First order linearized Euler's equation for a small perturbation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the first order linearization of Euler's equation for small perturbations in a cosmological context, specifically involving the scale factor and Hubble parameter. Participants are examining how to properly apply linearization techniques to the equations governing fluid dynamics in an expanding universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the process of linearizing the Euler equation, questioning the treatment of terms such as the scale factor and the pressure force. There are inquiries about the proper handling of coordinates and the implications of fixed versus varying parameters in the equations.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications on the relationships between proper and comoving coordinates, while others are exploring the implications of their linearization attempts. There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions made during the linearization process, particularly regarding the treatment of density and pressure terms.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working within the constraints of a homework problem that requires a first order linearization, which may limit the types of terms that can be included in their equations. There is also a focus on ensuring that only first order terms are retained in the final expressions.

happyparticle
Messages
490
Reaction score
24
Homework Statement
First order linearized Euler's equation for a small perturbation
Relevant Equations
##mna (\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \frac{\vec{v}}{a} \cdot \nabla ) \vec{u} = - \nabla P - mn \nabla \phi##
I'm trying to linearize (first order) the Euler's equation for a small perturbation ##\delta##

Starting with ##mna (\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \frac{\vec{v}}{a} \cdot \nabla ) \vec{u} = - \nabla P - mn \nabla \phi## (1)

##\vec{u} = aH\vec{x(t)} + \vec{v(x,t)}##
Where a is the scale factor and H the Hubble parameter.

Also,
##n = \bar{n}(t) (1 + \delta(\vec{x},t))## (2)
## P(\vec{x},t) = \bar{P}{t} + \delta P(\vec{x},t)## (3)
## \phi(\vec{x},t) = \bar{\phi}{t} + \delta \phi(\vec{x},t)## (4)

Plugging (2), (3), and (4) in (1) and after some algebra, I got:

##m \bar{n} a \dot{a} \vec{v} + m \bar{n} a \dot{\vec{v}} + m \bar{n} a H \vec{v} + m \bar{n} \delta a \dot{a} \vec{v} + m \bar{n} \delta a \dot{ \vec{v}} + m \bar{n} \delta a H \vec{v} = - \nabla \delta P - m \bar{n} \nabla \delta \phi - m \bar{n} \delta \nabla \delta \phi ##

The correct answer should be:

##m \bar{n} a (\dot{\vec{v}} + H \vec{v}) = - \nabla \delta P - m \bar{n} \nabla \delta \phi##

Thus, I'm wondering if, for example, this part ##a \dot{a}## is a second order one?

I'm not totally sure how to linearize an equation.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
These can be fiddly. The first thing to get clear is the distinction between the proper coordinates ##\mathbf{r}## and comoving coordinates ##\mathbf{x}##, with ##\mathbf{r} = a \mathbf{x}##. This implies two important relationships:
\begin{align*}
\nabla_{\mathbf{r}} &= a^{-1} \nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \\ \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \bigg{|}_{\mathbf{r}} &=\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \bigg{|}_{\mathbf{x}} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{x}}{\partial t} \bigg{|}_{\mathbf{r}} \cdot \nabla_{\mathbf{x}} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \bigg{|}_{\mathbf{x}} - H \mathbf{x} \cdot \nabla_{\mathbf{x}}
\end{align*}The Euler equation in its usual form -- expressed in terms of ##\nabla_{\mathbf{r}}## and ##(\partial/\partial t)\big{|}_{\mathbf{r}}## -- is the following:$$\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \bigg{|}_{\mathbf{r}} + \mathbf{u} \cdot \nabla_{\mathbf{r}} \right) \mathbf{u} = - \frac{1}{m\bar{n}} \nabla_{\mathbf{r}} P - \nabla_{\mathbf{r}} \phi$$You can plug in your linearisations ##P = \bar{P} + \delta P, \ \mathbf{u} = H \mathbf{r} + \mathbf{v}, \ \phi = \bar{\phi} + \delta \phi##. After subtracting off the zero order equation, check that you obtain:$$\frac{\partial \mathbf{v}}{\partial t} \bigg{|}_{\mathbf{r}} + (H\mathbf{r} \cdot \nabla_{\mathbf{r}}) \mathbf{v} + (\mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla_{\mathbf{r}}) H\mathbf{r} = - \frac{1}{m\bar{n}} \nabla_{\mathbf{r}} P - \nabla_{\mathbf{r}} \phi$$Can you re-write this equation in terms of ##\nabla_{\mathbf{x}}## and ##(\partial/\partial t)\big{|}_{\mathbf{x}}## using the previous expressions? That should give you your answer (after dropping the subscript ##\nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \equiv \nabla## and ##(\partial/\partial t)\big{|}_{\mathbf{x}} \equiv \partial/\partial t##).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: happyparticle
Thank you!
It works. I understand why it didn't work.

