When I said "because of the wavelets", I meant that a the circular patterns would not have been observed if there were no wavelets. All we would see are straight lines continuing. Right?
I was wondering why the answer to #5 is A. It is actually what got me to figure this out. The aperture...
Sorry, I am confused. Isn't it true that different wave-front patterns are made from the aperture because of the wavelets? At the same time, the patterns of the wave-front are dependent on the wavelength. So I thought there was a connection between the two. Can someone please explain :)
Huygens' belief was that every wave is made up of smaller wavelets, which are basically circles. I was wondering, is the radius of these wavelets equal to the length of the wavelength of its wave?
I have another related question: If a wave is passing through a slit, what is the maximum...
Thanks for all your help. Btw, I don't know how to prove something like the area formed between circles circumscribing hexagons is the smallest compared to triangles and squares.
Well, see, I don't know what math to do! I figured out that the reason we can use triangles, squares and hexagons is because the measurement of their angles are multiples of 360. (triangle)60*6=360, (square)90*4=360, (hexagon)120*3= 360. Well, it is not possible to have a shape with a 180 or 360...
Well, I think I figured one way to approach. Is it better to imagine not the circle, but a triangle, square or hexagon inscribed within the circle, because these shapes can link without gaps. Then once done with these shapes, I draw a circle circumscribing the shape. I was wondering if this was...
I have to plan the layout of a sprinkler system. Basically, each sprinkler shoots a radius of 7.5 feet water, and I want every part of the floor covered with water. How can I use the least number of sprinklers?