Visualizing Solid Angle of a 3d Object (say a Sphere)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of solid angle in relation to three-dimensional objects, particularly spheres and cylinders. Participants explore the implications of solid angles when considering visible and non-visible surfaces, as well as the definitions and calculations involved in determining solid angles from various perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how solid angles apply to spheres, noting that only part of the sphere's surface area is visible from a given point, which seems to contradict the definition of solid angle.
  • Another participant asserts that the part of the sphere that is not visible is still relevant to the concept of solid angle.
  • A participant questions whether solid angles should only consider the visible portion of an object, referencing Gauss's Theorem and expressing confusion about the inclusion of non-visible areas.
  • Concerns are raised about the definition of solid angle, with one participant stating that the maximum surface area captured by a cone from an external point is 2πr², not 4πr², leading to further questions about the relationship between visible and non-visible surfaces.
  • Another participant clarifies that the solid angle occupied by a sphere from an external point is always smaller than 2π, suggesting that a more comprehensive approach, potentially involving integrals, is necessary to fully understand solid angles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether solid angles should only consider visible surfaces or include non-visible portions. Multiple competing views remain regarding the definitions and implications of solid angles in relation to three-dimensional objects.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about definitions and the mathematical treatment of solid angles, particularly in relation to visible and non-visible areas of objects. There are unresolved questions about the appropriate approach to calculating solid angles in different contexts.

Adjax
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hello Everybody!
Concept of Solid Angle was pretty much straight forward until they were on surface patches were taken into account which were visualized as base of cone.
I am having difficult when 3d Objects like Sphere/Cylinder .
We can very easily calculate the respective area and plugin the value to find answer but what baffles me is
That only a part of the the sphere 'surface area is capture by the cone(say 2pi*(R)^2 instead of 4pi*(R)^2 )
In real life, you can see that: if a ball is at some distance you can only see the part facing you not on the opposite.
I google and found one wolfram demonstration which starts with a small patch goes then from there as solid angle covers half of hemisphere,pretty much straightforward
And, after that point it starts covering the other half of the sphere , I want to know why we are coniderering a part we are not facing at all (or can't perceive it until we turn our heads around)?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The part we don't see is still part of the sphere surface.

If you have a question about a specific explanation, it would help to reference this.
 
But Ain't we should consider only the part we face only as per the definition?
I asked this question in reference to proof of Gauss Theorem , everything makes sense except the part we don't see?

Also let's suppose we consider part we 'don't see

then let's draw a simple cone(with no extras like sphere,etc..), obviousuly the part 'we see is' pi*R^2 so solid angle will be pi but if we consider surface we don't see then can't we claim there is infinite plane beyond that surface...the part we don't see?
 
Adjax said:
But Ain't we should consider only the part we face only as per the definition?
Consider it where?
See above, please explain what exactly you are asking questions about.
 
@Adjax : Are you confusing the actual solid angle of the sphere with the solid angle of the cone which bounds all the rays of light coming from the sphere to an external point of observation ?
 
@mfb
Well the defination of solid angle I know is that Area subtended by base of cone at a point.

So if I put sphere into the picture (Imagine fitting the sphere into the cone) ,then the maximum surface are captured by the base of the cone is 2pi*r^2 ,not the 4*pi*r^2.
The other part certainly not captured( The part we don't see, for example we can only say a part of moon's surface not the one behind it , so ain't the solid angle should be the the surface visible divided by the distant)

But everywhere I see the Gauss laws derivation , they include the not visible portion/portion-of-view also

This is my source of Confusion!

@Nidum: Is there any alternative/ more general definition too, which I might not be knowing/ flossed off in texts?
 
Adjax said:
So if I put sphere into the picture (Imagine fitting the sphere into the cone) ,then the maximum surface are captured by the base of the cone is 2pi*r^2 ,not the 4*pi*r^2.
That's the largest part of the surface you can see from a given point on the outside. It is not a solid angle, and it has nothing to do with solid angles. The solid angle the sphere occupies from a point outside is always smaller than 2 pi.

If you are interested in finding the full solid angle, you need the view from inside the sphere. The "cone" is not a single well-defined cone there, you'll need an integral.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K