Solving Non-Conservative Vector Field Line Integrals

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the properties of conservative and non-conservative vector fields in calculus, emphasizing the Fundamental Theorem for Line Integrals. It explains that a vector field is conservative if it can be expressed as the gradient of a potential function, with specific conditions for continuity and differentiability. The user explores the possibility of transforming a non-conservative vector field into a conservative one by using an integrating factor, suggesting that this could simplify the evaluation of line integrals. They also touch on the physical implications of non-conservative fields, using gravity as an example, and relate these concepts to General Relativity. The conversation concludes with a confirmation of the user's understanding of the mathematical processes involved in this transformation.
GreenPrint
Messages
1,186
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm studying calculus 3 and am currently learning about conservative vector fields.

=============================
Fundamental Theorem for Line Integrals
=============================
Let F be a a continuous vector field on an open connected region R in ℝ^{2} (or D in ℝ^{3}). There exists a potential function ψ where F = \nablaψ (which means that F is conservative) if and only if

\int_{C} F\bulletT ds = \int_{C} F\bulletdr = ψ(B) - ψ(A)

for all points A and B in R and all smooth oriented curves C from A to B.

==========================
Test for Conservative Vector Fields
==========================

Let F = <f,g,h> be a vector field defined on a connected and simply connected region of ℝ^{3}, where f,g, and h have continuous first partial derivatives on D. Then, F is a conservative vector filed on D (there is a potential function ψ such that F = \nablaψ) if and only if

f_{y} = g_{x}, f_{z} = h_{x}, and g_{z} = h_{y}.

For vector fields in ℝ^{2}, we have the single condition f_{y} = g_{x}.

==
Q. I'm also studying elementary differential equations and it looks to me like I can take any non conservative vector field and make it into a conservative vector field by finding a integration factor and then finding ψ. Once I find ψ I can just use the fundamental theorem of line integrals and evaluate it at two points. This method, if I can do this, appears to me to be a more easier way of evaluated non conservative vector field line integrals.

It appears to me that the following is true:

f(x,y,z) = ψ_{x}
g(x,y,z) = ψ_{y}
h(x,y,z) = ψ_{z}

Given some arbitrary vector field, F(f(x,y,z),g(x,y,z),h(x,y,z)), and I find that
f(x,y,z)_{y} ≠ g(x,y,z)_{x}
or
ψ_{xy} ≠ ψ_{yx}

then shouldn't I be able to multiply by some function μ(x) to make the statement true

f(x,y,z)μ(x) and g(x,y,z)μ(x)
or
ψ_{x}μ(x) and ψ_{y}μ(x)

then
f(x,y,z)_{y}μ(x) = g(x,y,z)μ(x)_{x}
or
ψ_{xy}μ(x) = (ψ_{y}μ(x))_{x}

Can't I then proceed to find μ(x) and then use the fact that
f(x,y,z)μ(x) = ψ_{x}μ(x)
and solve for ψ

ψ = \int ψ_{x}μ(x) dx = f(x,y,z)_{2} + f(y,z)
or
ψ = \int f(x,y,z)μ(x) dx = f(x,y,z)_{2} + f(y,z)

and then proceed to solve for f(y,z) some how?

I feel as if there's some way to make any non conservative vector filed equation into a conservative vector valued function and then just apply the Fundamental Theorem for Line Integrals some how but I'm not exactly sure I'm solving for it correctly. Thanks for any help. I hope to learn how to solve such a differential equation.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


I think there may be some non-conservative fields that could be represented by a conservative part and a non-conservative part but to say that non-conservative vector fields can be mapped to conservative ones is probably not true at all.

From the definition the conservative vector field can be represented by a potential whose gradient is the conservative vector field right? so given a potential function of x,y,z what could I add to it to make things no longer conservative say a time varying component. physically that makes it non-conservative right?

I'm thinking: gravity about the sun is conservative but if you make the sun's mass somehow vary over time then that would make it non-conservative. depending on the size and periodicity of the variations (if they are even periodic) so while you could represent the potential as some time varying function the grav force field wouldn't be conservative.

I think General Relativity has that issue and that why Mercury precesses in it correctly.

Im real rusty here someone please slap me.
 


Well I don't see why it couldn't be done if you had a vector field that had only only two variables without a problem at all.

If I had a vector field
F = <f(x,y),g(x,y)>

I would run into something like this

ψ = \int f(x,y)μ(x) dx = f(x,y)_{2} + f(y)

then I could say

ψ_{y} = f(x,y)_{2y} + f'(y) = g(x,y)μ(x)
because g(x,y)μ(x) = ψ_{y}
and solve for f(y)
f(y) = \int [g(x,y) - f(x,y)_{2y}] dy

then
ψ = f(x,y)_{2} + \int [g(x,y)μ(x) - f(x,y)_{2y}] dy
 
Last edited:


ok so I figured out were to go from here
ψ = \int f(x,y,z)μ(x) dx = f(x,y,z)_{2} + f(y,z)
to solve for ψ
it was easier than I thought.
As far as I know this is a perfectly fine thing to do? It doesn't show up in my calculus book so I just want to make sure. I can make any non conservative vector field into a conservative vector field by multiply by a integration factor and then just evaluating it from the limits of the integral by the fundamental therom of line integrals? I just want to make sure I don't see why not.
 


i was arguing from the physics pt where a conservative vector field was represented by the grad of a potential field and then trying to see how the pot field could be altered. Gen Rel creates this situation and that's the explanation why mercury precesses Gen Rel describes a non-conservative vector field about the sun due to the interaction of x,y,z and t the spacetime metric.

but I am glad you solved your problem.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K