Can we see light, or do we see objects that reflect light?
If there is ray of light in front of you, but there are nothing to reflect it, then you will not see it although it is passing in front of your eyes. As a result:1- The space always looks dark although there are a lot of light (photons) passing through.2- LASER beam can’t be detected unless there are particles (reflecting or scattering) it.Laser Light Scatters off Chalk DustSo, the answer to this question will be:A) Yes, We can see the “source” of light directly, but we can't see its beam. For example, if you in space and the sun behind you, and you are looking in the opposite direction, then you will never see the sun’s beams crossing you, you even will not know if there is a source of light behind you -if we suppose there is no thermal energy from the sun and there are no objects ahead of you can reflect Sun light- unless you turn and look directly to the source.B) No, we can't see the light if there are nothing to reflect it, but usually -go back to the space example- at least our body will reflect the light which passing through, so we know there are beams of light.(Source: Space sun planet wallpaper)From this picture, you can realize that: there are huge amount of light beams during the day time on Earth due to the sun, however we can’t see them anywhere between the sun and Earth, but we can see their reflection on earth.I hope, this answers your question:).Edited:“Why do we see the reflected light but not the original one?”If this question crosses your mind, then the answer will be again: You actually Can Not see the reflected light; because the original and the reflected light both of them are photons. But as we said before, you can see the source of light if you look directly toward it. So, in the case of the reflected light, the electrons of the object which reflects the light absorb the energy of photons of the origin light then emit them toward you, so that object acts like a source of light which you can see.
What are the laws of reflection?
Usually it is one law of refraction , but sometimes it can be divided into two or three parts .Expressed in one sentence , the law essentially says :If or when a light ray is reflected on a smooth surface or a mirror , the reflected ray, and the normal to the smooth surface ( or to the surface of the mirror) all lie in the same plane, and the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence .Below is an illustration of the law of reflection , the refracted ray is also shown (image source : File:Ray optics diagram incidence reflection and refraction.svg ) :Here is another expression of the law , in three parts or divided into three laws :If the reflecting surface is very smooth, the reflection of light that occurs is called specular or regular reflection. The laws of reflection are as follows:The incident ray, the reflected ray and the normal to the reflection surface at the point of the incidence lie in the same plane.The angle which the incident ray makes with the normal is equal to the angle which the reflected ray makes to the same normal.The reflected ray and the incident ray are on the opposite sides of the normal.These three laws can all be derived from the Fresnel equations.Source : Reflection (physics)And here an image representing the law(s) of reflection (image source : File:Fényvisszaverődés.jpg ) :
When did science discover that Moon has reflected light ? What does Islam and Christianity say about it ?
Science is simple observation. So anyone who looked at the moon from the beginning of time knew it did not have its own light. Besides, cheese never has light.
In general what would a scientist do after forming a testable question?
A. The steps of the scientific method are: observe, theorize, test. The guy has already completed step two - his hypothesis (B) is in the form of a testable question. Now he has to figure out how to perform a test; that is, he had to develop rigorous test methodology. After that he will actually perform the test he devised and analyze the data he gets (D). Finally he will draw a conclusion from that data (C). I am often scorned by thumbs when I point out how many things are called "science" when there has been no test methodology and no test.
Why is the secondary antibody from the ELISA test conjugated with an enzyme?
when the secondary antibody attaches to the antigen it will allow you to show this with the enzyme also in similarly (in a slightly different method): when the second antibody attaches to the first antibody, this will allow you to show you have the first antibody attached to the antigen the second antibody is conjugated with an enzyme so that when the substrate is added, the enzyme will change it into a for which will flouresce ( or some detectable form)
How do scientists justify the structure of atom?
While I agree with Andy, I must point out that photos have been taken of singular structures of "larger" elements. These do not show any detail, simply small spherical structures that appear similar to how we would expect atoms to look. He is right though. Atomic theory has not been proven, only supported, as are all scientific theories. E=MC^2, evolution, newtons laws of motion, they are all theories and have not been proven. Evolution opponents constantly bring up flaws in Darwin's original treatise. Using those, they suggest that evolution is invalid. Of course, it isn't. Was he perfect, NO. But that doesn't mean that the basic ideas behind his theory are not accurate and revolutionary. Scientists used to believe the change was gradual, then came the theory of punctuated equillibrium, where change occurs in short-rapid bursts. Does that mean the entire theory is worthless. Of course not. This is how science works. We hypothesize, test, alter our hypothesis, retest, and perform this over and over again. Science does not prove anything. It simply eliminates alternatives. We now know that the Bohr model of the atom, with rigid electron shells, is not accurate. Now we have the idea that electrons live in fields of probability. I haven't studied atomic structure in some time, but when I was, no one understood the movement of electrons within these probability fields. I am not sure anyone does today. As far as particles moving around electrons, there may be. Find a way to test it. To be a scientific theory, it must be testable. Your dad may not know Chemistry, but he does understand science well. If you don't believe the atomic structure explains things well, try to come up with something as good or and be able to test it. I think it explains things pretty well, though. Are there holes in the theory, yes like electron motion. So there is still work to be done. But it cannot be denied that the current atomic models predict what happens quite well. That's the important thing.