Subsection9.5.1The Definition of Surface Integrals
In Theorem 5.19 we derived a formula telling us how to integrate a function over a deformed plane domain. We called it the transformation formula. The original domain, and its image, the deformed domain, were both lying in the plane. A surface, at least locally, is the image of a plane domain lying not in the plane but in space. Hence to construct surface integrals we proceed in exactly the same way as we derived the transformation formula. Assume now that is a smooth surface, and for simplicity we assume that it is parametrised by one function , where . We again look at the image, , of a small rectangle as shown in Figure 9.18
The difference is that they have three and not two components, which means that we need a different formula to compute the area of the parallelogram they span. To compute that area we use Theorem 1.16. Note that the matrix with columns
We encountered the above determinant already when defining smooth surfaces, and called it the Jacobian of the parametrisation . The Jacobian is the factor by which the area of a small rectangle is distorted when mapped by onto the surface. To define surface integrals we replace by the Jacobian of the parametrisation . This motivates the following definition.
Let us note that the above definition of surface integrals can be generalised to to -dimensional “surfaces” in . In particular it is consistent with the definition of integrals over a one dimensional “surface,” that is, a curve, where . If we parametrise a curve by ,, then it was shown in Remark 9.4 that
Let us emphasise that Definition 9.19 reduces to the transformation formula in Theorem 5.19 if is flat, that is, lies in ! One could ask why the transformation formula was a theorem, and the above is a definition. The reason is that, if is in , then the integral over is already defined. The theorem tells us that we can compute it using the transformation formula. For surfaces, however, the integral is not already defined, so we use (9.7) to do so.
It was not a trivial task to define the surface area for general surfaces such that it has the properties we expect, and some attempts failed. To define the length of a curve we approximated the given curve by polygons. Mathematicians tried to generalise this idea to surfaces, approximating them by polyhedra. We choose a grid of points and form triangles as shown in Figure 9.24, add up their areas and try to pass to the limit! However, as an example due to Hermann Amandus Schwarz (1843-1921) shows, the limit could be infinite for a surface as simple as a finite cylinder! (see [4] pages~75-77 for details). Hence it is not possible to define surface area by approximation by polyhedra. In our approach we approximated the surface by small scales like on the skin of a fish. Doing so we get a “surface area” having the expected properties. In particular it behaves well under transformation of coordinates.
Note that if we measure the angle from the plane then we need to replace by in the above formula. We can use this to compute the surface area of the sphere.
We can use the above to compute the surface area of a sphere of radius . It is most convenient to use spherical coordinates as introduced in Example 9.3. We deduce from Example 9.3 and Proposition 9.17 that the surface area is
We next consider the Jacobian for a surface given by a graph of a function. Suppose that is the graph of a smooth function . We want to compute Jacobian of the corresponding parametrisation