Math Insight

Subtleties about divergence

Picture of divergence as expansion
We hav e shown that the div ergence measures ex pansion or compression of a v ector field. We immersed a
sphere into a v ector field that had positiv e div ergence ev ery where, as shown below. No matter where one
mov es the sphere (using the sliders), more fluid flows out of the sphere than into the sphere, indicating the
fluid is ex panding.

Movable sphere embedded in a divergent vector field. This sphere can be mov ed by dragging the blue
sliders with the mouse to change its , , and coordinates. If the v ector field represents the v elocity
of fluid flow, then no matter the sphere's position, more fluid is flowing out of the sphere than into the
sphere. This fact suggests that the v ector field has positiv e div ergence ev ery where.
z

y x

More information about applet.

The v ector field pictured is

.)z ,y , x( = )z ,y , x(F

Its div ergence is

,3 = 1 + 1 + 1 = z

+y

+ x

= )z ,y , x(F vid


,3 = 1 + 1 + 1 = z

+y

+ x

= )z ,y , x(F vid
x

which is a positiv e constant independent of the point

. The picture of the v ector field looks like fluid
ex ploding outward, so it makes sense that the fluid is ex panding.
)z ,y , x(

Can a picture be misleading?

As one becomes more sophisticated in mathematical thinking, one discov ers that pictures can sometimes
be misleading. (One reason mathematicians demand mathematical proof is to ensure they aren't fooling
themselv es into jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information, such as the information gained
solely by ex ploring pictures.) With regard to div ergence, one might wonder if an outward flow, such as
pictured abov e, alway s means that the div ergence of the v ector field is positiv e?
Here's a picture of a different v ector field showing fluid flowing outward from the origin. Howev er, it differs
from the abov e v ector field in that the arrows get shorter the further they are from the origin. Is the
div ergence of this v ector field positiv e? In other words, is the fluid ex panding as it may look like from the
picture?

Outw ard flow ing vector field w ith zero divergence. This sphere can be mov ed by dragging the blue
sliders with the mouse to change its , , and coordinates. Although the v ector field is radiating
outward, the fluid whose v elocity is represented by the v ector field is not ex panding. As long the the
sphere is away from the origin (where the v ector field is not defined), the same amount of fluid is
flowing into as out of the sphere. The div ergence of the v ector field is zero.
z

y x

More information about applet.

To answer this question, we hav e to compute the div ergence. This v ector field is
)z ,y , x(
,

= )z ,y , x(F

2/3

z +

y +

x(

for
. (It is not defined at the origin.) This new v ector field is the same as the first v ector
field abov e ex cept that we hav e div ided it by its magnitude raised to the third power. (We could write this
v ector field as
, where
.) In this way , the v ector field gets smaller as one mov es
) 0 , 0 , 0( )z ,y , x(

)z ,y , x( = x

= )x(F

away from the origin.

:
z

y
+

2/3

)
2

z +

z3 )
2/5

y +

z +

x(

y +

z
2

+
)

z +

y +

x(

2/3
2

x
+

x(

y3 )
2/5

z +
2

y +
2

z +

y +

)
2

x(
+

z +

y +

z+

0 =

y+

z +

x3 )
2/5

x(

= )z ,y , x(F vid

2/3

x(

We calculate the div ergence of

y +
2

z +

x(

y +

x
2

x(
=

x( 3 )

z +

z +

y +

y +

x(

x( 3
=

2/5

z +

y +

x(

Hence, as long as we are not at the origin, the div ergence is zero and the flow is neither ex panding nor
contracting.
How can we reconcile this fact with the picture? If the sphere is at the origin, clearly the flow is out of the
sphere. But the div ergence is not defined at the origin, so we hav e to ignore that point. If y ou mov e the
sphere away from the origin, it is not clear if there is more fluid flowing into the sphere or more fluid flowing
out. On one hand, the flow out of the sphere is slower than the flow into the sphere, as the arrows are getting
shorter. On the other hand, because the flow is radiating outward, the fluid is flowing out of the sphere
across more than half of its surface. For this particular v ector field, I balanced those two effects (by
carefully choosing how quickly the v ector field shrinks as one mov es away from the origin) so that the net
flow into the sphere is ex actly equal to the net flow out of the sphere. If we stay away from the origin, the
fluid is neither ex panding nor compressing and the div ergence is zero.

Dependence on dimension
Here's one more subtlety just for fun. To make the div ergence zero in the abov e ex ample, I balanced the
outward flow of the v ector field by shrinking the v ector field as one mov es away from the origin. The flow
out of the sphere was equal to the flow into the sphere and there was no ex pansion or compression.
What happens if I take the two-dimensional v ersion of the prev ious v ector field? The 2D v ector field is
)y , x(
,

2/3

= )y , x(F
)

y +

x(

for
. (It is not defined at the origin.) This v ector field is shown below along with a circle that
y ou can mov e by dragging its top red point with y our mouse. Mov e the circle so that it is away from the
origin. In this case, is the div ergence positiv e, negativ e, or zero?
) 0 , 0( )y , x(

Outw ard flow ing 2D vector field w ith negative divergence. This circle can be mov ed by dragging the
red point. Although the v ector field is radiating outward, it is actually compressing. As long the the
circle is away from the origin (where the v ector field is not defined), there is a net flux into the circle.
The div ergence of the v ector field is negativ e.
More information about applet.

:
y
2/3
2

y +

y3 )
2/5

y +

y +

x(

y +

y+

y +
2

x(

y +

x
2

x(
=

x( 3 )

y +

y +

x(

x( 2
=

2/5

x(

= )y , x(F vid
)

2/5

x(

x3 )

+
=

2/3

2/3

x(

1
0 <

x
+

We calculate the div ergence of

y +

x(

In this case, away from the origin, the div ergence is negativ e. The fluid is compressing ev en though it is
flowing outward.
Why did the dimension make a difference? One can see the difference from the calculations, but what is the
difference in the geometric picture? As in the three-dimensional case, the fluid flows into the circle faster
than it flows out of the circle, as the arrows are getting shorter. And, as in the three-dimensional case,
because the flow is radiating outward, the fluid is flowing out of the circle ov er more than half the boundary
of the circle. But, because we are only in two dimensions, the effect from the boundary is smaller. I chose
the v ector field to balance the two effects and make the div ergence zero in three dimensions. But, this
makes the div ergence of the two-dimensional analogue be negativ e.
Y ou can check that the div ergence of the v ector field
)y , x(
= )y , x(F

)y , x(
2

y +

= )y , x(F
x

is zero but that the div ergence of the three-dimensional analogue

)z ,y , x(
2

z +

y +

= )z ,y , x(F
x

is positiv e. In general, for a number , the div ergence of the v ector field
p

x
= )x(F

in three dimensions and is

to hav e zero div ergence in three dimensions and

in two dimensions. So
to hav e zero div ergence in two
p

x /) p 2( = )x(F vid
2 = p

is
y ou need
dimensions.

x /) p 3( = )x(F vid
3 = p

See also
The idea of the curl of a v ector field
Subtleties about curl

Lighten up
The idea of the div ergence of a v ector field

Go deeper
The idea behind the div ergence theorem

Cite this as
Ny kamp DQ, Subtleties about div ergence. From Math Insight. http://mathinsight.org
/div ergence_subtleties
Key words: counterex amples, div ergence

Subtleties about div ergence by Duane Q. Ny kamp is licensed under a Creativ e Commons AttributionNoncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License. For permissions bey ond the scope of this license, please contact
us.