Physical meaning of vector line integration

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the graphical interpretation of vector line integrals, particularly focusing on the integral of a vector field along a specified path. Participants explore various interpretations and applications of line integrals in different contexts, including their geometric meanings and implications in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the line integral of a vector field can be interpreted as the area swept out by the vector function along the curve.
  • Others argue that the interpretation of line integrals can vary significantly depending on the vector field being integrated, as demonstrated by different outcomes for various functions.
  • A participant questions the validity of interpreting the line integral as an area when the integral evaluates to zero, suggesting that this interpretation does not hold in all cases.
  • Another participant emphasizes that integrals are primarily computational tools, and their physical interpretation is contingent on the specific geometry involved in the calculation.
  • Some participants highlight that without context about the quantities and geometry, the result of a line integral is simply a numerical value, lacking intrinsic meaning.
  • A participant shares a link to a demonstration of line integrals, suggesting that the graphical aspect may represent the area under the boundary of the vector function, but seeks validation of this interpretation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the graphical interpretation of line integrals, with no consensus reached on a singular meaning. Some interpretations are contested, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the general applicability of these interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the specific vector field and path chosen for integration, as well as the varying interpretations that arise from different geometrical contexts.

A Dhingra
Messages
211
Reaction score
1
hello..

I understand what line integral of a real function mean (the area) as well explained in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115057
(Mentioning this link because there line integral of a real function has been explained.)

I was trying to understand what would the vector line integral graphically mean.

Like evaluate ∫F.dr where F is = x2 i+xy j over c which is a square in the z plane bounded by lines x=0,x=a,y=0,y=a in the counterclockwise direction.

The result would be a3/2.

What would this mean graphically??

Please explain
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A Dhingra said:
hello..

I understand what line integral of a real function mean (the area) as well explained in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115057
(Mentioning this link because there line integral of a real function has been explained.)
Area is one common application of the integral. It is NOT the "meaning".

I was trying to understand what would the vector line integral graphically mean.

Like evaluate ∫F.dr where F is = x2 i+xy j over c which is a square in the z plane bounded by lines x=0,x=a,y=0,y=a in the counterclockwise direction.

The result would be a3/2.
No, it isn't. It is a2/2. Was that "3" a typo?

What would this mean graphically??
"Graphically", one could interpret it as the area of the region swept out by the vector function as it moves along the curve. In your title, you say "Physical meaning". The most common application is interpreting the vector being integrated as a force vector, calculating the total work done by the force along the path.

Please explain
But I want to emphasize, again, that these are possible "interpretations" or "applications" of the path integral. Mathematical methods do not, in general, have specific graphical or physical "meanings".
 
HallsofIvy said:
"Graphically", one could interpret it as the area of the region swept out by the vector function as it moves along the curve.

What about a Vector A = x i + y j and its line integral over the curve c, which is a circle of say radius r centered at the origin? Here (A.dr) will be zero and hence the integral will also be zero. Then interpreting it as the area of the region swept by the vector function moving along the curve does not satisfy this example..

Can you please explain this method of interpretation using a simple example?
(Because i am not able to do it myself..)
 
Yeah, to find the area of a curve, you'd have to integrate [itex]r \times dr[/itex], not a dot product.
 
So what would line integration be interpreted as? Just a line...may be

But if i consider a vector A= -y i + x j, around a circle c of radius a centered at the origin, the line integral would yield 2 times the area of the circle...
It seems for different vector functions the line integration yields different interpretation of line integration !
 
This should emphasize that integrals are a way of doing a calculation; the "physical interpretation" of an integral depends on the geometry that drives the calculation in the first place. Integrals themselves have no intrinsic interpretation. The idea that 1D integrals calculate areas under curves is the way it's often taught, yes, but only because this is a geometry that requires that integral.
 
So it can't be interpreted? Then what do we want when we are solving a line integral, What should be expected from its outcome?
 
Without any other information about what the quantities signify and what geometry is being represented, all that you should expect to get from an integral is a number.
 
I happen to find a demonstration of line integral at the link:
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/IntegratingAVectorFieldAlongACurve/

And it appears to me as if the graphical aspect or interpretation of line integral of a vector is the area under the boundary of the vector function at all required points associated with the curve c or path a to b..
The area may be negative when the vectors are pointing in the negative direction or may be zero when they cancel out..

So Please have a look at the demonstration and please tell me if i am headed on the right track or am i making some mistake in interpreting it..
 
  • #10
Am i making some silly error in trying to graphically interpret this?
Someone please tell me whether this is right or not?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K