Why can't we switch limits of integration for spherical volume calculation?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ice109
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration Spherical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the limits of integration in spherical coordinates when calculating the volume of a sphere. Participants explore the implications of switching the limits of integration for the angles \(\theta\) and \(\phi\) in the context of spherical volume integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why switching the limits of integration for \(\theta\) and \(\phi\) leads to different results in volume calculations.
  • Another participant asserts that the second integral evaluates to zero because it integrates \(\sin\) over a complete cycle.
  • It is noted that while both parameterizations cover the sphere, the second one may turn inside out when crossing the south pole.
  • Confusion arises regarding the definitions of \(\theta\) and \(\phi\), with some participants suggesting that different textbooks may interpret these angles differently.
  • One participant emphasizes that the limits for \(\theta\) should range from \(0\) to \(2\pi\) while \(\phi\) should range from \(0\) to \(\pi\) based on the conventional definition of the volume integral in spherical coordinates.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the redefinition of angles and how it affects the limits of integration.
  • There is a suggestion to use the Jacobian to evaluate the integral differential variables for \(dxdydz\) to better understand the volume differential.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct limits of integration and the implications of switching them. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation of the angles or the resulting volume calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential confusion regarding the definitions of \(\theta\) and \(\phi\), as well as the implications of their limits of integration. The discussion remains focused on the technical aspects without resolving the underlying assumptions or definitions.

ice109
Messages
1,708
Reaction score
6
if i want to find the volume of a sphere why can't i switch the limits of integration on [itex]\theta[/itex] and [itex]\phi[/itex]

i.e. why does this work

[tex]\int^a_0 \int^{2\pi}_0 \int^{\pi}_0 r^2 \sin(\theta) d\theta d\phi dr[/tex]

but this doesn't

[tex]\int^a_0 \int^{\pi}_0 \int^{2\pi}_0 r^2 \sin(\theta) d\theta d\phi dr[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The second integral=0. You are integrating sin over one complete cycle.
 
Although both parameterizations cover the whole sphere, the second one turns inside out when it crosses the south pole and goes back up the opposite side.
 
You might have confused [tex]\theta[/tex] which is the angle on the x-y plane, with [tex]\phi[/tex] which is the azimuthal angle. Some textbooks interpret the notation the other way round. But given the differential volume integral in sphercal coordinates (I'm using the convention stated in the first sentece) which is [tex]r^2 \sin \phi dr d\phi d\theta[/tex], the limits for [tex]\theta[/tex] go from 0 to 2pi while [tex]\phi[/tex] goes from 0 to pi.
 
mathman said:
The second integral=0. You are integrating sin over one complete cycle.
yes i know
maze said:
Although both parameterizations cover the whole sphere, the second one turns inside out when it crosses the south pole and goes back up the opposite side.
can you be a little more clear because this pertains precisely to what I'm wondering about
Defennder said:
You might have confused [tex]\theta[/tex] which is the angle on the x-y plane, with [tex]\phi[/tex] which is the azimuthal angle. Some textbooks interpret the notation the other way round. But given the differential volume integral in sphercal coordinates (I'm using the convention stated in the first sentece) which is [tex]r^2 \sin \phi dr d\phi d\theta[/tex], the limits for [tex]\theta[/tex] go from 0 to 2pi while [tex]\phi[/tex] goes from 0 to pi.
no i redefined the angles.
 
ice109 said:
no i redefined the angles.
Well what is your redefinition? It appears in
ice109 said:
[tex]\int^a_0 \int^{\pi}_0 \int^{2\pi}_0 r^2 \sin(\theta) d\theta d\phi dr[/tex]
, you have taken the azimuthal angle to be [tex]\theta[/tex] and that should go from 0 to pi. Whereas the other planar angle phi ranges from 0 to 2pi across the x-y plane. So your limits are not correct.
 
ice109 said:
can you be a little more clear because this pertains precisely to what I'm wondering about
He means to say that the azimuthal line which in your incorrect formulation ranges from 0 to 2pi sweeps from the north to south, and then back to the north again. But this covers the same region twice whereas the other planar line associated with phi in your formulation goes from 0 to pi, which doesn't cover the plane. You might want to convince yourself that the volume differential is [tex]r^2 \sin \theta drd\theta d\phi[/tex] by using the Jacobian to evaluate the integral differential variables for dxdydz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K