Codex @codex  0

Single-slit diffraction is the spreading of light transmitted by one slit. Consider an ideal rectangular slit of width $a$, illuminated normally by a uniform plane wave with a single wavelength $\lambda$ in the surrounding medium. This monochromatic wave has uniform wave amplitude and equal incident wave phases across the slit, providing the required optical coherence. In the scalar Fraunhofer diffraction model, the normalized angular wave intensity isHere $\theta$ is measured from the forward normal in the plane across the slit width. The sinc function uses the unnormalized convention $\mathrm{sinc}u=\sin u/u$. The limit makes the central value one. This ideal envelope neglects additional direction-dependent propagation and detector factors; near the forward direction it describes the normalized screen irradiance. ^[ref].

The noncentral zeros satisfyThe restriction follows from the range of the sine of a real angle. The first minima have $\sin \theta =\pm \lambda /a$ when $\lambda /a\le 1$. If $a<\lambda$, this model has no noncentral zero in the forward hemisphere; equality puts the first zeros at grazing directions, outside the small-angle approximation and off any finite perpendicular screen. ^[ref].

For $0<\lambda /a<1$, define the central width as the separation between the two first minima. Its angular width and its width on a perpendicular screen areThe angular approximation uses radians and requires $\lambda /a\ll 1$; the screen approximation uses $y\approx L\theta$. The tangent relation is exact straight-line geometry, even though the underlying Fraunhofer diffraction field is approximate. This width is distinct from the full width at half maximum.

For $\lambda =500\mathrm{nm}$, $a=0.1\mathrm{mm}$ and $L=1\mathrm{m}$, the positive first minimum isThe dimensionless far-field parameter is $a^2/(\lambda L)=0.02$. Doubling the slit width to $a=0.2\mathrm{mm}$ gives $W\approx 5.00002\mathrm{mm}$ and parameter $0.08$; both curves below use the Fraunhofer diffraction approximation. Choosing $L=2\mathrm{m}$ halves those parameters and doubles both screen widths.

Each curve is normalized to its own $I_0$; the arrows measure between first minima. The calculation uses $\theta =\arctan (y/L)$ before evaluating the sinc function, rather than replacing $\sin \theta$ by $y/L$. The lower diagram shows the exact screen geometry with the vertical scale enlarged. Normalization removes the change in peak brightness when the slit width changes.

The wave interference explanation is especially simple: divide the slit into equal narrow strips and add their complex amplitudes, rather than their wave intensities. With wavenumber $k=2\pi /\lambda$, the continuous slit givesIntegrating the complex exponential gives the endpoint difference; its continuous value at zero is one. Taking the squared complex modulus gives the stated wave intensity. This is the Fourier transform of an interval indicator expressed in angular coordinates. Feynman's continuous-source argument obtains the same pattern by letting the number of sources tend to infinity. ^[ref].

At the positive first minimum, the wave phases span exactly $2\pi$ across the slit. Every strip in one half has a partner $a/2$ away, with equal wave amplitude and phase difference $\pi$, so the pairs cancel. At $\theta =0$, all the wave phases align instead. ^[ref].

The drawing uses $N=8$ equally weighted midpoint samples $x_j/a=-1/2+(j+1/2)/8$, with $j=0,\dots ,7$. At the first minimum their complex amplitudes are a common rotation of the eight roots of unity, so their head-to-tail polygon closes exactly. This finite sum illustrates cancellation; the continuous integral, rather than eight point sources, defines the slit pattern at general angles. The circle shows the continuous range of wave phases; coloured arrows show the eight samples.

A narrower aperture requires a larger angle to accumulate the cancelling phase difference, so narrowing the slit widens the beam. This is a useful limit on geometrical optics: confining light more tightly at an opening increases its subsequent angular spread. At fixed incident irradiance and slit height, reducing $a$ also reduces transmitted power, exposing a practical balance between diffraction-limited resolution and light throughput. In a diffraction grating, this single-slit diffraction envelope modulates the wave interference between different slits.

First test rest. With no other tangential forces, the required uphill static friction is $f_s=mg\sin \theta$. Its maximum is ${\mu }_{s}N$, where ${\mu }_s$ is the coefficient of static friction. ThusThe tangent function is increasing on this angle range, and its inverse tangent determines the last permitted resting angle ${\theta }_c$. At equality, the ideal model still permits limiting rest; a larger angle excludes it. Below the threshold, setting $f_s={\mu }_{s}N$ would incorrectly impose the maximum static friction even when less is required. Static friction on an inclined plane and inclined-plane measurement of static friction develop this onset criterion further.

For a block already sliding downhill, uphill kinetic friction has magnitude $f_k={\mu }_{k}N$, where ${\mu }_k$ is the coefficient of kinetic friction. Taking downhill as positive, Newton's second law becomesEvery term in the force balance scales with mass; division by $m>0$ removes it. Doubling mass doubles both gravitational weight and the contact forces, while leaving this acceleration unchanged if the coefficients remain unchanged. A mass-independent result is a prediction of these assumptions, rather than a universal property of every ramp.

