Vector Triple Production Reduction

  • Thread starter Thread starter Illuminati
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reduction Vector
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on reducing the vector triple product involving the nabla operator, specifically the expression nabla(A x B). The user seeks to simplify this expression so that nabla operates solely on either vector A or vector B. A key relation highlighted is the vector identity: ∇×(∇×F) = ∇(∇·F) - ∇²F, which can be utilized to facilitate this simplification. The proof of this identity can be approached through component calculations or alternative vector relations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus and operations involving the nabla operator.
  • Familiarity with vector identities and their proofs.
  • Knowledge of cross products and divergence in vector fields.
  • Experience with Laplacian and gradient operations in multivariable calculus.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the vector identity ∇×(∇×F) = ∇(∇·F) - ∇²F.
  • Learn about the properties and applications of the Laplacian operator in physics.
  • Explore advanced vector calculus techniques for simplifying expressions involving multiple vectors.
  • Investigate the use of component calculations in proving vector identities.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineering students who are working with vector calculus and seeking to simplify complex vector expressions.

Illuminati
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
[itex]\nabla[/itex]x (A x B)
I'm trying to reduce this triple product down so nabla is only operating on either A or B, not the product of the two vectors.

I've been playing with this for a while now but can't really seem to make a dent in it. Any suggestions would be well appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's a pretty famous relation:

[itex]\nabla\times(\nabla\times\vec{F}) = \nabla(\nabla \cdot F) - \nabla^{2}F[/itex] =
= grad(div(F)) - Laplacian(F)

Proof can be of course rigorously done either through actual component calculation or using other relations, but I believe you can just use this :-)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K