Green's function for 2-D Laplacian within square/rectangular boundary

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Green's functions for the 2-D Laplacian within rectangular boundaries, specifically under Dirichlet boundary conditions. Participants explore the formulation, mathematical representation, and computational implementation of these functions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference the generic 2-D Green's function for the Laplacian and propose visualizing it as a tilted pyramid with logarithmically changing height.
  • Others suggest using an eigenfunction expansion where the eigenfunctions satisfy the Laplacian equation and are zero on the boundary, leading to a series solution involving orthogonal trigonometric functions.
  • A participant describes how to derive the Green's function by setting the source term as a Dirac delta function and demonstrates the summation of eigenfunctions to obtain the solution.
  • One participant shares their Mathematica code for computing the Green's function and expresses uncertainty about the correspondence of symbols in their output to those discussed in the thread.
  • Another participant advises against using certain symbols (m and n) as real-valued quantities, suggesting they are conventionally used as integers, and discusses the implications of sign differences in the derived expressions.
  • A later reply raises a question about the workflow for determining the Green's function, inquiring whether Fourier analysis is used to find the Green's function or if it is derived by other means before applying Fourier analysis for time evolution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of symbols in mathematical expressions and the conventions used in their representation. There is no consensus on the best approach to derive the Green's function or the role of Fourier analysis in this context.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential confusion arising from the use of symbols and the dependence on specific boundary conditions and definitions of eigenfunctions. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps involved in deriving the Green's function.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and researchers interested in mathematical physics, particularly those working with partial differential equations and boundary value problems in two dimensions.

Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
786
From the table of Green functions on Wikipedia we can get the generic 2-D Green's function for the Laplacian operator. But how would one apply boundary conditions like u = 0 along a rectangular boundary? Would we visualize a sort of rectangle-based, tilted pyramid, with logarithmically changing height, with its apex located at our Dirac driving point?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Generally in that case one would look for an eigenfunction expansion, with the eigenfunctions satisfying <br /> \nabla^2 \phi_{nm} = \lambda_{nm}\phi_{nm} subject to \phi_{nm} = 0 on the boundary. These turn out to be products of trigonometric functions which are orthogonal with respect to the inner product <br /> \langle f, g \rangle = \int \int f(x,y)g(x,y)\,dx\,dy and the solution of \nabla^2 u = f is u = \sum_{n,m} a_{nm} \phi_{nm} where <br /> \lambda_{nm}a_{nm}\|\phi_{nm}\|^2 = \langle f, \phi_{nm} \rangle.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Swamp Thing
By setting f(x,y) = \delta(x - s)\delta(y - t) we can recover the Green's function <br /> G(x,y;s,t) = \sum_{n,m} \frac{\phi_{nm}(s,t)\phi_{nm}(x,y)}{\lambda_{nm}\|\phi_{nm}\|^2}. and indeed <br /> u(x,y) = \iint_A G(x,y;s,t)f(s,t)\,ds\,dt = \sum_{n,m} \frac{\langle f, \phi_{nm}\rangle}{\lambda_{nm}\|\phi_{nm}\|^2} by swapping summation and integration.
 
Thanks for the help!

I am new to this, so maybe this is a silly question...

I am trying this in Mathematica:
Code:
X = 10; Y = 10;
gf = GreenFunction[{-Laplacian[u[x, y], {x, y}],
   DirichletCondition[u[x, y] == 0, True]},
  u[x, y], {x, y} \[Element] Rectangle[{0, 0}, {X, Y}], {m, n}]
Plot3D[gf /. {m -> 0.7 X, n -> 0.3 Y} /. {\[Infinity] -> 50} //
   Activate // Evaluate, {x, 0, X}, {y, 0, Y}, PlotRange -> All]

Which gives this expression for the Green Function:
$$
\frac{1}{25} \underset{K[1]=1}{\overset{\infty }{\sum }}\underset{K[2]=1}{\overset{\infty }{\sum }}\frac{\sin \left(\frac{1}{10} m \pi K[1]\right) \sin \left(\frac{1}{10} \pi x K[1]\right) \sin \left(\frac{1}{10} n \pi K[2]\right) \sin \left(\frac{1}{10} \pi y K[2]\right)}{\frac{1}{100} \pi ^2 K[1]^2+\frac{1}{100} \pi ^2 K[2]^2}
$$

I am not sure about which symbols in Mathematica's formula correspond to which ones in your post. I am guessing, for example, that your m's and n's correspond to the K[1] and K[2] in the above formula? I have figured out that the m and n in the above correspond to the coordinates of the point excitation (Dirac function) but I am not sure of some of the other symbols in your post.
 
Last edited:
It's best not to use m and n as real-valued quanties; by convention they are used as integer variables and doing otherwise will confuse people.

For your particular boundary conditions, the eigenfunctions are <br /> \phi_{nm}(x,y) = \sin\left(\frac{n\pi x}{10}\right)\sin\left(\frac{m\pi y}{10}\right) which has \|\phi_{nm}\| = 5 and the corresponding eigenvalues are <br /> \lambda_{nm} = -\frac{\pi^2(n^2 + m^2)}{100}. The result given by Mathematica differs by a sign compared to mine, but that is explained by you asking it to solve -\nabla^2 u = \delta(x - x_0) rather than \nabla^2 \phi = \delta(x - x_0).
 
Yes, I think I better change the m and n to something else, like ##(x_d,y_d)## as a mnemonic that it's where the Dirac delta is located. The code I posted is from the examples in the Wolfram help page for GreenFunction.

Quick question about the usual workflow when doing this kind of problem from first principles: does the Fourier analysis help to determine the Green's function, OR, is the G.F. found by other means, after which you Fourier-analyze it in order to then get the time evolution?

Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K