The “inverse” of $nablatimes$ operator











up vote
10
down vote

favorite
8












From physics, just to use a well known example, we know that the relationship between the magnetic induction $mathbf{B}$ and the potential vector $mathbf{A}$ is given by:



$$mathbf{B} = nablatimesmathbf{A}$$



My question is: could/does exist an operator $mathrm{hat{O}}$ (or with a bad notation: "$(nablatimes)^{-1}"$ such that



$$(nablatimes)^{-1}mathbf{B} = mathbf{A}$$



I mean: knowing the magnetic field $mathbf{B}$, is there some operator $mathrm{O}$ such that $mathrm{hat{O}} mathbf{B} = mathbf{A}$?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    u might like to reed this math.stackexchange.com/questions/32600/…
    – tired
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:05






  • 1




    See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/697450/….
    – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
    Dec 4 '15 at 11:09















up vote
10
down vote

favorite
8












From physics, just to use a well known example, we know that the relationship between the magnetic induction $mathbf{B}$ and the potential vector $mathbf{A}$ is given by:



$$mathbf{B} = nablatimesmathbf{A}$$



My question is: could/does exist an operator $mathrm{hat{O}}$ (or with a bad notation: "$(nablatimes)^{-1}"$ such that



$$(nablatimes)^{-1}mathbf{B} = mathbf{A}$$



I mean: knowing the magnetic field $mathbf{B}$, is there some operator $mathrm{O}$ such that $mathrm{hat{O}} mathbf{B} = mathbf{A}$?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    u might like to reed this math.stackexchange.com/questions/32600/…
    – tired
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:05






  • 1




    See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/697450/….
    – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
    Dec 4 '15 at 11:09













up vote
10
down vote

favorite
8









up vote
10
down vote

favorite
8






8





From physics, just to use a well known example, we know that the relationship between the magnetic induction $mathbf{B}$ and the potential vector $mathbf{A}$ is given by:



$$mathbf{B} = nablatimesmathbf{A}$$



My question is: could/does exist an operator $mathrm{hat{O}}$ (or with a bad notation: "$(nablatimes)^{-1}"$ such that



$$(nablatimes)^{-1}mathbf{B} = mathbf{A}$$



I mean: knowing the magnetic field $mathbf{B}$, is there some operator $mathrm{O}$ such that $mathrm{hat{O}} mathbf{B} = mathbf{A}$?










share|cite|improve this question















From physics, just to use a well known example, we know that the relationship between the magnetic induction $mathbf{B}$ and the potential vector $mathbf{A}$ is given by:



$$mathbf{B} = nablatimesmathbf{A}$$



My question is: could/does exist an operator $mathrm{hat{O}}$ (or with a bad notation: "$(nablatimes)^{-1}"$ such that



$$(nablatimes)^{-1}mathbf{B} = mathbf{A}$$



I mean: knowing the magnetic field $mathbf{B}$, is there some operator $mathrm{O}$ such that $mathrm{hat{O}} mathbf{B} = mathbf{A}$?







vectors vector-analysis potential-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 4 '15 at 11:03









MaoWao

2,258416




2,258416










asked Dec 2 '15 at 12:57









Von Neumann

16.2k72543




16.2k72543








  • 1




    u might like to reed this math.stackexchange.com/questions/32600/…
    – tired
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:05






  • 1




    See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/697450/….
    – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
    Dec 4 '15 at 11:09














  • 1




    u might like to reed this math.stackexchange.com/questions/32600/…
    – tired
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:05






  • 1




    See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/697450/….
    – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
    Dec 4 '15 at 11:09








1




1




u might like to reed this math.stackexchange.com/questions/32600/…
– tired
Dec 2 '15 at 13:05




u might like to reed this math.stackexchange.com/questions/32600/…
– tired
Dec 2 '15 at 13:05




1




1




See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/697450/….
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Dec 4 '15 at 11:09




See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/697450/….
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Dec 4 '15 at 11:09










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote



accepted










First, note that we expect such an inverse will be nonlocal, since the inverse of the standard differential operator $d/dx$ is the integral $int_a^x , dx'$.



Suppose in the simplest case we have the simply connected domain $mathbb{R}^3$ (with enough decay at infinity that whatever integrals we write down will converge), and we are trying to solve
$$ nabla times A = B $$
for $A$. Taking another curl gives
$$ nabla times (nabla times A) = nabla times B, $$
and it looks like I've made things worse. But we have
$$ nabla times (nabla times A) = nabla(nabla cdot A)-nabla^2 A, $$
where the last term is the vector Laplacian. Now, if we can say that $nabla cdot A=0$ (which it's admittedly not clear is possible; let's come back to that), then we need to solve the equation
$$ -nabla^2 A = nabla times B. $$
But if we use Cartesian coordinates, the vector Laplacian acts like the ordinary Laplacian on each component of $A$; therefore, we can invert it using the Green's function for the Laplacian (if you haven't met this, it's given by the solution to $-nabla_x^2 G(x-y) = delta(x-y)$ satisfying the right boundary conditions), which in this case is $-1/(4pi |x-y|)$. Then we define
$$ A_B(x) = int_{mathbb{R}^3} G(x-y) (nabla times B)(y) , dy=int B(y) times [nabla G(x-y)] , dy, $$
integrating by parts. Does this work? Well,
$$ nabla times (X times a) = (acdot nabla)X-(nabla cdot X)a, $$
so we have
$$ nabla times A_B = int (B(y) cdot nabla)nabla G(x-y) , dy + int B(y) (-nabla^2 G(x-y)) , dy; $$
the former term is zero because if we integrate it by parts, we get a $nabla cdot B$, which is zero since $B$ is supposed to be the curl of something. The second term is just $B(x)$ by the definition of the Green's function!



