Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 6 down vote favorite
1

As anyone who has taken vector calculus (read: most of you) knows, if a vector field is conservative, then it is the gradient of a potential function. In other words, if the vector field is two dimensional, the potential function is a surface and as such some things become really nice, like the line integral of a closed curve being zero. However, there are some very simple vector fields that are not conservative, which leads me to wonder what the corresponding surface would look like and in particular what characteristics of the surface disallow the nice formulations. For instance, the surface corresponding to the vector field $F = y \hat{i} - x \hat{j}$ is continuous but periodic, spiraling along the z-axis. I envision it to look kinda like this:
enter image description here

My question is thus: do all non-conservative vector fields (in 2-space) have corresponding surfaces that are periodic or discontinuous? If not, what other cases are there?

share|improve this question
It's not clear to me what you mean by "the surface corresponding to the vector field" in the case of a non-conservative vector field. The surface corresponding to a conservative vector field is defined by a path integral, which is path-independent by definition. But for a non-conservative vector field, this is path-dependent. You seem to be assuming something like that the path-dependence only leads to integral multiples of some constant, but that's not the case. Your example has constant rotation, so the integral along a closed path is proportional to the enclosed area, which can be anything. – joriki May 11 '11 at 16:41
@joriki: I've edited to put in a picture to show what I mean. – El'endia Starman May 11 '11 at 16:49
1  
@El'endia: That picture is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my comment. It looks like you're assuming that for a given $(x,y)$ you can only change $z$ by integer multiples of some constant. That's not the case, since you can integrate along an arbitrary closed path and change the "potential" by the enclosed area. If that doesn't fit with what you mean by "the surface corresponding to the vector field", then I think you should explain what you mean by that. – joriki May 11 '11 at 16:57
3  
@El'endia: By the way, there is something that your picture is an appropriate representation of: This is the "potential" of the vector field $(y/r^2,-x/r^2)$ in the punctured plane, which has zero rotation. The reason for this not having a single-valued potential, however, is the puncture at the origin; the equivalence between a vector field being conservative, its rotation being zero, it being the gradient of a scalar potential and its path integral being path-independent only holds in simply connected domains. – joriki May 11 '11 at 17:04
1  
@El'endia: In that case, the quantization in the $z$ direction corresponds to the winding number around the origin. But this works only because the rotation of that vector field is zero everywhere except for the origin. In your example, the rotation is constant and non-zero, so you can get an arbitrary contribution from a closed path. – joriki May 11 '11 at 17:07
show 1 more comment

Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook.

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.