Why Does the Derivative Transformation Use Cosine in Spherical Coordinates?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dingo_d
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jackson Topic
dingo_d
Messages
199
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



There is one thing I'm not getting in this problem. It's about uniformly magnetized sphere. In solving the problem with formula for magnetic potential:

\phi_M=-\nabla\cdot\int\frac{\vec{M}}{|\vec{r}-\vec{r}'|}d^3r'

At one point a change of variable for differentiation is made

\frac{\partial}{\partial z}=\frac{\partial r}{\partial z}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}

And he says that \frac{\partial r}{\partial z}=\cos\theta. But I can't see that. If I'm using the formula for spherical coordinate system transformation: z=r\cos\theta I don't get just cosine, I get 1/cosine :\

So what formula is he using?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
He is using r = \sqrt {x^2 + y^2+z^2}, and then
<br /> \frac{\partial r}{\partial z} = \frac{z}{r} = cos{(\theta)}<br />
 
Since r = \sqrt{ x^2 + y^2 + z^2},

\frac{\partial r }{\partial z} = \frac{z}{r},

which leads to the formula from the text. I think you're making a mistake because the partial derivatives in spherical and Cartesian coordinates are related by a 3x3 matrix, so it's not enough to merely compare reciprocals.
 
oh! I see, thanks :D
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top