See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351775529

On viewing the Himalayas from the plains

Article  in  American Journal of Physics · May 2021

DOI: 10.1119/10.0003920

CITATIONS READS

0 253

2 authors, including:

Vijay A. Singh
Centre for Excellence in Basic Sciences
193 PUBLICATIONS   1,751 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Electronic Structure of semiconductor quantum dots View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vijay A. Singh on 24 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

On viewing the Himalayas from the plains
Vijay A. Singh, and Arnav Singh

Citation: American Journal of Physics 89, 589 (2021); doi: 10.1119/10.0003920

View online: https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003920
View Table of Contents: https://aapt.scitation.org/toc/ajp/89/6
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers
On viewing the Himalayas from the plains
Vijay A. Singha)
Physics Department, Centre for Excellence in Basic Sciences, Mumbai University, Mumbai 400093, India
Arnav Singha)
MB International School, Sector-8 Mahaveer Nagar, Kota 324005, India
(Received 18 September 2020; accepted 10 March 2021)
The pandemic-induced lock-down has resulted in better air quality and visibility, with reported
sightings of Himalayan peaks from hundreds of kilometers away. During the 18th and 19th centuries,
good visibility was commonplace and there exist many such accounts by reputable Orientalists such
as Henry Colebrooke and Sir William Jones. These sightings invite two questions. Is a line of sight to
the peak even possible from the location? Is the location close enough and the intensity of visible
light sufficient for the peak to be seen? The present work explores both these aspects in the context of
the Himalayan peaks. The effects of the curvature of the Earth and refraction on the perceived
heights of several mountains in the eastern Himalayas are considered. The effects of Rayleigh
scattering by the atmosphere on the visibility of these peaks are also considered as an extension of
the work done by Weisskopf. Some historically significant details and a possible inaccuracy in an
account by Sir William Jones are discussed. The approach is pedagogical and is not specialized to the
eastern Himalayas, so it can be applied readily to other locations, for example, the Andes in South
America. VC 2021 Published under an exclusive license by American Association of Physics Teachers.
https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003920

I. INTRODUCTION impossible to see Mt. Jomolhari, high as it might be, from

One of the positive aspects of the COVID-19 related crisis
has been the lock-down induced substantial drop in the den-
sity of particulate matter in the atmosphere. The air is
cleaner and more breathable. There have been several
reported sightings of Himalayan peaks from the vast Indo-
Gangetic plains of North India.1 These reports reminded us
of similar sightings two centuries ago by the renowned
Orientalist and founder of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Sir
William Jones. In his own words,2
Just after sunset on the 5th of October 1784, I had
a distinct view from Bhagilpoor (Bhagalpur on the
south bank of the Ganga) of the peak of
Chumalary peak (Mt. Jomolhari in Bhutan)…the
horizontal distance at which it was distinctly
visible must be at least 244 British miles (390 km).
In those days, Bhagalpur was a British stronghold some
330 km northwest of Kolkata. A decade later in the 1790 s,
similar sightings of Mt. Jomolhari and some other
Himalayan peaks were reported by Henry Colebrooke from
the town of Purnia 50 miles (80 km) northeast of Bhagalpur
and thus closer to the Himalayan range.2–4 We note that
Colebrooke succeeded Sir William Jones as the president of
the Asiatic Society of Bengal.
These sightings are remarkable but raise some obvious
questions. Given the curvature of the Earth, and the consider-
able distance between the peak and the point of observation,
is such a sighting possible? And if so, what would be the
apparent height of the peak as viewed from a distance?
Obviously, the lower part of the peak would be obscured by
the curvature of the Earth. We address this geometrical prob-
lem in Sec. II. We consider a number of peaks including
Mt. Everest and work out their distances from the two plains
towns visited by Sir William Jones and Colebrooke, namely,
Bhagalpur and Purnia, respectively. We next work out the
apparent heights of the peaks. Surprisingly, we find that it is
Bhagalpur, refraction effects notwithstanding.5
There is another issue which we shall term the visibility
problem. Granted that the air two centuries ago was clear and
that it was a particularly fortunate day.6 But would there not
be some attenuation of light by the atmosphere? Is it then pos-
sible to view peaks far, far away? The issue was raised some
150 years ago, and once again in connection with Himalayan
peaks. Writing to Lord Rayleigh on August 28, 1873, James
Clerk Maxwell wondered about the great transparency of air.
He requested Lord Rayleigh to work out the theory and the
calculations to verify if atmospheric attenuation would disal-
low the possibility of seeing distant objects. We must keep in
mind that the electron had not been discovered and the size of
the atom was not known. With great prescience Maxwell sug-
gested that it was 1/1000th the wavelength of visible light.
Lord Rayleigh visited Darjeeling, a town and a summer resort
for the British in the Himalayan foothills, in 1897 (and some
18 years after Maxwell’s demise) and saw Mt. Everest some
170 km away from a point several kilometers from
Darjeeling. Soon thereafter he addressed Maxwell’s question
comprehensively and even quoted from Maxwell’s letter.7
Referring to his calculations Lord Rayleigh writes,
Although Mount Everest appears fairly bright at
100 miles (160 km) distance as seen from the
neighbourhood of Darjeeling, we cannot suppose
that the atmosphere is as transparent as is implied
in the above numbers…
This calculation was revisited by Weisskopf.8 In a master-
ful article, Weisskopf tries to retrace Lord Rayleigh’s reason-
ing. In the first half of the article, Weisskopf invokes linear
response theory to define the dipole moment of the atom in
terms of polarizibility and relates the latter to the refractive
index of the medium. The vibrations of the dipole induced
by the electromagnetic wave result in radiation, and this
accounts for the attenuation of light by air. In the second
half of his article, Weisskopf “jumps to the 20th century”

