<p>The light comes from a plasma rather than directly from the meteor.</p>
<p>When a meteor first encounters the atmosphere, it builds up a wall of air in front of it. This wall of air becomes hot enough to dissociate and hence form a glowing plasma. The head plasma (the plasma that forms in front of the entering meteor) radiates some of its heat back toward the meteor. Then something interesting begins to happen. Material at the front of the entering meteor begins to ablate and then dissociate. This ablated material joins the atmospheric plasma. The meteor becomes much brighter at this point as the plasma becomes much more dense.</p>
<p>From <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JA026434" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Formation of Plasma Around a Small Meteoroid: Electrostatic Simulations</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When a meteoroid enters the Earth's atmosphere, collisions with atmospheric molecules heat the meteoroid's surface. Neutral particles ablate from the meteoroid surface once the surface temperature reaches the sublimation point of the constituent materials. These ablated particles experience high-energy collisions with atmospheric particles and can ionize, creating a dense plasma around the meteoroid. High-power large-aperture (HPLA) radars, such as the Jicamarca Radio Observatory, ALTAIR, and the Arecibo Observatory, detect this plasma as a head echo (Chau &amp; Woodman, 2004; Close et al., 2002; Janches &amp; Revelle, 2005).</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-08T13:28:54.030Z
2024-08-08T13:28:54.030Z
David Hammen
<p>It is not because of blackbody radiation, it is because of aerodynamic heating, when a meteor (or spacecraft) is entering (re-entering) the atmosphere, the kinetic energy of the thing will be transferred to heat energy and this heat energy will ionize electrons in nearby area, when the ionized electron are reabsorbed, radiation will be emitted in certain wavelength, this is not blackbody radiation.</p>
<p>Here is the Wikipedia page about this topic: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_heating" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Aerodynamic Heating</a></p>
<p>For those of you who think it is from blackbody radiation, look at this graph and rethink your statement.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/QsBvRtpn.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/QsBvRtpn.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Black line is the visible light line, observe the graph.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T13:40:49.743Z
I'm confused at the strenuous objection to calling this blackbody radiation (emitted by the plasma). "*. . . heat, causing you to see the light*" sounds like a description of blackbody radiation to me. (Or what is the emission mechanism?) And I don't understand the point you are trying to make by including the spectral intensity plot.
Sten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T13:54:06.400Z
@Sten, because someone insist that meteor emits light because of blackbody radiation, it is not.
Polaris5744
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T13:57:16.990Z
Could you provide a source for the claim that the light is dominantly from electronic transitions and not the blackbody continuum?
Sten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T14:16:01.410Z
I still don't understand the point of the blackbody spectrum plot. It's only obvious *a priori* that meteors couldn't be blackbody radiation if meteors are green or something. Maybe include an observed meteor spectrum instead?
Sten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T14:16:54.300Z
That is the entire point, I prove that it is not blackbody radiation.
Polaris5744
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T14:26:50.747Z
In electronic transitions, the kinetic energy of an atom is lost and convert into radiation, which satisfy the observation we see in meteor.
Polaris5744
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T15:39:30.050Z
Your plot appears to be premised on the idea that all meteors have T = 1800 K. What is the evidence for this?
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T16:07:51.200Z
More generally, your answer is so focused on the idea that it's "not blackbody radiation" that you don't really provide much of a positive explanation.
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-06T13:38:24.583Z
@Peter Erwin, the first paragraph is dedicated explaining how meteor produce light. The 1800K is from a comment from the next answer which is deleted.
Polaris5744
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T08:17:17.103Z
2024-08-04T13:48:48.873Z
2024-08-04T13:48:48.873Z
Polaris5744
<p>==<br />
Experiment with it yourself. Stick your arm out the window of a car at 60 miles an hour on a hot, dry day. Your arm feels hot. It might even feel too hot to hold your arm out there.</p>
<p>The meteor does exactly the same thing, except more. So does your convection oven and your air fryer.</p>
<p>The only other detail you have to understand is that things that become extremely hot emit light.</p>
<p>If you understand both those things, then you understand why meteors burn up in the air and make a big flash.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T04:24:09.000Z
No my arm does not feel hot. And the light does not come from the meteor, which often do not get very hot and certainly not hot enough to glow. (The biggest ones do get a little toasty though.) Here you are just making up stuff. A quick check of Wikipedia or a science book will explain where the light comes from.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T04:53:35.387Z
If your arm doesn't get hot when you stick your arm out, take off your shirt. The light does come from the meteor, from its interaction with the air molecules. You know that, but you act like you don't for some reason. The surface of a meteor streaking through the sky boils away, and the air around it glows from 1,800 C blackbody radiation. You know that very well . Are those details really worth mentioning to naive users who aren't interested? Apparently you think so.
Miss Understands
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T06:04:53.540Z
The light comes from the plasma, it does not come from the meteor. Rather than comments, you can improve the answer post by moving that information into the answer.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T08:01:14.630Z
First of all, light from meteor is not from blackbody radiation, if you draw the Planck curve (or use Wien's Displacement Law), you will notice that the majority of the radiation this blackbody emits are in the infrared region, which is not even visible to the naked eye. Secondly, this analogy makes no sense, feeling hot has nothing to do with meteor emitting light.
Polaris5744
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T13:21:58.313Z
@Miss_Understands, look at the Planck curve in my answer, just look at it. Also this is a place for question and answers, not your personal comment.
Polaris5744
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T13:52:57.893Z
I fix it, my point still stand. Why don't you find a Planck curve that supports your claim instead of saying this or that is wrong?
Polaris5744
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-03T16:57:08.743Z
2024-08-03T18:59:33.120Z
2024-08-03T18:59:33.120Z
Miss Understands
<p>Meteor are the visible phenomena caused by a meteoroid falling on Earth atmosphere.
But what is the exact mechanism which produce this light?</p>
<p>I mean; of course the meteor's atoms interact with the air particles, there is friction, heat etc., but how does the whole procedure actually happen?
I know this might seem a stupid question (and probably it is), but what I am searching for is a thorough answer.
Thanks in advance</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-04T19:18:39.660Z
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#Entry_heating
Mithoron
<light><meteor><meteor-shower><meteoroid>
How does exactly a meteoroid falling on Earth produce visible light?
Hudson
# How does exactly a meteoroid falling on Earth produce visible light?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-08-03)

