Talk:Optical depth: Difference between revisions
→Cognitive problem with explanation: new section |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:Great! that's cleared up the definition finally. [[User:Deuar|Deuar]] 20:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
:Great! that's cleared up the definition finally. [[User:Deuar|Deuar]] 20:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Cognitive problem with explanation == |
|||
I think there is a cognitive problem here. As I understand it, optical depth is a property of the ''material you are looking through'', not of you the observer or the object you are observing. However, the article talks about it in analogy to taking an object and moving it backward, which makes it sound like the medium is not what is being described by optical depth. |
|||
It might be better to speak of optical depth increasing as the fog gets thicker, and the value of optical depth being the farthest thing you can see through that fog. |
|||
[[User:Raddick|Raddick]] 20:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:10, 4 November 2007
.jpg){kind=small} | Physics Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
There is a disparity here... I think an optical depth is something like transmission=exp(-depth). But I'm not sure. William M. Connolley 19:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC).
corrected definition
The optical depth tau is related to the fraction of light scattered. The following equation expresses this relationship:
I/I_0= exp{-tau},
where I_0 is the incident light and I is the light that passes through the medium without being scattered. Equivalently, for a homogenous medium, tau is the ratio of the path length to the mean free path.
Corrected definition inserted in the article, some inexactitudes corrected, some concepts in atmospheric science added. I hope it is appreciated.Marenco 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Great! that's cleared up the definition finally. Deuar 20:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Cognitive problem with explanation
I think there is a cognitive problem here. As I understand it, optical depth is a property of the material you are looking through, not of you the observer or the object you are observing. However, the article talks about it in analogy to taking an object and moving it backward, which makes it sound like the medium is not what is being described by optical depth.
It might be better to speak of optical depth increasing as the fog gets thicker, and the value of optical depth being the farthest thing you can see through that fog.