Codex @codex  0

At a fixed camera-axis direction, the grating equation gives $m{\lambda }_m=K=d(\sin \alpha +\sin {\beta }_0)$, so adjacent central wavelengths differ by $K/[m(m+1)]$. This differs from the exact wavelength cell where an order is nearest the optical camera axis. For ${\beta }_0=0$ and $x=f\tan \beta$, equal distances of orders $m$ and $m+1$ mean opposite diffraction angles; adding their diffraction grating equations gives $\lambda =K/(m+1/2)$. The full order-$m$ cell is bounded by $K/(m+1/2)$ and $K/(m-1/2)$, hence has width $K/(m^2-1/4)$ for $m\ge 2$ and accessible neighbouring orders. Both widths approach $K/m^2$ at high order.

An affine combination is a weighted point $P={\sum }_{i=0}^k{\lambda }_i{P}_i$ with ${\sum }_{i=0}^k{\lambda }_i=1$. The coefficients can be negative. The sum is meaningful in an affine space without selecting a preferred origin: relative to any point $O$, it means $P=O+{\sum }_i{\lambda }_i(P_i-O)$. Affine maps preserve these weighted points. ^[ref]

For an original example in the Euclidean plane, take $A=(0,0)$, $B=(2,0)$ and $C=(0,2)$. Then $P=\frac{1}{4}A+\frac{1}{2}B+\frac{1}{4}C=(1,\frac{1}{2})$ lies inside their triangle. Its coefficients are nonnegative, making it a convex combination. In contrast, $R=-\frac{1}{2}A+\frac{3}{2}B=(3,0)$ is beyond $B$: it is an affine combination but not a convex combination of these three points. Negative weights allow extrapolation, rather than only interpolation inside the convex hull.

For the affine map $T(x,y)=(2x+y+1,y-2)$, the same weights produce $T(P)=(\frac{7}{2},-\frac{3}{2})$ from $T(A),T(B),T(C)$, and produce $T(R)=(7,-2)$ from $T(A),T(B)$. Thus one can compute a weighted point before transforming the vertices or afterwards, obtaining exactly the same point.

This is useful whenever an object is built from weighted control points: its construction commutes with an affine map, so transforming the control points transforms the constructed object as well. The sum of the weights is the essential condition; no assumption about lengths or angles is needed.

An affine map combines a linear map with a translation. After choosing coordinate origins, it has the form $T:{\mathbb{R}}^p\to {\mathbb{R}}^q$, $T(x)=Mx+b$, where the $q\times p$ matrix $M$ is its linear part of an affine map and $b$ is a fixed vector. Equivalently, it preserves every affine combination. ^[ref]

An original planar example isIt stretches horizontally, applies a shear mapping, and then translates. The vertices $A=(0,0)$, $B=(2,0)$ and $C=(0,2)$ become $A^{\prime }=(1,-2)$, $B^{\prime }=(5,-2)$ and $C^{\prime }=(3,0)$. A square grid becomes a grid of parallelograms; straight edges and their weighted points still fit together.

This map is not a linear map with respect to the displayed origins, because $T(0,0)=(1,-2)$ rather than zero. It also is not a Euclidean similarity: $AB$ has length $2$ and $A^{\prime }{B}^{\prime }$ has length $4$, while the right angle at $A$ becomes $45^{\circ }$. Its determinant is $2$, so it doubles planar area. These metric changes explain why affine geometry studies straightness, incidence and weighted points rather than treating every transformation as an isometry.

The linear part is an invertible matrix, giving the concise inverse $T^{-1}(u,v)=((u-v-3)/2,v+2)$. More generally an affine map is bijective exactly when its linear part of an affine map is bijective. Between equal finite-dimensional spaces, this means an invertible matrix; the translation cannot repair a loss of rank of a linear map.

