Calculation for angular excess

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Haorong Wu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angular Calculation
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 2K views
Haorong Wu
Messages
422
Reaction score
90
TL;DR
How to calculate the angular excess on a sphere?
Hello. I am not familiar with spherical trigonometry while I am reading a solution in a GR problem book. It reads,
If we construct a coordinate patch from geodesics we can then bisect that coordinate box with a geodesic diagonal, forming two geodesic triangles. The angular excess of a triangle made from great circles is ##\pi [Area/a^2]## where a is the radius of the sphere.

I study spherical trigonometry on Wikipedia and some other sites, but I am still not sure how to calculate the angular excess.

First, is angular excess equivalent to spherical excess? I have not found a clear definition for angular excess. But the definition for spherical excess makes me think that they are the same concept. Maybe angular excess is just an old-fashioned name?

Second, Girard's theorem states that the area of a spherical triangle is equal to its spherical excess.

Then for a sphere with radius ##a##, Girard's theorem gives that ##Area=a^2 \times E## where ##E## is the spherical excess.

So the spherical excess is given by ##E=Area/a^2##.

Now I am not sure where the ##\pi## comes from. Maybe angular excess differs from spherical excess by a factor ##\pi##?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try looking at parts of a sphere where you can calculate these numbers. For example two meridians at right angles and the equator. Area is ##\frac{\pi}{2}## while angle sum is ##\frac{3\pi}{2}## for a=1 (I can never trust my arithmetic - check it). It looks like ##\pi## is already there.
 
Thanks, @mathman . I got the same answer. So I am not sure whether the equation given in the book is wrong, or because it was defined so in the old days since the book is published in the 1970s.