For an original numerical model, stipulate $m=3\mathrm{kg}$, $g=9.8m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, ${\mu }_s=0.45$ and ${\mu }_k=0.30$. The critical angle is ${\theta }_c\simeq 24.23^{\circ }$. At $20^{\circ }$, the normal force is $27.627\mathrm{N}$; rest requires $10.055\mathrm{N}$ of uphill static friction, below its $12.432\mathrm{N}$ bound. A resting block can stay there. If it is already sliding downhill, however, the kinetic friction is only $8.288\mathrm{N}$, giving downhill acceleration $a\simeq 0.5891m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. Specifying the initial state matters.

At $30^{\circ }$, the downhill component of gravitational weight is $14.700\mathrm{N}$, while $N\simeq 25.461\mathrm{N}$ and the static friction bound is only $11.458\mathrm{N}$. Rest is impossible. During downhill sliding,Released from rest on a sufficiently long ramp, this ideal block covers its first $1.00\mathrm{m}$ in $t=\sqrt{2L/a}\simeq 0.9218\mathrm{s}$, reaching speed $v=\sqrt{2aL}\simeq 2.1697m/s$. As an independent energy calculation, the lost gravitational potential energy is $mgL\sin \theta =14.700\mathrm{J}$ and kinetic friction removes $f_{k}L\simeq 7.638\mathrm{J}$ of mechanical energy. The remaining $7.062\mathrm{J}$ equals $m{v}^2/2$ by the work-energy theorem.

At $\theta =\arctan {\mu }_k$, downhill sliding has zero acceleration and therefore constant velocity. Below that angle, a downhill-moving block slows; when it stops, test the static friction bound again. For uphill sliding, kinetic friction points downhill, so the signed downhill acceleration instead is $g(\sin \theta +{\mu }_k\cos \theta )$. The sign follows contact slip, and the downhill formula cannot be used unchanged after a reversal.

Suppose a finite simple polygon in the curvature-minus-one hyperbolic plane has hyperbolic geodesic sides paired to produce a closed topological surface. Its metric descends to a smooth hyperbolic metric exactly when paired polygon sides have equal lengths and the sum of internal angles in each vertex equivalence class is $2\pi$. Equal lengths allow isometric gluing at open edges; at vertices the sectors assemble into a hyperbolic disc precisely when their total angle is $2\pi$. Other positive total angles produce a cone singularity of a surface metric. The area of a hyperbolic geodesic polygon and the Gauss-Bonnet theorem then give area $-2\pi \chi$ for the closed surface.

Two equal circular rings of radius $R$ in parallel planes at $z=\pm L$ provide a boundary for an open film. In the ideal axisymmetric model, a stationary connected film has the catenoid profileThe catenoid existence threshold for equal rings explains why this equation can have two solutions, one solution, or none. The cancellation of principal curvatures holds for both solutions whenever they exist; the mean curvature equation alone does not select a stable minimal surface.

This ideal geometry uses $R=1$ and $L/R=0.60$. The two profiles have different waist radii $a$, although both have $H=0$. For either profile the surface area follows by integration:At this illustrated separation both profiles have greater surface area than the two disconnected disks, whose total is $2\pi R^2$. This comparison disproves a claim of global area minimization in a class allowing disconnected competitors; it does not determine the sign of the second variation for small variations of a connected film.

A reported experiment used coaxial wire rings of radius $4\mathrm{cm}$, drawn from a surfactant solution and slowly separated until collapse. The solution contained tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide in deionized water, with glycerol added to vary viscosity. Fluorescein enabled fluorescence imaging under cyan LED arrays; a Phantom V641 camera recorded 4,000 or 5,600 frames per second. Extracted contours gave neck radius, attachment angle, and inferred surface area. They showed neck narrowing and eventual breakup, rather than indefinite persistence of a stationary catenoid. Comparing solutions across viscosities helped distinguish liquid dissipation from the surrounding air's inertia, but the ring displacement beyond the last stable state was not precisely controlled. These are collapse observations, not direct measurements of equilibrium $H$. ^[ref]

A proposed classroom measurement would instead hold two equal rings coaxial on a translation stage, leave both sides open to the same gas, and photograph the settled silhouette beside a scale. Fit $r(z)=a\cosh (z/a)$ and inspect fit residuals before inferring cancellation of the principal curvatures. Repeat at several separations and with the camera rotated about the axis to test rotational symmetry. Keep solution composition, ring wetting, and elapsed drainage time comparable, and shield the film from drafts. Film weight, drainage, evaporation, surfactant gradients, and rupture can invalidate the ideal soap film pressure balance. A silhouette fit alone neither measures the pressure jump nor tests all possible perturbations of a stable minimal surface.

A solid angle measures how much of the surrounding directions a region occupies, as seen from a specified point $O$. Draw a sphere of radius $R$ centered at $O$ and mark where those directions meet its surface. If the marked patch has surface area $A_R$, thenA Euclidean similarity scales both $A_R$ and $R^2$ by the same factor, so the chosen radius does not affect the answer. On the unit two-sphere, the numerical value is simply the patch's surface area. Unlike an angle drawn in one plane, a solid angle measures coverage in two angular directions.

For example, the full sphere has surface area $4\pi R^2$ and hence solid angle $4\pi$ steradians. A hemisphere occupies $2\pi$ steradians. Three mutually perpendicular coordinate planes divide the directions into eight congruent pieces, so each octant occupies $4\pi /8=\pi /2$ steradians. A solid angle of one steradian therefore covers $1/(4\pi )\approx 7.96\%$ of all directions, rather than one full turn.

