Unraveling the Mystery of Glass Transparency: A Scientific Explanation

[n0_3sc]

I'm confused with a simple physical explanation as to why glass is so transparent.

I would assume crystalline material would be 'more' transparent than glass since the lattice structure is ordered and light can pass through in an ordered manner.

Normal glass is an amorphous structure (random) and I would've thought light would get reflected at random clusters of the lattice. Yet its more transparent than a crystal.

 

[ZapperZ]

But note, however, that ordinary glass is very opaque over a large portion of the EM spectrum. It is opaque to the UV range, for example. You need special glass such as quartz or fused silica to get transmission which, at best, is about 90%.

For most material, the optical property depends very much on the phonon structure of the material (see one of the FAQ entry). For glass, it is a bit more complicated than that because the "glassy phase" is quite unique and is a whole area of study in itself. The phonon structure, while it exists, isn't that well-defined, and I think that is the reason why visible range light cannot excite such modes and cause it to be absorbed.

Someone who is more an expert in the glassy phase study may have a better answer than this.

Zz.

 

[Ben_Alderson]

I must admit, i don't know a huge amount on the subject, but i have a few theories.

Maybe the quantum/wave behaviour of light is a factor, don't take my word on it, but maybe the structure of glass is such that electromagnetic waves with the wavelength of visible light can pass through unaffected.

Also, reflection isn't the only factor in transparity/opacity, there is also scattering to take into account.

Im quite interested in this too, i hope somebody with a bit more knowledge than me in the subject will reply

EDIT: Ah, ZapperZ replied before me with a much better explanation than mine

 

[n0_3sc]

I think your explanation of the phonon structure not being able to absorb light is an excellent one. It makes sense too.

Would that mean all/most amorphous structured material be transparent to more wavelengths than crystallines?

 

[deakie]

So far, this is what i have settled on as an explanation for that behaviour. I would love to hear any valid opinions on what i should correct...

When a photon enters a material, it becomes a phonon for description in all intents and purposes.
The photon itself should be viewed only as having an electric and magnetic field that is oscillating. The material itself is composed of atoms which also have excited fields which are due to the background energy but all the most certain will have a discrete range of oscillating field arrangements.

In the case of a crystal, there will be a global and periodic arrangement of these atoms which will cause particular arrangements of fields within the structure.
The photon field, while passing through the crystal is reacting with the field arrangements within the material.
This determines its direction of travel as the field arrangement of the photon will most likely fall into the path where the combination of fields has its least effect or where they strike a balance so to speak given its unique momentum. The average exit angle is mostly as a result of this.

In non-crystalline materials, the arrangments of the atoms are such that the solid is still organised along the lines of its field strengths and will still exhibit some average properties towards photons.

Many opaque material if cut thin enough will allow transmission of photons.

If the photon has a frequency equivalent to a vibratory mode within the field arrangment that is unoccupied, then it will be absorped. If there are no modes present at or near the surface of the material that would allow transmission, it is reflected.

Higher Z material tend to be more tightly packed and exert greater field effects which lend themselves to greater refraction angles.
High grade optics make use of this phenomenon by adding high Z materials to glass to increase their index of refraction.

If the photon should fly through the material without having been influenced in anyway, then it should be considered that the photon actually went through a hole in the material and not through the material itself.

If the photon should hit a atom or experience a near hit, then scattering is the resulting effect.
We have to realize that the material is held and bonded together through its fields and so the gap that exists in between is actually occupied by the interacting fields of the atoms.

On the whole, the wavelength isn't changed much unless you have effects like photon pumping wherein more than one photon will interact in a given field area to produce a photon of higher frequency but this is very marked and the light produced is generally in keepin with one of the vibraional modes of the material...ND:YAG lasers make use of this...infact, most lasers do as well.
Any interactions by the fields in the material on the photon field will be small and should fit a very tight(slim) gaussian profile that can easily go unnoticed by a regular spectrometer unless the accuracy is way above the wavelength being examined and yet is in keeping with the small variations of the discrete levels of the atomic fields involved.

