B Calculating the dot Product of \nabla and Vector Identity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the vector identity involving the dot product of the gradient operator and a vector, specifically when the scalar function f acts as an operator on the vector A. The initial formula is analyzed, leading to the expression for the divergence of the operator applied to the vector field v. After some calculations in Cartesian coordinates, the result is derived as ∇ • [(v • ∇) v] = 1/2 ∇² (v • v). Further exploration reveals a correction in the calculations, confirming that the second expression on the right side is zero. The final conclusion emphasizes the importance of carefully applying vector calculus identities to derive accurate results.
Apashanka
Messages
427
Reaction score
15
From the vector identity ##\nabla •fA=f(\nabla • A)+A•\nabla f## where f is a scalar and A is a vector.
Now if f is an operator acting on A how does this formula change??
Like ##\nabla •[(v•\nabla)v]## where v is a vector
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The most sure way of getting the answer would be to write out all of the terms in Cartesian coordinates... I will try to work on it a little and see what I get...## \\ ## Edit: With about 10 minutes of work on the above, I believe I get ## \nabla \cdot [(\vec{v} \cdot \nabla) \vec{v}]=\frac{1}{2} \nabla^2 (\vec{v}\cdot \vec{v}) ##. ## \\ ## I'll be happy to show more detail, but basically, I just worked with Cartesian coordinates.
 
Last edited:
A check on my above work shows## \nabla \cdot [(\vec{v} \cdot \nabla) \vec{v}]=\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2 (\vec{v} \cdot \vec{v})-\nabla \cdot (\vec{v} \times \nabla \times \vec{v}) ##. ## \\ ## I think the second expression on the right side is zero, but I haven't proven it yet. If the expression in post 2 is not correct, then post 3 contains your answer. I do think post 2 is correct. ## \\ ## Edit: I made an error in post 2. I believe post 3 is correct. ## \\ ## To see how I got the result of this post, begin with ## \nabla (\vec{v} \cdot \vec{v}) ## and use ## \nabla (\vec{a} \cdot \vec{b})=(\vec{a} \cdot \nabla ) \vec{b}+(\vec{b} \cdot \nabla )\vec{a}+\vec{a} \times \nabla \times \vec{b}+\vec{b} \times \nabla \times \vec{a} ##. ## \\ ## Next take ## \nabla \cdot ## on the expression, to give ## \nabla^2 (\vec{v} \cdot \vec{v}) ##.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top