Posted By: ScanIAm | Aug 7th, 2008 @ 7:52 PM
page 1 of 2
Comments: 25 | Views: 3231
ScanIAm
ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.
OK, folks.

So, most of you are smart or at least you play smart on c9.

I've looked this up, but I can't seem to find a decent explanation as to why light travels through glass.

Is the photon wavelength smaller than the distance between the silica atoms or is there some other mechanism that allows light to go through glass and not lead?

mVPstar
mVPstar
I'm white because I smelt an onion.
You're back! Big Smile

No idea. My guess is that photons don't actually travel through the glass, but their energy does as the photons transfer it to atoms in the glass. The glass atoms then emit new photons.

Just a guess (just playing smart as you say)...
Maddus Mattus
Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

Light passes through glass because glass doesnt absorb the photons.

If on the other hand the glass is polarized in a particular way, they can block certain rays.

My sister in law is an optrician, she has a piece of glass where she can block out vertical rays. When she turns it around, it becomes transparent. (or the other way around, I just pretend to be smart)

I am curious why you want to know why light passes trough glass? You cooking up some kind of experiment?

DCMonkey
DCMonkey
Monkey see, monkey do, monkey will destroy you!

I was curious too. This is the best description I could find:

An optical property describes the way a material reacts to exposure to light. Visible light is a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the range of 400 to 700 nm corresponding to an energy range of 3.1 to 1.8 electron volts (eV) (from E = hc/, where c = 3 x 10i17 nm/s and h = 4.13 x 10-15 eV s).

When light strikes an object it may be transmitted, absorbed, or reflected. Materials vary in their ability to transmit light, and are usually described as transparent, translucent, or opaque. Transparent materials, such as glass, transmit light with little absorption or reflection. Materials that transmit light diffusely, such as frosted glass, are translucent. Opaque materials do not transmit light.

Two important mechanisms for the interaction of light with the particles in a solid are electronic polarizations and transitions of electrons between different energy states. The distortion of the electron cloud of an atom by an electric field, in this case the electric field of the light, is described as polarization. As a result of polarization, some of the energy may be absorbed, i.e., converted into elastic deformations (phonons), and consequently heat. On the other hand, the polarization may propagate as a material-bound electromagnetic wave with a different speed than light. When light is absorbed and reemitted from the surface at the same wavelength, it is called reflection. Metals, for example, are highly reflective, and those with a silvery appearance reflect the whole range of visible light. The energy levels of electrons are quantized, i.e., each electron transition between levels requires a certain specific amount of energy. The absorption of energy results in the shifting of electrons from the ground state to a higher, excited state. The electrons then fall back to the ground state, accompanied by the reemission of electromagnetic radiation.

In nonmetals, the lower energy bonding orbitals make up what is called the valence band, and the higher energy antibonding orbitals form the conduction band. The separation between the two bands is the band gap energy, and is generally large for nonmetals, smaller for semiconductors, and nonexistent in metals.

The energy range for visible light is from 1.8 to 3.1 eV. Materials with band gap energies in this range will absorb those corresponding colors (energies) and transmit the others. They will appear transparent and colored. For example, the band gap energy of cadmium sulfide photocells is about 2.4 eV and so it absorbs the higher energy (blue and violet) components of visible light. It has a yellow-orange color as a result of the transmitted portions of the spectrum. This type of light-induced conductivity is called photoconductivity.

Materials with band gap energies less than 1.8 eV will be opaque because all visible light will be absorbed by electron transitions from the valence to the conduction band. Dissipation of this absorbed energy may be by direct return to the valence band or by more complicated transitions involving impurities. Pure materials with band gap energies greater than 3.1 eV will not absorb light in the visible range and will appear transparent and colorless.

Light that is emitted from electron transitions in solids is called luminescence. If it occurs for a short time it is fluorescence, and if it lasts for a longer time it is phosphorescence.

Light that is transmitted from one medium into another, such as from air into glass, undergoes refraction. This is the apparent bending of light rays that results from the change in speed of the light. The index of refraction (n) of a material is the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum (c = 3 x 108 m/s) to the speed of light in that material (n = c/v). The change in speed is the result of electronic polarization. Since the effect of polarization increases with the size of the atoms, glasses which contain heavy metal ions (such as lead crystal) have higher indices of refraction than those composed of smaller atoms (such as soda-lime glass).

