Q: Can the vector product be factored out from an integral in electromagnetism?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the legality of factoring a vector product out of an integral in the context of electromagnetism, specifically focusing on cross products and their integration. Participants explore definitions, properties, and implications of such operations, with references to both theoretical and applied scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether it is legal to factor out a constant vector from an integral involving a cross product, suggesting that it may not be valid.
  • Another participant proposes that the conjecture about factoring out the vector is true, citing a general principle that linear transformations can be pulled through an integral.
  • Some participants discuss the component-wise definition of the cross product and its implications for integration, noting that the angle and magnitude approach may not be as straightforward.
  • One participant references Leibniz's rule for derivatives, suggesting that a similar principle applies to the cross product during integration.
  • A later reply introduces a specific example from celestial mechanics, illustrating the application of the cross product in an integral context and discussing the implications of self-similar products yielding zero.
  • Another participant raises a related question about whether integration commutes with the vector product, providing an example involving magnetic dipole moments and torque in a uniform magnetic field.
  • It is noted that attempting to factor out a vector from an integral can lead to incorrect results, as demonstrated in the magnetic dipole moment example.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the legality of factoring out the vector product from the integral, with some supporting the idea and others challenging it. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the topic.

Contextual Notes

Some participants rely on specific definitions and properties of vector products and integrals, which may not be universally accepted or applicable in all contexts. The discussion includes references to specific mathematical rules and examples that may not fully resolve the questions raised.

daudaudaudau
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Hi.

I have an integral of a cross product:


\int a\times b(t)dt

a does not depend on t. How can I move it outside? Is this legal:

a\times\int b(t)dt

?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried proving it from the definition of the integral? Or from the definition of the cross product?
 
Last edited:
Yes I tried using the definition of the cross-product. I don't think what I suggested is legal.

\int a\times b(t) dt=\int |a||b(t)|\sin \theta_1dt

a\times\int b(t) dt=|a|\left|\int b(t)dt\right|\sin \theta_2

where \theta_1 is the angle between a and b(t) and \theta_2 is the angle between a and \int b(t) dt
 
(I'm assuming from the formulas that you are using that you're only working in two dimensions?)

Hrm. I was thinking more about the component-wise formula for the cross product than the angle & magnitude version; it's much more friendly in purely algebraic contexts.


It turns out that your conjecture is true -- in fact, there's a bigger principle: you can always pull a linear transformation through an integral sign. (A linear transformation is one satisfying T(u+v)=T(u)+T(v) and T(au) = a T(u), where u and v denote vectors, and a denotes a number) The function (a x __) is, in fact, a linear transformation.

It might be easier to abstractly prove the general theorem, rather than directly prove this particular case! (I think it would be an instructive exercise to undertake, when you have the time)
 
Thank you, Hurkyl.
 
|u||v|sin(\theta) is the length of the cross product, not the cross product itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hurkyl said:
It might be easier to abstractly prove the general theorem, rather than directly prove this particular case! (I think it would be an instructive exercise to undertake, when you have the time)
Hint: If i remember correctly you prove the general theorem nearly the exact same way you proved you can pull constants out of integrals.

If you are having trouble with a proof, but you know a proof for a similar concept, it is often helpful to go back and look at the proof you know.
 
i just now happened to have to integrate a cross product. this particular one is from celestial mechanics.

the cross product of the sum of the system's m*v cross a, i had to think a minute.

then i remembreed because i was doing some of these. that the derivative of the cross product follows Liebnitz' rule...

d ( u x v ) = du x v + u x dv.

so the antiderivative would be something that had produced x x a. d(x x v) has an x x a term in it, what of the other term?

dx * v = v * v. putting two of the same thing in the cross product determinant formula duplicates a line in the matrix rendering the determinant zero.

so, the integral of x * a, is x * v.

q x d. (eyecross!)

ok. i didnt know it either, and i had opened IE to look for it. then i did the antiderivative, and then i did look for it and found my home for goodies like this right on the search results, so i came in :)

let me try to get the latex to work.

