Partial Vector Derivative: Is This the Correct Derivative of B?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the correctness of a proposed partial derivative of the vector field \(\vec{B}\), specifically examining the expression for \(\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial r}\) and the implications of using the product rule in this context. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and technical explanation related to vector calculus in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the correctness of the proposed partial derivative of \(\vec{B}\) and asks for clarification on the term \(r_r\).
  • Another participant defines \(r_r\) as the radial component of a vector from the origin to a point in space, providing a breakdown of the vector \(\vec{r}\) in terms of its components.
  • A different participant acknowledges that the initial expression for the derivative is technically correct under the assumption that \(r_r = r\) and \(r_\theta = r_\phi = 0\), but cautions against assuming that \(\partial_r \vec{w} = \partial_r w_r \hat{r}\) without considering the full vector expression.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the derivative calculation, indicating a lack of consensus on the assumptions made regarding the components of the vector and the application of the product rule.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the components of the vector \(\vec{w}\) and the conditions under which the derivative is evaluated, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

Philosophaie
Messages
456
Reaction score
0
Is this the correct partial derivative of B?

##\vec{B} = \frac{g \vec{r}}{4 \pi r^3}##

##\frac{\partial \vec B}{\partial r}## = ##-3\frac{g \vec{r}}{4 \pi r^4} + \frac{g}{4 \pi r^3 }(\frac{\partial r_r \hat r}{\partial r})##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is ##r_r##?

Apart from that it seems as if you are just applying the product rule for derivatives.
 
##r_r## is the radial part of a vector from the origin to an arbitrary point to be examined:

##\vec{r} = r_r \hat r +r_\theta \hat \theta +r_\phi \hat \phi##
 
Then yes and no. Yes because it is technically correct due to ##r_r = r## and ##r_\theta = r_\phi = 0##. No since you generally cannot assume that ##\partial_r \vec w = \partial_r w_r \hat r##, the general expression is ##\partial_r \vec w = \partial_r (w_r\hat r + w_\theta \hat \theta + w_\phi \hat \phi)## and doing so generally will get you the incorrect result.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K