Green's Function: Understanding Laplace's 2nd Identity

In summary, the conversation discusses the author's derivation of Green's function in a book. The author begins by introducing Green's second identity and then proceeds to explain how it can be used to find the value of \alpha at a point (x*, y*). The conversation then goes on to discuss the factor of 1/2 or 1 in the equations and how it is related to whether (x*, y*) is inside or on the boundary of the closed curve C. One person is confused about the placement of the factor of r and how it is derived. Another person attempts to explain it, but is unsure about how to eliminate the second term and where the r comes from. The conversation ends with one person clarifying that the
  • #1
rsq_a
107
1
This appears on the bottom of p.279 of this book.

The author begins with Green's second identity:
[tex]
\int_V \alpha \nabla^2 \beta - \beta \nabla^2 \alpha \ dV =
\int_C \left( \alpha \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial n} - \beta \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial n} \right) \ ds[/tex]

Here, C is a closed curve, s is the arc length for C and n is the outward unit normal. We then let [itex]\alpha[/itex] satisfy Laplace's equation and let [itex]g = 1/(4\pi)\log [(x-x^*)^2 + (y-y^*)^2][/itex], i.e. the free-space Green's function. Then he gets

[tex]
\alpha(x^*, y^*) = r\int_C \left( \alpha \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial n} - \beta \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial n} \right) \ ds,[/tex]

where r = 1 if (x*,y*) is inside C, but r = 1/2 if (x*, y*) is on C.

I'm confused at this point. I thought that
[tex]
\int_V \alpha \nabla^2 \beta - \beta \nabla^2 \alpha \ dV =
\int_V \alpha \delta((x,y) - (x^*, y^*)) \ dV = \alpha(x^*, y^*)
[/tex]

Where is the factor of 1/2 or 1 coming in?

Moreover, the next equation, the factor of r = 1/2 has switched to the left-hand-side. I can't figure out how this is done (but perhaps if someone firsts helps me understand the above, this will be clear).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
[tex]\alpha[/tex] is harmonic in V,but [tex]g[/tex] is harmonic in V except in [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex],so (10.7)doesn't exist for [tex]g[/tex].

if [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex] is inside C,we need to construct a ball [tex]B_\eplson[/tex] to cover [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex],and the formula is wright for [tex]\int_{C \cup C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds = 0[/tex],you can get the formula (10.8) from this.You need to do it yourself when the point is on C
 
  • #3
[tex]C_\epsilon[/tex] is the boundry curve of B_\epsilon,you need to take limit for epsilon
 
  • #4
kakarotyjn said:
[tex]\alpha[/tex] is harmonic in V,but [tex]g[/tex] is harmonic in V except in [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex],so (10.7)doesn't exist for [tex]g[/tex].

if [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex] is inside C,we need to construct a ball [tex]B_\eplson[/tex] to cover [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex],and the formula is wright for [tex]\int_{C \cup C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds = 0[/tex],you can get the formula (10.8) from this.You need to do it yourself when the point is on C

Ah, I see. Can you verify that the formula (10.7) is indeed right, and the 'r' is supposed to be on the right-hand side?

I think it's supposed to be on the LHS. Then the 1/2 factor on the LHS of (10.9) would make sense.

I reason that for the case that (x*, y*) is inside C,
[tex]0 = \int_{C \cup C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds = \int_{C} {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds -\alpha(x^*, y^*)[/tex]

because you end up with going around an entire circle for [itex]C_\epsilon[/itex], but if (x*, y*) is on the boundary, then
[tex]0 = \int_{C \cup C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds = \int_{C} {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds - \frac{1}{2}\alpha(x^*, y^*)[/tex]

where the factor of 1/2 results from only going around half a circle.
 
  • #5
I'm sorry I don't know how to derive (10.8) from (10.7),(10.7) is right,but my calculation don't get (10.8).
this is my calculation:

[tex]
\left. {\frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}}} \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = \left. { - \frac{1}{{2\pi r}}} \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = - \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
[tex]\left. g \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
so [tex]\int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = - \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}\int_{C_\varepsilon } \alpha \:ds - \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon \int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = - \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
then [tex]
\frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}\int_{C_\varepsilon } \alpha \:ds + \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon \int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds[/tex],
but I don't know how to eliminate the second term,and I also don't know where does the r come from.

Sorry
 
Last edited:
  • #6
kakarotyjn said:
I'm sorry I don't know how to derive (10.8) from (10.7),(10.7) is right,but my calculation don't get (10.8).
this is my calculation:

[tex]
\left. {\frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}}} \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = \left. { - \frac{1}{{2\pi r}}} \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = - \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
[tex]\left. g \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
so [tex]\int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = - \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}\int_{C_\varepsilon } \alpha \:ds - \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon \int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = - \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
then [tex]
\frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}\int_{C_\varepsilon } \alpha \:ds + \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon \int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds[/tex],
but I don't know how to eliminate the second term,and I also don't know where does the r come from.

Sorry

The second term ends up being lower-order than the first as [itex]\epsilon \to 0[\itex] (you'll get epsilon*log(epsilon)). And thus we are left with

[tex]
\frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}\int_{C_\varepsilon } \alpha \:ds = \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds[/tex]

The LHS will either give you [itex]alpha[/itex] (not on the boundary) or [itex]\alpha/2[/itex] (on the boundary). I'm not sure how that gives you (10.7). As I said in my post above, I think the 'r' should be on the other side in the formula.
 
  • #7
we can get this equation [tex]
\int_V {\alpha \nabla ^2 \beta } dV + \int_V {\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial x}}\frac{{\partial \beta }}{{\partial x}}} + \frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial y}}\frac{{\partial \beta }}{{\partial y}}dV = \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial \beta }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} ds[/tex]by Green Theorem,the same one[tex]\int_V {\beta \nabla ^2 \alpha } dV + \int_V {\frac{{\partial \beta }}{{\partial x}}\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial x}}} + \frac{{\partial \beta }}{{\partial y}}\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial y}}dV = \int_C {\left( {\beta \frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} ds[/tex],then you can ge (10.7) by subtracting the first one from the second one.

and the r is on the right side,not left.But I can't see clear of your last post,the formula can't be displayed well.

How can we eliminate the second term?when eplison tends to 0,ln(eplison) tend to be minus infinity...
 

Related to Green's Function: Understanding Laplace's 2nd Identity

1. What is a Green's function?

A Green's function is a mathematical tool used to solve differential equations. It represents the response of a system to a specific type of input. In the context of Laplace's 2nd identity, the Green's function describes the solution to a boundary value problem.

2. How does Green's function relate to Laplace's 2nd identity?

Laplace's 2nd identity is a mathematical relationship between the Laplace transform of a function and its derivatives. The Green's function can be used to understand and solve this identity by representing the solution to a boundary value problem in terms of the Green's function.

3. What is the significance of Laplace's 2nd identity in physics?

Laplace's 2nd identity is a fundamental tool used in the study of differential equations, which are essential in many branches of physics. It allows us to transform complex equations into simpler forms, making it easier to analyze and understand physical phenomena.

4. Can Green's function be used in other areas besides Laplace's 2nd identity?

Yes, Green's function is a versatile mathematical tool that has applications in many areas of physics and engineering. It can be used to solve boundary value problems in electromagnetism, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer, among others.

5. How can I use Green's function to solve a problem?

To use Green's function, you must first determine the boundary conditions and the differential equation that describes the problem. Then, you can use the Green's function to solve the problem by applying it to the boundary conditions and the differential equation. This will give you the solution to the problem in terms of the Green's function.

Similar threads

  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
4
Views
660
  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
766
Back
Top