(Some more care is needed in the above: deciding how to actually turn the $nabla_x$ into a $nabla_y$ and so on, but that's the right idea.)



Okay, that works. Now let's tidy up. We firstly want to show that we can take $nabla cdot A=0$. Suppose we define $Lambda$ so that $-nabla^2Lambda=nabla cdot A$ (easy enough, using the Green's function). But then $A_{Lambda}=A+nabla Lambda$ also solves $nabla times A_{Lambda} = B$, and has zero divergence. This also tells us how to get from our $A_B$ to a more general $A$ that does not have $nabla cdot A=0$: add on a gradient of something.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I know Green's functions and your answer just made my day! This post deserves like a hall of fame! Thank you so much!!
    – Von Neumann
    Dec 2 '15 at 15:20






  • 1




    Thank you very much! Also notice that most of what I have done does not depend on the coordinates chosen, so actually we don't need to use Cartesians, once we've written down the right integral. And of course this also extends to domains that are not all of $mathbb{R}^n$, although you need a different Green's function, some sensible boundary conditions, and use of Green's identities to deal with the boundary terms.
    – Chappers
    Dec 2 '15 at 15:58






  • 2




    A note: one can use clifford algebra to define $nabla A$ even for $A$ a vector, and in turn, there is a Green's function for this "vector gradient". The curl forms part, but not all, of the components of this vector gradient, but just as expected, the missing information is the divergence.
    – Muphrid
    Dec 3 '15 at 3:43


















up vote
3
down vote













You have the Helmholtz decomposition in physics:



$$ {bf F} = -nabla Phi + nabla times {bf A}$$



which say that the differential parts of a vector fields can be decomposed as the sum of a rotation-free (scalar potential) part and a rotational part ( the curly one ). Therefore it should be impossible to "invert", as the curl only captures part of the vectors which is not part of the scalar potential. While an inverse therefore is impossible we can probably find a suitable generalized inverse or pseudoinverse, usually assuming that the missing components are 0.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 4




    (+1) - More generally, the de Rahm comology groups, $H^k_{dR}({mathbb R}^n) = 0$, for $k>0$, which implies a similar decomposition in other degrees and dimensions. For a very nice reference for this, the OP should see and read the very good Bott and Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology
    – peter a g
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:13










  • I am a bit of a newbie in general algebra, but I should probably check it up anyway :)
    – mathreadler
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:15










  • Rereading my previous, I see I can't type - "de Rahm cohomology groups"... ho-ho-ho.
    – peter a g
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:24










  • Yep you are right. But I got the message anyway. :)
    – mathreadler
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:28










  • Actually - I don't know what I was thinking - my 'more generally' is not valid...'Related' would have been more apt. The vanishing of the cohomology groups only gives "closed = exact" (Poincare lemma) i.e., in your statement above, that the divergence of $F$ vanishes if and only if $F$ is the curl of some $A$. It does not imply a 'similar decomposition'. Bott and Tu is still worth it though...
    – peter a g
    Dec 2 '15 at 18:00


















up vote
1
down vote













There are some special cases. Here's one from Electro Magnetic Wave Guides. Here you can invert a curl by taking the cross product of a curl with a part of which it might be composed.



Let
$vec{v}=psivec{A}$



$nabla times vec{v}=nablapsitimesvec{A}+psinablatimesvec{A}$



$nabla psitimes(nabla times vec{v})=nablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-vec{A}(nabla psi)^2+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



$vec{A}(nablapsi)^2=nablapsi(nabla psicdot vec{A})-nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



$psivec{A}(nabla psi)^2=psinablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psi^2nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



$vec{v}=frac{psi}{(nabla psi)^2}[nablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})]$



If $vec{A}$ is irrotational, then $nabla times vec{A}=0$.



If $nabla psi$ is orthogonal to $vec{A}$, then $nabla psi cdot vec{A}=0$



So if those conditions hold, we have :



$vec{v}=frac{-psi}{(nablapsi)^2}nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})$



In a wave guide problem, $vec{A}$ is usually chosen to represent direction of propagation, often then a vector function of $z$ only and having only a $z$ component. So it's irrotational.



The scalar $psi$ is chosen to represent some properties of the waves which typically oscillate perpendicularly to the direction of propogation. It is usually just a function of $x$, and $y$ guaranteeing it's gradient is orthogonal to $vec{A}$.



$psi$ can be expressed in generic terms, say, requiring it to be a function of x and y. It can be further determined by solving the boundary conditions implied by Maxwell's Laws and the geometry of the wave guide.