Figure 5: This figure represents the refraction of light as it passes from a medium with low optical density (such as air) to one of higher optical density (such as water or glass). Light maintains its frequency but its speed is changed in the more dense medium. Therefore, the wavelength must change accordingly. Snell's law (n1 sin q1 = n2 sin q2) can be used to relate the indices of refraction (n), the angles (q) of incidence and refraction, and the speed (v) of light in the two media: n1/n2 = q2/q1 = v1/v2)

Internal scattering of light in an inherently transparent material may render a material translucent or opaque. Such scattering occurs at density fluctuations, grain boundaries, phase boundaries, and pores.

evildictaitor
evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }
If that were true, the light would lose it's coherence and you'd see the colour of whatever was behind the glass, but none of the shapes (it would blur everything sort of like how frostedglass does)
vesuvius
vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel
The answer is that,
  1. Sometimes light behaves as a wave
  2. Sometimes light behaves as a particle
This is why people get confused, because it behaves like a solid object at times, but is at odds when it travels through something like glass. This is commonly known as Wave Particle Duality.

Light travels through glass because it is a wave, and displays refraction (famously demonstrated by Pink Floyd - going to the dark side of the moon)




vesuvius
vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel
You can bend it by using a black hole. This usually is the only way to detect a black hole, seeing the way light is effectively bent.
Maddus Mattus
Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
Gravity is not the same as a magnetic field,..
Bah! Wave particle duality is a lot of nonsense. Everything is a wave and the whole particle bit is a lot of nonsense which occasionally gives you the right answers and just happens to have rather easier maths behind it.
Maddus Mattus
Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
maybe it's a particle that is very very light, spinning  at a certain frequency wich generates a visible field?
vesuvius
vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel
The older I've become, the less I tacitly accept what I was taught. When you are 18 years old, you believe everything you are taught. If it's in the curriculum, then it is the "gospel truth". I have issues with a lot of stuff I was taught when I was young, be it religious education or physics. I have the greatest admiration for the kids that said, physics is boring, I want to be an artist or a dancer or whatever. I thought they were intellectually inferior at the time, oh how wrong I was.

How would you go about trying to explain this to a student? Surely wave particle duality, with all its duplicities is better than; Bah! Wave particle duality is a lot of nonsense. Everything is a wave and the whole particle bit is a lot of nonsense which occasionally gives you the right answers and just happens to have rather easier maths behind it.
vesuvius
vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel
Thanks for that clarification, I didn't say it was though. I merely suggested that it is possible to bend light.
iStation
iStation
Fuujin
I love "wave packet" image to feel familiar with "wave particle duality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet
Smiley
evildictaitor
evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }
AndyC said:

Bah! Wave particle duality is a lot of nonsense. Everything is a wave and the whole particle bit is a lot of nonsense which occasionally gives you the right answers and just happens to have rather easier maths behind it.


That's a misinformed remark if ever there was one.
As a hand wavy explanation of physics it's all well and good, but when you start trying to explain things by saying "oh well this is one of those 'it's a particle' moments" then it starts to lose credibility. There is a lot more evidence to suggest that treating everything as a wave is a much better solution than trying some half baked compromise like WPD.
evildictaitor
evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }
It might be slightly hand-wavy, but the wave approximation is simply wrong, and the particle approximation is simply wrong. The fact of the matter is that there are attributes of light (and other fundamental particles) that exhibit behaviour that can only be explained by wave mechanics and some which can only be explained by particle dynamics.

You can't say that the wave model is "better" than the particle model, because it isn't.

Under the photoelectric effect, light behaves like a packet of energy - a particle. This cannot be explained by the wave theory of light, and thus the wave theory of light is wrong in the same way that the Newtonian view of mechanics is wrong - it's a simplified model that doesn't always behave like reality.

Wave-particle duality is a way of expressing the fact that light behaves not as a wave and not as a particle, but as a duality of both, and going for the absolutist position of "light is a wave" or "light is a particle" means you are arguing against Max Plank and Albert Einstein as well as many of the other great physists of the 20th Centuary. In fact Einstein won his Nobel Prize in Physics for this exact discovery in 1921 - so if you're right you should really get around to publishing your findings.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.
mVPstar
mVPstar
I'm white because I smelt an onion.
Bah, the solution is the complete opposite of what I proposed up top. Tongue Out
Always leaned more toward bio and chem anyway.
Maddus Mattus
Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

One could also argue;

Just because you understand, doesnt make it right.
evildictaitor
evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }
Theories in science are rarely "correct". It's more important that they are consistent with the facts. The point of science is modelling the world so that we can make predictions of the future.

Consequently I would not be foolish enough to say that WPD is correct, merely that from our current understanding it is consistent with the facts as we currently understand them.

Plank showed that in many experiments light behaved consistently with the model that it was a particle. Later it was shown that there were inconsistencies in this theory which could be partly explained by light being a wave. Einstein showed that this was inconsistent with reality and propsed the model of WPD, which is just that - a model.

Einstein would himself not have been so foolish as to suggest that his theory was correct, just that it "fitted the facts better" than either "light is a wave" or "light is a particle".

But one thing is certain - I certainly wouldn't argue that his theory (for which he won a nobel prize) is just hand-wavy nonsense in order to make the math easier.
page 1 of 2
Comments: 25 | Views: 3231
Microsoft Communities