589 Am. J. Phys. 89 (6), June 2021 http://aapt.org/ajp C 2021 Published under an exclusive license by AAPT
V 589
and sketches the microscopic theory very briefly. In Sec. III,
we retrace this (latter) part using SI units and add some
details. We then examine the possibility of viewing various
peaks from Bhagalpur, Purnia, and Darjeeling and compare
it with both historical data and with recent reports.
Section IV constitutes a brief discussion. We speculate on
which Himalayan peak was seen by Sir William Jones from
the plains and make an identification. Pesic has suggested a
method to obtain the Avogadro number from naked eye
observation.9 We carry out this exercise based on Sir
William Jones’ observations. Indeed, a number of interesting
physics activities can be carried out with elementary equip-
ment. We refer to the works of Vollmer and earlier research-
ers but do not delve into them.10
We suggest a few supplementary exercises11 for students
and interested readers.

II. THE APPARENT HEIGHT OF A MOUNTAIN

The locations of a number of towns and mountains relevant
to our study are specified in Table I. As stated earlier,
Bhagalpur and Purnia are towns in the plains, the former being
on the south bank of the Ganga and the latter some 80 km
northeast of the former. Darjeeling, the subject of musings by
Maxwell and Rayleigh as mentioned in the Introduction, is a
summer hill station in the Himalayas. The rest are well-known
mountains in the north-eastern Himalayas. In order to guide
the reader unfamiliar with the geography of India, Fig. 1
depicts a map with these locations.12
From Table I, the Cartesian coordinates of the places are
ðR cos / cos k; R cos / sin k; R sin /Þ where R is the radius of Fig. 1. Map of the region with places indexed according to Table I (Ref. 12).
the Earth. The Earth is an oblate spheroid and since the loca-
tions considered are closer to the equator, we will take the Maxwell we note that out of the five mountains Mt. Everest
equatorial distance R ¼ 6378 km and not the polar distance is the furthest from the hill station of Darjeeling.
6356 km, nor an average distance. The arguments we make An observer will see only a part of a distant mountain
since its lower (base) part will be obscured by the curvature
in this work are not affected by any fine tuning of the value
of Earth. To calculate the extent of this visible part, which
of R. Of concern to us is the straight line separation d
we shall term the apparent height H0 , consider Fig. 2. Here,
between the towns and the mountains, and this can be readily
the observer P is at an altitude h above sea level, with
calculated from the Cartesian coordinates. As d  R, the OP ¼ R þ h. The mountain has a height BS ¼ H, and the base
corresponding angular separation is given to a good approxi- part BB0 is obscured from view. The apparent height esti-
mation by h ¼ d/R (see Fig. 2). mated by the observer is H 0 ¼ B0 S0 .
Table II lists the distance d and the angular separation h In DOPB0 ,
between the places of concern to us. Since we shall address
the observation of Sir William Jones, we note that from the OB0 ¼ OP sec ðhÞ ¼ ðR þ hÞ sec ðhÞ: (1)
plains (either Purnia or Bhagalpur) the mountain Jomolhari