However, all said and done, the photon while traveling through the material should be considered as a phonon AND could be treated as an acoustic shock pulse through the material. This makes it easy to see how the frequency of the wave would 1. determine its speed through the material and 2. interact with the various vibrational modes.

 

[n0_3sc]

When a photon enters a material, it becomes a phonon for description in all intents and purposes.

Can you say photons "become" phonons? Not all photons are absorbed by the material creating vibrational atomic resonances known as 'phonons'. (specific conditions need to be met like intensity).

In the case of a crystal, there will be a global and periodic arrangement of these atoms which will cause particular arrangements of fields within the structure.
The photon field, while passing through the crystal is reacting with the field arrangements within the material.
This determines its direction of travel as the field arrangement of the photon will most likely fall into the path where the combination of fields has its least effect or where they strike a balance so to speak given its unique momentum. The average exit angle is mostly as a result of this.

I assume you are defining how the polarization of the incident light is defined as it propagates through the material? That being said, all light is polarized upon exit of any crystal?

If the photon should fly through the material without having been influenced in anyway, then it should be considered that the photon actually went through a hole in the material and not through the material itself.

A random structured material (eg. glass) would then have a higher probability of absorption/scattering than an ordered structure (crystal). Yet, some crystals appear more opaque at white light than ordinary glass.

However, all said and done, the photon while traveling through the material should be considered as a phonon AND could be treated as an acoustic shock pulse through the material

ZapperZ was saying that the amorphous structure of glass prevents the excitation of vibrational modes within the material, now this would mean that Laser Microphones (based on the principle of opto-acoustic modulation) would work better on Crystals than standard window glass. And normal glass has a fairly decent SNR for those laser microphones (I've tried it).

What do you think?

 

[deakie]

Can you say photons "become" phonons? Not all photons are absorbed by the material creating vibrational atomic resonances known as 'phonons'. (specific conditions need to be met like intensity).

Why not? After all, the propagation of the wave through the material is soley done by interaction with the material...hence the change in speed...
To argue against it being a phonon, we would have to say that it doesn't interact at all...
if it doesn't interact, then how is it that the material is able to act so efficiently as a filter to some momentum and not others? I'm going on the basis that any wave propagation in a material is a phonon and not a photon...i could be wrong, but as long as the wave exists within the boundry, then it remains a phonon...I'd welcome advice from experts in the area on this.
I found this link interesting in looking at optical and acoustical modes.
(web page addy: chembio.uoguelph.ca/educmat/chm729/Phonons/cont.htm)

I assume you are defining how the polarization of the incident light is defined as it propagates through the material? That being said, all light is polarized upon exit of any crystal?

I'm not sure on the all light is polarized bit, what i am saying there, or doing rather is giving an example of a mode of travel through a material...using a crystal as a clearer example.
While glass isn't your highly organised structure, it doesn't prevent it from being somewhat arranged. The atomic arrangements within the glass are, agreed, more amorphous and so we don't get those lovely channels as we do in crystals...what i don't know is whether this presents minute surface boundary conditions in the material that the wave has to negotiate...however, the overall field arrangement is such that it allows propagation from one surface to the other unless there is a distinct breakdown within the glass.
i think its easy to see the photons being transmitted soley by the electrons, and more difficult to see that its the field that's doing all the work. I don't think the major work done in transmission is via absorption and then retransmission by the electron. The delays produced by this would be significant to say the least. This would also set a greater limit on the number of photons allowed to pass at anyone time...I just don't see this myself...and i must be careful here not to venture into what i believe rather than what is proven experimentally...but to stick my toes in a bit...
warning! conjecture!
when a wave passes an electron, i assume the behaviour is like that of a cork on water wherein it responds to the passing field of the wave and there is some affinity or lack of exerted, as well as a dependence on its previous or natural state of vibration, with respect to the passing wave . It is this interaction that determines 1. it propagtes on, 2. gets absorbed or 3. is resisted.
it doesn't actually need to touch the charge body, just the fields need to interact.

does this make sense at all? because in viewing this, I'm imposing the limit that the photon/phono is completely wavelike in nature.

