Newtonian potential in Helmholtz decomposition

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around using the Helmholtz decomposition to find a divergenceless vector field based on its curl. The user seeks clarification on the dimension referred to in the Newtonian potential article, questioning if it indicates the spatial dimensions of the field. They express confusion regarding the negative exponent in the context of their problem, particularly how it suggests an increasing field with distance, which contradicts their application of Maxwell's equations. Additionally, they inquire about the notation used in the Helmholtz Decomposition article and whether convolution is necessary for their calculations. The user is looking for guidance on performing convolution in a three-dimensional vector field context.
Savant13
Messages
85
Reaction score
1
I'm trying to find a divergenceless vector field based on its curl, and discovered that I could use a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition" , and the article I found on this didn't make much sense to me.

First, can someone confirm that the dimension referred to in the Newtonian potential article is the number of spatial dimensions in which the field exists? If not, what is it?

Next, the exponent on what appears to be the absolute value of x for more than two dimensions can only be negative, which doesn't make sense to me in the context of the problem I am working on. Also, is that an absolute value, or some other notation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The d is the spatial dimension, so for our world d=3.
2-3=-1 which means that G~1/|x| for 3 dimensions.
Why does that bother you.
Having G is trivial, doing the convolution is the whole problem.
You have found out that Wiki is not for learning a subject.
 
I am aware of the limitations of learning advanced materials on the internet. However, until I start college next year, it is my only option.

The reason the negative exponent bothered me is because (I thought) it would mean that the final field is increasing as distance increases, which does not make sense in the problem I am doing (I am using Maxwell's equations)

The Helmholtz Decomposition article uses the same notation as the Newtonian Potential article uses for the kernel, as opposed to the convolution. Is this misleading? Do I need to do the convolution for the Helmholtz Decomposition?

If I do have to do a convolution, how will I do this on a three dimensional vector field?
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top