Show that w is solenoidal having spherical polar coordinates

YogiBear
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The gradient, divergence and curl in spherical polar coordinates r, ∅, Ψ are
nablaΨ = ∂Φ/∂r * er + ∂Φ/∂∅ * e 1/r + ∂Φ/∂Ψ * eΨ * 1/(r*sin(∅))
nabla * a = 1/r * ∂/∂r(r2*ar) + 1/(r*sin(∅)*∂/∂∅[sin(∅)a] + 1/r*sin(∅) * ∂aΨ/∂Ψ
nabla x a =

|er r*e r*sin(∅)*eΨ |
|∂/∂r ∂/∂∅ ∂/dΨ |
| 1/r2*sin(∅) |ar r*a r*sin(∅)*aΨ |

Where a = ar * er + a*e + aΨ*eΨ

Suppose that the vector field w has the form w = wΨ(r, ∅) eΨ Show that w is
solenoidal and find wΨ(r, ∅), when w is also irrotational. Find a potential for w in this case.
hah..PNG

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I started by finding vector potential. however it seems too simple. (Or most likely id id it wrong). In addition i am not sure, if it is even the right way to about it. I can't put in working out of the vector potential i have, as i have trouble with coding it on the forum(My handwriting is not legible). So you can assume i have got it wrong. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First.

To show that ω is solenoidal implies that the divergence of the vector field is 0. Thats easy to show:

$$∇·\omega = \frac{1}{r\sin\theta}\; \frac{\partial\omega_\phi(r,\theta)}{\partial\phi}$$

and since the φ component of ω does not depend on φ, it's partial derivative equals 0.

So the vector field is solenoidal.

Second.

We must impose that ×ω=0.
$$∇×\omega=\begin{vmatrix} ê_r & rê_\theta &r\sin\thetaê_\phi \\ \frac{\partial}{\partial r} & \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}& \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} \\ 0&0&r\sin\theta\omega_\phi\end{vmatrix} \;=\; ê_r \left[ \frac{\partial\omega_\phi}{\partial \theta}r\cos\theta \right] - ê_\theta \left[ \frac{\partial\omega_\phi}{\partial r}r\sin\theta \right] $$

And this is 0 ∀r,φ if ωφ is not really dependent on θ and r. So ωφ=C (is constant on all variables).

And now I am stuck... I really doubt on this second result. I'm sorry, but I'll wait until someone else come check it. Maybe this help you on finding a path.
 
  • Like
Likes YogiBear
marksman95 said:
First.

To show that ω is solenoidal implies that the divergence of the vector field is 0. Thats easy to show:

$$∇·\omega = \frac{1}{r\sin\theta}\; \frac{\partial\omega_\phi(r,\theta)}{\partial\phi}$$

and since the φ component of ω does not depend on φ, it's partial derivative equals 0.

So the vector field is solenoidal.

Second.

We must impose that ×ω=0.
$$∇×\omega=\begin{vmatrix} ê_r & rê_\theta &r\sin\thetaê_\phi \\ \frac{\partial}{\partial r} & \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}& \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} \\ 0&0&r\sin\theta\omega_\phi\end{vmatrix} \;=\; ê_r \left[ \frac{\partial\omega_\phi}{\partial \theta}r\cos\theta \right] - ê_\theta \left[ \frac{\partial\omega_\phi}{\partial r}r\sin\theta \right] $$

And this is 0 ∀r,φ if ωφ is not really dependent on θ and r. So ωφ=C (is constant on all variables).

And now I am stuck... I really doubt on this second result. I'm sorry, but I'll wait until someone else come check it. Maybe this help you on finding a path.
20150507_201842.jpg

I have figured out part 2, very similar to part one. Cross multiply the matrix, and we get 0. I think I am getting somewhere on part three as well. Thank you. And your LaTeX skills are too good xD
 
MMMM... I think you got that rotational wrong. You cannot cancel those partial derivatives inside the determinant.

Those vectors aren't zero, but their associated components.

Also I think you haven't understood the exercice. It doesn't demand you to show that is irrotational, but to assume it is in order to find out what is the function of the phi component.
 
  • Like
Likes YogiBear
Of course. I rushed to conclusion without reading question fully...

thanks for the help thought, i would have had it completely wrong otherwise.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top