is the farthest. Also, since we shall address the musings of Now, /OSP ¼ /B0 SS0 and /SOP ¼ /SB0 S0 , hence
DOSP and DB0 SS0 are similar. Thus,
Table I. Latitude /, longitude k, and heights above sea-level of the places in
the plains (h) and the Himalayan peaks (H) under discussion. Mountains are B0 S0 B0 S OS  OB0 OB0
labelled Mt. and Darjeeling is a hill station. ¼ ¼ ¼1 : (2)
OP OS OS OS
Coordinates
Map Height Noting that B0 S0 ¼ H 0 ; OP ¼ R þ h; OS ¼ R þ H and using
Index Place / k H(m) or h(m) Eq. (2), we obtain
1 Bhagalpur (Plains) 25.2425 N 86.9842 E 52 H0 ðR þ hÞ sec ðhÞ
2 Purnia (Plains) 25.7771 N 87.4753 E 36 ¼1 ; (3)
3 Darjeeling (Hill Stn) 27.0410 N 88.2663 E 2042
Rþh RþH
4 Mt. Everest 27.9881 N 86.9250 E 8848
or
5 Mt. Kanchenjunga 27.7025 N 88.1475 E 8586
6 Mt. Lhotse 27.9617 N 86.9333 E 8516
ðR þ hÞ2
7 Mt. Makalu 27.8857 N 87.0876 E 8485 H0 ¼ R þ h  sec ðhÞ: (4)
8 Mt. Jomolhari 27.8242 N 89.2692 E 7326 RþH

590 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 6, June 2021 V. A. Singh and A. Singh 590
 Fig. 2. Great circle on which lays the mountain BS at height H and the observer P at height h.

An observer at P will readily estimate the angular height
/B0 PS0 ¼ a. We note that
H0 H0
tan ðaÞ ¼ 0 ¼ : (5)
B P ðR þ hÞ tan ðhÞ
Substituting from Eq. (4), we obtain
Rþh
tan ðaÞ ¼ cotðhÞ  cscðhÞ:
RþH
Equations (4) and (6) are our defining equations. Taking the
radius of the Earth as R ¼ 6378 km, we obtain the values of
the apparent heights of the mountains from the three loca-
tions Bhagalpur, Purnia, and Darjeeling. These are listed in
Table III. A negative value of H 0 would indicate that the
summit is not visible from that location.
As an aside we note that the distance to the horizon can be
estimated by setting the apparent height H 0 to zero in Eq. (4).
Thus, ðR þ hÞ=ðR þ HÞ ¼ cosp ðhÞ  1  h2 =2. Noting that
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h ¼ d=R we obtain that d  2RðH  hÞ. For h ¼ 0, this
reduces to Eq. (1) derived by French.5
Our calculations show that Mt. Jomolhari is not visible
from Bhagalpur. This contradicts the centuries old and oft
repeated claims attributed to Sir William Jones. The others
are not obscured by the curvature of the Earth. Of these as
Table I attests, Mt. Kanchenjunga has coordinates closer to
Mt. Jomolhari than say, Mt. Everest so it could possibly have
been the mountain sighted by Sir William Jones. It is also
closer to Bhagalpur than Mt. Everest (see Table II) albeit by
only some 9 km. We note that as a rule of thumb refraction
will increase the rectilinear path considered herein by 9%.5
This is a small increase and will not make Mt. Jomolhari vis-
ible from Bhagalpur.
III. THE VISIBILITY PROBLEM
In this section, we derive the expression for the attenua-
tion of visible light by air. The derivation is along the lines
suggested briefly by Weisskopf in the latter half of his arti-
cle.8 We calculate the attenuation of light as it travels from
the Himalayan peaks to the towns of India.
Consider monochromatic light of wavelength k travelling
through air in the positive x direction. We consider the wave-
length of light to be 580 nm, which corresponds to an angular
(6)
frequency x ¼ 3.25 1015 rad s1. The attenuation of light
follows an exponential law:
 
