Master1022
- 590
- 116
haruspex said:There may be scope for ambiguity here. There's keeping the direction of the vector ##d\vec r## constant, and there's keeping constant the direction defined as positive for it.
Viewing the integral as an ordered sum, each ##d \vec r## is a step along the path from the lower bound to the upper bound. If the direction from R to ∞ is defined as positive, and R is the lower bound, then each ##d \vec r## is a positive step. If we reverse the bounds then we are stepping from ∞ to R, so each vector element is a negative step.Following my reasoning above, setting the lower bound as R and the upper as infinity determines that ##d \vec r ## is outwards.
Okay, I think this makes more sense to me now. To see if I am understanding what you mean: I should keep the d \vec r vector pointing in the same way as the parameter r increases (i.e. outwards)?
PeroK said:If you are using ##\vec r## as the vector from the origin, then this is different from using ##d \vec r## as the inwards line element.
Swapping between them could be the root of your problem.
Yes, thinking about this a bit more, that does seem to be the problem.
Is this also true for general line integrals? For example, if we want to integrate along a path, parameterized by p, then we ought to have dp in the direction of (or tangential to the path at that point) of p increasing regardless of which direction we want to go (from high to low p or vice versa)?