[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Yes, I know.

That's why I put it there.
Why did you feel the need to explain it?

Because it defeats your reasoning.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But the point is that if you did have perfectly transparent materials, you could make diffraction patterns with them.
You could, for example, consider the quartz that is used for optical cables that transmit light for miles without significant attenuation and water which is similarly transparent for visible light.
And you could make a hologram using just those materials only a millimetre thick.
The fact that they are not actually perfectly transparent is beside the point.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Color-online-Optical-reflectance-spectra-of-quartz-glass-asdeposited-ZnO-and_fig5_274430836

If you think that 7% reflectance is "perfect", it's up to you. But I classify it as partial opacity. Especially at the edge of an obstacle, where the incident angle is close to 90°.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations#Power_(intensity)_reflection_and_transmission_coefficients
R=reflectance
T=transmittance
S & P refer to polarization axes of electric field compared to plane of incidence, perpendicular and parallel, respectively.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

you need to recheck the meaning of your own statements.

One of us does, and it's not me.
The fact that there are two different answers to your question just shows that it isn't a well framed question, doesn't it?

They are not well framed answers.

[Bored chemist]

Yes, I know.

That's why I put it there.
Why did you feel the need to explain it?

Because it defeats your reasoning.

No, it doesn't.
My reasoning is that your question is badly written and can provide two answers which contradict eachother.
The current is zero because the charge  does not change.
Or the current is undefined because it does ot specify the time over which the change happens (from another perspective.) and current is defined as a rate of change of charge with time.

you need to recheck the meaning of your own statements.

One of us does, and it's not me.
The fact that there are two different answers to your question just shows that it isn't a well framed question, doesn't it?

They are not well framed answers.

No.
See above.

[Bored chemist]

But the point is that if you did have perfectly transparent materials, you could make diffraction patterns with them.
You could, for example, consider the quartz that is used for optical cables that transmit light for miles without significant attenuation and water which is similarly transparent for visible light.
And you could make a hologram using just those materials only a millimetre thick.
The fact that they are not actually perfectly transparent is beside the point.

If you think that 7% reflectance is "perfect", it's up to you. But I classify it as partial opacity. Especially at the edge of an obstacle, where the incident angle is close to 90°.

You don't seem to understand what transparent means.
It refers to the material, not the interface.
We say "water is transparent".
we don't says "the interface between water and air is transparent".

If I wanted to measure the transmission of quartz per se, I would get two pieces of different lengths and compare the transmission through both of them.

Why did you waste time and bandwidth with those diagrams when you could have just said "What about reflectance?"?

[paul cotter]

Nothing is perfectly transparent other than empty space. Quartz is, however, highly transparent and may be called perfectly transparent for all practical purposes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My reasoning is that your question is badly written and can provide two answers which contradict eachother.
The current is zero because the charge  does not change.
Or the current is undefined because it does ot specify the time over which the change happens (from another perspective.) and current is defined as a rate of change of charge with time.

You have two contradicting answers because you don't understand the question.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why did you waste time and bandwidth with those diagrams when you could have just said "What about reflectance?"?

So that you don't get confused for too long.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Nothing is perfectly transparent other than empty space. Quartz is, however, highly transparent and may be called perfectly transparent for all practical purposes.

As shown in the diagram I posted, it's clearly far from transparent in the conditions relevant to diffraction, which is around the edge of an object, where incident angle can be close to 90°.

[Bored chemist]

My reasoning is that your question is badly written and can provide two answers which contradict eachother.
The current is zero because the charge  does not change.
Or the current is undefined because it does ot specify the time over which the change happens (from another perspective.) and current is defined as a rate of change of charge with time.

You have two contradicting answers because you don't understand the question.

They are both correct answers to your question, and they contradict each other.
That is a problem with the question, not with my understanding.

[Bored chemist]

Why did you waste time and bandwidth with those diagrams when you could have just said "What about reflectance?"?

So that you don't get confused for too long.

How did you come to the conclusion that I'm confused?
Is it because you can not accept that your question was meaningless?

[Bored chemist]

As shown in the diagram I posted, it's clearly far for transparent in the conditions relevant to diffraction, which is around the edge of an object, where incident angle can be close to 90°.

So, you are still struggling with what transparent means.
It's to do with absorbing light, not with reflecting it

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My reasoning is that your question is badly written and can provide two answers which contradict eachother.
The current is zero because the charge  does not change.
Or the current is undefined because it does ot specify the time over which the change happens (from another perspective.) and current is defined as a rate of change of charge with time.

You have two contradicting answers because you don't understand the question.

They are both correct answers to your question, and they contradict each other.
That is a problem with the question, not with my understanding.

How should the question be stated according to your understanding?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As shown in the diagram I posted, it's clearly far for transparent in the conditions relevant to diffraction, which is around the edge of an object, where incident angle can be close to 90°.

So, you are still struggling with what transparent means.
It's to do with absorbing light, not with reflecting it

So, you are still struggling with understanding a diagram.
In interaction between visible light beam and a glass, most of the intensity is either reflected or transmitted. Only a small amount is absorbed. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a laser cutter, or beam splitter commonly used in interferometers.

[Bored chemist]

How should the question be stated according to your understanding?

How am I meant to guess what you want t know if you can't write it down?

[Bored chemist]

As shown in the diagram I posted, it's clearly far for transparent in the conditions relevant to diffraction, which is around the edge of an object, where incident angle can be close to 90°.

So, you are still struggling with what transparent means.
It's to do with absorbing light, not with reflecting it

So, you are still struggling with understanding a diagram.
In interaction between visible light beam and a glass, most of the intensity is either reflected or transmitted. Only a small amount is absorbed. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a laser cutter, or beam splitter commonly used in interferometers.

Go and look up what the words mean.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How should the question be stated according to your understanding?

How am I meant to guess what you want t know if you can't write it down?

I already wrote it down. You only need the ability to read and understand meanings of words in a sentence.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Go and look up what the words mean.

Does a silver mirror transparent, as per your definition?

[Bored chemist]

How should the question be stated according to your understanding?

How am I meant to guess what you want t know if you can't write it down?

I already wrote it down. You only need the ability to read and understand meanings of words in a sentence.

What you wrote down does not make sense.
It's not a matter of understanding the words.
It is a problem because you used words that say something that makes no sense
The cat chaired the car.
You know what every word means, but the sentence has no meaning.

[Bored chemist]

Go and look up what the words mean.

Does a silver mirror transparent, as per your definition?

Does it what?
Or did you use the wrong word?