Integration in polar coordinates

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the integration of the divergence of a vector field in spherical coordinates, specifically the expression $$\vec \nabla \cdot \frac{\hat r}{r^2}$$. Participants clarify that the volume integral over a sphere leads to a surface integral that equals $$4\pi$$, indicating that the divergence is zero everywhere except at the origin. The key point is that the divergence must be expressed as $$4\pi\delta^3(r)$$ to account for the singularity at the origin. Misunderstandings arise regarding the formulation of the original equations, emphasizing the need for precision in mathematical expressions. Overall, the divergence's behavior is confirmed to align with the properties of the Dirac delta function in three-dimensional space.
Apashanka
Messages
427
Reaction score
15
Homework Statement
In spherical poler coordinates the volume integral over a sphere of radius R of $$\int^R_0\frac{\hat r}{r^2}dv=\int_{surface}\frac{\hat r}{r^2}•\vec ds$$

$$=4\pi$$
Relevant Equations
In spherical poler coordinates the volume integral over a sphere of radius R of $$\int^R_0\frac{\hat r}{r^2}dv=\int_{surface}\frac{\hat r}{r^2}•\vec ds$$

$$=4\pi$$
In spherical poler coordinates the volume integral over a sphere of radius R of $$\int^R_0\vec \nabla•\frac{\hat r}{r^2}dv=\int_{surface}\frac{\hat r}{r^2}•\vec ds$$
$$=4\pi=4\pi\int_{-\inf}^{inf}\delta(r)dr$$
How can it be extended to get $$\vec \nabla•\frac{\hat r}{r^2}=4\pi\delta^3(r)??$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am unclear on what you are given and what you are trying to show.

Apashanka said:
$$\int^R_0\frac{\hat r}{r^2}dv$$
The bounds don't match the integration variable (dv). You mean
$$\int_V\frac{\hat r}{r^2}dv$$
Apashanka said:
$$\int^R_0\vec \nabla•\frac{\hat r}{r^2}dv=\int_{surface}\frac{\hat r}{r^2}•\vec ds$$
This seems to be identical to your earlier equation except for the Del on the left. They can't both be true.
 
haruspex said:
This seems to be identical to your earlier equation except for the Del on the left. They can't both be true.
The only possibly relevant interpretation is
$$
\int_{r < R} \nabla \cdot \frac{\hat r}{r^2} dV
$$
Without the divergence operator, the expression is a vector that obviously cannot equal a scalar.

Of course, OP should be careful in formulating the original post such that this ambiguity does not arise.
 
Orodruin said:
The only possibly relevant interpretation is
$$
\int_{r < R} \nabla \cdot \frac{\hat r}{r^2} dV
$$
Without the divergence operator, the expression is a vector that obviously cannot equal a scalar.

Of course, OP should be careful in formulating the original post such that this ambiguity does not arise.
Ya in this case the Rhs equals $$4\pi$$.
What I want to clarify is $$\vec \nabla•\frac{\hat r}{r^2}=4\pi\delta^3(r)$$
 
Apashanka said:
Ya in this case the Rhs equals $$4\pi$$.
What I want to clarify is $$\vec \nabla•\frac{\hat r}{r^2}=4\pi\delta^3(r)$$
The divergence is zero everywhere except in r=0, as can be easily verified by using the expression for divergence in spherical coordinates. In order to integrate to ##4\pi##, the divergence therefore must be ##4\pi\delta^{(3)}(\vec r)##.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
996