Why don't we fry our retinas when we look off to the side from the sun?

Thought about this the other day while driving home on a west-facing road, with the sun in my eyes.

If we stare straight at it, or at a welding arc, it is uncomfortable and we are told that we will go blind. We look off to the side, often the only option when driving into the sun.

Since the sunlight is going through the lens of our eye and painting an image on the retina, how come only sunlight hitting the direct center is a problem? Go a few degrees off center and the light will still be focused into a burning point, just away from the fovea at the center.

Are we burning little spots in the fuzzy areas beyond the fovea as we look off to the side, but we just don’t notice it since it’s not where most receptors are located?

I asked this question a few years ago (can’t find it now), and didn’t get a satisfactory answer. Better luck this time.

Just a complete guess, but - I’m guessing when you’re not looking directly at the sun then the suns rays are not focusing on your retina. Imagine a magnifying glass on a hot day, but you’re not focusing the light to a point on the bug.

My eyes are equally sensitive no matter where the sun is in my field of vision. I have to block it out with my hand while I’m driving into it (although the atmosphere does dim it a bit).

But the lens of your eye isn’t focusing the light to a point on the retina, like you would do to fry a bug: At the point the light hits the retina, the light paths have all converged and then diverged again, to paint an upside-down picture of what you are seeing on the retina.

So, do you in fact go blind by looking at the sun?

We’re told that looking at the sun during solar eclipses is bad, but what about everyday sun peering? Solar eclipses occur very infrequently, and we’re warned in advance.

Wouldn’t simply looking at the everyday sun cause blindness in maybe 25% of the uneducated population of the planet on an ongoing basis?

My kids would be blind, if looking at the sun made one blind…

Boy, lotsa stuff here.

They don’t get around to teaching you this stuff in optics class, I tell you.
1.) Continuously looking at the sun in one spot is Not A Good Idea. You don’t fry your retina (that would require oil), but you can heat it up considerably. The energy density is pretty high, and continued looking will cause damage. See the last entry in the Bad Astronomer’s message board Here, where a practicingg optometrist who’s seen this says that less than 2 minutes’ exposure wil probably cause damage:

http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-2419.html

2.) The sun is about 93 million miles away, which is, for reasonable calculations, infinitely distant. minor7’s point doesn’t really apply – the sun’s image is less than a gnat’s whisker away from the actual focal point.

3.) One of the great things (usually) about the eye is the way that, unlike a flat photographic plate or a flat CCD, we have a sensitive surface that can form into a curved shape. Our eyes can therefore conform to the shape needed to get a good fiocused image everywhere (and which also allows the eyeballs to rotate in the sockets. A pretty neat design), so you can’t take refuge in the “the sun’s not in focus away fro m the center” argument – the sun is in focus off-axis. If it weren’t, your peripheral vision would be pretty useless.

4.) The retina is more tightly packed near the center of vision, in the part called the fovea (as already noted), which is the most sensitive for vision, and where we do most of our seeing. I’ve never heard or reasd anything about its relative sensitivity to pain. I’d suspect it was higher, but have nothing to back that up. Damage to the fovea has bigger consequences than damage to other parts of the retina, however, for obvious reasons.

5.) my suspicion is that damage to the other parts of the retina are just as possible with prolonged looking as at the fovea if you continue to look at the same place. But you probabnly aren’t. Your eye moves around , and the sun’s image is probably not striking the same part of your non-fovea retina all the time. If you’re looking right at the sun, you’re keeping the image about in the same place. If you’re not, there’s a heckuva lot of area that not the fovea it can be hitting. Even if you think you’re looking in the same place, I’ll bet you aren’t – your eyes can shift their gaze, and you can move your head as well. The sun’s image is probably moving around on the inside of your eyeball, rather than hitting the same spot repeatedly.

6.) Your eye has a couple of defenses against excessive intensity, in addition to shifting gaze. Your pupil will close down to restrict the amount of incoming light. Not only does this reduce the overall amount of light coming in, but having a smaller pupil also increases the size of the image on your retina (for a small and distant source. Otherwise, it still spreads out the light somewhat for a larger object), thereby decreasing the intensity (photon flux per unit area). In the second place, people squint, which also closes down the effective aperture even more, further restricting the light coming in and making the image larger.

Hey Cal, thanks for the answers!

On point 2, I still think it’s a factor, since the sun is painted on our retinas as a disc instead of a point. I imagine that focusing the disc down to a single point would provide just that added oomph needed to burn a hole in the back of the eyeball.

On point 5, my concern came when I noticed that, if I was gazing at the same car in front of me in traffic (not uncommon), the sun was in the same relative position as well. Of course, maybe our normal intermittent “instrument scan” is sufficient to prevent any severe damage.

My point is that you can’t really image the sun to a point – you’re going to get a disc, even at the focus (which is infinitesimally distant from the image point of the sun). The sun just subtends too large an angular portion of the sky. Unlike the distant stars, which take up such a small angular subtense that the size of the disc in your vision is really the size of the diffraction spot created by your imaging optics (your eye). In the case of the strs, how large your pupil opens really does determine the size of the image.

Staring at the sun is bad, whether or not an eclipse is occurring. The only reason we are warned about an eclipse is that’s the time when many people *want to *stare at the sun. But the partially-occluded sun is no more dangerous than the normal sun.

If you’re talking about Totality, when you see that fuzzy life saver in the sky: that’s the only time when it’s perfectly safe, since you’re not looking at the sun, but actually the dark side of the moon.

Sure it is. Your pupil will be open more thus letting in more light.

The problem with staring at the eclipse is that, although much of the visible radiation is cut off by the moon, there’s plenty of invisible radiation from the corona out there, and your usual mechanisms of defence – pupil closing and squinting – won’t trigger, and neither will your aversion to looking at bright lights, so any UV or IR light can damage your eye without your knowledge.

Hmm – these sites claim that there’s no problem with looking at a TOTAl solar eclipse, which seems to contradict what I’ve been told all these years. It’s the light coming through just before or just after totality that can get you:

http://www.williams.edu/Astronomy/IAU_eclipses/look_eclipse.html

http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality/TotalityCh11.html

I’d still be careful, and not stare at a total eclipse, should I be lucky enough to see one. (I’ve seen plenty of partials in my life, but never a total eclipse)

You’ve seen the sun without atmosphere to dim it? :eek:

Long enough, sure. I trace the poor vision in my right eye (20/200) to staring at the sun long enough for it to resolve into a disc on a couple of occasions as a kid. My left eye would water up and close faster, and has relatively normal vision.

We have an astronaut-doper! Score!