Question about slowdown of the speed of light in solid medium

[Physicsissuef]

I have read the sticky topic (FAQ of Physics Forums), concretely the topic https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=899393&postcount=4" five or six time, and I would ask you about this part:

So the lattice does not absorb this photon and it is re-emitted but with a very slight delay. This, naively, is the origin of the apparent slowdown of the light speed in the material. The emitted photon may encounter other lattice ions as it makes its way through the material and this accumulate the delay.

How it is re-emitted, when it is not first absorbed?

 

[PatPwnt]

It was absorbed for a short time, is what it is saying. So it is absorbed, just not indefinitely. It is absorbed then re-emitted almost instantly, causing the delay.

 

[lightarrow]

I have read the sticky topic (FAQ of Physics Forums), concretely the topic https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=899393&postcount=4" five or six time, and I would ask you about this part:

How it is re-emitted, when it is not first absorbed?

Yes, this can be slightly confusing if not understood well; it means that the atoms don't make a transition between different energy levels but that they simply "resonate" according to the em radiation hitting on them and then they re-emits the same em wave (but with a slight delay). Think of a sort of "reflection" of a light beam on a mirror: if the reflection is perfect, the mirror doesn't absorb any energy from the beam, even if the em wave do interact with the mirror's atoms.
"Absorbed" in that contest means exactly this, that is, "energy is not absorbed from the em wave"; it doesn't mean that "there is no interaction"; so "re-emitted" about photons in this case means that they do interact but without energy absorption.

 

[Physicsissuef]

Yes, this can be slightly confusing if not understood well; it means that the atoms don't make a transition between different energy levels but that they simply "resonate" according to the em radiation hitting on them and then they re-emits the same em wave (but with a slight delay). Think of a sort of "reflection" of a light beam on a mirror: if the reflection is perfect, the mirror doesn't absorb any energy from the beam, even if the em wave do interact with the mirror's atoms.
"Absorbed" in that contest means exactly this, that is, "energy is not absorbed from the em wave"; it doesn't mean that "there is no interaction".

It was absorbed and released, so why they don't support the theory of electron transitions? Exactly that happens, are they want to say that there is chain reaction (there must be more than 1 atom) to be refraction successful?

 

[lightarrow]

It was absorbed and released, so why they don't support the theory of electron transitions? Exactly that happens, are they want to say that there is chain reaction (there must be more than 1 atom) to be refraction successful?

I made the example of reflection, I hoped to be explicative. You could think of sun's light scattering by the air: light interacts with the air's molecules and atoms, but it's not absorbed (its energy is not enough to make them do energy transitions). The prove that it really interacts with air is the blue colour of the sky.

 

[Physicsissuef]

I made the example of reflection, I hoped to be explicative. You could think of sun's light scattering by the air: light interacts with the air's molecules and atoms, but it's not absorbed (its energy is not enough to make them do energy transitions). The prove that it really interacts with air is the blue colour of the sky.

So if it is not enough to make them do energy transitions, how the light interacts with them?
Can the light just pass through them? But where is the time delay then?

 

[Physicsissuef]

Anybody knows?

 

[pam]

"So the lattice does not absorb this photon and it is re-emitted but with a very slight delay. This, naively, is the origin of the apparent slowdown of the light speed in the material. The emitted photon may encounter other lattice ions as it makes its way through the material and this accumulate the delay."

That explanation is not correct. The wave length of light is about 1000 times the distance between molecules, so a single photon interacts with thousands of molecules at the same time. It does not get absorbed and re-emitted by individual molecules. The treatment in most textbooks, showing the increase in permittivity due to macroscopic polarization, is correct.

 

[ZapperZ]

"So the lattice does not absorb this photon and it is re-emitted but with a very slight delay. This, naively, is the origin of the apparent slowdown of the light speed in the material. The emitted photon may encounter other lattice ions as it makes its way through the material and this accumulate the delay."

That explanation is not correct. The wave length of light is about 1000 times the distance between molecules, so a single photon interacts with thousands of molecules at the same time. It does not get absorbed and re-emitted by individual molecules. The treatment in most textbooks, showing the increase in permittivity due to macroscopic polarization, is correct.

