I want to calculate the divergence of the Gravitational field: $$\nabla\cdot \vec{F}=\nabla\cdot\left( -\frac{GMm}{\lvert \vec{r} \rvert^2} \hat{e}_r\right )$$ in spherical coordinates.

I know that in spherical coordinates: $$\begin{aligned} & x=r \sin\theta \cos \phi \\&y=r\sin\theta \sin \phi \\& z=r\cos\theta \end{aligned}$$

and the unit vector are:

$$\begin{aligned} & e_r=\begin{pmatrix}\sin\theta\cos\phi\\\sin\theta \sin\phi\\\cos\theta \end{pmatrix} \\ & e_{\theta}=\begin{pmatrix}\cos\theta\cos\phi\\\cos\theta \sin\phi\\-\sin\theta \end{pmatrix}\\&e_{\phi}=\begin{pmatrix}-\sin\phi\\\cos\phi\\0\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$

Now I need to convert my original vector field into spherical coordinates (this is the part I am not really sure about):

$$\vec{F}=-\frac{GMm}{x^2+y^2+z^2} \hat{e}_x-\frac{GMm}{x^2+y^2+z^2} \hat{e}_y-\frac{GMm}{x^2+y^2+z^2} \hat{e}_z $$

transforming the coordinates: $x^2+y^2+z^2=(r\sin\theta\cos\phi)^2+(r\sin\theta\sin\phi)^2+(r\cos\theta)^2=r^2$

$$\implies\vec{F}=\frac{-GMm}{r^2}\left(\hat{e}_x +\hat{e}_y +\hat{e}_z \right )$$

How can I transform the unit vectors now? Do I just replace them by the spherical unit verctors?

Is there a short really cool way to calculate the divergence of this vector field? I know that the answer should be zero except at $r=0$ the divergence should be undefined.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One obvious issue: Your initial $\vec{F}$ was spherically symmetric, but your final one is not! ($\hat{e}_x+\hat{e}_y+\hat{e}_z$ has a definite orientation.) The factor should actually be $\frac{x}{r}\hat{e}_x+\frac{y}{r}\hat{e}_y+\frac{z}{r}\hat{e}_z$ instead. Also, your initial vector field was basically in spherical coordinates already since $|\vec{r}|^2=r^2$. $\endgroup$ Jun 6 '16 at 13:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Semiclassical Yeah you are right. Because $$e_r=\frac{1}{\lvert r \rvert} \vec{r} \iff e_r=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}} \begin{pmatrix}x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix} \\ \implies \frac{-GMm}{\lvert r\rvert ^3} \begin{pmatrix}x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}$$ $\endgroup$
    – bluemoon
    Jun 6 '16 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Semiclassical But all my coordinates were not in spherical coordinates. Am I making this much harder than it actually is? When you write $\frac{x}{r}e_x+\frac{y}{r}e_y+\frac{z}{r}e_z$, are those $r$'s the absolute value of$\vec{r}$: $\lvert \vec{r} \rvert$? $\endgroup$
    – bluemoon
    Jun 6 '16 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ In your initial expression for $\vec{F}$, they certainly were all in spherical coordinates (once you replace $|\vec{r}|$ with $r$). What I'd suggest is computing the divergence in Cartesian coordinates (it'll be tedious but straightforward) using the last expression in your comment, and use that as a point of reference. $\endgroup$ Jun 6 '16 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Semiclassical The task is to do it in spherical coordinates because it is supposed to be "much easier" according to our tutor. $\endgroup$
    – bluemoon
    Jun 6 '16 at 14:08

Since there's only $r$ dependence,

\begin{align*} \nabla \cdot \mathbf{F} &= \frac{1}{r^{2}} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} (r^{2} F_{r}) \\ &= \frac{1}{r^{2}} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} (-GMm) \\ &= 0 \end{align*}

for $\mathbf{r}\in \mathbb{R}^{3} \backslash \{ \mathbf{0} \}$.

