Integrating Over Angles vs. Integrating Over a Surface: What's the Difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoadedAnvils
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angles Integration
LoadedAnvils
Messages
36
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose I have a relation S(\theta, \phi) = U \frac{c}{2} \cos{^{2} \, \theta} and I want to integrate over \phi from 0 to 2 \pi and \theta from 0 to \frac{\pi}{2}. How do I do this double integral? Do I just do it normally (without any transformation), or do I use a total angle? I know that I'm supposed to get S = U \frac{c}{4} but I'm not sure how it works.

Here's an image I made:
S9VStKK.png


Angles are a little confusing for me so I would like some feedback.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LoadedAnvils said:
Suppose I have a relation S(\theta, \phi) = U \frac{c}{2} \cos{^{2} \, \theta} and I want to integrate over \phi from 0 to 2 \pi and \theta from 0 to \frac{\pi}{2}. How do I do this double integral? Do I just do it normally (without any transformation), or do I use a total angle? I know that I'm supposed to get S = U \frac{c}{4} but I'm not sure how it works.
What you have literally stated as the problem is to find ##\int_{\phi=0}^{2\pi} \int_{\theta=0}^{\pi/2} U \frac{c}{2} \cos{^{2} \, \theta} d\theta d\phi##. But that isn't going to give the desired answer.
What you mean, I suspect, is that you want to integrate over a surface parameterised by those angles. In that case you need to include the Jacobian. This represents the area of an element dA in terms of small changes in the two angles. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheri..._and_differentiation_in_spherical_coordinates.
(But make sure you get your θ and ϕ the right way around. Not everyone uses the same notation.)
 
What is the difference between integrating over the angles and integrating over the surface parameterised by these angles?

I shouldn't have put S as a function. If I do an integral on each side, I get the desired result if it is an integral over the angles.
 
LoadedAnvils said:
What is the difference between integrating over the angles and integrating over the surface parameterised by these angles?
Integrating over the angles doesn't take any regard of the fact that they are angles. it just treats them as arbitrary variables of integration. ∫∫(function)dθdϕ.
Integrating over a surface means ∫(function)dA, where dA is an element of area. In spherical polar, dA = r2 sin(θ)dθdϕ, where θ is the polar angle and ϕ is the azimuthal angle (which is the way you have used them).
I shouldn't have put S as a function. If I do an integral on each side, I get the desired result if it is an integral over the angles.
You mean ##\int_{\phi=0}^{2\pi} \int_{\theta=0}^{\pi/2} U \frac{c}{2} \cos{^{2} \, \theta} d\theta d\phi##?
I get a π2 in the value of that. Please post your working.
OTOH, if I include the sin(θ), I still get a single factor of π, so still not the answer given in the OP.
Please post the problem exactly as given.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top