How do I calculate and use the different formulas of Green's Theorem?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the different formulas of Green's Theorem, exploring their applications, relationships, and the distinctions between the vector fields involved. Participants inquire about the conditions under which each formula is used and how they relate to other theorems in higher dimensions.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the first two forms of Green's Theorem are identical, with the third form being applicable to a perpendicular vector.
  • There is a suggestion that the choice of formula depends on the specific problem being addressed, such as using the first or second form for path integrals and the third form for flux calculations.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between Green's Theorem and Stokes' and Gauss' theorems, noting that Stokes' theorem applies to work in three dimensions and Gauss' theorem applies to flux in three dimensions.
  • One participant raises a question about calculating the normal vector $\hat{n}$ and the infinitesimal area element $d\sigma$ in the context of the third formula, expressing uncertainty about the details.
  • A later reply provides an example of integrating along the unit circle to illustrate how to determine $\hat{n}$ and $d\sigma$, but does not resolve the initial participant's uncertainty.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the relationships between the formulas and their applications, but there remains some uncertainty regarding the calculation of specific components like $\hat{n}$ and $d\sigma$. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the best approach to these calculations.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the lack of clarity on the assumptions needed for applying the different forms of Green's Theorem and the specific conditions under which the normal vector and area element are calculated.

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

I have a question..

There are three formulas of the Green Theorem:

  • $$\oint_S (Mdx+Ndy)=\iint_R \left( \frac{\partial{N}}{\partial{x}}-\frac{\partial{M}}{\partial{y}} \right) dxdy$$
  • $$\oint \overrightarrow{F} \cdot d \overrightarrow{R}=\iint_R \nabla \times \overrightarrow{F} \cdot d \overrightarrow A$$
  • $$\oint_S \overrightarrow{G} \cdot \hat{n} \cdot d \sigma=\iint_R \nabla \cdot \overrightarrow{G} dxdy $$
But...Is there a difference between $F \text{ and } G$? :confused:

Also...at which case do I use each formula?? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
Hello! (Wave)

I have a question..

There are three formulas of the Green Theorem:

  • $$\oint_S (Mdx+Ndy)=\iint_R \left( \frac{\partial{N}}{\partial{x}}-\frac{\partial{M}}{\partial{y}} \right) dxdy$$
  • $$\oint \overrightarrow{F} \cdot d \overrightarrow{R}=\iint_R \nabla \times \overrightarrow{F} \cdot d \overrightarrow A$$
  • $$\oint_S \overrightarrow{G} \cdot \hat{n} \cdot d \sigma=\iint_R \nabla \cdot \overrightarrow{G} dxdy $$
But...Is there a difference between $F \text{ and } G$? :confused:

Also...at which case do I use each formula?? (Thinking)

Hey! (Blush)

They are all identical.
The first form is the same as the second form - merely written out in its components.
The third form is the same, but applied to a perpendicular vector.

When to use them?
Whatever is closest to the problem that you are trying to solve.
If you're dealing with a path integral (e.g. work), you'd use the first or second form.
If you're dealing with a flux, you'd use the third form.

And if you're working in 3 dimensions, you'd use either Stokes' theorem or Gauss's theorem, which correspond to these forms. (Inlove)
 
I like Serena said:
Hey! (Blush)

They are all identical.
The first form is the same as the second form - merely written out in its components.
The third form is the same, but applied to a perpendicular vector.

When to use them?
Whatever is closest to the problem that you are trying to solve.
If you're dealing with a path integral (e.g. work), you'd use the first or second form.
If you're dealing with a flux, you'd use the third form.

A ok...I understand! :rolleyes:

I like Serena said:
And if you're working in 3 dimensions, you'd use either Stokes' theorem or Gauss's theorem, which correspond to these forms. (Inlove)

So,do we use the Stokes' theorem and the Gauss's theorem also,in order to find the work and the flux,respectively, with the only difference that we have 3 dimensions? :confused:
 
evinda said:
So,do we use the Stokes' theorem and the Gauss's theorem also,in order to find the work and the flux,respectively, with the only difference that we have 3 dimensions? :confused:

Yep! (Nod)

More specifically Stokes' theorem is about the work along a closed curve in 3 dimensions, while Green's theorem is about a closed curve in 2 dimensions.

And Gauss's theorem is about the flux of a closed surface in 3 dimensions, while Green's theorem is about the flux of a closed curve in 2 dimensions. (Nerd)
 
I like Serena said:
Yep! (Nod)

More specifically Stokes' theorem is about the work along a closed curve in 3 dimensions, while Green's theorem is about a closed curve in 2 dimensions.

And Gauss's theorem is about the flux of a closed surface in 3 dimensions, while Green's theorem is about the flux of a closed curve in 2 dimensions. (Nerd)

Nice!Thank you very much! :rolleyes:
 
I like Serena said:
Yep! (Nod)

More specifically Stokes' theorem is about the work along a closed curve in 3 dimensions, while Green's theorem is about a closed curve in 2 dimensions.

And Gauss's theorem is about the flux of a closed surface in 3 dimensions, while Green's theorem is about the flux of a closed curve in 2 dimensions. (Nerd)

And something else... At the formula:

$$\oint_S \overrightarrow{G} \cdot \hat{n} \cdot d \sigma=\iint_R \nabla \cdot \overrightarrow{G} dxdy $$

how can I calculate $\hat{n}$ and how $d \sigma$ ? Because I haven't found anything in my notes... (Worried)(Worried)(Worried)
 
evinda said:
And something else... At the formula:

$$\oint_S \overrightarrow{G} \cdot \hat{n} \cdot d \sigma=\iint_R \nabla \cdot \overrightarrow{G} dxdy $$

how can I calculate $\hat{n}$ and how $d \sigma$ ? Because I haven't found anything in my notes... (Worried)(Worried)(Worried)

It works almost the same as it would for $\oint_S \overrightarrow{F} \cdot \overrightarrow{dR}$. (Nod)

Let's take a look at an example.
Suppose we integrate along the unit circle.

Then:
$$\overrightarrow R = \hat \imath \cos \theta + \hat \jmath \sin \theta$$
$$\overrightarrow{dR} = (-\hat \imath \sin\theta + \hat \jmath \cos \theta) d\theta$$
This is an infinitesimal vector tangential to the unit circle.
What we get from this, is that:
$$\oint_S \overrightarrow{F} \cdot \overrightarrow{dR} = \int_0^{2\pi} \overrightarrow{F} \cdot (-\hat \imath \sin\theta + \hat \jmath \cos \theta) d\theta$$
(Mmm)To address your question, the normalized vector perpendicular to $\overrightarrow{dR}$ is:
$$\hat n = \hat \imath \cos \theta + \hat \jmath \sin \theta$$
This is a radial vector that is perpendicular to the unit circle.

The corresponding infinitesimal vector perpendicular to the curve is:
$$\hat n d\sigma = \hat n d\theta = (\hat \imath \cos \theta + \hat \jmath \sin \theta)d\theta$$
So:
$$\oint_S \overrightarrow{G} \cdot \hat n d\sigma = \int_0^{2\pi} \overrightarrow{G} \cdot (\hat \imath \cos \theta + \hat \jmath \sin \theta)d\theta$$
(Wait)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K