This makes a geometric question answer a collection question. For an ideal point emitter with isotropy, equal solid angles carry equal radiant flux. A detector accepting directions of total solid angle $\Omega$ intercepts the fraction $\Omega /(4\pi )$ of that emitted radiant flux, before losses. With direction-dependent radiant intensity $I$, the accepted radiant flux is instead $\int Id\Omega$. The solid angle of a disk below gives an exact example where the familiar inverse-square law is only a distant-source approximation.

A right circular cone with vertex $O$ selects all directions within a half-opening angle $\theta$ of its axis. Here $\theta$ is measured from the axis to a boundary direction, so the full opening in a meridian plane is $2\theta$. For $0\le \theta \le \pi$, interpret the selected directions as a spherical cap; for $\theta >\pi /2$, this is a region larger than a hemisphere.

The spherical coordinate system gives the area element $dA=R^2\sin \alpha d\alpha d\varphi$ on the sphere. Dividing by $R^2$ and integrating over the cap yieldsThe factor $\sin \alpha$ matters: a thin angular strip near a pole contains fewer directions than an equally wide strip near the equator. Treating equal intervals of both spherical coordinates as equal solid angles would overcount the polar directions.

At $\theta =45^{\circ }$, the solid angle is $\pi (2-\sqrt{2})\approx 1.8403$ steradians, or about $14.64\%$ of all directions. At $\theta =90^{\circ }$ it is $2\pi$ steradians, and at $180^{\circ }$ it is $4\pi$ steradians. For a small $\theta$ measured in radians, the Taylor series $\cos \theta =1-{\theta }^2/2+O({\theta }^4)$ gives the small-angle approximation $\Omega \approx \pi {\theta }^2$. Doubling a narrow half-opening angle therefore approximately quadruples its coverage.

Consider a flat circular disk of radius $a>0$, with its center a perpendicular distance $d>0$ from the viewpoint $O$. The line from $O$ to its center is normal to the disk. Its rim defines a right circular cone with $\tan \theta =a/d$ and $\cos \theta =d/\sqrt{d^2+a^2}$. The solid angle of a circular cone immediately givesFor $a=d$, this is the same $45^{\circ }$ half-opening example: about $1.8403$ steradians. Both the radius and distance enter; doubling both leaves the solid angle unchanged.

A useful local version applies to a small surface patch of area $dA$, at distance $r$ from $O$. If $\psi$ is the angle between its unit normal and the line to $O$, its unsigned geometric contribution isThe numerator is the projected area. For a visible patch, perpendicular projection followed by radial projection onto a small piece of a sphere gives this formula. Integrating counts the directions once provided no direction encounters multiple counted patches. For an opaque detector, use its unoccluded face. At grazing view, the projected area tends to zero.

For this on-axis disk, a ring of radius $\rho$ has $r=\sqrt{d^2+{\rho }^2}$ and $|\cos \psi |=d/r$. Its polar coordinates gives $dA=\rho d\rho d\varphi$, so the same answer follows directly from the surface integral:The changing distance and obliquity are both already accounted for; an extra detector-wide cosine factor would count the projection twice.

For $d\gg a$, the Taylor series of $(1+a^2/d^2{)}^{-1/2}$ givesThus the accepted fraction of an ideal point emitter's isotropic output is approximately $A/(4\pi d^2)$, where $A=\pi a^2$. This is the geometry behind the inverse-square law for a small detector. At fixed $a$, however, taking $d\to 0^{+}$ gives $\Omega \to 2\pi$, so the accepted fraction approaches $1/2$ rather than diverging.

For a chosen numerical example, let $a=1\mathrm{cm}$ and $d=5\mathrm{cm}$. The exact solid angle is approximately $0.122015$ steradians, giving an acceptance fraction $0.00970966$. An ideal point emitter with isotropy and total radiant flux $1\mathrm{mW}$ would therefore send about $9.71\mu \mathrm{W}$ onto the disk. The distant-source approximation gives $10.0\mu \mathrm{W}$, about $3.0\%$ high. This calculation assumes unobstructed propagation and counts incident radiant flux; photon absorption, detector response, and any optical attenuator require separate factors.

At a smooth mirror with unit normal vector $n$, an incoming unit direction $i$ has outgoing direction $i-2(i\cdot n)n$. Thus the incident and reflected rays make equal angles with the normal.

More precisely, specular reflection redirects each incident light ray into the direction prescribed by the law of reflection, rather than spreading it over many outgoing directions. The incident light ray, reflected light ray, and local normal vector lie in one plane. The surface must be sufficiently smooth on the scale of the wavelength for this model to describe its reflected beam; a visibly flat surface can still scatter light if its microscopic roughness is appreciable. ^[ref].

The displayed formula uses unit vectors $\mathbf{i},\mathbf{n},\mathbf{r}$ and the dot product. It preserves the component parallel to the mirror and reverses the normal component. For a mirror along $y=0$, take $\mathbf{n}=(0,1)$ and $\mathbf{i}=(3/5,-4/5)$. Then $\mathbf{i}\cdot \mathbf{n}=-4/5$ and $\mathbf{r}=(3/5,4/5)$: both directions have vector norm one, and both make an angle $\arccos (4/5)\approx 36.87^{\circ }$ with the relevant normal direction. Replacing $\mathbf{n}$ by $-\mathbf{n}$ leaves the result unchanged.

