What is the Significance of the Laplace Operator in Vector Calculus?

  • #1
erocored
30
7
##\frac {\partial \vec F} {\partial x} ## + ##\frac{\partial \vec F} {\partial y} ## = vector which gives me a direction of the greatest increase of the greatest increase of the function, where ##\vec F ## = gradient of the function. If I multiple the first by ##\hat i## and the second by ##\hat j## then I will get the length of the x-component of vector ##\frac {\partial \vec F} {\partial x} ## plus the length of the y-component of vector ##\frac{\partial \vec F} {\partial y} ##. What does this sum mean?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi,

Your thread name is 'Laplace operator' ...

If I go from your $$F = \nabla f = {\partial f\over\partial x} {\bf \hat\imath} + {\partial f\over\partial y} {\bf \hat\jmath} $$ in 2 dimensions to your vector $$\frac{\partial \vec F} {\partial x} +\frac{\partial \vec F} {\partial y} = \Biggl({\partial^2 f\over\partial x^2}+{\partial^2 f\over\partial y\partial x} \Biggr) {\bf \hat\imath} +
\Biggl( {\partial^2 f\over\partial y^2} + {\partial^2 f\over\partial x\partial y} \Biggr) {\bf \hat\jmath} $$ Then I do not understand what you mean with
erocored said:
If I multiple the first by ##\hat i## and the second by ##\hat j##​
but let's assume you mean 'take the inner product', then I get
[edit] wrong ! Instead of first inner product then adding up I made the mistake of first adding up !
$$\frac{\partial \vec F} {\partial x} \cdot\hat\imath +\frac{\partial \vec F} {\partial y} \cdot\hat\jmath = {\partial^2 f\over\partial x^2}+{\partial^2 f\over\partial y\partial x} +
{\partial^2 f\over\partial y^2} + {\partial^2 f\over\partial x\partial y} $$And that is NOT the 2 D Laplacian ...

[edit] first doing the inner product and then the addition does yield the Laplacian:
$$\Delta \vec F = \nabla^2 \vec F = \nabla \cdot (\nabla\vec F ) =
{\partial^2 f\over\partial x^2}+{\partial^2 f\over\partial y^2}$$which you probably meant, and which does have a physical meaning .

##\ ##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes docnet and erocored
  • #3
Hello, I am sorry for my mistake. Here is what I meant exactly:
2021-03-25 (2).png
I have vector ##\vec v_1## at point ##\left(x, y \right)## , vector ##\vec v_2## at point ##\left(x+dx, y \right)## and vector ##\vec v_3## at point ##\left(x, y+dy \right)## (##\vec v_1## = ##\vec F\left(x, y \right)##, ##\vec v_2## = ##\vec F \left(x+dx, y \right) ##, ##\vec v_3## = ##\vec F \left(x, y+dy \right) ##).

Then difference between ##\vec v_2## and ##\vec v_1## will be ##d\vec v_{21}##, difference between ##\vec v_3## and ##\vec v_1## will be ##d\vec v_{31}## (##d\vec v_{21}## = ##\vec F \left(x+dx, y \right) ## - ##\vec F\left(x, y \right)##, ##d\vec v_{31}## = ##\vec F \left(x, y+dy \right) ## - ##\vec F\left(x, y \right)##).

Next I will get vector ##\frac {d\vec v_{21}} {dx}## which is collinear with ##d\vec v_{21}##, and so for ##\frac {d\vec v_{31}} {dy}##.

Now if I multiple ##\frac {d\vec v_{21}} {dx}## by ##\hat i## I will get a length of the x-component of that vector and the y-component of vector ##\frac {d\vec v_{31}} {dy}## if multiple by ##\hat j##.

