MHB Greens function has me blue ....

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the derivation of the Green's function for the Helmholtz equation. The third term in the equation is identified as the 3D Fourier transform of the Dirac delta function, which is crucial for understanding the solution. The provided solution to the PDE is a general solution to the homogeneous equation, expressed as a 3D Fourier integral involving an arbitrary function of momentum. Clarification is sought regarding the difference in the Fourier integral's normalization compared to the standard form. Overall, the thread emphasizes the importance of recognizing the Fourier transform's role in solving the PDE.
ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
Not following this example (PDE for Greens function) in my book:

Book states: $ \left( {\nabla}^{2} +{k}^{2}\right)G(r, r_2)=-\delta(r-r_2) = -\int \frac{e^{ip.(r-r_2)}}{\left(2\pi\right)^3} {d}^{3}p$

I recognised this as the Hemlmholtz eqtn, but cannot find where the 3rd term comes from? It looks like it could be the 3D Fourier Transform representation of the dirac-delta function? (if so a link to, or a derivation would be nice)

Then they say they solve the PDE in terms of a Fourier Integral $ G(r, r_2)=\int \frac{1}{\left(2\pi\right)^3}g_0(p) e^{ip.(r-r_2)} d^3p $

I know the Fourier Integral in 3D is $F(k)=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \int f(r)e^{ik.r} \,d^3r $, (sqrt in denominator?) so I'm not sure what they are doing here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The third term in your example is indeed the 3D Fourier transform of the Dirac delta function. The 3D Fourier transform of a function $f(r)$ is given by $$\mathcal{F}[f(r)] = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \int f(r) e^{i k \cdot r} d^3 r$$where $k \cdot r = k_x x + k_y y + k_z z$. This expression can be thought of as a generalization of the 2D Fourier transform, which uses a square root in the denominator instead of a cube root.The solution to the PDE that they give is a general solution to the homogeneous equation $\left( {\nabla}^{2} +{k}^{2}\right)G(r, r_2)=0$, which can be written as$$G(r, r_2) = \int \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} g_0(p) e^{i p \cdot (r - r_2)} d^3 p.$$This is just the 3D Fourier transform of a function $g_0(p)$, which is some arbitrary function of momentum $p$.
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K