MHB Greens Function for Hemmholtz using Fourier

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the Green's function for the nonhomogeneous Helmholtz equation using Fourier transforms. The correct Green's function is given by the integral expression involving the wave vector and the Helmholtz parameter. The participant confirms their calculations, showing the steps taken to arrive at the solution. The final expression for the Green's function is validated as accurate. This exchange highlights the application of Fourier transforms in solving differential equations in mathematical physics.
ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
I've gotten myself mixed up here , appreciate some insights ...

Using Fourier Transforms, shows that Greens function satisfying the nonhomogeneous Helmholtz eqtn $ \left(\nabla ^2 +k_0^2 \right) G(\vec{r_1},\vec{r_2})= -\delta (\vec{r_1} -\vec{r_2}) $ is $ G(\vec{r_1},\vec{r_2})= \frac{1}{{2\pi}^{3}} \int \frac{e^{i\vec{k}.(\vec{r_1} -\vec{r_2})}}{k^2 - k_0^2} d^3k $

My attempt is: $ \left(\nabla ^2 +k_0^2 \right) G(\vec{r_1},\vec{r_2})= -\delta (\vec{r_1} -\vec{r_2}) $

Taking the Fourier Transform of the LHS, $F\left[ \nabla^2G+k_0^2 G \right] = (- k^2 +k_0^2) \hat{u} $
RHS: $F\left[ -\delta (\vec{r_1} -\vec{r_2}) \right] = - \int 1 e^{-i\vec{k}.(\vec{r_1} -\vec{r_2})} d^3r $

$ \therefore \hat{u} = \int \frac{1}{(k^2 - k_0^2)} e^{i\vec{k}.(\vec{r_1} -\vec{r_2})} d^3r = \frac{1}{ik(k^2 - k_0^2)} e^{i\vec{k}.(\vec{r_1} -\vec{r_2})}$

$ \therefore G(\vec{r_1},\vec{r_2})= F^{-1} \left[\frac{1}{ik(k^2 - k_0^2)} e^{i\vec{k}.(\vec{r_1} -\vec{r_2})} \right] = \frac{1}{{(2\pi)}^{3}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{1}{ik(k^2 - k_0^2)} e^{i\vec{k}.(\vec{r_1} -\vec{r_2})} e^{ik.r}d^3k$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
$= \frac{1}{{2\pi}^{3}} \int \frac{e^{i\vec{k}.(\vec{r_1} -\vec{r_2})}}{k^2 - k_0^2} d^3k $ Is this correct? Yes, your answer is correct.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
997
Replies
7
Views
2K