Can Someone explain Why we integrate over 4[tex]\pi[/tex]? What allows

  • Thread starter Thread starter candice_84
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain Integrate
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
6 replies · 4K views
candice_84
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Can Someone explain Why we integrate over 4[tex]\pi[/tex]? What allows us to get rid of Omega?
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    7.6 KB · Views: 462
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


2pi = 360 which is enough.
 
Last edited:


candice_84 said:
2pi = 360 which is enough.

2 pi in 2D, not 3D.

In 3D, 2 pi is half the solid angle encompassed by a sphere, i.e. hemisphere.

Think - the area of a sphere is 4pi r2, where r is the radius.

Note, when one refers to
[tex]\phi(r,E,\vec{\Omega})[/tex]
one is referring to the angular flux in n/cm2-s-(unit E)-steradian.

Integrating over the solid angle gives the 'scalar' flux.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_transport
 
Last edited:


solid angle is a volume?
 


candice_84 said:
solid angle is a volume?
No solid angle is the solid angle, like angle is angle in 2D. The 4π (steradians) solid angle is the 3D analog to 2π radians in 2D.

The total solid angle would be the area of a sphere divided by r2, i.e. A/r2 = 4πr2/r2 = 4π, just like 2π = circumference (2π r) of the circle divided by r.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steradian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SolidAngle.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Radian.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Angle.html
 


This integration is only correct if we assume neutrons are produce and move uniformly. Its better to not convert it to scalar format, am i right?