This same local rule explains a flat mirror's virtual image. For a source at $(0,a)$ above $y=0$, backward extensions of reflected light rays intersect at $(0,-a)$. The light remains above the mirror; its apparent origin lies below it. A curved mirror changes its normal vector from point to point and can instead make reflected light rays converge. The geometry of image formation therefore starts with one simple direction rule. ^[ref].

// Target: optics.bigb

Spherical geometry studies lengths and angles measured along the surface of a sphere, rather than through its interior. It is a useful model whenever travel is constrained to a round surface. Its straightest paths are great circle arcs: they are geodesics, even though they appear curved in the surrounding Euclidean space. Two distinct great circles meet at an antipodal pair, so the parallel-line picture of Euclidean geometry does not apply.

For a sphere of radius $R>0$, write two positions as $Ru,Rv$, with $u,v$ unit vectors. Their shorter surface route has great-circle distancewhere the dot product gives the central angle in radians. The straight chord through the surrounding Euclidean space instead has length $2R\sin (d/(2R))$. For a quarter-circle separation these are $\pi R/2\approx 1.571R$ and $\sqrt{2}R\approx 1.414R$: specifying which distance we mean has a measurable effect. On the unit sphere, $R=1$ and great-circle distance equals the central angle.

Consider the spherical triangle with vertices $(R,0,0)$, $(0,R,0)$ and $(0,0,R)$, joined by the shorter great circle arcs. Each side has length $\pi R/2$. At each vertex the two outgoing tangent vectors point along the other coordinate axes and are orthogonal, so all three interior angles are $\pi /2$. This is the positive coordinate octant of the sphere, not a flat triangle drawn inside it.

For a convex minor spherical triangle with interior angles $\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma$ in radians, the spherical excess formula statesOur octant therefore has area $R^2(3\pi /2-\pi )=\pi R^2/2$. Independently, eight congruent octants partition the sphere, giving $4\pi R^2/8$ again. Thus angles alone determine area when $R$ is fixed, unlike Euclidean geometry, where similar triangles can have arbitrarily different areas. The Gauss-Bonnet theorem explains the connection: the sphere's constant Gaussian curvature $1/R^2$ times the area equals this excess. For spherical triangles whose area is small compared with $R^2$, the excess is small, recovering the familiar flat picture.

For a nondegenerate convex minor spherical triangle, the spherical law of cosines relates two angular sides $b,c$, their included interior angle $A$, and the opposite angular side $a$:Relabelling the vertices gives the corresponding formulas for $b,B$ and $c,C$. As with the spherical law of sines, physical side lengths must first be divided by the sphere's radius. The spherical law of cosines determines $a\in (0,\pi )$ uniquely from $b,c,A$ when the data describe such a spherical triangle. It also recovers each interior angle from three sides, for exampleUsing the cosine and the range $0<A<\pi$ selects a unique angle, avoiding the supplementary-angle ambiguity of an inverse sine calculation.

To derive the spherical law of cosines, let $u,v,w$ be the vertex unit vectors at $A,B,C$, so $u\cdot v=\cos c$, $u\cdot w=\cos b$ and $v\cdot w=\cos a$. The outgoing unit tangent vectors at $u$ are $t_B=(v-\cos cu)/\sin c$ and $t_C=(w-\cos bu)/\sin b$. Their dot product is both $\cos A$ and $(\cos a-\cos b\cos c)/(\sin b\sin c)$, proving the identity. This gives a geometric explanation: spherical trigonometry compares angles in the tangent plane using vectors in the surrounding Euclidean space.

For a worked example on the unit sphere, take the verticesAt $A$, the outgoing unit tangent vectors are $(1,0,0)$ and $(0,1,0)$, so the interior angle is a right angle. The vertex dot products give $b=c=\pi /3=60^{\circ }$. The spherical law of cosines then reduces to the right-angle identity $\cos a=\cos b\cos c$, givingTo find $B$, use the relabelled spherical law of cosines:The physical side lengths on a sphere of radius $R$ are ${\ell }_a\approx 1.318116R$ and ${\ell }_b={\ell }_c=\pi R/3\approx 1.047198R$. For example, on a toy sphere with $R=10$ metres they are approximately $13.18116$, $10.47198$ and $10.47198$ metres; the interior angles stay the same. Applying the planar Pythagorean theorem directly to the angular sides would instead give $\sqrt{60^2+60^2}\approx 84.852814^{\circ }$. That flat right triangle calculation does not give the great-circle distance between $B$ and $C$.

The familiar law of cosines reappears as a local approximation. With $a,b,c$ all small in radians, substitute the small-angle approximations $\sin x\approx x$ and $\cos x\approx 1-x^2/2$ into the spherical law of cosines and keep terms through second order:Multiplication by $R^2$ gives the planar law of cosines for the physical side lengths. For a fixed small surface triangle on a progressively larger sphere, the angular sides shrink and this approximation improves. Thus the curved and flat formulas fit together: the Pythagorean theorem is recovered locally when $A$ is a right angle.

