by Chris Peterson » Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:01 pm
geckzilla wrote:Well, why is it ok to say UV light, visible light, and infrared light, but not, say, microwave light? Is it just because this form of EM radiation no longer works with familiar things such as objects made of materials which to our eyes look like lenses and mirrors?
Exactly. EM energy in these bands behaves fundamentally the same way.
Are there not other mediums which can be used as unconventional lenses for other kinds of light even if our eyes can't see it happening?
See, this is where the confusion starts. "Other kinds of light"? What does that mean? If you're using "light" as a synonym for electromagnetic radiation, that's certainly sloppy. I'd never say "other kinds of EM", because there's really just one kind. Or are we talking about different parts of the spectrum? Confusing.
In the lab, people have come up with clever ways of manipulating various wavelengths in unconventional ways. For example, peculiar metamaterials that focus microwaves in a way analogous to a refractive material. These tricks serve to demonstrate that all electromagnetic radiation is subject to the same laws of physics. But usually, that's all they demonstrate. The reality is that different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum interact with physical bodies in very different ways, which is why we have developed natural boundaries around various wavelengths and find it convenient to label these parts differently, as well.
[quote="geckzilla"]Well, why is it ok to say UV light, visible light, and infrared light, but not, say, microwave light? Is it just because this form of EM radiation no longer works with familiar things such as objects made of materials which to our eyes look like lenses and mirrors?[/quote]
Exactly. EM energy in these bands behaves fundamentally the same way.
[quote]Are there not other mediums which can be used as unconventional lenses for other kinds of light even if our eyes can't see it happening?[/quote]
See, this is where the confusion starts. "Other kinds of light"? What does that mean? If you're using "light" as a synonym for electromagnetic radiation, that's certainly sloppy. I'd never say "other kinds of EM", because there's really just one kind. Or are we talking about different parts of the spectrum? Confusing.
In the lab, people have come up with clever ways of manipulating various wavelengths in unconventional ways. For example, peculiar metamaterials that focus microwaves in a way analogous to a refractive material. These tricks serve to demonstrate that all electromagnetic radiation is subject to the same laws of physics. But usually, that's all they demonstrate. The reality is that different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum interact with physical bodies in very different ways, which is why we have developed natural boundaries around various wavelengths and find it convenient to label these parts differently, as well.