What is the value of the line integral

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the evaluation of a line integral in the context of a gradient field and level surfaces. The original poster questions why the line integral of a gradient field over a curve on a level surface is zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of a level surface and its implications for the line integral. Some express uncertainty about the nature of the curve (closed or not) and how that affects the integral's value. Others suggest using Stoke's theorem or the fundamental theorem of line integrals as potential approaches.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of concepts related to the problem, with participants offering hints and suggestions for further investigation. Some have provided insights into the relationship between the gradient field and the level surface, while others are still seeking clarity on the definitions and implications involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential confusion regarding whether the curve is closed and the implications of that on the integral's value. There is also a mention of the need for a clearer understanding of level surfaces and their role in the problem.

UrbanXrisis
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
1
Suppose F=F(x,y,z) is a gradient field with [itex]F=\nabla f[/itex], S is a level surface of f, and C is a curve on S. What is the value of the line integral [itex]\int_C F dr[/itex]?

I know the answer is 0 but I cannot visualize why it would be zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't remember what a level surface is right now, so please remind me what it is? I seem to recall it is some function set equal to a constant. But honestly don't remember.


The fundamental theorem of line integrals is:
[tex]\int_C \nabla f \cdot d\vec r = f(\vec r(b)) - f(\vec r(a))[/tex]

Since you said [itex]\vec F[/itex] is a vector field with [itex]\vec F = \nabla f[/itex] you know that the curl is 0. Right?
So since the curl is 0, and a potential function exists (which is f(x,y,z)=f).

I have no idea if this will help, because I really don't remember what a level surface is. I could speculate, or just look it up...
 
Ok. I looked it up. So level surface would be if you set f(x,y,z) equal to some constant. Now, you have a curve that lies on this surface.

Ummm... is that the full question?
This kinda seems harder then I originally thought it was going to be. Might need to use Stoke's thm, or wait for someone else to give you some better advice :) Cause I don't know why it would be zero either. (but shoot, that doesn't mean anything)

*sorry dude.

Personally, I would make up some examples and test them out to get a better understanding.
 
Try Stoke's theorem.

Hint: curl of the gradient ?
 
Stoke's works nicely. Actually, in this simple case, it's just the "fundamental theorem of calculus": since F= grad f, the integral of F on any path is independent of the path- it's just f evaluated at the endpoints. But this is a closed path. We can take the two endpoints to be the same.
 
Halls:
Just out of curiosity. How do you know it is a closed path? That greatly simplfies it. Let's just say it is not... then in general, it would not be zero right?
 
FrogPad said:
I can't remember what a level surface is right now, so please remind me what it is? I seem to recall it is some function set equal to a constant. But honestly don't remember.


The fundamental theorem of line integrals is:
[tex]\int_C \nabla f \cdot d\vec r = f(\vec r(b)) - f(\vec r(a))[/tex]

Since you said [itex]\vec F[/itex] is a vector field with [itex]\vec F = \nabla f[/itex] you know that the curl is 0. Right?
So since the curl is 0, and a potential function exists (which is f(x,y,z)=f).

I have no idea if this will help, because I really don't remember what a level surface is. I could speculate, or just look it up...

This automatically shows that the result is zero because the curve C is on a level surface of the potential function (as stated in theoriginal post). That means that all the points on that surface have the same value of "f". therefore the end and starting points of the curve have the same value of f therefore the integral is zero.
 
Ahh yeah. That makes sense.

When I originally read the problem I was thinking that the fundamental theorem would easily show that it is zero... But, then I wasn't sure if it was a closed path or not. Didn't see how to get to that step from the question. Got it now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K