How the last part relative to the azimuthal angle works

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter stevebd1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle Relative Works
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and application of the azimuthal angle in the context of the Minkowski metric and spherical coordinates. Participants explore the mathematical relationships involving the angles theta and phi, their ranges, and their implications for calculating distances on a sphere.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on the ranges and units for the angles dθ and dφ in the Minkowski metric.
  • Another participant states that θ ranges from 0 to π and φ ranges from 0 to 2π, indicating their respective limits in spherical coordinates.
  • A participant explains that θ and φ represent "latitude" and "longitude," measured in radians, and describes the distances associated with changes in these angles.
  • One participant summarizes their understanding of the angles and provides calculations for dθ² and dφ² based on specific angle changes, expressing uncertainty about the implications for spacetime effects.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the formula is only approximately valid for small changes in the angles and suggests that integration would be necessary for accurate calculations over a curve in spacetime.
  • A participant proposes a scenario involving an object approaching a sphere, calculating the distances based on changes in zenith and azimuth angles, and reflects on the geometric interpretation of the formula.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various interpretations and calculations regarding the azimuthal angle and its implications, but there is no consensus on the exact effects or the accuracy of the approximations used in their calculations.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the calculations are approximations that become more accurate with smaller increments, and there is mention of potential typing errors in the calculations presented.

stevebd1
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
747
Reaction score
41
While I understand how coordinates work, I'm still trying to figure out how the last part relative to the azimuthal angle works, for example, in Minkowski metric-

[tex]c^2 {d \tau}^{2} = c^2 dt^2 - dr^2 - r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \, d\phi^2\right)[/tex]

while I get that [itex]\sin^2\theta[/itex] produces a figure that ranges from 0-1, I'd appreciate it if someone could define the range of figures [itex]d\theta^2[/itex] and [itex]d\phi^2[/itex] produce and what units are used (i.e. degrees, radians, degrees expressed as a fraction of 360).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Theta: 0-pi
Phi: 0-2pi
 


[itex]\theta[/itex] and [itex]\phi[/itex] are "latitude" and "longitude", both measured in radians. Except that "latitude" (really "colatitude" or "zenith") is measured from the north pole instead of the equator.

[itex]r\,d\theta[/itex] is the distance you move (southwards along a meridian of radius r) when you change your colatitude by a small amount [itex]d\theta[/itex].

[itex]r\,\sin\theta\,d\phi[/itex] is the distance you move (eastwards along a circle of latitude of radius [itex]r\,\sin\theta[/itex]) when you change your longitude by a small amount [itex]d\phi[/itex].
 


Thanks for the replies. So basically zenith plane = 180 degrees = pi and azimuth plane = 360 degrees = 2pi (which I recognise as the denomination of radians).

To summarize, the way I understand it (in the context of approaching a sphere radially) is-

An object drops 10 degrees in the zenith plane-

[tex]d\theta^2 = (10/180)\pi^2 = 0.031[/tex]

the same object, at the same time, moves 30 degrees in the azimuth plane-

[tex]d\phi^2 = (30/360)2\pi^2 = 0.274[/tex]

The next part I'm not 100% about but I'm assuming [itex]sin^2\theta[/itex] remains based on degrees and [itex]\theta[/itex] is the change in angle (in this case, 10 degrees)-

[tex]sin^2\theta = sin^2(10) = 0.030[/tex]

which means-

[tex]r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \ d\phi^2\right)\ =\ r^2\left(0.031 + 0.030 \cdot 0.274\right)\ =\ r^2 0.039[/tex]

This looks like it might be a bit low but I'm guessing the effects on space time (relative to a spherical object) are more related to changes in radial coordinates than changes in spherical coordinates.
 
Last edited:


stevebd1 said:
This looks like it might be a bit low but I'm guessing the effects on space time (relative to a spherical object) are more related to changes in radial coordinates than changes in spherical coordinates.

What effect are you trying to understand?
 