x
IðxÞ ¼ I0 exp  ; (7)
L0
where I0 is the intensity at x ¼ 0, and I(x) is the intensity at a
distance x. Here, L0 is a characteristic length whose origins
we shall investigate.
We model the atom as a stationary positive point charge q
surrounded by a spherical negative charge cloud of total charge
q, radius r, and mass m. Now let the charge cloud be displaced
by a small distance y. The electrostatic force on the electron
cloud by the central positive charge is (see Fig. 3)
~el ¼ m€ q2
F y^˚ ¼  y^˚ ¼ mx20 y^˚ : (8)
4p0 r3
Thus, the natural frequency of oscillation is
q
x0 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : (9)
4p0 mr 3
Taking r ¼ 0.1 nm and using the charge and mass of the
electron, we obtain x0 ¼ 1.59 1016 rad s1, which is close

Table II. Distances d and angular separations h ¼ d=R between the places and the Himalayan peaks.

Purnia Bhagalpur Darjeeling

2 2
Mountain d (km) h(10 rad) d (km) h(10 rad) d (km) h (102 rad)

Mt. Everest 252.10 3.9526 305.97 4.7973 169.26 2.6538

Mt. Makalu 237.86 3.7294 294.40 4.6159 149.63 2.3460
Mt. Jomolhari 289.27 4.5354 366.50 5.7463 131.98 2.0693
Mt. Kanchenjunga 224.49 3.5198 297.33 4.6618 74.57 1.1692
Mt. Lhotse 249.06 3.9050 302.71 4.7462 166.79 2.6151

591 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 6, June 2021 V. A. Singh and A. Singh 591
Table III. Apparent heights H 0 of the peaks as seen from the places on the p 2 x4
plains and the hill station Darjeeling. Note that Mt. Jomolhari is not visible s¼ (14)
(NV) from Bhagalpur (Ref. 11).
12p0 c3
 4
q4 E20 x
Actual Purnia Bhagalpur Darjeeling ¼ ; (15)
Mountain H(m) H 0 (m) H0 (m) H0 (m) 12p0 m2 c3 x0

Mt. Everest 8848 3821 1448 4554 where c is the speed of light. The intensity I(x) decreases
Mt. Makalu 8485 4006 1630 4682 along the path of light, because the power S ¼ n0 s is lost per
Mt. Jomolhari 7326 724 NV 3915 unit volume. Here, n0 is the number of molecules per unit
Mt. Kanchenjunga 8586 4591 1595 6102 volume at sea level. Thus,
Mt. Lhotse 8516 3612 1275 4290
dIðxÞ
¼ n0 s: (16)
dx
16 1
to the value of x0 ¼ 1:25  10 rad s which we will be
Next we recall the expression for the electromagnetic
using in subsequent calculations. The latter value was
intensity I ¼ c0 E20 =2. Substituting this and Eq. (15) in the
also quoted by Weisskopf.8 We note that the ultraviolet
absorption spectrum of air is broad and is ascribed to above expression, we obtain
electronic transitions. Our model is admittedly crude, but  4
dIðxÞ n0 q4 x
the value we take may be viewed as an average and as we ¼ dx: (17)
IðxÞ 6p20 m2 c4 x0
shall see it leads to reasonable values for the extinction
length L0.
Integrating, we obtain
Light is an electromagnetic wave with oscillating elec-
tric and magnetic fields. In the presence of an external  
~ ¼ E0 cos ðxtÞ^˚ , the electron d
time varying electric field E I ¼ I0 exp  : (18)
cloud undergoes motion y ¼ y0 cos ðxtÞ. From Newton’s L0
laws,
Note that I0 ¼ P0 =4pd 2 , where P0 is the total power at the
y^˚ ¼ qE0 cos ðxtÞ^˚ 
m€ mx20 y^˚ : (10) source. Here,
 
