Light absorbance & color of materials

  • Thread starter throneoo
  • Start date
  • #1
126
2
it's known that for the visible part of EM wave(electromagnetic wave) , black materials absorb more visible light than white materials do . a friend of mine asked me if in general , black materials absorb more EM radiation(whose frequencies do not lie within the visible range) than white materials do . my 'conjecture' is that since the opacity of a material depends on its molecular structure(like the vibration/oscillation modes of CO2 cause the molecules to strongly absorb IR..?) , just because black materials can absorb more EM radiation than white materials do in the visible range doesn't directly mean that they can absorb more radiation of other frequencies , as those vibration modes could have no effect on its opacity to EM radiation other than visible light. As i'm not so sure about the concepts and the logic , I wonder if anyone could help me identify any falsehood/flaws in my claim..thanks in advance for paying attention to this thread..
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
35,817
12,543
a friend of mine asked me if in general , black materials absorb more EM radiation(whose frequencies do not lie within the visible range) than white materials do
They do not. Different frequency ranges are mainly influenced by different, independent phenomena.
 
  • #3
126
2
how so ?
 
  • #4
35,817
12,543
Gamma rays -> sensitive to nuclei, and total density of electrons
X-rays -> sensitive to nuclei and inner electrons, and total density of electrons. In crystals, the lattice structure is relevant, too.
UV and visible light -> chemical structure of the material, band structure, outer electrons
infrared -> oscillations and vibrations of atoms and molecules, plus the same as UV/visible light depending on the material
everything with longer wavelengths -> conductivity, possible polarization of the material

That is just a rough categorization - it depends on the material, and most effects do not have sharp lines where they begin/end to occur.
 
  • #5
126
2
so is the fundamental factor the average range that charges can jump between energy levels?
 
  • #6
35,817
12,543
I don't understand that question.
Fundamental factor of what?
What do you mean with "average range"? Average over what?
Charges do not jump between energy levels, systems can do that (if you do not count the photon as part of the system).

The reaction of materials to light of different wavelengths mainly depends on reactions with energy differences similar to the photon energy, right.
 
  • #7
126
2
fundamental factor that determines any materials' absorbance to light ;
i meant to say ' the average distance' ;
i thought charges changes their distances with other charges as a result of conserving energy from absorbing light ( such that the energy of photons-> electrical potential energy of the charges) , but since these distances are discrete , so a certain material can only absorb photons of certain energy
 
  • #8
35,817
12,543
fundamental factor that determines any materials' absorbance to light ;
Many effects are relevant at the same time.
i meant to say ' the average distance' ;
That does not answer the question what "average" means.
i thought charges changes their distances with other charges as a result of conserving energy from absorbing light
I don't think that is a useful model - this "distance" is not even well-defined.
but since these distances are discrete
They are not. Energy levels are.
 
  • #9
126
2
here i just want to use a hydrogen atom to illustrate what i meant to say by those words.
As far as i know electrons (not sure if they have to be in bound states) could have random positions . so , it seems that the electron has different positions at different time : the electron could be thousands of meters away from the nucleus and suddenly become extremely close to the nucleus..it's just that not all of these positions are equally probable . so i was thinking that there could be an average of all these "distances"...or is it better to use ' the most probable distance' at certain energy levels?(by 'distances' , i think i meant to say 'relative positions')

By the way , are electronic energy levels related to the relative positions of charges (the principle quantum number increases as the electric potential energy in the orbital increases)? if yes , then why aren't these 'distances' discrete as well ?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
35,817
12,543
You cannot apply a classical view to the hydrogen atom. It just does not work. The electron does not have one position at a time*. You can calculate the expectation value of the distance, but that is not an average over time - it is an average over many measurements at many (different!) atoms.
By the way , are electronic energy levels related to the relative positions of charges (the principle quantum number increases as the electric potential energy in the orbital increases)? if yes , then why aren't these 'distances' discrete as well ?
The (distance) expectation values of energy eigenstates are discrete. A particle does not have to be in an energy eigenstate, however.


*in the de-Broglie-Bohm theory, it has, but even there you need the wavefunction (called "pilot wave" here) which is spread out. The particle does not influence the wavefunction (or anything else) at all.
 

Related Threads on Light absorbance & color of materials

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
869
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top