Stokes' Theorem

Stokes's theorem, also known as the Kelvin–Stokes theorem Nagayoshi Iwahori, et al.:"Bi-Bun-Seki-Bun-Gaku" Sho-Ka-Bou(jp) 1983/12

Written in Japanese)Atsuo Fujimoto;"Vector-Kai-Seki Gendai su-gaku rekucha zu. C(1)" :ja:培風館, Bai-Fu-Kan(jp)(1979/01) [] (Written in Japanese) after Lord Kelvin and Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet, George Stokes, the fundamental theorem for curls or simply the curl theorem, is a theorem in vector calculus on . Given a vector field, the theorem relates the integral of the curl of the vector field over some surface, to the line integral of the vector field around the boundary of the surface. The classical Stokes' theorem can be stated in one sentence: The line integral of a vector field over a loop is equal to the '' flux of its curl'' through the enclosed surface.

Stokes' theorem is a special case of the generalized Stokes' theorem. In particular, a vector field on can be considered as a 1-form in which case its curl is its exterior derivative, a 2-form.

Theorem

Let $\Sigma$ be a smooth oriented surface in with boundary $\partial \Sigma$. If a vector field $\mathbf(x,y,z) = (F_x(x, y, z), F_y(x, y, z), F_z(x, y, z))$ is defined and has continuous first order partial derivatives in a region containing $\Sigma$, then

$\iint_\Sigma (\nabla \times \mathbf) \cdot \mathrm^2 \mathbf = \oint_ \mathbf \cdot \mathrm\mathbf.$
More explicitly, the equality says that
$\begin &\iint_\Sigma \left(\left(\frac-\frac \right)\,\mathrmy\, \mathrmz +\left(\frac-\frac\right)\, \mathrmz\, \mathrmx +\left (\frac-\frac\right)\, \mathrmx\, \mathrmy\right) \\ & = \oint_ \Bigl(F_x\, \mathrmx+F_y\, \mathrmy+F_z\, \mathrmz\Bigr). \end$

The main challenge in a precise statement of Stokes' theorem is in defining the notion of a boundary. Surfaces such as the Koch snowflake, for example, are well-known not to exhibit a Riemann-integrable boundary, and the notion of surface measure in Lebesgue theory cannot be defined for a non-Lipschitz surface. One (advanced) technique is to pass to a weak formulation and then apply the machinery of geometric measure theory; for that approach see the coarea formula. In this article, we instead use a more elementary definition, based on the fact that a boundary can be discerned for full-dimensional subsets of .

A more detailed statement will be given for subsequent discussions;
Let be a piecewise smooth Jordan plane curve. The Jordan curve theorem implies that divides into two components, a compact one and another that is non-compact. Let denote the compact part; then is bounded by . It now suffices to transfer this notion of boundary along a continuous map to our surface in . But we already have such a map: the parametrization of .

Suppose is piecewise smooth at the neighborhood of D, with . represents the image set of ''D'' by ''ψ'' If is the space curve defined by may not be a Jordan curve if the loop interacts poorly with . Nonetheless, is always a loop, and topologically a connected sum of countably many Jordan curves, so that the integrals are well-defined. then we call the boundary of , written .

With the above notation, if is any smooth vector field on , thenRobert Scheichl, lecture notes for University of Bath mathematics course

/ref>$\oint_ \mathbf\, \cdot\, \mathrm = \iint_ \nabla\times\mathbf\, \cdot\, \mathrm^\mathbf.$

Here, the "$\cdot$" represents Dot product in .

Proof

The proof of the theorem consists of 4 steps. We assume Green's theorem, so what is of concern is how to boil down the three-dimensional complicated problem (Stokes' theorem) to a two-dimensional rudimentary problem (Green's theorem). When proving this theorem, mathematicians normally deduce it as a special case of a more general result, which is stated in terms of differential forms, and proved using more sophisticated machinery. While powerful, these techniques require substantial background, so the proof below avoids them, and does not presuppose any knowledge beyond a familiarity with basic vector calculus and linear algebra. At the end of this section, a short alternate proof of Stokes' theorem is given, as a corollary of the generalized Stokes' Theorem.