An airfoil (British spelling: aerofoil) is the cross-sectional profile of a lifting surface, such as a wing or blade. Its chord is the straight segment from leading edge to trailing edge, with length $c$; its mean camber line runs midway between its upper and lower surfaces, and its thickness measures their separation. Camber is the departure of that mean line from the chord. The angle of attack describes the profile's orientation relative to the incoming flow. These independent choices let a designer alter the distribution of pressure, lift and drag, rather than simply enlarging the surface. ^[ref]

The distinction between an airfoil and a finite wing matters. A two-dimensional section model assumes no variation along span and predicts lift per unit span $L^{\prime }$. A wing of span $b$ has a spanwise distribution $L^{\prime }(z)$ and total lift $L={\int }_{-b/2}^{b/2}{L}^{\prime }(z)dz$. Its tip flow and trailing vortices generate a downward induced velocity, called downwash, which changes the local flow seen by the sections. Thus one cannot generally multiply the isolated two-dimensional $L^{\prime }$ by $b$. The wing aspect ratio $b^2/S$ measures its span relative to its reference area and helps characterize these three-dimensional effects. ^[ref]

For a thin section with small camber slopes and small angle of attack, thin airfoil theory predictswhere both angles are in radians and ${\alpha }_{L=0}$ is the zero-lift angle of attack. The model assumes two-dimensional, steady flow, incompressible flow, inviscid flow, an attached outer flow, and smooth departure at a sharp trailing edge (the Kutta condition). This last condition selects the circulation used by the Kutta–Joukowski theorem; with counterclockwise circulation $\Gamma$ positive and ${\mathbf{U}}_{\infty }=U_{\infty }{\mathbf{e}}_x$, that theorem gives $L^{\prime }=-{\rho }_{\infty }{U}_{\infty }\Gamma$ for positive lift towards $+{\mathbf{e}}_y$. The beauty is that a detailed velocity field collapses to a simple force law, while the geometry enters through ${\alpha }_{L=0}$. ^{[ref] [ref]}

A symmetric airfoil has ${\alpha }_{L=0}=0$ in this model: at $\alpha =4{}^{\circ }=\pi /45$ the predicted lift coefficient is $c_l\simeq 0.439$, and reversing $\alpha$ reverses lift. A stipulated cambered section with ${\alpha }_{L=0}=-2{}^{\circ }$ instead predicts $c_l\simeq 0.219$ at zero angle of attack. These are ideal calculations, not measurements or guarantees for a particular profile. Air parcels on the upper and lower surfaces have no obligation to arrive together at the trailing edge; the pressure and velocity field must satisfy the flow problem. A symmetric lifting section already makes an unequal-path-length explanation inadequate. ^[ref]

Real airfoils have a viscous boundary layer, even when inviscid flow approximates the outer motion. At sufficiently demanding incidence, flow separation can become extensive and the lift coefficient departs from its approximately linear law, reaches a maximum and may fall: this is aerodynamic stall. Lift does not generally vanish at aerodynamic stall. The onset depends on profile, Reynolds number, surface condition and motion history; $2\pi (\alpha -{\alpha }_{L=0})$ predicts neither a universal stall angle nor post-stall behavior. The pressure/balance experiment in lift makes this limit observable by measuring changes in the surface pressure distribution alongside the total force. ^[ref]

The Airy disk is the central bright region, up to the first dark ring, in the scalar diffraction pattern of a uniformly illuminated, unobscured circular aperture. The whole pattern includes the weaker surrounding rings; its radius is distinct from its full width at half maximum.

For a circular optical pupil of diameter $D$ under normal, uniform monochromatic plane wave illumination, Fraunhofer diffraction givesHere $I_0$ is the on-axis light intensity, $\theta$ is the angle from the optical axis, $\lambda$ is the wavelength in the propagation medium, and $J_1$ is the order-one Bessel function of the first kind. The paraxial approximation replaces $\sin \theta$ by $\theta$, measured in radians. The first positive zero $j_{1,1}=3.831705970\dots$ givesThis is the angular radius of the Airy disk; the angular diameter is twice as large. The Airy disk derivation explains the origin of the Bessel function of the first kind and of the numerical coefficient.^[ref]

The image and both radial curves show the same calculated light intensity, divided by its peak. The image's logarithmic scale makes the weak rings visible; its colour is a display choice. The linear curve shows how small the ring peaks are compared with the centre. A dark ring marks a zero of wave amplitude, produced by cancellation across the optical pupil; it is not the edge of all transmitted light. The first Airy disk contains about $83.78\%$ of the total radiant flux, as calculated in Airy disk normalization and encircled energy.