The derivatives of $vec{v}$ are sometimes easier to work with than $vec{v}$ itself. If determined before hand this inversion process can be used to determine $vec{v}$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1556442%2fthe-inverse-of-nabla-times-operator%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    6
    down vote



    accepted










    First, note that we expect such an inverse will be nonlocal, since the inverse of the standard differential operator $d/dx$ is the integral $int_a^x , dx'$.



    Suppose in the simplest case we have the simply connected domain $mathbb{R}^3$ (with enough decay at infinity that whatever integrals we write down will converge), and we are trying to solve
    $$ nabla times A = B $$
    for $A$. Taking another curl gives
    $$ nabla times (nabla times A) = nabla times B, $$
    and it looks like I've made things worse. But we have
    $$ nabla times (nabla times A) = nabla(nabla cdot A)-nabla^2 A, $$
    where the last term is the vector Laplacian. Now, if we can say that $nabla cdot A=0$ (which it's admittedly not clear is possible; let's come back to that), then we need to solve the equation
    $$ -nabla^2 A = nabla times B. $$
    But if we use Cartesian coordinates, the vector Laplacian acts like the ordinary Laplacian on each component of $A$; therefore, we can invert it using the Green's function for the Laplacian (if you haven't met this, it's given by the solution to $-nabla_x^2 G(x-y) = delta(x-y)$ satisfying the right boundary conditions), which in this case is $-1/(4pi |x-y|)$. Then we define
    $$ A_B(x) = int_{mathbb{R}^3} G(x-y) (nabla times B)(y) , dy=int B(y) times [nabla G(x-y)] , dy, $$
    integrating by parts. Does this work? Well,
    $$ nabla times (X times a) = (acdot nabla)X-(nabla cdot X)a, $$
    so we have
    $$ nabla times A_B = int (B(y) cdot nabla)nabla G(x-y) , dy + int B(y) (-nabla^2 G(x-y)) , dy; $$
    the former term is zero because if we integrate it by parts, we get a $nabla cdot B$, which is zero since $B$ is supposed to be the curl of something. The second term is just $B(x)$ by the definition of the Green's function!



    (Some more care is needed in the above: deciding how to actually turn the $nabla_x$ into a $nabla_y$ and so on, but that's the right idea.)



    Okay, that works. Now let's tidy up. We firstly want to show that we can take $nabla cdot A=0$. Suppose we define $Lambda$ so that $-nabla^2Lambda=nabla cdot A$ (easy enough, using the Green's function). But then $A_{Lambda}=A+nabla Lambda$ also solves $nabla times A_{Lambda} = B$, and has zero divergence. This also tells us how to get from our $A_B$ to a more general $A$ that does not have $nabla cdot A=0$: add on a gradient of something.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • I know Green's functions and your answer just made my day! This post deserves like a hall of fame! Thank you so much!!
      – Von Neumann
      Dec 2 '15 at 15:20






    • 1




      Thank you very much! Also notice that most of what I have done does not depend on the coordinates chosen, so actually we don't need to use Cartesians, once we've written down the right integral. And of course this also extends to domains that are not all of $mathbb{R}^n$, although you need a different Green's function, some sensible boundary conditions, and use of Green's identities to deal with the boundary terms.
      – Chappers
      Dec 2 '15 at 15:58






    • 2




      A note: one can use clifford algebra to define $nabla A$ even for $A$ a vector, and in turn, there is a Green's function for this "vector gradient". The curl forms part, but not all, of the components of this vector gradient, but just as expected, the missing information is the divergence.
      – Muphrid
      Dec 3 '15 at 3:43















    up vote
    6
    down vote



    accepted










    First, note that we expect such an inverse will be nonlocal, since the inverse of the standard differential operator $d/dx$ is the integral $int_a^x , dx'$.



    Suppose in the simplest case we have the simply connected domain $mathbb{R}^3$ (with enough decay at infinity that whatever integrals we write down will converge), and we are trying to solve
    $$ nabla times A = B $$
    for $A$. Taking another curl gives
    $$ nabla times (nabla times A) = nabla times B, $$
    and it looks like I've made things worse. But we have
    $$ nabla times (nabla times A) = nabla(nabla cdot A)-nabla^2 A, $$
    where the last term is the vector Laplacian. Now, if we can say that $nabla cdot A=0$ (which it's admittedly not clear is possible; let's come back to that), then we need to solve the equation
    $$ -nabla^2 A = nabla times B. $$
    But if we use Cartesian coordinates, the vector Laplacian acts like the ordinary Laplacian on each component of $A$; therefore, we can invert it using the Green's function for the Laplacian (if you haven't met this, it's given by the solution to $-nabla_x^2 G(x-y) = delta(x-y)$ satisfying the right boundary conditions), which in this case is $-1/(4pi |x-y|)$. Then we define
    $$ A_B(x) = int_{mathbb{R}^3} G(x-y) (nabla times B)(y) , dy=int B(y) times [nabla G(x-y)] , dy, $$
    integrating by parts. Does this work? Well,
    $$ nabla times (X times a) = (acdot nabla)X-(nabla cdot X)a, $$
    so we have
    $$ nabla times A_B = int (B(y) cdot nabla)nabla G(x-y) , dy + int B(y) (-nabla^2 G(x-y)) , dy; $$
    the former term is zero because if we integrate it by parts, we get a $nabla cdot B$, which is zero since $B$ is supposed to be the curl of something. The second term is just $B(x)$ by the definition of the Green's function!



