B Can we differentiate with respect to a vector?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the differentiation of acceleration with respect to a vector, specifically questioning whether the equation a = v dv/dx can be expressed as a vector equation without resolving into components. It is clarified that while the equation can be applied in three dimensions, it is essential to consider partial derivatives when differentiating with respect to spatial position. The conversation also touches on the concept of the gradient and the use of tensors in this context, noting that the expression becomes undefined when velocity is zero. Additionally, the distinction between single particle motion and velocity fields is made, emphasizing that velocity fields are relevant in fluid dynamics. Overall, the thread explores the mathematical framework for understanding vector differentiation in physics.
KnightTheConqueror
Messages
16
Reaction score
8
We know that a = vdv/dx
But is it applicable in only one dimensional components or is this actually a vector equation? If so then how do we exactly differentiate with respect to position 'vector'?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks for answering, but I know that I can resolve it into components and solve. My problem is not that I am unable to use that equation in 3D. Rather, I am just curious whether we can write that equation as an vector equation directly without resolving.

Let me elaborate...

v = u + at here, although we can apply this equairon to x, y, z component separately and then add them but resolving into components is just something to make our work easier. v = u + at is still a vector equation and we can solve it using other methods of vector too for example geometry.
Likewise, I can apply a = vdv/dx to x, or vdv/dy to y
But
Can we just write that equation in vector form without needing to resolve into one dimensional components? Can we say that acceleration vector = velocity vector times d of velocity vector upon x of position vector.
If so then what exactly do we mean by differentiating with respect to a vector?
 
KnightTheConqueror said:
We know that a = vdv/dx
But is it applicable in only one dimensional components or is this actually a vector equation? If so then how do we exactly differentiate with respect to position 'vector'?
Let ##s## denote arc length along the trajectory of the particle. Consider the velocity of the particle as a function of arc length: ##\vec v(s)##. Use the chain rule to express the acceleration as ##\vec a = \dfrac{d\vec v}{ds} \dfrac{ds}{dt}## and note that ##\dfrac{ds}{dt}## is the speed ##v## of the particle. So, ##\vec a = v\dfrac{d\vec v}{ds}##.
(This expression is undefined at points of the trajectory where ##v = 0##, just as the 1-D expression ##a = v \dfrac{dv}{dx}## is undefined when ##v = 0##.)
 
  • Like
Likes KnightTheConqueror
What you are looking for is the gradient. Your derivatives wrt the spatial position need to be partial derivatives.
$$
\vec a = \frac{d\vec v}{dt} = \frac{d\vec x}{dt} \cdot\nabla\vec v = \vec v \cdot \nabla \vec v$$
Note that ##\nabla \vec v## is a rank 2 tensor.
 
  • Like
Likes KnightTheConqueror
TSny said:
Let ##s## denote arc length along the trajectory of the particle. Consider the velocity of the particle as a function of arc length: ##\vec v(s)##. Use the chain rule to express the acceleration as ##\vec a = \dfrac{d\vec v}{ds} \dfrac{ds}{dt}## and note that ##\dfrac{ds}{dt}## is the speed ##v## of the particle. So, ##\vec a = v\dfrac{d\vec v}{ds}##.
(This expression is undefined at points of the trajectory where ##v = 0##, just as the 1-D expression ##a = v \dfrac{dv}{dx}## is undefined when ##v = 0##.)
This is what I was looking for. Thank you very much!
 
Orodruin said:
What you are looking for is the gradient. Your derivatives wrt the spatial position need to be partial derivatives.
$$
\vec a = \frac{d\vec v}{dt} = \frac{d\vec x}{dt} \cdot\nabla\vec v = \vec v \cdot \nabla \vec v$$
Note that ##\nabla \vec v## is a rank 2 tensor.
I am still in high school and I haven't studied tensors... Can you suggest me some resource to get an idea of it?
 
