jmaneyapanda;77778 wrote: The only reason I even call this theory "sketchy" is because of the nature of fluid dynamics. With the magnifying lens comparison, there is air above and below the lens, so no0 more refraction takes place. However, with water, that surface ripple will refract the light, but what does the water underneath do? It certainly is not negligible. I am not disputing this theory at all- as I said, Sprung and Delbeek wouldnt have published it without some tangible scientific proof. I just dont quite understand it completely.
The ripples do have an effect on angle of incidence of the light to the plane of the water. The angle of incidence affects reflection of the light off the water which is why rippling water on a sunny day reflects light variably just as it transmits it variably to the creatures below the surface.
Light intensity at any given distance (this isn't the same as depth, but is the actual linear distance of water between source and subject) under the water would be greatest directly under light source. The surface reflectivity would be at its minimum at this point.
In theory, if the water temperature is uniform to discount variations in density of the water and assume that the particulate content of the water is relatively constant and low, the rippling of the water would allow areas at a less-than-90 degree angle to the source (sun or bulb) to intermittently receive light that has a better angle of incidence (thus more transmission) than calm flat water. However, since all areas of the water surface are in motion, you also get a steeper angle (thus more reflection) in some areas of ripple than you would get with calm water.
The net effect would be that creatures directly below the source would intermittently receive less than maximum light and creatures off from directly below the light would intermittently receive greater light than they would otherwise receive through a flat water surface. Both of these effects would be subject to the nature of the surface agitation, its regularity, uniformity, and amplitude. Quantifying the benefits would be nearly impossible unless you set up a uniform standing wave and even then my overly-simple version ignores all the other factors like water density and particulates.
In the wild, since our sun makes a nice uniform progression over any given slice of ocean, on a cloudless day with stable weather and wind, each part would be subject to equal time at all incidence angles so unless there's an arguable benefit to regular shade/intensity dips, uniform, non-point source lighting must be just as good. However MH looks cool and looks like the ocean, so it comes back to the "does the rippling have any effect on the organisms?" question. However what won't happen is a ripple somehow giving more intense light than the directly overhead intensity of the bulb. Unless, of course, you'd like to run cold thermals around your tank effectively creating reflection layers under the water.
