Is There an Equivalent Expression to ∫ f·dr for Surface Integral?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the search for an equivalent expression to the line integral ∫ f·dr in the context of surface integrals. Participants explore the relationships between different forms of line and surface integrals, focusing on whether a surface integral can be expressed in terms of a position vector.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents three forms of the line integral and questions if a similar expression exists for surface integrals, suggesting the form ∫ f·d²r.
  • Another participant disagrees with the validity of one of the forms of the line integral, stating it only holds in specific cases, such as radial motion.
  • A subsequent reply supports the observation about the third formula but questions its general applicability.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the notation used in the Wikipedia reference, emphasizing that r(t) is a parametrization and not necessarily the position vector.
  • Another participant argues that while r(t) can be a position vector, it is not limited to that, and discusses the requirements for the differential in the context of line integrals.
  • The discussion includes a proposal for expressing the surface integral in terms of a position vector, with a suggestion on how to derive the differential for surface area.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of certain forms of line integrals, particularly the third form mentioned. There is no consensus on the equivalence of expressions for surface integrals, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to express these integrals.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential confusion in notation and definitions, particularly regarding the parametrization of curves and the nature of differentials in integrals. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of mathematical expressions and their applicability in different contexts.

Jhenrique
Messages
676
Reaction score
4
The line integral can be expressed, at least, in this three different ways: [tex]\int \vec{f} \cdot \hat{t} ds = \int \vec{f} \cdot d\vec{s} = \int \vec{f} \cdot d\vec{r}[/tex] The surface integral too (except by least expression above): [tex]\iint \vec{f} \cdot \hat{n} d^2S = \iint \vec{f} \cdot d^2\vec{S}[/tex] My ask is: exist some equivalent/analogous expression to ∫ f·dr for surface integral? In other words, is possible to write the surface integral in terms of the position vector r? Maybe: ##\iint \vec{f} \cdot d^2\vec{r}## ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't really agree with the third formula you used for the line integral. The second one is definitely correct, the line integral takes the component of the vector field parallel to the line itself. The third one is not always valid. It is true in the case of radial motion, when you path is actually parallel to the position vector itself.
 
Last edited:
Einj said:
I don't really agree with the third formula you used for the line integral. The second one is definitely correct, the line integral takes the component of the vector field parallel to the line itself. The third one is not always valid. It is true in the case of radial motion, when you path is actually parallel to the position vector itself.

Great observation! But, are you sure? I already saw the 3rd definition a lot times.

4c3de306f6a56294793585e57b862f47.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_integral
 
If you look at the Wikipedia page you linked it says that r(t) is a bijective parametrization of the curve, not the position vector. It's just a confusing notation, that why one usually uses s(t).Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Physics Forums
 
Einj said:
If you look at the Wikipedia page you linked it says that r(t) is a bijective parametrization of the curve, not the position vector. It's just a confusing notation, that why one usually uses s(t).
r(t) doesn't have to be the position vector, the Wikipedia page is saying it can be more general, but it CAN be the position vector. For a line integral, you want the differential to be a vector parallel to the curve whose magnitude is the line element, and that's exactly what dr is. Equivalently, one can write dr = (dr/dt) dt.

Jhenrique said:
My ask is: exist some equivalent/analogous expression to ∫ f·dr for surface integral? In other words, is possible to write the surface integral in terms of the position vector r? Maybe: ##\iint \vec{f} \cdot d^2\vec{r}## ?
For the surface integral, you want the differential to be a vector orthogonal to the surface whose magnitude is equal to the element of surface area. Suppose the surface is described by giving the position vector as a function of two variables, r(s, t). Then the differential is the vector d2S = (∂r/∂s) x (∂r/∂t) ds dt.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K