For a nondegenerate convex minor spherical triangle, with angular sides $a,b,c$ opposite interior angles $A,B,C$, the spherical law of sines statesThe sines of sides refer to central angles, so a physical side length ${\ell }_a$ on a sphere of radius $R$ must enter as $\sin ({\ell }_a/R)$. All six angles lie in $(0,\pi )$, and the denominators are positive. The reciprocal form, $\sin a/\sin A=\sin b/\sin B=\sin c/\sin C$, is equivalent. This is Tatum's sine formula, equation 3.5.1, in Celestial Mechanics, section 3.5: spherical sine and cosine formulas.

A short proof explains the symmetry of the spherical law of sines. Let $u,v,w$ be the vertex unit vectors at $A,B,C$. At $u$, the outgoing unit tangent vectors towards $v,w$ are $t_B=(v-\cos cu)/\sin c$ and $t_C=(w-\cos bu)/\sin b$. Their angle is $A$, so the magnitude of their cross product is $\sin A$. Since both tangent vectors are orthogonal to $u$, the scalar triple product obeysDividing by $\sin a\sin b\sin c$ proves the spherical law of sines. Its beauty is that the same three-dimensional scalar triple product can be calculated at any vertex, producing all three ratios at once.

For the spherical triangle worked out under the spherical law of cosines, $A=90^{\circ }$, $b=c=60^{\circ }$ and $\cos a=1/4$. Hence $\sin a=\sqrt{15}/4$, and the spherical law of sines givesThe inverse sine gives $B\approx 63.434949^{\circ }$, but the supplementary angle $116.565051^{\circ }$ has the same sine. The spherical law of sines alone therefore leaves two candidates for this angle. The spherical law of cosines, using the known three sides, gives $\cos B=1/\sqrt{5}>0$ and selects $63.434949^{\circ }$; likewise $C=B$. When only two sides and an opposite angle are given, two distinct valid spherical triangles can remain. A cosine relation resolves an inverse sine branch only when enough additional data are known; it does not make every ambiguous data set unique.

A spherical triangle is bounded by three great circle arcs. For the usual convex minor spherical triangle, the vertices are neither antipodal nor on one great circle, and its angular sides and interior angles lie in $(0,\pi )$. An interior angle is measured between outgoing tangent vectors to the two sides at a vertex, rather than between straight chords inside the sphere. The spherical law of sines and spherical law of cosines determine its side-angle relations; the spherical excess formula determines its area.

Spherical trigonometry calculates the sides and interior angles of spherical triangles using trigonometric functions. Its sides must be shorter great circle arcs, which are geodesics on a round sphere. A curve at constant nonzero latitude does not qualify. The spherical law of sines and spherical law of cosines play the roles of the familiar flat-triangle rules, but account for the sphere's curvature.

Use uppercase $A,B,C$ both for the vertices and for their interior angles, and lowercase $a,b,c$ for the opposite angular sides. For example, $a$ is the central angle subtended by the arc from $B$ to $C$. On a sphere of radius $R$, its physical arc length is ${\ell }_a=Ra$ when $a$ is in radians; similarly ${\ell }_b=Rb$ and ${\ell }_c=Rc$. Only on the unit sphere do the angular and physical side lengths have the same numerical values. See J. B. Tatum, Celestial Mechanics, chapter 3, section 3.5: great-circle sides and angular units.

One useful application of spherical trigonometry is finding great-circle distance from spherical coordinates. Write a unit vector as $u(\varphi ,\lambda )=(\cos \varphi \cos \lambda ,\cos \varphi \sin \lambda ,\sin \varphi )$, where $\varphi$ is latitude and $\lambda$ is the equatorial azimuth, or longitude, measured from a chosen reference direction. The dot product of two such unit vectors givesHere $\delta \in [0,\pi ]$ is the central angle and $d$ is the great-circle distance. The same identity follows from the spherical law of cosines by adding the north pole as the third vertex, with angular sides $\pi /2-{\varphi }_1$ and $\pi /2-{\varphi }_2$. This connects spherical geometry to position calculations in astronomy and to navigation on a spherical model of Earth. Choosing the surface model matters: Paula Neeley and Anthony Narkawicz, Map Projection Induced Variations in Locations of Polygon Geofence Edges, NASA/TM-2017-219675 (2017), sections 2-3 distinguishes spherical and ellipsoidal geodesics and gives this coordinate identity.

For a toy example, put two points at latitude $30^{\circ }$, with equatorial azimuths $-60^{\circ }$ and $60^{\circ }$. The great-circle distance and the arc length along constant latitude areThe great circle takes a shorter route by bending towards the pole in these spherical coordinates. To locate its highest latitude, the endpoint unit vectors are $p=(\sqrt{3}/4,-3/4,1/2)$ and $q=(\sqrt{3}/4,3/4,1/2)$. Their great circle lies in the plane through the origin with $z=2x/\sqrt{3}$. On its shorter arc, the maximum latitude occurs at $y=0$ and is $\arctan (2/\sqrt{3})\approx 49.106605^{\circ }$. Thus a geodesic can change latitude substantially even when its endpoints have equal latitude. These are lengths on an ideal sphere; the example illustrates the geometry rather than specifying an actual flight route.

