Verifying Stokes' Theorem for a Hemispherical Cap

  • Thread starter Thread starter yitriana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stokes Theorem
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around verifying Stokes' theorem for a vector field defined in Cartesian coordinates, specifically F = , over a hemispherical cap. Participants explore the implications of using different coordinate systems and the correct application of the curl operation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the process of substituting spherical coordinates into the vector field and the implications for calculating the curl. There is confusion regarding the correct application of the curl in different coordinate systems and whether it is necessary to convert the vector field to spherical coordinates before taking the curl.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants questioning the assumptions behind their approaches and clarifying the requirements for correctly applying the curl in spherical coordinates. Some have identified mistakes in their reasoning, while others are exploring the complexities involved in transitioning between coordinate systems.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of using the appropriate basis vectors when computing the curl and the potential complications that arise when mixing coordinate systems. There is an acknowledgment of the need for proper parametrization and the challenges associated with it.

yitriana
Messages
35
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose we want to verify Stokes' theorem for a vector field F = <y, -x, 2z + 3> (in cartesian basis vectors), where the surface is the hemispherical cap +sqrt(a^2 - x^2 - y^2)

The Attempt at a Solution



Why is it that if I substitute spherical coordinates x = asinθcosΦ, y = asinθsinΦ, z = acosθ, into F, and then take the curl where del = <d/dr, d/dθ, d/dΦ> (note that r = a in this case, so if the term involves only a, the d/dr of that term is 0), when I do double integral over curl F * dS with θ and Φ as parameters, I get 0?

However, if I first take the curl of F where del = <d/dx, d/dy, d/dz> and THEN substitute spherical coordinates into the curl F, and dot with dS, and do double integral, I get the right answer ( i know the "right answer" because of the simplicity of the line integral).

Why can I not substitute spherical coordinates into F and then take the curl where del = <d/dr, d/dθ, d/dΦ>?

Why must I take the curl F where del = <d/dx, d/dy, d/dz> and then substitute spherical coordinates?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The curl in spherical coordinates is not something like <br /> \frac{\partial }{{\partial r}},\frac{\partial }{{\partial \theta }},\frac{\partial }{{\partial \varphi }}

It's more complicated then that. Whatever text you are using should have the curl in spherical coordinates. It's quite long.

Edit: Ah, thank you wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_in_cylindrical_and_spherical_coordinates you're looking for the curl in spherical coordinates.
 
Oh sorry. I was parametrizing in spherical coordinates but not necessarily using spherical basis vectors, which explains why I took the curl in cartesian coordinates (and did not need scale factors)
 
hmm? You didn't attempt to take the curl in cartesian though, you attempted to take them in spherical.
 
I used spherical coordinate parameters but wrote in terms of x, y and z (cartesian coordinates).

Ah. I figured out my mistake now. Since I did not rewrite F in spherical coordinates, I *cannot* take the curl with del as <d/dr, d/dtheta, d/dphi>--that would not work since F was expressed in cartesian coordinates.

Thanks.
 
Well, remember, even if you put F in terms of spherical coordinates in the cartesian basis, the curl isn't simply \frac{\partial }{{\partial r}}\hat x + \frac{\partial }{{\partial \theta }}\hat y + \frac{\partial }{{\partial \phi }}\hat z either.
 
is it even possible to compute the curl of F of in terms of spherical coordinates in the cartesian basis, or would you have to convert F to spherical basis if F is in terms of spherical coordinates to compute the curl?

(of course, the curl of F could be computed in cartesian basis in terms of cartesian coordinates, but just wondering)
 
Yes it's possible but kinda ugly I can imagine since you'd have to determine things like \hat x \cdot \hat \theta that'll add to your derivatives. It's best to simply convert everything to the proper basis and parametrization for what you want to do.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K