Separation Vector: Showing $\nabla(\frac{1}{||\vec{r}||})$

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yeldar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vector
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical expression for the gradient of the function \(\frac{1}{||\vec{r}||}\), where \(\vec{r}\) is defined as the separation vector from a fixed point to a source point in three-dimensional space. Participants are exploring the implications of this expression in the context of vector calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the gradient using the definition of the magnitude of the separation vector, but expresses confusion about the process. Some participants suggest revisiting the definition of the gradient in spherical coordinates, while others question whether this approach would complicate the problem further.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different approaches to the problem. One participant has indicated a shift to a different method that seems to yield satisfactory results without the need for spherical coordinates, suggesting a potential productive direction.

Contextual Notes

There is an indication of uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of using spherical coordinates for this problem, and the original poster expresses concern about missing a key insight in their approach.

Yeldar
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Separation Vector

Let \vec{r} be the separation vector from a fixed point (\acute{x},\acute{y},\acute{z}) to the source point (x,y,z).

Show that:

\nabla(\frac{1}{||\vec{r}||}) = \frac {-\hat{r}} {||\vec{r}||^2}

Now, I've attempted this comeing from the approach that ||\vec{r}|| = (\vec{r} \cdot \vec{r})^\frac {1} {2} but it dosent seem to get me anywhere, am I missing something blatently obvious?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Go back to the definition of the gradient in spherical coordinates.
 
Wouldnt that just complicate things further?


In Spherical Coordinates:

\displaystyle{ \nabla = \hat{r} \frac {\partial{}{}} {\partial{}{r}} + \frac {1}{r} \hat{\phi}\frac {\partial{}{}} {\partial{}{\phi}} + \frac {1}{r sin \phi} \hat{\theta}\frac {\partial{}{}} {\partial{}{\theta}} }



I just don't see how that could simplify things?
 
Okay, nevermind on this...

Went with a totally different appraoch and things worked out nicely without having to go into spherical coordinates.


Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K