First, I had replaced ##n## with ##\bar{n}(1+\delta)##. I would like to know why you replaced ##n## with ##\bar{n}##.

Moreover, it seems like you put ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t} H\vec{r} = 0##. I'm not sure understand why.
 
Last edited:
It's true that ##n = \bar{n}(1+\delta)## but the linearization of the pressure force is ##\frac{1}{\bar{n}} \nabla_{\mathbf{r}} \delta P##

It's not true that ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \big{|}_{\mathrm{r}} (H \mathbf{r}) = 0## -- instead, this term is part of the 0th order equation. So it is killed when you subtract that off.
 
Maybe I don't understand, but there is no other similar term to subtract with. Also, does ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \big{|}_{\mathrm{r}} ## means r fixed? So we consider r as a constant?
 
The zeroth order equation (i.e. with no perturbations) is:
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \bigg{|}_{\mathbf{r}} (H\mathbf{r}) + H\mathbf{r} \cdot \nabla_{\mathbf{r}} (H\mathbf{r}) = - \frac{1}{m\bar{n}} \nabla_{\mathbf{r}} \bar{P} -\nabla_{\mathbf{r}} \bar{\phi}$$
When you plug in the linearisations, e.g. ##H\mathbf{r} \rightarrow H\mathbf{r} + \mathbf{v}##, etc., you get something like$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\bigg{|}_{\mathbf{r}}(H\mathbf{r} + \mathbf{v}) \quad + \quad (\dots) \quad = \quad (\dots) \quad$$where I haven't typed out all the other terms. You get the first order linearization of the equations by subtracting the zeroth order equation (and also keeping only terms that are no higher than first order). The ##(\partial/\partial t)\big{|}_{\mathbf{r}}(H\mathbf{r})##'s cancel and you are left with only ##(\partial \mathbf{v}/\partial t) \big{|}_{\mathbf{r}}##

For the second question, yes, the ##\big{|}_{\mathbf{r}}## notation is the standard partial derivative notation of keep that variable fixed in the differentiation. (I.e. in this case, you take the time derivative at fixed proper coordinates.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: happyparticle
Thanks a lot! Things are so much clearer now.
 
happyparticle said:
Homework Statement: First order linearized Euler's equation for a small perturbation
Relevant Equations: ##mna (\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \frac{\vec{v}}{a} \cdot \nabla ) \vec{u} = - \nabla P - mn \nabla \phi##

I'm trying to linearize (first order) the Euler's equation for a small perturbation ##\delta##

Starting with ##mna (\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \frac{\vec{v}}{a} \cdot \nabla ) \vec{u} = - \nabla P - mn \nabla \phi## (1)

##\vec{u} = aH\vec{x(t)} + \vec{v(x,t)}##
Where a is the scale factor and H the Hubble parameter.

Also,
##n = \bar{n}(t) (1 + \delta(\vec{x},t))## (2)
## P(\vec{x},t) = \bar{P}{t} + \delta P(\vec{x},t)## (3)
## \phi(\vec{x},t) = \bar{\phi}{t} + \delta \phi(\vec{x},t)## (4)

Plugging (2), (3), and (4) in (1) and after some algebra, I got:

##m \bar{n} a \dot{a} \vec{v} + m \bar{n} a \dot{\vec{v}} + m \bar{n} a H \vec{v} + m \bar{n} \delta a \dot{a} \vec{v} + m \bar{n} \delta a \dot{ \vec{v}} + m \bar{n} \delta a H \vec{v} = - \nabla \delta P - m \bar{n} \nabla \delta \phi - m \bar{n} \delta \nabla \delta \phi ##

The correct answer should be:

##m \bar{n} a (\dot{\vec{v}} + H \vec{v}) = - \nabla \delta P - m \bar{n} \nabla \delta \phi##

Thus, I'm wondering if, for example, this part ##a \dot{a}## is a second order one?

I'm not totally sure how to linearize an equation.
Drop the advective term and make density constant essentially to get:
\rho_{0}\frac{\partial\mathbf{u}}{\partial t}=-\nabla p-g\mathbf{k}
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K