Meteor are the visible phenomena caused by a meteoroid falling on Earth atmosphere.
But what is the exact mechanism which produce this light?

I mean; of course the meteor's atoms interact with the air particles, there is friction, heat etc., but how does the whole procedure actually happen?
I know this might seem a stupid question (and probably it is), but what I am searching for is a thorough answer.
Thanks in advance

**Tags:** light, meteor, meteor-shower, meteoroid
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#Entry_heating  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-08-08. Score: 1

The light comes from a plasma rather than directly from the meteor.

When a meteor first encounters the atmosphere, it builds up a wall of air in front of it. This wall of air becomes hot enough to dissociate and hence form a glowing plasma. The head plasma (the plasma that forms in front of the entering meteor) radiates some of its heat back toward the meteor. Then something interesting begins to happen. Material at the front of the entering meteor begins to ablate and then dissociate. This ablated material joins the atmospheric plasma. The meteor becomes much brighter at this point as the plasma becomes much more dense.

From [Formation of Plasma Around a Small Meteoroid: Electrostatic Simulations](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JA026434),

> When a meteoroid enters the Earth's atmosphere, collisions with atmospheric molecules heat the meteoroid's surface. Neutral particles ablate from the meteoroid surface once the surface temperature reaches the sublimation point of the constituent materials. These ablated particles experience high-energy collisions with atmospheric particles and can ionize, creating a dense plasma around the meteoroid. High-power large-aperture (HPLA) radars, such as the Jicamarca Radio Observatory, ALTAIR, and the Arecibo Observatory, detect this plasma as a head echo (Chau & Woodman, 2004; Close et al., 2002; Janches & Revelle, 2005).


