Quote:
Originally Posted by neilzero
Few, if any elements are transparent in solid form, but quite a few solid compounds are transparent, so perhaps we should say the light is absorbed by a molecule (silicon dioxide instead of an atom) To keep images intact, the light needs to be emitted out the opposite side of the molecule, with the same yaw, pitch and elevation. Or so it seems to me. The re-emission delay is about one picosecond, varying with the molecule and the photons wave length, and the path length = Not too believable: Is there an alternate theory on the transparency of solids? Neil
|
Why just solids? Why not liquids and gases?
In any case...sulfur crystals are a transparent brownish yellow, white phosphorus is reasonably translucent, nitrogen is a colorless clear solid, oxygen is a pale blue clear solid, I suspect the solid noble gases will be clear, and of course there's a form of carbon that's very well known for its excellent optical properties. In any case, being an element does not mean a substance consists of lone atoms, and being opaque in visible light doesn't mean something isn't transparent in other wavelengths or vice versa, so I think you're heading down the wrong path here.