Surface integral with vector integrand

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of integrating a vector field over a surface, specifically contrasting the standard surface integral involving a dot product with a vector integrand. Participants explore the implications of integrating a vector directly over a surface and how this relates to concepts like flux and surface current density.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that integrating a vector field over a surface typically yields the flux, represented as \(\int_S \vec{F} \cdot \vec{dS}\), and questions the meaning of integrating a vector directly, \(\int_S \vec{F} dS\).
  • Another participant argues that the surface is inherently a vector due to its orientation, emphasizing the importance of the normal vector in surface integrals.
  • There is a proposal that the integral can be parameterized using two variables, leading to a formulation involving the Jacobian, which could simplify the surface integral to a double integral.
  • One participant suggests that integrating a vector field directly over a surface does not have a specific meaning like flux, but could represent a summation of vectors across the surface.
  • Another participant provides an example where if the vector field represents surface current density, the integral would yield the total or effective current on the surface.
  • There is a reiteration of the idea that integrating a vector field directly results in a vector answer, contrasting with the scalar result of the dot product.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the meaning and implications of integrating a vector field directly over a surface. While some propose interpretations related to physical concepts like current density, others remain uncertain about the significance of such an integral.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity in visualizing the Riemann sum approach and the implications of parameterizing the surface, indicating that further mathematical exploration may be necessary.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in vector calculus, surface integrals, and their applications in physics, particularly in understanding concepts like flux and current density.

thojrie
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
If we integrate a vector field over a surface, [tex]\int_S \vec{F} \cdot \vec{dS}[/tex], we get the flux through that surface. What does it mean if the integrad were a vector instead, [tex]\int_S \vec{F} dS[/tex]? I can't picture the Riemann sum.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
But the surface is a vector because its an orientated surface right (surface + direction) ?
I mean when you do your surface integrals, you don't just define the surface, you define direction of the normal vector of the differential elements of the surface surface

Supposing you have some surface dS
you parameterise it with two variables, say s and t
then we can trace out our surface with some function x(s,t)
and then we take the dot product of the surface normal with our vector field:

[tex] \int_S {\mathbf v}\cdot \,d{\mathbf {S}} = \int_S ({\mathbf v}\cdot {\mathbf n})\,dS=\iint_T {\mathbf v}(\mathbf{x}(s, t))\cdot \left({\partial \mathbf{x} \over \partial s}\times {\partial \mathbf{x} \over \partial t}\right) ds\, dt.[/tex]

The key part here is that
[tex] d\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{n}dS[/tex]

With regards to visualising it as a Riemann sum, this will need to be checked by some one with more mathematical knowledge, but treat the whole dot product
[tex]{\mathbf v}(\mathbf{x}(s, t))\cdot \left({\partial \mathbf{x} \over \partial s}\times {\partial \mathbf{x} \over \partial t}\right)[/tex]
As the Jacobian which maps your complicated surface integral of a vector field to a simple two dimensional integral which you can then use your standard Riemann sums on
 
Last edited:
thrillhouse86 said:
But the surface is a vector because its an orientated surface right (surface + direction) ?
I mean when you do your surface integrals, you don't just define the surface, you define direction of the normal vector of the differential elements of the surface surface

Supposing you have some surface dS
you parameterise it with two variables, say s and t
then we can trace out our surface with some function x(s,t)
and then we take the dot product of the surface normal with our vector field:

[tex] \int_S {\mathbf v}\cdot \,d{\mathbf {S}} = \int_S ({\mathbf v}\cdot {\mathbf n})\,dS=\iint_T {\mathbf v}(\mathbf{x}(s, t))\cdot \left({\partial \mathbf{x} \over \partial s}\times {\partial \mathbf{x} \over \partial t}\right) ds\, dt.[/tex]

The key part here is that
[tex] d\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{n}dS[/tex]

With regards to visualising it as a Riemann sum, this will need to be checked by some one with more mathematical knowledge, but treat the whole dot product
[tex]{\mathbf v}(\mathbf{x}(s, t))\cdot \left({\partial \mathbf{x} \over \partial s}\times {\partial \mathbf{x} \over \partial t}\right)[/tex]
As the Jacobian which maps your complicated surface integral of a vector field to a simple two dimensional integral which you can then use your standard Riemann sums on

I mean at the end of the day following the above steps turns your surface integral into a double integral (wrt to your parameterisation variables) of the form:
[tex]\int_{S} \mathbf{v}(s,t) \cdot d\mathbf{S}[/tex]

Hi thrillhouse86, thanks for the detailed reply! I don't think I phrased my question well enough though.

Because the dot product of two vectors is a scalar, when we find the flux through a surface the integrand and answer are both scalars. If instead, the integrand were a vector, the integral becomes,

[tex]\int_S \vec{F} dS[/tex]

which will give a vector answer. I assume this is analogous to flux (but with a direction), however I'm having trouble breaking it down and sussing out exactly what it means.
 
I don't think it has a specific meaning like flux, it will simply "sum up" all of the different vectors that the field creates on the surface.

If the field would represent something like "Surface current density" then it will give you the total/effective current on the surface.
 
thojrie said:
Hi thrillhouse86, thanks for the detailed reply! I don't think I phrased my question well enough though.

Because the dot product of two vectors is a scalar, when we find the flux through a surface the integrand and answer are both scalars. If instead, the integrand were a vector, the integral becomes,

[tex]\int_S \vec{F} dS[/tex]

which will give a vector answer. I assume this is analogous to flux (but with a direction), however I'm having trouble breaking it down and sussing out exactly what it means.
Writing [itex]\vec{F}= f\vec{i}+ g\vec{j}+ h\vec{k}[/itex], that integral would be
[tex]\int_S f dS\vec{i}+ \int_S g dS\vec{j}+ \int h dS\vec{k}[/itex].[/tex]
 
Hey thanks guys. That helped.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K