    (Some more care is needed in the above: deciding how to actually turn the $nabla_x$ into a $nabla_y$ and so on, but that's the right idea.)



    Okay, that works. Now let's tidy up. We firstly want to show that we can take $nabla cdot A=0$. Suppose we define $Lambda$ so that $-nabla^2Lambda=nabla cdot A$ (easy enough, using the Green's function). But then $A_{Lambda}=A+nabla Lambda$ also solves $nabla times A_{Lambda} = B$, and has zero divergence. This also tells us how to get from our $A_B$ to a more general $A$ that does not have $nabla cdot A=0$: add on a gradient of something.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • I know Green's functions and your answer just made my day! This post deserves like a hall of fame! Thank you so much!!
      – Von Neumann
      Dec 2 '15 at 15:20






    • 1




      Thank you very much! Also notice that most of what I have done does not depend on the coordinates chosen, so actually we don't need to use Cartesians, once we've written down the right integral. And of course this also extends to domains that are not all of $mathbb{R}^n$, although you need a different Green's function, some sensible boundary conditions, and use of Green's identities to deal with the boundary terms.
      – Chappers
      Dec 2 '15 at 15:58






    • 2




      A note: one can use clifford algebra to define $nabla A$ even for $A$ a vector, and in turn, there is a Green's function for this "vector gradient". The curl forms part, but not all, of the components of this vector gradient, but just as expected, the missing information is the divergence.
      – Muphrid
      Dec 3 '15 at 3:43













    up vote
    6
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    6
    down vote



    accepted






    First, note that we expect such an inverse will be nonlocal, since the inverse of the standard differential operator $d/dx$ is the integral $int_a^x , dx'$.



    Suppose in the simplest case we have the simply connected domain $mathbb{R}^3$ (with enough decay at infinity that whatever integrals we write down will converge), and we are trying to solve
    $$ nabla times A = B $$
    for $A$. Taking another curl gives
    $$ nabla times (nabla times A) = nabla times B, $$
    and it looks like I've made things worse. But we have
    $$ nabla times (nabla times A) = nabla(nabla cdot A)-nabla^2 A, $$
    where the last term is the vector Laplacian. Now, if we can say that $nabla cdot A=0$ (which it's admittedly not clear is possible; let's come back to that), then we need to solve the equation
    $$ -nabla^2 A = nabla times B. $$
    But if we use Cartesian coordinates, the vector Laplacian acts like the ordinary Laplacian on each component of $A$; therefore, we can invert it using the Green's function for the Laplacian (if you haven't met this, it's given by the solution to $-nabla_x^2 G(x-y) = delta(x-y)$ satisfying the right boundary conditions), which in this case is $-1/(4pi |x-y|)$. Then we define
    $$ A_B(x) = int_{mathbb{R}^3} G(x-y) (nabla times B)(y) , dy=int B(y) times [nabla G(x-y)] , dy, $$
    integrating by parts. Does this work? Well,
    $$ nabla times (X times a) = (acdot nabla)X-(nabla cdot X)a, $$
    so we have
    $$ nabla times A_B = int (B(y) cdot nabla)nabla G(x-y) , dy + int B(y) (-nabla^2 G(x-y)) , dy; $$
    the former term is zero because if we integrate it by parts, we get a $nabla cdot B$, which is zero since $B$ is supposed to be the curl of something. The second term is just $B(x)$ by the definition of the Green's function!



    (Some more care is needed in the above: deciding how to actually turn the $nabla_x$ into a $nabla_y$ and so on, but that's the right idea.)



    Okay, that works. Now let's tidy up. We firstly want to show that we can take $nabla cdot A=0$. Suppose we define $Lambda$ so that $-nabla^2Lambda=nabla cdot A$ (easy enough, using the Green's function). But then $A_{Lambda}=A+nabla Lambda$ also solves $nabla times A_{Lambda} = B$, and has zero divergence. This also tells us how to get from our $A_B$ to a more general $A$ that does not have $nabla cdot A=0$: add on a gradient of something.






    share|cite|improve this answer














    First, note that we expect such an inverse will be nonlocal, since the inverse of the standard differential operator $d/dx$ is the integral $int_a^x , dx'$.