The explanation being given, as stated, is the most naive scenario. If you look at the FAQ, there is a clear mention of the phonon modes, which, by defintion, is a collective phenomenon. That is what is meant by "lattice ions". It isn't about individual molecules or atoms.

Zz.

 

[Physicsissuef]

"So the lattice does not absorb this photon and it is re-emitted but with a very slight delay. This, naively, is the origin of the apparent slowdown of the light speed in the material. The emitted photon may encounter other lattice ions as it makes its way through the material and this accumulate the delay."

That explanation is not correct. The wave length of light is about 1000 times the distance between molecules, so a single photon interacts with thousands of molecules at the same time. It does not get absorbed and re-emitted by individual molecules. The treatment in most textbooks, showing the increase in permittivity due to macroscopic polarization, is correct.

And how does than the light is slowed down?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Yeah, he spends most of the article explaining that the conception quoted in the OP is not correct.

Great article ZapperZ. Lattice vibrations are quantized? ❊brain explodes❊ This site is so great.

The wave length of light is about 1000 times the distance between molecules, so a single photon interacts with thousands of molecules at the same time.

Is there something physical, or some area of effect, that's physically the same size as the wavelength?

⚛​

 

[Physicsissuef]

Yeah, he spends most of the article explaining that the conception quoted in the OP is not correct.

Great article ZapperZ. Lattice vibrations are quantized? ❊brain explodes❊ This site is so great.



Is there something physical, or some area of effect, that's physically the same size as the wavelength?

⚛​

What about my question?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

What about my question?

I'm not a physicist myself but it seems to me that you'd need to achieve some understanding of phonons to better comprehend ZapperZ's article.

 

[Physicsissuef]

ZapperZ can you tell me concretely what happens? Are the phonons (the lattice of ions) absorbing and then re-emiting the energy?

 

[Physicsissuef]

If the electrons absorb the energy of any portion of the visible spectrum, the light that transmits through will appeared colored according to the portion of the spectrum absorbed. In fact, the color of any object is a direct result of what levels of energy the electrons in the substance will absorb!
So what actually happens here?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Just from my own point of view not understanding this myself, it may more successfully encourage people to answer you if you ask questions that demonstrate that you're making a serious attempt to understand what phonons are and how they fit into this topic.

(Or, it might just be something that can't be boiled down to as simple a form as you want it to be.)

⚛​

 

[Physicsissuef]

I think it is not so much complicated. Just so much information confuses you.
I found http://science.howstuffworks.com/light12.htm" first saying that:

The light wave penetrates deeply into the material, and causes small vibrations in the electrons. The electrons pass these vibrations on to the atoms in the material, and they send out light waves of the same frequency as the incoming wave. But this all takes time. The part of the wave inside the material slows down, while the part of the wave outside the object maintains its original frequency.

I found http://science.howstuffworks.com/question404.htm" on the same site:

Most of the time, it is a combination of the above that happens to the light that hits an object. The electrons in different materials vary in the range of energy that they can absorb. A lot of glass, for example, blocks out ultraviolet (UV) light. What happens is the electrons in the glass absorb the energy of the photons in the UV range while ignoring the weaker energy of photons in the visible light spectrum. If the electrons absorb the energy of any portion of the visible spectrum, the light that transmits through will appeared colored according to the portion of the spectrum absorbed. In fact, the color of any object is a direct result of what levels of energy the electrons in the substance will absorb!

Again, the http://science.howstuffworks.com/light10.htm":

The atoms in some materials hold on to their electrons loosely. In other words, the materials contain many free electrons that can jump readily from one atom to another within the material. When the electrons in this type of material absorb energy from an incoming light wave, they do not pass that energy on to other atoms. The energized electrons merely vibrate and then send the energy back out of the object as a light wave with the same frequency as the incoming wave. The overall effect is that the light wave does not penetrate deeply into the material.

So what is actually correct??

 

[lightarrow]

I think it is not so much complicated. Just so much information confuses you.