A random structured material (eg. glass) would then have a higher probability of absorption/scattering than an ordered structure (crystal). Yet, some crystals appear more opaque at white light than ordinary glass.

Yes i agree that it looks upside down, but let's face it, we know looks are decieving...
but the proof as far as I'm concerned is in the pudding...;)
A great example is the piezo effect (field effect) of many crystals...one optical use of this is found in Q-Switched lasers. By applying a voltage field or an acoustic wave, depending on the material, they can influence the light's passage.
I take it that they have realigned the electronic fields within the cyrstal and so present a resistive/assistive field to the waves.
What may appear opaque to the visible portion of the spectrum may infact be completely clear to the infrared or microwave portions or it could be that the fields are arranged such that 1. the majority EM is absorped or 2. reflected.

In the case of scatter, as is obvious when white light then gets jumbled to become milky...this suggests a completely disorganised field or possibly one that has many different field structures though organised. Sort of like a staircase that has many steps of different sizes and directions.

ZapperZ was saying that the amorphous structure of glass prevents the excitation of vibrational modes within the material, now this would mean that Laser Microphones (based on the principle of opto-acoustic modulation) would work better on Crystals than standard window glass. And normal glass has a fairly decent SNR for those laser microphones (I've tried it).

What do you think?

I'm not going to disagree with zapperZ at all on the modes issue and I think i have covered pretty much what i think in showing that what may be amorphous can in fact be organised though its atomic arrangements do not lend the idea easily.
i believe the discontinuity of effects you describe are covered if we view it as fields rather than picture perfectly organised charge bodies.
I can easily twang any nearly any material with an ultrasound wave and examine it for defects...admittedly, its not a optical phonon but a phonon nevertheless.
my point being that though photonics require lovely discrete modes on which to build devices geared to the semiconductor industry, it doesn't mean that we cannot make use of the natural field arrangement that materials make use of all the time when conducting all manner of EM radiation...ie heat, light and so on...

My only other addition is that i believe, not sure I'm right but, that the higher you get in frequency, the more the wave tends towards the particle effect and hence why at energies above xray...ie gamma...we see more billiard ball effects and the scattering becomes more important...

opto-acoustic behaviour is best in peizo type materials which aren't neccesarily pure crystal objects...most piezos are made by heating a mixture of powders and allowing them to cool, much the same way as glass is made...so i expect that both would have similar effects...in this case, i think its radiation pressure that's the pronounced behaviour...have a look at photo-acoustic spectroscopy to see what's happening there and you will see the similarities.
I would have thought that any material under pressure would distort...see what i am saying?

we need some optical experts to clear up our thoughts...:)

 

[Cthugha]

I'm going on the basis that any wave propagation in a material is a phonon and not a photon...

You are rather wrong here. Photons and phonons are particles/quasiparticles, whiche couple to each other in material, but a photon does not become a phonon instantly and automatically. In the case of weak coupling they just scatter for example. In the case of strong coupling (near resonance) however the behaviour of photons inside materials gets quite complicated and is best described within the polariton picture.

A polariton is another quasiparticle needed to describe the (near resonant) interaction between photons and phonon, where perturbation theory does not lead to sensible results. and explains features like the observed anticrossing between photonic and phononic modes. While this model is usually just used for strong coupling conditions, the results are of course also valid for weak coupling. Iirc there are also some theoretical groups, which claim that a photon in bulk material must always be described by polaritons (Maybe the Koch group, but I am not sure here). So you might want to do a google search for phonon polaritons or polaritons in general.

 

[n0_3sc]

You raise some interesting points deakie. But I think we are confusing ourselves by explaining these situations where light is either a particle or a wave. We need to realize that both pictures are valid and that a complete explanation involves an understanding of classical and quantum optics (as Cthugha gave a quantum view).

I take it that they have realigned the electronic fields within the cyrstal and so present a resistive/assistive field to the waves.
What may appear opaque to the visible portion of the spectrum may infact be completely clear to the infrared or microwave portions or it could be that the fields are arranged such that 1. the majority EM is absorped or 2. reflected.

