Is Stokes' Theorem Applicable to a Sphere in This Solution?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kalish1
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of Stokes' Theorem to a sphere, specifically questioning the validity of the assertion that the surface integral of a vector field \( F \) over a sphere \( S \) equals zero. The original poster claims that since \( F \) is a conservative vector field, the integral \( \iint_{S} F \cdot ds = 0 \) holds true. However, a respondent clarifies that Stokes' Theorem does not apply to a sphere as it is not a closed curve, suggesting that Gauss's Theorem may be more appropriate for this scenario.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Stokes' Theorem and its conditions
  • Familiarity with conservative vector fields
  • Knowledge of Gauss's Theorem and its application
  • Basic concepts of vector calculus, including surface and line integrals
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the conditions under which Stokes' Theorem applies to vector fields
  • Learn about Gauss's Theorem and its relationship to surface integrals
  • Explore examples of conservative vector fields and their properties
  • Investigate the implications of curl and divergence in vector calculus
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying vector calculus, as well as educators seeking to clarify the applications of Stokes' and Gauss's Theorems.

kalish1
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
I would like to know if my following solution to a problem is valid or not.

**Problem:**

If $S$ is a sphere and $F$ satisfies the hypotheses of Stokes' theorem, show that $$\iint_{S}F\cdot ds =0.$$

**Solution:**

Stokes' theorem claims that if we "cap off" the curve $C$ by any surface $S$ (with appropriate orientation) then the line integral can be computed in terms of the curl. Solving mathematically, let $S$ be the surface of the sphere and be bounded by a curve $C$ and let $\vec F$ be the vector field which satisfies Stokes' theorem. Then, for every closed path $\int_{C}^{} \vec F \cdot \vec dr = 0$ because $\vec F$ is a conservative vector field in Stokes' theorem. Hence by Stokes' theorem we get $\int_{C}^{} \vec F \cdot \vec dr = \int_{}^{}\int_{S}^{} \vec F \cdot \vec ds = 0$ (from the definition of conservative field.)

I have cross-posted this question here and here:
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/740899/validity-of-following-solution
Validity of following solution - Math Help Forum
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kalish said:
I would like to know if my following solution to a problem is valid or not.

**Problem:**

If $S$ is a sphere and $F$ satisfies the hypotheses of Stokes' theorem, show that $$\iint_{S}F\cdot ds =0.$$

**Solution:**

Stokes' theorem claims that if we "cap off" the curve $C$ by any surface $S$ (with appropriate orientation) then the line integral can be computed in terms of the curl. Solving mathematically, let $S$ be the surface of the sphere and be bounded by a curve $C$ and let $\vec F$ be the vector field which satisfies Stokes' theorem. Then, for every closed path $\int_{C}^{} \vec F \cdot \vec dr = 0$ because $\vec F$ is a conservative vector field in Stokes' theorem. Hence by Stokes' theorem we get $\int_{C}^{} \vec F \cdot \vec dr = \int_{}^{}\int_{S}^{} \vec F \cdot \vec ds = 0$ (from the definition of conservative field.)

I have cross-posted this question here and here:
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/740899/validity-of-following-solution
Validity of following solution - Math Help Forum

Hi kalish!

Your problem statement does not seem to be quite correct.

If $S$ is a sphere it would not be a capped off closed curve.
In other words, Stokes would not apply.

Perhaps Gauss's theorem is intended?
$$\iint_{\partial V} F \cdot dS = \iiint_V \nabla\cdot F dV$$Furthermore, can you clarify what you mean by the hypotheses of Stokes' theorem?
The only thing I can think of, is the condition of Stokes' theorem that says that the curl of the vector field must be properly defined on the surface.

Either way, something more must have been intended, otherwise the integral would not be guaranteed to be zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K