TSny said:
(This expression is undefined at points of the trajectory where ##v = 0##, just as the 1-D expression ##a = v \dfrac{dv}{dx}## is undefined when ##v = 0##.)
This is not really correct. If the velocity field is such that it depends on position only (which needs to be the case for the derivative ##\partial \vec v/\partial x^i## to make sense), then the expression in #4 makes sense even if ##\vec v = 0##. It is when you require the path length ##s## that it becomes a problem. It is not necessarily a problem of the one-dimensional case if it can be seen as the restriction of #4 to one dimension. It is just that if ##\vec v = 0##, then in that case ##\vec a = 0## and consequently ##\vec v## is constantly zero. So there are certainly cases where the expression
 
KnightTheConqueror said:
I am still in high school and I haven't studied tensors... Can you suggest me some resource to get an idea of it?
If you are familiar with matrices, you may for practical purposes in Cartesian coordinates consider a rank 2 tensor a 3x3 matrix
$$
\begin{pmatrix}\partial v^x/\partial x & \partial v^y /\partial x & \partial v^z /\partial x \\
\partial v^x/\partial y & \partial v^y /\partial y & \partial v^z /\partial y \\
\partial v^x/\partial z & \partial v^y /\partial z & \partial v^z /\partial z \end{pmatrix}
$$
Multipyling with ##\begin{pmatrix}v^x & v^y & v^z\end{pmatrix}## from the left gives
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
v^x (\partial v^x/\partial x) +
v^y (\partial v^x/\partial y) +
v^z (\partial v^x/\partial z) &
v^x (\partial v^y/\partial x) +
v^y (\partial v^y/\partial y) +
v^z (\partial v^y/\partial z) &
v^x (\partial v^z/\partial x) +
v^y (\partial v^z/\partial y) +
v^z (\partial v^z/\partial z)
\end{pmatrix}
$$
 
Orodruin said:
This is not really correct.
If we try to evaluate ##\vec a(s) = v(s) \dfrac{d\vec v(s)}{ds}## at a point ##s_0## where ##v(s_0) = 0##, then we would find ##\left. \dfrac{d\vec v(s)}{ds} \right|_{s_0}## is undefined. However, the acceleration at ##s_0## can be evaluated as a limit: $$\vec a(s_0) = \lim_{s \to s_0} \left[ v(s) \dfrac{d\vec v(s)}{ds} \right].$$

Orodruin said:
What you are looking for is the gradient. Your derivatives wrt the spatial position need to be partial derivatives.
$$
\vec a = \frac{d\vec v}{dt} = \frac{d\vec x}{dt} \cdot\nabla\vec v = \vec v \cdot \nabla \vec v$$
Note that ##\nabla \vec v## is a rank 2 tensor.
I don't understand how you are working with a velocity vector field to give meaning to the tensor ##\nabla \vec v##.

For example, how would you evaluate the tensor component ##\dfrac{\partial v^y}{\partial x}## for a particle in projectile motion?
 
  • #10
TSny said:
If we try to evaluate ##\vec a(s) = v(s) \dfrac{d\vec v(s)}{ds}## at a point ##s_0## where ##v(s_0) = 0##, then we would find ##\left. \dfrac{d\vec v(s)}{ds} \right|_{s_0}## is undefined. However, the acceleration at ##s_0## can be evaluated as a limit: $$\vec a(s_0) = \lim_{s \to s_0} \left[ v(s) \dfrac{d\vec v(s)}{ds} \right].$$
With path length, no. With respect to a coordinate in a velocity field, yes.

TSny said:
I don't understand how you are working with a velocity vector field to give meaning to the tensor ##\nabla \vec v##.

For example, how would you evaluate the tensor component ##\dfrac{\partial v^y}{\partial x}## for a particle in projectile motion?

A single particle in projectile motion is not in a velocity field. There are however many situations where velocity fields make perfect sense, such as for a fluid parcel. The above would apply to a fluid parcel in a stationary flow (for a non-stationary flow there would be additional terms due to the time derivative of the flow).
 
  • #11
Orodruin said:
With path length, no. With respect to a coordinate in a velocity field, yes.
I’m not sure what the “no” and “yes” mean here.
Orodruin said:
A single particle in projectile motion is not in a velocity field. There are however many situations where velocity fields make perfect sense, such as for a fluid parcel. The above would apply to a fluid parcel in a stationary flow (for a non-stationary flow there would be additional terms due to the time derivative of the flow).
That makes sense. Thanks.
 
Back
Top