Showing that Laplace's equation holds

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cole A.
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Laplace's equation
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating that Laplace's equation holds for the function \( r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2} \). The original poster expresses difficulty with the problem, which is derived from a textbook reference.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to compute the Laplacian of \( r \) and presents detailed calculations, ultimately finding that it does not equal zero. Some participants question the accuracy of the original problem statement, suggesting it may contain a typo regarding the function to analyze.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants exploring the implications of a potential typo in the textbook. There is no explicit consensus, but some guidance has been offered regarding the nature of the function in question.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original problem may incorrectly state that the Laplacian of \( r \) is zero, while suggesting that the Laplacian of \( 1/r \) is the intended focus. The original poster has provided an image of the textbook page for reference.

Cole A.
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



(From Plonsey, R. and R. C. Barr, "Bioelectricity: A Quantitative Approach")

Show
[tex]\nabla^2 r = 0[/tex]
given
[tex]r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}.[/tex]

Homework Equations


[tex]\nabla = \frac{\partial}{\partial x}{\bf i} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y}{\bf j} + \frac{\partial}{\partial z}{\bf k}[/tex] (the "abuse of notation")


The Attempt at a Solution



This is my first attempt at a post on this forum, and I'm embarrassed to say I'm really struggling with this question. (Not a homework problem per se, just an in-text side note). It has been a good while since I've studied vector calculus, so if somebody could point out my error, I would appreciate it.

Beginning with
[tex] \begin{equation}<br /> r = (x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}<br /> \end{equation}[/tex]
taking the gradient results in
[tex] \begin{equation}<br /> \begin{aligned}<br /> \nabla r &= \frac{\partial r}{\partial x} {\bf i} + \frac{\partial r}{\partial y} {\bf j} + \frac{\partial r}{\partial z} {\bf k} \\<br /> &= \left[ \frac{x}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}} \right]{\bf i} + \left[ \frac{y}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}} \right]{\bf j} + \left[ \frac{z}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}} \right]{\bf k}.<br /> \end{aligned}<br /> \end{equation}[/tex]
Now taking the divergence of this gradient [itex]-[/itex] which amounts cumulatively to taking the Laplacian of [itex]r -[/itex] gives
[tex] \begin{equation}<br /> \begin{aligned}<br /> \nabla \cdot \nabla r &= \nabla^2 r \\<br /> &= \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[ \frac{x}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}} \right] + \frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left[ \frac{y}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}} \right] + \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left[ \frac{z}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}} \right] \\<br /> &= \left[ \frac{1}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}} - \frac{x^2}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{3/2}} \right] + \left[ \frac{1}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}} - \frac{y^2}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{3/2}} \right] + \left[ \frac{1}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}} - \frac{z^2}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{3/2}} \right] \\<br /> &= \left[ \frac{y^2 + z^2}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{3/2}} \right] + \left[ \frac{x^2 + z^2}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{3/2}} \right] + \left[ \frac{x^2 + y^2}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{3/2}} \right] \\<br /> &= \frac{2}{(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^{1/2}}<br /> \end{aligned}<br /> \end{equation}[/tex]
which is not zero, although I very much wish it was. (Sorry for the long-winded calculations.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Very good job. You got the right answer. I think the problem is with the original question. The laplacian of r isn't zero. The laplacian of 1/r is zero. Are you sure that's not what it says??
 
Ugh, I was starting to suspect I was wasting time because of a typo in the book. I attached the relevant portion of the textbook page as an image, where the above equality is listed along with a couple other vector identities.

Thanks for the extra input (and sanity check).
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    16 KB · Views: 536
Last edited:
Cole A. said:
Ugh, I was starting to suspect I was wasting time because of a typo in the book. I attached the relevant portion of the textbook page as an image, where the above equality is listed along with a couple other vector identities.

Thanks for the extra input.

It's a typo alright. Pretty bad one too. Jeez. I'm aghast. Shocked, really. That's pretty fundamental, you'd think they would have checked that.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K