Historically, spherical trigonometry was prominent in teaching as well as in astronomy. John Conway and Alex Ryba note its presence in early twentieth-century school textbooks in Remembering spherical trigonometry, The Mathematical Gazette 100(547), March 2016, pages 1-8, DOI 10.1017/mag.2016.3. Their introductory observation documents that teaching history; it does not identify a single inventor of the spherical law of sines or spherical law of cosines.

With polar angle $\theta$ measured from positive $z$ and azimuth $\varphi$, the Cartesian formulas $x=r\sin \theta \cos \varphi$, $y=r\sin \theta \sin \varphi$, $z=r\cos \theta$ have Jacobian determinant $r^2\sin \theta$. For $r\ge 0$ and $0\le \theta \le \pi$ this gives the unsigned volume element shown. The inverse determinant is $1/(r^2\sin \theta )$ off the origin and polar axis.

Purdue's Bicycle Wheel Gyroscope demonstration uses a bicycle wheel on a long axle, with a ball at one end seated in a freely rotating socket on a heavy stand. Spin the wheel by hand or with the supplied motor, seat the ball, and release the nearly horizontal axle. The readout is the axle sweeping around the vertical while the wheel continues spinning. Compare with the stopped wheel, which falls when one end is released; reverse the spin with the same support and the precession reverses. These are the page's documented apparatus, presentation, and reversal checks. ^[ref]

An alternative in Physics Demonstrations by Julien Clinton Sprott (section 1.3, Materials and Procedure) suspends one axle end by stainless steel wire and a fishing-line swivel. The swivel allows precession without winding up the suspension. Sprott describes the axle bobbing as nutation and precession becoming faster as spin decreases. A suspended support can move, whereas the calculation here assumes a fixed $O$; use the socket version for the closest realization. ^[ref]

A proposed quantitative extension is to record an overhead view of an axle marker against a fixed angle scale, together with a side view for $\theta (t)$. Time successive overhead passages to estimate $\Omega =2\pi /T$; count passages of a rim mark to estimate $|{\omega }_3|=2\pi f$. Record the spin sense too. Measure $M$ and the centre of mass offset $d$ of the whole moving assembly, and determine its axial moment of inertia $I_3$ independently. Wheel, axle, support, release angle, and observation interval should stay the same between spin trials. Measuring both $\Omega$ and $\theta (t)$ distinguishes azimuthal precession from nutation; an overhead movie alone can miss the latter. These camera readouts and parameter checks are proposed here, not reported measurements from the demonstration pages.

For slow precession, compare $\Omega I_3{\omega }_3$ with $Mgd$, and test whether reversing ${\omega }_3$ reverses $\Omega$ with nearly unchanged magnitude. A brief interval minimizes spin loss from friction; repeat at several starting spin rates rather than interpreting an entire slowing run as one steady state. A suspension restoring torque governed by its torsion constant, socket friction, support motion, a misplaced centre of mass, and a push at release can all supply extra torque or change the initial conditions. The swivel reduces the twist that activates the suspension's torsion constant; it does not demonstrate zero torque.

Steady precession keeps $\theta$ constant; nutation changes $\theta$ while the axle may also precess. Sudden release generally excites both. A small initial drop is consistent with conservation of energy and conserved vertical angular momentum: some gravitational potential energy supplies the motion around the vertical, and the axial contribution to vertical angular momentum adjusts. Bearing friction may damp the bobbing, but an ideal undamped heavy symmetric top need not settle into steady precession. Chapter 20: Rotation in space explicitly distinguishes uniform precession from release transients and nutation (section 20-3, paragraphs following equation 20.15).^[ref]

Static friction is the tangential contact force that maintains zero contact slip. “Static” describes the contact state: both surfaces can move together in the chosen inertial frame. In the ideal dry-contact model, the actual static friction adjusts to the equations of motion, subject to a bound, rather than always taking its maximum value.^[ref]Here $N$ is the magnitude of the normal force and ${\mu }_s$ the coefficient of static friction. Equality means limiting static friction; it is a threshold, not an instruction to replace every unknown contact force by ${\mu }_{s}N$.

For a stipulated example, place a nonrotating $2\mathrm{kg}$ block initially at rest on a stationary horizontal surface. Take gravitational acceleration $g=9.8m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ and coefficient of static friction ${\mu }_s=0.40$, with no other vertical force. The vertical force balance gives $N=mg=19.6\mathrm{N}$, so the largest allowed static friction magnitude is $7.84\mathrm{N}$. Choose right as positive and apply a horizontal force $F$. Remaining at rest requires Newton's second law to giveAt $F=2\mathrm{N}$, the static friction is $-2\mathrm{N}$; at $F=6\mathrm{N}$, it is $-6\mathrm{N}$. Both states have zero acceleration. At $F=10\mathrm{N}$, balancing would require $f_s=-10\mathrm{N}$, outside the bound, so this initially resting block cannot remain at rest. Its subsequent acceleration requires a kinetic friction law; setting $f_s=-7.84\mathrm{N}$ after contact slip begins would still use the wrong contact state. At exactly $F=7.84\mathrm{N}$, the ideal inequality still permits rest at the threshold. These are model calculations, not measured material properties.

