Vector differential identity proof

Click For Summary
An engineering student seeks help proving a vector differential identity using index notation. The identity involves the gradient of the dot product of two vectors and can be expressed in various forms. Discussion highlights the usefulness of index notation for vector identities, while acknowledging that this particular proof may not require it. Participants emphasize the importance of careful manipulation of vector algebra and calculus identities to avoid errors. The conversation concludes with appreciation for the guidance provided.
_jo_
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I am a engineering student and I am currently upgrading my maths level on my own to follow physics courses. While reading a book, I came across a vector differential identity that I don't manage to prove using index notation.
The identity is the following:
<br /> \nabla(\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B}) =<br /> \vec{A} \times (\nabla \times \vec{B}) + (\vec{A} \cdot \nabla)\vec{B}<br /> + \vec{B} \times (\nabla \times \vec{A}) + (\vec{B} \cdot \nabla)\vec{A}<br />
Could you please give me a hint on how to prove this ?
Thank you for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you want to use index notation? In any case what makes this formula a bit strange is that it can be cast into many forms and that is in some sense not the natural one.

For example the identity

\mathbf{(a\times\nabla)\times b+a\nabla\cdot b=a\times(\nabla\times b)+(a\cdot\nabla)b}

shows we can express each of those four terms in terms of the others
also we can chose to use or not use dyatic terms

two links
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=297027
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=273630
 
Thank you, I wanted to use index notation because it proved really usefull for developping vector identities. But if this identity's proof does not lend itself to this notation, I don't see the necessity to use it.

In one of your links, you posted this:

<br /> \nabla (\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B}) = \nabla_{\vec{A}}(\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B}) + \nabla_{\vec{B}}(\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B})<br />
<br /> \nabla_{\vec{A}}(\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B}) = B \times (\nabla \times \vec{A}) + (\vec{B} \cdot \nabla)\vec{A}<br />
<br /> \nabla_{\vec{B}}(\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B}) = A \times (\nabla \times \vec{B}) + (\vec{A} \cdot \nabla)\vec{B}<br />
<br /> \nabla(\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B}) = <br /> \vec{A} \times (\nabla \times \vec{B}) + (\vec{A} \cdot \nabla)\vec{B} + \vec{B} \times (\nabla \times \vec{A}) + (\vec{B} \cdot \nabla)\vec{A}<br />

But how do you develop the 2nd and 3rd lines from the partial gradient ?
 
\mathbf{\nabla_b (a\cdot b)=(a\times\nabla)\times b+a(\nabla\cdot b)=a\times(\nabla\times b)+(a\cdot\nabla)b}

follows from the vector algebra identity

\mathbf{c(a\cdot b)=(a\times c)\times b+a(c\cdot b)=a\times(c\times b)+(a\cdot c)b}

or in index form the identity (not guaranteed typo free)

δilδjkmjlεimkijδklijmεmlkikδjl

can be applied to

δilδjkajbk,l

Care must be taken when using algebra identities to deduce calculus identities, mainly because by normal convention differential operators are right acting so we must not change multiplication order. We would not like to make an error like

\nabla\cdot b=b\cdot\nabla

It is also possible and convenient to change to bidirectional differential operators and back so that manipulations can be unrestricted.
 
Thanks a lot ! That was really helpful !
 
Relativistic Momentum, Mass, and Energy Momentum and mass (...), the classic equations for conserving momentum and energy are not adequate for the analysis of high-speed collisions. (...) The momentum of a particle moving with velocity ##v## is given by $$p=\cfrac{mv}{\sqrt{1-(v^2/c^2)}}\qquad{R-10}$$ ENERGY In relativistic mechanics, as in classic mechanics, the net force on a particle is equal to the time rate of change of the momentum of the particle. Considering one-dimensional...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
902
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K