Solving Poisson's equation with the help of Greens function

In summary, the conversation discusses the use of Green's functions and Fourier transforms in solving Poisson's equation. The speaker is struggling with understanding some steps in the derivation and seeks help. The reply provides a summary of the steps involved in using Green's first identity and applying integration by parts to solve for the k-space Green's function. The mistake of the speaker in the final step is also pointed out.
  • #1
spookyfw
25
0
Hey all,
some weeks ago in a tutorial our TA solved Poissons equation with Greens functions..would be very short, but he also derived the Greens function using a Fourier transform. Two points I really don't get and he could also not explain it. Maybe you can help me? There might be even a short way..but if you could help out here and tell me what went wrong I would be really helpful :)!

Function to solve:
[itex]\nabla^2[/itex] [itex]\Phi[/itex] = -[itex]\frac{\rho}{\epsilon}[/itex] = f(x) = [itex]\nabla^2[/itex] u(x)
Having the Green's function:

[itex]\nabla^2[/itex] G(r,r') = [itex]\delta[/itex](r-r')

[itex]\nabla^2[/itex] G(x) = [itex]\delta[/itex](x)
taking the Fourier transform:
∫[itex]\nabla^2[/itex] G(x)exp(-ikx)dV = 1

and now the big mess is starting: using Greens first identity, namely:
4eb07f6c151651347f36f9cb9e4f45be.png


∫[itex]\nabla*\nabla[/itex]G exp(-ikx)dV = ∫[itex]\nabla[/itex] G exp(-ikx) dS - ∫[itex]\nabla[/itex]G [itex]\nabla[/itex] exp(-ikx)dV

then he states that the surface term is equal to zero. I understand that using the Fourier transform we integrate from minus to plus infinity and that we have the condition that our Greens function is usually prone to go to zero at infinity, but how is he doing that step? A integration by parts?

From that he is then coming to the point that
∫G Δexp(-ikx) dV = k^2 ∫ G(r) exp(-ikx) dV
After a substitution he then concludes that G(k) = 1/k^2

To be honest...after applying Greens identity i am somewhat lost. And don't see the steps anymore ;(.Maybe I copied something wrong from the blackboard..it is just driving me nuts!

In the end when transforming back he actually integrates from zero to inf
∫sinc(u) du = pi/2

I always thought this is not possible...that the integral of sinc cannot be given analytically?

As you might have guessed..it is a big constrution site for me...would be very happy if someone could help me out!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
spookyfw said:
Hey all,
some weeks ago in a tutorial our TA solved Poissons equation with Greens functions..would be very short, but he also derived the Greens function using a Fourier transform. Two points I really don't get and he could also not explain it. Maybe you can help me? There might be even a short way..but if you could help out here and tell me what went wrong I would be really helpful :)!

Function to solve:
[itex]\nabla^2[/itex] [itex]\Phi[/itex] = -[itex]\frac{\rho}{\epsilon}[/itex] = f(x) = [itex]\nabla^2[/itex] u(x)
Having the Green's function:

[itex]\nabla^2[/itex] G(r,r') = [itex]\delta[/itex](r-r')

[itex]\nabla^2[/itex] G(x) = [itex]\delta[/itex](x)
taking the Fourier transform:
∫[itex]\nabla^2[/itex] G(x)exp(-ikx)dV = 1

and now the big mess is starting: using Greens first identity, namely:
4eb07f6c151651347f36f9cb9e4f45be.png


∫[itex]\nabla*\nabla[/itex]G exp(-ikx)dV = ∫[itex]\nabla[/itex] G exp(-ikx) dS - ∫[itex]\nabla[/itex]G [itex]\nabla[/itex] exp(-ikx)dV

then he states that the surface term is equal to zero. I understand that using the Fourier transform we integrate from minus to plus infinity and that we have the condition that our Greens function is usually prone to go to zero at infinity, but how is he doing that step? A integration by parts?

From that he is then coming to the point that
∫G Δexp(-ikx) dV = k^2 ∫ G(r) exp(-ikx) dV
After a substitution he then concludes that G(k) = 1/k^2

To be honest...after applying Greens identity i am somewhat lost. And don't see the steps anymore ;(.Maybe I copied something wrong from the blackboard..it is just driving me nuts!

In the end when transforming back he actually integrates from zero to inf
∫sinc(u) du = pi/2

I always thought this is not possible...that the integral of sinc cannot be given analytically?

As you might have guessed..it is a big constrution site for me...would be very happy if someone could help me out!

[tex]\int ( \nabla^2 G ) e^{-ikx}dV = \int (\nabla G) e^{-ikx} dS - \int \nabla G \nabla e^{-ikx}V [/tex]
This is a simple invocation of the chain rule (which you can rearrange to make something like integration by parts) and using the divergence theorem on the first term. Then he does it again to remove the gradient on the Green's function in the remaining term on the right hand side. So from there it's a simple step to see that the k-space Green's function is something like 1/k^2. However, the following,

∫G Δexp(-ikx) dV = k^2 ∫ G(r) exp(-ikx) dV

is incorrect. The gradient of the exponential is simply -ik, you are confusing this step. Work out the integration by parts step twice to see that

[tex] 1 = k^2 \int d\mathbf{r} G(\mathbf{r})e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} [/tex]

where we see that the integration on the right hand side is simply the Fourier transform of the spatial Green's function. Then you apply the inverse Fourier transform and convert it to spherical coordinates in the k-space (above I made the wavevector to be the 3D cartesian coordinate system). So when you do that you then arrive at the integral over the sinc function. Something like,

[tex] G(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{1}{2\pi^2} \int_0^\infty d k \ \rm{sinc} (k r) [/tex]

You can then just do a change of variables to integrate over the variable k*r, which is why you pull out a factor of r in the denominator and then this integration over the sinc corrects the constants. In the end, you should get a Green's function that is something like,

[tex] G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r'}) = \frac{1}{\left| \mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'} \right|} [/tex]

There may be a factor of 4\pi in the denominator, looks like it will be for your system of units.
 
