How Is the Divergence Theorem Applied to Derive Vector Field Identities?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the divergence theorem to derive identities related to vector fields, specifically focusing on the transformation of equations involving vector fields and their curls. Participants explore the mathematical steps and reasoning behind these transformations, including the implications of using constant vectors in the context of the divergence theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on how to transition from one equation to another using the divergence theorem, indicating a lack of understanding of the process.
  • Another participant proposes a vector field defined as \(\mathbf{G} = \mathbf{c \times F}\) and suggests applying the divergence theorem to reconstruct the result.
  • A participant questions whether \(\mathbf{G}\) should replace the entire integrand in the original equation and expresses confusion about the relationship between the curl of the vector and its normality to the surface.
  • One participant attempts to derive a general expression using the divergence theorem, emphasizing the need to simplify the expression by recognizing that \(\mathbf{c}\) is a constant, which leads to a specific integral relationship involving \(\mathbf{Q(r')}\).
  • The same participant concludes that since \(\mathbf{c}\) is arbitrary, a specific equality must hold between surface and volume integrals involving \(\mathbf{Q(r')}\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and clarity regarding the application of the divergence theorem. There is no consensus on the specific steps or implications of the transformations discussed, indicating that multiple viewpoints and interpretations remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of recognizing the nature of constant vectors and their implications in vector calculus, but the discussion does not resolve the underlying assumptions or mathematical steps involved in the derivations.

TheCanadian
Messages
361
Reaction score
13
In the image attached to this post, there is an equation on the top line and one on the bottom line. In the proof this image was taken from, they say this is a consequence of divergence theorem but I'm not quite understanding how it is. If anyone could explicitly explain the process to go from the top equation to the bottom, that would be greatly appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-04-17 at 8.58.03 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-04-17 at 8.58.03 PM.png
    2 KB · Views: 708
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider a vector field
[tex] \mathbf{G} = \mathbf{c \times F}[/tex]
where $$ \mathbf{c} $$ is an arbitrary constant vector. Apply the divergence theorem to $$\mathbf{G}$$ and I think you can reconstruct the result.

jason
 
jasonRF said:
Consider a vector field
[tex] \mathbf{G} = \mathbf{c \times F}[/tex]
where $$ \mathbf{c} $$ is an arbitrary constant vector. Apply the divergence theorem to $$\mathbf{G}$$ and I think you can reconstruct the result.

jason

To clarify, would ##\mathbf{G}## replace the entire integrand in the top line of my image (including the curl) since that itself is a vector? I can see the general line of reasoning now, but how is it deduced that ##\nabla ' \times \mathbf {\frac{F(r')}{\big|{r-r'}\big|} } = \mathbf{G} = \mathbf{\hat{n}}' \times \mathbf {\frac{F(r')}{\big|{r-r'}\big|} }##? The curl of this vector should definitely be normal, to itself and I think I'm missing something fundamental here, but why is it necessarily normal to the surface, too?
 
Last edited:
I don't think my post was clear enough, so let me start over. Please ignore my previous post.

I am attempting to show you how to derive the general expression, for which you can insert you special case. Define a vector field [itex]\mathbf{P(r) = c \times Q(r) }[/itex]. Now write down the Divergence theorem
$$ \int \int \mathbf{P(r^\prime) \cdot \hat{n}^\prime} dS^\prime = \int \int \int \mathbf{\nabla^\prime \cdot P(r^\prime) dV^\prime } $$
You now need to simplify this. You should use the fact that [itex]\mathbf{c}[/itex] is a constant so that [itex]\mathbf{\nabla \times c=0}[/itex]
in order to simplify the expression. Then use standard vector algebra to arrange to get the [itex]\mathbf{c}[/itex] outside of both integrals. In the end you should find,
[tex] \mathbf{c \cdot} \left[ \int \int \mathbf{Q(r^\prime) \times \hat{n}^\prime} dS^\prime + \int \int \int \mathbf{\nabla^\prime \times Q(r^\prime) }dV^\prime \right] = 0.[/tex]
Since [itex]\mathbf{c}[/itex] is arbitrary we must have,
[tex] \int \int \mathbf{\hat{n}^\prime \times Q(r^\prime)} dS^\prime = \int \int \int \mathbf{\nabla^\prime \times Q(r^\prime) }dV^\prime.[/tex]
Does that make sense?

Jason
 
jasonRF said:
I don't think my post was clear enough, so let me start over. Please ignore my previous post.

I am attempting to show you how to derive the general expression, for which you can insert you special case. Define a vector field [itex]\mathbf{P(r) = c \times Q(r) }[/itex]. Now write down the Divergence theorem
$$ \int \int \mathbf{P(r^\prime) \cdot \hat{n}^\prime} dS^\prime = \int \int \int \mathbf{\nabla^\prime \cdot P(r^\prime) dV^\prime } $$
You now need to simplify this. You should use the fact that [itex]\mathbf{c}[/itex] is a constant so that [itex]\mathbf{\nabla \times c=0}[/itex]
in order to simplify the expression. Then use standard vector algebra to arrange to get the [itex]\mathbf{c}[/itex] outside of both integrals. In the end you should find,
[tex] \mathbf{c \cdot} \left[ \int \int \mathbf{Q(r^\prime) \times \hat{n}^\prime} dS^\prime + \int \int \int \mathbf{\nabla^\prime \times Q(r^\prime) }dV^\prime \right] = 0.[/tex]
Since [itex]\mathbf{c}[/itex] is arbitrary we must have,
[tex] \int \int \mathbf{\hat{n}^\prime \times Q(r^\prime)} dS^\prime = \int \int \int \mathbf{\nabla^\prime \times Q(r^\prime) }dV^\prime.[/tex]
Does that make sense?

Jason

Thank you! That makes sense. :)
 

Similar threads

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