Geometric Meaning of a Vector Integral

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the geometric interpretation of the vector integral of a 3-vector function r(t) = . Participants explore whether any geometric meaning can be assigned to the integral \(\int_a^b \vec{r}(t) dt\) and its components.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire to understand the geometric meaning of the vector integral, questioning if any meaning can be assigned at all.
  • Another participant suggests that the integral can be seen as a shorthand for writing three separate integrals, relating it to complex number integrals but admits a lack of intuitive explanation.
  • Some participants argue that there is no specific geometric meaning to the vector integral, particularly when considering the absence of a time variable in the graphical representation.
  • Conversely, one participant proposes that in one dimension, integrals represent area, and extending this to three dimensions involves summing infinitesimal changes, tracing a line in n-dimensional space.
  • Another participant reiterates the idea of visualizing the integral as a process of tracing infinitesimal changes through n-dimensional space, providing an example involving initial conditions and changes in dimensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the geometric meaning of the vector integral. Some assert that no specific geometric meaning exists, while others propose interpretations related to tracing infinitesimal changes in n-dimensional space.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the geometric interpretation and the implications of extending one-dimensional integrals to higher dimensions. There are also references to the limitations of graphical representations in conveying geometric meaning.

Lolcat Calc
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone on these forums. :)

If you would, please consider the 3-vector function r(t) = <f(t),g(t),h(t)>. What sort of geometric meaning can be assigned to the following integral?

[tex]\int_a^b \vec{r}(t) dt = \left\langle \int_a^b f(t) dt, \int_a^b g(t) dt, \int_a^b h(t) dt\right\rangle[/tex]

Or can any meaning can be assigned at all? Please help, I really want to know. We're covering this right now. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nothing? :( Did I phrase the question badly? I really do want to know this.
 
I hope a physicist can reply to this to give some geometric interpretation. But the truth is that I also don't know how to interpet it.

I've seen this used before. But I always thought of it as some kind of shorthand. Instead of writing the three integral, you just write one vectorial integral. This is easier to write.

Note, that this is closely related to the integral of complex numbers:

If [itex]f,g:[a,b]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}[/itex], then

[tex]\int_a^b{(f(t)+ig(t))dt}=\int_a^bf(t)dt+i\int_a^bg(t)dt[/tex]

This is a very handy definition. Why it is handy can be seen by studying complex analysis where these kind of integrals are essential. I do not know of any intuitive explanation however.

This was a long post. I hope I didn't exceed the character limit... :biggrin:
 
There is no specific geometric meaning.
 
There is geometric meaning of [itex]\int_a^by(x)dx[/itex], because x-axis is shown on the graph.

The graph of [itex]\int_a^b\vec{r(t)}dt[/itex] only shows x y z without t, so no geometric meaning is shown on this integration.
 
Lolcat Calc said:
Hello everyone on these forums. :)

If you would, please consider the 3-vector function r(t) = <f(t),g(t),h(t)>. What sort of geometric meaning can be assigned to the following integral?

[tex]\int_a^b \vec{r}(t) dt = \left\langle \int_a^b f(t) dt, \int_a^b g(t) dt, \int_a^b h(t) dt\right\rangle[/tex]

Or can any meaning can be assigned at all? Please help, I really want to know. We're covering this right now. :)

Hey Lolcat Calc and welcome to the forums.

In the one dimensional case, we interpret such integrals to be an area. Essentially we are summing up lots and lots of infinitesimal changes and finding the result.

If you extend this to n-dimensions as you have, what you are doing is considering the infinitesimal changes of a point in three dimensions, where the change of each dimension is independent.

The way to visualize this is as follows: consider an initial condition to be a vector in an n-dimensional space. Now consider that the integral takes your initial condition (a point in n-dimensional space) and calculates a lot of infinitesimal additions in each dimension.

What this will do geometrically is trace out a line in n-dimensions if you want to trace the infinitesimals, where the changes in the direction are based on the expression of the integral for each component. The end result is just a vector, but you could visualize the integral as a process of tracing infinitesimal changes through an n-dimensional space.

Lets say you look at a standard dy/dx = bla and integrate it. Let's consider adding a third dimension called z. If we wanted to have the same behaviour we would have the condition dz/dt = 0 with dx=dt and dy/dt = bla. Our initial conditions would be <0,y0,0>.
 
chiro said:
Hey Lolcat Calc and welcome to the forums.

In the one dimensional case, we interpret such integrals to be an area. Essentially we are summing up lots and lots of infinitesimal changes and finding the result.

If you extend this to n-dimensions as you have, what you are doing is considering the infinitesimal changes of a point in three dimensions, where the change of each dimension is independent.

The way to visualize this is as follows: consider an initial condition to be a vector in an n-dimensional space. Now consider that the integral takes your initial condition (a point in n-dimensional space) and calculates a lot of infinitesimal additions in each dimension.

What this will do geometrically is trace out a line in n-dimensions if you want to trace the infinitesimals, where the changes in the direction are based on the expression of the integral for each component. The end result is just a vector, but you could visualize the integral as a process of tracing infinitesimal changes through an n-dimensional space.

Lets say you look at a standard dy/dx = bla and integrate it. Let's consider adding a third dimension called z. If we wanted to have the same behaviour we would have the condition dz/dt = 0 with dx=dt and dy/dt = bla. Our initial conditions would be <0,y0,0>.

Thank you! This makes a lot of sense. Its very helpful :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K