Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Breaking Stokes theorem

  1. Jun 10, 2016 #1
    Let's say there is a 5 sided cube that is missing the bottom face.

    Obviously, there is a boundary curve at the middle of this cube that goes around the 4 sides, front, right, back, and left.

    This boundary curve forms the boundary of the top half of the cube with the 5 faces and the bottom half of the cube with the 4 faces(bottom face is missing)

    Does STOKE's theorem break apart here? The curl of the field dot the 5 faces of the cube ought to equal the closed boundary line integral... But I am missing the bottom face of the cube.

  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 10, 2016 #2
    It seems as though you are confused about the meaning of "boundary." The boundary of the initial shape you describe is the bottom square, around the missing face.

    It seems like you are spitting the shape into two parts in your sentence which begins with "obviously." If so, then the top half has a single square as boundary, and the bottom half has the union of two disjoint squares as its boundary, sharing one with the top half. Taking account of this should resolve the question I think you're asking.
  4. Jun 11, 2016 #3
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Similar Discussions: Breaking Stokes theorem
  1. Stoke's theorem (Replies: 1)

  2. Stokes theorem (Replies: 1)

  3. Stokes theorem (Replies: 2)