An applied voltage across the crystal does change the electronic fields and thus polarization of the input EM field. However, a polarizer and analyzer before and after the crystal controls the output intensity. It is these polarizers that cause the light to switch 'on' and 'off'. Thats how the Q-switched lasers use them. The crystal does not turn 'on/off' the light simply by a certain voltage.

I would have thought that any material under pressure would distort...see what i am saying?

I agree, but should the level of distortion be dependent on the materials "electronic" structure or "field" arrangement? If so, what kind of material would give a lower threshold for distortion. You quote that piezos don't necessarily possesses the same structure as crystals, yet they distort easier (I don't know if "easier" is the right word because some piezo's require thousands of volts).

we need some optical experts to clear up our thoughts...:)

lol, we certainly do have a lot of thoughts

 

[pinestone]

When silica cools into the amorphous phase the electrons in the glass do not absorb the energy of photons in the visible spectrum. Transparent plastics behave the same way.

 

[deakie]

Typical!...i came out to bat but the umpires came out with a new set of balls to play with...

i need a couple of days n0_3sc before we continue...need to examine Cthugha point on...

Photons and phonons are particles/quasiparticles

i'm not quite convinced of the particle only view...so I'm looking at these polariton groupings...
I haven't seen them before...and they look really interesting...

 

[n0_3sc]

i need a couple of days n0_3sc before we continue...need to examine Cthugha point on...

No Worries! I'm not going anywhere - this is purely out of interest.

 

[deakie]

You are rather wrong here. Photons and phonons are particles/quasiparticles, whiche couple to each other in material, but a photon does not become a phonon instantly and automatically. In the case of weak coupling they just scatter for example. In the case of strong coupling (near resonance) however the behaviour of photons inside materials gets quite complicated and is best described within the polariton picture.

whew! i'd say about a dozen or so papers later...i have a wee grasp of these blighters...
Thanks Cthugha!

I see what you mean about their groupings and how they have locked down phonons to specifics.
However, my problem is that if i use polaritons, it would only be as a direct substitute of phonons...and would that solve my issue for viewing it as electromagnetic interactions? not sure about that as I'm convinced more by wave description than by particle.

I can see how the particle description is more apt when furnishing a behaviour but it really doesn't take away from the fact that its waves as far as i can see...
excepting that they utilise the term quasi particle to represent real particles with odd behaviours but confine their definition to the unreal...weird...arrrrgh is more appropriate...

Quasiparticles are mathematical entities used to predict realistic electronic behavior by including properties, like finite range, that real electrons do not possess.

yet...

Superconductivity is carried by Cooper pairs -- usually described as pairs of electrons -- that move through the crystal lattice without resistance. A broken Cooper pair is called a Bogoliubov quasiparticle. It differs from the conventional quasiparticle in metal because it combines the properties of a negatively charged electron and a positively charged hole (an electron void).

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-8-fold-quantum-states-sidebar.html
So in effect, a quaisparticle is an almsot real charged particle in this instance...
I can certainly see how having a particle of sorts or the nature of one would make it easier to model a behaviour...thats for sure...

so i'll desist from referring to the wave like properties that I'm referring to as phonons...as phonons do not cover the range according to the conventions...

 

[deakie]

Of course, i have a few more thoughts on the issue and hopefully it won't be too horrible if i aired them a bit...:shy:

I noticed that conduction of current in some way gets tied to these quasiparticle interactions wherein i choose to separate this...
i'm not saying that it doesn't occur but I am choosing to keep them seperate.
for now, let me keep my wave as a wave and a particle as an electron.

if i have a wave entering a material and it has some kind of interaction, then one of two things must occur with respect to a particle...it either perturbs the particle, which I am saying occurs through interaction through the fields or it acts on the particle as in shifting it out of its current field bonding with the atom...
in the latter, that conduction effect is somewhat like scattering isn't it. Surely the wave loses some energy in that process?
in the former, the interaction is such that the electron would move with respect to the rise and fall of the passing wave's field without much change in energy...in the first half it either adds or takes away energy from the electron and in the second half, the opposite occurs leaving a net 0 effect...
however, this view is blown apart by experiments at low K where narrow spectrum lasers are used to exite cooled material and the resulting spectra indicates strong lines around the energy levels of the atom's electrons and also a production of a spread at other energies with reduced amplitude...so its proven that the interactions can cause a loss of energy that is significant. I find this very interesting.

