Attempt at volume integration to compute the full field equation (1 Viewer)

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

426
10
I'm trying to figure out this volume integral, a triple integral, of a 9-variable function.

3 Cartesian-dimension variables, and 6 primed and un-primed co-ordinates.

Dx0prd6.png


After the volume integration, the un-primed co-ordinates will have been gotten rid of, leaving a field function in terms of the primed co-ordinates.

It's looks really tricky to my simple mind, I hope I can get some pointers, or recommendations on software which could potentially help solve it.
 

Attachments

426
10
maybe Maple might be of help?
 

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,022
1,048
In the homework section, you are supposed to show us some effort of things you have tried. How have you approached the problem?
 
426
10
In the homework section, you are supposed to show us some effort of things you have tried. How have you approached the problem?
sorry, I'm not sure how to begin, was hoping for some pointers
 

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,022
1,048
Try converting to spherical polar coordinates with the z-axis pointing along r'. Then the denominator becomes:
[tex] r^5 (r^2 + r'^2 - 2r r' \cos(\theta))^{3/2}[/tex]
 
Last edited:

Ray Vickson

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
10,628
1,659
Try converting to spherical polar coordinates with the z-axis pointing along r'. Then the denominator becomes:
[tex] r^5 (r^2 + r'^2 - 2r r' \cos(\theta))^3[/tex]
The "dimensions" of the second factor in the (original) denominator are ##r^3##, so the second factor in the new denominator must be ##(r^2 + r'^2 - 2 r r' \cos \theta)^{3/2}.##
 

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,022
1,048
The "dimensions" of the second factor in the (original) denominator are ##r^3##, so the second factor in the new denominator must be ##(r^2 + r'^2 - 2 r r' \cos \theta)^{3/2}.##
Thanks. I corrected my post.
 
426
10
Try converting to spherical polar coordinates with the z-axis pointing along r'. Then the denominator becomes:
[tex] r^5 (r^2 + r'^2 - 2r r' \cos(\theta))^{3/2}[/tex]
oh, then that would turn r' into a scalar variable right?

The scalar variable being the length of r', the magnitude of the vector
 

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,022
1,048
The scalar variable being the length of r', the magnitude of the vector
Yes, but r' is a constant with respect to the integration. It is not a variable being integrated over.
 
426
10
Yes, but r' is a constant with respect to the integration. It is not a variable being integrated over.
ok, I guess you could say the integral is sorta like ∂x∂y∂z? or ∂r∂θ∂Φ
 

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,022
1,048
ok, I guess you could say the integral is sorta like ∂x∂y∂z?
I don't know what you are asking. Can you re-write the integral with the change of variables I suggested?
 
426
10
I don't know what you are asking. Can you re-write the integral with the change of variables I suggested?
ok, I guess you could say the integral is sorta like ∂x∂y∂z? or ∂r∂θ∂Φ
what I meant was instead of being 'd', it is effectively '∂'

Also, do you think I should modify the three 'a' variables, or leave them as they are?
 

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,022
1,048
what I meant was instead of being 'd', it is effectively '∂'
Also, do you think I should modify the three 'a' variables, or leave them as they are?
Well, since x,y,z are independent variables, when you integrate over x, for example, you treat y and z as constant. But this is always the case in multi-dimensional integration, and one typically uses the notation dx instead of [itex] \partial x [/itex]. As for the a's, I am assuming they are constants (not functions of x,y,z). If you know otherwise, you will have to include their functional form in the integration.
 
426
10
Well, since x,y,z are independent variables, when you integrate over x, for example, you treat y and z as constant. But this is always the case in multi-dimensional integration, and one typically uses the notation dx instead of [itex] \partial x [/itex]. As for the a's, I am assuming they are constants (not functions of x,y,z). If you know otherwise, you will have to include their functional form in the integration.
The a's are components of the vector a. But a is just a single vector, it doesn't represent 3-D space.
 

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,022
1,048
The a's are components of the vector a. But a is just a single vector, it doesn't represent 3-D space.
Is it a constant vector, or is it a function of (x,y,z)? that's the question you need to know the answer to.
 
426
10
Is it a constant vector, or is it a function of (x,y,z)? that's the question you need to know the answer to.
A constant vector, independent of (x,y,z)
 
426
10
Is it a constant vector, or is it a function of (x,y,z)? that's the question you need to know the answer to.
@Ray Vickson @phyzguy I tried integrating with an unmodified 'a' in Maple, unfortunately it couldn't solve it.

I hope I can find the solution. :wideeyed:

In fact, I actually have what might be a potential solution. I just wanna prove that it is in fact the solution.

$$\frac{{a_z}x}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^\frac{3}{2}}$$
##a_x## and ##a_y## are no longer in the equation.

This is in terms of the primed co-ordinates, though I didn't include the prime marks.


x' is related to r' by means of two angles. Since the numerator is x', this means that the triple integral introduces two new angular variables to make up for the reduction of two variables in the earlier simplification, though I'm not sure how that might happen.
 
Last edited:
426
10
@Ray Vickson @phyzguyIn fact, I actually have what might be a potential solution. I just wanna prove that it is in fact the solution.

$$\frac{{a_z}x}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^\frac{3}{2}}$$
##a_x## and ##a_y## are no longer in the equation.

This is in terms of the primed co-ordinates, though I didn't include the prime marks.


x' is related to r' by means of two angles. Since the numerator is x', this means that the triple integral introduces two new angular variables to make up for the reduction of two variables in the earlier simplification, though I'm not sure how that might happen.
@phyzguy, I've realized that in order to convert the un-primed x,y,z co-ordinates to something in terms of r, I'll need to convert them to intermediate Cartesian co-ordinates, which adds the two new angular variables, using the rotation matrix. But just 2 out of the 3 angles of 3-D rotation.

I'll then have to apply the spherical co-ordinate transformations, adding another two angular variables.

Also, any suggestions on proving or disproving my possible solution?
 

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,022
1,048
@phyzguy, I've realized that in order to convert the un-primed x,y,z co-ordinates to something in terms of r, I'll need to convert them to intermediate Cartesian co-ordinates, which adds the two new angular variables, using the rotation matrix. But just 2 out of the 3 angles of 3-D rotation.

I'll then have to apply the spherical co-ordinate transformations, adding another two angular variables.

Also, any suggestions on proving or disproving my possible solution?
Two comments:
(1) I don't know what you mean by "intermediate Cartesian co-ordinates". You are integrating over all space, so you are free to use any set of coordinates that you want. Just transform from (x,y,z) to (r,θ,φ) and go from there.

(2) I do not think that your proposed solution is correct.
 
426
10
(1) I don't know what you mean by "intermediate Cartesian co-ordinates". You are integrating over all space, so you are free to use any set of coordinates that you want. Just transform from (x,y,z) to (r,θ,φ) and go from there.
For example, ##x=x_r cosA - y_r sinA## and ##x_r = r sinθ ⋅cosφ##

Thus adding a new angular variable A.



(2) I do not think that your proposed solution is correct.
sorry, what's the reasoning?
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top