What is the correct way to calculate the area of the sky in square degrees?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Phys12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area Measuring Sky
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the calculation of the area of the sky in square degrees, exploring various methods and assumptions involved in this measurement. Participants examine the relationship between angular measurements and surface area, as well as the implications of different geometrical interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a calculation involving the circumference of the sky and questions the validity of using angular measurements in formulas typically reserved for linear dimensions.
  • Another participant suggests that the area of the sky should be calculated as 360*180 square degrees based on a conceptual model of the sky as a projected sphere, but questions why this approach yields a different result.
  • Some participants introduce the concept of steradians and solid angles, indicating that these may be necessary for accurately calculating the area of the sky.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of latitude and longitude on area calculations, with one participant drawing parallels between the Earth's surface area and the area of the sky.
  • Another participant emphasizes the difference in area representation at different latitudes, noting that while the equator spans 360 degrees, the actual area covered by lines of latitude decreases as one approaches the poles.
  • One participant proposes a conceptual shift by suggesting to think of angular measurements as linear distances, which may clarify the calculations involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct method to calculate the area of the sky, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the need for steradians in the calculation, while others maintain their original assumptions about angular measurements.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their assumptions, particularly regarding the interpretation of angular measurements and the geometric implications of latitude and longitude on area calculations. The discussion remains open-ended with unresolved mathematical steps.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying astronomy, geometry, or mathematical modeling, particularly in relation to angular measurements and their applications in calculating areas on spherical surfaces.

Phys12
Messages
351
Reaction score
42
TL;DR
How do you measure the area of the sky? Why is the answer not 360*180 square degrees?
Most of the calculations that I have seen that measure the area of the Sky involve doing this:

2*pi*r = 360. => r = 57.295 degrees. And then 4*pi*(57.295)^2 = 41251.83 square degrees. Now the units check out fine, but here are the places where I am having trouble understanding this derivation:
1) When you talk about the formula 2*pi*r = circumference, r and circumference are usually in length. And this makes sense because if you write pi=circumference/2*r, then it's apparent that they should be since the definition of pi is the length of circumference by the diameter. But what exactly is your r if you have written your circumference in units of angle (like degrees/arcminutes)? Moreover, how can you then plug that into an equation that takes length 4*pi*r^2 to get the surface area?

2) I would naively expect the area of the sky to be 360*180 square degrees. Because if you look at the HUDP, say, the angular area would be 1/20deg * 1/20deg since each size of the square enclosing the image is 1/20 deg. Now if I were to extend this idea to the entire sky, I imagine drawing a circle around the sky of 360 and then rotating it by 180 degrees to make a sphere of it and get the angular area of the sky in square degrees. But this comes out to be 360*180 = 64800. Why is that not the correct answer?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Do you know what a steradian is?
 
Phys12 said:
2) I would naively expect the area of the sky to be 360*180 square degrees. Because if you look at the HUDP, say, the angular area would be 1/20deg * 1/20deg since each size of the square enclosing the image is 1/20 deg. Now if I were to extend this idea to the entire sky, I imagine drawing a circle around the sky of 360 and then rotating it by 180 degrees to make a sphere of it and get the angular area of the sky in square degrees. But this comes out to be 360*180 = 64800. Why is that not the correct answer?
The images might be square, but that doesn't mean the sky is. It should be pretty clear that if you go outside and look around, the sky is a projected sphere. I'm not sure how that could be confusing, but if it is, look straight up and spin yourself 360 degrees. How many blocks of 1/20th degree do you see at the zenith? (answer: 1).
 
On a globe, you have lines of latitude and longitude. If you do the observation at or near the equator,(i.e. from the center of the globe, looking out to the equator), you have ## dA=R^2 \, d \theta \, d \phi ##, (angles measured in radians). Otherwise ## dA=R^2 \sin{\theta} \, d \theta \, d \phi ##, where ## \theta ## is the polar angle, with ## \theta=0 ## at the north pole.
I think this ## \sin{\theta} ## term might be the source of the puzzle. It is a result of the spacing of the longitude lines, so that ## ds=R \sin{\theta} \, d \phi ## for the distance traveled when moving along a latitude line.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveE and sophiecentaur
Take, for example, area of Earth.
The same naive argument about 360x180 degrees would suggest Earth´ s area as 40 000 km x 20 000 km.
However, while Equator is 40 000 km long, the other parallels, even though they also cross 360 degrees of longitude, are smaller, until they become quite small circles around poles.
So the area of Earth is smaller than 40 000 km x 20 000 km, but what exactly?

If you put a sphere into a barrel and compare the surface of sphere to the side surface of the barrel, they turn out to be equal. Every latitude away from equator is tilted relative to the barrel sides, so the true surface of a latitudinal band exposed to sky is bigger than the surface turned towards the barrel would be; but the latitude parallels are also shorter. Those two effects cancel exactly, so the small circles along the poles are precisely equal in area to long but narrow bands along the sides of the barrel.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link
Do the top and bottom objects look to be the same area?
1599683962117.png

If you took a sheet of paper the size of the top rectangle and tried to fold it to make the bottom shape, what do you think would happen to the paper?
 

Attachments

  • 1599683427003.png
    1599683427003.png
    3.9 KB · Views: 281
Last edited:
For an easy 3D explanation, look at a Globe (a model Earth) and notice how the shapes formed by the lines of latitude and longitude are 'almost' trapeziums (slightly curved sides) . They correspond to (say) ten degrees steps in angle but the ones near the Poles are a lot 'thinner, although they are the same height at all latitudes. Maps on flat paper are 'projections' and they either get the directions right and the areas wrong or the areas right and the directions wrong.

A noddy explanation with no diagrams and no maths.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and Charles Link
Or, even simpler, this is what one "square" degree looks like near the poles.
1599690054495.png


A degree of latitude is always about 67 miles "tall" (24,900/360).
A degree of longitude is 67 miles "wide" only at the equator; it's 0 miles "wide" at the poles.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, Charles Link and sophiecentaur
The 180 units are measured from north pole to south pole=over the whole sphere=referring to post 6, also in reference to post 5.
 
  • #10
Thanks for all your responses! I have the answer to my 2nd question, my naive assumption was grossly incorrect. But what about my first point?
Vanadium 50 said:
Do you know what a steradian is?
Vaguely, let me look up more on that and it might solve my problem. Thanks!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link
  • #11
Yes, the solid angles you need are measured in steradians. Solid angle ## \Omega=A/r^2 ##. The solid angle of the whole sphere is ## 4 \pi ## steradians.
In the direction of the equator, you do have ## \Delta \Omega=(\Delta \theta )(\Delta \phi ) ##. See post 4.
Essentially, you can set up coordinates so that viewing overhead has ##\Delta \theta ## and ##\Delta \phi ##, but it doesn't work for a whole sphere, how you tried to do. One of the angles needs to be referenced to longitudinal type lines, and somewhere you need to have poles.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
To understand the calculation of the area of the sky in square degrees, don't think of the circumference of the sky as 360 degrees. Think of it as 360 feet instead. Then, as you point out, r = 57.296 feet and the area of the sphere is 41252.96 square feet. In other words, don't think of "360 degrees" as an angular measurement, but rather as a unit of length around the circumference.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
955
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K