Talk:Mie scattering

message: I've Removed mention to 'Bilge Alarm' and 'Oil Discharge Monitor'. These are irrelevant to the theory. Can you imagine if, for example, we made mention to all the devices which are based on Maxwell's equations? It would be an enormous list, bigger than the article itself. It's easy to see that such lists belong not in an article on the theory, but on a separate page listing the various devices based on the theory. Even then, it seems the mention should limit itself to device types, not brands.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.192.40 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Applications

message: Would someone familiar with this theory know why the term "Mie solution" (with no article) is used as the singular?  Coming from an unrelated field, sentences such as "Mie theory is not a correct name because it is not a theory per se, rather Mie solution to Maxwell's equations should be used" sound like sentence fragments.  To me, either "a/the Mie solution" or "Mie's solution" sound more grammatically correct (i.e., the name is used as an adjective and hence takes an article or just as a possessive).  The former gibes with the plural that is used later on: "Mie solutions." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.15.126.81 (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I've never heard of "Mie Theory" but I have come across "Mie Scattering" several times. --Noosentaal·talk· 12:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mie theory and Mie scattering both seem common enough terms. Strangely Google gives more hits for "Mie scattering theory" than just "Mie scattering" which makes me a bit skeptical about its numbers. --catslash (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about usage of the term "Mie solution"  

message: The lead seems to use the term Mie scattering to mean a scattering formula valid at all frequencies, but the new section (Comparison with Rayleigh scattering) uses the term for scatting exclusively in the geometric optics regime (or possibly resonant and GO regimes). Is one right? or both? --catslash (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?

message: I think the article would be much more complete if a good-will people added a general description/discussion of the results of the application of Mie to typical problems, as e.g. a conductive sphere (as in the graph already reported), or a dielectric sphere, or an assembly of spheres having a suitable distribution of diameters/properties (fog, smoke, milk).  --GianniG46 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of the Mie solution 

message: The article currently says
"The Mie scattering formalism can be approximated[16] by the equation
Q = 2 – (4/p)sin p + (4/p2)(1 – cos p) 
Where Q is the scattering cross-section, p = 4πa(n – 1)/λ, a is the radius of the sphere, n the ratio of refractive indices inside and outside of the sphere, and λ the wavelength of the light"
Q is unitless as presented, so does not represent a cross section. I suppose the Wahlstra paper cited must have this detail.  I think it is rather important for the article to explain how to use "Q" as a number with units.
OriEri (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the geometrical cross section mentioned as 4πa², not πa² ? For light it should be just the area of the particle seen from one side (not the doubled diameter (2a)² like we would have in a billiard problem). This might be an error... 134.76.234.36 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is surely a typo - I shall change it. --catslash (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

text: But the geometric cross section is πa² - and twice this would be 2πa² not 4πa². The article says that the scattering cross section is Q times the geometric cross section, and according to the formula Q does tend to 2 for λ >> a in agreement with your assertion. --catslash (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mie Scatting Approximation 

message: The article mentions gas particles twice (at least), when it describes scattering by particles << wavelength. But atmospheric gas is made of atoms or molecules. On the other hand, aerosol particles and clusters are not gaseous. Wouldn't it be better to call them either 'particles' or 'gas molecules'? Northfox (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas particles 

message: Seeing as the article talks about "Mie theory" being a misnomer, would anyone object to moving the article title to "Mie scattering"?  That seems to be the favoured title in textbooks.  Papa November (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Mie scattering"? 

message: The article is missing vital information: When and in what publication did Mie propose his theory? It should also be noted that Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was first to study and theorize on its effects as well as those of Rayleigh scattering in his Theory of Colours in 1810. Goethe's conclusions were basically that Rayleigh scattering (resulting in a violet-cyan spectrum) was due to light interacting with black objects (such as the blackness of space), that Mie scattering (resulting in a yellow-magenta spectrum) was due to light interacting with turbid objects (such as earth's atmosphere), and the larger the angle of the sunlight reaching us (such as during sunrise and sundown), the more it is shifted towards the Y-M spectrum because of having to cross a much larger mass of turbid atmosphere than when reaching us from above, where it has to cross a much smaller amount of turbid atmosphere. --2.240.198.214 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date? 

message: Substituted at 00:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Mie scattering, light back scattering from solids, is narrow angled, typically about 5 degrees. Rayleigh light scattering from gases is wide-angled. Therefore, the enhanced sunlight back scattering from Saturn rings during opposition, the opposition effect (or the opposition surge), is more prominent in the solid icy rings than in the gaseous planet's surface. 
See:    https://www.planetary.org/space-images/opposition-surge-of-saturns-rings
Urila (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mie back light scattering from Saturn rings 

message: A phrase only used once with no elaboration. What field is this jargon from? 2406:3100:1018:2:5A:0:1299:3D35 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it to curl, which is more common. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "by taking the rotor." 

message: Implied by the sentence: "The intensity of Mie scattered radiation is given by the summation of an infinite series of terms rather than by a simple mathematical expression."
Is this actually true? Has it been proven that there is no such simple expression, or is this just something that is assumed in light of readily available solution methods involving infinite series? 162.246.139.210 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mie scattering radiation cannot be represented by a simple expression