I found http://science.howstuffworks.com/question404.htm" on the same site:

Most of the time, it is a combination of the above that happens to the light that hits an object. The electrons in different materials vary in the range of energy that they can absorb. A lot of glass, for example, blocks out ultraviolet (UV) light. What happens is the electrons in the glass absorb the energy of the photons in the UV range while ignoring the weaker energy of photons in the visible light spectrum. If the electrons absorb the energy of any portion of the visible spectrum, the light that transmits through will appeared colored according to the portion of the spectrum absorbed. In fact, the color of any object is a direct result of what levels of energy the electrons in the substance will absorb!

Again, the http://science.howstuffworks.com/light10.htm":

The atoms in some materials hold on to their electrons loosely. In other words, the materials contain many free electrons that can jump readily from one atom to another within the material. When the electrons in this type of material absorb energy from an incoming light wave, they do not pass that energy on to other atoms. The energized electrons merely vibrate and then send the energy back out of the object as a light wave with the same frequency as the incoming wave. The overall effect is that the light wave does not penetrate deeply into the material.

So what is actually correct??

The first refers to transparent materials (like glass), the second to conductors (like metals).

 

[Physicsissuef]

Actually all are for one same thing. On the third link, just below the quoted text, see there is Law of Reflection. Does anybody know what is correct?

 

[lightarrow]

And how does than the light is slowed down?

Probably it's thinking about photons that confuses you, so you could prefer not to think about photons at all, since Maxwell's equations are enough to treat the phenomenon. The light's velocity we are talking here is what it's called "phase velocity" of a wave. When an em wave interacts with atoms without being absorbed, the atom or the atoms collectively (as in the case of glass) oscillate in response of that wave, so generating another, second, wave which is not in phase with the first one, but with a slight phase delay; this then will make the near subsequent atoms oscillate which then will emit another, third wave, with a slight phase delay with respect to the second and so you have a phase delay proportional to the light path inside the material. Now remember that we are talking about "phase velocity" and you understand (I hope! ) why light's speed is slowed down inside the glass.
A link about waves animations:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/demos.html

 

[Physicsissuef]

Probably it's thinking about photons that confuses you, so you could prefer not to think about photons at all, since Maxwell's equations are enough to treat the phenomenon. The light's velocity we are talking here is what it's called "phase velocity" of a wave. When an em wave interacts with atoms without being absorbed, the atom or the atoms collectively (as in the case of glass) oscillate in response of that wave, so generating another, second, wave which is not in phase with the first one, but with a slight phase delay; this then will make the near subsequent atoms oscillate which then will emit another, third wave, with a slight phase delay with respect to the second and so you have a phase delay proportional to the light path inside the material. Now remember that we are talking about "phase velocity" and you understand (I hope! ) why light's speed is slowed down inside the glass.
A link about waves animations:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/demos.html

They are some kind of excited?

 

[lightarrow]

They are some kind of excited?

A kind, yes, because the term excitation is usually used for energy transitions (but you have to ask someone else about this ).

 

[Physicsissuef]

A kind, yes, because the term excitation is usually used for energy transitions (but you have to ask someone else about this ).

But if the energy is not enough strong to make them oscillate, what happens?

 

[lightarrow]

But if the energy is not enough strong to make them oscillate, what happens?

In this case you can forget energy: there is no energy absorption, no energy transitions; they oscillate without the need of any energy.
Edit: quantum world is not the same as classical world.

 

[lightarrow]

Actually all are for one same thing. On the third link, just below the quoted text, see there is Law of Reflection. Does anybody know what is correct?

With "the first" and "the second" I intended the articles quoted in my post, so they are "the second" and "the third" of your previous post.

 

[Physicsissuef]

In this case you can forget energy: there is no energy absorption, no energy transitions; they oscillate without the need of any energy.

So they oscillate in presence of electromagnetic wave, right?

 

[lightarrow]

So they oscillate in presence of electromagnetic wave, right?

Yes.

 

[Physicsissuef]

And what do you think, is this http://science.howstuffworks.com/light10.htm"?

The atoms in some materials hold on to their electrons loosely. In other words, the materials contain many free electrons that can jump readily from one atom to another within the material. When the electrons in this type of material absorb energy from an incoming light wave, they do not pass that energy on to other atoms. The energized electrons merely vibrate and then send the energy back out of the object as a light wave with the same frequency as the incoming wave. The overall effect is that the light wave does not penetrate deeply into the material.