I was referring to [itex]r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \, d\phi^2\right)[/itex] in the context of Schwarzschild metric.
 
Last edited:


The formula is only true (approximately) for small values of [itex]dt[/itex], [itex]dr[/itex], [itex]d\phi[/itex], [itex]d\theta[/itex], that is, in the calculus limit as each of these quantities tends to zero. Both [itex]r[/itex] and [itex]\theta[/itex] can be considered constant -- these are the actual radius and zenith not the changes.

To calculate an accurate (rather than approximate) value over a line or curve in spacetime you would need to integrate along the curve.
 


Thanks DrGreg, I was almost tempted to leave [itex]\theta[/itex] as a plain angle relative to the z axis.

Would the following then be correct? (putting a max of 5° [itex]d\theta[/itex] and [itex]d\phi[/itex])

constants- r=10,000 m, [itex]\theta[/itex]=45° (approach angle relative to z axis)

An object approaching a sphere at [itex]\theta = 45^o[/itex] drops 5° in the zenith plane at r=10,000 m over dr=1 m-

[tex]d\theta^2 = (10/180)\pi^2 = 0.008[/tex]

the same object, at the same time, has moved 5° in the azimuth plane-

[tex]d\phi^2 = (5/360)2\pi^2 = 0.008[/tex]

[itex]sin^2\theta[/itex] remains based on degrees and [itex]\theta[/itex] is the (approx?) angle of approach (in this case, 45°) -

[tex]sin^2\theta = sin^2(45) = 0.5[/tex]

which means-

[tex]r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \ d\phi^2\right)\ =\ r^2\left(0.008 + 0.5 \cdot 0.008\right)\ =\ r^2 0.012[/tex]

[tex]=10,000^2 \cdot 0.012[/tex]

_______________

I've realized that [itex]r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \ d\phi^2\right)[/itex] is simply a geometric solution to finding the true distance traveled on the surface of a sphere (over small increments) using the radius, zenith and azimuth angle. Following on from above-

actual distance traveled based on change in zenith & azimuth angle, angle of approach and radius -

[tex]=\sqrt{10,000^2 \cdot 0.012}[/tex]

= 1095.445 m
 
Last edited:
  • #10


stevebd1 said:
Thanks DrGreg, I was almost tempted to leave [itex]\theta[/itex] as a plain angle relative to the z axis.

Would the following then be correct? (putting a max of 5° [itex]d\theta[/itex] and [itex]d\phi[/itex])

constants- r=10,000 m, [itex]\theta[/itex]=45° (approach angle relative to z axis)

An object approaching a sphere at [itex]\theta = 45^o[/itex] drops 5° in the zenith plane at r=10,000 m over dr=1 m-

[tex]d\theta^2 = (10/180)\pi^2 = 0.008[/tex]

the same object, at the same time, has moved 5° in the azimuth plane-

[tex]d\phi^2 = (5/360)2\pi^2 = 0.008[/tex]

[itex]sin^2\theta[/itex] remains based on degrees and [itex]\theta[/itex] is the (approx?) angle of approach (in this case, 45°) -

[tex]sin^2\theta = sin^2(45) = 0.5[/tex]

which means-

[tex]r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \ d\phi^2\right)\ =\ r^2\left(0.008 + 0.5 \cdot 0.008\right)\ =\ r^2 0.012[/tex]

[tex]=10,000^2 \cdot 0.012[/tex]

_______________

I've realized that [itex]r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \ d\phi^2\right)[/itex] is simply a geometric solution to finding the true distance traveled on the surface of a sphere (over small increments) using the radius, zenith and azimuth angle. Following on from above-

actual distance traveled based on change in zenith & azimuth angle, angle of approach and radius -

[tex]=\sqrt{10,000^2 \cdot 0.012}[/tex]

= 1095.445 m
Your calculation and interpretation are both correct (except that you put "10" instead of "5" into the first formula, but nevertheless got the right answer! a typing error I assume). Just remember it's an approximation, which gets more accurate the smaller the increments are.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K