Deriving the Solution for a PDE with Constants: What Method is Used?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ShayanJ
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of a solution for a partial differential equation (PDE) related to semiconductor physics, specifically the continuity equation for holes. Participants explore various methods for solving the PDE, particularly in the context of different values of the electric field (E) and the implications of the parameters involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the method used to derive the solution for the PDE, noting that separation of variables does not seem applicable.
  • Another participant suggests that the equation resembles the heat equation and implies that a clever substitution may be needed to connect the two.
  • A different participant proposes shifting the variable p to p-p0 to eliminate the inhomogeneous term and suggests using a Fourier transform, indicating that the derivation is similar to that of the heat kernel.
  • One participant mentions the context of the Haynes-Shockley experiment and describes the physical meaning of the terms in the equation, emphasizing the role of drift and diffusion currents.
  • There is a discussion about the challenges of performing an inverse Fourier transform, with one participant indicating they used an online tool to assist with this step.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various methods and approaches to solve the PDE, but there is no consensus on a single method or derivation. Some participants agree on the similarity to the heat equation, while others propose different techniques without resolving the overall method used.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the parameters involved, such as the implications of setting τ to infinity and the conditions under which E is zero. There are also unresolved steps in the derivation process, particularly regarding the transition from the heat equation to the given PDE.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
In a physics textbook I'm reading, the PDE ## \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}=-\mu E \frac{\partial p}{\partial x}+D \frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial x^2}-\frac{p-p_o}{\tau} ## is given where ## \mu, \ E, \ D, \ p_o ## and ## \tau ## are constants. It is then stated(yeah, just stated!) that the solution for E=0 is ## p(x,t)=\frac{N}{\sqrt{4 \pi D t}} \exp{\left( -\frac{x^2}{4 D t}-\frac{t}{\tau} \right)}+p_o## and that for nonzero E, the only change to the solution is ## x \rightarrow x-\mu E t ##. But I'm really wondering how did the author get this solution. Its obvious that he didn't use separation of variables. But I know no other method for solving it. What method is used?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The equation is similar to the heat equation, and the solution is similar to the fundamental solution to the heat equation. This solution to the heat equation is a well known results, and you can find multiple derivations on-line. The general idea is to note that the heat equation is invariant under the transform [itex]x'=ax[/itex] and [itex]t' =a^2 t[/itex]. This implies a solution of the form [itex]u(x,t) = u\left(x^2/t \right)[/itex].

It's not clear how to go from the heat equation to your equation. I suspect that there is a clever substitution.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
the_wolfman said:
The equation is similar to the heat equation, and the solution is similar to the fundamental solution to the heat equation. This solution to the heat equation is a well known results, and you can find multiple derivations on-line. The general idea is to note that the heat equation is invariant under the transform [itex]x'=ax[/itex] and [itex]t' =a^2 t[/itex]. This implies a solution of the form [itex]u(x,t) = u\left(x^2/t \right)[/itex].

It's not clear how to go from the heat equation to your equation. I suspect that there is a clever substitution.

But the solution I stated in the OP contains ## \frac{1}{\sqrt t} ## and ## t ##, not only ## \frac{x^2}{t} ##.
 
Do you understand the problem that was being solved for the case where E = 0, say with τ infinite?

Chet
 
Shift p to p-p0 (p nought) to get rid of the inhomogeneous term. (Doesn't affect the derivatives)
Then Fourier transform the equation, the derivation is similar to that of the heat kernel. Throw p0 to the other side and you get that expression.
Sorry for the informal language.

EDIT:I'm bad with LaTex so here's a photo of the first few steps. Just do the same trick with the heat kernel here and you're good.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0377.JPG
    IMG_0377.JPG
    44.4 KB · Views: 607
Last edited:
Chestermiller said:
Do you understand the problem that was being solved for the case where E = 0, say with τ infinite?

Chet
Its Haynes-Shockley experiment in semiconductor physics and the equation is basically the continuity equation for holes. The first two terms in the R.H.S. are the divergence of drift and diffusion current and the third term is the sink term corresponding to the recombination process. With ## \tau \to \infty ##, no recombination happens and with E=0, the peak of the hole distribution doesn't move.

HomogenousCow said:
Shift p to p-p0 (p nought) to get rid of the inhomogeneous term. (Doesn't affect the derivatives)
Then Fourier transform the equation, the derivation is similar to that of the heat kernel. Throw p0 to the other side and you get that expression.
Sorry for the informal language.

EDIT:I'm bad with LaTex so here's a photo of the first few steps. Just do the same trick with the heat kernel here and you're good.
Thanks man, that worked out nicely.
 
Shyan said:
Its Haynes-Shockley experiment in semiconductor physics and the equation is basically the continuity equation for holes. The first two terms in the R.H.S. are the divergence of drift and diffusion current and the third term is the sink term corresponding to the recombination process. With ## \tau \to \infty ##, no recombination happens and with E=0, the peak of the hole distribution doesn't move.Thanks man, that worked out nicely.

No prob. Did you have difficulty with the inverse Fourier transform
 
HomogenousCow said:
No prob. Did you have difficulty with the inverse Fourier transform
I'd have if I've done it myself, but I used wolframalpha.com!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K