Vector analysis question. Laplacian of scalar and vector field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Laplacian operator to scalar and vector fields in curvilinear coordinates. Participants explore the definitions and implications of the Laplacian in different coordinate systems, particularly focusing on the differences in treatment between scalar and vector fields.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire whether the Laplacian defined for a scalar field in curvilinear coordinates can be directly applied to vector fields.
  • One participant references Arfken's work, suggesting that the vector Laplacian is best obtained using a specific vector identity.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the complexity of the operations involved in Arfken's approach, advocating for the use of covariant derivatives instead.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the general covariance of expressions involving the Laplacian, with some arguing that the transformation properties of vector components must be considered.
  • There is a discussion about whether the derivatives should be covariant to account for non-zero connection coefficients in general curvilinear coordinates.
  • One participant mentions finding relevant formulas for the vector and tensor Laplacians from external sources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the application of the Laplacian to vector fields, with multiple competing views on the appropriate methods and definitions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to take.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the generality of certain expressions and the need for careful consideration of the properties of basis vectors and connection coefficients in curvilinear coordinates.

LagrangeEuler
Messages
711
Reaction score
22
If we define Laplacian of scalar field in some curvilinear coordinates ## \Delta U## could we then just say what ##\Delta## is in that orthogonal coordinates and then act with the same operator on the vector field ## \Delta \vec{A}##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LagrangeEuler said:
If we define Laplacian of scalar field in some curvilinear coordinates ## \Delta U## could we then just say what ##\Delta## is in that orthogonal coordinates and then act with the same operator on the vector field ## \Delta \vec{A}##?

See Arfken on this. For example, in spherical polar coordinates here is the Laplacian acting on a scalar field (first scan) and components, with respect to spherical polar coordinate unit vectors, of the Laplacian acting on a vector field (second scan). Arfken says on the vector Laplacian that "It is best obtained by using the vector identity (Eq. 1.80)". This vector identity is

##
\nabla \times (\nabla \times \vec{V}) = \nabla \nabla \cdot \vec{V} - \nabla \cdot \nabla \vec{V} .
##
 

Attachments

  • laplacescalar.jpg
    laplacescalar.jpg
    49.9 KB · Views: 169
  • laplacevector.jpg
    laplacevector.jpg
    41.2 KB · Views: 172
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anuttarasammyak
It is expressed in tensor analysis
g^{jk}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} A^i or
g^{jk}A^i_{,j,k}
 
LagrangeEuler said:
If we define Laplacian of scalar field in some curvilinear coordinates ## \Delta U## could we then just say what ##\Delta## is in that orthogonal coordinates and then act with the same operator on the vector field ## \Delta \vec{A}##?
Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by ”act with the same operator on the vector field”. If you mean actually acting on the vector field including taking the fact that the basis vectors are not constant then fine. If you mean applying the operator to the individual components, then no.

The best way is however to work with the covariant derivative, which will always work.
anuttarasammyak said:
It is expressed in tensor analysis
g^{jk}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} A^i or
g^{jk}A^i_{,j,k}
No. This expression is not generally covariant. The result is a vector field and as such its components must show the correct transformation properties. This expression does not.
 
julian said:
See Arfken on this. For example, in spherical polar coordinates here is the Laplacian acting on a scalar field (first scan) and components, with respect to spherical polar coordinate unit vectors, of the Laplacian acting on a vector field (second scan). Arfken says on the vector Laplacian that "It is best obtained by using the vector identity (Eq. 1.80)". This vector identity is

##
\nabla \times (\nabla \times \vec{V}) = \nabla \nabla \cdot \vec{V} - \nabla \cdot \nabla \vec{V} .
##
I must also disagree with Arfken here. That involves taking the curl twice, gradient once, and divergence once, which is a mouthful. Better would be to learn about the covariant derivative or use knowledge about how basis vectors in curvilinear coordinates are affected by derivatives.
 
Orodruin said:
No. This expression is not generally covariant.
Do you mean derivatives should be covariant derivatives, i.e.
g^{jk}A^i_{:j:k}
to include the general cases that ##\Gamma##s are not zero ? I was not sure whether OP deals with such general cases.
 
Last edited:
anuttarasammyak said:
Do you mean derivatives should be covariant derivatives, i.e.
g^{jk}A^i_{:j:k}
to include the general cases that ##\Gamma##s are not zero ? I was not sure whether OP deals with such general cases.
OP has stated that the question is about general curvilinear coordinates. In such coordinates the basis vectors change and therefore the connection coefficients are non-zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anuttarasammyak

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K