Vector calculus identities proof

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the vector calculus identity \(\nabla\cdot(\mathbf fv)=(\nabla v)\cdot\mathbf f+v(\nabla\cdot \mathbf f\) using the definition of divergence without relying on specific coordinate systems. Participants explore the implications of this identity and the validity of vector calculus expressions in different coordinate systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to prove the vector calculus identity using the definition of divergence, emphasizing the need to avoid coordinate system assumptions.
  • Another participant questions the clarity of the divergence definition provided, particularly regarding the role of \(\Delta v\) and the nature of the surface \(S\).
  • A participant clarifies that the divergence represents the outward flux of a vector field per unit volume as the volume approaches zero, suggesting that the surface can take various shapes.
  • There is a debate about how to derive expressions for the gradient operator in different coordinate systems without relying on a specific definition of divergence.
  • One participant asserts that if a vector equation is valid in one coordinate system, it should hold in any coordinate system, raising questions about the implications of coordinate transformations.
  • Another participant acknowledges that the gradient operator changes with coordinate systems but suggests that the identity itself remains valid across different systems.
  • Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

    Participants express differing views on the definition of divergence and its implications for proving vector identities. There is no consensus on the validity of the identity across all coordinate systems, as some participants emphasize the need for caution regarding the gradient operator's behavior under transformations.

    Contextual Notes

    Participants discuss the limitations of definitions and the assumptions underlying the divergence concept, as well as the implications of coordinate transformations on vector identities.

daudaudaudau
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Hello.

How can I prove something like
[tex] \nabla\cdot(\mathbf fv)=(\nabla v)\cdot\mathbf f+v(\nabla\cdot \mathbf f)[/tex]

using only the definition of divergence
[tex] \text{div}\mathbf V=\lim_{\Delta v\rightarrow0}\frac{\oint_S\mathbf V\cdot d\mathbf s}{\Delta v},[/tex]
i.e. without referring to any particular coordinate system? I have yet to see a book that does not assume cartesian coordinates.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where did you get that defition? I don't seee how it makes any sense if you don't say what roll "[itex]\Delta v[/itex]" plays in
[tex]\frac{\oint_S V\cdot ds}{\Delta v}[/tex]
and what is the contour S? Is it a circle around the point with radius [itex]\Delta v[/itex]?
 
Oh sorry, I thought it was a common definition. Here it is at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Divergence.html" . Maybe it is more of a physicist's definition? But I know that you can use it to derive the expressions for the divergence in various coordinate systems.

In words, the divergence is the outward flux of a vector field per unit volume as the volume tends to zero. So it is a closed surface integral on some surface. I think this surface can have pretty much any shape. [itex]\Delta v[/itex] is the volume enclosed by the surface.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you don't use the definition I have shown, how does one then derive the expressions for [itex]\nabla[/itex] in various coordinate systems? To me it seems that the definition I have shown here is fundamental.
 
Let me try and ask in another way: When I see an expression such as
[tex] \nabla\cdot(\mathbf fv)=(\nabla v)\cdot\mathbf f+v(\nabla\cdot \mathbf f)[/tex]

which contains no reference to any particular coordinate system, how do I know when it is valid? Is it valid for any kind of weird non-orthogonal coordinate system?
 
?? If a vector equation is valid in one coordinate system, then it is valid in any coordinate system.

The transformation from one coordinate system to another is alway "homogenous". That, is the "0" vector in one coordinate system is the "0" vector in any coordinate system. If a vector equation says [itex]\vec{v}= \vec{u}[/itex] (where [itex]\vec{u}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{v}[/itex] can be very complicated formulas, but the result is a vector) then [itex]\vec{v}- \vec{u}= \vec{0}[/itex] in any coordinate system.
 
Ah okay, but do we not need to take into account that the [itex]\nabla[/itex]-operator changes when the coordinate system changes? It sounds like you are basically saying is that if we can prove an identity in one coordinate system, then it holds in all coordinate systems.
 
I guess you are right. The gradient is just a particular vector. And what the identity tells us is that one vector equals another vector. When we change coordinates, the gradient stays the same even though the gradient operator changes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K