7
$\begingroup$

My understanding of the conservative field is that it is any vector field that satisfies any of these three equivalent conditions: $$\oint_C\vec{F}.d\vec{s}=0$$for any closed path $C$ in the domain,$$\vec{F}=\vec{\nabla}\phi$$for some scalar field $\phi$ defined over the domain, and$$\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{F}=\vec{0}$$ at every point in the domain.

However, our teacher told us today that a conservative field and a field derived from a potential are not the same thing. In my research on the issue I found this wolfram page that states that the last condition is not equivalent to the others if the domain $D$ is not simply connected.

Can anyone provide me with an example on the case ?

And in this case, what becomes the definition of a conservative field ?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Consider $\mathbf{F} = (-y/\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}) \mathbf{e}_x + (x/\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}) \mathbf{e}_y = (1/r) \mathbf{e}_\theta$ on the multiply connected domain $D =\mathbb{R}^2 \setminus (0,0)$.

Note that $\mathbf{F}$ is the gradient of a function $\phi$ in $\hat{D} =D \setminus \{(r,\theta): \theta = 0 \}$ but not throughout $D$.

In $\hat{D}$ we have for $\phi(r,\theta) = \theta$

$$\mathbf{F}(r,\theta) = \nabla \phi = \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial r}\mathbf{e}_r + \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial \theta} \mathbf{e}_\theta + \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial z} \mathbf{e}_z =\frac{1}{r}\mathbf{e}_\theta .$$

This field has zero curl throughout $D$, i.e.,

$$ \nabla \times \mathbf{F} = \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r \frac{1}{r} \right)\mathbf{e_z} = 0,$$

but it is non-conservative. Around any circular contour $C$ centered at the origin, we have

$$\oint_C \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{s} = \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{1}r r\, d\theta = 2 \pi \neq 0.$$

It is impossible to satisfy both $\mathbf{F} = \nabla \phi$ where $\phi$ is continuous and differentiable and $\oint_C \mathbf{F} \cdot \, d \mathbf{s} \neq 0.$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ However there's a line where $\phi$ is discontinuous (or else it would not be a function on $\mathbb R^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}$), and on that line, obviously we cannot have $\mathbf F=\nabla\phi$ as the latter isn't defined there. $\endgroup$ – celtschk Feb 25 '17 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ @celtschk we need the domain to be not simply connected. The issue now is : this answer shows that the first condition is not equivalent to the others, not the last one. $\endgroup$ – Tofi Feb 25 '17 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ @VIP: The answer shows that the first condition is not equivalent to the third. It doesn't show anything about the second condition, because the provided $\phi$ does not have the properties claimed. $\endgroup$ – celtschk Feb 25 '17 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ @celtschk now I got you, you mean the function is discontinuous on $\theta=0$. $\endgroup$ – Tofi Feb 25 '17 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ @VIP: If for $\theta$ you use the range $\theta\in [0,2\pi)$, then the discontinuity is at the line with $\theta=0$. With the more common choice of $\theta\in(-\pi,\pi]$, the discontinuity is on the line with $\theta=\pi$. But the important point is, no matter how you do it, you always get a discontinuity on some line. $\endgroup$ – celtschk Feb 25 '17 at 16:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.