The Physical Meaning of Laplacian(f) = 0 in Vector Analysis Explained - MTarek

  • Thread starter Thread starter mtarek16
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physical
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the physical interpretation of the equation Laplacian(f) = 0, where f represents a potential function in vector analysis. It is established that when the Laplacian of a function is zero, the function is equal to the local average of its values in a surrounding neighborhood, indicating that the function exhibits saddle point behavior. This means that functions with a zero Laplacian do not possess local maxima or minima, as any such extremum would contradict the condition of averaging. The conversation also highlights the distinction between the Laplacian and the Laplace transform.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector analysis concepts, particularly the Laplacian operator.
  • Familiarity with the properties of potential functions in vector fields.
  • Basic knowledge of n-dimensional geometry and saddle points.
  • Awareness of the differences between Laplacian and Laplace transforms.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Laplace's equation in various dimensions.
  • Explore graphical representations of functions with zero Laplacians.
  • Investigate the implications of saddle points in multivariable calculus.
  • Learn about the applications of the Laplacian operator in physics and engineering.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering, particularly those interested in vector analysis and the behavior of potential functions in multi-dimensional spaces.

mtarek16
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

Could anyone please define the physical meaning of [Laplacian(f) = 0; f is a potential function of a vector field] ..

I don't know whether it's easy or not, but I'm a noob in vector analysis, so I thought I'd better ask :)

Regards,
MTarek
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What function has 0 as its Laplace transform? Well, f=0 will work, and the inverse transforms are unique, so f=0 is the only solution. Or am I totally wrong?
 
Oops, my bad. Ignore everything I said.
 
The laplacian of a function at a point, \Delta f(p) measures how much f(p), deviates from the average of f on a small circle surrounding p. This is similar to how the second derivative measures whether a function of a single variable is concave up or concave down, except extended to functions of many variables. In a sense, it measures how much the function is "curving up" or "curving down" around a point.

If the laplacian is zero, that means that f(p) is equal to the local average of f. Imagine f as a 2D surface, and (px,py,f(p)) is a point on the surface - If the surface is curving up in one direction around p, it must be curving down in another direction. Thus functions where laplacian f is zero everywhere are ones where every point looks like a saddle point.

As a result, when the laplacian is zero, f can have no local maxima or minima - if f had a local maxima at q, then f(q) > average of f around q, which would make the laplacian nonzero.
 
Thank you all ..

maze, I don't quite get it, but I understand a little bit of what you're getting at. That's satisfactory for now .. finals start in two days so I will investigate in this later.

Would appreciate it though if you, or anyone else could provide a graphical example or something to clarify it more.
 
Here is a pdf I've found on the subject. Seems pretty good, and has some pictures.
http://www.math.hmc.edu/~jacobsen/sirev-flat-as-possible.pdf
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
684
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K