Thermal radiation in transparent objects

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the thermal radiation emitted by transparent objects, particularly glass, and the implications of transparency on energy absorption and emission. Participants explore the conditions under which glass interacts with thermal radiation and the consequences for temperature changes in such materials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that all objects emit thermal radiation and question how glass, being transparent to certain wavelengths, can lower its temperature if it is emitting energy.
  • There is a proposal that if an object can emit radiation at a certain wavelength, it can also absorb at that wavelength, with some suggesting that most glass absorbs infrared radiation well, but not uniformly across the spectrum.
  • One participant raises a scenario involving two objects, B and C, in front of an emitting object A, questioning how radiation can reach object C if it is transparent to certain wavelengths and suggesting that C may cool, which is challenged by another participant who argues that if equilibrium hasn't been reached, cooling is possible.
  • Participants discuss the concept of black bodies, noting that glass is not a black body and therefore does not emit or absorb as efficiently, which leads to further clarification about the differences between black bodies and other types of bodies.
  • One participant acknowledges a previous misunderstanding and indicates that their complex thoughts on the matter have been resolved, aligning with the simpler explanations provided by others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of transparency and emission in thermal radiation. There is no consensus on the specific conditions under which glass can lower its temperature or the broader implications of these interactions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of their assumptions regarding the behavior of glass and other materials in relation to thermal radiation, as well as the complexities involved in reaching thermal equilibrium.

dRic2
Every objects emit thermal radiation. Now consider this case: Sun emits waves in a certian electromagneic spectrum (UV + thermal radiation + ecc...); glass is transparent to thermal radiation that usually reach Earth's surface. UV and other radiations are mainly absorbed by Ozone and other gasses in the atmosphere thus (in a hypotetical scenario) Sun can not transmit energy to glass. SO the piece of glass, which is emitting energy, should be lowering his temperature. It is obviusly not possible, but what did I miss?
 
Science news on Phys.org
dRic2 said:
Every objects emit thermal radiation. Now consider this case: Sun emits waves in a certian electromagneic spectrum (UV + thermal radiation + ecc...); glass is transparent to thermal radiation that usually reach Earth's surface. UV and other radiations are mainly absorbed by Ozone and other gasses in the atmosphere thus (in a hypotetical scenario) Sun can not transmit energy to glass. SO the piece of glass, which is emitting energy, should be lowering his temperature. It is obviusly not possible, but what did I miss?
If an object can radiate at a certain wavelength then equally it can absorb at that wavelength.
My understanding is that most glass does absorb IR quite well, but not equally across the IR band.
 
Ok but if an object A emits radiations F and G (let's call them that way to make it simple) and I place two objects (B and C) in front of him such as B absord F and is transparent to G and C is trasparent to G, how can the radiations of A reach the object C? I think it can not. But C is emetting too so it may get cooler (nonsense).
 
dRic2 said:
Ok but if an object A emits radiations F and G (let's call them that way to make it simple) and I place two objects (B and C) in front of him such as B absord F and is transparent to G and C is trasparent to G, how can the radiations of A reach the object C? I think it can not. But C is emetting too so it may get cooler (nonsense).
Why is it nonsense? If the system has not reached equilibrium then C can cool.
Here's a simpler example: object A only emits/absorbs in band a, the enclosing shell B only emits/absorbs in the disjoint band b. If there is no conduction then each behaves as though the other does not exist. The equilibrium temperature of A will depend on the background radiation in band a beyond the shell.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dRic2
dRic2 said:
Every objects emit thermal radiation.
Careful here. A piece of glass is NOT a black body. It will not emit as efficiently as a black body at the same temperature.

A black body is an ideal absorber, but it is also a perfect emitter. Any gray body or white body will both absorb and emit less completely.
 
Last edited:
Dale said:
Careful here. A piece of glass is NOT a black body. It will not emit as efficiently as a black body at the same temperature.

A black body is an ideal absorber, but it is also a perfect emitter. Any gray body or white body will both absorb and emit less completely.

Yeah, but There is no need for this here I think.

haruspex said:
Why is it nonsense? If the system has not reached equilibrium then C can cool.
Here's a simpler example: object A only emits/absorbs in band a, the enclosing shell B only emits/absorbs in the disjoint band b. If there is no conduction then each behaves as though the other does not exist. The equilibrium temperature of A will depend on the background radiation in band a beyond the shell.

Yes, you're right, I was Just thinking a very strange complicated thing (that I won't explain because It would be very hard) but I realized It is not possibile, so now everything fits in place
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
18K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
12K