(oh, summing the system's values is just that sum. placing the masses in doesn't matter to the integral, it was the cross product i had to think up.

f=\int\x\times\a\dt[\tex]<br /> <br /> f=\int\x\times\a\da[\tex]&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; d\(\x\times\v\)\=\dx\times\v\+\x\times\dv\[\tex]&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; dx\times\v=v\times\v=0[\tex]&amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;gt; dv=a[\tex]&amp;amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;amp;gt; int\x\times\a\dt\=dv\times\a[\tex]
 
Last edited:
jquark said:
i just now happened to have to integrate a cross product. this particular one is from celestial mechanics.

the cross product of the sum of the system's m*v cross a, i had to think a minute.

then i remembreed because i was doing some of these. that the derivative of the cross product follows Liebnitz' rule...

d ( u x v ) = du x v + u x dv.

so the antiderivative would be something that had produced x x a. d(x x v) has an x x a term in it, what of the other term?

dx * v = v * v. putting two of the same thing in the cross product determinant formula duplicates a line in the matrix rendering the determinant zero.

so, the integral of x * a, is x * v.

q x d. (eyecross!)

ok. i didnt know it either, and i had opened IE to look for it. then i did the antiderivative, and then i did look for it and found my home for goodies like this right on the search results, so i came in :)

let me try to get the latex to work.

(oh, summing the system's values is just that sum. placing the masses in doesn't matter to the integral, it was the cross product i had to think up.

f=\int{x\times a dt}

f=\int{x\times a da}

d(x\times v) = dx\times v+x\times dv
dx \times v = v\times v=0
dv = a
\int{x\times adt} = dv\times a

Just to show the correct code. Did not touch the elements in it, and they don't make too much sense to me...
 
  • #10
that one got away from me. i spent my 30 minutes trying to get it right and the system timed me out on editing my post. i left it without a follow up.

integral cross product seems to me to be for example int x * a dt pos * acc, that by the liebnitz rule of distributint pairs such as d(u*v) we have du * v + u * dv, that that also happens with the cross product, and i had noticed working in the conservation energies that d ( x * v ) pos times velocity, we have dx * v + x * dv. dx is v of course, and dv is a, so, that makes v * v + x * a. but, in the case of cross product, a self similar product attempt yields zero, so all we have is x * a. the integral of x * a then would be x * v.

but my example that i was working with had a nice disappearing term in it.
 
  • #11
Q : Does integration commute with vector product?

I saw a similar problem in electromagnetism. Consider that we want to derive the expression of magnetic dipole moment of a certain circuit which carrying uniform current. First, fix a reference point(actually this is not necessary because we will think about uniform magnetic field case) at anywhere in the space. Assume that we have a uniform magnetic field \vec{B}=\vec{B_0}. For each differential current element, the magnetic field exerts magnetic induction.
d \vec{F} = I d \vec{l} \times \vec{B}
Therefore, we can calculate the torque for each differential current element with respect to our reference point.
d \vec{\tau} = \vec{r} \times ( Id \vec{l} \times \vec{B} )
So, the total torque on circuit is its integral over whole circuit.
\vec{\tau} = \oint d\vec{\tau} = I \oint \vec{r} \times ( d \vec{l} \times \vec{B} )
Now, I will try to factor out \vec{B} from the integration. Then it will give us wrong answer.
I \oint \vec{r} \times ( d \vec{l} \times \vec{B} ) = I \oint \vec{B} \times ( d \vec{r} \times \vec{l} ) \neq I \vec{B} \oint d \vec{r} \times \vec{l}
This can be easily proved by expanding both sides.(or use the fact \vec{m} = \frac{I}{2} \oint (\vec{r} \times d \vec{l}) = I \vec{A} and \vec{\tau} = \vec{m} \cdot \vec{B}) Actually this is 2 times larger than the correct answer.
\oint \vec{B} \times ( \vec{r} \times d \vec{l} ) = 2 \vec{B} \times \oint (\vec{r} \times d \vec{l} )
Knowing \vec{A} = \frac{1}{2} \oint (\vec{r} \times d \vec{l} ) will be helpful.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
17K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K