Differential forms and differential operators

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around differential forms and differential operators, particularly focusing on the relationships between scalar fields, vector fields, and their corresponding forms. Participants explore concepts such as the Laplacian, closed and exact forms, and the properties of various forms in the context of differential geometry and physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that a scalar field corresponds to a 0-form, while others question the implications of this relationship.
  • There is disagreement on whether the Laplacian of a 0-form is a 2-form, with some stating it is not true.
  • Participants discuss the existence of negative forms and higher forms, with varying opinions on their applicability and definitions.
  • Questions arise about the properties of fields with zero gradients, with some suggesting that a scalar field with a zero gradient is a constant field.
  • There is contention regarding whether a 3-form can be exact or closed, with some participants providing conditions under which this may hold.
  • Participants explore the relationship between the Laplacian and the theory of closed and exact forms, noting that the Laplacian is related to second derivatives.
  • Some participants express confusion over the application of the gradient operator to forms and the implications for the classification of forms.
  • There is a discussion about the terminology used, particularly regarding the gradient and exterior derivative, and how it may lead to misunderstandings.
  • Participants question the nature of fields expressed in terms of the Laplacian, particularly in the context of vector fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach consensus on several key points, including the nature of forms, the implications of the Laplacian, and the properties of fields with zero gradients. Multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved definitions and assumptions regarding forms, the applicability of the Laplacian to different types of fields, and the terminology used to describe differential operators.

Jhenrique
Messages
676
Reaction score
4
After read this stretch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_and_exact_forms#Vector_field_analogies, my doubts increased exponentially...
1. A scalar field correspond always to a 0-form?
1.1. The laplacian of 0-form is a 2-form?
1.2. But the laplacian of sclar field is another scalar field.
1.3. If yes, we have a scalar field 2-form, thus scalar field can be k-form.
2. Exist (-1)-form?
3. Exist 4-form?
4. How know if a vector field (and a scalar field too) is a 0-form, 1-form, 2-form, 3-form or k-form?
5. If the gradient of a 0-form is zero, so, this 0-form is closed?
5.1. Which the name given for a scalar field that have gradient zero?
5.3. Which are your the properties?
6. A 3-form can be exact?
7. A 3-form can be closed?
8. Why the laplacian wasn't mentioned in the stretch? The laplacian can be used in the theory of closed and exact forms?
8.1. If the laplacian of a vector field is zero, the vector field is called harmonic; if the laplacian of a scalar field is zero, so the scalar field is called harmonic, correct?
9. d²=0 but ∇²≠0
10. If a vector field F can be expressed as F=∇²G, so, what is G?
11. If a scalar field f can be expressed as f=∇²g, so, what is g?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jhenrique said:
After read this stretch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_and_exact_forms#Vector_field_analogies, my doubts increased exponentially...
1. A scalar field correspond always to a 0-form?
Yes, this is true.

1.1. The laplacian of 0-form is a 2-form?
No, this is not true.

1.2. But the laplacian of sclar field is another scalar field.
Yes, it is the trace of a 2-form, not a 2-form.

1.3. If yes, we have a scalar field 2-form, thus scalar field can be k-form.

2. Exist (-1)-form?
Some texts will consider the trivial vector space that contains only the 0 vector to be a "-1 form", but it has no useful application.

3. Exist 4-form?
If you are working only with R3, then no, but yes, you can have any integer "n-forms", if the underlying space is of high enough dimension.

4. How know if a vector field (and a scalar field too) is a 0-form, 1-form, 2-form, 3-form or k-form?[/quote]

5. If the gradient of a 0-form is zero, so, this 0-form is closed?
Yes.

5.1. Which the name given for a scalar field that have gradient zero?
A "closed" field.

5.3. Which are your the properties?
Well, I own one property in Alabama and another in ... wait, what?

6. A 3-form can be exact?
Yes, if there is a 2 form of which it is the gradient.

7. A 3-form can be closed?
Yes, if its gradient is 0.

8. Why the laplacian wasn't mentioned in the stretch? The laplacian can be used in the theory of closed and exact forms?
The Laplacian is, as above, the trace of a second derivative operator. It's not going to be directly connected with first derivative operators.

8.1. If the laplacian of a vector field is zero, the vector field is called harmonic; if the laplacian of a scalar field is zero, so the scalar field is called harmonic, correct?
Yes.

9. d²=0 but ∇²≠0
? What?

10. If a vector field F can be expressed as F=∇²G, so, what is G?
If you mean \nabla^2 to indicate the Laplacian, a vector field cannot be expressed in such a way.

11. If a scalar field f can be expressed as f=∇²g, so, what is g?
Again, if you mean \nabla^2 to indicate the Laplacian, g is some smooth scalar field.
g is some scalar field.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Halls, in physics, electrodynamics to be precise, we have laplacians of vector fields (like the electric field intensity E), not necessarily of scalar fields.

