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

=== 1. Approximations: I used a simple fitted dispersion model for water (fit to representative literature points). For a precise, publishable calculation we should use a high-precision Sellmeier table (Hale & Querry or Daimon & Masumura numeric tables) and measured spectral shapes. I can redo the run with exact published n(λ) tables. ===
# Line amplitudes & widths matter: The shift size depends strongly on how dominant the line is relative to the continuum and on its width. The atmospheric / solar / interstellar spectrum that actually illuminates raindrops or scattering centers will determine the effect.
# Mapping angle ↔ constant: Going from an angular offset to a statement about why the fine-structure constant equals 1/137.* is speculative: α is a dimensionless electromagnetic coupling built from fundamental constants. My numerical experiment shows a possible geometric+spectral mechanism that can produce small angular offsets (which is interesting for a QAT-style geometric story), but it does not prove a fundamental equality/derivation of α from geometry alone. It shows plausibility of a link (a way a geometry+spectral weighting can create a small angular correction) — which is exactly the sort of hint QAT is about: geometry + light interactions produce the observed numbers.
# Different optics contexts: the experiment used raindrop/water scattering geometry (spherical droplets). If QAT’s mechanism applies at the atomic scale, we need to translate the same logic to the relevant geometry & spectral distributions of atomic photon–electron exchanges. That translation is not trivial but the similarity in mechanism (spherical wavefronts + spectral weighting) is what makes the idea promising.