    Suppose in the simplest case we have the simply connected domain $mathbb{R}^3$ (with enough decay at infinity that whatever integrals we write down will converge), and we are trying to solve
    $$ nabla times A = B $$
    for $A$. Taking another curl gives
    $$ nabla times (nabla times A) = nabla times B, $$
    and it looks like I've made things worse. But we have
    $$ nabla times (nabla times A) = nabla(nabla cdot A)-nabla^2 A, $$
    where the last term is the vector Laplacian. Now, if we can say that $nabla cdot A=0$ (which it's admittedly not clear is possible; let's come back to that), then we need to solve the equation
    $$ -nabla^2 A = nabla times B. $$
    But if we use Cartesian coordinates, the vector Laplacian acts like the ordinary Laplacian on each component of $A$; therefore, we can invert it using the Green's function for the Laplacian (if you haven't met this, it's given by the solution to $-nabla_x^2 G(x-y) = delta(x-y)$ satisfying the right boundary conditions), which in this case is $-1/(4pi |x-y|)$. Then we define
    $$ A_B(x) = int_{mathbb{R}^3} G(x-y) (nabla times B)(y) , dy=int B(y) times [nabla G(x-y)] , dy, $$
    integrating by parts. Does this work? Well,
    $$ nabla times (X times a) = (acdot nabla)X-(nabla cdot X)a, $$
    so we have
    $$ nabla times A_B = int (B(y) cdot nabla)nabla G(x-y) , dy + int B(y) (-nabla^2 G(x-y)) , dy; $$
    the former term is zero because if we integrate it by parts, we get a $nabla cdot B$, which is zero since $B$ is supposed to be the curl of something. The second term is just $B(x)$ by the definition of the Green's function!



    (Some more care is needed in the above: deciding how to actually turn the $nabla_x$ into a $nabla_y$ and so on, but that's the right idea.)



    Okay, that works. Now let's tidy up. We firstly want to show that we can take $nabla cdot A=0$. Suppose we define $Lambda$ so that $-nabla^2Lambda=nabla cdot A$ (easy enough, using the Green's function). But then $A_{Lambda}=A+nabla Lambda$ also solves $nabla times A_{Lambda} = B$, and has zero divergence. This also tells us how to get from our $A_B$ to a more general $A$ that does not have $nabla cdot A=0$: add on a gradient of something.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Dec 2 '15 at 15:28

























    answered Dec 2 '15 at 15:01









    Chappers

    55.5k74192




    55.5k74192












    • I know Green's functions and your answer just made my day! This post deserves like a hall of fame! Thank you so much!!
      – Von Neumann
      Dec 2 '15 at 15:20






    • 1




      Thank you very much! Also notice that most of what I have done does not depend on the coordinates chosen, so actually we don't need to use Cartesians, once we've written down the right integral. And of course this also extends to domains that are not all of $mathbb{R}^n$, although you need a different Green's function, some sensible boundary conditions, and use of Green's identities to deal with the boundary terms.
      – Chappers
      Dec 2 '15 at 15:58






    • 2




      A note: one can use clifford algebra to define $nabla A$ even for $A$ a vector, and in turn, there is a Green's function for this "vector gradient". The curl forms part, but not all, of the components of this vector gradient, but just as expected, the missing information is the divergence.
      – Muphrid
      Dec 3 '15 at 3:43


















    • I know Green's functions and your answer just made my day! This post deserves like a hall of fame! Thank you so much!!
      – Von Neumann
      Dec 2 '15 at 15:20






    • 1




      Thank you very much! Also notice that most of what I have done does not depend on the coordinates chosen, so actually we don't need to use Cartesians, once we've written down the right integral. And of course this also extends to domains that are not all of $mathbb{R}^n$, although you need a different Green's function, some sensible boundary conditions, and use of Green's identities to deal with the boundary terms.
      – Chappers
      Dec 2 '15 at 15:58






    • 2




      A note: one can use clifford algebra to define $nabla A$ even for $A$ a vector, and in turn, there is a Green's function for this "vector gradient". The curl forms part, but not all, of the components of this vector gradient, but just as expected, the missing information is the divergence.
      – Muphrid
      Dec 3 '15 at 3:43
















    I know Green's functions and your answer just made my day! This post deserves like a hall of fame! Thank you so much!!
    – Von Neumann
    Dec 2 '15 at 15:20




    I know Green's functions and your answer just made my day! This post deserves like a hall of fame! Thank you so much!!
    – Von Neumann
    Dec 2 '15 at 15:20




    1




    1




    Thank you very much! Also notice that most of what I have done does not depend on the coordinates chosen, so actually we don't need to use Cartesians, once we've written down the right integral. And of course this also extends to domains that are not all of $mathbb{R}^n$, although you need a different Green's function, some sensible boundary conditions, and use of Green's identities to deal with the boundary terms.
    – Chappers
    Dec 2 '15 at 15:58




    Thank you very much! Also notice that most of what I have done does not depend on the coordinates chosen, so actually we don't need to use Cartesians, once we've written down the right integral. And of course this also extends to domains that are not all of $mathbb{R}^n$, although you need a different Green's function, some sensible boundary conditions, and use of Green's identities to deal with the boundary terms.
    – Chappers
    Dec 2 '15 at 15:58




    2




    2




    A note: one can use clifford algebra to define $nabla A$ even for $A$ a vector, and in turn, there is a Green's function for this "vector gradient". The curl forms part, but not all, of the components of this vector gradient, but just as expected, the missing information is the divergence.
    – Muphrid
    Dec 3 '15 at 3:43




