B Oriented Surfaces & Surface Area: Investigating the Impact

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept of surface area in relation to oriented surfaces, questioning whether the direction of the radius vector affects the surface area calculation. It is clarified that surface area is inherently a positive scalar quantity, and while vectors can describe areas with direction, they do not yield negative area values. The conversation also touches on the use of signed values in specific contexts, such as optics, but maintains that area itself remains positive. The distinction between scalar area and vector area is emphasized, particularly in applications like flow through surfaces. Overall, the orientation of the radius does not change the fundamental nature of surface area.
Trysse
Messages
75
Reaction score
16
TL;DR Summary
I have the following question: Does it make a difference for the surface area of a sphere if the sphere is inward- and outward-oriented?
I usually think of a sphere as the set of all points ##P_x##, that have the identical distance r to some point ##C## which is the center of the sphere. I calculate the surface area ##A## of the sphere as
$$A=4 \pi (C P_x)^2$$
However, what happens if I think of the distance between the points C and Px not just as a distance but as a vector? If I think of the radius of the sphere as a vector, this vector can either point from the surface of the sphere to the center or from the center to the surface
$$ \vec {CP_x} = \vec{r} = \vec{-r} = \vec{P_x C} $$

Does the direction of the radius (i.e. the orientation of the surface) have an influence on the concept of surface area? I was wondering if it makes sense to say:
$$ A=4π \vec{CP_x}^2=−4π \vec{P_xC}^2 $$

I have done a quick search on Google. However, from what I have found, I got the impression, that the surface area is not really an issue that is considered in the context of oriented surfaces. Or did I just search for the wrong keywords?

https://www.google.com/search?q=ori...rome..69i57.6231j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1671457084082.png

Could I say that the red sphere has a negative surface area while the green sphere has a positive surface area?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Not to me.
In my world, for any closed surface, the outward normal vector is positive.
This is of course an arbitrary, but adherent, convention.
 
  • Like
Likes Trysse and DaveE
Trysse said:
P.S: I am unable to make the formula display properly. Can someone help?
Now fixed. There were a couple inconsistencies with left braces not having a matching right brace; i.e., { with ) and { with ].
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd, Trysse and PeroK
Area is a scalar value. When you calculate it starting with a vector, you will have to take the magnitude of the vector to create a scalar result. The magnitude of the radius vector doesn't depend on it's direction.

Note that sometimes vectors are used to describe an "area" with the magnitude describing the area and the direction normal to the surface. Like the cross product of vectors, for example. It still doesn't have negative area, but in vector math you might describe the direction as negative, I guess.
 
Also in optics the radius of curvature is often given a signed value depending upon the focal point.
And the "vector Area" is useful when talking about flow ("flux") through a surface unambiguously.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
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...
Back
Top