With y ¼ y0 cos ðxtÞ, we obtain 6p20 m2 c4 x0 4
L0 ¼ : (19)
n0 q4 x
2
my0 x cos ðxtÞ ¼ qE0 cos ðxtÞ þ mx20 y0 cos ðxtÞ;
(11) We take n0 ¼ 2.54  1025 m3, the value at sea level calcu-
lated using the molar mass of air (29 g mol1).15 This yields
therefore L0 ¼ 129 km. The values quoted in the literature range from
100 km to 160 km.9 Pesic also mentions the classical formula
qE0 relating x to the refractive index (Eq. (1) of his paper),
y0 ¼ : (12)
mðx20  x2 Þ and we note that the choice of x ¼ 3:25  1016 rad s1 and
L0 ¼ 129 km yields the refractive index of air to be 1.000 34,
The magnitude of the electric dipole moment p is qy0 . close to the experimental value of 1.000 29.16
As mentioned above, x ¼ 3.25 1015 rad s1 and x0 ¼ 1.25 The above value is an over-estimate. As light travels
1016 rad s1. Thus, x2  x20 and we approximate the towards the plains, the density of air increases.15 We model
dipole by the decrease in number density with altitude z linearly as
nðzÞ ¼ n0 ð1  bzÞ. Thus, Eq. (17) becomes
q2 E0  4
p¼ : (13) dIðxÞ n0 q4 x
mx20 ¼ I  ð1  bzÞ: (20)
dx 6p20 m2 c4 x0
It can be shown that a dipole vibrating with a frequency x
radiates total power s13,14 To account for the variation of air density with height, in
Fig. 4 we redraw Fig. 2 with emphasis on the trajectory of
the ray of light from the summit S to the observer at P. The
symbols such as h, d, and H have the same meaning in both
figures. Using the projection law for DOSP, the angle w at
the summit S is given as

R þ H  ðR þ hÞ cos h
cos w ¼ : (21)
SP
We shall have occasion to use this expression later. Using
the cosine rule, we have an alternative expression,

ðR þ HÞ2 þ x2  ðR þ zÞ2
Fig. 3. Model of the atom with a central positive charge and a displaced cos w ¼ : (22)
spherical electron cloud of radius R. 2ðR þ HÞx

592 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 6, June 2021 V. A. Singh and A. Singh 592
 "  #
P0 d bðH þ hÞ
I¼ exp  1 : (29)
4pd 2 L0 2

