The div in cartesian coordinates

In summary, the div in Cartesian coordinates refers to the divergence of a vector field, which measures the rate at which "stuff" is expanding or compressing at a given point. In three-dimensional space, the divergence of a vector field \( \mathbf{F} = (F_x, F_y, F_z) \) is calculated using the formula \( \nabla \cdot \mathbf{F} = \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial F_y}{\partial y} + \frac{\partial F_z}{\partial z} \). This operation is essential in physics and engineering for analyzing fluid flow, electromagnetic fields, and other phenomena involving vector fields.
  • #1
kirito
77
9
Homework Statement
trying to understand how to derive it ,
Relevant Equations
gauss's theorem
I am currently studying a section from \textit{Electricity and Magnetism} by Purcell, pages 81 and 82, and need some clarification on the following concept. Here’s what I understand so far:

1. The integral of a function $ \mathbf{F} $ over a surface \( S \) is equal to the sum of the integrals of $ \mathbf{F} $ over smaller surfaces \( S_i \):

$$
\int_S \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{A} = \sum_i \int_{S_i} \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{A}_i
$$

2. This can be rewritten as:

$$
\sum_i \int_{S_i} \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{A}_i = \sum_i \int_{S_i} \frac{V_i}{V} \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{A}
$$

3. This is equal to the integral of the divergence of $ \mathbf{F} $ over a volume \( V \):

$$
\int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{F} \, dV
$$

Now, I want to find the divergence of $ \mathbf{F} $ in a book example, specifically the flux through the upper and lower plates in the \( z \)-direction.

In the example, I know that the function $ \mathbf{F} $ changes only in the \( z \)-direction and the area of each surface is \( dx \, dy \). The direction is \( \hat{z} \). Using the second expression above, I have:

$$
\mathbf{F}_z(x,y,z+\Delta z) \, dx \, dy - \mathbf{F}_z(x,y,z) \, dx \, dy = \left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{F}_z}{\partial z} \right) \Delta z \, dx \, dy
$$

However, in the derivation in the book, they look at the average of $ \mathbf{F}_z $ on the top and bottom plates and take the net contribution by considering the difference between them.

Why are they looking at the value of $ \mathbf{F}_z $ at the center of each plate \( \left(x + \frac{dx}{2}, y + \frac{dy}{2}, z \right) \) and at \( \left(x + \frac{dx}{2}, y + \frac{dy}{2}, z + dz \right) \)? I was only following the definition $$ \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{A}_1 + \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{A}_2 $$ and so on.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
question.png

in addition I can t see how c has the same flux as a and be I tried to rearrange it to get a closed surface yet got stuck seems like there is a simpler way to approach this
 
  • #3
kirito said:
View attachment 348625
in addition I can t see how c has the same flux as a and b I tried to rearrange it to get a closed surface yet got stuck seems like there is a simpler way to approach this
 
Back
Top