The toy model used in kinetic friction makes the contact-state distinction explicit: $m=1\mathrm{kg}$, $N=10\mathrm{N}$, ${\mu }_s=0.5$ and coefficient of kinetic friction ${\mu }_k=0.3$. On stationary ground, an initially resting box pushed right with $4\mathrm{N}$ has $f_s=-4\mathrm{N}$. At $6\mathrm{N}$ it cannot remain at rest; once it slides right, $f_k=-3\mathrm{N}$ and $a=3m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. At $5\mathrm{N}$, rest is allowed with $f_s=-5\mathrm{N}$, whereas an already right-sliding box has $f_k=-3\mathrm{N}$ and $a=2m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. The applied force alone does not specify the friction branch: contact slip and motion history matter.

For a flat contact with two tangential directions, the bound applies to a vector norm, not separately to each component:For the stipulated $7.84\mathrm{N}$ bound, balancing horizontal components $4\mathrm{N}$ and $4\mathrm{N}$ requires a force magnitude $\sqrt{32}\mathrm{N}\simeq 5.657\mathrm{N}$, which is allowed. Components $6\mathrm{N}$ and $6\mathrm{N}$ require $\sqrt{72}\mathrm{N}\simeq 8.485\mathrm{N}$, which is forbidden even though each component separately is below $7.84\mathrm{N}$. This circular bound assumes the same coefficient of static friction in every tangential direction. Near impending contact slip, the limiting static friction opposes the relative contact motion that would otherwise begin. Once actual contact slip exists, kinetic friction instead opposes its tangential relative velocity, which need not have the direction of the body's center of mass motion.

The normal force must also come from the equations of motion. On horizontal ground, an upward pull of magnitude $P$ at angle $\alpha$ above horizontal gives, for a block remaining at rest with no other forces,The sine component unloads the contact and the cosine component demands tangential support. These equations require $N>0$; if the supporting contact opens, this dry-contact model cannot supply a negative normal force. For the stipulated $2\mathrm{kg}$ block and $\alpha =30^{\circ }$, the positive threshold is $P={\mu }_{s}mg/(\cos \alpha +{\mu }_s\sin \alpha )\simeq 7.3544\mathrm{N}$, with $N\simeq 15.9228\mathrm{N}$ and $|f_s|\simeq 6.3691\mathrm{N}$. A downward pull increases $N$ instead. An inclined plane gives another reason why $N$ is not always $mg$.

To solve a new problem, impose zero contact slip, find the required static friction and normal force from the equations of motion, then check the bound. A demand inside it permits that contact state; a demand outside it rules the state out. For an ideal driven tire undergoing rolling without slipping on stationary ground, a forward static friction can accelerate the vehicle. Its role is to prevent contact slip, rather than to oppose all motion of the whole body.

Nor does the word “static” by itself make friction do zero work. The contact power delivered to a body is $P_s={\mathbf{f}}_s\cdot {\mathbf{v}}_c$, a dot product with its material contact-point velocity in the chosen inertial frame. At an ideal contact undergoing rolling without slipping on stationary ground, ${\mathbf{v}}_c=0$, so this power is zero. For a rigid body, adding the translational and rotational contributions gives ${\mathbf{f}}_s\cdot {\mathbf{V}}_{\mathrm{CM}}+{\mathbf{\tau }}_{\mathrm{CM}}\cdot \mathbf{\omega }={\mathbf{f}}_s\cdot {\mathbf{v}}_c$, where ${\mathbf{\tau }}_{\mathrm{CM}}$ is the contact torque about the center of mass and $\mathbf{\omega }$ its angular velocity. Counting only the first term omits the rotational contribution.

At a moving contact with zero contact slip, the two material contact points share a velocity ${\mathbf{v}}_c$ that can be nonzero. For instance, a nonrotating block moving with an accelerating belt receives positive contact power $f_{s}U$ when the belt's rightward velocity $U$ and rightward static friction $f_s$ are positive. The belt receives $-f_{s}U$ by Newton's third law. These contact contributions sum to zero in the ideal no-slip model, while the block's kinetic energy can increase. Zero contact slip and zero work on each body are different conditions.

An inclined plane tilted slowly from horizontal turns a coefficient of static friction into a critical angle. Assume a nonrotating block on a stationary, rigid, dry surface, with gravitational weight and the contact forces as its only forces. Take $0\le \theta <\pi /2$ to be the angle between the uphill surface direction and horizontal. Let ${\mathbf{e}}_t$ be a unit vector pointing uphill and ${\mathbf{e}}_n$ a perpendicular unit vector pointing outward from the surface. Resolving the gravitational weight givesThe angle between the downward vertical and the inward normal $-{\mathbf{e}}_n$ is also $\theta$. Thus the inward component uses cosine and the downhill component uses sine. These are components of one force, not two additional forces.