    A note: one can use clifford algebra to define $nabla A$ even for $A$ a vector, and in turn, there is a Green's function for this "vector gradient". The curl forms part, but not all, of the components of this vector gradient, but just as expected, the missing information is the divergence.
    – Muphrid
    Dec 3 '15 at 3:43










    up vote
    3
    down vote













    You have the Helmholtz decomposition in physics:



    $$ {bf F} = -nabla Phi + nabla times {bf A}$$



    which say that the differential parts of a vector fields can be decomposed as the sum of a rotation-free (scalar potential) part and a rotational part ( the curly one ). Therefore it should be impossible to "invert", as the curl only captures part of the vectors which is not part of the scalar potential. While an inverse therefore is impossible we can probably find a suitable generalized inverse or pseudoinverse, usually assuming that the missing components are 0.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 4




      (+1) - More generally, the de Rahm comology groups, $H^k_{dR}({mathbb R}^n) = 0$, for $k>0$, which implies a similar decomposition in other degrees and dimensions. For a very nice reference for this, the OP should see and read the very good Bott and Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:13










    • I am a bit of a newbie in general algebra, but I should probably check it up anyway :)
      – mathreadler
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:15










    • Rereading my previous, I see I can't type - "de Rahm cohomology groups"... ho-ho-ho.
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:24










    • Yep you are right. But I got the message anyway. :)
      – mathreadler
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:28










    • Actually - I don't know what I was thinking - my 'more generally' is not valid...'Related' would have been more apt. The vanishing of the cohomology groups only gives "closed = exact" (Poincare lemma) i.e., in your statement above, that the divergence of $F$ vanishes if and only if $F$ is the curl of some $A$. It does not imply a 'similar decomposition'. Bott and Tu is still worth it though...
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 18:00















    up vote
    3
    down vote













    You have the Helmholtz decomposition in physics:



    $$ {bf F} = -nabla Phi + nabla times {bf A}$$



    which say that the differential parts of a vector fields can be decomposed as the sum of a rotation-free (scalar potential) part and a rotational part ( the curly one ). Therefore it should be impossible to "invert", as the curl only captures part of the vectors which is not part of the scalar potential. While an inverse therefore is impossible we can probably find a suitable generalized inverse or pseudoinverse, usually assuming that the missing components are 0.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 4




      (+1) - More generally, the de Rahm comology groups, $H^k_{dR}({mathbb R}^n) = 0$, for $k>0$, which implies a similar decomposition in other degrees and dimensions. For a very nice reference for this, the OP should see and read the very good Bott and Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:13










    • I am a bit of a newbie in general algebra, but I should probably check it up anyway :)
      – mathreadler
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:15










    • Rereading my previous, I see I can't type - "de Rahm cohomology groups"... ho-ho-ho.
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:24










    • Yep you are right. But I got the message anyway. :)
      – mathreadler
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:28










    • Actually - I don't know what I was thinking - my 'more generally' is not valid...'Related' would have been more apt. The vanishing of the cohomology groups only gives "closed = exact" (Poincare lemma) i.e., in your statement above, that the divergence of $F$ vanishes if and only if $F$ is the curl of some $A$. It does not imply a 'similar decomposition'. Bott and Tu is still worth it though...
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 18:00













    up vote
    3
    down vote










    up vote
    3
    down vote









    You have the Helmholtz decomposition in physics:



    $$ {bf F} = -nabla Phi + nabla times {bf A}$$



    which say that the differential parts of a vector fields can be decomposed as the sum of a rotation-free (scalar potential) part and a rotational part ( the curly one ). Therefore it should be impossible to "invert", as the curl only captures part of the vectors which is not part of the scalar potential. While an inverse therefore is impossible we can probably find a suitable generalized inverse or pseudoinverse, usually assuming that the missing components are 0.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    You have the Helmholtz decomposition in physics:



    $$ {bf F} = -nabla Phi + nabla times {bf A}$$



    which say that the differential parts of a vector fields can be decomposed as the sum of a rotation-free (scalar potential) part and a rotational part ( the curly one ). Therefore it should be impossible to "invert", as the curl only captures part of the vectors which is not part of the scalar potential. While an inverse therefore is impossible we can probably find a suitable generalized inverse or pseudoinverse, usually assuming that the missing components are 0.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Dec 2 '15 at 13:06









    mathreadler

    14.6k72160




    14.6k72160








    • 4




      (+1) - More generally, the de Rahm comology groups, $H^k_{dR}({mathbb R}^n) = 0$, for $k>0$, which implies a similar decomposition in other degrees and dimensions. For a very nice reference for this, the OP should see and read the very good Bott and Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:13










    • I am a bit of a newbie in general algebra, but I should probably check it up anyway :)
      – mathreadler
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:15










    • Rereading my previous, I see I can't type - "de Rahm cohomology groups"... ho-ho-ho.
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:24










    • Yep you are right. But I got the message anyway. :)
      – mathreadler
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:28










    • Actually - I don't know what I was thinking - my 'more generally' is not valid...'Related' would have been more apt. The vanishing of the cohomology groups only gives "closed = exact" (Poincare lemma) i.e., in your statement above, that the divergence of $F$ vanishes if and only if $F$ is the curl of some $A$. It does not imply a 'similar decomposition'. Bott and Tu is still worth it though...
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 18:00














