Question on divergence/gradient theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter member 428835
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the divergence theorem and the gradient theorem, specifically examining the relationship between surface integrals and volume integrals involving a variable function \( p \). Participants explore the legitimacy of a proposed identity and seek physical intuition regarding it.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the identity \( \iint_s p \vec{dS} = \iiint_v \nabla (p) dv \) and questions its validity, noting that \( p \) is not constant.
  • Another participant suggests a breakdown of the surface integral using Cartesian coordinates, indicating how to apply the divergence theorem to each component of the vector field.
  • A later reply expresses appreciation for the explanation provided, indicating it clarified the initial query.
  • One participant describes their approach using Gauß's theorem with a constant vector \( \vec{a} \), deriving a relationship that supports the original identity.
  • Another participant agrees that both methods of proof are valid, suggesting a subjective preference for either approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the original identity's legitimacy, as some provide supportive arguments while others express uncertainty. Multiple approaches are discussed without a definitive resolution.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on various interpretations of the divergence theorem and gradient theorem, with some assumptions about the nature of the function \( p \) and the vector fields involved. The discussion reflects different mathematical techniques and their applicability.

member 428835
hey pf!

i had a subtlety about the divergence theroem/gradient theorem. specifically, the following was presented: $$ \iint_s p \vec{dS} = \iiint_v \nabla (p) dv$$

i am familiar with the divergence theorem, but that is for a vector "dotted" with a surface element (flux) related to the divergence (expansion) through the volume. i believe the above is the gradient theorem. can anyone verify the legitimacy of this (and perhaps offer some physical intuition if it holds). i should say p is not a constant.

thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
joshmccraney said:
hey pf!

i had a subtlety about the divergence theroem/gradient theorem. specifically, the following was presented: $$ \iint_s p \vec{dS} = \iiint_v \nabla (p) dv$$

i am familiar with the divergence theorem, but that is for a vector "dotted" with a surface element (flux) related to the divergence (expansion) through the volume. i believe the above is the gradient theorem. can anyone verify the legitimacy of this (and perhaps offer some physical intuition if it holds). i should say p is not a constant.

thanks!
We may write:
\vec{dS}=dS(n_{x}\vec{i}+n_{y}\vec{j}+n_{z}\vec{k})<br /> \int\int_{S}p\vec{dS}=\int\int_{S}pn_{x}dS\vec{i}+\int\int_{S}pn_{y}dS\vec{j}+\int\int_{S}pn_{z}dS\vec{k} (*)<br /> Since the Cartesian unit vector can be extracted from the integrand!<br /> --<br /> But, we have:<br /> pn_{x}dS=(p\vec{i}\cdot\vec{dS})<br /> And the first term in RHS in (*) is then simply, by the divergence theorem:<br /> \int\int_{S}pn_{x}dS\vec{i}=+int\int\int_{V}\frac{\partial{p}}{\partial{x}}\vec{i}dV<br /> <br /> Do the similar thing to the other two terms on RHS in (*), and you get your identity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
thank you arildno! this makes a lot of sense now! youre brilliant!
 
on another note, arildno, did you just figure this out by thinking about what's going on or did you see it in a book before? either way, thanks again
 
I noticed it a long time ago. I don't remember if it was in a book or on my own inspiration.
 
I'd apply Gauß's theorem to the vector field
\vec{V}(\vec{x})=\vec{a} p(\vec{x})
for a constant vector \vec{a}. Then you have
\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{V}=\vec{a} \cdot \vec{\nabla} p.
Then Gauß's theorem gives
\int_V \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \vec{a} \cdot \vec{\nabla} p = \vec{a} \cdot \int_V \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \vec{\nabla} p = \int_{\partial V} \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{F} \cdot \vec{a} p = \vec{a} \int_{\partial V} \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{F} p.
Since this is true for all \vec{a} you have proven your vector identity.
 
vanhees71 said:
I'd apply Gauß's theorem to the vector field
\vec{V}(\vec{x})=\vec{a} p(\vec{x})
for a constant vector \vec{a}. Then you have
\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{V}=\vec{a} \cdot \vec{\nabla} p.
Then Gauß's theorem gives
\int_V \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \vec{a} \cdot \vec{\nabla} p = \vec{a} \cdot \int_V \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \vec{\nabla} p = \int_{\partial V} \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{F} \cdot \vec{a} p = \vec{a} \int_{\partial V} \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{F} p.
Since this is true for all \vec{a} you have proven your vector identity.

Sure. It's matter of taste, really, which one approach is used.
After all, my method is just as general as the one you present.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K