Is This Field a Potential Field?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sergiokapone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The vector field \(\vec{F}=(y^2-x^2)\vec{e}_x+(3xy)\vec{e}_y\) is not a potential field, as demonstrated by the failure of the equality \(\partial_y F_x=\partial_x F_y\) except at the origin. The integral \(\oint \vec{F}d\vec{r}\) must equal zero for all closed loops to confirm conservativeness, not just those covering the origin. Calculations show that integrating around various paths yields different results, confirming that \(\vec{F}\) lacks a potential function. The term "potential field" is synonymous with "conservative field" in Russian literature, clarifying a terminological nuance.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector fields and their properties
  • Familiarity with line integrals in vector calculus
  • Knowledge of the conditions for a field to be conservative
  • Basic concepts of partial derivatives
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the conditions for a vector field to be conservative in detail
  • Learn about line integrals and their applications in physics
  • Explore the concept of exact differentials and their relationship to potential functions
  • Investigate the implications of path independence in vector fields
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering who are studying vector calculus and the properties of conservative fields.

sergiokapone
Messages
306
Reaction score
17

Homework Statement



Given field

[itex]\vec{F}=(y^2-x^2)\vec{e}_x+(3xy)\vec{e}_y[/itex]


Homework Equations



It potentially?

The Attempt at a Solution



When I try to calculate [itex]\partial_y F_x=\partial_x F_y[/itex] I find [itex]2y=3y[/itex] which is equal only at the origin.

If I try to calculate [itex]\oint {\vec Fd\vec r = 0}[/itex] along any closed loop which covers the origin, I get the 0.

That's the question arose, whether this field is a potential field?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The physics terminology would be that [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] is a "conservative field" if and only if it has a "
"potential function". I have never seen "potential field".
(The mathematics terminology would be that [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] is "exact" if and only it has an "antiderivative".)

In any case, why does the question arise? Knowing that [itex]\partial_yF_x\ne \partial_xF_y[/itex], you know immediatly that this is NOT a "conservative field"- there is NO "potential" function.

You say "When I try to calculate [itex]\oint \vec{F}d\vec{r}[/itex] along any closed loop that covers the origin, I get the 0".

Really? there are an infinite number of such loops. How in the world did you integrate on all of them?

In any case, "any closed loop which covers the origin" is irrelevant. To have a potential, the integral along every closed loop must be 0, not just those "which cover the origin". For example, integrating around the boundary of the square with vertices at (0, 0), (1, 0), (1, 1), and (0, 1), I get 5/3.
 
Ok, I integrated around the boundary of the square with vertices (-1,1), (1,1), (1,-1), (-1,-1) and also, I integrated around the boundary of the circle [itex]x^2+y^2=1[/itex] and received zero again.

Let's take the boundary of the square with specified vertices. Then
[itex]\oint {\vec Fd\vec r = \int\limits_{ - 1}^1 {{F_x}dx + \int\limits_1^{ - 1} {{F_y}dy} + } } \int\limits_1^{ - 1} {{F_x}dx + \int\limits_{ - 1}^1 {{F_y}dy} = \frac{4}{3}} + 0 - \frac{4}{3} + 0 = 0[/itex]

"conservative field" if and only if it has a "potential function". I have never seen "potential field".

In russian literature the "potential field"="conservative field", so I do not argue here, I did not know this nuance.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K