1
$\begingroup$

I am doing some work for my fluid dynamics class. I was trying to do a simple proof, but hit a road block. I have an expression where a 3-vector say $\vec{u}$ dotted with a 3x3 identity matrix $\bf{I}$, and I am not sure what the result would be. I guess that it should just be $\vec{u}$ however I was taught (perhaps incorrectly) that the dot product results in a scalar thus meaning this operation maybe invalid altogether, I could be wrong but if I am right I would like to perhaps see a simple proof of why this works. Thanks for all your time!

question:

$ \vec{u} \cdot \bf{I} \stackrel{?}{=} \vec{u}$

Context:

I am doing a short proof in fluid dynamics. Show that the Eulerian operator $\frac{D}{Dt} \equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial{t}} + \vec{u} \cdot \nabla$ acting on a position vector $\vec{r}$ (where $\vec{r} = (x,y,z)$) gives the fluid velocity $\vec{u}$. That is:

$\frac{D \vec{r}}{Dt} = \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial{t}} + \vec{u} \cdot \nabla \vec{r} \stackrel{?}{=} \vec{u}$ , for $\vec{r} = (x,y,z)$

So first step I simply apply the Eulerian operator to the position vector:

$\rightarrow \frac{D \vec{r}}{Dt} = \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial{t}} + \vec{u} \cdot \nabla \vec{r}$

since $\vec{r}$ is a position vector its partial derivative with respect to time vanishes, and we are left with:

$\rightarrow\frac{D \vec{r}}{Dt} = \ \vec{u} \cdot \nabla \vec{r}$

doing matrix multiplication with $\nabla$ and $\vec{r}$ I get the 3x3 identity matrix $ \bf{I} $:

$\rightarrow\frac{D \vec{r}}{Dt} = \vec{u} \cdot \bf{I}$

This is the point I get stuck on, I have no familiarity with the subject of fluid dynamics prior so I am unsure of how to proceed. Since the proof requests me to show that the Eulerian operator of a position vector gives the fluid velocity, I can take a pretty good guess that $\vec{u} \cdot \bf{I} = \vec{u}$ but someone please show and confirm. Thanks!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is the dot here just matrix multiplication? $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Sep 29 '18 at 4:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is not enough context here to determine what the notation even means. $\endgroup$ – Hans Lundmark Sep 29 '18 at 8:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have added context @HansLundmark $\endgroup$ – QuantumPanda Sep 29 '18 at 15:50
  • $\begingroup$ How did you end up with a matrix for $\nabla\vec r$? $\endgroup$ – amd Sep 29 '18 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ Matrix multiplcation, 3x1 vector times a 1x3 vector gives a matrix. Also known as the outer product or diadic product as my professor has told me $\endgroup$ – QuantumPanda Sep 29 '18 at 22:45
2
$\begingroup$

I believe everything will be clear if you think of $\vec{u} \cdot \nabla$ as single operator $$ \vec{u} \cdot \nabla = u_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} + u_2 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} + u_3 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_3} $$ and then apply the whole thing to $\vec{r} = (x_1,x_2,x_3)$ instead of doing the gradient first and then the dot product. Like this: $$ \left( u_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} + u_2 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} + u_3 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_3} \right) (x_1,x_2,x_3) = u_1 (1,0,0) + u_2 (0,1,0) + u_3 (0,0,1) . $$

$\endgroup$

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.