Can \( d \omega = 0 \) Be Concluded from \( \int_{\partial S} \omega = 0 \)?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter davi2686
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forms
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the integral of a differential form over a boundary, specifically whether the condition \( \int_{\partial S} \omega = 0 \) leads to the conclusion that \( d\omega = 0 \). Participants explore this question through examples, counterexamples, and connections to concepts in differential forms and Gauss's Law.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if \( \int_{\partial S} \omega = 0 \) by Stokes' theorem implies \( \int_{S} d\omega = 0 \), then it might be inferred that \( d\omega = 0 \).
  • Another participant counters this by providing an example where \( d\omega = x^3 dx \) integrated over \( S = (-a, a) \) results in zero, despite \( d\omega \) being non-zero at most points in the region.
  • Further discussion arises around the interpretation of \( d\omega \) equating to a scalar, with some participants questioning the meaning of such a statement.
  • Connections to Gauss's Law are made, where one participant rewrites the integral form using differential forms, leading to questions about the validity of equating forms of different degrees.
  • Clarifications are sought regarding the notation and concepts such as the musical isomorphism denoted by \( \flat \), with one participant explaining its role in relating vectors and covectors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether \( \int_{\partial S} \omega = 0 \) can lead to \( d\omega = 0 \), with at least one counterexample presented. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the implications of differential forms.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential misunderstandings regarding the nature of differential forms and their integration, as well as the implications of equating forms of different degrees. There are also references to specific mathematical notations and concepts that may require further clarification.

davi2686
Messages
33
Reaction score
2
if i have \int_{\partial S} \omega=0 by stokes theorem \int_{S} d \omega=0, can i say d \omega=0? even 0 as a scalar is a 0-form?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider d\omega=x^3 dx integrated over S=(-a,a). The integral gives zero but the integrand is zero in only one point of the region of integration. So this is a counterexample to \int_S d\omega=0 \Rightarrow d\omega=0.
 
Shyan said:
Consider d\omega=x^3 dx integrated over S=(-a,a). The integral gives zero but the integrand is zero in only one point of the region of integration. So this is a counterexample to \int_S d\omega=0 \Rightarrow d\omega=0.

thanks, but have no problem with 0 is a 0-form and d\omega a k-form? so can i work with something like d\omega=4?
 
I have no idea what "d\omega= 4", a differential form equal to a number, could even mean. Could you please explain that?
 
HallsofIvy said:
I have no idea what "d\omega= 4", a differential form equal to a number, could even mean. Could you please explain that?

my initial motivation is in Gauss's Law, \int_{\partial V} \vec{E}\cdot d\vec{S}=\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}dV, i rewrite the left side with differential forms, \int_{\partial V} \star\vec{E}^{\flat}=\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}dV which by the Stokes Theorem \int_{V} d(\star\vec{E}^{\flat})=\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}dV\Rightarrow d(\star\vec{E}^{\flat})=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}, if i don't make something wrong in these steps, in left side we get a n-form and right side a 0-form, and that i don't know if i can do.
 
davi2686 said:
thanks, but have no problem with 0 is a 0-form and d\omega a k-form? so can i work with something like d\omega=4?
Its correct that 0 is a 0-form but by a zero 1-form we actually mean \omega= 0 dx and write it as \omega= 0 when there is no chance of confusion.

davi2686 said:
my initial motivation is in Gauss's Law, \int_{\partial V} \vec{E}\cdot d\vec{S}=\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}dV, i rewrite the left side with differential forms, \int_{\partial V} \star\vec{E}^{\flat}=\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}dV which by the Stokes Theorem \int_{V} d(\star\vec{E}^{\flat})=\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}dV\Rightarrow d(\star\vec{E}^{\flat})=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}, if i don't make something wrong in these steps, in left side we get a n-form and right side a 0-form, and that i don't know if i can do.
You missed something. You should have written d(\star \vec E ^\flat)=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} dV.(What's \flat anyway?)
 
You missed something. You should have written d(\star \vec E ^\flat)=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} dV.

Thanks i did not know that.

What's \flat anyway?

That is musical isomorphism \flat:M \mapsto M^*, in fact i understand it works like a lower indice, \vec{B}^{\flat} give me a co-variant B or it related 1-form.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K