We estimate the density and the density gradient (b) by look-

ing up the mass density of air at various heights and taking
the molecular mass of air to be 29 g mol1. This yields15 that
n0 ¼ 2:54  1025 m3 ; nðz ¼ 8000 mÞ ¼ 1:09  1025 m3
and we obtain b ¼ 7:14  105 m1 . As noted earlier,
L0 ¼ 129 km.
For the range of data that we use, the difference between
the approximate expression (29) and the exact value obtained
by numerically integrating Eq. (20) using Eq. (24) is less
than 1%.17 The second term in the exponent in Eq. (29) sug-
gests that the attenuation is less severe than the one sug-
gested in Eq. (18). In fact, Eq. (29) is the same as Eq. (18)
Fig. 4. Path of light from summit S to observer at P.
taking nðz ¼ ðH þ hÞ=2Þ instead of n0 in the expression for
L0 (Eq. (19)).
Table IV lists the perceived intensities of various peaks
from Purnia, Bhagalpur, and Darjeeling, relative to that of
This is a quadratic in x. Thus, Mt. Kanchenjunga as viewed from Darjeeling.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
x ¼ ðR þ HÞ cos w  ðR þ zÞ2  ðR þ HÞ2 sin2 ðwÞ: IV. IDENTIFYING THE PEAK
(23) We ignore the wavelength dependence of the intensity,
and our calculations are for an average value x ¼ 3.25 1015
Thus,
rad s1 (k ¼ 580 nm). We have also ignored absorption and
ðR þ zÞdz multiple scattering. We note in passing that in the case of air
dx ¼  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : (24) pollution the scattering of solar radiation by aerosols is the
ðR þ zÞ  ðR þ HÞ2 sin2 ðwÞ
2
main process limiting visibility.18,19 The aerosols are in the
size range from 0.1 lm to 20 lm so one is dealing with Mie
The above can be used to evaluate the expression for the scattering. In the present article, our attention is towards
intensity I exactly. However, this expression is not very illu- Rayleigh scattering. Furthermore, the degradation of visibil-
minating, and the integral is best evaluated numerically. ity with aerosol number concentration is modelled via an
Here, we resort to an approximate expression with far greater exponential law as in our work. But this is purely phenome-
utility. As z; h; H  R, we approximate the above as nological; the extinction length is related empirically to the
aerosol number concentration and to aerosol size distribu-
dx ¼ 
dz
: (25) tion. In many cases, workers in this field use a power law.20
cos w Thus, Sec. III provides a first order estimate to Maxwell’s
query and Lord Rayleigh’s response—Mt. Everest which is
Since h  1, we approximate cos h  1 and SP  d. Thus, at 169 km (see Table I) would be visible from the hill resort
Eq. (21) reduces to cos w  ðH  hÞ=d. Thus, using Eq. of Darjeeling albeit with relative intensity diminished to an
(25), we have eighth as attested in Table IV. Mt. Kanchenjunga would
have the highest visibility, and this has also been attested by
d countless visitors to Darjeeling. The apparent height of Mt.
dx ¼  dz: (26)
Hh Everest would be 4554 m (Table III) and its apparent angular
height would be 1 320 (see Table V).
Substituting the above in Eq. (20), we obtain So, which Himalayan mountain did Sir William Jones
ðI 0 ðh espy on the clear post monsoon day on October 5, 1784 from
dI d
¼ ð1  bzÞdz; (27) Bhagalpur? Our calculations can throw some light on this.
0 L0 ðH  hÞ H
I0 I
Table IV. Relative intensities of summits. The perceived intensity of Mt.
or Kanchejunga from the hill station Darjeeling visited by Lord Rayleigh is
" # taken to be unity (Ref. 11).
d bðH þ hÞ
I ¼ I0 exp  1 : (28) Mountain Purnia Bhagalpur Darjeeling
L0 2
Mt. Everest 0.0330 0.0169 0.125
In Eq. (28), I0 represents the intensity of the source which Mt. Makalu 0.0390 0.0188 0.172
would have been perceived by an observer at that location if Mt. Jomolhari 0.0182 NV 0.231
attenuation effects were absent. If the power of the source is Mt. Kanchenjunga 0.0474 0.0183 1
taken to be P0, then I0 ¼ P0 =4pd2 for the location at distance Mt. Lhotse 0.0336 0.0170 0.128
d. Thus finally we obtain