 

[GT1]

Yes, this can be slightly confusing if not understood well; it means that the atoms don't make a transition between different energy levels but that they simply "resonate" according to the em radiation hitting on them and then they re-emits the same em wave (but with a slight delay). Think of a sort of "reflection" of a light beam on a mirror: if the reflection is perfect, the mirror doesn't absorb any energy from the beam, even if the em wave do interact with the mirror's atoms.
"Absorbed" in that contest means exactly this, that is, "energy is not absorbed from the em wave"; it doesn't mean that "there is no interaction"; so "re-emitted" about photons in this case means that they do interact but without energy absorption.

So what happens to the original photon after the interaction ?

 

[lightarrow]

And what do you think, is this http://science.howstuffworks.com/light10.htm"?

No. The article means to talk about a perfect reflection (no energy absorption at all), so it's confusing to say "When the electrons in this type of material absorb energy from an incoming light wave".

 

[Physicsissuef]

No. The article means to talk about a perfect reflection (no energy absorption at all), so it's confusing to say "When the electrons in this type of material absorb energy from an incoming light wave".

I think that some materials, like some metals absorb that energy of the wave. Like in the photoelectric effect. And the glass electrons have enough energy, so they don't absorb it, they are just letting pass through the material, that's why it is transparent. But when the light interacts with the glass surface the EM wave make them vibrate at same frequency as the light passes. But still I can't understand why air can't reflect light or it reflects the light very poorly.

 

[Physicsissuef]

what do u think?

 

[lightarrow]

I think that some materials, like some metals absorb that energy of the wave. Like in the photoelectric effect.

They have already explained you the concept of energy bands. A smooth metal's surface like Al or Ag (mirrors are made covering a glass surface with those metals) reflects quite well visible light without absorbing it appreciately, but if you increase the frequency and so you go into UV, you will, at the end, find frequencies at which the metals become opaque as is a piece of carbon for visible em radiation (= light).
So, you can't have photoelectric effect with a metal which doesn't absorb energy at the frequency of light you are hitting it. (Actually there is always a slight absorption, no material is perfect, however this doesn't affect the essential concept). For this reason photocathods inside photomultipliers are covered with alkali metals or other special materials that absorbs well in the visible spectrum releasing electrons. So, photoelectric effect has nothing to do with reflection.

And the glass electrons have enough energy, so they don't absorb it, they are just letting pass through the material, that's why it is transparent.

I haven't understood what you said.

But when the light interacts with the glass surface the EM wave make them vibrate at same frequency as the light passes. But still I can't understand why air can't reflect light or it reflects the light very poorly.

Imagine to be inside water, 100 m down the surface: would you say that water reflects light there? Probably not. But, on the other hand, you know that light is reflected by a water surface in air. Try to think about it. (You have to begin thinking to yourself, from now on. )

 

[Physicsissuef]

They have already explained you the concept of energy bands. A smooth metal's surface like Al or Ag (mirrors are made covering a glass surface with those metals) reflects quite well visible light without absorbing it appreciately, but if you increase the frequency and so you go into UV, you will, at the end, find frequencies at which the metals become opaque as is a piece of carbon for visible em radiation (= light).
So, you can't have photoelectric effect with a metal which doesn't absorb energy at the frequency of light you are hitting it. (Actually there is always a slight absorption, no material is perfect, however this doesn't affect the essential concept). For this reason photocathods inside photomultipliers are covered with alkali metals or other special materials that absorbs well in the visible spectrum releasing electrons. So, photoelectric effect has nothing to do with reflection.
I haven't understood what you said.Imagine to be inside water, 100 m down the surface: would you say that water reflects light there? Probably not. But, on the other hand, you know that light is reflected by a water surface in air. Try to think about it. (You have to begin thinking to yourself, from now on. )

Ok, thank you very much for the help. When we are at the air, I have 2 simulations for refraction of light, which are connected with slowing the speed of light will passing through medium. http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/refraction.htm" . My question was, why air have 1.003 index of refraction?

 

[pam]

Doesn't anybody on this thread have an EM textbook?