Why Does the Disk Method Integrate Only Half the Sphere's Volume?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jbreezy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sphere Volume
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the volume of a sphere using the disk method, specifically addressing the integration limits and the reasoning behind multiplying the integral by 2 to account for the entire volume. The original poster expresses confusion about how the integration from -r to r relates to the area below the x-axis and why it seems to account for only half of the sphere's volume.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the symmetry of the sphere and the implications of integrating over different intervals. Questions arise about how the disk method accounts for the entire volume of the sphere and the reasoning behind the factor of 2 when integrating from 0 to r.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the symmetry of the sphere and the mathematical reasoning behind the integration process. Some participants suggest that the volume above and below the x-z plane is equal, while others question how the method accounts for the entire sphere when only integrating over a portion.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of a specific problem from a calculus textbook, and some participants note issues with accessing external resources. The original poster's understanding is challenged by the visual representation in the problem, leading to questions about the assumptions made in the integration process.

Jbreezy
Messages
582
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Check that the volume of a sphere is 4/3(pi)r^3
(use disk method)
So I don't understand it I got stuck so I looked. I still don't get their solution.
Chapter 7, section 2, question 59. http://www.calcchat.com/book/Calculus-ETF-5e/


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



So my question is if you look at their solution they integrate from -r to r. I follow this. Then they integrate from 0 to r but they multiply the integral by 2. I'm OK with this also. What I'm not OK with is the diagram. If you look the line y = 0 is the end of the diagram. Now I think to myself how do you account for the area that is below the x axis? I don't quite get it. I just don't understand why it is basically half.
Thanks, Hope that question makes sense.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That site doesn't work for me but it sounds like you now know enough to answer the question for yourself, by whatever method is most comfortable for you.
 
Well that's great the site doesn't work for you. I still have my question.
Thanks,
j
 
If you split the sphere into two pieces using the x-z plane, is the volume above the x-z plane the same as the volume below? Doesn't that suggest why the factor of 2 is multiplying the integral?
 
OK, the integrate from 0 to r if you look at the drawing that is in quadrant 1 right? So then then multiply by a factor of 2 which accounts for quadrant 2. But what about 3 and 4? If you were to rotate what they did wouldn't that only be the top half of the sphere? Like their drawing?
This is what I don't get.
 
Let's ignore post #4.

The radius of the disk located at x is R(x) = sqrt (r^2 - x^2). The area of this disk is pi * R(x)^2 and the
volume of the disk is pi * R(x)^2 * dx. The original integral to get the volume of the sphere was taken over the interval [-r, r]. However, the function is symmetric about the y-axis, so the limits can be changed to [0,r] and the integral is multiplied by 2 to obtain the same value as the integral with the previous limits of integration.
 
If you are using "discs" you are trying to find the volume of a sphere of radius r by rotating the part of a circle in the first quadrant around the x-axis (y=0) to produce a half sphere. Therefore you have to multiply the volume integral by 2 to get the volume of the full sphere.

In other words if the equation of the circle is

x^{2} \, + \, y^{2} \, = \, r^{2}

you solve for y to get

y^{2} = \pm \sqrt{r^{2} \, - \, x^{2}}

and the portion of the circle in the first quadrant given by

y \, = \, \sqrt{r^{2} \, - \, x^{2}} where 0 \leq x \leq r

So, when you apply the shell method to the quarter circle in the first quadrant from 0 to r what integral do you get ? Remember you have to multiply this integral by 2 otherwise you'll only get the formula for the volume of a half sphere.

P.S. In the problem you linked to he writes the first integral using the bounds

-r \leq x \leq r

if you evaluate the integral from -r to r you'll get a full sphere when you rotate around the x-axis and you don't have to multiply the integral by 2. But in the next step he changes the bounds from 0 to r and when you rotate that around the x-axis you get a half sphere so you have to multiply the integral by 2 in order to get the full volume.

P.S. If you continue on in your studies of analytic geometry/calculus you'll eventually learn this can also be easily done via multivariable calculus using triple integrals in spherical coordinates. But that is for another time and not for now. ;)
 
Last edited:
That's one way to do it, but that method is based on the Theorem of Pappus. In the method of disks, as I understand it, the volume is approximated by stacking very short cylindrical segments, or disks, one on top of the other. For the sphere, the disks all have different radii, which are determined based on the position of the disk from the center of the sphere.
 
Thanks Skins
 
  • #10
The volume of a sphere is not defined, but the volume enclosed by a sphere is.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K