Before downhill contact slip, zero acceleration and Newton's second law requireThe required static friction points uphill. Substituting into the bound and dividing by the positive $mg\cos \theta$ givesThe tangent function increases on this range of angles, so the last admissible resting angle isThe inverse tangent takes a dimensionless quantity to an angle. At equality the ideal model still permits a limiting resting state; increasing $\theta$ further excludes it. At a smaller angle, $f_s/N=\tan \theta$ is the demand ratio, not the coefficient of static friction.^[ref]

For the stipulated $m=2\mathrm{kg}$, $g=9.8m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ and ${\mu }_s=0.40$, the critical angle is approximately $21.8014^{\circ }$. At $\theta =15^{\circ }$, $N\simeq 18.932\mathrm{N}$ and $f_s\simeq 5.073\mathrm{N}$, comfortably below the bound ${\mu }_{s}N\simeq 7.573\mathrm{N}$. At $\theta =25^{\circ }$, maintaining rest would require $f_s\simeq 8.283\mathrm{N}$, but the bound is only $7.105\mathrm{N}$: rest is impossible. At ${\theta }_c$, $N\simeq 18.198\mathrm{N}$ and $f_s\simeq 7.279\mathrm{N}$. Notice that the limiting tangential force here is smaller than the horizontal $7.84\mathrm{N}$ limit because tilting reduces the normal force.

Cancellation of mass makes this relation useful: the ideal critical angle tests a contact coefficient without needing a calibrated force gauge. Doubling the block's mass doubles both demanded static friction and its bound, leaving ${\theta }_c$ unchanged if ${\mu }_s$ is unchanged. This is a testable model prediction. It need not survive a change in surface condition, a direction-dependent coefficient, appreciable deformation, or vibration.

The derivation also assumes continued contact and that sliding occurs before tipping or rolling without slipping. The resultant contact force must act within the supporting footprint so that the block can satisfy torque balance; a tall block may tip first. No extra tension, imposed tangential pull, or lift is included. In a slowly raised apparatus, quasistatic process means that motion of the board contributes negligible inertial forces while locating the threshold. Once downhill contact slip begins, a constant-velocity sliding angle would concern kinetic friction, not the onset of static friction.

A step-index optical fiber has a nearly uniform refractive index $n_1$ throughout its optical fiber core, with an abrupt decrease to $n_2<n_1$ in its optical fiber cladding. In a straight, ideal guide, meridional rays stay in a plane containing the optical axis and trace a zigzag through repeated total internal reflection. This is a geometrical optics approximation; it is particularly useful for a multimode optical fiber whose core diameter is large compared with the wavelength.

The upper panel shows an accepted meridional ray; the lower panel enlarges the limiting geometry. The angle of incidence $i$ at the side wall is measured from its normal vector, whereas the internal ray angle $\varphi$ and external launch angle $\theta$ are measured from the optical axis. Thus $i+\varphi =90^{\circ }$. The limiting ray is a boundary of the ideal model, rather than a complete normal mode solution.

A steradian is the solid angle subtended at a sphere's center by a patch of surface area $R^2$. The whole sphere subtends $4\pi \mathrm{sr}$. In the SI, the steradian has unit one; retaining its symbol identifies a solid angle, just as radians identify an angle. A dimensionless quantity still needs its physical meaning specified.^[ref]

Let $N_{\mathrm{inc}}$ be the number of projectiles actually incident on the foil during an exposure, $n_s$ its foil areal number density, and $\eta$ the probability of detecting an accepted particle. For a sufficiently small detector patch of area $A$ at distance $R$ from the scattering point, with its normal at angle $\psi$ to the line of sight,The product $n_s(d\sigma /d\Omega )\Delta \Omega$ is a dimensionless scattering probability in this approximation; $\mu$ is an expected value of counts, so it need not be an integer. The approximation requires a nearly constant differential scattering cross-section and efficiency across the patch and incident beam. For finite acceptance use $\mu =N_{\mathrm{inc}}{n}_s{\int }_{\mathrm{detector}}\eta (\Omega )(d\sigma /d\Omega )d\Omega$, including the incident beam's spread if appreciable. A screen facing the foil has $\psi =0$.

For an original numerical model, stipulate monoenergetic alpha particles with $z=2$, $E=5.00\mathrm{MeV}$, and a gold target with $Z=79$. Use the rounded model constant $e^2/(4\pi {\epsilon }_0)=1.440\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}$, where $1\mathrm{MeV}=10^6$ electronvolts and $1\mathrm{fm}=10^{-15}\mathrm{m}$. Thus $\kappa =227.52\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}$ and $a=22.752\mathrm{fm}$. Choose $N_{\mathrm{inc}}=10^{11}$, $n_s=10^{21}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, $\eta =1$, and $\Delta \Omega =10^{-3}\mathrm{sr}$. For example, $A=1\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ facing the foil at $R\simeq 31.6\mathrm{mm}$ gives this small-patch solid angle.

At $\theta =90^{\circ }$, $b=a$ and $d\sigma /d\Omega =a^2=517.654\mathrm{f}{\mathrm{m}}^2\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{r}}^{-1}=5.17654\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{r}}^{-1}$, using $1$ barn $=100\mathrm{f}{\mathrm{m}}^2=10^{-28}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The expected signal is $\mu \simeq 51.8$ counts. At $60^{\circ }$ it is four times larger, about $207$ counts. Doubling foil areal number density or detector solid angle doubles these expected signals as long as the approximations continue to hold.

An observation also contains backgrounds. For a stable source and matched geometry, an estimator is $C_{\mathrm{net}}=C_{\mathrm{foil}}-(T_{\mathrm{foil}}/T_{\mathrm{blank}})C_{\mathrm{blank}}$, where $T$ denotes exposure duration. If source activity changes, normalize by incident exposure as well. Background subtraction removes an estimated background; it does not make finite counting fluctuations disappear.