Deriving the Laplacian in spherical coordinates

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the Laplacian in spherical coordinates, specifically addressing the mathematical expressions for partial derivatives in terms of spherical coordinates (##r, \theta, \phi##). Participants highlight the necessity of including derivatives with respect to ##r## and correcting the initial expressions provided. The Laplacian is confirmed to involve second derivatives with respect to all three coordinates, and suggestions are made to simplify the process by utilizing results from general coordinate systems. A resource link is provided for further guidance.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of spherical coordinates (##r, \theta, \phi##)
  • Familiarity with vector calculus and partial derivatives
  • Knowledge of the Laplacian operator in multiple dimensions
  • Basic principles of quantum mechanics and mathematical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Laplacian in spherical coordinates
  • Learn about general coordinate systems and their applications in physics
  • Explore the use of test functions in vector calculus
  • Review two-dimensional Laplacian derivations before tackling three dimensions
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics and physics, particularly those focusing on quantum mechanics, as well as researchers and educators looking to deepen their understanding of vector calculus in spherical coordinates.

Mayhem
Messages
424
Reaction score
317
Homework Statement
Derive the Laplacian in spherical coordinates using the Laplacian in rectangular coordinates
Relevant Equations
##\nabla = \left ( \frac{\partial }{\partial x}, \frac{\partial }{\partial y}, \frac{\partial }{\partial z}\right )##

##x=r \sin(\theta) \cos(\phi), y=r \sin(\theta) \sin(\phi), z = r \cos(\theta)##
As a part of my self study, I am trying to derive the Laplacian in spherical coordinates to gain a deeper understanding of the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
For reference, this the sphere I am using, where ##r## is constant and ##\theta = \theta (x,y, z), \phi = \phi(x,y)##.
1635943766323.png


Given the definitions in "Relevant Equations", we can define the partial derivatives of ##x, y## and ##z##$$\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x} &= r\left(\cos(\theta)\cos(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta} - \sin(\theta)\sin(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \phi}\right ) \\
\frac{\partial }{\partial y} &= r\left(\cos(\theta)\sin(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta} - \sin(\theta)\cos(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \phi}\right ) \\
\frac{\partial }{\partial z} &= -r \sin(\theta) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta}
\end{align*}$$
Thus the gradient in spherical coordinates becomes $$\nabla = \begin{pmatrix}
r\left(\cos(\theta)\cos(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta} - \sin(\theta)\sin(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \phi}\right )\\
r\left(\cos(\theta)\sin(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta} - \sin(\theta)\cos(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \phi}\right )
\\
-r \sin(\theta) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta}\end{pmatrix}
$$
The Laplacian is given as ##\Delta = \nabla \cdot \nabla = \nabla^2##.

My question is: once I take the dot product of the given gradient vector, will I be able to simplify into the Laplacian for spherical coordinates? I am asking, because it takes a lot of brute calculations to find out, and therefore I want to know if my initial math is correct.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
You've expressed the partial derivatives in terms of ##\theta## and ##\phi##, but you've omitted the derivatives in terms of ##r##. Also, the vector is still in terms of the Cartesian basis vectors, rather than ##\hat r## etc.

The Laplacian has second derivatives with respect to ##x, y, z##, so you should expect second derivatives with respect to ##r, \theta, \phi## to appear.

So, you have some mistakes and misconceptions, I'm sorry to say.
 
  • Like
Likes docnet
PeroK said:
You've expressed the partial derivatives in terms of ##\theta## and ##\phi##, but you've omitted the derivatives in terms of ##r##. Also, the vector is still in terms of the Cartesian basis vectors, rather than ##\hat r## etc.

The Laplacian has second derivatives with respect to ##x, y, z##, so you should expect second derivatives with respect to ##r, \theta, \phi## to appear.

So, you have some mistakes and misconceptions, I'm sorry to say.
Where exactly do I start then?
 
Mayhem said:
Where exactly do I start then?
I just noticed that your derivatives are not right:

Mayhem said:
Given the definitions in "Relevant Equations", we can define the partial derivatives of ##x, y## and ##z##$$\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x} &= r\left(\cos(\theta)\cos(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta} - \sin(\theta)\sin(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \phi}\right ) \\
\frac{\partial }{\partial y} &= r\left(\cos(\theta)\sin(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta} - \sin(\theta)\cos(\phi)\frac{\partial }{\partial \phi}\right ) \\
\frac{\partial }{\partial z} &= -r \sin(\theta) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta}
\end{align*}$$
It's generally better to included test function to avoid mistakes:
$$\frac{\partial f }{\partial x} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial r}\frac{\partial r}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta}\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial \phi}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}$$
 
PeroK said:
I just noticed that your derivatives are not right:It's generally better to included test function to avoid mistakes:
$$\frac{\partial f }{\partial x} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial r}\frac{\partial r}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta}\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial \phi}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}$$
I am a little confused it seems. I cannot take ##r## to be constant?
 
Mayhem said:
I am a little confused it seems. I cannot take ##r## to be constant?
Definitely not. ##r## is one of the three coordinates.
 
PeroK said:
Definitely not. ##r## is one of the three coordinates.
I see. I found this and it seems what I am trying to accomplish isn't exactly a simple task (probably why my textbook omitted the derivation), but I will try to work through it.
 
Mayhem said:
I see. I found this and it seems what I am trying to accomplish isn't exactly a simple task (probably why my textbook omitted the derivation), but I will try to work through it.
That's even more work than I recall. There are quicker ways to do it using results for general coordinate systems.
 
PeroK said:
That's even more work than I recall. There are quicker ways to do it using results for general coordinate systems.
Hm.

I think I might have to backtrack a little and consider the same problem but in two dimensions, and then once I understand that, I can move on to the 3D case.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K