It has been well established that the coupling of excitons with phonons leads to the phonon sidebands in absorption or emission spectra which reflect frequencies
of phonons and the coupling strength [5, 6].
On the other hand, interactions of excitons with electronic excitations can also be revealed by lineshapes and radiation frequencies in the photoemission spectra

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0702/0702544v2.pdf

as i said earlier...a field can excite the material to provide some shift...this is born out with the use of graphene as a semiconductor...

Using electric field in an FET geometry it is possible to dope graphene layers by changing the carrier concentration in the samples. In particular, its phonon spectrum can be modified significantly by tuning the applied gate voltage

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0702/0702627v2.pdf

Why would it not have an effect on the wave that is transposed during its passage?
graphene, while somewhat crystalline, isn't quite diamond like with a really rigid structure but more like your average arranged material...

@ n0_3sc

An applied voltage across the crystal does change the electronic fields and thus polarization of the input EM field. However, a polarizer and analyzer before and after the crystal controls the output intensity. It is these polarizers that cause the light to switch 'on' and 'off'. Thats how the Q-switched lasers use them. The crystal does not turn 'on/off' the light simply by a certain voltage.

not neccesarily...the polarisers are used as alignment...
the RF field is applied to create an electroacoustic effect which results in either a shear or longitudinal wave...it's the waves that does the switching...
thats how i understood it...

 

[n0_3sc]

not neccesarily...the polarisers are used as alignment...
the RF field is applied to create an electroacoustic effect which results in either a shear or longitudinal wave...it's the waves that does the switching...
thats how i understood it...

Oh right yes I'm thinking of something different. Yes I do know about the technique your referring to now.

Deakie, your understanding of this thread is beyond me. But to clear up:
When low level light enters a material, it interacts with the electrons which 're-emit' the light?
When high level light enters a material, it interacts with the phonons which 're-emit' the light down-shifted in frequency (Raman scattering)?

 

[deakie]

When low level light enters a material, it interacts with the electrons which 're-emit' the light?
When high level light enters a material, it interacts with the phonons which 're-emit' the light down-shifted in frequency (Raman scattering)?

I take it you mean low and high level to be the energy of the photon right?

Just saying what conclusions I'm coming to...while trying to leave out any perceived logic which may distort the picture...

if a photon has a direct hit with an electron mode and gets absorped, then its highly likely that it will be remitted by that same electron.
and
if a photon enters a material and interacts by means of the field, then its highly likely that that photon emerging from the material will be the same photon which has either been added to, reduced in or remains the same in energy...in the raman effect, the photons always lose energy...so raman cannot be the only effect...

Cthugha said that the photons will couple with the phonons already in the material and he gave instances that they would be treated differently.

Personally, I'm beginning to think of the material as a complex, wide (with discrete levels) bandwidth, multiharmonic, mixing oscillator...
does this make sense?

 

[n0_3sc]

Yeah I guess it does make sense.
Its weird that in all my years of physics I never new that light is re-emitted from a material upon incident light.

Would that imply that there exists a delay between the outgoing light and the incoming light - a delay given by the electron's decay lifetime?

 

[Gokul43201]

Glass, being essentially a supercooled liquid, is transparent for about the same reasons that most liquids are transparent ("Eg" > 4eV, and suitable phonon dispersion). In fact, the common method used to make most glasses, plastics and even candy more transparent is to melt them and then rapidly quench them.

 

[Raze2dust]

T+R+A=1
where T=transmission coefficient,R=reflection coefficient and A=Absorption coeff. and all depend on material and wavelength of radiation you are talking about..

