Solenoidal and conservative fields

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrickyDicky
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the mathematical properties of solenoidal and conservative vector fields, particularly their relationships with vector potentials. It highlights that a solenoidal vector field, characterized by zero divergence, implies the existence of a curl, while a conservative vector field, which is curl-free, does not necessarily imply a vector potential. The conversation also touches on the implications of these fields in the context of Laplacian fields and the role of topology in determining the existence of potentials. Additionally, the participants explore the complexities of defining curl in non-Euclidean spaces and the importance of the Poincaré Lemma in understanding these relationships. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the intricate connections between vector fields, their derivatives, and the underlying geometric structures.
  • #91
@Ben Niehoff Yes you're right, I didn't say there aren't any such fields. I did say that we do not attribute any physical meaning to their vector potentials, as we do with the megnetic vector potential for example...
(Btw I hate the θ convention for the azimuth :P)

@Muphrid hmmm aren't monogenic functions just the generalization of analytic ones in higher dimensions? I might have missed sth, but where exactly do you prove that both of their derivatives must be zero in this decomposition?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Trifis said:
@Muphrid hmmm aren't monogenic functions just the generalization of analytic ones in higher dimensions? I might have missed sth, but where exactly do you prove that both of their derivatives must be zero in this decomposition?

Geometric algebra allows us to represent complex numbers as being part of an exterior algebra. Basically, ##w(x,y) = u(x,y) + e^{xy} v(x,y)##, where ##e^{xy}## is a bivector.

Now, take the vector derivative of this object.

$$\nabla w= (e^x \partial_x + e^y \partial_y)w = e^x \left[\partial_x u - \partial_y v\right] + e^y \left[\partial_y u + \partial_x v\right]$$

Setting ##\nabla w = 0## enforces the Cauchy-Riemann conditions for complex differentiability. However, instead of working in the realm of complex analysis, one can factor out ##e^x## on the right to get

$$f = we^x = u e^x - v e^y \implies \nabla f = \nabla w e^x = (\nabla w) e^x = 0$$

(This explains the sign change to the y-component that is often necessary when converting between complex analysis and vector fields.) Regardless, ##f## is a vector field, and condition for analyticity--for integrability--still holds. As I showed in the decomposition posts above, as long as ##\nabla f = 0##, the function is entirely determined by its values on a closed surface, and there is no need for volume integrals to account for source terms. This is exactly in analogy to the properties of complex analytic functions. Hence, ##\nabla f = 0## is the generalization of the Cauchy-Riemann condition not only to a real 2d vector space but to arbitrary dimensions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K