May refer to this

  • $\begingroup$ This does not apply at the origin $r=0$. If we had $\nabla\cdot \vec{F} = 0$ for all $r$ then by the divergence theorem and the fact that $\vec{F}$ is spherically symmetric we would have $\vec{F} = 0$ everywhere. A more precise statement is that $\nabla\cdot \left(\frac{\vec{r}}{r^3}\right) = 4\pi \delta(r)$. $\endgroup$
    – Winther
    Jun 6 '16 at 19:04
  • $\begingroup$ You're right, that's what I've mentioned for $n$-dimensional case in math.stackexchange.com/questions/1751963/… $\endgroup$ Jun 6 '16 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ @NgChungTak Thank you for you answer and sorry for the late reply. I have two questions. You write in your answer: "since there is only $r$ dependence,...". But there is "only" $r$-dependence in cartesian coordinates right? If I transform the coordinates I will also have an angle dependence. $\endgroup$
    – bluemoon
    Jun 7 '16 at 8:39
  • $\begingroup$ @NgChungTak Second question: The real "comprehension problem" I have is the fact that I can't get why my original vector field: $$\frac{-GMm}{\lvert r\rvert^3}\begin{pmatrix}x\\y\\z\end{pmatrix}$$ is already in spherical coordinates (according to a comment by semiclassical). Isn't it the case that it is in cartesian coordinates. Why can I suddenly use the divergence in spherical coordinates and apply it to a vector field in cartesian coordinates? $\endgroup$
    – bluemoon
    Jun 7 '16 at 8:43
  • $\begingroup$ @bluemoon That's hybrid. In pure Cartesian, it should read $-GMm\frac{(x,y,z)}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{3/2}}$ $\endgroup$ Jun 7 '16 at 13:32

$\newcommand{\angles}[1]{\left\langle\,{#1}\,\right\rangle} \newcommand{\braces}[1]{\left\lbrace\,{#1}\,\right\rbrace} \newcommand{\bracks}[1]{\left\lbrack\,{#1}\,\right\rbrack} \newcommand{\dd}{\mathrm{d}} \newcommand{\ds}[1]{\displaystyle{#1}} \newcommand{\expo}[1]{\,\mathrm{e}^{#1}\,} \newcommand{\half}{{1 \over 2}} \newcommand{\ic}{\mathrm{i}} \newcommand{\iff}{\Longleftrightarrow} \newcommand{\imp}{\Longrightarrow} \newcommand{\Li}[1]{\,\mathrm{Li}} \newcommand{\ol}[1]{\overline{#1}} \newcommand{\pars}[1]{\left(\,{#1}\,\right)} \newcommand{\partiald}[3][]{\frac{\partial^{#1} #2}{\partial #3^{#1}}} \newcommand{\ul}[1]{\underline{#1}} \newcommand{\root}[2][]{\,\sqrt[#1]{\,{#2}\,}\,} \newcommand{\totald}[3][]{\frac{\mathrm{d}^{#1} #2}{\mathrm{d} #3^{#1}}} \newcommand{\verts}[1]{\left\vert\,{#1}\,\right\vert}$ \begin{align} \color{#f00}{-\nabla\cdot\pars{{1 \over r^{2}}\,{\vec{r} \over r}}} & = -\nabla\cdot\nabla\pars{-\,{1 \over r}} = \nabla^{2}\pars{1 \over r} = \color{#f00}{-4\pi\, \delta\pars{\vec{r}}} \\[5mm] \mbox{because}\ \color{#f00}{\int_{V} \bracks{-\nabla\cdot\pars{{1 \over r^{2}}\,{\vec{r} \over r}}}\dd^{3}\vec{r}} & = -\int_{S}{1 \over r^{2}}\,{\vec{r} \over r}\cdot\dd\vec{\mathsf{S}} = -\int\dd\Omega_{\vec{r}} = \color{#f00}{-4\pi}\,,\qquad\vec{0} \in V \end{align}


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.