Finding p Given del x q to Vector Calculus

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a vector field \( p \) given that its curl equals a vector field \( q \) (i.e., \( \nabla \times p = q \)). Participants explore various mathematical approaches and theorems related to vector calculus, including divergence and the uniqueness of solutions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests writing down the equations for the individual components of the curl to solve for \( p \).
  • Another participant mentions the potential utility of Stokes' theorem and notes that \( p \) is not uniquely determined, as any irrotational field can be added to \( p \) to yield a new solution.
  • A later reply proposes the use of homotopy operators for finding \( p \).
  • Another participant inquires about the divergence of \( p \) and its projection onto the outward normal vector of the boundary, suggesting that knowledge of these can lead to a unique solution for \( u \).
  • One participant elaborates on the use of a linear homotopy operator and provides a specific formulation for working with closed forms in star-shaped domains.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various methods and considerations for finding \( p \), but there is no consensus on a single approach or solution. Multiple competing views and techniques remain present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of boundary conditions and the uniqueness of solutions, but the discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps or assumptions necessary for a complete understanding.

paddo
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
G'day,
If you're given a vector q and have that del x p=q (i.e curl(p)=q), how would you find p?
Also for divergences.
cheers
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Right down the equations for the individual components:
[tex]\nabla\times p= q[/tex]
means that
[tex]\frac{\partial p_z}{\partial y}- \frac{\partial p_y}{\partial z}= q_x[/tex]
[tex]\frac{\partial p_x}{\partial z}- \frac{\partial p_z}{\partial x}= q_y[/tex]
[tex]\frac{\partial p_y}{\partial x}- \frac{\partial p_x}{\partial y}= q_z[/tex]
Solve those equations.
 
You might get some mileage out of Stokes' theorem. (And some real analysis to figure out how to extract information about p) Keep mind mind that p is not uniquely determined, not even up to a constant. You can add any irrotational field to p and get a new solution. I'm pretty sure there's some ugly integral you can write down that gives you a particular solution -- hopefully someone will remember it and post it here.
 
Hurkyl said:
I'm pretty sure there's some ugly integral you can write down that gives you a particular solution -- hopefully someone will remember it and post it here.

Hurkly, that's funny!

paddo, you may like to compare Ampere's circuital law and the Biot Savart law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot-Savart_law

You may also like to compare Gauss's law with Coulomb's law for a continuous charge distribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law
 
You can use homotopy operators to do this type of thing.
 
Do you happen to know the divergence of p, and the projection of p onto the outward pointing normal vector of the boundary of the volume you're solving for p in?

In general, if you know

[tex]\nabla \times \mathbf{u} = \mathbf{C}(\mathbf{r})[/tex]

[tex]\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u} = s(\mathbf{r})[/tex]

and the value of [itex]\mathbf{\hat{n}}\cdot \mathbf{u}[/itex] on the boundary of the volume you're solving in, [itex]\partial V[/itex], then there is a unique solution for [itex]\mathbf{u}[/itex]. Writing

[tex]\mathbf{u} = -\nabla \phi + \nabla \times \mahtbf{A}[/tex],

then

[tex]\phi(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{1}{4\pi}\int d^3\mathbf{r'} \frac{s(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|} + \mbox{const.}[/tex]

[tex]\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{1}{4\pi}\int d^3\mathbf{r'} \frac{\mathbf{C}(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|} + \nabla f(\mathbf{r})[/tex]
 
I should probably elaborate on my previous post. You want a linear homotopy operator [tex]h:\Lambda^k \rightarrow \Lambda^{k-1}[/tex] to be such that:

[tex]\theta = \mathrm{d}h (\theta) + h (\mathrm{d}\theta)[/tex]

for a k-form [tex]\theta[/tex]. Clearly if [tex]\theta[/tex] is closed you have [tex]\theta = \mathrm{d}\eta[/tex] with [tex]\eta = h(\theta)[/tex]. If we work on star-shaped domains, then the following holds:

[tex]h(\theta) = \int_0^1 (\iota_X \theta )[\lambda x] \frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda}{\lambda}[/tex]

where [tex]X= x^i \partial /\partial x^i[/tex] is the scaling vector field. You might like to try it out with some examples.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K