How to prove the curl curl of a vector?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter shedrick94
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curl Vector
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical identity involving the curl of the curl of a vector field, specifically the expression ∇×(∇×R). Participants explore the derivation and implications of this identity, examining the behavior of differential operators in the context of vector calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an identity for the curl of the curl of a vector field and questions the disappearance of certain terms in the derivation.
  • Another participant argues that substituting the gradient operator into the vector cross product identity is not valid due to the nature of vector operations.
  • A different participant suggests that the disappearing terms are differential operators and states that they will be zero as long as they do not act on anything.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on why the differential operators do not contribute to the expression.
  • A further contribution indicates that while one might consider a factor of 1 in the expression, the equality does not hold under certain conditions, referencing the behavior of derivatives.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the substitution of the gradient operator and the treatment of differential operators, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the behavior of differential operators in vector calculus, particularly in the context of the identities being explored. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the application of these operators and their interactions with other mathematical entities.

shedrick94
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I've got ∇×(∇×R)=∇(∇.R)-∇2R [call it eq.1]

However I have the identity ∇×(A×B)=A(∇.B)-B(∇⋅A)+ (B⋅∇)A-(A⋅∇)B [call it eq.2]

Substituting in A=∇ and R=B into eq.2 we get ∇×(∇×R)=∇(∇.R)-R(∇⋅∇)+ (R⋅∇)∇-(∇⋅∇)R

which i work out to be ∇×(∇×R)=∇(∇.R)-R(∇⋅∇)+ (R⋅∇)∇-∇2R

Basically I don't understand what happens to the two terms -R(∇⋅∇)+ (R⋅∇)∇ from eq.2 when we get to eq.1, why do they disappear?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
shedrick94 said:
Substituting in A=∇
Can't be done:$$ \vec A \times \vec B = - \vec B \times \vec A $$ but $$ \vec \nabla \times \vec A \ne - \vec A \times \vec \nabla $$the left hand side is a vector, the righthand side an operation
 
The disappearing terms are differential operators. As long as they don't act on anything, they will be zero.
 
DrDu said:
The disappearing terms are differential operators. As long as they don't act on anything, they will be zero.
Why is this though?
 
basically then you might put a factor 1 behind the expression and ##\nabla 1=0##, but as I indicated in #2, the equals sign doesn't hold, just like ##{\delta f\over \delta x }\ne f{\delta 1\over x} = 0##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
972
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K