Elementary proof

First step of the elementary proof (parametrization of integral)

As in , we reduce the dimension by using the natural parametrization of the surface. Let and be as in that section, and note that by change of variables
$\oint_ = \oint_ = \oint_$
where stands for the Jacobian matrix of at .

Now let be an orthonormal basis in the coordinate directions of .In this article,
$\mathbf_u= \begin1 \\ 0 \end , \mathbf_v = \begin0 \\ 1 \end .$
Note that, in some textbooks on vector analysis, these are assigned to different things.
For example, in some text book's notation, can mean the following respectively.
In this article, however, these are two completely different things.
$\mathbf_ =\frac \frac \, , \mathbf_ =\frac \frac .$
Here,
$h_u = \left\, \frac \right\, , h_v = \left\, \frac \right\, ,$
and the "$\, \cdot \,$" represents Euclidean norm.

Recognizing that the columns of are precisely the partial derivatives of at , we can expand the previous equation in coordinates as

$\begin \oint_ &= \oint_ \\ &=\oint_ \end$

Second step in the elementary proof (defining the pullback)

The previous step suggests we define the function

$\mathbf(u,v) = \left(\mathbf(\boldsymbol(u,v))\cdot\frac(u,v)\right)\mathbf_u + \left(\mathbf(\boldsymbol(u,v))\cdot\frac(u,v) \right)\mathbf_v$

Now, if the scalar value functions $P_u$ and $P_v$ are defined as follows,
$(u,v) = \left(\mathbf(\boldsymbol(u,v))\cdot\frac(u,v)\right)$
$(u,v) =\left(\mathbf(\boldsymbol(u,v))\cdot\frac(u,v) \right)$
then,
$\mathbf(u,v) = (u,v) \mathbf_u + (u,v) \mathbf_v .$

This is the pullback of along , and, by the above, it satisfies

$\oint_=\oint_ =\oint_$

We have successfully reduced one side of Stokes' theorem to a 2-dimensional formula; we now turn to the other side.

Third step of the elementary proof (second equation)

First, calculate the partial derivatives appearing in Green's theorem, via the product rule:

\begin
\frac &= \frac\cdot\frac + (\mathbf\circ \boldsymbol\psi) \cdot\frac \\ pt\frac &= \frac\cdot\frac + (\mathbf\circ \boldsymbol\psi) \cdot\frac
\end

Conveniently, the second term vanishes in the difference, by equality of mixed partials. So,
For all $\textbf, \textbf \in \mathbb^$, for all $A ; n\times n$ Square matrix, $\textbf\cdot A \textbf = \textbf^\mathsfA \textbf$ and therefore $\textbf\cdot A \textbf = \textbf \cdot A^\mathsf \textbf$.

\begin
\frac - \frac
&= \frac\cdot\frac - \frac\cdot\frac \\ pt&= \frac\cdot(J_\mathbf)\frac - \frac\cdot(J_\mathbf)\frac && \text\\ pt&= \frac\cdot\left(J_\mathbf-^\right)\frac
\end

But now consider the matrix in that quadratic form—that is, $J_\mathbf-(J_\mathbf)^$. We claim this matrix in fact describes a cross product.
Here the "$^$" represents the Matrix transpose operator.

To be precise, let $A=(A_)_$ be an arbitrary matrix and let

$\mathbf= \begina_1 \\ a_2 \\ a_3\end = \beginA_-A_ \\ A_-A_ \\ A_-A_\end$

Note that is linear, so it is determined by its action on basis elements. But by direct calculation
$\begin \left(A-A^\right)\mathbf_1 &= \begin 0 \\ a_3 \\ -a_2 \end = \mathbf\times\mathbf_1\\ \left(A-A^\right)\mathbf_2 &= \begin -a_3 \\ 0 \\ a_1 \end = \mathbf\times\mathbf_2\\ \left(A-A^\right)\mathbf_3 &= \begin a_2 \\ -a_1 \\ 0 \end = \mathbf\times\mathbf_3 \end$
Here, represents an orthonormal basis in the coordinate directions of .In this article,
$\mathbf_1= \begin1 \\ 0 \\ 0\end , \mathbf_2 = \begin0 \\ 1 \\ 0\end , \mathbf_3 = \begin0 \\ 0 \\ 1\end .$
Note that, in some textbooks on vector analysys, these are assigned to different things.

