Why is the speed of light slower in substances compared to a vacuum?

AI Thread Summary
The speed of light is slower in substances than in a vacuum due to interactions between photons and the atoms in the medium. Photons can be absorbed and re-emitted by atoms, leading to delays that contribute to the overall reduction in speed. The phenomenon can also be explained by considering light as a wave that excites the medium, resulting in a new wave that propagates at a different speed. While the concept of phonons may arise in discussions about these interactions, the key point is that the average effect of many photons leads to this slowdown. Understanding these interactions requires both qualitative and quantitative analysis of how light behaves in various materials.
Octopoda
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Why is the speed of light slower in certain substances than in a vacuum. Since most of the atoms is empty, shouldn't the speed be the same? Is it because photons bounce off the nucleus, or because they get re-emitted?
 
Science news on Phys.org
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511177

If you have further questions, feel free to ask... this is just to get you started.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks!
 
jtbell said:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511177

If you have further questions, feel free to ask... this is just to get you started.

(not the original poster)
Thank's, that was interesting... but it sort of lead to more questions than answers (do we need phonons to explain the phenomenon ? what are phonons ? and anyway.. what happens ?)
This is something I have been wondering about myself for a while and hence my hijacking of the thread.
I got sort of satisfied with Feynman's take on explaining it as long as considering light as many many many photons (or better said as a wave) exciting the medium and ultimately interefering with its offspring (so to speak) so as to generate a new wave that does look like a wave propagating at a different speed. this explanation is satisfying both qualitatively and quantitatively.
but it is not all that clear if we want to get down enough and just talk about 'one photon'
It looks like your linked post adresses this precise case but it is not clear enough for me. I interpret it like this:
-> in some conditions the photon will be absorbed and reemitted (delay)
-> in some others the photon will just get through
-> overall the photon will be slowed down
I'm not sure I interpreted this correctly but I'd like to be corrected on the interpretation, and above all, I would really appreciate if the correction (or confirmation) could come with quantitative arguments.
exactly what is supposed to be the absoption/emition delay ? is it statistically confined but overall unknowable ? is the final slowdown effect meaningless without statistivally meaningful quantities of photons ? (this is what I currently suppose but I just imagine this is so and would very much apreciate a confirmation just as well as a correction of it with some good explanations :))
thanks again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
12K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Back
Top