593 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 6, June 2021 V. A. Singh and A. Singh 593
Table V. Angles a subtended by the mountains from Purnia, Bhagalpur, and
Darjeeling, calculated using Eq. (6). Note that the angle subtended at Purnia
by the mountain, as reported by Henry Colebrooke some 220 years ago, was
1 10 (610 ).
Mountain Purnia Bhagalpur Darjeeling
a a a order of magnitude.
Mt. Everest 520 160 1 320
Mt. Makalu 580 190 1 470
Mt. Jomolhari 90 NV 1 420
Mt. Kanchenjunga 1 100 180 4 410
Mt. Lhotse 500 140 1 280
Mt. Jomolhari which Sir William Jones claims to have seen
is far away (367 km), and the Earth’s curvature would
obscure Mt. Jomolhari in toto (see Table III). Mt. Everest
and the remaining three mountains mentioned in Table IV
are far from the plains town of Bhagalpur (300 km) and have
similar diminished intensities, between 0.017 and 0.019. So
all are equally likely (or unlikely) on this count.
We may arrive at a plausible answer if we consider the
observation of his successor Henry Colebrooke some years
later. He claims to have seen a Himalayan peak from another
town, Purnia, which had an angular height of one degree and
one minute, i.e., 610 .2,3 One can calculate this angle a from
Eq. (6), and this is tabulated for all the candidate mountains
in Table V. Two possibilities emerge: Mt. Makalu with 580
and Mt. Kanchenjunga with 700 (1 100 ). In contrast, Mt.
Jomolhari would yield an angular height of a mere 90 while
Mt. Everest would subtend 520 . One might argue for Mt.
Everest but it is further than Mt. Kanchenjunga and visibility
considerations (Sec. III) would favour the latter. A fourth con-
sideration would be to station ourselves at Bhagalpur and see
which of the two mountains Makalu or Kanchenjunga are
closer to Mt. Jomolhari. A simple calculation based on Table I
and an inspection of the map in Fig. 1 makes it clear that Mt.
Kanchenjunga is closer and hence likely to be mistaken for
Mt. Jomolhari. For the sake of completeness, we investigated a
number of other candidate mountains: Mt. Dhaulagiri I
(8167 m), Mt. Paunhunri (7128 m), Mt. Chommo Yummo
(6829 m), Mt. Masang Kang (7194 m), Mt. Khangchengyao
(6850 m), and Mt. Jeje Khangphu Kang (6965 m) among
others. They are smaller or like Mt. Dhaulagiri I very far away
(over 500 km). In all likelihood, it was Mt. Kanchenjunga that
Sir William Jones saw. Unfortunately in spite of the clear air
resulting from the pandemic lock-down, there have been no
sightings of Himalayan peaks from Bhagalpur, so our conjec-
ture has not been verified by observations.
One can use the observations of Sir William Jones to obtain
the Avogadro number NA. The method to do this has been sug-
gested by Pesic.9 Let us grant that Sir William Jones did
observe a Himalayan peak from Bhagalpur and that this peak
as discussed above was Mt. Kanchenjunga. From Table II, we
have that the distance to this peak is 297 km. We take this to
be the visual range Rv, the maximum distance an object is dis-
cernible with the unaided eye. We note that this is within the
maximal distance of 330 km worked out by Bohren and Fraser
for pure molecular atmosphere.21 Then, according to
the Koschmeider relation, the extinction length worked out in
Sec. III, L0 ¼ 297/3.9 ¼ 74.25 km.22 The factor of 3.9 comes
from the 2% contrast required to distinguish a distant black
object from the background sky and is now standard in meteo-
rology.23 Note j ln ð0:02Þj ¼ 3.9. If we use this extinction
594 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 6, June 2021
distance in Eq. (19), we obtain n0 ¼ 4.41  1025 m3. Recall
that a mole of air at temperature 273 K and pressure 1 atm
occupies 22.4 l. Thus, NA ¼ 22.4  103 m3n0 ¼ 9.88  1023.
This is an over estimate but, given the uncertainties and the
assumptions, it is satisfying that the answer is correct to an
We emphasize that apart from French’s 9% rule for
refraction,5 we have ignored any special refraction effects.
Such special atmospheric conditions may enable light to
“bend around” the horizon excessively, thus boosting the
visibility range. In such exceptional situations, one may be
able to see over 430 km.24 It must be noted, however, that
these situations are exceptional and require detailed plan-
ning on the part of the photographer in terms of location
and weather, and even then one is not assured of a satisfac-
tory outcome.
We admit that our arguments are plausible and not
definitive. But they serve as an example of how a critical
examination of reported observations may cast doubt on
long established reports. We encourage students and teach-
ers to examine similar historical records, for example,
