Divergence of ##\vec{x}/\vert\vec{x}\vert^3##

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the divergence of the vector field ##\vec{F} = \vec{x}/\vert\vec{x}\vert^3## in the context of vector calculus, specifically within three-dimensional space. Participants are exploring the implications of the divergence being zero and the physical interpretation related to point charges and sources.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of divergence and express confusion regarding the result being zero. Questions are raised about the physical interpretation of divergence in relation to point charges and the implications of excluding the origin from the field.

Discussion Status

Some participants have expressed relief at the confirmation that their calculations may be correct, while others are seeking further opinions on the interpretation of the results and the assumptions made regarding the origin of the vector field.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the potential oversight in the problem statement regarding the origin, which is a point of contention in the discussion. Participants are considering the implications of dividing by zero and the nature of the vector field at that point.

PhysicsRock
Messages
121
Reaction score
19
Homework Statement
Calculate ##\displaystyle \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \frac{x_i}{\vert\vec{x}\vert^3}##
Relevant Equations
##\nabla \cdot \vec{F} = \sum_i \frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x_i}##
As you can see in the homework statement, I am asked to calculate what's effectively the divergence of the vector field ##\vec{F} = \vec{x}/\vert\vec{x}\vert^3## over ##\mathbb{R}^3##. I have done that, the calculation itself isn't that difficult after all. However, I can't make sense of the result, which makes me wonder whether I've made a mistake. What I find is that ##\nabla \cdot \vec{F} = 0##. I used GeoGebra to plot the field, and what I see is vectors "coming out" of the origin. Is it as simple as to say that, since you can't divide by 0, the origin isn't part of the field, and thus, there is no particular source? Or have I made a mistake in my calculations and the result isn't 0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
See this thread
Lambda96 said:
Homework Statement: Calculate the following ##\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{E}(\vec{r})##
Relevant Equations: none

Hi,

unfortunately, I am not sure if I have calculated the task correctly

View attachment 325180
The electric field of a point charge looks like this ##\vec{E}(\vec{r})=\frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\frac{\vec{r}}{|\vec{r}|^3}## I have now simply divided the electric field into its components i.e. #E_x , E-y, E_z#.

$$\vec{E}(\vec{r})=\frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\left( \begin{array}{rrr}
\frac{x}{(x^2+y^2+z^3)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \\
\frac{y}{(x^2+y^2+z^3)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \\
\frac{z}{(x^2+y^2+z^3)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \\
\end{array}\right)$$

Then I calculated the divergence

$$\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{E}(\vec{r})=\frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl( \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\frac{x}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac{3}{2} }} +\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\frac{y}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac{3}{2} }} +\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\frac{z}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac{3}{2} }} \Bigr)=\Bigl( \frac{-2x^2+y^2+z^2}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac{5}{2} }} +\frac{x^2-2y^2+z^2}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac{5}{2} }} +\frac{x^2+y^2-2z^2}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac{5}{2} }} \Bigr)=0$$

With the result of 0 I am a bit confused, in the task is not mentioned the sign of the charge, but with a positive charge I would expect as a divergence a source, so the divergence would have to be positive and with a negative charge, a sink, so a negative divergence.

Have I somehow miscalculated, or do I have a thinking error in the physical interpretation of the result?
 
The vector field is indeed solenoidal, without divergence. All vector fields of type ##\dfrac{\vec{c}\times \vec{r}}{\|\vec{r}\|^3}## are.

PhysicsRock said:
Is it as simple as to say that, since you can't divide by 0, the origin isn't part of the field, and thus, there is no particular source? Or have I made a mistake in my calculations and the result isn't 0?

We always have a ball of some positive radius and vectors pointing outward of equal length. You could as well say that there is no way to lose or gain energy on a closed path through that field.
 
PhysicsRock said:
I am asked to calculate what's effectively the divergence of the vector field ##\vec{F} = \vec{x}/\vert\vec{x}\vert^3## over ##\mathbb{R}^3##.
I think that the origin should be omitted.
PhysicsRock said:
Is it as simple as to say that, since you can't divide by 0, the origin isn't part of the field, and thus, there is no particular source?
IMO, you are correct. The initial statement of the problem seems a little careless by including the origin.
I would like to hear the opinion on this of others who have more expertise.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhysicsRock

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K