    • 4




      (+1) - More generally, the de Rahm comology groups, $H^k_{dR}({mathbb R}^n) = 0$, for $k>0$, which implies a similar decomposition in other degrees and dimensions. For a very nice reference for this, the OP should see and read the very good Bott and Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:13










    • I am a bit of a newbie in general algebra, but I should probably check it up anyway :)
      – mathreadler
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:15










    • Rereading my previous, I see I can't type - "de Rahm cohomology groups"... ho-ho-ho.
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:24










    • Yep you are right. But I got the message anyway. :)
      – mathreadler
      Dec 2 '15 at 13:28










    • Actually - I don't know what I was thinking - my 'more generally' is not valid...'Related' would have been more apt. The vanishing of the cohomology groups only gives "closed = exact" (Poincare lemma) i.e., in your statement above, that the divergence of $F$ vanishes if and only if $F$ is the curl of some $A$. It does not imply a 'similar decomposition'. Bott and Tu is still worth it though...
      – peter a g
      Dec 2 '15 at 18:00








    4




    4




    (+1) - More generally, the de Rahm comology groups, $H^k_{dR}({mathbb R}^n) = 0$, for $k>0$, which implies a similar decomposition in other degrees and dimensions. For a very nice reference for this, the OP should see and read the very good Bott and Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology
    – peter a g
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:13




    (+1) - More generally, the de Rahm comology groups, $H^k_{dR}({mathbb R}^n) = 0$, for $k>0$, which implies a similar decomposition in other degrees and dimensions. For a very nice reference for this, the OP should see and read the very good Bott and Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology
    – peter a g
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:13












    I am a bit of a newbie in general algebra, but I should probably check it up anyway :)
    – mathreadler
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:15




    I am a bit of a newbie in general algebra, but I should probably check it up anyway :)
    – mathreadler
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:15












    Rereading my previous, I see I can't type - "de Rahm cohomology groups"... ho-ho-ho.
    – peter a g
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:24




    Rereading my previous, I see I can't type - "de Rahm cohomology groups"... ho-ho-ho.
    – peter a g
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:24












    Yep you are right. But I got the message anyway. :)
    – mathreadler
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:28




    Yep you are right. But I got the message anyway. :)
    – mathreadler
    Dec 2 '15 at 13:28












    Actually - I don't know what I was thinking - my 'more generally' is not valid...'Related' would have been more apt. The vanishing of the cohomology groups only gives "closed = exact" (Poincare lemma) i.e., in your statement above, that the divergence of $F$ vanishes if and only if $F$ is the curl of some $A$. It does not imply a 'similar decomposition'. Bott and Tu is still worth it though...
    – peter a g
    Dec 2 '15 at 18:00




    Actually - I don't know what I was thinking - my 'more generally' is not valid...'Related' would have been more apt. The vanishing of the cohomology groups only gives "closed = exact" (Poincare lemma) i.e., in your statement above, that the divergence of $F$ vanishes if and only if $F$ is the curl of some $A$. It does not imply a 'similar decomposition'. Bott and Tu is still worth it though...
    – peter a g
    Dec 2 '15 at 18:00










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    There are some special cases. Here's one from Electro Magnetic Wave Guides. Here you can invert a curl by taking the cross product of a curl with a part of which it might be composed.



    Let
    $vec{v}=psivec{A}$



    $nabla times vec{v}=nablapsitimesvec{A}+psinablatimesvec{A}$



    $nabla psitimes(nabla times vec{v})=nablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-vec{A}(nabla psi)^2+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



    $vec{A}(nablapsi)^2=nablapsi(nabla psicdot vec{A})-nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



    $psivec{A}(nabla psi)^2=psinablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psi^2nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



    $vec{v}=frac{psi}{(nabla psi)^2}[nablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})]$



    If $vec{A}$ is irrotational, then $nabla times vec{A}=0$.



    If $nabla psi$ is orthogonal to $vec{A}$, then $nabla psi cdot vec{A}=0$



    So if those conditions hold, we have :



    $vec{v}=frac{-psi}{(nablapsi)^2}nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})$



    In a wave guide problem, $vec{A}$ is usually chosen to represent direction of propagation, often then a vector function of $z$ only and having only a $z$ component. So it's irrotational.



    The scalar $psi$ is chosen to represent some properties of the waves which typically oscillate perpendicularly to the direction of propogation. It is usually just a function of $x$, and $y$ guaranteeing it's gradient is orthogonal to $vec{A}$.



    $psi$ can be expressed in generic terms, say, requiring it to be a function of x and y. It can be further determined by solving the boundary conditions implied by Maxwell's Laws and the geometry of the wave guide.



    The derivatives of $vec{v}$ are sometimes easier to work with than $vec{v}$ itself. If determined before hand this inversion process can be used to determine $vec{v}$.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      There are some special cases. Here's one from Electro Magnetic Wave Guides. Here you can invert a curl by taking the cross product of a curl with a part of which it might be composed.



