Divergence of a constant vector. I tried calculating the divergence of a constant vector but I get it equal to zero. The sample solution in my book says the following:
what does your book says?
I'm typing it now, it will take a bit to type the formulas.
\[( \nabla \cdot B_0 ) r = B_0 \cdot \nabla r\]
Where B0 is a constant vector.
what is r?
Another vector, I suppose the radius vector.
The divergence of a constant vector will be 0.
So then is the textbook wrong?
This would make more sense:\[( \nabla \cdot B_0 r) = B_0 \cdot \nabla r\]
Yes, indeed.
Hmmm, maybe it's constant with respect to something else?
I think the book is mistaken, or we are talking about something far more complicated
Let me copy the whole problem. Maybe I'm missing something else.
The connection between the magnetic field B and vector potential A is \[ B = \nabla \times A\] What is the magnetic field if \[A = \frac{ 1 }{ 2 }B_0 \times r\] where B0 is a constant vector?
So, the solution says:\[B = \nabla \times ( \frac{ 1 }{ 2 }B_0 \times r) = \frac{ 1 }{ 2 }B_0 ( \nabla \cdot r) - \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } ( \nabla \cdot B_0 ) r \]
And then they claim that \[( \nabla \cdot B_0 ) r = B_0 \cdot \nabla r\]
Does it make any sense now, @wio ?
Maybe \(B_0\) isn't constant then? To be honest I find it a bit strange.
Like, maybe it's constant for time, but not for position
So \(B_0 = f(x,y,z)\) but \(d/dt B_0 = 0\)
Right, I see. Well, I guess I should ask the teacher, then. Thank you for taking the time :)
Okay, one way to think about this is: \[ (B_0)_xr_1+(B_0)_yr_2 = (B_0)_1r_x + (B_0)_2r_y \]
I'm not sure I understand what you did. Why are the components of B0 and r different - once expressed through x and y, and in the other case - through 1 and 2?
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!