Tensor algebra, divergence of cross product

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating an identity related to tensor algebra, specifically the curl of the cross product of two vector fields, and its relationship to the divergence of a specific tensor expression. Participants are examining the mathematical components and identities involved in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to express both sides of the identity in component form but encounters discrepancies. They question the validity of their manipulations involving the Levi-Civita symbol and the use of indices. Other participants point out issues with the appearance of indices and suggest alternative starting points for the derivation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the mathematical expressions, providing feedback on the use of indices and suggesting different approaches to the problem. There is a collaborative effort to clarify the definitions and manipulations involved, although no consensus has been reached on the correct path forward.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight concerns about the proper use of indices in tensor notation, indicating a need for careful consideration of notation rules in tensor algebra. The original poster also acknowledges a potential error in the title of the thread, which may affect the clarity of the discussion.

Telemachus
Messages
820
Reaction score
30
Hi there. I wanted to demonstrate this identity which I found in a book of continuum mechanics:

##curl \left ( \vec u \times \vec v \right )=div \left ( \vec u \otimes \vec v - \vec v \otimes \vec u \right ) ##

I've tried by writting both sides on components, but I don't get the same, I'm probably making some mistake.

##\displaystyle curl \left ( \vec u \times \vec v \right )= \epsilon_{ijk} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}(\epsilon_{kji}u_j v_i)= \epsilon_{ijk} \left [ \epsilon_{kji} \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_j}v_i +u_j \epsilon_{kji} \frac{\partial v_i}{\partial x_j} \right ] ##

I've used that ##(\vec u \times \vec v )_k=\hat e_k \cdot \epsilon_{ijk} u_j v_k \hat e_i=\delta_{ki} \epsilon_{ijk} u_j v_k=\epsilon_{kji}u_j v_i## I'm not sure if this is right.

Then, using the epsilon delta identity I've got ##rot \left ( \vec u \times \vec v \right )=6 \left [ \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_j}v_i +u_j \frac{\partial v_i}{\partial x_j} \right ]=6 \left [ (div \vec u) \vec v + (grad \vec v) \vec u \right ]##

Expanding the right hand side of the identity in components:

##div \left ( \vec u \otimes \vec v - \vec v \otimes \vec u \right ) = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}(u_i v_j -v_i u_j)=v_j \frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j}+ u_i \frac{\partial v_j}{\partial x_j} -u_j \frac{\partial v_i}{\partial x_j}- v_i \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_j}=(grad \vec u) \vec v+\vec u div \vec v - (grad \vec v) \vec u- \vec v div \vec u##

PD: The title should be curl of cross product instead of divergence. Sorry.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Telemachus said:
Hi there. I wanted to demonstrate this identity which I found in a book of continuum mechanics:

##rot \left ( \vec u \times \vec v \right )=div \left ( \vec u \otimes \vec v - \vec v \otimes \vec u \right ) ##

I've tried by writting both sides on components, but I don't get the same, I'm probably making some mistake.

##\displaystyle rot \left ( \vec u \times \vec v \right )= \epsilon_{ijk} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}(\epsilon_{kji}u_j v_i)= \epsilon_{ijk} \left [ \epsilon_{kji} \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_j}v_i +u_j \epsilon_{kji} \frac{\partial v_i}{\partial x_j} \right ] ##
You shouldn't have indices that appear more than twice. ##i## appears 3 times; ##j##, 4 times.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
ups, I see. Thank you vela.
 
Telemachus said:
I've used that ##(\vec u \times \vec v )_k=\hat e_k \cdot \epsilon_{ijk} u_j v_k \hat e_i=\delta_{ki} \epsilon_{ijk} u_j v_k=\epsilon_{kji}u_j v_i## I'm not sure if this is right.
It is, but I wouldn't do those first two steps. I think of ##(\vec u\times\vec v)_k=\varepsilon_{kij}u_jv_k## as the definition of ##\vec u\times\vec v##, so it would have been my starting point. It makes sense to take this as the definition, since it implies that ##\vec u\times\vec v=(\vec u\times\vec v)_k e_k =\varepsilon_{kij}u_jv_k e_k##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K