Where does Laplace's equation in spherical polars come from

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of Laplace's equation in spherical polar coordinates, specifically questioning the form of the equation presented and its relation to the derivation of the Laplacian in these coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the derivation of Laplace's equation in spherical coordinates and expresses confusion regarding the differences between their derivation and the provided equation. Some participants question the dimensional context of the equation, suggesting it may pertain to 2D polar coordinates instead of 3D. Others express a desire for clarification on the derivation process, noting a lack of coverage in their class.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring various interpretations of the equation and its derivation. Some guidance has been offered regarding the nature of the unit vectors in spherical coordinates and the gradient operator, indicating a productive direction in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of a discrepancy between the coverage of 2D and 3D cases in class, which may affect the understanding of the topic. Additionally, the original poster indicates difficulty finding resources that address the 2D case specifically.

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
Where does Laplace's equation in spherical polars come from

[itex]\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial r^2} + \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial \theta^2}=0[/itex]

?

i can derive from scratch the expression for the laplacian in spherical polars but this bears no resemblance to the above, even if i decide to ignore the [itex]\phi[/itex] dependence?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Those are in 2D-polar coordinates.
 


hmm, I am guessing that's meant to be easier but we haven't covered that in class (despite doing the 3D case) - could you possibly run over the derivation or post a link to a website (whenever i google it i only get the 3d case) please?
 


When deriving it from scratch, remember that in spherical coordinates, the unit vectors are not constants anymore!

The gradient operator is

[tex]\vec \nabla = \hat r \frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \hat \theta \frac1{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} + \hat \phi \frac1{r \sin \theta} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}[/tex]

what you want to find is

[tex]\vec \nabla \cdot \vec \nabla[/tex]

but you must take into account the fact that the differential operators also act on the unit vectors.
 


From my weblog
http://buyanik.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/laplacian-in-spherical-coordinates/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K