Do Eigenfunctions Differ in a Square Helmholtz Problem?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the Helmholtz equation in a rectangular domain, specifically examining the case when the rectangle becomes a square (L=H). Participants explore the concepts of degeneracy of eigenvalues and the orthogonality of eigenfunctions under given boundary conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Helmholtz equation and boundary conditions, deriving the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions.
  • Another participant asserts that the eigenfunctions should be orthogonal and can be orthonormal if properly normalized, introducing the concept of degeneracy when multiple eigenfunctions correspond to the same eigenvalue.
  • A different participant notes that for the case L=H, the eigenvalues satisfy the relation lambda_(n,m)=lambda_(m,n), indicating that u_(n,m) and u_(m,n) share the same eigenvalue.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about demonstrating degeneracy and the orthogonality of eigenfunctions in the square case.
  • Another participant suggests integrating the eigenfunctions over the domain to show orthogonality, using the integral condition involving the Kronecker delta.
  • One participant challenges the problem's setup, arguing that the homogeneous boundary conditions lead to a trivial solution, suggesting a need for non-homogeneous conditions or a source term.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the problem setup, with some agreeing on the orthogonality of eigenfunctions while others question the trivial nature of the solution due to the boundary conditions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the demonstration of degeneracy and the orthogonality of eigenfunctions in the square case.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the assumptions of the problem setup, particularly concerning the boundary conditions and the implications for the solutions of the Helmholtz equation.

urista
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I'm solving a Helmholtz equation uxx+uyy+lambda*u=0 in a rectangle: 0<=x<=L, 0<=y<=H with the following boundary conditions:
u(x,0)=u(x,H)=0 and ux(0,y)=ux(L,y)=0

I found the eigenvalues to be:
lambda(nm)=(n Pi/L)^2+(m Pi/H)^2
and the eigenfunctions to be:
u(nm)=Cos(n Pi x/L)*Sin(m Pi y/H)

Now the question I'm stuck on is to show that if L=H (a square) then most eigenvalues have more than one eigenfunction
and, Are any two eigenfunctions of this eigenvalue problem orthogonal in a two-dimensional sense?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The eigenfunctions should be orthogonal, and if properly normalized, orthonormal. If more than one eigenfunction gives the same eigenvalue, there is degeneracy.
 
if L=H then lambda_(n,m)=lambda_(m,n), that is u_(n,m) and u_(m,n) have the same eigenvalue.
 
Still not clear

Thank you for the replies, but how do I show the degeneracy? Also, how do I show in the case of a square (L=H) wheather the eigenfunctions are orthogonal or not in a two-dimensional sense?
 
If the eigenvalues are the same, the system is degenerate. Now, integrate the functions, i.e.

[tex]\int^{H} _{0}\int^{H} _{0} u_{i}(x,y) u_{j}(x,y) dxdy = \delta_{i j}[/tex]

where i,j are the different functions. This should show that the functions are orthogonal, or if correctly normalized, orthonormal.
 
urista

The problem you are posing is quite trivial and pointless because you seem to have no driving wave or source of any type. Your boundary conditions are all homogenous and so is your equation. This means that your solution is the trivial solution u(x,y)=0. You need to do something to either your boundary condition or the RHS of your Helmholtz equation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K