What does the notation \vec A \cdot \vec\nabla \vec B mean in vector calculus?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation \(\vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla} \vec{B}\) in vector calculus, exploring its meaning, implications, and the conditions under which it is valid. Participants examine the operator's definition, its application in different coordinate systems, and the resulting expressions when applied to vector fields.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants explain that \((\vec{A} \cdot \nabla) \vec{B}\) can be interpreted as an operator that acts on the vector field \(\vec{B}\).
  • One participant asserts that \(\vec{A} \cdot \nabla\) is equivalent to \(A_x \frac{\partial}{\partial x} + A_y \frac{\partial}{\partial y} + A_z \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\), suggesting it operates component-wise.
  • Another participant challenges the interpretation by questioning how a vector multiplied by a scalar can yield a scalar, indicating confusion over the nature of the operation.
  • There is a correction regarding the expression, with one participant stating that the correct form is \((\vec{A} \cdot \nabla) \vec{B} = A_x \frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial x} + A_y \frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial y} + A_z \frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial z}\).
  • Some participants discuss the validity of the expression in different coordinate systems, with one noting that it holds true in Cartesian coordinates but raises questions about its applicability in curvilinear systems.
  • One participant mentions that the directional derivative of \(\vec{B}\) along \(\vec{A}\) can be expressed as \(\vec{A} \cdot \nabla \vec{B}\), emphasizing the linear part of the change in \(\vec{B}\).
  • There is a playful exchange about the correctness of various interpretations, with participants humorously suggesting that mathematics has become a "democracy." However, one later admits to confusion regarding the entire topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation and validity of the notation, with no clear consensus reached. Some agree on certain definitions while others challenge them, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the expression may depend on the coordinate system used, with specific claims about its validity in Cartesian versus curvilinear coordinates. There are also mentions of differing definitions of the vector gradient in literature, adding to the complexity of the discussion.

tim_lou
Messages
682
Reaction score
1
what does
\left (\vec{A}\cdot \vec\nabla \right ) \vec B mean?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There've been a few a threads recently on "A.del". You may want to search the forum.

In short, A.del is an operator

\vec{A}.\vec{\nabla} \equiv A_x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+ A_y\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+A_z\frac{\partial}{\partial z}
 
Last edited:
Specifically
(\vec{A}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B}= \vec{A}\cdot (\nabla\vec{B})= A_x\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial x}+ A_y\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial y}+A_z\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial z}
 
How can vector multiplyed by scalar give scalar??
 
HallsofIvy said:
Specifically
(\vec{A}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B}= \vec{A}\cdot (\nabla\vec{B})= A_x\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial x}+ A_y\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial y}+A_z\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial z}

Semo727 said:
How can vector multiplyed by scalar give scalar??

Do you mean HallsofIvy's? If so A_x, A_y, and A_z are vectors. Hence the whole thing is a vector.
 
HallsofIvy made a mistake. The correct expression is:
(\vec{A}\cdot\nabla)\vec{B}=A_{x}\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial{x}}+A_{y}\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial{y}}+A_{z}\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial{z}}
 
And I also guess that (\vec{A}\cdot\vec\nabla)\, \vec{B}\neq\vec{A}\,(\vec\nabla\cdot\vec{B}) since

\vec{A}\,(\vec\nabla\cdot\vec{B})=\vec{A}\,\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial x}+ \vec{A}\,\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial y}+\vec{A}\,\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial z}
 
Last edited:
wait, hold on, so the correct result is arildno's? the operation gives you a vector..?
 
tim_lou said:
wait, hold on, so the correct result is arildno's? the operation gives you a vector..?

I see we've turned mathematics into a democracy today. :smile:

Yes, Arildno's explanation was the correct one.
 
  • #10
arunma said:
I see we've turned mathematics into a democracy today. :smile:

Yes, Arildno's explanation was the correct one.
I WON!
:smile:
 
  • #11
Actually, I just screwed up the whole thing!
 
