Close
vintage science

Sequins + Dress + Spotlights = Laserdress

January 25, 2012

I had a chance to catch some of the Golden Globes the other night. By had a chance I mean, I elected to watch the Golden Globes. For a little bit. You know how it is, when you have a choice between watching celebrities clap or watching reruns of M*A*S*H you have to ask yourself, “When is the next time I can watch M*A*S*H?”

When I did stick around, it wasn’t just because I think Emma Stone is a stone cold fox (I do), or because I thought Ricky Gervais is particularly funny (I didn’t), and it’s not because I really care what the celebrities are wearing (I don’t). It was all the dang sequins.

Maybe this is just from a fashion uninitiated, but there were a lot of sequins going on at the Golden Globes. But then I thought about it – why not? Sequins do a pretty good job of catching the eye, and that’s kind of the red carpet Modus operandi, right? Sequins’ secret lies in their ability as a reflector of incident light. Much like a signal mirror used to reflect the sun towards a rescue plane, sequins sewn onto a dress (or a pair of hideous shoes at DSW) reflect any light that hits their surface at an angle equal in magnitude to the incident angle reflected through a plane perpendicular to the reflecting surface. This is analogous to bouncing a ball off of a smooth surface. If the ball is dropped straight down the angle of incidence is 0° and so the ball bounces straight back up. Meanwhile, if the ball is bounced at an angle like a basketball being bounce-passed between two players, after striking the ground the ball will travel towards the second player at an angle identical to that thrown by the first player. This is called specular reflection (with light not basketballs). When considering this concept from the viewers perspective of a be-sequined dress, the dress appears to shimmer and flash. If the light-source comes from a single direction (like a spotlight) then the incident angle is fixed and the relative angles of the sequins change with the motion of the wearer. The result is flashes of light as individual sequins pass through an orientation which places the reflection angle directly towards your eyeballs!

Maybe that’s not that surprising to you, given that you have observed this phenomenon first hand dozens of times in mirrors. However consider this – not all light is made equal. Light can be described as wave traveling through space from the source. These waves have the shape of the trigonometric sine function when visualized in two dimensions, and have an associated wavelength that is related to the energy of different forms of light. To humans and many other species, our eyes detect this difference in wavelength as color, but only in a relatively narrow range of wavelengths. This is referred to as the “visible spectrum” , and the acronym ROYGBIV known by many a grade-schooler as the colors of the rainbow actually orders the visible spectrum correctly from longest to smallest wavelength!

 

Thus, while sequins are reflecting the crap of out the visible spectrum, light waves with appreciably longer or shorter wavelengths will have different interactions. For this reason, reflectors designed to reflect these different wavelengths can require drastically different shapes and materials. Some examples include a satellite dish whose curved edges reflect microwaves (these are of similar wavelength to the ones used in microwave ovens!) towards central antenna (the prong in the middle) increasing the signal, and metal coated Mylar (a type of flexible plastic) used in space blankets and on satellites (the ones in space, not the dish on your roof) to reflect infra-red radiation. In the case of space blankets, these reflect infra-red radiation (light waves with wavelengths just above the color red in the visible spectrum responsible radiative heat transfer – this is why heat lamps in restaurants are red!) emitted by the wearer back to their body. On satellites this wavelength is emitted by the sun and reflected away from heat sensitive electronics. In the case of metalized Mylar, the reflection is diffuse rather than specular, meaning the reflection takes place at many angles.

 

So we’ve learned that sequins are sparkly because they reflect light at discrete angles. If they operated with diffuse reflection, the entire dress would appear to glow rather than sparkle. Fingers crossed that the fashion community will one-up themselves at next years GGs. A simple experiment you can try at home can be done with a mirror, a yard stick, and a flashlight (or ideally a laser pointer). Measure one yard from a wall and place the mirror on the ground, then place yourself one yard away from the mirror facing the wall. Hold the flashlight at the top of the yardstick pointing towards the mirror. The reflected light should strike the wall at the exact height you are holding the flashlight! This is specular reflection in action!

 

 

Image: m_bartosch / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Tags:
0Likes
Gordon Waller
About Author

Gordon is pursuing his PhD in Materials Science and Engineering and conducts research on lithium batteries. He likes cooking, textbooks, internet memes and the great outdoors. His viewpoint on science is that everything is more interesting when you understand how it works, also being able to impress (read annoy) your friends with your techno-lingo is a major perk.

You May Also Like

vintage science
Apollo 13: The Success of Failure
Articles, Story Time, today i learned (til), vintage science
Vinyl is Better than Digital Music
vintage science
Elizebeth Smith Friedman: A Forgotten American Hero
Story Time, vintage science
So You Hate Your Major… Now What?

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.