So for any material, if T is to be high, A and R need to be low...

Since metal surface has a lot of free electrons, when the radiation strikes the material, the free surface electrons start oscillating and in the process they emit the radiation which falls on them (oscillating charge will emit radiation). This is how metals are supposed to be good reflectors..

Absorption is something I'm not very sure of but since glass has high T, obviously its A is low for visible radiation..

p.s: i could not read the previous posts due to lack of time so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something.. :)

 

[ZapperZ]

T+R+A=1
where T=transmission coefficient,R=reflection coefficient and A=Absorption coeff. and all depend on material and wavelength of radiation you are talking about..

So for any material, if T is to be high, A and R need to be low...

Since metal surface has a lot of free electrons, when the radiation strikes the material, the free surface electrons start oscillating and in the process they emit the radiation which falls on them (oscillating charge will emit radiation). This is how metals are supposed to be good reflectors..

Absorption is something I'm not very sure of but since glass has high T, obviously its A is low for visible radiation..

p.s: i could not read the previous posts due to lack of time so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something.. :)

You really DO need to read the thread before responding with something like that.

Zz.

 

[Raze2dust]

hmm..k now i read the posts..and i must admit most of them are slightly above my current level of understanding..

but what about this - " materials with free electrons are good reflectors ". Do you think that's right? I mean it works well for most materials i can think of right now but there are bound to be exceptions..

and glass does not have that many free electrons..now if we could find some explanation for why glass does not absorb visible radiation the problem is solved right? or am I missing something here?

 

[ZapperZ]

hmm..k now i read the posts..and i must admit most of them are slightly above my current level of understanding..

but what about this - " materials with free electrons are good reflectors ". Do you think that's right? I mean it works well for most materials i can think of right now but there are bound to be exceptions..

and glass does not have that many free electrons..now if we could find some explanation for why glass does not absorb visible radiation the problem is solved right? or am I missing something here?

Glass is transparent over most of the visible range. So why is this an issue? A typical mirror that you use isn't glass.. it may have a glass COATING on top of it, but the reflective part is usually a metal, possibly aluminum film.

Zz.

 

[n0_3sc]

You really DO need to read the thread before responding with something like that.

LOL.

There are so many questions in this thread that I'm losing track...

 

[Gokul43201]

but what about this - " materials with free electrons are good reflectors ". Do you think that's right? I mean it works well for most materials i can think of right now but there are bound to be exceptions..

This is only partially correct. Most metals have a high reflectivity in the visible range and are highly transparent in the high UV range. The reflectivity in the visible range is, as you point out, due to the excitation of surface plasmons (collective excitations of the free electron gas). However, the electron gas, has a natural frequency (the plasma frequency) above which it is not very good at responding to the EM-field of the incident light. For most metals, the plasma frequency (which is a function of the free electron density and the conduction band effective mass) lies in the UV range.

and glass does not have that many free electrons..now if we could find some explanation for why glass does not absorb visible radiation the problem is solved right? or am I missing something here?

Yes, that is essentially correct, but it hardly makes the problem any easier to solve. The vast majority of insulators are opaque, and this is true even of amorphous materials. Glasses are kind of special in that they are essentially supercooled liquids.

 

[deakie]

There are so many questions in this thread that I'm losing track...

Stay focused!

Would that imply that there exists a delay between the outgoing light and the incoming light - a delay given by the electron's decay lifetime?

Asking that in a different way then would be...why light is slower in mediums then vacuo?
However, though i'd love to say yes, yes, yes (harry and sally moment there), i'd hold reservations on that because i don't believe its only absorption and re-emission that occurs...
Its my wave thingy again...

However, a good example of your thought would be Photoluminescence...you know those things you expose to light and they re-emit in the dark...and the time differences in these are very significant...
With normal transmission, i'd like to think that the IOR could be a good indicator of flight time for visible transmission through media...we do know that a wave packet of white light will spread due to the different wavelengths down a fiber, i take it this is due to the IOR of the fibre acting on the different wavelengths and hence you get the different arrival times. Am i right on this?

From my point of view, any wave interferance is bound to produce a delay and further to the arguments added today about glass and metal electronic structures...i dug up a couple of things that slightly relate...with my usual bias on waves of course...

One of those things is Anderson localization, which according to wiki...

Anderson localization is a general wave phenomenon that applies to the transport of electromagnetic wave, acoustic wave, quantum wave and spin wave, etc. This phenomenon is to be distinguished from weak localization, which is the precursor effect of Anderson localization. This phenomenon finds its origin in the wave interference between multiple-scattering paths. In strong scattering limit, the severe interferences can completely halt the waves inside the random medium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_localization

and the other was an article on slow light by physorg...

http://www.physorg.com/news128268191.html

which talked about slow light taking place alongside anderson's localisation...
but the part that peaked my interests was...

“Light localization enables us to control photons and the various aspects of their propagation and interaction with matter,” said Bandaru, who works in the electrical properties of nanometer scale structures.

which ties in with your question...about delays...and for these modern ic progress, its a very important field of study...

i'd like to say that their succes is more likely to come out of treating their problem as one of waves than just discrete electron states alone...in fact, if you haven't fallen :zzz: as yet...i'd like to make one more connection...though i haven't been able to look more in depth at this...the abstract looks good with respect to my thoughts...and drags up what was discussed before...remember?

LOCALIZATION OF LIGHT has been achieved by an Amsterdam- Florence collaboration (contact Ad Lagendijk, adlag@phys.uva.nl). Consider the movement of light through a diffuse medium such as milk, fog, or sugar. The light waves scatter repeatedly, and the transmission of light decreases as the light gets reflected. In the Amsterdam-Florence experiment something different happens. By using a gallium-arsenide powder with a very high index of refraction but with very low absorption at near infrared (wavelength of 1064 nm), the researchers were, in a sense, able to get the light to stand still. That is, the light waves get into the medium and bounce around in a standing wave pattern, without being absorbed. This is the first example of "Anderson localization" for near-visible light. This medium is not what would be called a "photonic bandgap" material (analogous to a semiconductor for electrons) but more like a "photonic insulator."

http://www.aip.org/pnu/1998/split/pnu356-1.htm

Just imagine if we could build models that could cater for the wave (material field) behaviour in terms of response alongside the electrons own response...we could characterise new materials based on their structure alone...
I'd also wish that overall simplistic equations (for general speculative behaviour) could come into play without having to root down to the myriad of small actions taking place...them thar hamiltonians are scary spooks in disguise!
and while I'm being simplistic, i'll add another speculative thought i had...which would be to have a tie in on some quantum variable based on kT above zero...my reason for this is that there must be a level at which a material comes into its own without outside energy...along the lines of the Bose-Einstein condesate level...and that there must be discrete jumps of the system above that...the higher up we get, the more random the system looks because of all the variables...but applying the kT constants would give us more information as to their (material) response...
hey...i agree...this is way beyond me...just speculating here...

food for thought?

 

[deakie]

This is only partially correct. Most metals have a high reflectivity in the visible range and are highly transparent in the high UV range. The reflectivity in the visible range is, as you point out, due to the excitation of surface plasmons (collective excitations of the free electron gas). However, the electron gas, has a natural frequency (the plasma frequency) above which it is not very good at responding to the EM-field of the incident light. For most metals, the plasma frequency (which is a function of the free electron density and the conduction band effective mass) lies in the UV range.

Yes, that is essentially correct, but it hardly makes the problem any easier to solve. The vast majority of insulators are opaque, and this is true even of amorphous materials. Glasses are kind of special in that they are essentially supercooled liquids.

its funny...i had a thought...but its more of a question really...

would metals be more reflective because of their layered crystalline structure as compared to insulators which less so?
I say this because each crystal layer within the metal could be acting like a barrier and would aid the reflection rather than the transmission.

It wouldn't be difficult to see that higher eV energy (UV) would penetrate as they fall under the higher exiton polaritons, whose energy levels are considerable for the fields available in the metals for stopping or diverging such photons...

