Next: Grad Operator
Up: Vectors and Vector Fields
Previous: Volume Integrals
Gradient
A one-dimensional function
has a gradient
which is
defined as the slope of the tangent to the curve at
.
We wish to extend this idea to cover scalar fields in two and three dimensions.
Consider a two-dimensional scalar field
that represents (say) height above sea-level in a hilly region.
Let
be an element of horizontal distance. Consider
, where
is the change in height after moving an infinitesimal distance
. This quantity is somewhat like the one-dimensional gradient, except that
depends on the direction of
, as well as its magnitude.
In the immediate vicinity of some point
, the slope reduces to an inclined plane. (See Figure A.19.)
The largest value of
is straight up the slope. It is easily shown that for any other direction
|
(A.103) |
where
is the angle shown in Figure A.19.
Let us define a two-dimensional vector,
,
called the gradient of
, whose magnitude is
, and whose direction is the direction of steepest ascent.
The
variation exhibited in the previous expression ensures that the component of
in any
direction is equal to
for that direction.
Figure A.19:
A two-dimensional gradient.
|
The component of
in the
-direction can be obtained by plotting out the
profile of
at constant
, and then finding the slope of the tangent to the
curve at given
. This quantity is known as the partial derivative of
with respect to
at constant
, and is denoted
.
Likewise, the gradient of the profile at constant
is written
. Note that the subscripts denoting constant
and
constant
are usually omitted, unless there is any ambiguity. It follows that
in component form
|
(A.104) |
Now, the equation of the tangent plane at
is
|
(A.105) |
This has the same local gradients as
, so
|
(A.106) |
For small
and
, the function
is coincident with the tangent
plane. It follows that
|
(A.107) |
But,
and
, so
|
(A.108) |
Incidentally, the previous equation demonstrates that
is a proper vector,
because the left-hand side is a scalar, and, according to the properties of the dot
product, the right-hand side is also a scalar provided that
and
are both
proper vectors (
is an obvious vector, because it is
directly derived from displacements).
Consider, now, a three-dimensional temperature distribution
in
(say) a
reaction vessel. Let us define
, as before, as a vector whose magnitude is
,
and whose direction is the direction of the maximum gradient.
This vector is written in component form
|
(A.109) |
Here,
is the
gradient of the one-dimensional temperature profile at constant
and
.
The change in
in going from point
to a neighboring point offset by
is
|
(A.110) |
In vector form, this becomes
|
(A.111) |
Suppose that
for some
. It follows that
|
(A.112) |
So,
is perpendicular to
. Because
along so-called
``isotherms'' (i.e., contours of the temperature), we conclude that the isotherms
(contours) are everywhere perpendicular to
. (See Figure A.20.)
Figure A.20:
Isotherms.
|
It is, of course, possible to integrate
. For instance, the line integral of
between points
and
is written
|
(A.113) |
This integral is clearly independent of the path taken between
and
, so
must be path independent.
Consider a vector field
. In general, the line integral
depends on the path
taken between the end points. However, for some special vector fields the integral is path independent. Such fields
are called conservative fields. It can be shown that if
is a
conservative field then
for some scalar field
.
The proof of this is straightforward. Keeping
fixed, we have
|
(A.114) |
where
is a well-defined function, due to the path independent nature of the
line integral. Consider moving the position of the end point by an infinitesimal
amount
in the
-direction. We have
|
(A.115) |
Hence,
|
(A.116) |
with analogous relations for the other components of
. It follows that
|
(A.117) |
The force field due to gravity is a good example of a conservative field.
Now, if
is a force-field then
is the work done
in traversing some path. If
is conservative then
|
(A.118) |
where
corresponds to the line integral around a closed loop.
The fact that zero net work is done in going around a closed loop is equivalent
to the conservation of energy (which is why conservative fields are called
``conservative''). A good example of a non-conservative field is the force field due
to friction. Clearly, a frictional system loses energy in going around a closed
cycle, so
.
Next: Grad Operator
Up: Vectors and Vector Fields
Previous: Volume Integrals
Richard Fitzpatrick
2016-03-31