The “inverse” of $nablatimes$ operator
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
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
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
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
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
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
vectors vector-analysis potential-theory
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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 $vec{v}$.
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 $vec{v}$.
add a comment |
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 $vec{v}$.
add a comment |
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 $vec{v}$.
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 $vec{v}$.
answered Nov 21 at 4:01
TurlocTheRed
768210
768210
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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