Determining if a vector field is conservative

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around determining whether a vector field is conservative, focusing on methods such as line integrals and curl. Participants explore various approaches to identify conservative fields and the implications of their methods.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a method of integrating the components of a vector field separately and combining them to find a potential function, questioning the necessity of the curl method.
  • Another participant challenges this approach, explaining that integrating each component with respect to a single variable can lead to missing functions of other variables, which must be accounted for in the potential function.
  • A later reply clarifies that the term "constant" should be understood to include functions of other variables treated as constants during integration.
  • Another participant proposes a systematic approach to solving the equations derived from integration, suggesting that if the system has no solution, the field is nonconservative.
  • One participant introduces the "cross condition" as a method to determine conservativeness without finding the potential function, detailing the necessary partial derivative conditions for a vector field to be conservative.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of various methods for determining if a vector field is conservative. There is no consensus on the necessity of the curl method versus alternative approaches.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their methods, such as the potential oversight of functions of other variables during integration and the conditions required for the cross condition to hold.

1MileCrash
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
41
I have a bad habit of deciding how I would solve the concepts presented to us in lecture before the instructor covers the method. I try my methods immediately and use the textbook method if I hit a road block.

This leads to problems for me.

Right now we are covering line integrals over conservative vector fields. We are determining whether or not a field is conservative with the curl method.

However, I've solved every problem without it.

I take the vector field, integrate the i component wrt x, the j component wrt y, and decide that way. If they differ by an added constant or a function of the other variable, I add the two integrated functions together.

This has always led me to a function that if I find the gradient of it, I get the vector field.

If it is not conservative, it is apparent early on after viewing the two integrated functions.


However, if the curl method wasn't necessary it would not be presented. Where will my method break down?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your mistake is thinking that you can integrate each component with respect to a single variable and have only an added constant.
If you have
\nabla g= \frac{\partial g}{\partial x}\vec{i}+ \frac{\partial g}{\partial y}\vec{j}+ \frac{\partial g}{\partial z}\vec{k}= F_x\vec{i}+ F_y\vec{j}+ F_z\vec{k}

Yes, because the partial derivative with respect to x treats y and z as constants, you can integrate F_x with respect to x only but the "constant of integration" may be a function of y and z because you are treating them as constants.

For example, suppose we have \nabla g= \vec{F}= 2xy\vec{i}+ x^2\vec{j}+ \vec{k}. Then we can say
\frac{\partial g}{\partial x}= 2xy
so that g= x^2y+ \phi(y,z)
where \phi(y,z) is an unknown function of y and z only- which is treated as constants when differentiating with respect to x.

And we also have
\frac{\partial g}{\partial y}= x^2
so that g= x^2y+ \psi(x,z)
Comparing those two, its reasonable to think that g= x^2y+ C, a constant. But we still have z to handle! From
\frac{\partial g}{\partial z}= 1
we get g= z+ \chi(x,u) where now it is important that we have added a function of z, not a constant! We might be able to see that \chi(x,y)= x^2+ C and so g(x, y, z)= x^2y+ z+ C.

A simpler way to do this is, starting with the first equation, integrate with respect to x to get g(x,y,z)= x^2y+ \phi(y,z). Now, differentiate that, with respect to y, to get
\frac{\partial g}{\partial y}= x^2+ \frac{\partial\phi(y,z)}{\partial y}= x^2
from which we get
\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}= 0
which means that \phi must not be a function of y. Not that is is a constant, because it still might be a function of z.

Now we have g= x^2y+ \phi(x) and, differentiating with respect to z,
\frac{\partial g}{\partial z}= \frac{d\phi}{dz}= 1
and from that, \phi(z)= z+ C where C really is a constant because \phi is a function of z only.

That gives g(x, y, z)= x^2y+ z+ C.
 
HOI, I'm on mobile so can't really type out a good reply, but when I said "constant or a function of other variable" I meant to consider any function of variables considered constants during integration.
 
Ok, back, and armed with itex..

I would just do:

\int 2xy dx = x^{2}y + n(y,z)
\int x^{2} dy = x^{2}y + k(x,z)
\int dz = z + q(x,y)

Which I view as a simple system of equations that can be solved by looking at it, with:
n(y,z) = k(x,z) = z
or q(x,y) = x^{2}y.


Thus f = x^{2}y + z + C

And if the 'system' has no solution then the field is nonconservative.
 
If all you want to do is determine whether or not it is conservative, rather than actually finding the potential, you can use the "cross condition":
If there exist g such that \partial g/\partial x= F_x, \partial g/\partial y= F_y, and \partial g/\partial z= F_z.

Then \partial^2g/\partial x\partial y= \partial^2 g/\partial y\partial x
becomes \partial F_x/\partial y= \partial F_y/\partial x
while the other partial derivatives give
\partial F_x/\partial z= \partial F_z/\partial x
\partial F_z/\partial y= \partial F_y/\partial z

For this particular example, \vec{F}= 2xy\vec{i}+ x^2\vec{j}+ \vec{k}
we have
\frac{\partial F_x}{\partial x}= 2y= \frac{\partial F_y}{\partial x}
\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial z}= 0= \frac{\partial F_z}{\partial y}
\frac{\partial F_z}{\partial x}= 0= \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial z}
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K