Talk:Transparency and translucency/Archive 1

message: Induced Transparency, Electromagnetically Induced Transparency and transparent metals (aluminium can be made transparent).
Are on the AMB page under Engineering.
Mion 15:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  done 

message: There is a complicated theory "predicting" (calculating) absorption and its spectral dependence of different materials.
Mion 15:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see more of a discussion of this. That is, what are the physics of transparency; what's happening with light waves/photons that allows them to pass through a transparent material. A brief discussion of other EM wavelengths would be nice too; i.e., noting how (for example) brick walls are transparent to longer radio waves, though not to microwaves. RedSpruce 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still needs 

message: Mion 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  done 

message: This page doesn't have a very cogent discussion of the physical processes (scattering and absorption) involved in making a material "transparent", "translucent", or "opaque"...52.128.30.23 20:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  general quality of discussion low 

message: The phrase, "most glasses, and plastics such as Perspex and Pyrex" implies that both Pespex and Pyrex are plastic.  Pyrex isn't a plastic.  140.147.160.34 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrex not a plastic? 

message: Children have asked me, but I've never been able to answer: "How come light passes through glass which is hard and dense, and not through cardboard which is softer and less dense?" They want to know if in glass there are "tunnels" through the glass that let photons slip through unobstructed, or if its more like a chain reaction where a photon entering the glass bumps off another photon which bumps off another photon, etc., until a photon emerges out the other side. Can someone please answer this in a way that, let's say, a twelve-year-old, could understand? Skeppy (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A Question from Children

message: Since January this article has been tagged with a merger proposal template, suggesting to merge Transparency (optics) into Transparent materials. However, there does not seem to have been much discussion on the subject.  I feel that this page should me merged, as the current page is of poor quality (too short, no refs) and repeats information found in the transparent materials article.  Logger9 seems to agree with me, from out discussion on Talk:Transparent materials.  What do other editors think?  —fudoreaper (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An update.  In order to complete the merger, we just need to replace Transparency (optics) with a redirect to transparent materials.  The merger is essentially complete, without any objections, i may redirect this page on my own in the next few days.  Please comment. —fudoreaper (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  NOTICE: after 10 days with no objections, no comments at all, I am getting close to converting this page into a redirect.  I will wait another few days, and then act.  —fudoreaper (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objections here. I already tried it once! Good luck with it :-) -- logger9 (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is done.  I have converted Transparency (optics) into a redirect to Transparent materials.  Comments are still welcome, but please explain why you think a revert is appropriate if you disagree with Logger9 and I. —fudoreaper (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Transparent materials]] proposal