Surface integral problem - don't need to use Jacobian for polar?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating a surface integral over a cone defined by the equation z^2 = x^2 + y^2, specifically between the planes z = 1 and z = 3. Participants are examining the transition from differential area elements in the context of polar coordinates to the surface integral setup.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the parametrization of the cone and the calculation of the surface integral. There is confusion regarding the use of the Jacobian when transitioning from dA to drdθ, with some questioning why the Jacobian is not applied in this context. Others explore whether the factor |R_r × R_θ| inherently accounts for the Jacobian in surface integrals.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants seeking clarification on the role of the Jacobian in surface integrals. Some have offered insights into how the |R_r × R_θ| factor functions, while others are still grappling with the implications of this in their understanding of the integration process.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the teaching methods and their own understanding of the material, indicating a potential gap in how surface integrals and coordinate transformations are typically approached in their coursework.

ishanz
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Evaluate the surface integral.
∫∫S x^2*z^2 dS
S is the part of the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2 that lies between the planes z = 1 and z = 3.


Homework Equations



[itex]\int \int _{S}F dS = \int \int _D F(r(u,v))|r_u\times r_v|dA[/itex]
[itex]x=rcos(\theta)[/itex]
[itex]y=rsin(\theta)[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


First, I parametrized the cone.
[itex]z^2=x^2+y^2\Rightarrow z=\sqrt{x^2+y^2} \Rightarrow z=r[/itex]
Therefore, the cone's vector equation should be
[itex]{\bf R}(r,\theta)=rcos(\theta){\bf i}+rsin(\theta){\bf j}+r{\bf k}[/itex]
[itex]{\bf R}_r=cos(\theta){\bf i}+sin(\theta){\bf j}+{\bf k}[/itex]
[itex]{\bf R}_\theta=-rsin(\theta){\bf i}+rcos(\theta){\bf j}[/itex]
[itex]|{\bf R}_r \times {\bf R}_\theta| = r\sqrt{2}[/itex]
[itex]\int_0^{2\pi}\int_1 ^3 {(rcos(\theta))^2(r)^2(r\sqrt{2})}drd\theta=\frac{364\sqrt{2}\pi}{3}[/itex]

Now, this is the right answer as per the book. My question is, when we go from [itex]dA[/itex] to [itex]drd\theta[/itex], why don't we use the Jacobian for polar coordinates, r? Had we included the Jacobian, the degree of r in the final double integral would have been six instead of five, giving us a completely different answer. My confusion here: Why is [itex]dA[/itex] not equal to [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex]?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, the final step of the integration process didn't come out right. Here it is:

[itex]\int_0^{2\pi}\int_1 ^3 {(rcos(\theta))^2(r)^2(r\sqrt{2})}drd\theta=\frac{364\sqrt{2}\pi}{3}[/itex]
 
ishanz said:

Homework Statement



Evaluate the surface integral.
∫∫S x^2*z^2 dS
S is the part of the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2 that lies between the planes z = 1 and z = 3.

Homework Equations



[itex]\int \int _{S}F dS = \int \int _D F(r(u,v))|r_u\times r_v|dA[/itex]
[itex]x=rcos(\theta)[/itex]
[itex]y=rsin(\theta)[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


First, I parametrized the cone.
[itex]z^2=x^2+y^2\Rightarrow z=\sqrt{x^2+y^2} \Rightarrow z=r[/itex]
Therefore, the cone's vector equation should be
[itex]{\bf R}(r,\theta)=rcos(\theta){\bf i}+rsin(\theta){\bf j}+r{\bf k}[/itex]
[itex]{\bf R}_r=cos(\theta){\bf i}+sin(\theta){\bf j}+{\bf k}[/itex]
[itex]{\bf R}_\theta=-rsin(\theta){\bf i}+rcos(\theta){\bf j}[/itex]
[itex]|{\bf R}_r \times {\bf R}_\theta| = r\sqrt{2}[/itex]
[itex]\int_0^{2\pi}\int_1 ^3 {(rcos(\theta))^2(r)^2(r\sqrt{2})}drd\theta=\frac{364\sqrt{2}\pi}{3}}[/itex]

Now, this is the right answer as per the book. My question is, when we go from [itex]dA[/itex] to [itex]drd\theta[/itex], why don't we use the Jacobian for polar coordinates, r? Had we included the Jacobian, the degree of r in the final double integral would have been six instead of five, giving us a completely different answer. My confusion here: Why is [itex]dA[/itex] not equal to [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex]?

The |R_r x R_theta| factor already includes the r in dA. If the surface were just the x-y plane and they wanted you to find area by integrating 1. Think about what that factor would be.
 
Last edited:
I don't quite understand. I don't know if it's because of the totally methodical and unintuitive way that our professor has taught us (i.e., simply equating [itex]dA[/itex] to [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex] in all scenarios) or because of my own negligence. Does the [itex]|{\bf R}_r\times{\bf R}_\theta|[/itex] factor always take care of the Jacobian for surface integrals, then? In something akin to spherical coordinate integrals (e.g., if my vector [itex]{/bf R}[/itex] wer
 
God, I'm bad at this whole Latex + forum thing. I'm so sorry about the double posts... I think I accidentally hit submit or something.

I don't quite understand. I don't know if it's because of the totally methodical and unintuitive way that our professor has taught us (i.e., simply equating [itex]dA[/itex] to [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex] in all scenarios) or because of my own negligence. Does the [itex]|{\bf R}_r\times{\bf R}_\theta|[/itex] factor always take care of the Jacobian for surface integrals, then? In something akin to spherical coordinate integrals, would that factor take care of the whole [itex]\rho^2sin(\phi)[/itex] factor for me?
 
ishanz said:
God, I'm bad at this whole Latex + forum thing. I'm so sorry about the double posts... I think I accidentally hit submit or something.

I don't quite understand. I don't know if it's because of the totally methodical and unintuitive way that our professor has taught us (i.e., simply equating [itex]dA[/itex] to [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex] in all scenarios) or because of my own negligence. Does the [itex]|{\bf R}_r\times{\bf R}_\theta|[/itex] factor always take care of the Jacobian for surface integrals, then? In something akin to spherical coordinate integrals, would that factor take care of the whole [itex]\rho^2sin(\phi)[/itex] factor for me?

r and theta here are really just a convenient parametrization of the surface. [itex]dS=|r_u\times r_v| du dv[/itex]. I wouldn't substitute dA for du dv, if it's going to confuse you.
 
I see, that makes sense. Are there any situations in which I would ever have to actually worry about a Jacobian factor when doing a surface integral similar to the one I've described above? Or is it something I should only worry about when explicitly executing coordinate transforms?
 
ishanz said:
I see, that makes sense. Are there any situations in which I would ever have to actually worry about a Jacobian factor when doing a surface integral similar to the one I've described above? Or is it something I should only worry about when explicitly executing coordinate transforms?

You don't have to worry about it if you use that formula. Like I said, the 'jacobian' part is the [itex]|r_u\times r_v|[/itex] factor.
 
Got it. Thanks very much, Dick.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K