What's the definition of angle in a curved space embedded in a higher Eucledian space?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of "angle" in curved spaces, particularly in the context of a spherical surface embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space. Participants explore the implications of curvature on angle measurement and the role of tangent spaces in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the angle in a curved space can be defined as the angle between vectors tangent to the surface at the point where they meet.
  • Others argue that the concept of tangent space is essential for measuring angles on a curved surface, as it allows for a flat representation at each point.
  • A participant mentions that the inner product of vectors can provide a mathematical definition of angles, referencing the relation involving sine and cosine.
  • There is a correction regarding the mathematical expression for the inner product, with a discussion on the correct use of sine versus cosine.
  • Some participants discuss the necessity of tangent spaces, suggesting that they are not needed when the space is embedded in a higher-dimensional Euclidean space, while others counter that a metric is still required for proper definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and role of tangent spaces in defining angles in curved spaces, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of metrics and the conditions under which tangent spaces are needed, suggesting that definitions may depend on the specific geometric context and embedding.

Ahmed1029
Messages
109
Reaction score
40
I don't want to post this in a math forum because it's very basic and I just want a straightforward answer, not something math heavy . What's the definition of angle in a cuved space embedded in a higher eucledian space? Like when I have a spherical surface in 3d eucledian space and want to work out the interior angles of a triangle on this 2 diemnsional sphere, what does "angle" mean here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you have a Euclidean space in which your lower dimensional space is embedded, then it's the angle between vectors tangent to the surface and pointing in the same direction as the lines where they meet.

You have to work a bit harder if you don't have a nice space to embed your curved space in, which is the case in GR.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ahmed1029, Orodruin and FactChecker
Ahmed1029 said:
Like when I have a spherical surface in 3d eucledian space and want to work out the interior angles of a triangle on this 2 diemnsional sphere, what does "angle" mean here?
This is why we need the concept of “tangent space”
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ahmed1029 and Ibix
Ahmed1029 said:
I don't want to post this in a math forum because it's very basic and I just want a straightforward answer, not something math heavy . What's the definition of angle in a cuved space embedded in a higher eucledian space? Like when I have a spherical surface in 3d eucledian space and want to work out the interior angles of a triangle on this 2 diemnsional sphere, what does "angle" mean here?

Let's take your example of angles on a 2-sphere. At any point on the 2-sphere, we can generate a flat tangent plane to the sphere at that point. An illustration from a random webpage might be helpful here.

Then you can measure the angle in the flat tangent space.
maxresdefault.jpg

Mathematically, if you have two vectors, and an inner product operator, the relation between angle and inner product is given by the well known relation
$$\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B} = ||A|| ||B|| \sin theta$$

Useful wiki links.
Tangent Space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangent_space
Inner Product Space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_product_space

You'll note from the wiki the general observation
wiki said:
The inner product of two vectors in the space is a scalar, often denoted with angle brackets . Inner products allow formal definitions of intuitive geometric notions, such as lengths, angles, and orthogonality (zero inner product) of vectors.

An important mathematical property of vectors is that they add commutatively
$$\vec{A} + \vec{B} = \vec{B} + \vec{A}$$
Note that finite displacements on the sphere are not vectors. As Misner remarked, if you go 500 miles north and 500 miles east on the surface of the Earth (modeled for the sake of the example as a sphere), you do not necessarily wind up at the same location as if you go 500 miles east then 500 miles north. But this difficulty doesn't arise in the tangent plane to the sphere, in fact vectors on a sphere are commonly regarded as existing in the tangent space, with every point on the sphere having it's own tangent space.

If you need more detail, the topic you need to read about is called "differential geometry".

((note: not sure what's up with the LATEX not working, I don't see my error)).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ahmed1029 and Ibix
pervect said:
$$\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B} = ||A|| ||B|| \sin theta$$
Typo:$$\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B} = \|A\| \|B\| \cos \theta$$
 
pervect said:
$$\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B} = ||A|| ||B|| \sin theta$$
DrGreg said:
Typo:$$\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B} = \|A\| \|B\| \cos \theta$$
Apart from the cos vs sin and ##\theta## vs ##theta##, do note the subtle difference in the typesetting of the ##\|##. It is one of those things you might miss if you are not aware of it, even more subtle than the use of ##\ll## over ##<<## or ##|\psi\rangle## over ##|\psi >##. Once you are aware it is however difficult to unsee.
 
For some reason, the latex wasn't formatting for me at all, earlier. The error with cos instead of sin was however a mental error, my bad. I do hope that with this error corrected, the post is useful in explaining how the inner product of vectors gives a definition of angle between vectors, though it was rather short and ommited quite a lot of detail.
 
pervect said:
For some reason, the latex wasn't formatting for me at all, earlier.
You were the first user or LaTeX on this page, and there's a bug where LaTeX won't render in preview or in new posts unless there is already LaTeX on the page. You can either make your best effort, post, and then refresh the page, or with sone LaTeX in the editor go into preview mode and refresh the page then (it's worth copying your post to clipboard before refreshing if you do that). Either way, the refresh wakes MathJax up and makes it start rendering.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pony
Nugatory said:
This is why we need the concept of “tangent space”
Isn't this like the only case when we don't need the concept of the tangent space? If our space is embedded in R^n, then the angle between e.g. two curves that go through a point is just the angle in R^n.

We need tangent spaces, when our space is not embedded anywhere.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Pony said:
Isn't this like the only case when we don't need the concept of the tangent space? If our space is embedded in R^n, then the angle between e.g. two curves that go through a point is just the angle in R^n.

We need tangent spaces, when our space is not embedded anywhere.
You need the tangent space but you also need a metric. When you have an embedding of your space into a metric space then a metric on your space may be defined through the pullback of the metric in the embedding space. This is general and not restricted to ##\mathbb R^n## as the embedding space.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K