Surface Integral: Evaluating with Spherical Coordinates

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves evaluating a surface integral of a vector field over a specified surface defined by the equation \(s^2 + y^2 + 4z^2 = 4\) for \(z \geq 0\). The vector field is given as \(\mathbf{F} = [1, 1, a]\), and the discussion centers around the use of spherical coordinates for parameterization and the calculation of the surface normal vector.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss parameterizing the surface in spherical coordinates and express challenges in simplifying the normal vector. There is mention of the divergence theorem and its applicability to the problem, particularly regarding the open surface. Questions arise about the terminology of the normal vector and the relationship between the normal vector and the differential area element.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different methods for calculating the surface integral. Some guidance has been provided regarding the relationship between the normal vector and the differential area element, as well as the implications of using spherical coordinates. There is no explicit consensus on the best approach yet, as various interpretations and methods are still being examined.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the implications of the surface being open and the potential for zero net divergence over the volume. There is also confusion regarding the distinction between calculating flux and surface area, which is influencing their understanding of the problem.

TheFerruccio
Messages
216
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find
\iint\limits_S \mathbf{F}\cdot \hat n\, dA

Homework Equations



\mathbf{F} = [1, 1, a]

S: s^2+y^2+4z^2 = 4, z \geq 0

The Attempt at a Solution



I parameterized in spherical coordinates

x=4\sin{\phi}\cos{\theta}
y=4\sin{\phi}\sin{\theta}
z=\cos{\phi}

Then, I found the surface normal vector, and finding the normal vector is what exploded into something that I couldn't simplify very well. I have a feeling that, because it exploded, that there is a simpler way for me to go about doing this. I thought about using the divergence theorem, but I didn't see how I could use it with an open surface.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you have a surface defined implicitly by F(x,y,z)=0, the normal is given by ∇F.
 
Well, what did you get for that "normal vector"? I, taking the cross product of the the derivatives of \vec{r}= 4 sin(\phi)cos(\theta)\vec{i}+ 4 sin(\phi)sin(\theta)\vec{j}+ cos(\phi)\vec{k}, got, giving the "vector differential of surface area",
4sin^2(\phi)cos(\theta)\vec{i}+ 4sin^2(\phi)sin(\theta)\vec{j}+ 16 sin(\phi)cos(\phi)\vec{k}

With \vec{F}= \vec{i}+ \vec{j}+ a\vec{k} then the integrand is
(4 sin^2(\phi)cos(\theta)+ 4sin^2(\phi)sin(\theta)+ 16a sin(\phi)cos(\phi))d\theta d\phi

I don't see anything terribly difficult to integrate in that- use the standard identity sin^2(\phi)= (1/2)(1- cos(2\phi).

Or, avoid the surface integral entirely by using the divergence theorem: integrate \nabla\cdot \vec{F} over the interior of the ellipsoid.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Well, what did you get for that "normal vector"? I, taking the cross product of the the derivatives of \vec{r}= 4 sin(\phi)cos(\theta)\vec{i}+ 4 sin(\phi)sin(\theta)\vec{j}+ cos(\phi)\vec{k}, got, giving the "vector differential of surface area",
4sin^2(\phi)cos(\theta)\vec{i}+ 4sin^2(\phi)sin(\theta)\vec{j}+ 16 sin(\phi)cos(\phi)\vec{k}

With \vec{F}= \vec{i}+ \vec{j}+ a\vec{k} then the integrand is
(4 sin^2(\phi)cos(\theta)+ 4sin^2(\phi)sin(\theta)+ 16a sin(\phi)cos(\phi))d\theta d\phi

I don't see anything terribly difficult to integrate in that- use the standard identity sin^2(\phi)= (1/2)(1- cos(2\phi).

Or, avoid the surface integral entirely by using the divergence theorem: integrate \nabla\cdot \vec{F} over the interior of the ellipsoid.

Yes, that's what I got. However, you putting "normal vector" in quotes hints at me entirely borking up the terminology. I was basing "normal vector" off of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_normal The whole reason I got stuck was because I thought I had to divide, then, by the magnitude, so I can get a pure direction. Is this not the case?

My confusion over using the divergence theorem was addressed in the first post. The surface isn't closed (since it's only the top half), and I think I'd be getting a net 0 divergence over the entire volume (the vector field uniformly travels in and out of the object). It doesn't seem like it would be helpful.

Maybe my confusion is from mixing up the concept of calculating flux (which is what I'm doing here) and outright finding the surface area. Is finding the surface area itself where I should be focusing on finding the surface normal?

*edit* also, since the integrand is now in spherical coordinates, isn't the _______ (forgot the name) now \sin{\theta}d\theta d\phi?
 
Last edited:
TheFerruccio said:
Yes, that's what I got. However, you putting "normal vector" in quotes hints at me entirely borking up the terminology. I was basing "normal vector" off of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_normal The whole reason I got stuck was because I thought I had to divide, then, by the magnitude, so I can get a pure direction. Is this not the case?
Yes and no. The vector \hat{n} in the integral indeed refers to the unit vector normal to the surface, but to actually evaluate the integral, you also need dA. It turns out, the cross product method of finding the normal automatically gives you dA as well. In other words, using the notation from the wiki article, you have

\hat{n}\,dA = \frac{\partial\mathbf{x}}{\partial s}\times\frac{\partial\mathbf{x}}{\partial t}\,ds\,dt
*edit* also, since the integrand is now in spherical coordinates, isn't the _______ (forgot the name) now \sin{\theta}d\theta d\phi?
In the normal vector you found, there's a common factor of \sin\phi. That's exactly the factor you're referring to here. (Note you switched the roles of theta and phi from how you were using them in the original post.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K