Compute ∇(1/r): Solving a Sphere Integral

  • Thread starter Thread starter hhhmortal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral Sphere
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on computing the gradient of 1/r and demonstrating that the integral of the Laplacian of 1/r over a sphere containing the origin equals -4π. Participants note the challenge of differentiating 1/r at the origin, suggesting that the problem typically specifies excluding the origin due to its unique treatment as a Dirac delta function. It is clarified that instead of integrating the Laplacian over the sphere's interior, one should focus on the surface integral of the gradient of 1/r, which yields -4π. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the behavior of the Laplacian of 1/r, which is zero everywhere except at the origin, and how this relates to Gauss' theorem. Ultimately, the integration of the gradient over the sphere's surface is the correct approach to solve the problem.
hhhmortal
Messages
175
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



By computing ∇(1/r) show that

∫∇²(1/r).dV = -4Pi if the volume 'V' is a sphere containing the origin.

The Attempt at a Solution



∫∇²(1/r).dV = ∫∇(1/r).dS But I can't differentiate (1/r) since the sphere contains the origin. I am wondering if there's any other way to tackle this.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
hhhmortal said:

Homework Statement



By computing ∇(1/r) show that

∫∇²(1/r).dV = -4Pi if the volume 'V' is a sphere containing the origin.





The Attempt at a Solution



∫∇²(1/r).dV = ∫∇(1/r).dS But I can't different (1/r) since the sphere contains the origin. I am wondering if there's any other way to tackle this.

You try to use this?

\nabla(\frac{1}{R})=\frac{\hat{R}}{R^{2}}
 
yungman said:
You try to use this?

\nabla(\frac{1}{R})=\frac{\hat{R}}{R^{2}}

How did you get this? I don't think I can differentiate it since the origin lies in the sphere, so the gradient of 1/0 can't happen.
 
\vec{R}=\hat{x}(x-x')+\hat{y}(y-y')+\hat{z}(z-z')

\frac{1}{R}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(x-x')^{2}+(y-y')^{2}+(z-z')^{2}}}\Rightarrow \nabla(\frac{1}{R}) = \hat{x}\frac{\partial \frac{1}{R}}{\partial x}+\hat{y}\frac{\partial \frac{1}{R}}{\partial y}+\hat{z}\frac{\partial \frac{1}{R}}{\partial z}

\nabla(\frac{1}{R}) = -\frac{\hat{x}(x-x')+\hat{y}(y-y')+\hat{z}(z-z')}{((x-x')^{2}+(y-y')^{2}+(z-z')^{2})^{\frac{3}{2}}} = -\frac{\hat{R}}{R^{2}}

Yes this won't work at the origin. That is the reason usually problem specify not including origin. Origin is treated differently...something like Direc Delta function or something like that. I am not familiar with that.
 
yungman said:
\vec{R}=\hat{x}(x-x')+\hat{y}(y-y')+\hat{z}(z-z')

\frac{1}{R}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(x-x')^{2}+(y-y')^{2}+(z-z')^{2}}}\Rightarrow \nabla(\frac{1}{R}) = \hat{x}\frac{\partial \frac{1}{R}}{\partial x}+\hat{y}\frac{\partial \frac{1}{R}}{\partial y}+\hat{z}\frac{\partial \frac{1}{R}}{\partial z}

\nabla(\frac{1}{R}) = -\frac{\hat{x}(x-x')+\hat{y}(y-y')+\hat{z}(z-z')}{((x-x')^{2}+(y-y')^{2}+(z-z')^{2})^{\frac{3}{2}}} = -\frac{\hat{R}}{R^{2}}

Yes this won't work at the origin. That is the reason usually problem specify not including origin. Origin is treated differently...something like Direc Delta function or something like that. I am not familiar with that.

Oh ok thanks, that way is much more clear! I still don't know how I could possibly get -4Pi without differentiating (1/r), can anyone help on this please!
 
You aren't supposed to actually integrate the laplacian of 1/r over the interior of the sphere. You can't, it's not even defined at the origin. You are just supposed to show that integrating grad(1/r) over the surface of any sphere centered at the origin is -4*pi, as yungman said. That shows DEFINING laplacian of 1/r to be a dirac delta function at the origin makes sense in terms of Gauss' theorem. Note that laplacian of 1/r is equal to zero EXCEPT at the origin.
 
Dick said:
You aren't supposed to actually integrate the laplacian of 1/r over the interior of the sphere. You can't, it's not even defined at the origin. You are just supposed to show that integrating grad(1/r) over the surface of any sphere centered at the origin is -4*pi, as yungman said. That shows DEFINING laplacian of 1/r to be a dirac delta function at the origin makes sense in terms of Gauss' theorem. Note that laplacian of 1/r is equal to zero EXCEPT at the origin.

Oh right! so,

∫∇(1/r).δ(r-r).dS = ∫∇(1/r).dS

we know the dirac delta function will be 1, so now I can take the gradient of (1/r) and integrate it over the surface of the sphere to get -4Pi.

I'm confused as to what would happen if the dirac delta function is zero?
 
Just for future reference, here's a handy formula:

\vec{\nabla}= \hat{r}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial r} + \hat{\phi}\dfrac{1}{r}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial\phi} + \hat{\theta}\dfrac{1}{r sin(\phi)}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial\theta}

You can just "multiply" this operator by whatever function you want to take the gradient of, and you'll be able to do it in spherical coordinates. You can see that in the case of a spherically symmetric function like \frac{1}{r}, only the first term matters, which makes things even easier.
 
hhhmortal said:
Oh right! so,

∫∇(1/r).δ(r-r).dS = ∫∇(1/r).dS

we know the dirac delta function will be 1, so now I can take the gradient of (1/r) and integrate it over the surface of the sphere to get -4Pi.

I'm confused as to what would happen if the dirac delta function is zero?

No, no, no, no. The delta function isn't in the surface integral, it's in the volume integral. You are supposed to show that the surface integral of grad(1/r) is the same as the volume integral of a 'laplacian' if you choose to define the 'laplacian' to be a delta function.
 
  • #10
I think you can assume that the origin is not on the surface of the sphere, so you can differentiate. And then just integrate.
(<br /> dS=r^2\sin{\theta}d\theta d\phi<br />)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K