What Is the Curl of a Vector Field and Its Relation to Divergence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fluidistic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Divergence Vector
fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
272

Homework Statement


For example in electromagnetism and I think it's true for any vector field, the relation \vec \nabla \cdot (\vec \nabla \times \vec E)=0.
As far as I know, the curl of a vector field is a vector. So basically the above expression takes the divergence of a vector? It can't be so. It means that the curl of a vector field is not a vector but a vector field.

It sounds very strange to me... can anyone shred some light on this please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My 2 cents - The curl of a vector field, being a cross product, is a vector perpendicular to the field and so the dot product outside would naturally be zero, coz perpendicular vectors have a zero dot product...?
 
SVXX said:
My 2 cents - The curl of a vector field, being a cross product, is a vector perpendicular to the field and so the dot product outside would naturally be zero, coz perpendicular vectors have a zero dot product...?

I appreciate your help, however I have some questions.
What do you mean by "dot product outside"? Dot product between what vectors?

I'm taking a divergence. Written differently I have div(curl (E))=0.
I've been taught that the curl of a vector field is a vector and I've been taught that the divergence applies to vector fields, not vectors. I'm not asking why the divergence of the curl of a vector field is worth 0, but a clarification of the divergence/curl in this special case.
 
fluidistic said:
I appreciate your help, however I have some questions.
What do you mean by "dot product outside"? Dot product between what vectors?

I'm taking a divergence. Written differently I have div(curl (E))=0.
I've been taught that the curl of a vector field is a vector and I've been taught that the divergence applies to vector fields, not vectors. I'm not asking why the divergence of the curl of a vector field is worth 0, but a clarification of the divergence/curl in this special case.

You can only take the curl of a vector field which yields a vector field.

For a vector field A this is:
[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/5/d/c5df8cb34c3b1480237b941f46628338.png[/URL] =
[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/5/9/a59969f3cc771bae6bf56bcf001aeb3d.png[/URL]
The x, y, and z with the hats on them represent the unit vectors in each direction.

If you take the divergence from this curl, this will always result in 0.
This is not trivial to think up, but if you fill everything in, you'll see that it works out.
This results in:
[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/8/3/b839f27612baaf13dca6770ef8f798fe.png[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok thanks a lot Serena liker. I erroneously thought that the curl of a vector field was a vector, instead of a vector field.
Now this makes perfect sense.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top