- #1
lixy
- 2
- 0
Hi all,
It is my understanding that the color of a material results from the inability (or lesser ability) to absorb in that particular wavelength. Reading Atkins' "Physical Chemistry" (8th ed.), I run into a statement I couldn't quite get. On page 730 (chap. 20), he states the following:
So far it makes perfect sense. But then comes trouble:
If copper has fewer unoccupied energy levels that can be excited with violet, blue and green light, wouldn't that make it absorb less light of those colors and therefore exhibit a blue-ish color? And as far as I know (and as unambiguously stated in the end of the above quote), copper is red-ish.
Any light on this would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance.
It is my understanding that the color of a material results from the inability (or lesser ability) to absorb in that particular wavelength. Reading Atkins' "Physical Chemistry" (8th ed.), I run into a statement I couldn't quite get. On page 730 (chap. 20), he states the following:
Silver reflects light with nearly equal efficiency across the visible spectrum because its band structure has many unoccupied energy levels that can be populated by absorption of, and depopulated by emission of, visible light.
So far it makes perfect sense. But then comes trouble:
On the other hand, copper has its characteristic colour because it has relatively fewer unoccupied energy levels that can be excited with violet, blue and green light. The material reflects at all wavelengths, but more light is emitted at lower frequencies (corresponding to yellow, orange and red)
If copper has fewer unoccupied energy levels that can be excited with violet, blue and green light, wouldn't that make it absorb less light of those colors and therefore exhibit a blue-ish color? And as far as I know (and as unambiguously stated in the end of the above quote), copper is red-ish.
Any light on this would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance.