Verify Stokes' Theorem for F across a paraboloid

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around verifying Stokes' Theorem for the vector field F(x,y,z) = (3y, 4z, -6x) over a surface S defined as part of the paraboloid z = 9 - x² - y², which lies above the xy-plane and is oriented upward.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of the curl of F and the parameterization of the surface S. There are attempts to derive the normal vector and compute the surface integral. Questions arise regarding the simplification of expressions and the integration process over the paraboloid.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, sharing insights on parameterization and the calculation of the normal vector. Some guidance has been provided regarding the integration process and the relationship between the surface and the xy-plane projection. Multiple interpretations of the steps involved are being explored.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding formatting and the integration process, as well as a need for clarity on the parameterization of the surface. Participants are working within the constraints of homework guidelines and are encouraged to relate the discussion to their classwork.

jerzey101
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Verify Stokes' Theorem for F(x,y,z)=(3y,4z,-6x) where S is part of the paraboloid z=9-x2-y2 that lies above the xy-plane, oriented upward.


Homework Equations


Stokes' Theorem is ∫F*ds=∫∫scurl(F)*ds
Where curl(F)=∇*F


The Attempt at a Solution


I got curl(F)=(-4,6,-3)
then I'm not sure what to do. my notes say to parameterize s and then compute the normal vector n, then compute ∫∫curl(F)*n. I'm not sure how to parameterize z=9-x2-y2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since \hat n is the outward normal unit vector, directed upwards, above the plane z=0, the \vec k vector component must be positive. Hence: \phi (x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z-9

Now, to find \hat n, just use the formula:
\frac{∇\vec \phi}{|∇\vec \phi|}
You have found ∇\times \vec F=-4\hat i+6\hat j-3\hat k
Now, all you have to do, is just project the surface S onto the x-y plane and find the area.
 
So (2x,2y,1) / sqrt(4x2+4y2+1)

how do you go about simplifying this?
 
jerzey101 said:
So (2x,2y,1) / sqrt(4x2+4y2+1)

how do you go about simplifying this?

You can't simplify the square root at this point. Just proceed by multiplying with Curl F and find the surface area.
 
so -8x + 12y - 3 all over \sqrt{4x<sup>2</sup>+4y<sup>2</sup>+1}[\itex]<br /> I&#039;m sorry, I am so lost with this one.<br /> <br /> And I am doing battle with the formatting. I don&#039;t get why it&#039;s not working
 
Last edited:
jerzey101 said:
so -8x + 12y - 3 all over \sqrt{4x<sup>2</sup>+4y<sup>2</sup>+1}
I'm sorry, I am so lost with this one.

And I am doing battle with the formatting. I don't get why it's not working

To close the itex tag, always use backslash \ instead of /

Your expression is correct. Now, project the surface to find the surface area.
 
Meaning integrate it over the paraboloid?
 
jerzey101 said:
Meaning integrate it over the paraboloid?

Read the last line of post #2.
 
When you are calculating a flux integral over a surface ##S##$$
\iint_S \vec F\cdot d\vec S=\iint_S\vec F \cdot \hat n dS$$you parameterize the surface in convenient variables ##u## and ##v## (which may be just ##x## and ##y##)$$
\vec R = \vec R(u,v)$$The normal to the surface is ##\pm \vec R_u\times \vec R_v##, with the sign chosen to agree with the orientation. Then to get a unit normal you have$$
\hat n =\pm \frac{\vec R_u\times \vec R_v}{|\vec R_u\times\vec R_v|}$$The scalar ##dS\ ##is given by$$
dS=|\vec R_u\times \vec R_v|dudv$$When you put these in the formula for the flux integral you get$$
\iint_S \vec F\cdot d\vec S=\iint_S\vec F \cdot \hat n dS=
\pm\iint_{(u,v)}\vec F\cdot \frac{\vec R_u\times \vec R_v}{|\vec R_u\times\vec R_v|}
|\vec R_u\times \vec R_v|dudv
=\pm \iint_{(u,v)}\vec F\cdot \vec R_u\times \vec R_vdudv$$where the limits are for the region in the ##u-v## plane. Note that you never have to calculate ##|\vec R_u\times\vec R_v|##. In your problem what he means by parameterizing the surface is writing it as ##\vec R(x,y) = \langle x,y,9-x^2-y^2\rangle##. If you calculate ##\vec R_x\times \vec R_y## you will get ##\langle 2x,2y,1\rangle##, which happens to have ##z## positive so agrees with your orientation, and agrees with your gradient. You have calculated ##\nabla \times \vec F = \langle -4,6,-3\rangle##, which is the ##\vec F## to put in the formula above:$$
\iint_S \langle -4,6,-3\rangle\cdot d\vec S = +\iint_{(x,y)}\langle -4,6,-3\rangle\cdot
\langle 2x,2y,1\rangle dydx=\iint_{(x,y)}-8x+12y-3\ dydx$$where the ##x-y## limits are over the region in the ##xy\ ##plane. That is where ##z=0## and gives the region enclosed by ##x^2+y^2=9##. At this point, you might want to work the integral in polar coordinates.

Then, of course, you still have to work the other side of the Stokes Theorem equation and see you get the same answer.
 
  • #10
Thanks LCKurtz, that is similar to what we were doing in my class. I was getting confused by what sharks was doing.
 
  • #11
If you had continued from what my suggestion, you would have ended up with the same double integral:
\iint_{(x,y)}-8x+12y-3\ dydx
But it's indeed easier for you to understand if you can relate directly to what you're doing in class.
 
  • #12
Ok I'm starting to get it. Thank sharks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K