Can Non-linear Systems be Solved Analytically?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arnold4life
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Non-linear System
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the analytical and numerical solutions of a system of non-linear differential equations. Participants explore methods to estimate the distance between points in the solution where the derivative of beta is approximately zero and where beta reaches a peak. The conversation includes considerations of linearization and the use of numerical solvers like Mathematica.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a system of non-linear differential equations and seeks to use approximations to estimate distances related to the behavior of beta.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the constants used in the equations and suggests posting a plot for better understanding.
  • There are corrections made to the equations and constants by participants, indicating the complexity of accurately representing the system.
  • A participant mentions the similarity of the solution to the heat equation and discusses initial conditions for the numerical solution.
  • Some participants propose the use of linearization approximations, while others express uncertainty about the necessity of numerical methods.
  • A suggestion is made to use the Singular Perturbation method to analyze the stability of the system and derive insights about the peak distance.
  • One participant asserts that the solution to the system is a power law, indicating that the distance to the peak relies on specific constants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of numerical solutions versus analytical approximations. There is no consensus on the best approach to estimate the distance to the peak or the validity of the proposed methods.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the system and the potential for multiple solutions depending on the constants and initial conditions. There are unresolved aspects regarding the assumptions made in the proposed methods.

arnold4life
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I have numerically solved the system below:

dalpha/dx = -beta/(c_1)
dbeta/dx = -(c_2)*beta/(c_1)+(c_3)*gamma*dgamma/dx
dgamma/dx = (c_4)*[alpha^(c_5)]/c_2

where c_1, c_2, etc. are specified constants. If one plots beta as a function of x, there's a peak. I would like to use some approximations (perhaps linearization?) to get the distance between a region where dbeta/dx is approximately zero and where there is a peak in beta, after given an initial value of alpha, beta, and gamma where dbeta/dx ~ 0. Any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
arnold4life said:
Hello,

I have numerically solved the system below:

dalpha/dx = -beta/(c_1)
dbeta/dx = -(c_2)*beta/(c_1)+(c_3)*gamma*dgamma/dx
dgamma/dx = (c_4)*[alpha^(c_5)]/c_2

where c_1, c_2, etc. are specified constants. If one plots beta as a function of x, there's a peak. I would like to use some approximations (perhaps linearization?) to get the distance between a region where dbeta/dx is approximately zero and where there is a peak in beta, after given an initial value of alpha, beta, and gamma where dbeta/dx ~ 0. Any suggestions?

That's not clear. For starters, if you ran it and got a result, then you must have used numbers for the constants. Re-post the system with the actual values of the constants, nicely preferably like:

[tex] \begin{aligned}<br /> \frac{d\alpha}{dx}&=-\frac{\beta}{2.5}&\quad, \alpha(x_0)=\alpha_0 \\<br /> \frac{d\beta}{dx}&=-\frac{3.2 \beta}{1.4}+0.5 \gamma \frac{d\gamma}{dx}&\quad, \beta(x_0)=\beta_0 \\<br /> \frac{d\gamma}{dx}&=\frac{9.2 \alpha^{2.5}}{4}&\quad, \gamma(x_0)=\gamma_0<br /> \end{aligned}[/tex]

or whatever. Still though don't understand what you want. Maybe you could post a plot of beta showing what you wish to compute.
 
Last edited:
Ok, here's the system with constants. I made an error before too, for some reason the preview post is acting up with latex. Second equation should be multiplied by 0.89 in the last term. And the last equation below should have a gamma on the right hand side.

[tex] \frac{d\alpha}{dx}=-\frac{\beta}{1.0}[/tex]

[tex] \frac{d\beta}{dx}=-\frac{0.89 \beta}{1.0}+0.5\frac{d\gamma}{dx}0.89[/tex]

[tex] \frac{d\gamma}{dx}= \frac{0.1 \alpha^{8.0}}{0.89}\gamma[/tex]

For the plot of beta, the solution is very similar to that of the heat equation with the x=0 end fixed to zero and the other end fixed to some small value of beta say 0.003. So if I'm at the end where beta = 0.003, alpha = 0.505, gamma = 0.98 and dbeta/dx is approx. zero, how can I estimate the distance between this point and the point where beta is a maximum?
 
That came out correct.
 
ok. Thank you. Not sure I can run it in NDSolve in Mathematica tonight but give me some time if you're not in a hurry.
 
That would be great, thank you.
 
It might not require Mathematica if some type linearization approximation can be made, but I'm not completely sure.
 
arnold4life said:
Ok, here's the system with constants. I made an error before too, for some reason the preview post is acting up with latex. Second equation should be multiplied by 0.89 in the last term. And the last equation below should have a gamma on the right hand side.

