Deriving Formulae for Cone, Pyramid and Sphere

DB
Messages
501
Reaction score
0
I'm just a little curious with these formulas because I like to understand a formula before I use it. There's no doubt I've been using these since gr3 but I would like a mathmatical derivation of them.

V_{cone}=\frac{A_bh}{3}
V_{pyramid}=\frac{A_bh}{3}
All I would like to know here is why by 3?

And just
V_{sphere}=\frac{4\pi r^3}{3}
With this one I have no clue why it is what it is. There are 4\piradians in a sphere maybe??

Thanks in advance.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
hm do you mean where does 3 come from?
in integration (calculus), we can find the formula by integration.
for ball, find antiderivative of p f(x)^2 dx
 
Well, a cone of height h and with base radius \alpha h can defined by T = \{ (x,\ y,\ z) \ | \ (\alpha z)^2 \geq x^2 + y^2,\; 0\leq z \leq h \}. Clearly it is a solid of revolution (it is symmetric about the z-axis). Its volume is

V_{\mbox{cone}} = \int \int \int_T dV = \int_0^h \int_{-\alpha z}^{\alpha z} \int_{-\sqrt{(\alpha z)^2 - x^2}}^{\sqrt{(\alpha z)^2 - x^2}} \ dy \ dx\ dz = 2 \int_0^h \int_{-\alpha z}^{\alpha z} \sqrt{(\alpha z)^2 - x^2} \ dx \ dz = 2\int_0^h {(\alpha z)^2 \pi \over 2} \ dz = \alpha^2 \pi \left[{z^3\over 3}\right]_0^h = {\alpha^2 \pi h^3 \over 3}

From here all you need to notice is that the base area is A_b = \alpha^2 h^2 \pi \Longrightarrow V_{\mbox{cone}} = {\alpha^2 \pi h^3 \over 3} = {A_b h \over 3} as we wanted. Note that the third-to-last step is valid:

\int_{-a}^a \sqrt{a^2-x^2} dx = \int_{-{\pi \over 2}}^{\pi \over 2} a^2 \cos^2{t} \ dt = a^2\int_{-{\pi \over 2}}^{\pi \over 2} {1\over 2}\left[1+\cos{2t}\right] \ dt = {a^2 \over 2}\left[t + {\sin{2t} \over 2}\right]_ {-{\pi \over 2}}^{\pi \over 2} = {a^2 \pi \over 2}


This is, incidentally, the area of a semicircle of radius a, which is to be expected since 0 \leq y \leq \sqrt{a^2-x^2}, -a \leq x \leq a defines such a semicircle!

The pyramid can be done in a similar manner, or by appealing to its geometry. You can try it :)

The volume of a sphere is also found in the same way, although this one's easier because you can just use spherical coordinates (who would have guessed!). A sphere of radius r can be defined in polar coordinates to be just S = \{ ( \rho, \ \phi, \ \theta ) \ | 0 \leq \rho \leq r, \ 0 \leq \phi \leq \pi, \ 0 \leq \theta < 2\pi \}. Using the Jacobian transformation we find that since our coordinate transformation is x = \rho \sin{\phi} \cos{\theta}, \ y = \rho \sin{\phi} \sin{\theta}, z = \rho \cos{\phi} we get dV = \rho^2 \sin{\phi} \ d\rho \ d\phi \ d\theta and so our volume is

V_{\mbox{sphere}} = \int \int \int_S dV = \int_0^{2\pi} \int_0^\pi \int_0^r \rho^2 \sin{\phi} \ d\rho \ d\phi \ d\theta = 2\pi \int_0^\pi \sin{\phi} \ d\phi \int_0^r \rho^2 \ d\rho = 2\pi\left[-\cos{\theta}\right]_0^\pi\left[{\rho^3\over 3}\right]_0^r = (2\pi)(2){r^3 \over 3} = {4 \pi r^3 \over 3}

again as we wanted. As to your question about 4\pi radians in a sphere: not quite, but very close. There are 4\pi of what we call steradians in a sphere. These are a "unit" (and I use the term loosely, because neither radians nor steradians are really a unit) for a sort of two-dimensional angular arc.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top