How can a vector field with circular components have a zero curl?

  • Thread starter Thread starter superg33k
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curl Cylindrical
superg33k
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
If a vector field has any component in a circular direction how can its curl be zero? If I imagine a vortex of water, it makes sense that it will be easier to go with the water in a circle than it would be to go against the water in a circle. Or more mathsy:

A vector field in cylindrical coords is defined by:
\mathbf{E} = \frac{A}{r} \mathbf{ \hat{e}_{\phi} }
where A is a constant. Therefore the curl is zero.
\mathbf{curlE} = \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} r \frac{A}{r} \mathbf{ \hat{e}_{z} } = \mathbf{0}
So taking a line integral in a circle, taking it back to the same point should also be zero.
\int^{2 \pi}_{0} \mathbf{E \cdot} r \mathbf{\hat{e_{\phi}}} \partial \phi = \int^{2 \pi}_{0} \frac{A}{r} \mathbf{ \hat{e}_{\phi} } \mathbf{\cdot} r \mathbf{\hat{e_{\phi}}} \partial \phi =\int^{2 \pi}_{0} A \partial \phi = 2 \pi A \neq 0

Thanks in advance
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Quite correctly calculated!

The reason is that your function E has a singularity in the region bounded by your curve (i.e, at the origin).

The theorem you had in mind specifically requires, in order to be valid, that such singularities do not exist, so you have misapplied it.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top