I Where is this term coming from?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter bigmike94
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Term
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the origin of an extra term in a mathematical expression, specifically related to the product rule in vector calculus. Participants clarify that the term likely arises from the x-direction component, denoted as x i-hat, while y and z components are ignored. One user expresses gratitude for the insight that helped them understand the reasoning behind the inclusion of the extra x. The conversation also touches on the need for proper mathematical notation, suggesting the use of LaTeX for clarity. Overall, the participants collaboratively work through the confusion surrounding the formula's components.
bigmike94
Messages
99
Reaction score
61
TL;DR Summary
I am back again to ask for your mathematical help.
I got the same result apart from that extra x in the second term? I have boiled it down to that it must have come from maybe the x hat j hat and z hat part of the product rule? Any help would be grateful thank you!
A46D6638-E602-4C43-BA7C-4DD92E3E44AE.jpeg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It comes from numerator of the formula above, x i-hat.
 
@bigmike94 can you write down what ##A_x## is?
 
anuttarasammyak said:
It comes from numerator of the formula above, x i-hat.
Yeah I had a guess what assumed that was it but why is it included and not y or z aswell? Maybe I am missing an i hat which will get rid of the j and z hat cos of the dot product?
 
PeroK said:
@bigmike94 can you write down what ##A_x## is?
I’m not sure how to type maths in here but I think you have just helped me crack it, because it’s in the x direction only we ignore y hat and z hat, then In the product rule you’re left with the extra x.

I’m not sure if that makes sense to you? But yeah I think I get it now thank you
 
bigmike94 said:
I’m not sure how to type maths in here but I think you have just helped me crack it, because it’s in the x direction only we ignore y hat and z hat, then In the product rule you’re left with the extra x.

I’m not sure if that makes sense to you? But yeah I think I get it now thank you
By definition $$\vec A = A_x \hat i + A_y \hat j + A_z \hat k$$This can also be expressed as:$$A_x = \vec A \cdot \hat i$$

You need to learn some LaTex:

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top