Multi-Wavelength Light Adler Planetarium Nathan Hearn Sarah Kautz Margo Levine November 30, 2007

Goals Gauge level of public understanding about non-visible light Can public draw conclusions about the state of an object using visible and non-visible information? TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AA

These images show the same object. Can you describe what is shown in each image? What does the bottom image tell us?

These images show the same object. Can you describe what is shown in each image? Why can you see the bones in the bottom image but not in the top one?

Sample size: N = 49 ages range: 5 to 65 diversity: male and female mostly families with young children, couples

Recognition Sample size: 49

Higher Understanding Difficult to determine whether the public associated x-ray and IR with light. IR: questions were inconclusive X-ray: 63% of sample understood that x-rays penetrate the skin. At least 14% of sample knew that visible light does not penetrate the skin.

Our Experiences Objects (hairdryer, hand) were easily recognized People quickly understood that IR shows heat Could be due to a suggestive color table (hot = red, cold = blue) Wording of questions is crucial “Is hair dryer on?” vs. “Is hair dryer on or off?” People comfortable comparing x-rays to light

Future Work More time needed to develop questions Questions need to be more specific More ways to categorize responses Difficult to determine whether public is aware of different types of light.