Flux of a vector and parametric equation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on computing the flux of the vector field ##\vec{v} = 3xy \hat{i} + x z^2 \hat{j} + y^3 \hat{k}## through the unit sphere using Gauss's Law. Participants confirm that the integral simplifies to zero due to the asymmetry of the integrand over a symmetric region. The radial part of the integral is noted as unnecessary since the unit sphere has a constant radius of 1. The divergence theorem is emphasized as a crucial concept for transforming the surface integral into a volume integral.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector fields and flux calculations
  • Familiarity with Gauss's Law and the divergence theorem
  • Knowledge of spherical coordinates and integration techniques
  • Basic concepts of symmetry in mathematical functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the divergence theorem in vector calculus
  • Learn about spherical coordinate transformations in integrals
  • Explore examples of asymmetric integrands in symmetric regions
  • Review advanced topics in vector field theory and flux calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering who are working on vector calculus problems, particularly those involving flux and surface integrals.

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   Reactions: Xsnac and alejandromeira
Xsnac I've been making the transformation right now and seems me that your work is ok.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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.
 

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