Condition of Helmholtz theorem to hold.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Helmholtz theorem requires that the vector field \(\vec{F}(\vec{r}')\) can be expressed as \(-\nabla U + \nabla \times \vec{A}\) under specific decay conditions. Both \(\nabla U\) and \(\nabla \times \vec{A}\) must approach zero faster than \(\frac{1}{r^2}\) as \(r\) approaches infinity. However, the only requirement for \(\vec{F}(\vec{r}')\) is that its magnitude approaches zero, leading to a distinction between the decay rates of \(\vec{F}\) and its divergence or curl. The convergence of integrals involving \(\nabla \cdot \vec{F}\) necessitates that the divergence decays faster than \(\frac{1}{r'^3}\) to ensure proper boundary conditions are met.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus, specifically divergence and curl
  • Familiarity with Helmholtz decomposition theorem
  • Knowledge of boundary conditions in mathematical physics
  • Proficiency in integral calculus, particularly in three dimensions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Helmholtz decomposition theorem in detail
  • Learn about the conditions for convergence of integrals in vector fields
  • Explore boundary conditions in mathematical physics
  • Investigate the implications of decay rates in physical applications
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, mathematicians, and students studying vector fields and their applications in theoretical physics, particularly those interested in the Helmholtz theorem and its implications for field behavior at infinity.

yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
291
I want to verify this, according to Griffiths p 557:
[tex]\vec{F}(\vec r')=-\nabla U+\nabla\times\vec A[/tex]
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 [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] come from a different place than the constraints on its divergence and curl.

The reason why one needs [itex]\nabla \cdot \vec{F}[/itex] and [itex]\nabla \times \vec{F}[/itex] 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 [itex]\frac{1}{r'^3}[/itex], so this gives your constraint on [itex]\nabla \cdot \vec{F}[/itex]. 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 [itex]r' = \infty[/itex].

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 [itex]\vec{F}(\vec{r}')[/itex], 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).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K