How Do Orientations Affect Total Flow into a Tetrahedron?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the challenge of understanding how orientations affect total flow into a tetrahedron while studying advanced calculus. The user grapples with the concept of oriented areas and their contributions to flow, particularly when calculating the total flow across the tetrahedron's surfaces. They note that while the flow should intuitively sum to zero due to uniform distribution, the orientations of the triangles do not align as expected, leading to confusion. The importance of correctly establishing the orientation based on viewpoint and the right-hand rule is emphasized, highlighting that the perceived orientation can vary depending on the observer's position. Additionally, it is clarified that zero total flow is not guaranteed unless the flow is incompressible, referencing the divergence theorem.
TopCat
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
I'm working through Advanced Calculus: A Differential Forms Approach at my leisure. In going over two-forms the notions of "flow across an area" and "oriented area" are introduced I hit a brick wall with grasping orientations, though, when asked to find the total flow into a tetrahedron.

So this is what's confusing me. For a unit flow in the z-direction of xyz-space, the flow across a surface is just the oriented area dxdy of the surface. So all I have to do to answer the question is find the oriented areas of the projections of all four component triangles of the tetrahedron on the xy-plane and add them together. The result should clearly be zero since, intuitively, the flow is uniform so that nothing is accumulating inside the tetrahedron and, therefore, flow in = flow out.

If I have a regular tetrahedron with vertices PQRS, PQR in the xy-plane and S at point (0,0,1), then the projection looks like a triangle with S at the centroid.
[PLAIN]http://www.j1n.org/srs/misc/tetra.JPG
Since each triangle is oriented in the direction P \rightarrow Q \rightarrow R \rightarrow S then we have the four component oriented triangles PQR, PQS, QRS, and PRS.

Since A_{PQS} + A_{QRS} + A_{PRS} = A_{PQR} (where A denotes area), each of the smaller triangles must have an orientation opposite the big triangle so the total sum of oriented areas is zero. But given the orientation of the vertices, QRS, PQR and PQS have the same orientation (all are counter-clockwise) so the total flow into won't sum to zero.

So clearly I've oriented two of the triangles wrong. I'm confused as to how I should establish orientation if I can't go by the handedness of the direction given by the vertices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Clockwiseness is in the eye of the beholder. Imagine yourself moving around the tetrahedron on the outside so you can look directly at each face. In your picture you already are pretty much viewing face PQS and QRS and they are counterclockwise from your viewpoint, which would correspond to an outward normal by the right hand rule.

If you are standing on the left of the object, you would have to use PSR for the same counterclockwise orientation, and if you were underneath looking up you would use PSQ.

Also you wouldn't expect zero total flow unless the flow was incompressible, for then by the divergence theorem

\int\int_S \vec F \cdot d\vec S = \int\int\int_V \nabla \cdot \vec F\, dV= 0
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top