Problem in verifying Stoke's Theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter shaiqbashir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around verifying Stoke's Theorem for a specific vector field and surface. Participants explore the calculations involved in both sides of the theorem, addressing potential errors in the setup and integration process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a vector field and the surface for verification of Stoke's Theorem, detailing their calculations for the curl of the vector field and the surface integral.
  • Another participant points out issues with the normal vector not being normalized and the expression for ds being incorrect, suggesting a different parameterization approach.
  • A later reply indicates that correcting the normal vector to a unit vector resolves the discrepancy, leading to agreement with the left-hand side of the theorem.
  • Another participant clarifies that a normal vector does not need to be a unit vector and provides an alternative method for calculating the integral, noting that certain terms will cancel out in the integration process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of normalizing the normal vector and the correct expression for ds. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to verify the theorem, with multiple competing methods presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of the normal vector's role and the expression for ds, as well as the implications of parameterization choices on the integration process.

shaiqbashir
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
Hi guys!

well! in the following question i need to verify The Stoke's Theorem:

Q: Verify Stoke's theorem for

F=6zi +(2x+y)j -xk

where "S" is the upper half of the sphere x^2+y^2+z^2=1
bounded by a closed curve "C" x^2+y^2+z^2=1 at z=0 plane.

Now here is the stoke's theorem:

\oint F.dr = \int\int (curl of F).n ds


OKz so when i just solved this problem, i found:

Curl of F = 7j + 2k

and n=\bigtriangledown (x^2+y^2+z^2-1)= 2xi+2yj+2zk

and then

(curl of F). n= 14y+4z

now i put it under the integral sign like :

\int\int (14y+4z)ds

i put here the value of z as

z=\sqrt{1-x^2-y^2}

\int\int [(14y+4(\sqrt{1-x^2-y^2})]ds

now what i have done is this that i take

x=r\cos\theta
y=r\sin\theta
ds=rdrd\theta



and i finally put it in the integral sign

\int\int [14r\sin\theta+4(\sqrt{1-r^2\cos^2\theta-r^2\sin^2\theta})]rdrd\theta

where 0 \leq r\leq 1
0\leq \theta \leq 2\pi

now when i solve it

i found its answer to be

\frac{8\pi}{3}


but when i solved the left hand side of the stoke's theorem:

i.e.

\oint F.dr

i found it that

\oint F.dr = 2\pi


and the result is that

the stoke's theorem is not getting verified. please tell me where I am making mistake in this problem.

both sides should be equal to each other. but I am not getting both of them equal to each other . please help!

thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have two problems. First, your "normal" vector isn't actually normalized (ie. it is not a unit vector). Second, your expression for ds is wrong.

You have not written it down, but you have also implicitly parameterized z = \sqrt{1 - x^2 - y^2} = \sqrt{1 - r^2}. This affects ds.

One way of expressing ds for a parameterization x = f(u,v), y = g(u,v), z = h(u,v) is as

ds = \| T_u \times T_v\| du \, dv,

where T_u = (f_u, g_u, h_u) and T_v = (f_v, g_v, h_v). If you try that calculation in your scenario, I think you'll find ds isn't quite r dr d\theta. :smile:

(Note that there is another parameterization you could use that would make this much simpler!)
 
thanks mr. data. what i have found is this that the only problem that i ws making was this that i was not taking n as a normal vector which should be first made a unit vector. when i make it a unit vector and make

ds=dxdy/|n.k|

i found the answer which is equal to 2\pi

which I am also getting from my LHS.

now is there any problem that i have made in it?
 
"Normal" means perpendicular. A normal vector does not have to be a unit vector. In fact, the simple way to do this would be to go ahead and write \vec{n}\cdot dS as (2xi+ 2yj+ 2zk)/2z= (x/z)i+ y(y/z)j+ k, multiply that by the gradient: 7y/z+ 2 and integrate that over the unit disk in the xy-plane: in polar coordinates that is
\int_{\theta=0}^{2\pi}\int_{r=0}^1 \left(\frac{7r cos(\theta)}{\sqrt{1- r^2}}+ 2\right) rdrd\theta
The "cos" term in the first part, integrated from 0 to 2\pi is 0 so we don't have to worry about that square root. The integral of the "2r" term is 2\pi so the integral is 2\pi.
 
thanks a lot hallsofivy
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K