Thus for any .

Substituting $$ for , we obtain

$\left( - ^ \right) \mathbf =(\nabla\times\mathbf)\times \mathbf, \quad \text\, \mathbf\in\R^$

We can now recognize the difference of partials as a (scalar) triple product:

$\begin \frac - \frac &= \frac\cdot(\nabla\times\mathbf) \times \frac \\ &= \det \begin (\nabla\times\mathbf)(\boldsymbol\psi(u,v)) & \frac(u,v) & \frac(u,v) \end \end$

On the other hand, the definition of a surface integral also includes a triple product—the very same one!

$\begin \iint_\Sigma (\nabla\times\mathbf)\cdot \, d^2\mathbf &=\iint_D \\ &= \iint_D \det \begin (\nabla\times\mathbf)(\boldsymbol\psi(u,v)) & \frac(u,v) & \frac(u,v) \end \,\mathrmu \,\mathrmv \end$

So, we obtain

$\iint_\Sigma (\nabla\times\mathbf)\cdot \,\mathrm^2\mathbf = \iint_D \left( \frac - \frac \right) \,\mathrmu\,\mathrmv$

Fourth step of the elementary proof (reduction to Green's theorem)

Combining the second and third steps, and then applying Green's theorem completes the proof.
Green's theorem asserts the following: for any region D bounded by the Jordans closed curve γ and two scalar-valued smooth functions $P_u(u,v), P_v(u,v)$ defined on D;

$\oint_ = \iint_D \left( \frac - \frac \right) \,\mathrmu\,\mathrmv$

We can substitute the conclusion of STEP2 into the left-hand side of Green's theorem above, and substitute the conclusion of STEP3 into the right-hand side.
Q.E.D.

Proof via differential forms

The functions can be identified with the differential 1-forms on via the map

$F_x\mathbf_1+F_y\mathbf_2+F_z\mathbf_3 \mapsto F_x\,\mathrmx+F_y\,\mathrmy+F_z\mathrmz .$

Write the differential 1-form associated to a function as . Then one can calculate that

$\star\omega_=\mathrm\omega_$

where is the Hodge star and $\mathrm$ is the exterior derivative. Thus, by generalized Stokes' theorem,

$\oint_ =\oint_ =\int_ =\int_ =\iint_$

Applications

Irrotational fields

In this section, we will discuss the irrotational field ( lamellar vector field) based on Stokes' theorem.

Definition 2-1 (irrotational field). A smooth vector field on an open is ''irrotational''( lamellar vector field) if .

This concept is very fundamental in mechanics; as we'll prove later, if is ''irrotational'' and the domain of is simply connected, then is a conservative vector field.

The Helmholtz's theorems

In this section, we will introduce a theorem that is derived from Stokes' theorem and characterizes vortex-free vector fields. In fluid dynamics it is called Helmholtz's theorems.

Theorem 2-1 (Helmholtz's theorem in fluid dynamics). Let be an open subset with a lamellar vector field and let be piecewise smooth loops. If there is a function such that
* LH0'' is piecewise smooth,
* LH1'' for all ,
* LH2'' for all ,
* LH3'' for all .
Then,
$\int_ \mathbf \, \mathrmc_0=\int_ \mathbf \, \mathrmc_1$

Some textbooks such as Lawrence call the relationship between and stated in theorem 2-1 as "homotopic" and the function as "homotopy between and ". However, "homotopic" or "homotopy" in above-mentioned sense are different (stronger than) typical definitions of "homotopic" or "homotopy"; the latter omit condition LH3 So from now on we refer to homotopy (homotope) in the sense of theorem 2-1 as a ''tubular homotopy (resp. tubular-homotopic)''.

=Proof of the Helmholtz's theorems

=

In what follows, we abuse notation and use "$\oplus$" for concatenation of paths in the fundamental groupoid and "$\ominus$" for reversing the orientation of a path.

