Stokes's Theorem and the Right Hand Rule

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating a surface integral related to Stokes's Theorem, specifically for the vector field \(\mathbf{F} = y \mathbf{i} - x \mathbf{j} + 4z \mathbf{k}\) over a disc defined by \(x^{2} + y^{2} \leq 4\) at a certain height. Participants are exploring the implications of the integral's sign and the relevance of the height in the context of the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the possibility of obtaining a negative result from the integral and whether this indicates a problem with the chosen normal vector. Questions arise about the relevance of the height information and the correct interpretation of the radius in the context of cylindrical coordinates.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants questioning assumptions about the radius of the disc and the implications of the integral's sign. Some guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of the vector field and the integration boundaries, but no consensus has been reached on the specific calculations.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the radius of the disc, with participants clarifying that it is actually a radius of 2 rather than 4. The use of cylindrical coordinates and the definition of the integrand are also under scrutiny.

BOAS
Messages
546
Reaction score
19

Homework Statement



For \mathbf{F} = y \mathbf{i} - x \mathbf{j} + 4z \mathbf{k} evaluate the surface integral of (\nabla \times \mathbf{F}) · k over the 2D surface of the disc x^{2} + y^{2} \leq 4, z = \frac{H}{2}

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



I am unsure of my answer to this question for a few reasons.

1. Does it make sense for my answer to be negative? I thought we usually choose the unit vector such that the answer comes out to be positive, but it was chosen for me here.

2. Is the 'z' information only relevant to performing the closed loop integral?

My working:

\nabla \times \mathbf{F} = -2 \mathbf{k}

(\nabla \times \mathbf{F}) · k = -2

\int_{s}(\nabla \times \mathbf{F}) · k = \int^{2\pi}_{0} \int^{4}_{0} -2 \rho d\rho d\phi

\int_{s}(\nabla \times \mathbf{F}) · k = (\int^{4}_{0} -2 \rho d\rho)(\int^{2\pi}_{0} d\phi)

\int_{s}(\nabla \times \mathbf{F}) · k = [-\rho^{2}]^{4}_{0} [\phi]^{2\pi}_{0} = -32\pi

Also, should it be (-\rho)^2 or -(\rho^2)? The former would solve my problem of having a negative answer, but I'm not sure...

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There certainly is no reason why an integral should not be negative but perhaps I don't understand what problem you are trying to solve. Where did that "\rho" come from in the integral? There is no "\rho" in your statement of the problem.
 
BOAS said:
Does it make sense for my answer to be negative? I thought we usually choose the unit vector such that the answer comes out to be positive, but it was chosen for me here.
There is nothing wrong with getting a negative flux integral. It just means the net flux is in the opposite direction from the chosen normal direction.

BOAS said:
Is the 'z' information only relevant to performing the closed loop integral?
Exactly what do you mean by "the z information"? Given the vector field, it would not matter which z the loop was at, but this may not be true for a different vector field.

BOAS said:
Also, should it be (−ρ)2(-\rho)^2 or −(ρ2)-(\rho^2)? The former would solve my problem of having a negative answer, but I'm not sure...

First of all, you should check your integration boundaries in the radial direction ... You should also be able to tell from your original expression whether or not the integral should be negative and from the value of curl(F) what it should be.
 
Orodruin said:
There is nothing wrong with getting a negative flux integral. It just means the net flux is in the opposite direction from the chosen normal direction.

Ok, I thought so but wanted to be sure.
Orodruin said:
Exactly what do you mean by "the z information"? Given the vector field, it would not matter which z the loop was at, but this may not be true for a different vector field.

I mean the height at which the disk is located above the x-y plane.

Orodruin said:
First of all, you should check your integration boundaries in the radial direction ... You should also be able to tell from your original expression whether or not the integral should be negative and from the value of curl(F) what it should be.

It's a disk of radius 4. Am I wrong in thinking that this means I need to integrate between 0 and 4 in the radial direction?

By my 'original expression' are you referring to the vector field or (curl F).k?
 
BOAS said:
It's a disk of radius 4. Am I wrong in thinking that this means I need to integrate between 0 and 4 in the radial direction?

You are wrong in thinking it is a disk of radius 4 ...

BOAS said:
By my 'original expression' are you referring to the vector field or (curl F).k?
I am referring to the integrand of your integral.
 
Orodruin said:
You are wrong in thinking it is a disk of radius 4 ...I am referring to the integrand of your integral.

Ah, yes it's a disk of radius 2.

I can see from my integrand that my answer will be negative - I was just checking that in instances like this, it's not necessary to change my unit vector to get a positive answer.
 
HallsofIvy said:
There certainly is no reason why an integral should not be negative but perhaps I don't understand what problem you are trying to solve. Where did that "\rho" come from in the integral? There is no "\rho" in your statement of the problem.

\rho is the radius, from cylindrical polar coordinates.

x^2 + y^2 = \rho^2

dA = \rho d\rho d\phi
 
BOAS said:
I was just checking that in instances like this, it's not necessary to change my unit vector to get a positive answer.
Then, as I mentioned, there is no a priori reason you should get a positive answer to a flux integral. A negative answer just means the net flux is in the opposite direction.
 
Orodruin said:
Then, as I mentioned, there is no a priori reason you should get a positive answer to a flux integral. A negative answer just means the net flux is in the opposite direction.

Thank you for your help :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
972
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K