  • #3
Thank you very much Born2bwire! Now I also get: ∫(∇2G)e−ikxdV=∫(∇G)e−ikxdS−∫∇G∇e−ikxV.
That makes sense now, but when I apply the 'integration-by-parts' again on the last term, I have a slight problem because the divergence theorem..well is working with divergences, but here we have a grad, no? I don't see how u can simply apply it again and get grid of the grad. U would just blow up the terms and not get rid of them...
what is my mistake here?
 
  • #4
The first is easiest by just looking at using the chain rule. You take,

[tex] \nabla \cdot \left[ \left(\nabla G \right) e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} \right] = \left( \nabla^2 G \right) e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} + \left(\nabla G \right) \nabla e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} = \left( \nabla^2 G \right) e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} - ik \left(\nabla G \right) e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} [/tex]

You can then rearrange it so that the Laplacian is on the LHS and the rest are on the RHS. Obviously the volume integral over the divergence because a surface integral because of the divergence theorem. Since the volume here is infinite, we know that this surface integral is zero because the gradient of the Green's function is zero at infinity (likewise the Green's function at infinity is also zero). This is deduced from physical insight of our problem where we know that we consider the potential of a point source at infinity to be zero.

Thus, we are now interested in the volume integral,

[tex] -ik \int d\mathbf{r} \left(\nabla G \right) e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} [/tex]

Once again we use the chain rule,

[tex]\nabla \left( G e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} \right) = \left( \nabla G \right) e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} + G \nabla e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} = \left( \nabla G \right) e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} - ik G e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}} [/tex]

Thus, to evaluate the gradient of the LHS, we can use the fundamental rule of calculus and it just because the evaluation of the Green's function and the exponential function at the limits of integration (infinity which again evaluates to zero). Consider for example, the problem in Cartesian coordinates. In one-dimension we have,

[tex] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left( G e^{-ik_xx} \right) = \left. G e^{-ik_xx} \right|_{-\infty}^\infty [/tex]

A simple example. Then in two-dimensions,

[tex] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx dy \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left( G e^{-i(k_xx+k_yy)} \right) \hat{x} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \left( G e^{-i(k_xx+k_yy)} \right) \hat{y} \right] = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dy \left. G e^{-i(k_xx+k_yy)} \right|_{x=-\infty}^{x=\infty} \hat{x} + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx \left. G e^{-i(k_xx+k_yy)} \right|_{y=-\infty}^{y=\infty} \hat{y} [/tex]

The extension to three-dimensions is not hard to imagine. So we are just left with my second equation given in my previous post.

EDIT: Regarding my last post,

However, the following,

∫G Δexp(-ikx) dV = k^2 ∫ G(r) exp(-ikx) dV

is incorrect.
This is correct, I was misinterpreting your symbol for the Laplacian to meaning gradient.

Also, I have been a bit sloppy in the above, obviously we should be getting scalars but I seem to have accidentally omitted the dot products with the volume elements in the above when we have gradients.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Excellent. Now I a understand. Thank you very much and thanks for your time :)!
 

What is Poisson's equation and why is it important in science?

Poisson's equation is a mathematical equation used to describe the relationship between the distribution of charge or mass in a given region and the resulting gravitational or electrostatic potential. It is important in many fields of science, including physics, engineering, and applied mathematics, as it allows for the calculation of potentials and forces in various systems.

How can Green's function be used to solve Poisson's equation?

Green's function is a mathematical tool that can be used to solve Poisson's equation by breaking down the equation into smaller, solvable parts. It is a function that satisfies the equation and can be used to find the solution for any given boundary conditions.

What are the advantages of using Green's function to solve Poisson's equation?

One of the main advantages of using Green's function is that it allows for the solution of Poisson's equation for any arbitrary boundary conditions. It also simplifies the mathematical calculations required for solving the equation and can be used for a wide range of systems, making it a versatile tool in scientific research.

Are there any limitations to using Green's function to solve Poisson's equation?

While Green's function is a powerful tool, it does have its limitations. It can only be used for linear systems, and its application becomes more complex for higher-dimensional problems. Additionally, finding the Green's function for a given system can be a challenging task, especially for complex systems with non-uniform boundary conditions.

How is Green's function related to other mathematical concepts, such as Fourier transforms and Laplace transforms?

Green's function is closely related to other mathematical concepts, such as Fourier transforms and Laplace transforms. In fact, the Green's function for a given system can be found by taking the inverse Fourier transform of the solution in the Fourier space. This relationship makes it possible to solve Poisson's equation using various techniques, depending on the problem at hand.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
913
  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
6
Views
186
  • Classical Physics
Replies
2
Views
869
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
222
Replies
6
Views
908
Replies
3
Views
682
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
323
Back
Top