Flux of a vector and parametric equation

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on computing the flux of the vector field v = 3xy i + xz^2 j + y^3 k through the unit sphere using Gauss's Law. The initial calculation leads to the integral of 3y over the volume, which is evaluated as zero due to the symmetry of the integrand over a symmetric region. Participants note that while the spherical parametrization is not necessary, the radial part of the integral should be considered, although it remains constant for the unit sphere. There is a consensus that the symmetry of the field allows for a straightforward conclusion without detailed calculations. The importance of correctly applying the divergence theorem in this context is emphasized, highlighting the conceptual understanding of the problem.
Xsnac
Messages
32
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Compute the flux of a vector field ##\vec{v}## through the unit sphere, where

$$ \vec{v} = 3xy i + x z^2 j + y^3 k $$

Homework Equations



Gauss Law:
$$ \int (\nabla \cdot \vec{B}) dV = \int \vec{B} \cdot d\vec{a}$$

The Attempt at a Solution


Ok so after applying Gauss Law, one gets
$$ \int 3y dV $$
and after converting it into a spherical integral I get
$$3 \int_0^{ \pi} \sin^2 \theta d \theta \int_0^{2 \pi} \sin \phi d \phi = 0$$ since integral of sin over a full period is. Is this correct? or if not, where did I go wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks fine, but you do not need to actually do the spherical parametrisation. You could just use that the integrand is asymmetric over a symmetric region so the result must be zero.

Edit: Also, you are missing the radial part of the integral, but it will not matter.
 
  • Like
Likes Xsnac and alejandromeira
Xsnac I've been making the transformation right now and seems me that your work is ok.
 
  • Like
Likes Xsnac
Orodruin said:
It looks fine, but you do not need to actually do the spherical parametrisation. You could just use that the integrand is asymmetric over a symmetric region so the result must be zero.

Edit: Also, you are missing the radial part of the integral, but it will not matter.
Thanks. Regarding the radial part, it specified it's unit sphere therefore constant, and = 1 so I neglected it.
 
Orodruin said:
It looks fine, but you do not need to actually do the spherical parametrisation. You could just use that the integrand is asymmetric over a symmetric region so the result must be zero.

Edit: Also, you are missing the radial part of the integral, but it will not matter.
Yes, visualizing the field in the space there are a symetry in the plane XZ, then like the volume has also spherical symetry around the point (0,0,0) we don't need to calculate anything. So is more fun! :woot::woot:
 
Last edited:
Xsnac said:
Thanks. Regarding the radial part, it specified it's unit sphere therefore constant, and = 1 so I neglected it.
This is conceptually wrong, even if the result is the same. Your original surface of integration was the unit sphere. In using the divergence theorem, you rewrite the closed surface integral as a volume integral over the enclosed volume, in this case the unit ball.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K