Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
My model predicts the correct 1/lambda^4 dependence of the scattered
intensity.
Do you have any evidence indicating that's actually the correct dependence?
If one unphysical calculation agrees with another unphysical calculation,
that doesn't prove that either one is correct. Have you got any real data?
I could not immediately lay my hands on quantitative data for the spectrum
of blue sky-light, but I can tell you that photographers model it using a
color temperature of about 9000 K,
http://www.fact42.com/light/articles/wave/wave.html
and if you look at the Planck spectrum, in the optical band the
alleged lambda^4 dependence doesn't look anything like the 9000 K
spectrum; it looks very much hotter than 9000 K. To say it another way,
the blue of the sky isn't as deep blue as you might think; it is not
nearly as deep as, say, the blue phosphor on your CRT.
How are you going to explain to your students about optical fibers? It is
well known that you can see through hundreds of kilometers of glass, with
negligible scattering. The optical path in the glass contains orders of
magnitude more molecules than the optical path through the sky. If the
"molecule by molecule" theory is correct, either the sky must be
transparent (i.e. stars visible in the daytime) or glass fibers must be opaque.