How Do We Find the Parametrization σ?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parametrization
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Stokes' theorem to demonstrate that the integral of the curl of a vector field over a surface is zero. The specific case involves the vector field defined as the cross product of a constant vector and a function \( g(x,y,z) \), with the surface defined by the intersection of a sphere and a plane. Participants explore the implications of the function \( g \) and the geometric relationships involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses the goal of showing that the integral of the curl of \( f \) over the surface \( \Sigma \) is zero, providing a detailed derivation of the boundary conditions.
  • Another participant questions whether the result depends on the specific form of the function \( g \), suggesting that without knowing \( g \), the claim cannot be substantiated.
  • A third participant reiterates the concern about the lack of information regarding \( g \), emphasizing that an expression for \( g \) is necessary to proceed with the proof.
  • Another participant highlights that the vector \( (1, 1, 1) \) is perpendicular to the plane defined by \( x + y + z = 1 \) and notes the shared boundary between the spherical surface and the plane, referencing Stokes' theorem to relate the integrals over the two surfaces.
  • This participant further suggests that the integrals over the two surfaces can be equated, although the implications of this are not fully resolved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the application of Stokes' theorem and the geometric relationships involved, but there is disagreement regarding the necessity and implications of the function \( g \). The discussion remains unresolved as to how to proceed without additional information about \( g \).

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the function \( g \) and the assumptions made about the geometric configuration. The relationship between the surfaces and the implications of Stokes' theorem are also noted, but the mathematical steps and conditions remain unresolved.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I want to show that $\iint_{\Sigma}(\nabla\times f)\cdot d\Sigma=0$ for the function $f(x,y,z)=(1,1,1)\times g(x,y,z)$ when $\Sigma$ is the surfcae that is defined by the relations $x^2+y^2+z^2=1$ and $x+y+z\geq 1$.
I have done the following:

Let $g(x,y,z)=(g_1, g_2, g_3)$. Then $f(x,y,z)=(1,1,1)\times (g_1, g_2, g_3)=(g_3-g_2, g_1-g_3, g_2-g_1)$.

From Stokes theorem we have that $$ \iint_{\Sigma}(\nabla\times f)\cdot d\Sigma=\oint_{\sigma}f\cdot d\sigma$$

So, we have to find the boundary of the surface, $\sigma$. For that do we have to set equal the relations $x^2+y^2+z^2=1$ and $x+y+z= 1$. I yes, we get the following:

$$x^2+y^2+z^2=x+y+z\\ \Rightarrow x^2-x+y^2-y+z^2-z=0 \\ \Rightarrow x^2-x+\frac{1}{4}+y^2-y+\frac{1}{4}+z^2-z+\frac{1}{4}=\frac{3}{4} \\ \Rightarrow \left (x-\frac{1}{2}\right )^2+\left (y-\frac{1}{2}\right )^2+\left (z-\frac{1}{2}\right )^2=\frac{3}{4} \\ \Rightarrow \frac{4}{3}\left (x-\frac{1}{2}\right )^2+\frac{4}{3}\left (y-\frac{1}{2}\right )^2+\frac{4}{3}\left (z-\frac{1}{2}\right )^2=1 \\ \Rightarrow \left (\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}x-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right )^2+\left (\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}y-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right )^2+\left (\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}z-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right )^2=1 $$

How can we continue? How can we get $\sigma$ ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

I want to show that $\iint_{\Sigma}(\nabla\times f)\cdot d\Sigma=0$ for the function $f(x,y,z)=(1,1,1)\times g(x,y,z)$ when $\Sigma$ is the surfcae that is defined by the relations $x^2+y^2+z^2=1$ and $x+y+z\geq 1$.

Doesn't that depend on exactly what the function, g, is?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Doesn't that depend on exactly what the function, g, is?

We don't have any information about g. So, we cannot show that without an expression for g? (Wondering)
 
well, I expect that the key point here is that the vector (1, 1, 1) is perpendicular to the plane x+ y+ z= 1. And notice that, of course, the spherical surface and the plane have the same boundary. By Stokes theorem, as you say, $$\int\int_\Sigma (\nabla \times f)d\Sigma= \oint f\cdot d\sigma$$. Applying exactly the same theorem to the plane, and writing [math]\Pi[/math] for the region of the plane bounded by the circle of intersection, we have $$\int\int_\Pi (\nabla \times f)d\Pi= \oint f\cdot (\nabla\times f) d\sigma$$.

Together, $$\int\int_\Sigma (\nabla \times f)d\Sigma= \int\int_\Pi (\nabla\times f)d\Pi$$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K