those of the Andes by French and Spanish explorers. We
enjoyed carrying out these calculations which, by a happy
coincidence, involve a galaxy of eminent scientists. Sir
William Jones was a towering figure and certainly one of
the greatest Orientalists. So was Henry Colebrooke. We
end by mentioning once again the work of Weisskopf.8 His
article is only a page and a half long. It sketches two
approaches to the visibility problem. The first is from Lord
Rayleigh’s 19th century perspective. The second is from a
modern perspective when the size and the nature of the
atom were clear. Weisskopf however made a historical
error.25 He claimed that Maxwell visited Darjeeling, India
in 1873. No such event occurred. Lord Rayleigh however
did visit Darjeeling in 1897 and cites this visit in his
famous paper.7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers who
highlighted an error in Fig. 2 and the subsequent derivation
based on it and also made several helpful comments.
a)
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic
addresses: physics.sutra@gmail.com and razor7827@gmail.com
1
News source 1: <https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/
majestic-himalayan-range-now-visible-from-saharanpur/not-just-up/slide
show/75485804.cms>. News source 2: <https://edition.cnn.com/travel/
article/himalayas-visible-lockdown-india-scli-intl/index.html>. News
source 3: <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/after-saharanpur-
sitamarhi-village-gets-a-himalayan-peek/articleshow/75561941.cms>.
2
John Keay, The Great Arc (Harper Collins, Suffolk, 2000), pp. 40–41.
3
Henry Colebrooke, “On the heights of the Himalaya mountains,” Asiatic
Res. XII, 251–285 (1816); Q. J. Sci. VI, 51–65 (1819); available at
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25581714.
4
“Notices of the life of Henry Thomas Colebrooke, Esq,” by his Son, J. R.
Asiatic Soc. Great Britain Ireland V, 1–60 (1839); available at http://
www.jstor.com/stable/25181968.
5
A. P. French, “How far away is the horizon,” Am. J. Phys. 50, 795–799
(1982).
6
There could have been reduced visibility due to smoke from household
and farm activities.
7
Lord Rayleigh, “On the transmission of light through an atmosphere con-
taining small particles in suspension, and on the origin of the blue of the
sky,” Philos. Mag. 47, 375–384 (1899).
8
Victor F. Weisskopf, “Search for simplicity: Maxwell, Rayleigh, and Mt.
Everest,” Am. J. Phys. 54, 13–14 (1986).
V. A. Singh and A. Singh 594
 9 18
Peter Pesic, “Estimating Avogadro’s number from skylight and airlight,” T. Elias, M. Haeffelin, and P. Dobrinski, “Particulate contribution to the
Eur. J. Phys. 26, 183–187 (2005). This work makes interesting references extinction of visible radiation: Pollution, haze and fog,” Atmos. Res. 92,
to observations by Pierre Bourger (1760) and Leonardo da Vinci. 443–454 (2009).
10 19
M. Vollmer, “A simple method for estimating the thickness of the atmo- J. H. Seinfeld, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution (John
sphere by light scattering,” Am. J. Phys. 71, 979–983 (2003) and referen- Wiley and Sons, New York, 1986).
20
ces therein. M. Mohan and S. Payra, “Aerosol number concentrations and visibility
11
See supplementary material at https://www.scitation.org/doi/suppl/10.1119/ during dense fog over a subtropical urban site,” J. Nanomater. 2014,
10.0003920 for a spreadsheet with the calculations for Tables III and IV. 495457.
12 21
Made using Google Maps. C. F. Bohren and A. Fraser, “At what altitude does the horizon cease to be
13
J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 1st ed. (John Wiley & Sons, visible?,” Am. J. Phys. 54, 222–227 (1986).
22
New York, 1962), p. 272. H. Koschmieder, “Theory of horizontal visibility,” Contrib. Phys. Atmos.
14
D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall, 12, 33–53 (1924).
23
New Jersey, 1999), p. 448. W. E. K. Middleton, Vision through the Atmosphere (University of
15
The source for the atmospheric data used <https://www.engineeringtool Toronto Press, Toronto, 1952) pp. 18–59, 83–111.
24
box.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html>. M. Vollmer, “Below the horizon—The physics of extreme visual ranges,”
16
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices>. Appl. Opt. 59, F11–F19 (2020).
17 25
Difference between exact and approximate intensity <https://www.desmos. Victor F. Weisskopf, “Good physics, bad history,” Am. J. Phys. 54, 393
com/calculator/rped468hfl>. (1986).

595 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 6, June 2021 V. A. Singh and A. Singh 595

View publication stats