why some materials reflect light more than others?

why some materials reflect light more than others?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Qualities, is where to look. There's various factors, including shininess and luminosity.

Searches are sketchy, but if I recall, it's based on the property of the light emitting.

See, let me genuinely explain this. Everyones in Star Wars mode for some reason. Light Sabers, photon pistols, and such. Max-weapons systems, you know.

The fact light is pretty much unquantifiable is good in this scenario. It's neither matter, nor does it behave on the interpretations of Visible Relative Planes. Get it. You observe it, but good luck running down a sample for close observation...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You need to understand what "reflection" really is.
It's nice to think about "rays" of light bouncing off a surface - classically that's what "happens". But light doesn't "bounce" (like little rubber balls), it gets absorbed and re-radiated.

If you want to watch some guy talking about the subject ("light and interaction with matter"), there are some good online videos of Richard Feynman (the Robb Memorial lectures at Auckland Uni), aimed at non-physicists (i.e. Humanities, Math, etc students). They are a bit old and the soundtrack isn't hi-fi or stereo, but still worth the effort. Google will probably locate a copy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is not what happens -- with a mirror that is. Absorption and re-radiation is diffuse reflection. That's what lets you read a newspaper or see a painting. You don't see a reflection in a newspaper because the kind of reflection in a newspaper or a painting is almost entirely diffuse.

Specular reflection is a different beast. The metal backing of a mirror is a conductor of electricity. That backing prevents most photons from entering the metal. They do "bounce off". That is why you can see a reflection in a mirror.

 

so what about fish scales and butterfly wings. Is it what they are made of or how they are formed?

 

That's iridescence.

Wiki article on iridescence

 

Who wants to have a go at explaining how or why photons "bounce off" metal surfaces, i.e. they behave just like little rubber balls after all?
I mean apart from metals "conducting" electrons - electrons aren't radiation. So what's going on?

 

Specular reflection is a wave phenomenon. An incoming photon induces an electrical current in the metal. This current creates an electrical field that reflects the incoming photon.

 

How will the electrical circuit closed?

 

It isn't a circuit, with a source and sink of current as such. It's the interaction of electric fields.

 

To have current, there must be closed electrical circular loop.

 

Remain in the visible spectrum, people. All visible objects, yes even shades within the corner of a box, reflect this light at some level. If not, you're looking to nothing.

The property being discussed is luminescence, and why things are sparkly. Pretty, VAahuble.

Vain efforts aside, you need to understand all that you see, you do not posses. A very major misconception these days. Ways of the wind, or to wind, can be misleading.
Photons are the physical part of the duality nature, and the waves are the form-medium of traversing. Therefore, when something sparkles, you receive of the action of an action.

A source of light emits, no where these light(s) travel from there are for all to observe. Don't be so introspective. This is why Relativity is so important.
If you shine a light at a mirror, at your eyes, you see the light. Others present with you, also see the light in your eyes, better...there you go...

 

Yes, but what is interaction of the electrical moment of radiation, with an electric field? Where is there a circuit? Why is there an induced current? Why do we get told that light is like particles (photons), but also like waves?

 

It's basically associated with radiated fields, and what they call lumino-scopes.

Things that can detect light intensity. When say, a light bulb, is turned on; if you have more than one detector, there's variance in the light. At different strengths, depending mainly on the medium that the light travels. Of course objects that produce shadows greatly diminish.

But, even air density influences it. That's why the standard is given in a vacuum.

You have an emanating source, yielding influences, from essentially the same point.

Sooo, you see, you have a violation of conservation of mass. Fundamental, when considering properties of matter. However, since visible observation is attainable, you must include the wave principle, also. If not, you're in contradiction of something for nothing. Accordingly, matter can neither be created/nor destroyed. So you must implicate that light is not truly matter, even though measurable...confusing, huh?

 

Don't you need to establish what measurement (an interaction) is first?
I understand that the interaction of radiation and (condensed) matter is probabilistic, that there is reflection and refraction or scattering, and absorption. The last means that some of the radiation becomes heat, or vibrational motions of the atoms/molecules in the matter being "irradiated".

Sometimes a vibrating atom or molecule emits a photon of infrared, sometimes radiation at a visible wavelength, and it's connected to the modes of vibration. It's explained in terms of standing waves in a cavity, which will only allow certain harmonics.

 

E=MC^2 is part of it. But, unfortunately light does not obey this principle.
You've seemed to have jumped to a term of energy. Light is, most certain, but, since it's mass spreads on an infinite range; well, it's difficult to contain.
LASERS are in fact, particles. This is what throws many people.

Here's a trick. Multi-light. Colors. Prismatic.

Were's your energy constant. Applicable, I would think. You can manipulate that. That is how UV works, BTW.

But, such a simplistic approach. Total energy conversion remains theory, as it could lead to double expansion of the Big Bang approach.

Yes, I would think maintain mass-energy separation. This process of combustion that produces the "FIRE" is detainable, sorry: attainable. But, there's so many forms in that.

Yes, keep the Midnight Oil burning. Energy!=Mass, for the moment...

 

decantemix, please stop with the nonsense posts. You do not need to invoke Big Bang theory to explain reflection of light, for example.

 

What the conductivity has to do with reflection? Why the silver atoms reflect 99% of the light which interacts with them. Why glass 96% reflects, and 4% refracts light?

 

Dramatic. Total random energy conversion is BIG!

You're assuming correctness, invalidly. I know, for certain, dances alike.

To apply your hand, at your keys: for example: does not make you apsolute.

 

Light does not reflect off silver atoms. It reflects off a collection of silver atoms. This isn't just nit-picky. Understanding the distinction is very important. The spacing between silver atoms in a mirror is about 0.275 nanometers. Visible light has a wavelength of 400 to 700 nanometers. An incoming photon establishes an electric field that involves conductance band electrons from tens of thousands of silver atoms.

96% of the light incoming passes through glass. That's why we use glass for windows and for glasses.