1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Alright, so I forgot how to do Surface Integrals

  1. Oct 4, 2007 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    I have a vector function, and I need to take the surface integral of it over a hemisphere, top half only. I'm "confirming" the divergence theorem by doing a volume integral and surface integral. Already did the volume one so I have something to compare to already.

    3. The attempt at a solution

    Yeah yeah, "look at your book!"

    I've checked my calc book, my mathematical physics book, and my E&M book (which assigned the problem) and for some reason I just can't get it.

    EDIT: Also, I should mention that the vector isn't given in "i,j,k" form, but "r, theta, phi", which is even more confusing for me.

    The books either use a simple cube (ya thanks) or cylindrical coordinates, which still makes it easier for me to grasp.

    Let me see if I am thinking of this correctly:

    dS will be d(theta)d(phi) for the top half, and should be d(r)d(phi) for the disk (My phi goes from 0 to 2pi). However I think I am missing something (Jacobian?). Besides that, I need to dot the function vector with the normal vector, yes?

    The book says I need to take the gradient of the surface function (and normalize it) to make it a normal vector. So for the top half it would just be <r,0,0>? And I can't figure it out for the disk at the bottom. I guess I could use -k and then just transformed into spherical coordinates?
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 4, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes -- you're missing the area. dS is an area element, so if you parametrize it with, say, [itex]d\theta d\phi[/itex], then you need to include the area of the sphere element spanned by that differential.

    and [itex]d\vec{S}[/itex] is [itex]\bf{\hat{n}}dS[/itex], so yes.

  4. Oct 5, 2007 #3
    Limits of integration? Or are you talking about something else?

    Ok, so if I had <1,0,0>, that would work, right? Since it would be 1 unit in the "r" direction, so radially outward.
  5. Oct 5, 2007 #4
    I hate myself and I want to die.

    I started reading different sections of the book (going over curvilinear coordinates) and at the bottom of one of the pages, it gives me exactly what I needed... what da is when I'm integrating over a sphere, and when it's a disk.

    Should I switch my major?

    EDIT: Oh, and 5 minutes after my discovery, I am done with the problem. I spent over an hour on it before that.

    I really want to cry...
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2007
  6. Oct 5, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just an hour? Pfft. I've spent days, maybe even weeks wondering about something before I discovered it was in one of the books I have lying around! :tongue:

    Let this be a lesson in research -- knowing where to find information is almost as good as knowing that information. :smile:

    "Look at your book" isn't idle advice: it's a vital habit for a mathematician!
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2007
  7. Oct 5, 2007 #6
    Yeah. Every time I think I know something, it turns out I don't. I was looking under the "divergence" and "divergence theorem" sections, when I should have been looking at the curvilinear section. I mean, I already know that stuff, and I didn't think the author would just idly throw in "Oh yeah, use *this* for da using these coordinates in these 2 circumstances."

    And actually I lost track of time. 'twas already two hours and I had also spent another 2 at school. :(
  8. Oct 5, 2007 #7
    Don't worry, I don't think I would be able to do a surface integral without symmetry. I would either have to think really hard about it for a day and derive it myself, or look it up. While looking something up is a time saver, there is always something to be said about deriving math.
  9. Oct 5, 2007 #8
    To sort of go against my thread on professors only doing proofs: yes, I find I learn something better when I do it the hard way.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Alright, so I forgot how to do Surface Integrals