Let $\partial \mathcal{S}$ be a simple closed curve and $\mathcal{S}$ the region enclosed by it, with $\mathcal{S} \subset \mathbf{R}^3$. Let $\vec{F}$ be a vector field in $\mathbf{R}^3$.

If $\mathcal{S}$ is contained in the $x$-$y$ plane and $\vec{F}$ has only $x$ and $y$ components, one can check that \begin{equation} \int_{\partial \mathcal{S}} \vec{F} \times \mathrm{d} \vec{l} = \hat{n}\int_\mathcal{S} \nabla \cdot \vec{F} \, \mathrm{d}x \, \mathrm{d}y \, , \end{equation}

where $\hat{n}$ is given by the right-hand-screw rule in relation to the sense of the line integral around $\partial \mathcal{S}$. This is just another application of Stokes' Theorem.

I have tried to find the appropriate generalization for $\mathcal{S}$ and $\vec{F}$ not constrained to live in a plane, with $\partial \mathcal{S}$ still a simple closed curve. When I try to work the result using the standard form of Stokes' theorem and vector identities I get \begin{equation} \int_{\partial \mathcal{S}} \vec{F} \times \mathrm{d} \vec{l} = \int_\mathcal{S}\left[ ( \nabla \cdot \vec{F} ) \hat{n}- \left( \nabla F_i \right) n_i \right]\, \mathrm{d}s \, , \end{equation} with implicit summation over $i$. This seems to be consistent with the 2D case and I think it works but I could not find it elsewhere and I wanted to make sure if this is right. I would be very grateful if you could let me know if you agree.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I got the same result starting from Stoke's theorem. $\endgroup$ – mastrok Feb 24 '18 at 13:30

Probably your way of deriving it is the same as below. I just find convenient to use index form.

Stoke's Theorem: $\oint_{\partial S} E_idl_i = \int_S \epsilon_{ijk}\partial_jE_k dS_i $ for arbitrary surface $S$ with the same boundary.

We have \begin{align} \left(\oint_{\partial S} \vec{F}\times d\vec{l}\right)_i &= \oint_{\partial S} \epsilon_{ijk}F_j dl_k \\ &= \int_{ S} \epsilon_{lmn} \partial_m(\epsilon_{ijn}F_j) dS_l \\ &= \int_{ S} (\delta_{li}\delta_{mj}-\delta_{lj}\delta_{mi})\partial_mF_j dS_l \\ &=\int_{ S} (\partial_kF_k dS_i - \partial_i F_l dS_l), \end{align} which is exactly your expression.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks @mastrok. I did use this. I'll wait and see if someone comes up with something else before the bounty expires. Otherwise you'll get it. $\endgroup$ – secavara Feb 25 '18 at 1:28

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.