Register to reply

Divergence of a vector field

by 1MileCrash
Tags: divergence, field, vector
Share this thread:
1MileCrash
#1
Apr23-12, 09:52 PM
1MileCrash's Avatar
P: 1,302
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

F(x,y,z) = (-x+y)i + (y+z)j + (-z+x)k

Find divergence

2. Relevant equations



3. The attempt at a solution

The gradient is
-i + j + -k

Dotting that with F, I get

x - y + y + z + z - x
=
2z

My book lists the answer as -1. What the heck are they talking about? (they did not ask me to evaluate for any point)
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Experts defend operational earthquake forecasting, counter critiques
EU urged to convert TV frequencies to mobile broadband
Sierra Nevada freshwater runoff could drop 26 percent by 2100
Dick
#2
Apr23-12, 10:15 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,228
Quote Quote by 1MileCrash View Post
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

F(x,y,z) = (-x+y)i + (y+z)j + (-z+x)k

Find divergence

2. Relevant equations



3. The attempt at a solution

The gradient is
-i + j + -k

Dotting that with F, I get

x - y + y + z + z - x
=
2z

My book lists the answer as -1. What the heck are they talking about? (they did not ask me to evaluate for any point)
I think you are misunderstanding the definition of divergence. ∇.F doesn't mean grad(F).F. Look it up.
1MileCrash
#3
Apr23-12, 10:18 PM
1MileCrash's Avatar
P: 1,302
Quote Quote by Dick View Post
I think you are misunderstanding the definition of divergence. ∇.F doesn't mean grad(F).F. Look it up.
I will, thanks!

1MileCrash
#4
Apr23-12, 10:19 PM
1MileCrash's Avatar
P: 1,302
Divergence of a vector field

Is it correct to say that it's like taking grad F, then adding up the resulting components for a scalar?
Dick
#5
Apr23-12, 10:23 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,228
Quote Quote by 1MileCrash View Post
Is it correct to say that it's like taking grad F, then adding up the resulting components for a scalar?
Yes, if F=(Fx,Fy,Fz) then the divergence of F is dFx/dx+dFy/dy+dFz/dz. It's a scalar.
1MileCrash
#6
Apr23-12, 10:36 PM
1MileCrash's Avatar
P: 1,302
I see my misunderstanding now. The del operator is not the gradient of anything in particular. It's just (d/dx)i + (d/dy)j + (d/dz)k. Dot product that with F leads to the correct definition.

This actually clears up a lot of the past notation. Since del is not a gradient of anything in particular, when we say [itex]\nabla f[/itex], since f is a scalar being multiplied by some vector, del, the result is a vector, which is the gradient of f.

Cool. :)
Dick
#7
Apr23-12, 10:39 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,228
Quote Quote by 1MileCrash View Post
I see my misunderstanding now. The del operator is not the gradient of anything in particular. It's just (d/dx)i + (d/dy)j + (d/dz)k. Dot product that with F leads to the correct definition.

This actually clears up a lot of the past notation. Since del is not a gradient of anything in particular, when we say [itex]\nabla f[/itex], since f is a scalar being multiplied by some vector, del, the result is a vector, which is the gradient of f.

Cool. :)
You've got it, I think. You just dotting the grad operator with the vector. The result is a scalar.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Just what does it mean when a vector field has 0 divergence? Introductory Physics Homework 9
Divergence of a vector field Calculus & Beyond Homework 3
Divergence of a vector field Calculus 0
Divergence of vector field Calculus 6
If the divergence of a vector field is zero... Calculus & Beyond Homework 5