Resolving Ecuations with $\Psi$, $\vec{v}$, and $\nabla$

  • Thread starter Thread starter Raparicio
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Resolution
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on resolving the equation { \frac{ \partial{(m \vec {v} - \Psi \vec {v})}}{ \partial {t} } = \nabla (\Psi \vec {v}^2 ). Participants clarify that the equation involves a constant mass 'm', a vector 'v', and a wave function 'Ψ'. The equation is identified as unbalanced due to having one unknown and three equations, suggesting a need for further analysis. The final derived equation is { \frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} = \frac{3\Psi}{m - \Psi} \vec{v} \cdot \nabla \vec{v} - \frac{\vec{v}}{m - \Psi} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} }, which provides a clearer relationship between the variables involved.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial differential equations
  • Familiarity with vector calculus and tensor notation
  • Knowledge of wave functions in quantum mechanics
  • Proficiency in applying the chain rule and product rule in differentiation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the chain rule in partial differential equations
  • Learn about tensor notation and its implications in vector calculus
  • Explore the properties of wave functions in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the stability and balance of equations in mathematical physics
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineering professionals dealing with fluid dynamics, wave mechanics, and mathematical modeling of physical systems.

Raparicio
Messages
115
Reaction score
0
Dear Friends,

Another questions about mathmatics.

How can be resolved a ecuation like this?

[tex]{ \frac{ \partial{(m \vec {v} - \Psi \vec {v})}}{ \partial {t} } = \nabla (\Psi \vec {v}^2 )[/tex]

Asuming that v could be any vector, m a constant, and psi a wave function. It's not the similar that a wave ecuation.

And more:

Is this ok? [tex]\Psi (\vec {v} \nabla) \vec {v} = \Psi \vec {v} (\nabla \vec {v})[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Raparicio said:
Dear Friends,

Another questions about mathmatics.

How can be resolved a ecuation like this?

[tex]{ \frac{ \partial{(m \vec {v} - \Psi \vec {v})}}{ \partial {t} } = \nabla (\Psi \vec {v}^2 )[/tex]

Asuming that v could be any vector, m a constant, and psi a wave function. It's not the similar that a wave ecuation.

So i should understand that the unknown from your equation would be [itex]\Psi[/itex] ??That is to say,all other quantites are known... :confused:
So your equation should be looking like that
[tex]-\vec{v}\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t}=\vec{v}^{2}\nabla\Psi+\Psi\nabla(\vec{v}^{2})-m\frac{\partial\vec{v}}{\partial t}[/tex]

I'lm afraind your equation is not 'balanced'.It has only one unknown and three equations.It's actually a system of 3 differential eq.with partial derivatives,but still only one function.Now,if 'v' is an unknown vector function as well,then the eq.(the system of eq.is not 'balanced' again).This time it would 4 unknowns,but only three quations.

My guess,it's something fishy with your eq.Double check it.


Raparicio said:
And more:

Is this ok? [tex]\Psi (\vec {v} \nabla) \vec {v} = \Psi \vec {v} (\nabla \vec {v})[/tex]

Write it in tensor notation.Simplify through the (assumed nonzero) scalar function [itex]\Psi[/itex] and u'll get
[tex]v_{i}\frac{\partial v_{j}}{\partial x_{i}} \vec{e}_{j}[/tex]
is the LHS.
[tex]v_{j}\frac{\partial v_{i}}{\partial x_{i}} \vec{e}_{j}[/tex]
is the RHS.
You can see they're different.The first is a contracted tensor product between the vector 'v' and its gradient (which is a second rank tensor),while the second is the product between the vector and its divergence (which is a scalar).Though 'balanced' wrt to tensor rank,the two sides are different.
Therefore,u don't have an equality.

Daniel.
 
Last edited:


To resolve the equation { \frac{ \partial{(m \vec {v} - \Psi \vec {v})}}{ \partial {t} } = \nabla (\Psi \vec {v}^2 ), we can use the chain rule and product rule for differentiation. First, we can rewrite the equation as { \frac{ \partial{(m - \Psi) \vec {v}}}{ \partial {t} } = \nabla (\Psi \vec {v} \cdot \vec {v} ). Then, using the chain rule, we can take the partial derivative of the left side with respect to time and the partial derivative of the right side with respect to position. This will give us the following equation:

{ (m - \Psi) \frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} + \vec{v} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} = 2\Psi \vec{v} \cdot \nabla \vec{v} + \Psi \vec{v} \cdot \nabla \vec{v} }

Next, we can simplify the equation by using the product rule for differentiation on the right side. This will give us:

{ (m - \Psi) \frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} + \vec{v} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} = 3\Psi \vec{v} \cdot \nabla \vec{v} }

Finally, we can solve for the partial derivative of velocity with respect to time by dividing both sides of the equation by (m - \Psi). This will give us the final equation:

{ \frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} = \frac{3\Psi}{m - \Psi} \vec{v} \cdot \nabla \vec{v} - \frac{\vec{v}}{m - \Psi} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} }

As for the second question, it is not clear what is meant by \Psi (\vec {v} \nabla) \vec {v}. The notation is not standard and it is not clear what operation is being performed. It is also not clear how this relates to the original equation given. Therefore, it is difficult to say if it is correct or not.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K