Griffiths Introduction to Electrodynamics (Stokes Theorem Corollary)

AI Thread Summary
Stokes' Theorem states that the line integral over a closed surface equals zero, but confusion arises in question 1.11 of Griffiths' "Introduction to Electrodynamics" due to the integration being over a closed rectangle, which is not a closed surface. A closed surface, by definition, has no boundaries, while the rectangle has four edges. The discussion highlights the distinction between two-dimensional surfaces, like a sphere, which has no boundary, and three-dimensional objects. The importance of boundaries in physics is questioned, but it is clarified that boundaries are essential for defining dimensions. Understanding these concepts is crucial for applying Stokes' Theorem correctly in physics.
cemtu
Messages
99
Reaction score
7
Homework Statement
Electrodynamics, Stokes Theorem
Relevant Equations
No Equations needed
Although Stokes Theorem says that the line integral of a closed surface equals to zero why do we get a non-zero value out of this question 1.11 (and figure 1.33) in the Griffits Introduction to Eletrodynamics Book?
373a0125-a510-4a2e-a118-aed36bf5c00a.jpg
799c9e83-7cf2-45a4-91e9-4286748035b1.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not an integration over a closed surface.
 
Orodruin said:
It is not an integration over a closed surface.
It is an integration over a closed rectangle shape
 
cemtu said:
It is an integration over a closed rectangle shape
The rectangle is not a closed surface. The definition of a closed surface is that it has no boundary. The rectangle clearly has a boundary - the four straight lines that form its border.
 
Orodruin said:
The rectangle is not a closed surface. The definition of a closed surface is that it has no boundary. The rectangle clearly has a boundary - the four straight lines that form its border.
sir there is nothing without boundaries and borders, so how exactly this second corollary of stokes theorem has a proper use in physics?
 
cemtu said:
sir there is nothing without boundaries and borders, so how exactly this second corollary of stokes theorem has a proper use in physics?
This is wrong. For example, the two-dimensional sphere has no boundary curve.
 
Orodruin said:
This is wrong. For example, the two-dimensional sphere has no boundary curve.
sir, spheres are three-dimentional objects.
 
cemtu said:
sir, spheres are three-dimentional objects.
You are thinking of a ball or the fact that the sphere is embedded in three-dimensional space. The sphere is the two-dimensional boundary of a three-dimensional ball. The boundary of an n-dimensional object is (n-1)-dimensional. In order to know where you are on a sphere you need two coordinates (eg, longitude and latitude), this makes the sphere two-dimensional.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top