Verifying Stokes' Theorem for a Hemispherical Cap

In summary, the conversation discusses the verification of Stokes' theorem for a given vector field in cartesian basis vectors and a hemispherical cap surface. The difficulty arises when trying to take the curl of the field using spherical coordinates and the need to convert to the proper basis and parametrization for accurate results. It is also noted that the curl in spherical coordinates is more complex than initially thought.
  • #1
yitriana
36
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
  • #2
The curl in spherical coordinates is not something like [tex]
\frac{\partial }{{\partial r}},\frac{\partial }{{\partial \theta }},\frac{\partial }{{\partial \varphi }}[/tex]

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.
 
  • #3
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)
 
  • #4
hmm? You didn't attempt to take the curl in cartesian though, you attempted to take them in spherical.
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
Well, remember, even if you put F in terms of spherical coordinates in the cartesian basis, the curl isn't simply [tex]\frac{\partial }{{\partial r}}\hat x + \frac{\partial }{{\partial \theta }}\hat y + \frac{\partial }{{\partial \phi }}\hat z[/tex] either.
 
  • #7
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)
 
  • #8
Yes it's possible but kinda ugly I can imagine since you'd have to determine things like [tex]\hat x \cdot \hat \theta [/tex] 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.
 

FAQ: Verifying Stokes' Theorem for a Hemispherical Cap

What is Stokes' Theorem and what does it state?

Stokes' Theorem is a fundamental result in vector calculus that relates the surface integral of a vector field over a closed surface to the line integral of the same vector field along the boundary of that surface. It states that the surface integral of a vector field over a closed surface is equal to the line integral of the same vector field along the boundary of that surface.

How is Stokes' Theorem used to verify the surface area of a hemispherical cap?

To verify the surface area of a hemispherical cap using Stokes' Theorem, we first choose a closed surface that encloses the hemispherical cap. Then, we compute the line integral of the vector field along the boundary of this surface. Finally, we compare this result to the surface integral of the same vector field over the hemispherical cap. If they are equal, Stokes' Theorem is verified.

What is the vector field used in verifying Stokes' Theorem for a hemispherical cap?

The vector field used in this verification is the unit normal vector to the surface of the hemispherical cap. This vector field is chosen because it is perpendicular to the surface and points outward, making it suitable for calculating the surface area.

What are the necessary conditions for Stokes' Theorem to be applicable in verifying the surface area of a hemispherical cap?

To apply Stokes' Theorem in verifying the surface area of a hemispherical cap, the surface must be closed, and the vector field must be continuously differentiable over the surface and its boundary. Additionally, the surface must have a smooth boundary and be orientable.

Are there any limitations to verifying Stokes' Theorem for a hemispherical cap?

Yes, there are some limitations to verifying Stokes' Theorem for a hemispherical cap. For example, the surface must be a simple closed surface, meaning it has only one boundary curve. Additionally, the surface and vector field must be well-behaved, with no singularities or discontinuities.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
179
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
952
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top