Product of a scalar and a vector

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a vector calculus identity involving the divergence of a product of a scalar function and a vector field. The original poster attempts to understand the relationship between the left-hand side and right-hand side of the equation, which includes the scalar function and the vector field.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants suggest expanding the components of the vector and scalar functions to clarify the proof. There is a discussion about the application of the product rule in the context of partial derivatives, with some participants questioning whether it is analogous to ordinary derivatives.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging in a productive dialogue, with some providing guidance on how to approach the problem through component expansion and the application of derivative rules. There is an exploration of different derivative rules, including the product rule, chain rule, and quotient rule, with some participants affirming their applicability to partial derivatives.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of confusion regarding the order of operations in the original poster's attempts, as well as a reference to the use of index notation for simplification. Participants also note the lack of explicit mention of the product rule for partial derivatives in some resources.

croggy
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am trying to prove that:

\nabla \cdot (\psi\mathbf{A}) = \mathbf{A} \cdot\nabla\psi + \psi\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}

Where nabla is a scalar function and A is a vector field

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried expanding both the LHS and RHS, but I think I am getting confused with the order of operations or something.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried putting the components in \vec{\nabla}=(\partial_x, \partial_y, \partial_z), \vec{A}=(A_x,A_y,A_z) and expanded? Try this and show your work.

Alternatively, if you have learned index notation, the proof is pretty simple.
 
Oh well, this is one way to learn tex.

\nabla = {\partial \over \partial x}\mathbf{\hat{i}} + {\partial \over \partial y}\mathbf{\hat{j}} + {\partial \over \partial z}\mathbf{\hat{k}}
A = A_1\mathbf{\hat{i}} + A_2\mathbf{\hat{j}} + A_3\mathbf{\hat{k}}

LHS = \nabla \cdot (\psi\mathbf{A}) = \nabla \cdot (\psi A_1\mathbf{\hat{i}}+\psi A_2\mathbf{\hat{j}}+\psi A_3\mathbf{\hat{k}}) = ({\partial \psi A_1 \over \partial x} + {\partial \psi A_2 \over \partial y} + {\partial \psi A_3 \over \partial z} )

RHS = \mathbf{A} \cdot\nabla\psi + \psi\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}<br /> = A \cdot ({\partial \psi \over \partial x}\mathbf{\hat{i}} + {\partial \psi \over \partial y}\mathbf{\hat{j}} + {\partial \psi \over \partial z}\mathbf{\hat{k}}) + \psi({\partial A_1 \over \partial x} + {\partial A_2 \over \partial y} + {\partial A_3 \over \partial z})

RHS = ({\partial \psi \over \partial x}A_1 + {\partial \psi \over \partial y}A_2 + {\partial \psi \over \partial z}A_3) + ({\partial A_1 \over \partial x}\psi + {\partial A_2 \over \partial y}\psi + {\partial A_3 \over \partial z}\psi)

Where the LHS and RHS are remind me of the product rule so:

RHS = ({\partial \psi A_1 \over \partial x} + {\partial \psi A_2 \over \partial y} + {\partial \psi A_3 \over \partial z} )(By product rule)

Is that right though? Is the product rule the same as for proper derivatives? WP and wolfram don't seem to give any mention of the product rule for Partial Derivates.
 
croggy said:
Is that right though? Is the product rule the same as for proper derivatives? WP and wolfram don't seem to give any mention of the product rule for Partial Derivates.

Yes that's fine. The product rule applies to partials just like ordinary derivatives. For example,

{\partial \over \partial x}(\psi A_1)=A_1{\partial \psi \over \partial x}+\psi{\partial A_1 \over \partial x}
 
Would I be right in assuming that the chain rule and quotient rule also still apply?
 
The quotient rule is just a special case of the product rule, so yes. The chain rule can be a little tricky (it sometimes takes great care to figure out whether a function has an implicit dependence or an explicit dependence on a given variable), but yes it still applies. (a Google search of "chain rule for partial derivatives will probably turn up some useful resources for you)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
743
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K