[tex] \frac{d\alpha}{dx}=-\frac{\beta}{1.0}[/tex]

[tex] \frac{d\beta}{dx}=-\frac{0.89 \beta}{1.0}+0.5\frac{d\gamma}{dx}0.89[/tex]

[tex] \frac{d\gamma}{dx}= \frac{0.1 \alpha^{8.0}}{0.89}\gamma[/tex]

For the plot of beta, the solution is very similar to that of the heat equation with the x=0 end fixed to zero and the other end fixed to some small value of beta say 0.003. So if I'm at the end where beta = 0.003, alpha = 0.505, gamma = 0.98 and dbeta/dx is approx. zero, how can I estimate the distance between this point and the point where beta is a maximum?

Arnold, that's still not clear at all. You didn't give the initial conditions. Also, simplify the equations:

[tex] \begin{aligned}<br /> \frac{d\alpha}{dx}&=-\beta&\quad, \alpha(x_0)=\alpha_0 \\<br /> \frac{d\beta}{dx}&=-0.89 \beta+0.05 \alpha^8&\quad, \beta(x_0)=\beta_0 \\<br /> \frac{d\gamma}{dx}&=\frac{1}{8.9} \gamma \alpha^8&\quad, \gamma(x_0)=\gamma_0<br /> \end{aligned}[/tex]

And this part:

For the plot of beta, the solution is very similar to that of the heat equation with the x=0 end fixed to zero and the other end fixed to some small value of beta say 0.003. So if I'm at the end where beta = 0.003, alpha = 0.505, gamma = 0.98 and dbeta/dx is approx. zero, how can I estimate the distance between this point and the point where beta is a maximum?

is very unclear. The solution to the 1-D heat equation is a 2-D surface, beta(x) is a curve and when you say, "at the end where beta=0.003, alpha=0.505, gamma=0.98" is very misleading in terms of relating it to the heat equation and the last phrase is confusing as well. I don't wish to just give up on you though.

Here's what I did, I solved it via NDSolve with initial conditions alpha=0.505, beta=0.003, gamma=0.98, from x=0 to 10, then plotted beta. The plot below is what I got. How is that not what you want?

Code:
mysol = NDSolve[
   {Derivative[1][\[Alpha]][t] == -\[Beta][t], 
    Derivative[1][\[Beta]][t] == 
     -0.89*\[Beta][t] + 0.05*\[Alpha][t]^8, 
    Derivative[1][\[Gamma]][t] == 
     \[Gamma][t]*(\[Alpha][t]^8/8.9), 
    \[Alpha][0] == 0.505, \[Beta][0] == 0.003, 
    \[Gamma][0] == 0.98}, {\[Alpha], \[Beta], \[Gamma]}, 
   {t, 0, 10}]
myplot = Plot[Evaluate[\[Beta][t]] /. mysol, 
   {t, 0, 10}, PlotRange -> 
    {{0, 10}, {0, 0.003}}]\
 

Attachments

  • betaplot.jpg
    betaplot.jpg
    7.2 KB · Views: 444
It's better to leave in those constants separately instead of combining them. If I'm after an analytical solution, there's probably only a solution for certain parameters or constants. I've attached a plot of beta. At x=1000, beta = 0.0003 and dbeta/dx is appoximately zero. From here, how can I analytically find the distance between x=1000.0 and the peak as function of the initial conditions and initial constants.
 
  • #10
Hmm...didn't attach.
 

Attachments

  • #11
arnold4life said:
It's better to leave in those constants separately instead of combining them. If I'm after an analytical solution, there's probably only a solution for certain parameters or constants. I've attached a plot of beta. At x=1000, beta = 0.0003 and dbeta/dx is appoximately zero. From here, how can I analytically find the distance between x=1000.0 and the peak as function of the initial conditions and initial constants.

Assuming the equations as you've written them, what initial conditions are you using to generate that graph?
 
  • #12
beta (x=1000) = 0.000328129045, gamma = 0.965029518992, alpha = 0.527852167165
 
  • #13
There is a method called Singular Perturbation method where explicitly set [itex]\frac{d \beta}{dx}=0[/itex] and then replace the resulting numbers in the other equations. Then you analyze the stability of that system and compare it with the original system. That will give you an idea of the validity of this approximation. You can also set it to a nonzero number.

This is usually done in the systems where fast and slow dynamics are separated and fast dynamics are neglected, since if they are stable dynamics they saturate to the limit pretty fast as if they were constant in the first place. Actually that is how the simple DC motor model in engineering is derived from the original nonlinear model.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Thats a good suggestion, I look into it. The thing is, I know that the solution to this system is a power law, and that the distance to the peak only relies on the constants which are 0.89, 0.1, and alpha^8.0. I got this from the numerical solution, but getting something this simple analytically is proving to be difficult.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K