1
$\begingroup$

In the book Introduction to Plasma Physics by R. J. Goldston, in Appendix D (page 480), he writes the following vector identity

$$\boldsymbol{A}\times(\nabla\times\boldsymbol{B})=(\nabla\boldsymbol{B})\cdot\boldsymbol{A}-(\boldsymbol{A}\cdot\nabla)\boldsymbol{B}$$

but I think the rhs is identically zero. In matrix notation the first term is

$$(\nabla\boldsymbol{B})\cdot\boldsymbol{A}=\left(\begin{aligned}&\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial x}&&\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial y}&&\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial z}\\ &\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial x}&&\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial y}&&\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial z}\\ &\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial x}&&\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial y}&&\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial z}\end{aligned}\right)\left(\begin{aligned}A_x\\A_y\\A_z\end{aligned}\right)=\left(\begin{aligned}\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial x}A_x+\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial y}A_y+\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial z}A_z\\ \frac{\partial B_y}{\partial x}A_x+\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial y}A_y+\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial z}A_z\\ \frac{\partial B_z}{\partial x}A_x+\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial y}A_y+\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial z}A_z\end{aligned}\right)$$ and the second term $$(\boldsymbol{A}\cdot\nabla)\boldsymbol{B}=\left(A_x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+A_y\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+A_z\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)\left(\begin{aligned}B_x\\B_y\\B_z\end{aligned}\right)=\left(\begin{aligned}A_x\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial x}+A_y\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial y}+A_z\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial z}\\ A_x\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial x}+A_y\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial y}+A_z\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial z}\\ A_x\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial x}+A_y\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial y}+A_z\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial z}\end{aligned}\right)$$

For this reason, I think that this vector identity may be wrong. Also I have not found it in any other place.

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Becarefull there is no matrix multiplication in those term on the right hand side but only scalar products $\endgroup$ – Guy Fsone Oct 11 '17 at 18:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Notation $\nabla \mathbf{B}$ is a bit confusing, but interpreting this formally as the result of matrix multiplication of the 'colum vector' $\nabla$ and the row vector $\mathbf{B}^{\mathsf{T}}$ then we obtain what velut luna gave. This also matches what caverac derived using Einstein summation. $\endgroup$ – Sangchul Lee Oct 11 '17 at 19:13
1
$\begingroup$

Abusing a bit Einstein's notation

$$ F\times G = \epsilon_{ijk}F_iG_j\hat{e}_k $$

So that

\begin{eqnarray} {\bf A}\times(\nabla\times {\bf B})&=& \epsilon_{ijk}A_i(\nabla\times{\bf B})_j\hat{e}_k = \epsilon_{ijk}A_i(\epsilon_{abj}\partial_a B_b)\hat{e}_k\\ &=&-(\epsilon_{ikj}\epsilon_{abj})A_i\partial_aB_j\hat{e}_k\\ &=&-(\delta_{ia}\delta_{kb} - \delta_{ib}\delta_{ka})A_i\partial_aB_j\hat{e}_k \\ &=&-A_a\partial_a B_b \hat{e}_b + A_b \partial_a B_b\hat{e}_a \\ &=& -(A_a\partial_a)(B_b \hat{e}_b) + (\hat{e}_a\partial_a B_b)(\underbrace{A_b}_{A_c\delta_{bc}})\\ &=& -({\bf A}\cdot \nabla){\bf B} + (\hat{e}_a\partial_a B_b)(A_c\hat{e}_c\cdot \hat{e}_b) \\ &=& -({\bf A}\cdot \nabla){\bf B} + (\hat{e}_a\partial_a B_b\hat{e}_b)\cdot (A_c\hat{e}_c) \\ &=&-({\bf A}\cdot \nabla){\bf B} + (\nabla {\bf B})\cdot {\bf A} \end{eqnarray}

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

$$(\nabla\boldsymbol{B})\cdot\boldsymbol{A}=\left(\begin{aligned}&\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial x}&&\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial x}&&\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial x}\\ &\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial y}&&\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial y}&&\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial y}\\ &\frac{\partial B_x}{\partial z}&&\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial z}&&\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial z}\end{aligned}\right)\left(\begin{aligned}A_x\\A_y\\A_z\end{aligned}\right)$$

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$

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.