Divergence theorem on non compact sets of R3

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the application of the divergence theorem, specifically in the context of non-compact sets in \(\mathbb{R}^3\). The divergence theorem states that for a compact subset \(\Omega\) with a piecewise smooth boundary surface \(S\), the integral of the divergence of a continuously differentiable vector field \(\vec{F}\) over \(\Omega\) equals the flux of \(\vec{F}\) across \(S\). The challenge arises when applying this theorem to compute electric fields from surface charges on non-bounded geometries, such as infinite cylinders, where additional conditions on the integrand are necessary to ensure the integral converges.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the divergence theorem in vector calculus
  • Familiarity with continuously differentiable vector fields
  • Knowledge of electric fields and surface charge distributions
  • Concepts of limits and convergence in integrals
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the divergence theorem on non-compact sets in \(\mathbb{R}^3\)
  • Explore the conditions for integrals to converge in the context of electric fields
  • Learn about symmetry arguments in vector calculus to simplify complex problems
  • Investigate the behavior of integrands at infinity and their impact on physical applications
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineering students focusing on vector calculus, particularly those studying electromagnetism and fluid dynamics.

Lebesgue
So my question here is: the divergence theorem literally states that
Let \Omega be a compact subset of \mathbb{R}^3 with a piecewise smooth boundary surface S. Let \vec{F}: D \mapsto \mathbb{R}^3 a continously differentiable vector field defined on a neighborhood D of \Omega.
Then:
\int_{\Omega} \nabla \cdot \vec{F} dxdydz = \oint_S \vec{F} \cdot \vec{n} dS

My problem here is: why people (and with which argument) use this divergence or Gauss theorem to compute the electric field of some NOT bound set (for example, the typical infinite cylinder) of surface charge.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Doing so is fine if you can show that the integral over any surface closing the area goes to zero when that closing surface is placed further and further away. This may put additional requirements on the integrand, such as vanishing sufficiently fast.

There are also cases where the volume is not infinite although you are studying an infinite setup, but, for example, the end caps of thr cylinder do not contribute. In other cases, symmetry may reduce the dimensionality of the problem and it is sufficient to consider it in one dimension less where the volume is bounded.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K