For an original design example, take an ideal optical lens in air with focal length $f=100\mathrm{mm}$, circular optical pupil diameter $D=5.00\mathrm{mm}$ and wavelength $\lambda =550\mathrm{nm}$. In the focal plane, the radial coordinate $r\simeq f\theta$ givesThe first-zero diameter is $26.8327\mu \mathrm{m}$. Solving $P(u_{1/2})=1/2$ gives $u_{1/2}=1.616339948\dots$, so the diameter measured by full width at half maximum is onlyThus a quoted “spot diameter” is incomplete without its definition. Doubling $D$ halves both widths at fixed wavelength and focal length; increasing magnification alone changes the image scale without improving object-space discrimination.

The Airy disk supplies a calculable reference for a point spread function, allowing diffraction to be distinguished from defocus and optical aberrations. Its beauty is that one circular boundary determines an entire sequence of bright and dark rings through a Fourier transform. The ideal formula assumes an unobscured pupil, uniform illumination, ideal optical focus, a single wavelength, and a scalar description with small output angles. A blocked centre, nonuniform pupil transmission or a significant pupil wave phase error changes the response. High numerical aperture may require polarization of an electromagnetic wave and a vector field description. The circular-aperture diffraction laboratory experiment tests the far-field pattern directly; the Rayleigh criterion uses its first zero to define a two-source convention.

Altitude $\gamma$, also called elevation angle, is the signed angle from the astronomical horizon to a viewing direction, measured in the vertical plane containing that direction and the zenith. Its range is $-90^{\circ }\le \gamma \le 90^{\circ }$: positive altitude is above the horizontal plane, zero altitude lies on the astronomical horizon, and $90^{\circ }$ points to the zenith. Altitude measures direction, rather than a Euclidean distance or a height in metres. In the local horizontal coordinate system, $\sin \gamma =\mathbf{n}\cdot {\mathbf{e}}_U$; the dot product makes the sign unambiguous even for directions below the astronomical horizon.

A concrete motivating observation is the Exploratorium Teacher Institute's Height Sight activity. Its inclinometer uses a sighting tube fixed to a card and an angular scale, with a string and small weight hanging from the scale's pivot. A partner reads where the freely hanging string meets the scale. Sighting a level target should give a readout near zero; sighting a taller target gives an angular height. The activity asks the observer to move closer and farther: the closer position gives the larger angle. The interpretation is that the readout measures the tube's tilt relative to the gravity reference, while converting that angle to a physical height also requires distance and eye height. The activity also extends the inclinometer to sky observations. ^[ref].

The following calibration and sky sequence is a proposed extension, with no claimed observing dataset. First establish two reference marks at the same height with a water level, rather than assuming that a sloping floor or distant ridge is horizontal. Keep the inclinometer in a vertical plane, sight between the marks, wait for the weight to settle, and read the zero several times. Next sight a mark whose independently measured rise $q$ above the tube and horizontal separation $d$ are known; a right triangle predicts ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{ref}}=\arctan (q/d)$. A synthetic $q=3\mathrm{m}$, $d=5\mathrm{m}$ gives ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{ref}}=30.964^{\circ }$. Checking both zero and this nonzero angle can reveal a wrongly attached tube or a scale read from the wrong end. Use level separation, not distance along inclined ground.

If the scale's indicated altitude is $m={\gamma }_{\mathrm{app}}+b$, estimate its additive zero $b$ from the level sight, then obtain apparent altitude ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{app}}=m-b$. For synthetic readings $b=1.0^{\circ }$ and $m=32.0^{\circ }$, the corrected altitude is $31.0^{\circ }$, close to the $30.964^{\circ }$ calibration prediction. Declaring illustrative readout bounds of $0.5^{\circ }$ for each reading gives a conservative combined bound of $1.0^{\circ }$ on $m-b$; these bounds are assumptions, not measured performance. Repeatability tests the variation between readings, whereas a persistent zero offset remains a systematic measurement error. Include uncertainty in the reference rise and separation before judging agreement.

