Calculating the Gradient of Magnitude of a Scalar Field

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ShayanJ
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the gradient of the magnitude of a scalar field, specifically the expression for the x-coordinate of the gradient, represented as \nabla \left( \left| \nabla \varphi \right| \right)_{x}. The user derived a formula involving second derivatives and trigonometric identities, ultimately integrating to show that \int \left[ \nabla \left( \left| \nabla \varphi \right| \right) \right]_{x} = \left| \nabla \varphi \right|. The conversation highlights the importance of treating variables correctly, particularly in relation to the constancy of \frac {\partial \varphi} {\partial y} during integration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of scalar fields and their gradients
  • Familiarity with partial derivatives and their notation
  • Knowledge of trigonometric functions and their applications in calculus
  • Basic integration techniques in multivariable calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of gradients in vector calculus
  • Explore integration techniques for multivariable functions
  • Learn about the implications of treating variables as constants in calculus
  • Investigate the relationship between scalar fields and their gradients in physical applications
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineering students interested in advanced calculus, particularly those working with scalar fields and gradient calculations.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
I know my question is strange(and maybe stupid) but I'm really curious about it.I once tried to calculate the gradient of the magnitude of the gradient of a scalar field which for its x coordinate,I found:

[itex] \left[ \nabla \left( \left| \nabla \varphi \right| \right) \right]_{x} = <br /> \frac {\frac { \partial ^ {2} \varphi } {\partial x ^ {2} } } <br /> {\sqrt { 1+ (\frac{\frac {\partial \varphi} {\partial y} } {\frac {\partial \varphi } {\partial x} } )^{2} } }<br /> [/itex]

then I tried to write it in a simpler form and it just came into my mind that I can integrate it and write it as the derivative of a function so I made substitutions below and treated [itex]\frac {\partial \varphi} {\partial y}[/itex] as constant:

[itex]\frac{\frac {\partial \varphi } {\partial y} }{\frac {\partial \varphi } {\partial x} }=\tan{\theta}[/itex]
[itex] \frac{\partial ^{2} \varphi }{\partial x ^{2} }=- \frac {\partial \varphi } {\partial y} \csc ^{2}{\theta} d \theta[/itex]

so I arrived at:

[itex] <br /> \int \left[ \nabla \left( \left| \nabla \varphi \right| \right) \right]_{x} =<br /> \frac {\partial \varphi} {\partial y} \csc {\theta}<br /> [/itex]

I reverted and got the following:

[itex] <br /> \int \left[ \nabla \left( \left| \nabla \varphi \right| \right) \right]_{x} =<br /> \left| \nabla \varphi \right|<br /> [/itex]

Now comes my question:
When I check the things I've done,I just can tell bullsh*t.But the result tells that was really an inegration but I really don't understand how can that be an integration.

Sorry for such a mess and thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not really sure what you did (I'm not really good at that stuff), but I don't think you have to treat [itex]\frac {\partial \varphi} {\partial y}[/itex] as constant since [itex]\theta[/itex] can be a variable (I'm not really sure if I'm right, but I think it works that way).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K