Classical field theory, initial and boundary conditions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the mathematical aspects of non-relativistic classical field theory, particularly the types of differential equations involved, such as heat and wave equations. Boundary conditions are defined for the function f at the boundary of a volume, leading to a general relationship that includes constants and a function h. An intuitive explanation is sought for how this relationship is derived, emphasizing the use of Taylor series reasoning to deduce values within the volume from boundary values. Additionally, the role of initial value conditions, specifically f(𝑟,0) and its derivative, is questioned. The relationship discussed is identified as a general 'Robin boundary condition.'
Coffee_
Messages
259
Reaction score
2
Hello, I am taking an introductory class on non relativistic classical field theory and right now we are doing the more mathematical aspect of things right now. The types of differential equations in the function ##f(\vec{r},t)## that are considered in this course are linear in the following components.

##f##

##\nabla^{2}f##

##\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}##

##\frac{\partial^{2} f}{\partial t^{2}}##

And some function ##g(\vec{r},t)##

Resulting in the heat and wave type of equations.

The boundary conditions were defined as the function ##f(\vec{R},t)## where ##\vec{R}## is bounded to the boundary of the volume that we consider the equation in at any time.

After some vague argument I don't quite understand we arrive at the following general relationship for the boundary function:

##a f(\vec{R},t) + b \vec{n}.\nabla{f}+ h(\vec{R},t) = 0 ##

Where ##\vec{n}## is the normal vector to the boundary sufrace, ##h(\vec{R},t)## is some function which we don't know the characteristics of yet and ##a## and ##b## are just constants.

Can anyone explain me intuitively how that relationship is deduced? I understand there's probably some difficult formal math behind this but the argument made in class was an intuitive one. It was based on the fact that if you know the values at the boundary you can deduce values at any point in the volume using some Taylor series type of reasoning. Anyway I'm hoping if someone could provide a similar argument. Thanks

Bonus: How do initial value conditions ##f(\vec{r},0)## and it's derivative come into play?
 
Coffee_ said:
Hello, I am taking an introductory class on non relativistic classical field theory and right now we are doing the more mathematical aspect of things right now. <snip>
After some vague argument I don't quite understand we arrive at the following general relationship for the boundary function:
##a f(\vec{R},t) + b \vec{n}.\nabla{f}+ h(\vec{R},t) = 0 ##
<snip>

It's just a general 'Robin boundary condition'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_boundary_condition
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top