Can the Integral of an Area Equation Solve for Volume?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bendelson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area Integral Volume
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the method of using integrals of area equations to calculate the volume of solids, particularly focusing on the volume of a sphere derived from the area of a circle. Participants explore the relationship between area and volume through integration, while expressing confusion and seeking clarification on the correct approach.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses excitement about using integrals of area equations to find volumes, specifically mentioning the area of a circle and the resulting integral leading to a volume equation that does not match the known volume of a sphere.
  • Another participant suggests that the confusion may stem from the relationship between the surface area of a sphere and the volume formula.
  • A different participant points out that the integration method for finding the volume of a sphere involves integrating the area of circular cross-sections along an axis, leading to the correct volume formula.
  • One participant mentions the concept of solids of revolution and how the volume relates to the area under a curve being rotated around an axis.
  • Another participant explains that the initial calculation may represent the volume of a cone rather than a sphere, suggesting a method involving infinitesimally thin disks to derive the volume of a hemisphere and subsequently the full sphere.
  • One participant introduces the shell method as an alternative approach to calculating volume.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding the integration of area to find volume, with some proposing methods and others questioning the generalization. No consensus is reached on a singular correct approach, and multiple methods are discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the relationship between area and volume, particularly in the context of integration. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the methods discussed and the conditions under which they apply.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students learning calculus, particularly those interested in the applications of integration in geometry and volume calculations.

Bendelson
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I may have misinterpreted this but today in calculus (AB) we were forming solids from 2 dimensional equations. One of the methods involved taking an integral of an area equation to solve for a solids volume. I got very excited as I often have difficulty remembering volume equations but am familiar with the basic area ones, so I thought I had found my solution to finding the volume of something with an area equation. However, when I tried to take the integral of the equation for the area of a circle ((pi)r^2) I came up with the equation (((pi)r^3)/3)+C which, as you may know, is not the equation for the volume of a sphere (4(pi)r^3)/3 although it is awfully close. I am very new to this so I'm definitely looking at this the wrong way so if anyone could explain this to me or send me any good links that would be awesome!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I just looked up the surface area of a sphere and its 4(pi)r^2 so I'm betting that's where the 4 came from but now I may be more confused
 
Bendelson said:
I may have misinterpreted this but today in calculus (AB) we were forming solids from 2 dimensional equations. One of the methods involved taking an integral of an area equation to solve for a solids volume. I got very excited as I often have difficulty remembering volume equations but am familiar with the basic area ones, so I thought I had found my solution to finding the volume of something with an area equation. However, when I tried to take the integral of the equation for the area of a circle ((pi)r^2) I came up with the equation (((pi)r^3)/3)+C which, as you may know, is not the equation for the volume of a sphere (4(pi)r^3)/3 although it is awfully close. I am very new to this so I'm definitely looking at this the wrong way so if anyone could explain this to me or send me any good links that would be awesome!
You're trying to make a generalization which is not true, in all cases.

There are some theorems about how some areas can be turned into volumes by integration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappus's_centroid_theorem
 
To get the volume of a sphere by integration, put the center of the sphere at x,y,z=0,0,0.
For a sphere of radius R, we can integrate along the x-axis from -R to +R.
We integrate the area (pi)r^2 substituting r^2=R^2-x^2 from the formula for a circle.
The result is volume=4/3(pi)R^3.
It's much easier to remember the formula!
 
You need to realize that if you're integrating in two variables, that the volume of a solid of revolution is the area underneath the curve being rotated around a specified axis.
 
Bendelson said:
I may have misinterpreted this but today in calculus (AB) we were forming solids from 2 dimensional equations. One of the methods involved taking an integral of an area equation to solve for a solids volume. I got very excited as I often have difficulty remembering volume equations but am familiar with the basic area ones, so I thought I had found my solution to finding the volume of something with an area equation. However, when I tried to take the integral of the equation for the area of a circle ((pi)r^2) I came up with the equation (((pi)r^3)/3)+C which, as you may know, is not the equation for the volume of a sphere (4(pi)r^3)/3 although it is awfully close. I am very new to this so I'm definitely looking at this the wrong way so if anyone could explain this to me or send me any good links that would be awesome!

What you did was calculate the volume of a circular cone of height r with base of radius r. Can you see why?

To get the volume of a sphere, you could consider first a hemisphere, which you can think of as a series of thin disks (circles) of diminishing radius. If these were a finite set, then you'd add up the volume of each thin disk and get (approx) the volume of a sphere. Integration imagines each disk to be infinitesimally thin and you need to think of how big the circle is as you move up the hemisphere. Let's imagine the upper hemisphere (radius R), going from ##z=0## at the equator to ##z=R## at the pole:

The radius of the circle at each height ##z## is given by:

##r^2 = R^2 - z^2##

(Check this using some basic trigonometry.)

The area of the circle at each height is ##\pi(R^2 - z^2)##

This is now what you integrate from ##z = 0## to ##z = R## to get the volume:

##V = \int_0^R \pi (R^2-z^2) dz = \pi [R^2z - \frac{z^3}{3}]_0^R = \pi [R^3 - \frac{R^3}{3}] = \frac{2\pi R^3}{3}##

And the full sphere has twice this volume.
 
Last edited:
Another way would be to use the shell method.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K