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

This is a very cool forum, by the way. I'm definitely going to stick around.In summary, the surface integral ∫∫S x^2*z^2 dS, where S is the part of the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2 that lies between the planes z = 1 and z = 3, can be evaluated using the parametrization of the cone and the formula \int \int _{S}F dS = \int \int _D F(r(u,v))|r_u\times r_v|dA, where dA is equivalent to rdrd\theta. The resulting integral is equal to 364√2π/3.
  • #1
ishanz
8
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
  • #2
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]
 
  • #3
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:
  • #4
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
 
  • #5
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?
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
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?
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
Got it. Thanks very much, Dick.
 

1. What is a surface integral?

A surface integral is a mathematical tool used to calculate the flux (or flow) of a vector field across a 2-dimensional surface. It involves integrating a function over the surface and takes into account the direction and magnitude of the vector field at each point on the surface.

2. When do I need to use a Jacobian for a surface integral in polar coordinates?

In polar coordinates, the Jacobian is used to convert the surface element from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates. This is necessary when the surface is defined in terms of polar coordinates, such as a circular or spherical surface. However, if the surface is defined in terms of Cartesian coordinates, the Jacobian is not needed.

3. Can I use a surface integral to calculate the area of a surface?

No, a surface integral is used to calculate the flux of a vector field across a surface, not the area of the surface itself. To find the area of a surface, you can use a double integral.

4. What is the difference between a surface integral and a line integral?

A surface integral is used to calculate the flux across a 2-dimensional surface, while a line integral is used to calculate the work done by a vector field along a 1-dimensional curve. Both involve integrating a function, but the dimensionality and application differ.

5. How do I know when to use a surface integral in my research or experiments?

A surface integral is most commonly used in physics and engineering to calculate the flow of fluids or electromagnetic fields across surfaces. If your research or experiments involve vector fields and surfaces, a surface integral may be applicable. It is always best to consult with a mathematician or expert in your field to determine the most appropriate mathematical tool for your specific problem.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
967
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
546
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
865
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
952
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
940
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
242
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top