Sum of ##\frac {d\vec v_{21}} {dx} \cdot \hat i## and ##\frac {d\vec v_{31}} {dy} \cdot \hat j## is equal to ##\frac {\partial \vec F} {\partial x} \cdot \hat i## + ##\frac {\partial \vec F} {\partial y}\cdot \hat j##. This is also equal to
##\frac \partial {\partial x} \cdot \left(\frac {\partial f} {\partial x}\cdot \hat i + \frac {\partial f} {\partial y}\cdot \hat j \right) \cdot \hat i## + ##\frac \partial {\partial y} \cdot \left(\frac {\partial f} {\partial x}\cdot \hat i + \frac {\partial f} {\partial y}\cdot \hat j \right) \cdot \hat j## =
##\frac {\partial^2 f} {\partial^2 x} \cdot \hat i \cdot \hat i## + ##\frac {\partial^2 f} {\partial x \cdot \partial y} \cdot \hat i \cdot \hat j## + ##\frac {\partial^2 f} {\partial x \cdot \partial y} \cdot \hat i \cdot \hat j## + ##\frac {\partial^2 f} {\partial^2 y} \cdot \hat j \cdot \hat j## =
##\frac {\partial^2 f} {\partial^2 x}##+##\frac {\partial^2 f} {\partial^2 y}## = sum of the lengths of those dashed lines. I can not understand what does this sum mean.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU
  • #4
BvU said:
[edit] first doing the inner product and then the addition does yield the Laplacian:
$$\Delta \vec F = \nabla^2 \vec F = \nabla \cdot (\nabla\vec F ) =
{\partial^2 f\over\partial x^2}+{\partial^2 f\over\partial y^2}$$which you probably meant, and which does have a physical meaning .

##\ ##
Thank you! But is it correct that the Laplace operator is equal to the sum of these dashed lines, and if so, what does this sum mean?
 
  • #5
erocored said:
I am sorry for my mistake
I don't think you made one. In contrast I screwed up grossly o:) o:) and edited my reply to correct it.

I am afraid I let you make you drawing without that helping to shed light on your original question: it's imply too complicated (at least for me). In my case, what helps here to see and fix the mistake is a 'numerical' example (below). But it still doesn't clearly show what the result signifies :frown:$$
\begin{align*}
f & = x^3y^2 + x^2y^3 \\ \ &\ \\

\vec F =\vec \nabla f & =
\Bigl (3x^2y^2 + 2xy^3 \Bigr )\; {\bf \hat\imath} + \Bigl (2x^3y + 3x^2y^2 \Bigr )\;\hat\jmath \\ \ &\ \\
{\partial \vec F \over\partial x } & =
\Bigl (6xy^2 + 2y^3 \Bigr )\; {\bf \hat\imath} + \Bigl (6x^2y + 6xy^2 \Bigr )\;\hat\jmath \\ \ &\ \\
{\partial \vec F \over\partial y } & =
\Bigl (6x^2y + 6xy^2 \Bigr )\; {\bf \hat\imath} + \Bigl (2x^3 + 6x^2y \Bigr )\;\hat\jmath \\ \ &\ \\

\frac{\partial \vec F} {\partial x} \cdot\hat\imath +\frac{\partial \vec F} {\partial y} \cdot\hat\jmath
& =\Bigl (6xy^2 + 2y^3 \Bigr ) + \Bigl (2x^3 + 6x^2y \Bigr ) \\ \ \\

& ={\partial^2 f\over\partial x^2}+{\partial^2 f\over\partial y^2} = \Delta f

\end{align*}
$$

So after this error of mine we can finally come to the Laplacian
BvU said:
which does have a physical meaning .

The Laplacian is the divergence of a gradient: $$\Delta f = \vec \nabla\cdot(\vec\nabla f) $$ and it plays an important role in physics in the Laplace equation and in the (more general) Poisson equation.

It can be shown that a conservative force field is the gradient of some potential. And the divergence indicates the presence (or absence) of sources.

I wouldn't know how to come to that insight directly from the definitions. Only in steps in vector calculus.

Google things like Conservative vector field , Laplacian vector field , Divergence theorem ,
physical interpretation of ... (any of: gradient, curl, divergence, laplacian :smile: ),

##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes docnet and erocored
  • #6
Thank you!
 
  • Like
Likes BvU
  • #7
The last smiley was a realization that my reply is rather circular ... :wink:
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes docnet and erocored

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
665
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top