0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yes, I know.That's why I put it there.Why did you feel the need to explain it?
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.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2022 02:48:36you 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?
you need to recheck the meaning of your own statements.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/12/2022 08:50:34Yes, I know.That's why I put it there.Why did you feel the need to explain it?Because it defeats your reasoning.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/12/2022 08:53:55Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2022 02:48:36you 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.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/12/2022 08:50:34But 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°.
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.
Why did you waste time and bandwidth with those diagrams when you could have just said "What about reflectance?"?
Nothing is perfectly transparent other than empty space. Quartz is, however, highly transparent and may be called perfectly transparent for all practical purposes.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/12/2022 08:53:36My 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.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/12/2022 09:00:35Why 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.
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°.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 24/12/2022 03:44:10Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/12/2022 08:53:36My 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.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 24/12/2022 03:48:43As 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
How should the question be stated according to your understanding?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/12/2022 16:05:09Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 24/12/2022 03:48:43As 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 itSo, 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.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 29/12/2022 03:59:57How 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?
Go and look up what the words mean.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/12/2022 09:48:23Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 29/12/2022 03:59:57How 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.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/12/2022 09:49:01Go and look up what the words mean.Does a silver mirror transparent, as per your definition?