  • #12
interpretation

Sorry for butting in so late :blushing: , but I needed to expand on this subject. I’ll try and get to Tim-Lou’s question:

what does \left (\vec{A}\cdot \vec\nabla \right ) \vec Bmean?

but first, a few notes:

arildno said that

(\vec{A}\cdot\nabla)\vec{B} = A_{x}\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial{x}} + A_{y}\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial{y}}+A_{z}\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial{z}}

This can be seen as a definition of \nabla \vec{B} since HallsofIvy pointed out that (\vec{A}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B}= \vec{A}\cdot (\nabla\vec{B}) (even though my fluids mechanics teacher gave an explicit warning in class, after deriving the expression of the convective derivative, that (\vec{A}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B}= \vec{A}\cdot (\nabla\vec{B}) only for Cartesian Systems, and then in the following class happened to mention that this is true for any curvilinear orthogonal coordinate system (it's in my class notes, so I know he said it) . . . but that doesn’t make any sense to me, because an expression written in coordinate free notation cannot depend on a coordinate system, no? I'll assume that my teacher went through a moment of mental fogginess, though when I've tried to approach him on the subject he just refers me to the bibliography. In fact, I did do some research, and most books I've seen write (\vec{A}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B} instead of \vec{A}\cdot (\nabla\vec{B}) though they don't make any refernce to the latter not being valid - except one book, which stated flatly that (\vec{A}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B} \neq \vec{A}\cdot (\nabla\vec{B}) but didn't offer any explanation, so I'm not going to believe that. So I was happy to see HallsofIvy's post).

So let (\vec{A}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B}= \vec{A}\cdot (\nabla\vec{B}) (valid, of course, in any coordinate system, as the coordinate-free notation suggests) - as I said, this can be viewed as a definition of \nabla \vec{B} since we know how to compute (\vec{A}\cdot \nabla)\vec{B} from vector calculus, resulting in arildno's expression in Cartesian Coordinates (note that arildo's expression is ONLY valid for Cartsian Coordinates).

Now, if we restrict ourselves to Cartesian Coordinates, the derivative of a vector \vec{v} with respect to the coordinates is given by

\frac{\partial\vec{v}}{\partial{x_i}} = \frac{\partial{v_j}}{\partial{x_i}} \vec{e_j}​

where {\vec{e_i}} are the standard Cartesian Basis Vectors.

Let \vec{v}(x,y,z) represent a vector field. Remember that the differential of \vec{v} is map that for a given (\Delta{x},\Delta{y},\Delta{z}) \equiv \Delta{\vec{r}} returns the linear part (in terms of \Delta{\vec{r}}) of the increment \Delta{\vec{v}} \equiv \vec{v}(\vec{r}+\Delta\vec{r} ) - \vec{v}(\vec{r}), where \vec{r} is the position vector. By definition, the differential of \vec{v} is:

d\vec{v}= \frac{\partial\vec{v}}{\partial{x_i}} d{x_i} = \frac{\partial{v_j}}{\partial{x_i}} \vec{e_j} d{x_i} = d{x_i} \frac{\partial}{\partial{x_i}} ( v_j \vec{e_j}) = (d \vec{r} \cdot \nabla) \vec{v} = d \vec{r} \cdot \nabla \vec{v}

That is, d \vec{r} \cdot \nabla \vec{v} = \Delta \vec{r} \cdot \nabla \vec{v} (note that the differential of the independent variable is equal to its increment) is the linear part of \Delta \vec{v}, or, in other words, the derivative of \vec{v} along \Delta \vec{r}.

Thus, \vec{a} \cdot \nabla \vec{b} is the directional derivative of \vec{b} along \vec{a}, that is, the linear part (in terms of a_i = \Delta x_i ), of \Delta{\vec{b}} \equiv \vec{b}(\vec{r}+\Delta\vec{a} ) - \vec{b}(\vec{r}).

Note that some authors define the vector gradient \nabla \vec{v} as the transpose of how we have defined it here - no biggie, only in that case the differential of \vec{v} would be d\vec{v}= \nabla \vec{v} \cdot d \vec{r}, and the directional derivative of \vec{b} would be \nabla \vec{b} \cdot \vec{a} instead.

I'll be expanding on this topic in a separate thread, as I think the questions I have to ask would no longer fall under the object of the present thread.

~Bee
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Hi Bee, welcome to PF. Are the you the same Bee that runs 'Backreaction'? :biggrin:
 
  • #14
Hi neutrino,
thank you! No, I'm a newbie bee to this and all other forums/blogs - I don't run anything. Just your average bee - please bear with me as I get lost sometimes.
~Bee
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K