Integrate this without gauss theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating a surface integral of a vector field without using Gauss's theorem. Participants explore methods for setting up the differential surface element and parametrizing the surface defined by specific equations.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire to evaluate the integral \(\oint_{s} \vec{F}\cdot\vec{ds}\) without using Gauss's theorem, specifically seeking a general method for the differential surface element.
  • Another participant suggests treating the flux as a genuine surface integral and finding the normal field to the surface, indicating the need to compute the scalar product and transform into a double integral.
  • A different participant proposes a parametrization of the surface using cylindrical coordinates, noting the projection of the surface onto the xy-plane.
  • One participant describes the surface in terms of a function and its gradient, suggesting a method to express the differential area element in terms of the gradient.
  • Another participant challenges the correctness of a previous solution regarding the differential area element, emphasizing the need to multiply by the unit vector of the surface gradient.
  • A participant reflects on the projection method, stating it must be on the appropriate coordinate planes and discusses the transformation of the integral into components based on the surface vector definition.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the validity of their parameterization and the multiplication of differential units, questioning if it is possible to proceed with their approach.
  • A final post expresses frustration over the lack of responses and implies a sense of failure in receiving help.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct approach to setting up the integral or the differential surface element. Multiple competing views and methods are presented, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the correct formulation of the differential surface element and the appropriateness of various parametrization methods. There are unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on definitions that are not clarified.

TheDestroyer
Messages
401
Reaction score
1
Hi guys, I want to solve this integral without using gauss theorem to convert from double to triple integral,

my problem here is to find a general way for setting the differential surface part (ds) from the integral

if [tex]\vec{F}[/tex] was a vector field defined as:

[tex]\vec{F} = x^3\vec{i} + y^3\vec{j} + z^2\vec{k}[/tex]

[tex]\vec{i},\vec{j},\vec{k}[/tex] Unit Vectors for axes [tex]x,y,z[/tex]

Evaluate:
[tex]\oint_{s} \vec{F}\cdot\vec{ds}[/tex]

While s is the area of the volume bounded with equation surfaces:

[tex]z=0, z=1-(x^2+y^2)[/tex]

the answer will be [tex]\frac{5\pi}{6}[/tex]

PLEASE DON'T USE THE THEOREM:
[tex]\int\int\int_{V}\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{F}\cdot dV[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1.Nabla has no sign on top of it.
2.Treat the flux as a genuine surface integral.Find the normal field to the surface,namely [itex]\vec{n}[/itex].
3.Compute the scalar product.
4.Integrate by tranforming into a double integral...

Daniel.
 
Find a parametrization of the surface.
Since the surface is given as z=f(x,y), there's an easy way to do it.
Take the projection of the surface onto the xy-plane (a circle) as the domain. Then a parametrization is (going cilindrical ofcourse):

[itex]\vec r_r = r\hat r, \qquad \vec r_{\theta}= \theta \hat \theta, \qquad 0\leq r \leq 1, \quad \vec r_z = 1-r^2 \qquad \quad 0\leq \theta < 2\pi, \quad 0[/itex].

Then use whatever general method you learned.
 
Last edited:
Mildly messy but nothing very difficult.

We can write the surface as f(x,y,z)= x2+ y2+ z= 1 and so the gradient of that: grad f= 2xi+ 2yj+ k is perpendicular to the surface and we can write [itex]d \vec s= (2xi+ 2yj+ 2zk)dA[/itex] where dA is the differential of area in the xy-plane.
Then [tex]\int F \dot d \vec s= \int (2x^4 i+ 2y^4 j+ z^2 k)dA[/tex].

Since z= 1- (x2+ y[/sup]2[/sup]) on the surface, z2= 1- 2(x2+ y2)+ (x2+ y2)2 and the integral reduces to [tex]\int (3x^4+ 3y^4+ 2xy- 2x^2- 2y^2+ 1) dA[/itex].<br /> <br /> Since the projection of the surface into the xy-plane is the unit disk, I would be inclined to convert that to polar coordinates to integrate.[/tex]
 
dextercioboy, it seems you didn't read what I've written, the problem is how to set the surface differential unit, after doing the dot product what shall i do with ds? and antoehr thing, Nabla has the vector on the top of it because it's a vector and has unit vectors in the definition of it,

HallSofIvy, I'm sorry to tell you your solution is not correct because dA is multiplied by the unit vector of the surface gradient, not with the gradient only, right?

Thank you guyz, I'll try projection on a plane, and i'll reply back, visit this post again, and thanks for the help
 
Guys, I just rememebered, Projection on a plane is not a correct way, because the projection must be on XOY, XOZ, YOZ Like this (instead of multiplying with gradient unit vector):

[tex]\int \vec{F}\cdot \vec{ds} = \int{F_{x}}\cdot ds_{x} + \int{F_{y}}\cdot ds_{y} + \int{F_{z}}\cdot ds_{z}[/tex]

and this will equal by the definition of surface vector:

[tex]\int \vec{F}\cdot \vec{ds} = \int{F_{x}}\cdot dydz + \int{F_{y}}\cdot dxdz + \int{F_{z}}\cdot dxdy[/tex]

and i tried using the Jacobian on those for the transformation, and that was not successful,

I'm getting the answer [tex]\frac{1}{3}\pi[/tex]

I want to ask now, should I take the parameters:

[tex]x=r\cos\phi[/tex]
[tex]dx=\cos\phi\cdot dr - r\sin\phi\cdot d\phi[/tex]
[tex]y=r\sin\phi[/tex]
[tex]dy=\sin\phi\cdot dr + r\cos\phi\cdot d\phi[/tex]
[tex]z=1-r^2[/tex]
[tex]dz=-2r\cdot dr[/tex]

I got this by : [tex]df(r,\phi) = \frac{\partial f}{\partial r}dr + \frac{\partial f}{\partial \phi}d\phi[/tex]
And multiply the differential units? i don't think this is possible ! Is it?

Please do not give any more ideas before solving this and getting the answer
[tex]\frac{5}{6}\pi[/tex]

And thanks for the help
 
Why No Body Is Answering? Can I Say Everybody Failed?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K