Is My Gradient Solution for a Scalar Field Correct?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the gradient of a scalar field expressed in spherical coordinates, specifically for the function V = r^n where n ≠ 0. Participants are tasked with expressing the gradient in both Cartesian and spherical coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the gradient in both coordinate systems, raising questions about the correctness of their solutions. Some participants question the derivation of terms in the gradient, particularly the placement of powers in the denominator and the expression for the unit vector \hat{r} in Cartesian coordinates.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with each other's reasoning, with some suggesting corrections to the original poster's approach. There is a focus on clarifying the expressions for \hat{r} and the implications of the chain rule in the context of the gradient calculation. Multiple interpretations of the gradient's components are being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted emphasis on ensuring that the expressions for the gradient are consistent across different coordinate systems. Participants are also considering the implications of the scalar field's properties, such as the value of n and its impact on the gradient's formulation.

hover
Messages
342
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Consider the scalar field

[tex]V = r^n , n ≠ 0[/tex]

expressed in spherical coordinates. Find it's gradient [itex]\nabla V[/itex] in
a.) cartesian coordinates
b.) spherical coordinates

Homework Equations



cartesian version:
[tex]\nabla V = \frac{\partial V}{\partial x}\hat{x} + \frac{\partial V}{\partial y}\hat{y} + \frac{\partial V}{\partial z}\hat{z}[/tex]

spherical version:
[tex]\nabla V = \frac{\partial V}{\partial r}\hat{r} + \frac{1}{r}*\frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi}\hat{\phi} + \frac{1}{r*sin(\phi)}*\frac{\partial V}{\partial \theta}\hat{\theta}[/tex]

conversion:
[tex]r = (x^2+y^2+z^2)^\frac{1}{2}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



a.) using the third equation...

[tex]V = r^n = (x^2+y^2+z^2)^\frac{n}{2}[/tex]

using the first equation and skipping some steps involving the chain rule...
[tex]\nabla V = \frac{n(x\hat{x}+y\hat{y}+z\hat{z})}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^\frac{n}{2}}[/tex]

b.)Using the second equation
[tex]\nabla V = nr^m \hat{r}[/tex]
[tex]m = n-1[/tex]


Those are my two solutions to this problem. Are these right? Are they wrong? If so where did I go wrong?

Thanks!
hover
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How did the power n/2 wind up in the denominator?? You should be able to check that the solutions are the same pretty easily. What's [itex]\hat r[/itex] in cartesian coordinates?
 
Dick said:
How did the power n/2 wind up in the denominator?? You should be able to check that the solutions are the same pretty easily. What's [itex]\hat r[/itex] in cartesian coordinates?

Small mistake there... the denominator should be (n-2)/2 from the chain rule. I think that [itex]\hat r[/itex] in Cartesian coordinates is

[itex]\hat r[/itex] = sin([itex]\phi[/itex])[itex][/itex]*cos(θ)[itex]\hat{x}[/itex]+sin([itex]\phi[/itex])*sin(θ)[itex]\hat{y}[/itex]+cos([itex]\phi[/itex])[itex]\hat{z}[/itex]

Is that right or am I completely off the mark?
 
hover said:
Small mistake there... the denominator should be (n-2)/2 from the chain rule. I think that [itex]\hat r[/itex] in Cartesian coordinates is

[itex]\hat r[/itex] = sin([itex]\phi[/itex])[itex][/itex]*cos(θ)[itex]\hat{x}[/itex]+sin([itex]\phi[/itex])*sin(θ)[itex]\hat{y}[/itex]+cos([itex]\phi[/itex])[itex]\hat{z}[/itex]

Is that right or am I completely off the mark?

The power of r should be (n-2)/2=n/2-1 but it should be in the numerator. [itex]\hat r=\frac{x \hat x + y \hat y + z \hat z}{r}[/itex] is probably a more useful expression.
 
Dick said:
The power of r should be (n-2)/2=n/2-1 but it should be in the numerator. [itex]\hat r=\frac{x \hat x + y \hat y + z \hat z}{r}[/itex] is probably a more useful expression.

I plugged [itex]\hat r *r={x \hat x + y \hat y + z \hat z}[/itex] into my first equation(with r on top and to the power of n/2-1) and I got the value from part b so I guess that these answers are correct. I just have one question. Where exactly did your version of [itex]\hat r=\frac{x \hat x + y \hat y + z \hat z}{r}[/itex] come from? I know this is probably simple but I want to understand where you got that equation from or how you derived it.
 
hover said:
I plugged [itex]\hat r *r={x \hat x + y \hat y + z \hat z}[/itex] into my first equation(with r on top and to the power of n/2-1) and I got the value from part b so I guess that these answers are correct. I just have one question. Where exactly did your version of [itex]\hat r=\frac{x \hat x + y \hat y + z \hat z}{r}[/itex] come from? I know this is probably simple but I want to understand where you got that equation from or how you derived it.

[itex]\hat r[/itex] is a unit vector that points away from the origin. I took the point [itex]x \hat x + y \hat y + z \hat z[/itex] and subtracted [itex]0 \hat x + 0 \hat y + 0 \hat z[/itex] to get a vector pointing away from the origin and divided by its length, [itex]r=\sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K