 

[n0_3sc]

With normal transmission, i'd like to think that the IOR could be a good indicator of flight time for visible transmission through media...we do know that a wave packet of white light will spread due to the different wavelengths down a fiber, i take it this is due to the IOR of the fibre acting on the different wavelengths and hence you get the different arrival times. Am i right on this?

IOR = Index of Refraction? Then yes your partly right for Chromatic Dispersion. It also depends on Material+Waveguide dispersion, the profile of the refractive index and the length of the fiber - after all, you can have the profile of the refractive index such that a white pulse will not separate after so many meters of fibers. (Used in Supercontinuum Generation).

I also agree that the Anderson-Localization is something different, but however interesting it is, it still avoids why defined lattice structures appear more opaque than undefined structures (glass).

would metals be more reflective because of their layered crystalline structure as compared to insulators which less so?
I say this because each crystal layer within the metal could be acting like a barrier and would aid the reflection rather than the transmission.

It wouldn't be difficult to see that higher eV energy (UV) would penetrate as they fall under the higher exiton polaritons, whose energy levels are considerable for the fields available in the metals for stopping or diverging such photons...

Yes! Thats exactly what I want too know too. Do you think it acts as a barrier because it is easier for the light to be absorbed by phonons? Whereas the phonons are harder to be absorbed for undefined lattice structures.

 

[ZapperZ]

"Layered crystalline" is very misleading. I have graphite that is a "layered crystalline". In fact, it is so layered that it is soft because the crystal along the c-axis has very weak bonding. Yet, is it as reflective as metals?

Going to the other end, I can make thin films of metals that is polycrystalline, and you won't know the difference in terms of reflectivity.

The crystalline nature doesn't play that big of a role in visible-range reflectivity as compared to the presence of the conduction electrons. I thought this has already been explained in this thread? So why are we insisting on an alternative explanation? Are you not satisfied with the explanation given? Why?

Zz.

 

[deakie]

Are you not satisfied with the explanation given? Why?

ok...i'm guilty of it because surface plasmons are all about the electron/particle role...

Gokul43201's explanation is solid for that role and rightfully so, also, his explanation of the plasma frequency having limits for the electron in participating in photon interaction...I cannot argue with either.

however, that said, what i find curious, is that UV is transmitted through the material at all...
Especially if all the interactions are done with electrons, shouldn't they be, at that frequency and above, ionised?

Yes! Thats exactly what I want too know too. Do you think it acts as a barrier because it is easier for the light to be absorbed by phonons? Whereas the phonons are harder to be absorbed for undefined lattice structures.

I'll look more into this surface plasmons thingy first mate! We have to first deal with the accepted models before moving on...and we need a way to experiment with what we are thinking...

 

[pinestone]

...food for thought?

Here's an appetizer:
http://135.196.210.195/chemistryworld/News/2007/December/10120701.asp


:>

 

[Raze2dust]

well if free electrons are the fundamental cause of reflection, how do you explain total internal reflection from glass?

 

[pinestone]

well if free electrons are the fundamental cause of reflection, how do you explain total internal reflection from glass?

Once you increase the angle of incidence above the critical angle, total internal reflection will be the result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection#Critical_angle

 

[n0_3sc]

light is NEVER totally internally reflected. Even after the critical angle, there still exists a beam propagating along the surface (eg. the evanescent wave - which is another philosophical issue...)

 

[Raze2dust]

but that's applicable to metals too..
leave it what i meant was just that free electron theory alone is not sufficient to explain reflection from all surfaces

 

[n0_3sc]

but that's applicable to metals too..
leave it what i meant was just that free electron theory alone is not sufficient to explain reflection from all surfaces

I agree.

 

[rewebster]

To me, asking, "Why is glass 'see-through'? " is the same as asking, "Why is 'air' 'see-through'? ".

 

[n0_3sc]

To me, asking, "Why is glass 'see-through'? " is the same as asking, "Why is 'air' 'see-through'? ".

sure...because air and glass have the same material structure...
My intention of this thread was to understand how light interacts with amorphous glass upon propagation.