ATAR Notes: Forum
Uni Stuff => Science => Faculties => Mathematics => Topic started by: /0 on November 27, 2009, 10:17:05 pm
-
Given the function
= \frac{x\mathbf{i}+y\mathbf{j}+z\mathbf{k}}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}})
We have
, and yet, at www.pierce.ctc.edu/dlippman/g1/fullgrapher3d.html, the field is clearly diverging away from the origin AND slowing down.
Why is this?
-
(http://)copying from wikipedia:
More rigorously, the divergence is defined as derivative of the net flow of the vector field across the surface of a small region relative to the volume of that region. Formally,
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/7/e/87e8309ca8f72f663519fa66885ca556.png)
so if you take smaller and smaller spheres around the centre, i guess the flux across the surface of the sphere gets smaller faster than the volume of the sphere shrinks. hence the ratio tends to 0.
just to clarify; divV=0 only at the origin, right?
-
Yeah it seems like divF = 0 everywhere...
I dfon't know if divF is defined at the origin...
-
Intuitive explanation:
this is just gauss' law.
take any closed surface not containing the origin in that space (i am pretty sure divF is undefined at 0, maybe not; i cbf doing the calculations); any arrows going into it (flux) is balanced by stuff going out of it. hence the flux is zero and using the definition above, div=0 as well.
-
But does it matter that the arrows get shorter as you go out? It's like if you have a closed gaussian surface, the field lines will be stronger at one side than the other
-
But does it matter that the arrows get shorter as you go out? It's like if you have a closed gaussian surface, the field lines will be stronger at one side than the other
the fact that they do get shorter is what makes this work; have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law
. The density of flux lines is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source because the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the radius. Thus the strength of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.
-
Oh ok, but what if you go back and apply your reasoning to a simple divergence:
-> --> ---> ----> -----> ------> -------->
-> --> ---> ----> -----> ------> -------->
-> --> ---> ----> -----> ------> -------->
-> --> ---> ----> -----> ------> -------->
According to 'gaussian' logic, the divergence should be zero here too
-
no. take
->|--> ---> ----> ----->| ------> -------->
->|--> ---> ----> ----->| ------> -------->
->|--> ---> ----> ----->| ------> -------->
->|--> ---> ----> ----->| ------> -------->
clearly there's more going out than there is going in* (area is the same but field strength is different).
-
thanks heaps zzdfa, think i've got it now :)