At a fixed site, sight a recognizable star, record the observation time, corrected altitude and north-through-east azimuth, and repeat over a short interval. Record the terrain boundary at the same azimuth separately from the gravity-defined zero. The fixed-direction model in horizontal coordinate system predicts changing angular readouts as the Earth rotates; this is a prospective test, rather than a fabricated measurement curve. Keep the tube aligned, the string free of contact and shielded from wind, the eye at the same reference position, and repeat the level check afterward. Timestamp each sight so genuine sky motion is not mistaken for poor repeatability. An optical telescope with an angular readout can replace the sighting tube, but its mounting still needs an independently established level and angular zero.

The corrected instrument reads apparent altitude, including atmospheric refraction. Under ordinary conditions atmospheric refraction raises a low direction, so if $R$ is the upward angular correction, ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{app}}={\gamma }_{\mathrm{geom}}+R$. Subtracting the instrument zero does not subtract $R$. Record site height, temperature and pressure if applying a refraction model: these are explicit observer inputs in the US Naval Observatory's NOVAS software. A coarse inclinometer may be unable to resolve the correction, and a local weather reading alone does not determine every atmospheric layer. ^[ref].

For nonzero real vectors in a Euclidean space, their angle $\theta \in [0,\pi ]$ is determined by the displayed dot product formula. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality puts the quotient in $[-1,1]$, so the inverse cosine is defined. Perpendicular vectors have angle $\pi /2$, parallel vectors pointing the same way have angle zero, and those pointing in opposite directions have angle $\pi$. A zero vector has no uniquely defined direction and hence no angle by this definition.

An internal angle bisector of a triangle divides the opposite side in the ratio of the two adjacent sides. If $AD$ bisects the angle at $A$ in triangle $ABC$, then $BD/DC=AB/AC$. Comparing the areas of triangles $ABD$ and $ACD$ proves this: their shared altitude gives the ratio $BD/DC$, while their equal included angles give $AB/AC$.

The signed angle between a lifting surface's chord and its incoming relative flow. Positive incidence in the planar convention used in airfoil raises the leading edge relative to the trailing edge in a horizontal left-to-right flow. It is distinct from orientation relative to the ground; an induced velocity can change the local effective incidence.

The angle of incidence is the angle between the incident light ray and the line of the surface normal vector at the point of incidence. Use the acute angle on the incident side, with $0\le {\theta }_i<90^{\circ }$ for a nongrazing incident light ray. An angle measured from the surface itself is its complement $90^{\circ }-{\theta }_i$. The same convention applies to wavevectors in the transparent media with isotropy considered here.

The angle of refraction is the angle between the transmitted light ray and the surface normal vector, measured on the transmitted side. With positive refractive indices, a propagating transmitted light ray satisfies $n_i\sin {\theta }_i=n_t\sin {\theta }_t$ in Snell's law. The incident and transmitted angles are measured from the same normal line, not from the surface and not from the emergent light ray at a second surface.

The angle subtended by an object at an observer. For a circular object of diameter $D$ viewed face-on at a distance $d$ much larger than $D$, its angular diameter is approximately $D/d$ in radians.

Angular magnification is the ratio of the signed viewing angle with an optical instrument to the signed viewing angle in a stated reference arrangement. Measure both as apparent directions from the eye, positive toward the same side of the optical axis; then an inverted view has negative $M_{\theta }$. If only positive angular sizes are compared, the result is $|M_{\theta }|$ and carries no orientation information. ^[ref].

For the upright virtual image of a converging thin lens, let the eye be at $x=e\ge 0$ and take the unaided reference to be the same small object at a distance $D$ from the eye. Within the small-angle approximation,Specify $D$: keeping the object in its original position means $D=e+u$, whereas the customary magnifier rating uses a near-point reference, often $D=25\mathrm{cm}$. A reference distance is a convention, not a claim that every eye has that near point. ^[ref].

For the virtual image diagram, $m=4$, $v=-30\mathrm{cm}$ and $e=5\mathrm{cm}$. With $D=25\mathrm{cm}$, $M_{\theta }\simeq 20/7$, whereas keeping the object at $D=e+u=12.5\mathrm{cm}$ gives $M_{\theta }\simeq 10/7$. Thus neither viewing comparison gives the transverse magnification four. A person may also be unable to focus on the unaided object at the shorter reference distance.

