Line Integral of Scalar Field Along a Curve

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of line integrals of scalar fields, specifically focusing on the mathematical notation and definitions involved in the context of a piecewise smooth curve within a scalar field. Participants explore the meaning of scalar fields and their relation to potential energy, as well as the implications of integrating over a specified path in multidimensional space.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the meaning of the notation f: U ⊆ Rn → R and its implications for scalar fields. There is discussion about the relationship between scalar fields and potential energy, with attempts to clarify how curves relate to these fields. Some participants express confusion over the mapping of vectors to scalars and the distinction between scalar and vector fields.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions and relationships between scalar fields and potential fields. Participants are actively seeking clarification on the notation and concepts, with some guidance provided regarding the mapping of vectors and scalars. Multiple interpretations of the relationships between different types of fields are being discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion about specific mathematical symbols and their meanings, indicating a need for further clarification on the underlying concepts without providing definitive solutions or conclusions.

richyw
Messages
179
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



For some scalar field f : U ⊆ Rn → R, the line integral along a piecewise smooth curve C ⊂ U is defined as

[tex]\int_C f\, ds = \int_a^b f(\mathbf{r}(t)) |\mathbf{r}'(t)|\, dt[/tex]

where r: [a, b] → C is an arbitrary bijective parametrization of the curve C such that r(a) and r(b) give the endpoints of C and a<b .
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


sorry, for breaking the format. I will put my attempt in the next post. Just wanted to have the stuff rendered on the screen!
 


so the first part is confusing me quite a bit. What does [itex]\mathbf{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbf{R}[/itex] mean?

when I hear "scalar field" I would think of it as a field of some scalar number in space. Maybe like potential? I know that potential energy is a scalar, so I guess potential (i'm thinking electric potential) would be a scalar as well. So at each point in space there could be a different potential. Is this a "scalar field"?

so anyways I think I get that the piecewise smooth curve C is a subset of U. that just means that the curve is somewhere in the potential field right?
 
Last edited:


basically I'm not asking for someone to explain all of line integrals to me. I have been evaluating them for awhile and have kind of a basic idea of what they are. I'm looking for what this notation is "saying". I am getting lost in all the symbols!
 


##f:U\subseteq\mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R## means that ##f## maps a subset ##U## of the n-dimensional real space ##\mathbb R^n## to the set ##\mathbb R## of reals. So each vector ##\mathbf v\in U## is mapped onto a scalar ##f(\mathbf v)\in\mathbb R##.

Your "potential" example is a good one, and the "field" in this sense is the mapping from ##U## to ##\mathbb R##, and not the set ##U## itself, assigning a "potential" to each point in ##U##. And the curve ##C## lies somewhere in ##U##. It's independent of the field ##f##.
 


Second part: if you integrate a function ##f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R##, say from ##a## to ##b##, you're forming a kind of sum,
$$
\int_a^bf(x)\,\mathrm dx = \lim_{\delta\to0}\delta\cdot\left(f(a)+f(x+\delta)+f(x+2\delta)+ \ldots +f(b)\right).
$$
There's only one path from ##a## to ##b##, and it leads through each intermediate point ##a+n\delta##. If you want to integrate from one point in ##\mathbb R^n## to another, you have to specify which path you are going to take. That's what ##C## describes.
 


ok hold on a second. I am still a little bit confused about your first post (and thanks a ton for making it!)

I'm struggling to understand what you mean when you say each vector that is an element of U is mapped onto a scalar field.
 


so like going with that first analogy. The electric field is a vector field right? each point in an electric field also has a potential. so is the electric field somehow mapped onto the potential field?
 


Each vector v in U has some potential, which we call f(v). The "field" here is the function f. In mathematics, a function is also called a "mapping", and each vector v is "mapped" onto the scalar f(v).

Your second example, an electric field ("field" in the physical sense) can be seen as a (mathematical) vector field, i.e. a mapping g that assigns a vector g(v) to each point v in space. This vector g(v) corresponds to the electromagnetic force that would act on a particle at position v.

These two fields, the scalar field f and the vector field g, are related, but not the same. And you can't "map" one to the other, since both are mappings themselves.
 
  • #10


richyw said:
so like going with that first analogy. The electric field is a vector field right? each point in an electric field also has a potential. so is the electric field somehow mapped onto the potential field?

Potential is a perfect example: for each point (x,y,z) in R^3 you get a number V(x,y,z). So V:R^3 -> R. This notation just means that for each point p = (p_1, p_2, ..., p_n) in U you get a number f(p) = f(p_1,p_2,...,p_n).
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K