Condition of Helmholtz theorem to hold.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conditions required for Helmholtz's theorem to hold, specifically regarding the force field \(\vec{F}(\vec{r}')\) and its divergence and curl. It emphasizes that while \(\nabla U\) and \(\nabla \times \vec{A}\) must decay faster than \(\frac{1}{r^2}\) as \(r\) approaches infinity, the only requirement for \(\vec{F}(\vec{r}')\) is that its magnitude approaches zero. The necessity for the divergence and curl to decay at this rate arises from the convergence of integrals involving these terms. The boundary conditions set to zero at infinity are often accepted by physicists without further scrutiny. Overall, while the conditions may seem stringent, they are typically considered sufficient for practical applications.
yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
294
I want to verify this, according to Griffiths p 557:
\vec{F}(\vec r')=-\nabla U+\nabla\times\vec A
ONLY if both ##\nabla U\; and \; \nabla\times\vec A\rightarrow\;0## faster than ##\frac 1 {r^2}## as ##r\rightarrow\;\infty##.

But the requirement of ##\vec{F}(\vec r')## is only ##|\vec{F}(\vec r')|\rightarrow\;0## as ##r\rightarrow\;\infty##.

If divergence or curl of ##\vec{F}(\vec r')## has to roll off faster than ##\frac 1 {r^2}##, then ##\vec{F}(\vec r')## must roll off at least as fast as ##\frac 1 {r^2}##. Why is it not a requirement?

I read quite a few article, it is very unclear in this condition. Only Griffiths spelled out clearly, all the other books just beat around this.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It appears that the constraints on \vec{F} come from a different place than the constraints on its divergence and curl.

The reason why one needs \nabla \cdot \vec{F} and \nabla \times \vec{F} to decay like they do is because the solution is given explicitly by integrals such as

$$ \int d^3\vec{r}' \frac{\nabla \cdot \vec{F}(\vec{r}')}{|\vec{r}-\vec{r}'|} .$$

In order for this integral to converge, the integrand needs to decay faster than the measure, so like \frac{1}{r'^3}, so this gives your constraint on \nabla \cdot \vec{F}. Furthermore, in the course of the proof, you integrate by parts, and you set the boundary term to zero. The boundary term from the "divergence" part looks like

$$ \oint_{r' = \infty} d^2\vec{a}' \frac{\vec{F}(\vec{r}') \cdot \hat{n}}{|\vec{r}-\vec{r}'|} $$

so by setting this to zero, you are merely assuming that the integrand is zero at r' = \infty.

Now in practice, in order for the conditions on the divergence and curl to hold, I suppose there are more stringent conditions on the function \vec{F}(\vec{r}'), so the second assumption might be superfluous in applications. However, most physicists are comfortable with setting everything to zero at infinity as soon as they see fit and don't really look twice at either of these conditions (you usually read "decays sufficiently quickly" without qualifications).
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top