At $u=f$, each outgoing bundle is parallel with slope $-h_o/f$; its apparent viewing direction has angle ${\theta }_i\simeq h_o/f$. Consequently $M_{\theta }\simeq D/f$ remains finite even though $m$ is undefined at a finite image plane. Equivalently, in the limit $u\to f^{-}$, the factors $m$ and $e-v$ both grow without bound but their ratio tends to $1/f$. For $f=10\mathrm{cm}$ and $D=25\mathrm{cm}$, the relaxed-view prediction is $M_{\theta }\simeq 2.5$. ^[ref].

Angular momentum measures how a point mass's momentum passes around a chosen origin. Motion straight toward or away from that origin contributes zero; transverse momentum contributes more when it passes farther away. The picture shows the sign convention before the calculation.

Fix an origin $O$ and nonrotating axes in an inertial frame. For a nonrelativistic point mass of constant mass $m>0$, let $\mathbf{r}$ be its position from $O$ and $\mathbf{p}=m\mathbf{v}$ its mechanical momentum in that same reference frame. Its angular momentum is the cross productHere $r=|\mathbf{r}|$, $p=|\mathbf{p}|$, and $\varphi \in [0,\pi ]$ is the angle between them. The right-hand rule gives the direction: curl from $\mathbf{r}$ toward $\mathbf{p}$, and the thumb points along ${\mathbf{L}}_O$. Thus angular momentum is an axial vector, perpendicular to both position and momentum. Its International System of Units unit is $\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2/s$. A point mass need not follow a circle to have angular momentum.^[ref]

With $x$ rightward, $y$ upward, and $+z$ out of the page, the cross product gives $L_z=x{p}_y-y{p}_x$. TakeThen ${\mathbf{L}}_O=(0,0,6)\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2/s$. Reversing the momentum makes $L_z=-6\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2/s$; radial momentum $\mathbf{p}=(3,0,0)\mathrm{kg}m/s$ gives ${\mathbf{L}}_O=0$. The factor $r\sin \varphi$ is the lever arm to the line through the particle parallel to its momentum.

For motion in the $xy$ plane, plane polar coordinates give $\mathbf{v}=\dot{r}\hat{\mathbf{r}}+r\dot{\theta }\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}$, with $\hat{\mathbf{r}}\times \hat{\mathbf{\theta }}=\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. ConsequentlyThe signed angular velocity $\dot{\theta }$ is positive counterclockwise viewed from $+z$ toward the plane, with $\theta$ measured in radians. Radial velocity does not enter the cross product. Under conservation of angular momentum, this relation predicts faster angular motion at smaller $r$ and constant areal velocity $\dot{A}=L_z/(2m)$ for consistently oriented swept area. That is the geometric content of Kepler's second law.

For several point masses, add their angular momenta about the same origin: ${\mathbf{L}}_O={\sum }_i{\mathbf{r}}_i\times {\mathbf{p}}_i$. The origin matters: angular momentum under an origin shift explains why the same moving particle can have different values about two fixed points. The central axis of a momentum system and angular momentum decomposition about the centre of mass make this dependence useful.

A direction described by one or more angles relative to a specified reference.

Let an observer move towards the centre of a small distant source with velocity $\beta c$, where $c$ is the speed of light. For source-direction angle $\theta$, the photon arrives with longitudinal momentum $-E\cos \theta /c$. A Lorentz transformation gives $E^{\prime }=\gamma E(1+\beta \cos \theta )$ and therefore the relativistic aberration lawwhere $\eta =\mathrm{artanh}\beta$ is the rapidity. For a small angular diameter $\Theta$, the displayed angular-size ratio follows by linearizing at $\theta =0$. Two momentarily coincident observers can consequently measure different angular sizes without any change in their observation event. If their diameter ratio is $q\ge 1$, their relative speed is $c(q^2-1)/(q^2+1)$.

