How Do You Derive Curl in Cylindrical Coordinates?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on deriving the curl in cylindrical coordinates, exploring different notations and approaches to the derivation. Participants engage in technical reasoning regarding the mathematical expressions involved, including the use of wedge products and the Hodge dual. The scope includes theoretical derivation and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant derives the curl in cylindrical coordinates using specific transformations and expresses it in terms of wedge products and the Hodge dual.
  • Another participant questions the notation used in the derived expression, particularly regarding the factor of ##\frac{1}{p}## in the curl's ##\hat{z}## component.
  • Some participants propose that the expression ##\frac{1}{p}\frac{\partial (p V_{\phi})}{\partial p} = \frac{\partial V_{\phi}}{\partial p}## holds due to properties of constants in differentiation.
  • Disagreement arises over the correctness of the differentiation, with one participant asserting that the initial equations may contain errors.
  • A later reply attempts to re-derive the equations, acknowledging mistakes in the application of the Hodge dual and scale factors.
  • Another participant provides an alternative derivation for an arbitrary orthogonal coordinate system, leading to a verification of the cylindrical curl formula.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of certain mathematical steps and notations. There is no consensus on the best approach or notation for deriving the curl in cylindrical coordinates, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the validity of specific claims.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note potential issues with scale factors and the application of the Hodge dual, indicating that these may affect the derivation's accuracy. The discussion also highlights the complexity of differentiating expressions involving products of variables and constants.

WendysRules
Messages
35
Reaction score
3
So, let me derive the curl in the cylindrical coordinate system so I can showcase what I get. Let ##x=p\cos\phi##, ##y=p\sin\phi## and ##z=z##. This gives us a line element of ##ds^2 = {dp}^2+p^2{d\phi}^2+{dz}^2## Given that this is an orthogonal coordinate system, our gradient is then ##\nabla = d = \partial_{p} dp + \frac{1}{p}\partial_{\phi} d\phi + \partial_{z} dz## and ##V= V_p dp + V_{\phi} d\phi + V_z dz## Thus, the curl is then ##\nabla \times V = \star dV## So, going through with this, we see that $$dV = \frac{\partial V_{\phi}}{\partial p} dp \wedge d\phi + \frac{\partial V_z}{\partial p}dp \wedge dz + \frac{1}{p}\frac{\partial V_p}{\partial \phi}d\phi \wedge dp + \frac{1}{p}\frac{\partial V_z}{\partial \phi}d\phi \wedge dz + \frac{\partial V_p}{\partial z}dz \wedge dp + \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z}dz \wedge d\phi$$

Using the anti-symmetric property of wedge products, we see this become:
$$ [\frac{\partial V_{\phi}}{\partial p} - \frac{1}{p}\frac{\partial V_p}{\partial \phi}] dp \wedge d\phi + [\frac{\partial V_z}{\partial p} - \frac{\partial V_p}{\partial z}] dp \wedge dz + [\frac{1}{p}\frac{\partial V_z}{\partial \phi} - \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z}] d\phi \wedge dz$$ Applying the hodge dual, we see this become $$\nabla \times V = [\frac{\partial V_{\phi}}{\partial p} - \frac{1}{p}\frac{\partial V_p}{\partial \phi}] dz - [\frac{\partial V_z}{\partial p} - \frac{\partial V_p}{\partial z}] d\phi + [\frac{1}{p}\frac{\partial V_z}{\partial \phi} - \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z}] dp $$

However, looking at cylinderical coordinate curl, sometimes I will see sometimes people set it up like this:
$$\nabla \times V = [\frac{1}{p}\frac{\partial V_z}{\partial \phi}-\frac{\partial V_{\phi}}{\partial z}] \hat{p}+ [\frac{\partial V_p}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial V_z}{\partial p }] \hat{\phi} + \frac{1}{p}[\frac{\partial (p V_{\phi})}{\partial p} - \frac{\partial V_p}{\partial \phi}] \hat{z}$$So, zooming onto the ##\frac{1}{p}[\frac{\partial (p V_{\phi})}{\partial p} - \frac{\partial V_p}{\partial \phi}] \hat{z}## we see a difference in notation! I keep my ##\hat{z}## term like this ##[\frac{\partial V_{\phi}}{\partial p} - \frac{1}{p}\frac{\partial V_p}{\partial \phi}]##. While they factored out a ##\frac{1}{p}##.

So two things; How do I show that ##\frac{1}{p}\frac{\partial (p V_{\phi})}{\partial p} = \frac{\partial V_{\phi}}{\partial p}## I know this is true, but i forget the property. I don't believe it's just a product rule? Maybe it's linearity? Not sure... would appreciate some insight.

Second thing, what's the benefit of this notation vs the one i derived?

Thanks for the help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ahh, what a brain fart! I think ##\frac{1}{p}\frac{(\partial (pV_{\phi})}{\partial p}=\frac{\partial V_{ \phi}}{\partial p} ## because p would be a radius, and thus constant? so that is why we are able to bring it inside the differential because d(const*f(x))=constant*d(f(x)).
 