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-08-04. Score: 1

It is not because of blackbody radiation, it is because of aerodynamic heating, when a meteor (or spacecraft) is entering (re-entering) the atmosphere, the kinetic energy of the thing will be transferred to heat energy and this heat energy will ionize electrons in nearby area, when the ionized electron are reabsorbed, radiation will be emitted in certain wavelength, this is not blackbody radiation.

Here is the Wikipedia page about this topic: [Aerodynamic Heating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_heating)

For those of you who think it is from blackbody radiation, look at this graph and rethink your statement.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/QsBvRtpn.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/QsBvRtpn.png)

Black line is the visible light line, observe the graph.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: I'm confused at the strenuous objection to calling this blackbody radiation (emitted by the plasma). "*. . . heat, causing you to see the light*" sounds like a description of blackbody radiation to me. (Or what is the emission mechanism?) And I don't understand the point you are trying to make by including the spectral intensity plot.  
> **username_3**: @Sten, because someone insist that meteor emits light because of blackbody radiation, it is not.  
> **username_4**: Could you provide a source for the claim that the light is dominantly from electronic transitions and not the blackbody continuum?  
> **username_4**: I still don't understand the point of the blackbody spectrum plot. It's only obvious *a priori* that meteors couldn't be blackbody radiation if meteors are green or something. Maybe include an observed meteor spectrum instead?  
> **username_3**: That is the entire point, I prove that it is not blackbody radiation.  
> **username_3**: In electronic transitions, the kinetic energy of an atom is lost and convert into radiation, which satisfy the observation we see in meteor.  
> **username_5**: Your plot appears to be premised on the idea that all meteors have T = 1800 K. What is the evidence for this?  
> **username_5**: More generally, your answer is so focused on the idea that it's "not blackbody radiation" that you don't really provide much of a positive explanation.  
> **username_3**: @Peter Erwin, the first paragraph is dedicated explaining how meteor produce light. The 1800K is from a comment from the next answer which is deleted.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2024-08-03. Score: -10

==  
Experiment with it yourself. Stick your arm out the window of a car at 60 miles an hour on a hot, dry day. Your arm feels hot. It might even feel too hot to hold your arm out there.

The meteor does exactly the same thing, except more. So does your convection oven and your air fryer.

The only other detail you have to understand is that things that become extremely hot emit light.

If you understand both those things, then you understand why meteors burn up in the air and make a big flash.

> **Comments:**
> **username_7**: No my arm does not feel hot. And the light does not come from the meteor, which often do not get very hot and certainly not hot enough to glow. (The biggest ones do get a little toasty though.) Here you are just making up stuff. A quick check of Wikipedia or a science book will explain where the light comes from.  
> **username_6**: If your arm doesn't get hot when you stick your arm out, take off your shirt. The light does come from the meteor, from its interaction with the air molecules. You know that, but you act like you don't for some reason. The surface of a meteor streaking through the sky boils away, and the air around it glows from 1,800 C blackbody radiation. You know that very well . Are those details really worth mentioning to naive users who aren't interested? Apparently you think so.  
> **username_7**: The light comes from the plasma, it does not come from the meteor. Rather than comments, you can improve the answer post by moving that information into the answer.  
> **username_3**: First of all, light from meteor is not from blackbody radiation, if you draw the Planck curve (or use Wien's Displacement Law), you will notice that the majority of the radiation this blackbody emits are in the infrared region, which is not even visible to the naked eye. Secondly, this analogy makes no sense, feeling hot has nothing to do with meteor emitting light.  
> **username_3**: @Miss_Understands, look at the Planck curve in my answer, just look at it. Also this is a place for question and answers, not your personal comment.  
> **username_3**: I fix it, my point still stand. Why don't you find a Planck curve that supports your claim instead of saying this or that is wrong?  

---