      Let
      $vec{v}=psivec{A}$



      $nabla times vec{v}=nablapsitimesvec{A}+psinablatimesvec{A}$



      $nabla psitimes(nabla times vec{v})=nablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-vec{A}(nabla psi)^2+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



      $vec{A}(nablapsi)^2=nablapsi(nabla psicdot vec{A})-nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



      $psivec{A}(nabla psi)^2=psinablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psi^2nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



      $vec{v}=frac{psi}{(nabla psi)^2}[nablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})]$



      If $vec{A}$ is irrotational, then $nabla times vec{A}=0$.



      If $nabla psi$ is orthogonal to $vec{A}$, then $nabla psi cdot vec{A}=0$



      So if those conditions hold, we have :



      $vec{v}=frac{-psi}{(nablapsi)^2}nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})$



      In a wave guide problem, $vec{A}$ is usually chosen to represent direction of propagation, often then a vector function of $z$ only and having only a $z$ component. So it's irrotational.



      The scalar $psi$ is chosen to represent some properties of the waves which typically oscillate perpendicularly to the direction of propogation. It is usually just a function of $x$, and $y$ guaranteeing it's gradient is orthogonal to $vec{A}$.



      $psi$ can be expressed in generic terms, say, requiring it to be a function of x and y. It can be further determined by solving the boundary conditions implied by Maxwell's Laws and the geometry of the wave guide.



      The derivatives of $vec{v}$ are sometimes easier to work with than $vec{v}$ itself. If determined before hand this inversion process can be used to determine $vec{v}$.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        There are some special cases. Here's one from Electro Magnetic Wave Guides. Here you can invert a curl by taking the cross product of a curl with a part of which it might be composed.



        Let
        $vec{v}=psivec{A}$



        $nabla times vec{v}=nablapsitimesvec{A}+psinablatimesvec{A}$



        $nabla psitimes(nabla times vec{v})=nablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-vec{A}(nabla psi)^2+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



        $vec{A}(nablapsi)^2=nablapsi(nabla psicdot vec{A})-nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



        $psivec{A}(nabla psi)^2=psinablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psi^2nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



        $vec{v}=frac{psi}{(nabla psi)^2}[nablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})]$



        If $vec{A}$ is irrotational, then $nabla times vec{A}=0$.



        If $nabla psi$ is orthogonal to $vec{A}$, then $nabla psi cdot vec{A}=0$



        So if those conditions hold, we have :



        $vec{v}=frac{-psi}{(nablapsi)^2}nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})$



        In a wave guide problem, $vec{A}$ is usually chosen to represent direction of propagation, often then a vector function of $z$ only and having only a $z$ component. So it's irrotational.



        The scalar $psi$ is chosen to represent some properties of the waves which typically oscillate perpendicularly to the direction of propogation. It is usually just a function of $x$, and $y$ guaranteeing it's gradient is orthogonal to $vec{A}$.



        $psi$ can be expressed in generic terms, say, requiring it to be a function of x and y. It can be further determined by solving the boundary conditions implied by Maxwell's Laws and the geometry of the wave guide.



        The derivatives of $vec{v}$ are sometimes easier to work with than $vec{v}$ itself. If determined before hand this inversion process can be used to determine $vec{v}$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        There are some special cases. Here's one from Electro Magnetic Wave Guides. Here you can invert a curl by taking the cross product of a curl with a part of which it might be composed.



        Let
        $vec{v}=psivec{A}$



        $nabla times vec{v}=nablapsitimesvec{A}+psinablatimesvec{A}$



        $nabla psitimes(nabla times vec{v})=nablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-vec{A}(nabla psi)^2+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



        $vec{A}(nablapsi)^2=nablapsi(nabla psicdot vec{A})-nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



        $psivec{A}(nabla psi)^2=psinablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psi^2nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})$



        $vec{v}=frac{psi}{(nabla psi)^2}[nablapsi(nabla psi cdot vec{A})-nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})+psinablapsitimes(nabla times vec{A})]$



        If $vec{A}$ is irrotational, then $nabla times vec{A}=0$.



        If $nabla psi$ is orthogonal to $vec{A}$, then $nabla psi cdot vec{A}=0$



        So if those conditions hold, we have :



        $vec{v}=frac{-psi}{(nablapsi)^2}nablapsitimes(nabla times vec{v})$



        In a wave guide problem, $vec{A}$ is usually chosen to represent direction of propagation, often then a vector function of $z$ only and having only a $z$ component. So it's irrotational.



        The scalar $psi$ is chosen to represent some properties of the waves which typically oscillate perpendicularly to the direction of propogation. It is usually just a function of $x$, and $y$ guaranteeing it's gradient is orthogonal to $vec{A}$.



        $psi$ can be expressed in generic terms, say, requiring it to be a function of x and y. It can be further determined by solving the boundary conditions implied by Maxwell's Laws and the geometry of the wave guide.



        The derivatives of $vec{v}$ are sometimes easier to work with than $vec{v}$ itself. If determined before hand this inversion process can be used to determine $vec{v}$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 21 at 4:01









        TurlocTheRed

        768210




        768210






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1556442%2fthe-inverse-of-nabla-times-operator%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Wiesbaden

            Marschland

            Dieringhausen