A submerged object looks shallower because its emerging light rays bend away from the surface normal vector. Their backward extensions give an approximate virtual image nearer the surface. For an object at perpendicular depth $d$ in a medium of refractive index $n_{\mathrm{obj}}$, viewed through a flat boundary from a medium of refractive index $n_{\mathrm{obs}}$, the near-normal paraxial approximation gives $d_{\mathrm{par}}=(n_{\mathrm{obs}}/n_{\mathrm{obj}})d$. Thus the model water depth $12\mathrm{cm}$ appears approximately $9\mathrm{cm}$ from air. This is a bundle-of-light rays statement, not a deflection of the axial light ray.^[ref]

For general transmitted light rays, specify what “depth” means. Put the object at $(0,-d)$ below a horizontal boundary $z=0$. A light ray reaches the boundary at $(x,0)$, with object-side angle ${\theta }_{\mathrm{obj}}$ and observer-side angle ${\theta }_{\mathrm{obs}}$, both measured from the upward normal vector. For $x>0$, its backward extension meets the object's normal line $x=0$ at $z=-d_{\mathrm{axis}}$, whereThis axis-intercept depth is exact for that one transmitted light ray in the stated model. It tends to $d_{\mathrm{par}}$ as the angles tend to zero; at exactly zero the quotient is interpreted as a limit. These elementary tangent, sine and cosine relations show precisely where the small-angle approximation enters.

The original calculations below use $d=12\mathrm{cm}$, $n_{\mathrm{obj}}=4/3$ and $n_{\mathrm{obs}}=1$:

At appreciable obliquity these depths differ, so the full outgoing bundle has no single exact virtual image on the object's normal line. An oblique eye samples a narrow bundle; its local apparent position also depends on that bundle and cannot be inferred by declaring $d_{\mathrm{axis}}$ to be a universal image depth. A plane refracting boundary gives approximate image formation near normal incidence, with departures at larger angles. The construction assumes a flat surface, uniform transparent media with isotropy, and a propagating transmitted light ray; it does not extend to total internal reflection.

The arc length of a piecewise smooth curve $\gamma :[a,b]\to M$ on a Riemannian manifold is the integral of its speed:An odometer measures this accumulated travel rather than displacement between the endpoints. In Euclidean space, the Riemannian metric is the ordinary inner product, so the formula becomes ${\int }_a^b\sqrt{{\sum }_i{\dot{\gamma }}_i(t{)}^2}dt$.

For a circle of radius $R$ traversed through an angle $\alpha$, use $\gamma (t)=(R\cos (\alpha t),R\sin (\alpha t))$, $0\le t\le 1$. Its speed is $R|\alpha |$, hence its arc length is $R|\alpha |$. Traversing a full circle twice gives $4\pi R$, even though the starting and ending points coincide. The same formula measures the two great circle arcs pictured in geodesic.

The curve parameter controls how fast the journey happens, not its arc length. A regular increasing or decreasing reparametrization preserves the integral by change of variables; reversing direction leaves the speed norm unchanged. Retracing part of a route does add length, because it changes the actual journey.

When both endpoint bundles have the filled circular-cone geometry of etendue of a circular aperture and cone, conservation of etendue givesFor the same refractive index, quadrupling the area halves the sine of the cone half-angle. In the $10\mathrm{mm}$, $30^{\circ }$ example, an ideal output of diameter $20\mathrm{mm}$ must have $\sin {\theta }_2=1/4$, so ${\theta }_2\approx 14.4775^{\circ }$. The exact result differs from simply halving $30^{\circ }$. Conversely, reducing the diameter to $5\mathrm{mm}$ requires a complete forward hemisphere, ${\theta }_2=90^{\circ }$, as a limiting case.

Equal bounding area and solid angle do not alone prove equal etendue: an actual output can have unoccupied directions or position-direction correlations. The filled-cone equation is an exact model of the specified bundles and a capacity constraint on an optical instrument, not a guarantee of an aberration-free implementation.

Take a circle of radius $R$, a vertex $A$ on its circumference, and two chords from $A$ symmetric about the diameter through $A$. If their angle is $0\le \theta \le \pi$, choose the arc between their other endpoints that does not contain $A$. The area bounded by the two chords and that arc is $R^2(\theta +\sin \theta )$. To calculate it, set $A=(0,R)$ and the other endpoints to $(\pm R\sin \theta ,-R\cos \theta )$. Their triangle has area $R^2\sin \theta (1+\cos \theta )$, and the adjoining circular segment, of central angle $2\theta$, has area $R^2(\theta -\sin \theta \cos \theta )$. The sum gives the formula, including the limiting zero-area and full-disk cases.