Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • $\begingroup$ Very warm air definitely doesn't change EM waves' wavelength, neither does a lens. You might be confusing refraction with photonic up/down conversion. The latter is more is more involved (and useless in this case because it always start with absorption, which is enough for your purposes; having an oaque layer all around does make your sphere dark). Very warm air does not make things look darker $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2, 2022 at 11:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BarbaudJulien No, I am not. If we change the frequency of visible light to a lower frequency, the lower frequency has less energy. If we are not doing energy to matter conversion, then the energy has to go somewhere. It can go into warming atmospheric molecules at the point of the conversion. That would be a "shell" of where the effect takes place. How, exactly, this is done is unexplained magic; but it a plausible physical consequence of changing the EM wave length. I will edit and add this explanation to my answer. $\endgroup$
    – Amadeus
    Commented Sep 2, 2022 at 12:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ you do not have to dissipate energy for down conversion. you can simply emit two photons of lower energy for one of higher energy. i invite you to google photonic down conversion. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2022 at 4:56
  • $\begingroup$ But wouldn't that be going off track? I know light is radiation but it is the only radiation we can see, and it always associated with darkness unlike other radiation variants. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2022 at 5:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh okay, I understand now. Sorry $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4, 2022 at 14:51