General Conditions for Stokes' Theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the conditions necessary to apply Stokes' theorem, particularly the formula ##\int\limits_{\Omega}\mathrm{d}\alpha=\int\limits_{\partial\Omega} \alpha##. Participants explore the theoretical framework, potential relaxations of conditions, and specific examples related to differential forms and manifolds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the only necessary conditions for Stokes' theorem are those required to define the integrals, similar to 1-dimensional integrals, without additional geometrical constraints on differentiable manifolds.
  • Others argue that the smoothness of the manifold and forms can be relaxed if one is careful with the use of Dirac delta functions, suggesting that forms may be treated as distributions.
  • A participant requests clarification on the concept of treating forms as distributions, expressing uncertainty about the implications of this perspective.
  • Another participant provides an example involving the integration of a form over a sphere, highlighting how the boundary of a closed surface is zero, but a coordinate patch can be contractible, leading to a non-zero boundary.
  • The example illustrates the application of Stokes' theorem by integrating over a surface with a boundary created by removing a set of measure zero, emphasizing the importance of the smoothness of the form on the remaining set.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential need to account for contributions from delta-function-like behavior if the form is not smooth across the cut.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessary conditions for applying Stokes' theorem, with no consensus reached on the extent to which conditions can be relaxed or the implications of treating forms as distributions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of integrals and the treatment of forms, which may depend on specific definitions and contexts. The implications of relaxing smoothness and the handling of singularities remain unresolved.

Mandelbroth
Messages
610
Reaction score
23
What is the least restrictive set of conditions needed to utilize the formula ##\int\limits_{\Omega}\mathrm{d}\alpha=\int\limits_{\partial\Omega} \alpha##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the only conditions are those needed to define the integrals (i.e. the same kinds of conditions used to define 1-dimensional integrals). I don't think there are any extra geometrical conditions, provided you're on a differentiable manifold.

You can even relax smoothness of the manifold (and the forms!) if you are careful about using Dirac delta functions. Generally, since a form is something you integrate, they should be thought of as distributions.

The boundary operator can be used in a distributional sense as well. For example, the boundary of a sphere is zero. But it might be helpful to think of a sphere with a point removed, whose boundary is therefore a point; then you can use Stokes' theorem to integrate forms over the sphere.
 
Ben Niehoff said:
You can even relax smoothness of the manifold (and the forms!) if you are careful about using Dirac delta functions. Generally, since a form is something you integrate, they should be thought of as distributions.
Could you please expand on this? Thinking of forms as distributions feels foreign, and I don't see where that line of thought would go.
 
Expand on it how? Surely you can figure out how to integrate something like

[tex]\delta(x,y,z) \, dx \wedge dy \wedge dz[/tex]

Do you have a specific question?
 
This might be a better example of what I'm talking about. Say we want to find the area of a sphere. The form we want to integrate is

[tex]\omega = \sin \theta \, d \theta \wedge d \phi[/tex]
Now, the sphere ##\Omega## is a closed surface, so ##\partial \Omega = 0##. However, the coordinate patch ##\tilde \Omega## covered by the coordinates ##\phi \in (0, 2\pi), \; \theta \in (0, \pi)## is not a closed surface, and is in fact contractible. We have that ##\partial \tilde \Omega## is the union of the north and south poles of the sphere, and a segment of a great circle that runs between them.

Now, it so happens that

[tex]\omega = d \big( - \cos \theta \, d \phi \big) = d \alpha[/tex]
so we can use Stokes' theorem. So

[tex]\int_{\tilde \Omega} \omega = \int_{\partial \tilde \Omega} \alpha = - \int_{\partial \tilde \Omega} \cos \theta \, d \phi[/tex]
To integrate around the "cut" between the north and south poles, we draw a loop around it. On either side there is a vertical part where ##d \phi = 0##, and so these parts do not contribute. Then around the north and south poles, there are tiny circles, at which ##\cos \theta = \pm 1## and ##\phi## runs from 0 to ##2 \pi##. The tiny circles go opposite directions, so each part contributes positively:

[tex]- \int_{\partial \tilde \Omega} \cos \theta \, d \phi = 2 \pi + 2 \pi = 4 \pi[/tex]
So you see, if you are careful about how you cut up a manifold, you can apply Stokes' theorem in all sorts of situations.

In this case, we took a closed surface and removed a set of measure zero to turn it into a surface with boundary. The reason this worked is because the form ##\omega## is smooth on the set of measure zero that we removed. If that were not the case (say ##\omega## had a delta-function-like contribution on the "cut"), then you would have to include an extra piece to account for that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K