Basic doubt about the gradient in spherical polar cordinates.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the gradient of a scalar function in spherical polar coordinates, focusing on the proper formulation and understanding of its components. Participants explore the mathematical representation and physical interpretation of the gradient in this coordinate system.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the gradient cannot be expressed as the sum of partial derivatives with respect to r, theta, and phi without considering the appropriate arc lengths.
  • Another participant points out that for the angular components of the gradient to have the same physical dimension as the radial component, length factors must be included in the denominators of the angular derivatives.
  • Some participants express difficulty in visualizing the explanation and assert that the components of the gradient relate to the rate of change of the potential in each direction.
  • A clarification is made that the gradient components must account for the differential arc lengths associated with each variable in spherical coordinates.
  • One participant suggests that the gradient components for angular directions involve dividing the rate of change of the potential by the respective arc lengths, leading to a more accurate representation of the gradient.
  • Another participant confirms that the gradient in polar coordinates can be expressed with specific terms for each direction, noting that constants can be factored out of the expression.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to include proper arc lengths in the gradient formulation, but there remains some uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the gradient components and their relationship to the rate of change in different directions.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the dimensionality of the terms and the treatment of constants in the gradient expression are not fully resolved, leading to potential ambiguities in the discussion.

vish22
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
Let's say we have a scalar function U in terms of r,theta and phi.
why cannot this be the gradient at any point P(r,theta,phi)-
partial of U wrt. r in the direction of r+partial of U wrt. theta in direction of (theta)+partial of U wrt. phi in the direction of (phi)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you see that in order for your terms to be of the same physical dimension, you need length factors in the denominators for the two angularly differentiated terms?
 
I'm sorry but I'm not able to visualize what you are saying.
I thought that the components of the gradient are concerned with the rate of change of the potential in each direction?
 
Last edited:
vish22 said:
I'm sorry but I'm not able to visualize what you are saying.
I thought that the components of the gradient and concerned with the rate of change of the potential in each direction?
Nope.
In general, you "divide" with the differential arc length associated with each variable, in the proper direction. "dx", "dy" are differential arc lengths, as is, for 2-D polar coordinates, "dr" and "rd(theta)"
Same for spherical coordinates in 3-D
 
Ok,I think I got it.So its like the gradient components for the angular directions are the rates of changes of the potential U "in the direction of" theta with the arc length being rd(theta) and phi with the arc length bring rsin(theta)d(phi)-hence bringing in the denominator r and rsin(theta) respectively??PS:Thanks for your help.The book I'm reading it from really made a mess of the derivation.
 
Last edited:
"If this is the case,can you please support your answer of the gradient components NOT being concerned with the rate of change in the basis vector's DIRECTION?"
It is.
You walk a little LENGTH along a curve in the variable's direction.

Thus, in 2-D polars, you go the little distance "dr" along the r-vector (i.e, some ray from the origin, on which the angular variable is constant), measuring thereby the rate of change of the function, by dividing its change by the length "dr".

Similarly, you walk a little rd(theta) length along a circle (where "r" is constant), in order to measure the rate of change when the angular value changes between the two positions of the circle.
 
So the gradient in polar should ACTUALLY look like this?
∇U(r,α,β)=rδU/δr+αδU/(rδα)+βδU/(rsinαδβ)

But the custom is the take r and rsinα outside the brackets because they have constant magnitude in the differential lengths-rδα and rsinαδβ-in the direction of α and β respectively?
 
Well, yes.
But REMEMBER.
Those factors are CONSTANTS with respect to the given variable, so they can perfectly well be drawn out from the brackets.
 
Yeah I got it,thanks a lot really.That was big help for me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K