WendysRules said:
Ahh, what a brain fart! I think ##\frac{1}{p}\frac{(\partial (pV_{\phi})}{\partial p}=\frac{\partial V_{ \phi}}{\partial p} ## because p would be a radius, and thus constant? so that is why we are able to bring it inside the differential because d(const*f(x))=constant*d(f(x)).
Incorrect. ## \frac{\partial{(r V_{\phi}})}{\partial{r}}=V_{\phi}+r \frac{\partial{V_{\phi}}}{\partial{r}} ##. I think you have something incorrect in your initial equations, but I don't know exactly what.
 
Charles Link said:
Incorrect. ## \frac{\partial{(r V_{\phi}})}{\partial{r}}=V_{\phi}+r \frac{\partial{V_{\phi}}}{\partial{r}} ##. I think you have something incorrect in your initial equations, but I don't know exactly what.
That's what i thought as well, but was trying to force it. Let me try to re-derive it as I was doing this at at around 1:30 AM last night!
 
So, I can see my issue was not taking the hodge dual right, and forgetting about my scale factors for my V. I still have an issue. So, this might be a long post...

Let's derive it for an arbitrary orthogonal coordinate system.
##\omega = h_uh_vh_w du \wedge dv \wedge dw## and our ##V=h_uV^udu+h_vV^vdv+h_wV^wdw## We also know that ##\nabla = d = \frac{1}{h_u} \partial_u h_u du+ \frac{1}{h_v} \partial_v h_v dv + \frac{1}{h_w}\partial_w h_w dw## which i write this way was it will be useful later. Now we ask what the curl is.
$$\nabla \times V = \star dV = \star[\frac{1}{h_u}\frac{ \partial h_vV^v }{ \partial u } h_u du \wedge dv +\frac{1}{h_u}\frac{ \partial h_wV^w }{ \partial u } h_u du \wedge dw + \frac{1}{h_v}\frac{ \partial h_uV^u }{ \partial v } h_v dv \wedge du + \frac{1}{h_v}\frac{ \partial h_wV^w }{ \partial v } h_v dv \wedge dw + \frac{1}{h_w}\frac{ \partial h_uV^u }{ \partial w } h_w dw \wedge du + \frac{1}{h_w}\frac{ \partial h_vV^v }{ \partial w } h_w dw \wedge dv] $$

So, now in order to factor the wedge products we must multiply them by some other scale factor and basis. Doing so, we see our equation now become..

$$\star[(\frac{ \partial h_vV^v }{ \partial u } - \frac{ \partial h_uV^u }{ \partial v })\frac{h_u h_v du \wedge dv}{h_uh_v} + (\frac{ \partial h_wV^w }{ \partial u } - \frac{ \partial h_uV^u }{ \partial w })\frac{h_u h_w du \wedge dw}{h_uh_w} + (\frac{ \partial h_wV^w }{ \partial v } - \frac{ \partial h_vV^v }{ \partial w }) \frac{h_v h_w dv \wedge dw}{h_vh_w}$$

So there is where I kind of cheat the math, I can't actually show that ##\star (h_uh_v du \wedge dv) = dw## because as far as I'm aware, it should be ## \star (h_uh_v du \wedge dv) = h_w dw## But I had a feeling that it was just ##dw##, and if I do it that way, I see that my curl is...

$$ \star dV = (\frac{ \partial h_vV^v }{ \partial u } - \frac{ \partial h_uV^u }{ \partial v }) \frac{ dw }{h_uh_v} - (\frac{ \partial h_wV^w }{ \partial u } - \frac{ \partial h_uV^u }{ \partial w })\frac{dv}{h_uh_w} + (\frac{ \partial h_wV^w }{ \partial v } - \frac{ \partial h_vV^v }{ \partial w })\frac{du}{h_vh_w} $$

Now, we can verify this on our curl in cylindrical formula. Let ##ds^2 = dr^2 + r^2d\theta^2+dz^2##, thus ##h_u=h_z=1## and ##h_{\phi} = r##. So using this in our newly found formula, we see that $$ \star dV = (\frac{ \partial (rV^{\phi}) }{ \partial r } - \frac{ \partial V^r }{ \partial \phi }) \frac{ dz }{r} - (\frac{ \partial V^z }{ \partial r } - \frac{ \partial V^r }{ \partial z })d\phi + (\frac{ \partial V^z }{ \partial \phi } - \frac{ \partial (rV^{\phi}) }{ \partial z })\frac{dr}{r}$$ Which is what we want! And the trick I wanted to use above, I can actually use here on the last time to make our equation more like the standard one above! That is...
$$(\frac{ \partial V^z }{ \partial \phi } - \frac{ \partial rV^{\phi} }{ \partial z })\frac{dr}{r} \rightarrow (\frac{1}{r}\frac{ \partial V^z }{ \partial \phi } - \frac{r \partial V^{\phi} }{r \partial z })dr \rightarrow (\frac{1}{r}\frac{ \partial V^z }{ \partial \phi } - \frac{ \partial V^{\phi} }{ \partial z })dr$$ So finally, we can write...
$$\nabla \times V = \star dF = (\frac{1}{r}\frac{ \partial V^z }{ \partial \phi } - \frac{ \partial V^{\phi} }{ \partial z })dr - (\frac{ \partial V^z }{ \partial r } - \frac{ \partial V^r }{ \partial z })d\phi + \frac{1}{r}(\frac{ \partial (rV^{\phi}) }{ \partial r } - \frac{ \partial V^r }{ \partial \phi }) dz$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K