Let , and split into four line segments .
\begin
\gamma_1: ,1\to D;\quad&\gamma_1(t) = (t, 0) \\
\gamma_2: ,1\to D;\quad&\gamma_2(s) = (1, s) \\
\gamma_3: ,1\to D;\quad&\gamma_3(t) = (1-t, 1) \\
\gamma_4: ,1\to D;\quad&\gamma_4(s) = (0, 1-s)
\end
so that $\partial D = \gamma_1 \oplus \gamma_2 \oplus \gamma_3 \oplus \gamma_4$

By our assumption that and are piecewise smooth homotopic, there is a piecewise smooth homotopy
$\begin \Gamma_i(t) &= H(\gamma_(t)) && i=1, 2, 3, 4 \\ \Gamma(t) &= H(\gamma(t)) =(\Gamma_1 \oplus \Gamma_2 \oplus \Gamma_3 \oplus \Gamma_4)(t) \end$

Let be the image of under . That

$\iint_S \nabla\times\mathbf\, \mathrmS = \oint_\Gamma \mathbf\, \mathrm\Gamma$

follows immediately from Stokes' theorem. is lamellar, so the left side vanishes, i.e.

$0=\oint_\Gamma \mathbf\, \mathrm\Gamma = \sum_^4 \oint_ \mathbf \, \mathrm\Gamma$

As is tubular(satisfying LH3,$\Gamma_2 = \ominus \Gamma_4$ and $\Gamma_2 = \ominus \Gamma_4$. Thus the line integrals along and cancel, leaving

$0=\oint_ \mathbf \, \mathrm\Gamma +\oint_ \mathbf \, \mathrm\Gamma$

On the other hand, , $c_3 = \ominus \Gamma_3$, so that the desired equality follows almost immediately.

Conservative forces

Above Helmholtz's theorem gives an explanation as to why the work done by a conservative force in changing an object's position is path independent. First, we introduce the Lemma 2-2, which is a corollary of and a special case of Helmholtz's theorem.

Lemma 2-2. Let be an open subset, with a Lamellar vector field and a piecewise smooth loop . Fix a point , if there is a homotopy such that
* C0'' is ''piecewise smooth'',
* C1'' for all ,
* C2'' for all ,
* C3'' for all .
Then,
$\int_ \mathbf \, \mathrmc_0=0$

Above Lemma 2-2 follows from theorem 2–1. In Lemma 2-2, the existence of satisfying C0to C3is crucial;the question is whether such a homotopy can be taken for arbitrary loops. If is simply connected, such exists. The definition of simply connected space follows:

Definition 2-2 (simply connected space). Let be non-empty and path-connected. is called simply connected if and only if for any continuous loop, there exists a continuous tubular homotopy from to a fixed point ; that is,
* C0''' is ''continuous'',
* C1'' for all ,
* C2'' for all ,
* C3'' for all .

The claim that "for a conservative force, the work done in changing an object's position is path independent" might seem to follow immediately if the M is simply connected.　However, recall that simple-connection only guarantees the existence of a ''continuous'' homotopy satisfying C1-3 we seek a piecewise smooth homotopy satisfying those conditions instead.

Fortunately, the gap in regularity is resolved by the Whitney's approximation theorem.L. S. Pontryagin, Smooth manifolds and their applications in homotopy theory, American Mathematical Society Translations, Ser. 2, Vol. 11, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1959, pp. 1–114. (22 #598

. See theorems 7 & 8. In other words, the possibility of finding a continuous homotopy, but not being able to integrate over it, is actually eliminated with the benefit of higher mathematics.　We thus obtain the following theorem.

Theorem 2-2. Let be open and simply connected with an irrotational vector field . For all piecewise smooth loops
$\int_ \mathbf \, \mathrmc_0 = 0$

Maxwell's equations

In the physics of electromagnetism, Stokes' theorem provides the justification for the equivalence of the differential form of the Maxwell–Faraday equation and the Maxwell–Ampère equation and the integral form of these equations. For Faraday's law, Stokes' theorem is applied to the electric field, $\mathbf$:

$\oint_ \mathbf \cdot \mathrm\boldsymbol= \iint_\Sigma \mathbf\times \mathbf \cdot \mathrm \mathbf .$

For Ampère's law, Stokes' theorem is applied to the magnetic field, $\mathbf$:

$\oint_ \mathbf \cdot \mathrm\boldsymbol= \iint_\Sigma \mathbf\times \mathbf \cdot \mathrm \mathbf .$

Notes

References

{{Reflist

Electromagnetism
Mechanics
Vectors (mathematics and physics)
Vector calculus