| New Reply |
Verify about the solution of wave equation of potential. |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Dec12-12, 08:25 PM | #1 |
|
|
Verify about the solution of wave equation of potential.
I read in the book regarding a point charge at the origin where [itex]Q(t)= \rho_{(t)}Δv'\;[/itex]. The wave eq is.
[tex]\nabla^2V-\mu\epsilon\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial t^2}= -\frac {\rho_v}{\epsilon}[/tex] For point charge at origin, spherical coordinates are used where: [tex] \nabla^2V=\frac 1 {R^2}\frac {\partial}{\partial R}\left( R^2 \frac {\partial V}{\partial R}\right)[/tex] This is because point charge at origin, [itex]\frac {\partial}{\partial \theta} \hbox{ and }\; \frac {\partial}{\partial \phi}[/itex] are all zero. My question is this: The book then said EXCEPT AT THE ORIGIN, V satisfies the following homogeneous equation: [tex]\frac 1 {R^2}\frac {\partial}{\partial R}\left( R^2 \frac {\partial V}{\partial R}\right)-\mu\epsilon \frac {\partial^2 V}{\partial t^2}=0[/tex] The only reason I can think of why this equation has to exclude origin is because R=0 and origin and this won't work. Am I correct or there's another reason? Thanks Alan |
| PhysOrg.com |
physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Promising doped zirconia >> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease >> Bringing life into focus |
| Dec12-12, 10:19 PM | #2 |
|
|
Yep, you're right. Nothing complicated here.
|
| Dec12-12, 10:57 PM | #3 |
|
|
Thanks
Alan |
| Dec13-12, 12:38 AM | #4 |
|
|
Verify about the solution of wave equation of potential.
I have another question follow up with the original wave equation:
[tex]\frac 1 {R^2}\frac {\partial}{\partial R}\left( R^2 \frac {\partial V}{\partial R}\right)-\mu\epsilon \frac {\partial^2 V}{\partial t^2}=0[/tex] According to the book, to simplify this equation, Let: [tex]V_{(R,t)}=\frac 1 R U_{(R,t)}[/tex] This will reduce the wave equation to: [tex]\frac {\partial^2U_{(R,t)}}{\partial R^2}-\mu\epsilon\frac {\partial^2U_{(R,t)}}{\partial t^2}=0[/tex] One of the solution is [itex]U_{(R,t)}=f\left(t-\frac R {\mu\epsilon}\right)[/itex] My question is I want to find the solution if U(R,t) is time harmonic which is a continuous sine wave. The book does not show the anything. So I am using the regular solution of time harmonic wave equation and using direction to be [itex]\hat R[/itex]. So the formula become: [tex]\frac {\partial^2U_{(R,t)}}{\partial R^2}-\mu\epsilon\frac {\partial^2U_{(R,t)}}{\partial t^2}= \frac {\partial^2U_{(R,t)}}{\partial R^2}+\omega^2\mu\epsilon U= 0.[/tex] [tex] δ^2=-\omega^2\mu\epsilon\;\Rightarrow\; \frac {\partial^2U_{(R,t)}}{\partial R^2}-δ^2 U= 0.[/tex] This is a 2nd order ODE with constant coef and the solution is: [tex]U_{(R,t)}= V_0^+ e^{-δ R}+V_0^- e^{δ R}[/tex] For potential that reach to infinity space, there will be no reflection so the second term disappeared, whereby: [tex]U_{(R,t)}= V_0^+ e^{-δ R}[/tex] Do I get this right? This might look very obvious, but I am working on retarded potential and I am interpreting what the book don't say, I have to be careful to make sure I get everything right. Thanks Alan |
| Dec13-12, 12:43 AM | #5 |
|
|
[itex]\frac {\partial^2U_{(R,t)}}{\partial R^2}-\mu\epsilon\frac {\partial^2U_{(R,t)}}{\partial t^2}= \frac {\partial^2U_{(R,t)}}{\partial R^2}+\omega^2\mu\epsilon U= 0.[/itex]
just from the last in it you can write the periodic solution.Don't substitute any δ after. |
| Dec13-12, 12:47 AM | #6 |
|
|
[tex]U_{(R,t)}= V_0^+ e^{\alpha R} e^{j\beta R}\; \hbox { where } δ=\alpha + j\beta[/tex] |
| Dec13-12, 12:53 AM | #7 |
|
|
a plus sign before ω2 in eqn is necessary for periodic solution.First write solution in terms of ω and then introduce other definitions.
|
| Dec13-12, 02:33 AM | #8 |
|
|
[tex]\frac {\partial ^2 U}{\partial R^2} -δ^2U=0 \hbox { is }\; U_{(R,t)}= U_0^+ e^{-δR}\;=\; U_0^+ e^{-\alpha R} e^{-j\beta R}[/tex] This is a decay periodic function. For lossless, we use [itex] k=\omega\sqrt{\mu\epsilon}\hbox { where ε is real.}[/itex] Then [tex]\frac {\partial ^2 U}{\partial R^2} +k^2U=0 \hbox { is }\; U_{(R,t)}= U_0^+ e^{-jkR}[/tex] Actually because you brought this up, I dig deep into this and answer the question why the books use δ for lossy media and k for lossless media. I never quite get this all these years until now. |
| Dec13-12, 07:11 AM | #9 |
|
|
that is why it is better to go with + sign.but it is ok,now.In case,ε is complex it is still possible to define things after.But you already got it.
|
| Dec13-12, 02:52 PM | #10 |
|
|
Thanks.
|
| New Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Verify about the solution of wave equation of potential.
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Solutions to 2D wave equation using 1D equation solution. | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 6 | ||
| How to find verify solution to differential equation | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 5 | ||
| Wave Equation in 1-d Proof/Verify | Introductory Physics Homework | 2 | ||
| Verify that the function U is a solution for Laplace Equation. | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 2 | ||
| Verify that this is the solution to an ordinary differential equation | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 8 | ||