR curiosity isn't as important as it is for a scientist to question established beliefs or test notions against science itself! Let's not be over sensitive about this! It's not like anyone was being persecuted here 😅 Just relax bro
@@NG-VQ37VHR You're right. It's a simple shift in perspective to yield much greater results. By collaborating on hypothesizing you gain much more than you do by demanding evidence when you know there isn't any of the type you require.
He did the exact opposite of dismissing the claim. First, he asked how that was possible, then he asked for photographic evidence.
If you think it's somehow a criticism of science that a scientist will question a claim made casually in conversation, I think you fundamentally misunderstand science. If Keith showed Derek a photo and Derek rejected _that_, then we'd have a failure of the scientific method.
But I fear there's no convincing someone who would come to an Objectivity video and try to cast doubt on science as a whole.
I've zeen a triple rainbow before (the third arc being very faint), and plenty of double rainbows.
For the almighty Keith Moore and the algorithm
Regarding Brady's theory of there being fewer rainbows now.. I imagine it's likely that he spent considerably more time both outside and without distractions as a kid, so might simply have noticed more rainbows than he does now.
2:45 That's because there are. Technically, 5 is a few orders of magnitude low; but, practically. Next time you see a rainbow, count them. 5.
Also, I heard that Newton added the two colors to make it add up to seven because he was a Christian and wanted it to add up to the holy number.
Third and Fourth order rainbows were predicted and finally photographed in 2011. They appear in the direction of the sun. Take a look at "Professor Walter Lewin: Rainbows and Blue Skies" for a definitive guide to learn about rainbows and how they work.
I've seen 3 rainbows before too... the 3rd being very diffuse and maybe incomplete
Thanks for sharing such valuable information! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
this episode had me laughing at the way he didnt believe keith
Dirk dressed up for the occasion
I saw a white rainbow. It was very cold (below -15C) so I'm guessing that the refraction/reflection was done by tiny ice crystals. Very beautiful I have a picture somewhere.
Regarding 3 rainbows- I wonder if global climate and the effects of industry and air quality has diminished our ability to see rainbows? Like, maybe seeing a third, partial band was more common in pre-industrial world because the atmosphere was subtly different.
Edit: OMG! I just hit send when Brady paraphrased my hypothesis directly to Derek! Hah.
I've seen a quadruple rainbow. It was in the desert in Utah and it was really amazing.
But it doesn't rain in the desert.
@simontay4851 hahahaha, yes it does, just not very much.
YAY I love this!
"Can I have these? Sir Isaac Newton's papers?" Doesn't hurt to ask! 😉
Excellent vid. Try Glasgow is you want to see rainbows!
Wow, what a handwriting to see in the year we can barely type. ^^
I've seen 3 ordinary rainbows... Maybe you need UK weather and sun angles to see them!
Is that Dirk from Veristablium?
3 rainbows are not that rare. I've seen them many times.
Who is he?
I have also seen a triple rainbow
I've seen three... :-)
Derek, I've seen three at a time.
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Dirk of Veristablium?
No I think it's Duke from the Vatican
the aurora ....lots of colors- northern lights....
I may still have a photo of a triple rainbow saved somewhere....
Triple rainbow all across the sky?!? 😉
@@thomashoglund5671 nah, it was over a lake, but I can't find the photos anymore :(
This dude Dirk from Veristablium is one of my favourite Objectivity guests ever ❤
I've seen 3, the third was very faint
Are we trying to get Keith to snap?
why the northern lights are not contained like a rainbow, next video,,, the sunlight reflects differently there.. 42 degrees maybe...
fog small water droplets a bit of sun above i guess yeah it would produce a rainbow,
Derek needs proof, even from a clergy account.
Shout outs to Dirk and Veristablium!
39
hi😂
I was the 112th like, hated to spoil the angel number 111 but it had to be :D
Noooo not this dreadful AI dubbing please !!!
Please disable this
M-CODE! TELL BIDEN TO GIVE UKRAINE M-CODE NOW!
Bro, stop changing your thumbnail. I'm not watching a video about rainbows.