Why Does the Laplacian of 1/Vector r Equal Zero?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NewtonApple
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Laplacian Vector
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 1K views
NewtonApple
Messages
45
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that [itex]\nabla^{2}\left(\frac{1}{\overrightarrow{r}}\right)=0[/itex]

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


Let [itex]\nabla=\hat{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\hat{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+\hat{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}[/itex]

and [itex]\overrightarrow{r}=x\hat{i}+y\hat{j}+z\hat{k}, \mid r\mid=\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}}[/itex],

[itex]\hat{r}=\hat{i}+\hat{j}+\hat{k}[/itex]

First calculate [itex]\nabla\left(\frac{1}{\overrightarrow{r}}\right)=\nabla\left(\frac{1}{\mid r\mid\hat{r}}\right)=\nabla\left(\frac{1}{\mid r\mid}\hat{r}\right)=\left[\hat{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\hat{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+\hat{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right]\left[\frac{\hat{i}+\hat{j}+\hat{k}}{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}}}\right][/itex]

[itex]= \hat{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}\right)^{\frac{-1}{2}}+\hat{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}\right)^{\frac{-1}{2}}+\hat{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}\right)^{\frac{-1}{2}}[/itex]

Am I doing it the right way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##\frac{1}{\vec{r}}## doesn't make sense because it involves dividing by a vector.

Are you sure you aren't supposed to take the Laplacian of ##\frac{1}{|\vec{r}|}## instead?
 
TSny said:
##\frac{1}{\vec{r}}## doesn't make sense because it involves dividing by a vector.

Are you sure you aren't supposed to take the Laplacian of ##\frac{1}{|\vec{r}|}## instead?
It looks like a vector
image024.gif

The problem is from Mathematical Methods for Physicists by Tai L. Chow.
 
You're right, it does look like ##1/\vec{r}##. I think it must be a misprint. It does turn out that ##\nabla^2(1/r)=0## (except at ##r = 0##).

So, I'm thinking that's what was meant.

Part (c) also seems to have some misprints, unless the author is purposely trying to test whether you can tell if an expression is meaningless.
 
Last edited: