Stereographic projection is conformal --- from the line element

3.1k Views Asked by At

I'm looking over some fairly basic stuff on complex methods and the book I'm using takes the formula for the stereographic projection:

$$z = \cot(\beta/2)e^{i\phi} $$

as well as the line element on the sphere:

$$ ds^2 = d\beta^2 + \sin^2 \beta d\phi^2 $$

(where $\beta$ is the polar angle and $\phi$ the azimuthal angle) and uses this to derive

$$ \frac{4 dz d \bar{z}}{(1 + z\bar{z})^2} = d\beta^2 + \sin^2 \beta d\phi^2 \,.$$

It then says "from this we deduce that the stereographic projection is conformal". I don't understand this step. At the moment the only mention made of conformal maps is that holomorphic maps from C to C are conformal.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

1
On BEST ANSWER

A map is conformal if it induces a rescaling of the metric, ie. for $ f: (M,g_M) \rightarrow (N,g_N) $, $ f^* g_N = \phi \; g_M $ for some $ \phi \in C^\infty(M) $.

If above is not helpful, then you can picture it in the following way: pick a point on the sphere $ (\beta, \phi ) $ on the sphere, and take two tiny vectors tangent to the surface at this point, say $ v_1 = (d \beta_1, d \phi_1 )$ and $ v_2 ( d \beta_2, d \phi_2 ) $. The line element $ ds^2 = d\beta^2 + \sin^2 \beta d\phi^2 $ tells you how to take the dot product of the vectors, eg. $ v_1 \cdot v_2 = (d \beta_1 d \beta_2 + \sin(\beta)^2 d \phi_1 d \phi_2) $, and also the angle between $ v_1 $ and $ v_2 $, eg. $ \frac{v_1 \cdot v_2 }{ |v_1| |v_2| } $.

The stereographic projection map takes the point $ (\beta, \phi) $ to the point $ (z, \bar{z}) = (\cot(\beta/2)e^{i\phi}, \cot(\beta/2)e^{-i\phi}) $, and sends the tiny tangent vectors $ v_1 $ and $ v_2 $ to tiny tangent vectors starting at $ (z, \bar{z}) $, say $ v_1' = (dz_1, d\bar{z}_1) $ and $ v_2' $. In the complex plane, the line element $ dz \; d \bar{z} $ again tells you how to take inner product, eg $ v_1' \cdot v_2' = dz_1 d\bar{z}_2+dz_2 d\bar{z}_1 $. (You can check that if you write $ z = x + i y $, then it gives you $ x_1 x_2 + y_1 y_2 $, or times some factor of 2).

The calculation he does shows that the the dot product $ v_1' \cdot v_2' = (1 + z \bar{z})^2 \; v_1 \cdot v_2 $. So in particular, the angle between $ v_1 $ and $ v_2 $, is the same as $ v_1' $ and $ v_2' $.