11. g = (∇2)-1 f
 
Last edited:
2. Exist (-1)-form?
Some texts will consider the trivial vector space that contains only the 0 vector to be a "-1 form", but it has no useful application.
So no make sense says that a 0-form is exact?

Well, I own one property in Alabama and another in ... wait, what?
I said in the sense of mathematical property, for example, if the curl of a vector field is zero, so this vector fields is irrotational, if the divergent is zero, so is incompressible. In the same way, if the gradient of a scalar field is zero, this scalar field have some special property?

6. A 3-form can be exact?
Yes, if there is a 2 form of which it is the gradient.
But, like you said, scalar field is always a 0-form, and you just compute gradient of scalar field, and the gradient of 0-form is always an 1-form, therefore, how can a 3-form be the result of a gradient of a 0-form?

I think that a 3-form is exact if exist a 2-form such that the divergent of this 2-form results the 3-form...

7. A 3-form can be closed?
Yes, if its gradient is 0.
But the gradient is a operator for differentiate scalar fields, so, if is possible to apply the gradient in a 3-form, thus 3-form is a scalar field, but scalar field can be only 0-form. This is a contradiction!

8. Why the laplacian wasn't mentioned in the stretch? The laplacian can be used in the theory of closed and exact forms?
The Laplacian is, as above, the trace of a second derivative operator. It's not going to be directly connected with first derivative operators.
And the Hessian, is connected with the theory of differential form?

10. If a vector field F can be expressed as F=∇²G, so, what is G?
If you mean ∇² to indicate the Laplacian, a vector field cannot be expressed in such a way.
Why not? The laplacian can be applied in a scalar and in a vector too.

EDIT: for this question, consider F and G too as vectors!

11. If a scalar field f can be expressed as f=∇²g, so, what is g?
Again, if you mean ∇2 to indicate the Laplacian, g is some smooth scalar field.
g is some scalar field.

For, 10 and 11, I thought this way: given this equation ##\vec{f}=\vec{\nabla}f##, ##\vec{f}## is called conservative and ##f## is called scalar potential; for this equation ##\vec{F} =\vec{\nabla}\times \vec{f}##, ##\vec{F}## is called solenoidal, and ##\vec{f}## is called vector potential.

So, analogously, given this equation ##f=\nabla^2 g##, ##f## f is called harmonic and ##g## I don't know; now for this equation: ##\vec{f}=\nabla^2\vec{g}##, ##\vec{f}## is called harmonic and ##\vec{g}## I don't know. But I'd like to know the name those guys for that I can search about.
 
Up...
 
Jhenrique said:
So no make sense says that a 0-form is exact?

Right, it doesn't make sense.

I said in the sense of mathematical property, for example, if the curl of a vector field is zero, so this vector fields is irrotational, if the divergent is zero, so is incompressible. In the same way, if the gradient of a scalar field is zero, this scalar field have some special property?

A scalar field who's gradient is 0 is a constant field.

But, like you said, scalar field is always a 0-form, and you just compute gradient of scalar field, and the gradient of 0-form is always an 1-form, therefore, how can a 3-form be the result of a gradient of a 0-form?

I think that a 3-form is exact if exist a 2-form such that the divergent of this 2-form results the 3-form...

A 3 form is exact if it is the exterior derivative of a 2-form. Gradient might be a little bit confusing terminology wise.

But the gradient is a operator for differentiate scalar fields, so, if is possible to apply the gradient in a 3-form, thus 3-form is a scalar field, but scalar field can be only 0-form. This is a contradiction!

Replace "gradient" with "exterior derivative". "Gradient" is, in my opinion, confusing terminology to use here.

And the Hessian, is connected with the theory of differential form?
I've never seen the Hessian generalized through the use of differential forms. (Doesn't mean such a generalization doesn't exist, I just have never seen it).

Why not? The laplacian can be applied in a scalar and in a vector too.

I'll let Halls answer this one, as I don't even know where you're trying to go with your original question #10.

EDIT: for this question, consider F and G too as vectors!
For, 10 and 11, I thought this way: given this equation ##\vec{f}=\vec{\nabla}f##, ##\vec{f}## is called conservative and ##f## is called scalar potential; for this equation ##\vec{F} =\vec{\nabla}\times \vec{f}##, ##\vec{F}## is called solenoidal, and ##\vec{f}## is called vector potential.

So, analogously, given this equation ##f=\nabla^2 g##, ##f## f is called harmonic and ##g## I don't know; now for this equation: ##\vec{f}=\nabla^2\vec{g}##, ##\vec{f}## is called harmonic and ##\vec{g}## I don't know. But I'd like to know the name those guys for that I can search about.

The names you give them "vector potential" and "scalar potential" are exclusive for electrodynamics (and sometimes used in other fields where an analogy to electrodynamics is drawn). They are not general names given to these vectors and scalars. In general, these things don't really have designated names other than "scalar field" and "vector field".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K