Understanding Solid Angle: A Math Forum Primer

AI Thread Summary
Solid angles represent the area of a projection of an object onto a sphere, analogous to ordinary angles but in three dimensions. The solid angle subtended by an object is calculated as the ratio of the projected area to the square of the sphere's radius. The discussion highlights the complexity of visualizing solid angles due to their varying shapes, despite congruence. Additionally, the area of spherical triangles, defined by three non-parallel vectors, is explored, noting that specific configurations yield distinct solid angle values. The relationship between quantum mechanics and solid angles is also mentioned, emphasizing the connection between vector projections and the area of spherical triangles.
eep
Messages
225
Reaction score
0
Perhaps this should be moved to the math forum, but I've never quite been able to understand solid angles. For example, in terms of thermal radiation and the Planck distribution (black bodies), we can show that the energy flux denisty J_u (the rate of energy emission per unit area) is equal to

<br /> J_u = \frac{cU({\tau})}{V} * \frac{1}{4}<br />

Where U({\tau}) is the total energy in the cavity.The geometrical factor \frac{1}{4} can be derived by solving the following problem:

Show that the spectral desntiy of the radiant energy flux that arrives in the solid angle d\Omega is cu_{\omega}\cos\theta{\cdot}\frac{d\Omega}{4\pi} where \theta is the angle the normal to the unit area makes with the incident ray, and u_\omega is the energy density per unit frequency range. The sum of this quantity over all incident rays is \frac{1}{4}cu_\omega.

Now, my understanding is that the solid angle is a projection of your object (in this case a small hole, or perhaps the beam emerging from the hole) onto a sphere of radius 1. I just really have no idea of what's going on, can anyone point me in the right direction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
eep said:
Now, my understanding is that the solid angle is a projection of your object (in this case a small hole, or perhaps the beam emerging from the hole) onto a sphere of radius 1.
A solid angle at point A subtended by an object is: the ratio of the area of the projection of the object from point A onto a sphere - any sphere - whose centre is A, divided by R^2 (R is the radius of the sphere). The analogy is to an ordinary angle: projection of object onto a circle divided by R. They are hard to visualize because congruent solid angles can have quite different shapes.

AM
 
Solid angles are areas of the surface of a sphere. The unit sphere has area 4 pi, so 4 pi acts for solid angles the way that 2 pi acts for regular angles.

Any three vectors that are neither parallel nor antiparallel define three points on the sphere that are the vertices of a spherical triangle. This is similar to how three points on the plane define a regular triangle. The formula for the area (or solid angle) of a spherical triangle is kind of complicated.

A right spherical triangle is one that has three 90 degree angles. Such a spherical triangle defines an octant of the sphere and thus has an area of 1/8 of 4 pi or pi/2. Another special type of spherical triangle is one that has three 180 degree angles. Such a spherical triangle is a half sphere and has a solid angle of 2 pi.

An interesting fact of quantum mechanics is that if one is given three unit vectors, say r, g and b, that are neither parallel nor antiparallel, then the projection operators for spin-1/2 in the directions r, g and b, say R, G and B multiply together to give a complex phase related to the area of the spherical triangle defined by r, g and b. That is, if

R G B R = \eta e^{i\delta} R

where \eta and \delta are real numbers, then \delta = area(r,g,b)/2. The formula for \eta is the square root of the product of the three functions (1+\cos(\theta))/2 where \theta is the angle between r and g, r and b, and between g and b.

Carl
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top