Divergence what am I doing wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter FrogPad
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Divergence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of divergence in vector calculus, specifically examining whether a given vector field is divergence-free. The original poster is attempting to compute the divergence of a vector field expressed in polar coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to calculate the divergence of a vector field in polar coordinates but encounters confusion regarding the transformation of vector components. Some participants suggest that the original poster has not correctly transformed the components from rectangular to polar coordinates.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's approach, providing feedback on the transformation process. There is a recognition of the original poster's efforts, but also a clear indication that further clarification and correction are needed regarding the proper handling of vector components.

Contextual Notes

There is an acknowledgment of the complexity involved in transitioning from rectangular to polar coordinates, and some participants express their own challenges in understanding the divergence calculation. The discussion highlights the importance of correctly identifying vector components in different coordinate systems.

FrogPad
Messages
801
Reaction score
0
I don't understand what I am doing wrong here.

I'm supposed to show that this function is divergence free.

\vec v = \left( \frac{x}{x^2+y^2}, \frac{y}{x^2+y^2} \right)

I ran the divergence through with my TI-89 at it equals 0. But, I want to calculate it by hand, so it would be easier to do this in polar coordinates (and this is my problem).

\vec v(r,\theta) = \left ( \frac{\cos \theta}{r}, \frac{\sin \theta}{r} \left)

Standard divergence in cylindrical coordinates (dropping the z component)
div\,\, \vec u = \frac{1}{r} \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial r} (rF_r) +\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} (F_\theta) \right)

div\,\, \vec v = \frac{1}{r}\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial r} (\cos \theta ) + \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\left (\frac{\sin \theta}{r} \right) \right)

Now this is obviously not 0, since the \sin \theta is not going anywhere with the partials. So what am I doing wrong?

Thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
FrogPad said:
\vec v(r,\theta) = \left ( \frac{\cos \theta}{r}, \frac{\sin \theta}{r} \left)

You made a subtle mistake here. Your vector above is still just <br /> \vec{v}=(v_x,v_y). You just changed the expressions for the components. You do not have \vec{v}=(v_r,v_{\theta}) yet. To get that you have to transform the basis vectors from \hat{e}_x and \hat{e}_y to \hat{e}_r and \hat{e}_{\theta}.
 
I'm pretty sure I follow what you are saying. Well, I at least understand it. I am unfortunately too tired to tackle it, so I will do it in the morning... But I should be good with what you said :)

thanks man
 
...but I think he's pretty much there.

Since the \cos and \sin are bounded, and 1/r\rightarrow 0 as r\rightarrow\infty

(with the exception at r=0)
 
No, he is not even close. This has nothing to do with taking a limit. The divergence should vanish identically in polar coordinates, just as it does in rectangular coordinates. His mistake is exactly what I said it was: He is plugging the rectangular components of \vec{v} into the polar form of \vec{\nabla}.

v_x=\frac{x}{x^2+y^2}=\frac{\cos(\theta)}{r}
Note that this is still just v_x

v_y=\frac{y}{x^2+y^2}=\frac{\sin(\theta)}{r}
Note that this is still just v_y

He needs to find the components v_r and v_{\theta}, which both contain contributions from v_x and v_y. This is done by transforming the basis vectors, just like I said.
 
Tom Mattson said:
No, he is not even close. This has nothing to do with taking a limit.
I'm having a very bad brain day :frown:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K