Editing Openai/6897769e-4ee4-800f-aba5-69cca34f701c (section)

=== Yes — if there exists a geometric scattering angle that is a function of wavelength (which is what happens whenever refraction/dispersive effects are involved), then a realistic spectrum (whether Planck continuum or atomic lines) will produce a weighted effective angle. That effective angle can be shifted by fractions of a degree if: ===

• the dispersion curve places δmin(λ) close to 137° in the visible band, and
• the spectral weight is concentrated near particular λ where δmin(λ) ≈ 137.5° (or 137.036°), or if the dispersion slope is small so the weighted mean sits between the two numbers.

So the idea is physically plausible, but to make a robust claim for QAT (that the small offset is caused by spectrum/dispersive geometry) we must do the more careful numerical runs (real n(λ), possible plasma dispersion, include atomic emission lines) and test sensitivity.

Would you like me to:
A) fetch accurate refractive index dispersion data for water and re-run the calculation (best next step, needs web.run),
B) re-run with a sample atomic emission spectrum (e.g., hydrogen/oxygen lines) to test the “line pulls the mean” idea, or
C) draft the YouTube post text (your requested human/A.I. wording) so you can invite others to check the math?

Pick one (A, B, or C) and I’ll proceed. If you pick A or B I’ll fetch real dispersion / spectral data and produce a clear plot and a small table showing how small changes in the spectrum or n(λ) move the mean angle — that will give a robust answer on whether ~0.47° is realistic.