Inverting the gradient operator

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around inverting the gradient operator in the context of a magnetic field represented by the variable B. The original poster seeks to understand how to manipulate the equation involving the gradient of B, specifically when k_z is known and represents a vector along the z-axis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of defining B at a specific point and using path integrals to express B at other points. Questions arise regarding the independence of the path chosen for integration and the nature of k_z as either a constant or a function of spatial variables.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the relationship between the gradient of B and its dependence on spatial variables, particularly emphasizing that B does not vary with respect to x and y. There is an acknowledgment of the need to clarify the conditions under which the gradient operator can be inverted.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes considerations about the dimensionality of the problem and the assumptions regarding the behavior of k_z in relation to the spatial variables involved.

Bacat
Messages
149
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



I have a derivation for an equation here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=334692

Basically, I need to invert the gradient operator, so I have:

[tex]\nabla B = k_z[/tex]

k is known and I want to solve for B numerically. How do I get rid of the gradient operator? Do I integrate? If so, in 3D or 1D? With respect to what? Time or space?

If [tex]k_z[/tex] is a vector that lies completely in the z-axis, does that change how I un-operate the gradient operator on B?

Homework Equations



[tex]\nabla = (\frac{d}{dx}, \! \frac{d}{dy}, \! \frac{d}{dz})[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



See the link for the derivation I've done:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=334692
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pick a point and define B(x)=0. Define the value of B(y) at any other point y to be the path integral of k from x to y along ANY path connecting x and y. You do have to check that this definition is independent of the choice of path. How would you check that?
 
So you are saying that
[tex]\nabla B= \frac{\partial B}{\partial x}\vec{i}+ \frac{\partial B}{\partial y}\vec{j}+ \frac{\partial B}{\partial z}\vec{k}= k_z \vec{k}[/tex]

Is your "kz" constant or a function of x, y, and z?

In any case, you have
[tex]\frac{\partial B}{\partial x}= 0[/tex]
which says that B does NOT depend on x,

[tex]\frac{\partial B}{\partial y}= 0[/tex]
which says that B does NOT depend on y, and

[tex]\frac{\partial B}{\partial z}= k_z[/tex]
It should be clear that kz cannot depend on either x or y (because then B would depend on them) so you must have
[tex]\frac{dB}{dz}= k_z[/tex]
B is just the anti-derivative of kz.
 
HallsOfIvy,

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. The magnetic field, B, varies only along z, so it is constant in x and y. Your formalism for it makes a lot of sense to me now.

Thank you for your help!
 

Similar threads

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