How do these operations with Del operator work?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around operations involving the Del operator, specifically in the context of vector calculus. The original poster presents a problem comparing two expressions involving vectors A and B, expressed in Cartesian components, and seeks clarification on the operations involved.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to expand the expression (A.∇)B and questions how to proceed with the multiplication of the resulting scalar operator by vector B. Some participants suggest that this involves treating the operation similarly to a dot product, while others express confusion about the notation and the nature of the vectors involved.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different interpretations of the expressions and discussing the implications of treating B as a vector function. Some guidance has been offered regarding the correct expansion of the expressions, but there remains uncertainty about the notation and the definitions being used.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of specific identities and operations in vector calculus, particularly in Cartesian coordinates, which may influence the understanding of the problem. The original poster also references a specific exercise that contributes to the confusion regarding the operations with the Del operator.

supermiedos
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
How do these operations with Del operator work??

Homework Statement


Let's say A and B are expressed by their cartesian components as:
A = <P, Q, R> and B = <M, N, O>

what would be the differente between (A.∇)B and B(∇.A) ?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to expand the expression (A.∇)B as:
(P\partial_{x} + Q\partial_{y} + R\partial_{z})B

Where \partial_{x} is an abbreviation for \partial/\partial_{x} but I don't know how to proceed next. Should I multiply the inside of the parenthesis with every component o B? That looks strange.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think of it like a dot product with the B vector. You have B as a component vector so it should be obvious.
 
But that's what I don't understand. I already made the dot product, and now I have to multiply the scalar
(P\partial_{x} + Q\partial_{y} + R\partial_{z}) by B? My confusion is created because now I see the product like this:

(P\partial_{x} + Q\partial_{y} + R\partial_{z})B = <br /> (P\partial_{x} + Q\partial_{y} + R\partial_{z})&lt;M, N, O&gt;

Since the outside is scalar, we don't have a dot product, so it would be expanded like this?:
=&lt;P\partial_{x}M + Q\partial_{y}M + R\partial_{z}M, P\partial_{x}N + Q\partial_{y}N + R\partial_{z}N, P\partial_{x}O + Q\partial_{y}O + R\partial_{z}O&gt;

or should I expand it something like this?
=P\partial_{x}M + Q\partial_{y}N + R\partial_{z}O
 
Are you sure that B is indeed a vector function? "(A\cdot\nabla)" is usually "applied" to a scalar function f so that

(\textbf{A}\cdot\nabla)f=P\partial_xf+Q\partial_yf+R\partial_zf

If B is actually vector field, then I'd say (in cartesian coordinates, where the scale factors are constant) that what you initially wrote is correct,

\nabla \textbf{B} = \sum_{ij} \partial_j B_i \textbf{e}_i \textbf{e}_j \implies ((\textbf{A}\cdot\nabla)\textbf{B})_i=\sum_j A_j\partial_j B_i

However, I don't recall seeing that exact expression anywhere, so I might be mistaken. It does look like the second term of the material derivative, but I'm not sure why the parentheses would be written like that.

The second expression evaluates to

\textbf{B}(\nabla\cdot \textbf{A})=\textbf{B}(\partial_x P+\partial_y Q+\partial_z R)

Where you simply multiply every component of B with the divergence of A.

EDIT: I'd say it's reasonable for you to be confused, especially if you don't know the definition of a gradient of a vector field. Even if you do, the notation used is not the clearest, in my opinion.

EDIT2: That is to say, that this
=&lt;P\partial_{x}M + Q\partial_{y}M + R\partial_{z}M, P\partial_{x}N + Q\partial_{y}N + R\partial_{z}N, P\partial_{x}O + Q\partial_{y}O + R\partial_{z}O&gt;
expression is the correct one from what I can tell.
 
Last edited:
supermiedos said:
Oh, sorry for my notation.

I wasn't really blaming you, and I'm not even sure if it's a valid complaint : P

supermiedos said:
when I tried to evaluate ∇x(m x r) i used the identity:

∇x(m x r) = (r . ∇)m - (m . ∇)r - r(∇ . m) + m(∇ . r)

and that's where I got confused about how (r . ∇)m and m(∇ . r) worked

Ahh, that's what it was? Sure, what I (and you) said earlier is definitely the correct way to expand them. My reply would've been much shorter if I knew that ∇×(a×b) was what you were calculating.

Do remember that these only work "well" in cartesian coordinates; for example with strong spherical symmetries simply writing out the cross products is often the quicker way of doing things.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thank you :) I'll see how far i'll get with this problem.
 
By the usual convention ∇ acts to the right so
(r . ∇)m and m(∇ . r)
have m and r being acted on.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K