Is the curl of a div. free vector field perpendicular to the field?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between the curl of a divergence-free vector field and its perpendicularity to the field itself. The user posits that if a vector field \(\mathbf{F}\) is divergence-free, then the curl of \(\mathbf{F}\) should be perpendicular to \(\mathbf{F}\). However, through the example of the vector field \(\mathbf{F} = (x-z, y-z, -2z)\), it is demonstrated that \(\mathbf{F} \cdot (\nabla \times \mathbf{F}) \neq 0\), thereby disproving the initial intuition. This indicates that the curl of a divergence-free vector field is not necessarily perpendicular to the field.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus concepts such as divergence and curl.
  • Familiarity with vector fields and their properties.
  • Knowledge of mathematical notation used in vector calculus.
  • Basic proficiency in applying theorems related to vector fields, such as the Helmholtz decomposition.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of divergence-free vector fields in more depth.
  • Learn about the Helmholtz decomposition theorem and its implications.
  • Explore examples of vector fields and calculate their curl and divergence.
  • Investigate the physical interpretations of curl and divergence in fluid dynamics.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering, particularly those studying vector calculus and its applications in fields like fluid dynamics and electromagnetism.

Wuberdall
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Hi PF-members.

My intuition tells me that: Given a divergence free vector field \mathbf{F}, then the curl of the field will be perpendicular to field.
But I'm having a hard time proving this to my self.

I'know that : \nabla\cdot\mathbf{F} = 0 \hspace{3mm} \Rightarrow \hspace{3mm} \exists\mathbf{A}: \mathbf{F} = \nabla\times\mathbf{A}

Therefore : \mathbf{F}\cdot(\nabla\times\mathbf{F}) = 0 \hspace{3mm} \Rightarrow \hspace{3mm} [\nabla\times\mathbf{A}]\cdot[\nabla\times(\nabla\times\mathbf{A})] = 0

But I can't prove that this actually equals zero... Please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Off the top of my head (as in, there are probably less artificial examples):

Let \mathbf{F} = (x-z,y-z,-2z). As \nabla \cdot \mathbf{F} = 1+1-2=0, the field is divergence-free. However, \nabla \times \mathbf{F} = (1,-1,0), so, clearly, \mathbf{F}\cdot (\nabla \times \mathbf{F})\not{\equiv}0 and by contradiction, your intuition seems to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Gracias.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
975
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K