Skip to main content

Spherical Slope Field

How do you portray an infinite plane using a finite object? Stereographic projection, that's how. Stereographic projection makes use of a one-to-one and onto function with an infinite plane as its domain and a finite sphere (minus the top point) as its codomain. The infinite plane gets mapped onto a sphere by taking the point on the sphere that is furthest away from the plane and connecting it to any point on the plane with a line. The point on the sphere that the line intersects is the corresponding point to the point on the plane. Because the plane gets infinitely shrinked as it reaches the top of the sphere, the entire plane gets mapped to the sphere. If there is something graphed on the plane and you wanted it to be mapped onto the sphere, all you would need to do is connect every point on the graph to the top of the sphere and display the points of intersection on the sphere. Because the function is one-to-one and onto, the inverse exists, too. Take the top point of the sphere and any other point on the sphere, connect a line between them and follow the line until it hits the plane. That point on the plane is corresponding to the point on the sphere. If there were a pattern on the plane that was mapped onto the sphere, the pattern would get smaller and more warped on the sphere as you moved upwards. And conversely, a pattern on the sphere mapped onto the plane gets larger and more warped as you move away from the sphere on the plane. I used this aspect of stereographic projection as a basis for my model.
  I decided to map a slope field onto my sphere. A slope field is a visualization of solutions to a first order differential equation. The solutions to this slope field all have parallel asymptotes as they make parabola like shapes.
The slope field includes 121 arrows and you can see three of the asymptotes. Because the infinite plane can be mapped onto a sphere, this slope field can also be mapped onto a sphere. The solutions still have asymptotes, but they are now curves on the sphere and the parabola like shapes are also curves.
Some of the challenges with making this model was spacing the arrows and choosing a point to connect the arrows to in order to make enough space between the arrows on the sphere. I wanted enough arrows to show multiple asymptotes, but too many arrows would cause the arrows on the sphere to merge near the sides. Also, because the arrows are not convex shapes, a hull was needed for each triangle and rectangle separately making up each arrow. This design demonstrates how the visualization of solutions to a first order differential equation could be portrayed even on a sphere. It also shows that when mapping a square graph onto a sphere, the sides of the square become curved and no longer look like a square. Interestingly enough, if one were to shine a light from the top of the hemisphere, the slope field with unwarped arrows of equal size would be projected onto whatever surface the light was aimed at.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Approximation of a Solid of Revolution

Most math teachers I've had have been able to break down Calculus into two very broad categories: derivatives and integrals. What is truly amazing, is how much you can do with these two tools. By using integration, it is possible to approximate the shape of a 2-D function that is rotated around an axis. This solid created from the rotation is known as a solid of revolution. To explain this concept, we will take a look at the region bounded by the two functions: \[ f(x) = 2^{.25x} - 1 \] and \[ g(x) = e^{.25x} - 1 \] bounded at the line y = 1. This region is meant to represent a cross section of a small bowl. While it may not perfectly represent this practical object, the approximation will be quite textured, and will provide insight into how the process works. The region bounded by the two functions can be rotated around the y-axis to create a fully solid object. This is easy enough to talk about, but what exactly does this new solid look like? Is...

Solids of Revolution Revisited

Introduction In my previous blog post on solids of revolution, we looked at the object formed by rotating the area between \(f(x) = -\frac{1}{9}x^2+\frac{3}{4} \) and \( g(x)=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}e^{-x} \) around the \( x \) axis and bounded by \( x = 0 \) and \( x = 1.5 \). When this solid is approximated using 10 washers, the resulting object looks like this: When I was looking back over the 3D prints I’d created for this course, I noticed that the print for this example was the least interesting of the bunch. Looking at the print now, I feel like the shape is rather uninteresting. The curve I chose has such a gradual slope that each of the washers are fairly similar in size and causes the overall shape to just look like a cylinder. Since calculating the changes in the radiuses of the washers is a big part of the washer method, I don’t think this slowly decreasing curve was the best choice to illustrate the concept. The reason I had done this o...

Finding the Center of Mass of a Toy Boat

Consider two people who visit the gym a substantial amount. One is a girl who loves to lift weights and bench press as much as she possibly can. The other is a guy who focuses much more on his legs, trying to break the world record for squat weight. It just so happens that these two are the same height and have the exact same weight, but the center of their weight is not in the same part of their body. This is because the girl has much more weight in the top half of her body and the boy has more weight in the bottom half. This difference in center of mass is a direct result of the different distributions of mass throughout both of their bodies. Moments and Mass There are two main components to finding the center of mass of an object. The first, unsurprisingly, is the mass of the whole object. In this case of the boat example, the mass will be uniform throughout the entire object. This is ideal a majority of the time as it drastically reduces the difficulty...