A set of nonlinear coupled ODE's

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gouranja
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coupled Nonlinear Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding an analytical solution to a set of nonlinear coupled ordinary differential equations (ODEs) involving three-dimensional vectors. The equations are expressed in terms of a constant and given functions, with participants exploring the feasibility of obtaining a general solution and discussing the implications of certain mathematical properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire for an analytical solution to the coupled equations but acknowledges the difficulty in finding one.
  • Another participant suggests that the problem may be impossible to solve due to having one equation with multiple unknowns.
  • A different participant clarifies that there are three equations corresponding to the components of the vector, proposing a possible general solution based on a simpler form of the equations.
  • One participant notes that additional information about the vectors or functions might be necessary to progress further in finding a solution.
  • Another participant discusses a method involving separation of variables and matrix equations, raising concerns about the determinant of a matrix and its implications for the equations.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of the Minkowski product, explaining its relevance to the equations and the properties of the vectors involved, while noting that this does not necessarily clarify the problem.
  • One participant mentions the potential use of Laplace or Fourier transforms if initial conditions and another function were available, but doubts the possibility of forming a general solution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of finding an analytical solution, with some suggesting that it may be possible under certain conditions while others remain skeptical. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the existence of a general solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of specific properties of the functions and vectors involved, including the distinction between Minkowski and Euclidean spaces, which may affect the approach to solving the equations. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the properties of the vectors.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in nonlinear dynamics, differential equations, or theoretical physics, particularly in contexts involving relativistic frameworks or particle dynamics, may find this discussion relevant.

gouranja
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm looking for an analytical solution to this set of coupled equations:

[tex]U^{'}_{i}(x)=c (f_i(x)-(\vec{U}\cdot\vec{f})U_i(x))[/tex]

Where the vectors are 3 dimensional, c is constant and f is a vector of given functions:

[tex]f_i(x) , i\in 1..3[/tex]

There probably isn't one but I thought I'd try anyway.

thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
right now it looks like you have 1 equation in two or more unknowns, which will be impossible to solve.
 
Not really

There are 3 equations for each component of [tex]\vec{U}(x)[/tex] since the index i goes between 1..3. For example the first equation can be explicitly written as:
[tex]U_1^{'}(x)=c(f_1(x)-U_1(f_1 U_1+f_2 U_2+f_3 U_3))[/tex]
As for the unknows, that doesn't mean you can't formulate a general solution. consider the equation:
[tex]U_i^{'}(x)=f_iU_i(x)[/tex] (no summation)
whose solution is:
[tex]U_i(x)=\exp{\left(\int_0^x f_i(t)dt\right)}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
I think if we knew something more about the U's or the f's it may be possible to get somewhere, otherwise I wouldn't know where to begin.

Is there anything more to know?
 
I wasn't sure what kind of summation notation you were using, but after playing with it for a few minutes I was able to move the u1's and f1's to one side, so if you really need that analytical solution I would guess that its there, as you could wirte

G(f1,u1,u1')=-F2u2-F3u3
G(f2,u2,u2')=-F1u1-F3u3
G(f3,u3,u3')=-F1u1-F2u2
(note I used the same G as it would be the same separation procedure)
which can then be written as the matrix equation

G=FU
then you might be able to play with it some more to get the G's and u's together in order to make 3 first orderdifferential equations, but I don't know, but you would have to assume that det(F) does not equal 0.

hmm one thing I do notice there though is that if G=(FU)^t than it would become three ordinary differential equations in 1 variable. does anybody know of an identity that will let you do that?

if you do come up with a general solution post it, i'd love to see it. also out of curiosity what's it for?

EDIT:edited for reasons of gross inaccuracy
 
Last edited:
You are right Matthew the f's and u's have some very neat properties which I left out because a lot of mathematicians are not familiar with the Minkovsky product which is the appropriate product for unified space time. Let's denote it by star, such that:
[tex]\vec{f}(x)\star\vec{g}(x)=f_1g_1-f_2g_2-f_3g_3[/tex]
Note the diffrence in sign because this is Minkovsky space not Euclidian space. So in fact in my original equation you should replace Euclidiean product [tex]\vec{U}(x)\cdot\vec{f}(x)[/tex] with [tex]\vec{U}(x)\star\vec{f}(x)[/tex]. This of course doesn't really shed more light on the problem, however The U's are unit vectors under the Minkovsky product and the f's are null vectors. Namely:
[tex]\vec{U}(x)\star\vec{U}(x)=1[/tex]
[tex]\vec{f}(x)\star\vec{f}(x)=0[/tex]
Note that for Euclidian vectors null vectors are always trivial, because a zero norm implies that the vector is the zero vector. This is not true for Minkovsky space vectors, that can be non trivial if they have a zero norm under the Minkovsky product.

Luke: These equations are related to the dynamics of confined quarks within mesons or Baryons.
 
Last edited:
hmm well i you ha the other function, and the initial conditions you could use a lplace or Fourier transform to get the answer, but /i do't think you'll be able to form a general solution
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K