I am currently taking multivariable calculus and we have just gone over line integrals over conservative vector fields. A vector field F is called conservative if it may be generated from some scalar potential function $\phi$ by taking its gradient $$\nabla \phi$$ and satisfies $$\nabla \times \mathbf{F}=0$$ The algebraic proof of path independence in such a field which invokes the Fundamental Theorem and Clairaut's theorem makes perfect sense to me. However I am having difficulty visualizing this from a geometric standpoint. Textbooks on electromagnetism will usually justify this path independence by saying that the components of the work $\mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{r}$ will cancel each other as we integrate along the closed path.

This is easy to visualize for a radially directed conservative vector field (like the electric field). But for a non-radial conservative vector field, is there some sort of graphical simulation or visualization which really allows one to see such path independence? Again, just to clarify, I am not confused by path independence, I just would like to see a graphical, geometric justification.


The geometric idea is:

enter image description here (Source: Wikipedia)

where $F$ should be defined in the interior region of the loop.

For two paths $S1$ and $S2$, starting at $1$ and ending at $2$ but otherwise arbitrary, we see that they form a closed curve $C$, if we reverse the direction along one of the paths.

We also know from parametrization of the line integral, that integration along the reverse path of $S$, which we write as $-S$, we get the integral value along $S$, but with reversed sign. \begin{align} 0 &= \int\limits_C F(x) \cdot dx \\ &= \int\limits_{S1 + (-S2)} F(x) \cdot dx \\ &= \int\limits_{S1} F(x) \cdot dx + \int\limits_{-S2} F(x) \cdot dx \\ &= \int\limits_{S1} F(x) \cdot dx - \int\limits_{S2} F(x) \cdot dx \end{align} which is equivalent to $$ \int\limits_{S1} F(x) \cdot dx = \int\limits_{S2} F(x) \cdot dx $$ Update:

Note that by Stokes's theorem $$ \DeclareMathOperator{curl}{curl} \int\limits_S \curl F \cdot dS = \int\limits_{\partial S} F \cdot dx $$ so vanishing curl implies vanishing integrals over closed curves.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for your reply, but is there a method which does not take $\int_C \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{r}=0$ as an a priori? $\endgroup$ – nguzman Apr 29 '17 at 21:14
  • $\begingroup$ The vanishing circulations are the result of vanishing curl. $\endgroup$ – mvw Apr 29 '17 at 21:39

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.