Reflection and absorption in matte black vs. shiny black objects

AI Thread Summary
Glossiness in materials is primarily determined by surface roughness rather than their ability to absorb visible light. Dark objects with matte and glossy finishes exhibit diffuse and specular reflections, respectively, due to differences in surface texture. While absorption affects how much light is transmitted through a material, it does not solely dictate reflection characteristics. The discussion also highlights that materials like metals, which have a high index of refraction, tend to be shinier due to specular reflection. Overall, the interaction of light with surfaces is complex and influenced by both surface properties and the material's refractive index.
rolaluv
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm confused about reflection and absorption in materials. Is glossiness of an object determined by roughness of its surface rather than its inability to absorb visible light?

If there are dark-colored objects where one has a matte finish and the other has a glossy finish, does this mean that reflections at these surfaces (which are due to differences in refractive indices in the ray optics model) are diffuse vs. specular? In other words, will objects appear shiny if the surface is smooth and undergoes specular reflections and appear matte if reflection is diffuse?

I don't think the reflections at the surface which determines the texture of a material (shiny or matte) is due to absorption-- because if a dark object absorbs most of the incoming light, then it shouldn't reflect any light back and have a matte finish, right? So I thought every surface has some reflections because it has a different index of refraction than air, and its texture is determined by the roughness of the surface.

Am I completely mistaken on this?

Also, what is the quantum explanation of reflection?

One more point-- if my understanding of reflection is right, why are matte black objects better emitters/absorbers than shiny black objects? This contradicts my assumption where both objects absorb and reflect, but one reflects diffusely and the other reflects specularly.
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
The index of refraction and the angle of incidence determine the reflectance. Metals have a high index of refraction, and so are shinier.

How rough or smooth a surface is determines if it looks mirror like or matt.

How absorptive a material is determines how much light goes out the other side, not how much reflects. However, it does seem that a white car reflects more light than a black one, so I'm not completely sure about this.

As for quantumly, light raises electrons, which then fall back down and release the light. Why it goes one direction instead of another I don't know. I would think it would scatter, though it does not. But I guess depending on the frequency, the more time the photon spends on the electron, giving the dispersion we see in prisms. I doubt the speed of light in between electrons is any different for any materials, though I have heard of some materials having an index less than 1, which I guess would contradict that.
 
Stargazer19385 said:
The index of refraction and the angle of incidence determine the reflectance. Metals have a high index of refraction, and so are shinier.

How rough or smooth a surface is determines if it looks mirror like or matt.

How absorptive a material is determines how much light goes out the other side, not how much reflects. However, it does seem that a white car reflects more light than a black one, so I'm not completely sure about this.

As for quantumly, light raises electrons, which then fall back down and release the light. Why it goes one direction instead of another I don't know. I would think it would scatter, though it does not. But I guess depending on the frequency, the more time the photon spends on the electron, giving the dispersion we see in prisms. I doubt the speed of light in between electrons is any different for any materials, though I have heard of some materials having an index less than 1, which I guess would contradict that.

Be careful here, because the way light interacts with solid surfaces is not as simple as the way photons interact with single atoms (what we are all taught to start with). If it were as simple as that, there would be no specular reflections and all you would get would be scattering due to absorption and random re-emission.
 
Stargazer19385 said:
How absorptive a material is determines how much light goes out the other side, not how much reflects. However, it does seem that a white car reflects more light than a black one, so I'm not completely sure about this.
A white car does reflect more light than a black one.

Car paints use a clear binder that contains suspended pigment particles (and I think there is a clear coat on top as well). There is some specular reflection from the binder regardless of the color of the pigment; this produces the "gloss". Light that is not reflected from the binder strikes a pigment particle. If the pigment is white, the light is likely to be reflected; after some number of reflections, the light will emerge in an essentially random direction. If the particle is black, the light is likely to be absorbed.
 
rolaluv said:
Hi,

I'm confused about reflection and absorption in materials. Is glossiness of an object determined by roughness of its surface rather than its inability to absorb visible light?

If there are dark-colored objects where one has a matte finish and the other has a glossy finish, does this mean that reflections at these surfaces (which are due to differences in refractive indices in the ray optics model) are diffuse vs. specular? In other words, will objects appear shiny if the surface is smooth and undergoes specular reflections and appear matte if reflection is diffuse?

<snip>

Yes- 'gloss', or other appearance effects (haze, color-shifting finishes, etc) are due to surface properties, not bulk properties (of which absorption is one).

Modeling rough surface reflections can be done with ray-optics, but in general it is tedious and requires a microscopic description of the surface shape. Other models (Torrence and Sparrow, Oren-Nayar, etc.) are usually based on radiometry and use the BRDF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRDF) to describe how light is scattered from the surface.
 
Thread 'Simple math model for a Particle Image Velocimetry system'
Hello togehter, I am new to this forum and hope this post followed all the guidelines here (I tried to summarized my issue as clean as possible, two pictures are attached). I would appreciate every help: I am doing research on a Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) system. For this I want to set a simple math model for the system. I hope you can help me out. Regarding this I have 2 main Questions. 1. I am trying to find a math model which is describing what is happening in a simple Particle...
I would like to use a pentaprism with some amount of magnification. The pentaprism will be used to reflect a real image at 90 degrees angle but I also want the reflected image to appear larger. The distance between the prism and the real image is about 70cm. The pentaprism has two reflecting sides (surfaces) with mirrored coating and two refracting sides. I understand that one of the four sides needs to be curved (spherical curvature) to achieve the magnification effect. But which of the...
Back
Top