Can Infinitesimal Volumes Be Arbitrary Shapes?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Infinitesimal volumes can be represented in arbitrary shapes, such as spherical shells, particularly when using spherical coordinates for calculations involving mass distribution. The general expression for mass within a volume is given by the integral ##\int_V\mu(...)~\mathrm{d}V##, where ##\mu## represents density as a function of position. While any shape can theoretically be used, practical considerations dictate that simpler shapes, like infinitesimal cubes or spherical shells, are preferred for ease of calculation and integration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of integral calculus and limits
  • Familiarity with coordinate systems, particularly spherical and polar coordinates
  • Knowledge of mass density functions in physics
  • Basic principles of electrostatics and field calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of spherical coordinates in physics problems
  • Learn about the concept of mass density functions and their integration
  • Explore the use of curvilinear coordinates in advanced calculus
  • Investigate the implications of shape selection in volume integration
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, mathematicians focusing on calculus, and anyone interested in the application of infinitesimal calculus in real-world scenarios.

themagiciant95
Messages
56
Reaction score
5
In physics we often use objects with infinitesimal volume. An example is the infinitesimal volumes that we use to calculate the electrostatic field knowing the charge distribution.
Very often in the books i studied these infinitesimal elements are represented as infinitesimal cubes.
My question: can i utilize infinitesimal elements of an arbitrary shape ? For example spherical ? And why is it possible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
themagiciant95 said:
In physics we often use objects with infinitesimal volume. An example is the infinitesimal volumes that we use to calculate the electrostatic field knowing the charge distribution.
Very often in the books i studied these infinitesimal elements are represented as infinitesimal cubes.
My question: can i utilize infinitesimal elements of an arbitrary shape ? For example spherical ? And why is it possible?

It depends on what coordinates you are using. With plane polar coordinates, for example, an area element has the form:

##dr \times rd\phi##

and is a curvilinear wedge shape.
 
themagiciant95 said:
In physics we often use objects with infinitesimal volume. An example is the infinitesimal volumes that we use to calculate the electrostatic field knowing the charge distribution.
Very often in the books i studied these infinitesimal elements are represented as infinitesimal cubes.
My question: can i utilize infinitesimal elements of an arbitrary shape ? For example spherical ? And why is it possible?
Yes, as long as you avoid doing anything too terribly pathological. For example, the general expression for the mass within a volume is ##\int_V\mu(...)~\mathrm{d}V## where ##\mu## is the density as a function of position. If the mass distribution is spherically symmetric then we can use spherical coordinates and the most convenient volume element is a spherical shell: ##\mathrm{d}V=4\pi{r}^{2}\mathrm{d}r##, and the integral is ##\int_0^\infty{4}\pi\mu(r){r}^{2}~\mathrm{d}r##. The choice is mostly one of convenience - in this case you wouldn't want to use a cubical volume element (although a masochist could, after writing ##\mu## as a function of ##x##, ##y##, and ##z##).

As for why it works... It's basically the same limiting process as used for all integrals.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
themagiciant95 said:
can i utilize infinitesimal elements of an arbitrary shape ? For example spherical ? And why is it possible?

You can use any shape, but some shapes will require much more effort to do the algebra than others without offering any benefit for the choice.
We typically make the choice that makes the work easiest.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and themagiciant95
anorlunda said:
We typically make the choice that makes the work easiest.
That's my general approach to life! :smile:
 
The small shapes must be capable of being stacked together to form a solid large shape with no gaps between the pieces.

Small rectangular blocks can be stacked without gaps.

Nugatory in post #3 gave an example of concentric hollow spherical shells that can be stacked inside each other with no gaps.

On the other hand, small solid spherical balls can't be stacked side-by-side without gaps, so you can't use those.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Stephen Tashi and Chestermiller

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K