Surface Volume in 4-d graph: Euclidean Geometry Question

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "Surface Volume" in four-dimensional Euclidean geometry, specifically focusing on parametrically defined volumes and the mathematical formulation of their volumes using integrals. Participants explore the relationships between partial derivatives and geometric constructs in both four and three dimensions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Edwin proposes a method to calculate the "Surface Volume" of a smooth parametrically defined volume using a triple integral involving the magnitudes of partial derivatives and angles between them.
  • In a follow-up post, Edwin suggests an alternative formulation for the volume in three-dimensional space using the triple scalar product of the partial derivatives, indicating a connection to traditional methods of calculating surface area.
  • Edwin claims that the second method does not require a Jacobian correction factor, which he finds noteworthy.
  • Another participant, Hypermorphism, confirms that the triple scalar product of differentials corresponds to the Jacobian of the parametrically defined function.
  • Edwin expresses gratitude for the clarification and seeks validation on the accuracy of his initial conjecture regarding the "Surface Volume."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the accuracy of the initial conjecture regarding the "Surface Volume." While some methods are tested and discussed, the correctness of the original formulation remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are references to the Jacobian and its role in volume calculations, but the discussion does not resolve the implications of these mathematical constructs or their applicability to the original conjecture.

Edwin
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
"Surface Volume" in 4-d graph: Euclidean Geometry Question

Suppose you have a smooth parametrically defined volume V givin by the following equation.


f(x,y,z,w)= r(u,s,v) = x(u,v,s)i + y(u,v,s)j +z(u,v,s)k + w(u,v,s)l


Consider the vectors ru=dr/du, where dr/du is the partial derivative of r with respect to the parameter u. Similarly, rv = dr/dv, rs=dr/ds are the partial derivitives of r with respect to the parameters v and s, respectively.

I presume that ru(u0,v0,s0), rv(u0, v0, s0), and rs(u0,v0,s0) form a three dimensional parallelpiped that represents the rate of change of the three dimensional surface volume in four dimensional Euclidean space.


The angle theta between ru and rv is arccosine((ru*rv)/(|ru||rv|))

Similarly, the angle phi between ru and rs is arccosine((ru*rs)/(|ru||rs|).


The height h1 of the parallelogram p1 formed by ru and rv is the magnitude of the projection of rv onto the perpindicular of p1 and is equal to
|rv|sin(theta). The area A1 of this parallelogram is
|ru|*h1 = |ru||rv|sin(theta).

The height h2 of the parallelogram p2 formed by ru and rs is the magnitude of the projection of rs onto the perpindicular of p2, and is equal to |rs|sin(phi)
The area of A2 of this parallelogram is |ru|*h2 = |ru||rs|sin(phi).

The volume of the parallelpiped V = the area of either of the parallelograms times the height of the other parallelgram.

A2*(h1) = A1*(h2) =|ru||rv||rs||sin(phi)*sin(theta)|

Based on this, I conjecture the following:

If a smooth parametrically defined volume V is givin by the following equation:


r(u,s,v) = x(u,v,s)i + y(u,v,s)j +z(u,v,s)k + w(u,v,s)l

Where (u,s,v) are elements of E, and

V is covered just once as (u,v,s) varies throughout the parameter domain E, then the "Surface Volume" is


the tripple integral over E of =|ru||rv||rs||sin(phi)*sin(theta)|dV

Where the angle theta is arccosine((ru*rv)/(|ru||rv|)),
and the angle phi is arccosine((ru*rs)/(|ru||rs|).

Does this sound accurate?

Inquisitively,

Edwin
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One other thought.

If a smooth parametrically defined volume V is givin by the following equation:


r(u,s,v) = x(u,v,s)i + y(u,v,s)j +z(u,v,s)k

Where (u,s,v) are elements of E, and

V is covered just once as (u,v,s) varies throughout the parameter domain E, then the "Volume" over E is:


the tripple integral over E of |ru*(rv X rs)|dV

This is based on the parallelpiped formed by ru, rv, rs, which represent the change in volume of the solid parametrically defined in 3-space. Here the cross product works because we have three dimensional vectors defining our volume. It is sort of an analogue to the typical method of finding surface area of a smooth 3-d function in three dimensional space when the surface is traversed exactly once as (u,v) vary throughout the domain D, and the vectors partial derivitaves ru, and rv are continuous and exist over the entire domain D. This surface area is the

double integral over D |ru X rv|dA

Where

r(u,v) = x(u,v)i + y(u,v)j + z(u,v)k

and ru is the partial derivative of r(u,v) with respect to u, while holding v constant.

and rv is the particle derivative of r(u,v) with respect to v, while holding u constant.

Does this seem accurate?

Inquisitively,

Edwin
 
Tested it out, the technique in the second post works, and interestingly enough, doesn't require the jacobian correction factor! I'll give specific details on my next post by deriving the equation for the sphere using spherical coordinates and integrating over the E using the method above...

Until then!

Good Day!

Best Regards,

Edwin

p.s. The function "r(u,s,v) = x(u,v,s)i + y(u,v,s)j +z(u,v,s)k" should read
"r(u,v,s) = x(u,v,s)i + y(u,v,s)j +z(u,v,s)k."
 
Last edited:
Edwin said:
Tested it out, the technique in the second post works, and interestingly enough, doesn't require the jacobian correction factor!
The triple scalar product of differentials in your volume element is the Jacobian of r.
 
Ah-ha!

That explains why it works!

So it's really just integrating the function 1, and the |ru*(rv X rs)| is the jacobian correction factor! Got it!

Thanks Hypermorphism, I appreciate your clarification on that. By the way, do you know whether the first post is correct?

Inquisitively,

Edwin
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K