Green's Function: Understanding Laplace's 2nd Identity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Green's second identity and its implications in the context of Laplace's equation, specifically focusing on the derivation and interpretation of related equations, including the free-space Green's function. Participants explore the mathematical intricacies and conditions under which certain terms arise, particularly the factors of 1 and 1/2 in the equations presented.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents Green's second identity and expresses confusion regarding the appearance of the factors of 1 and 1/2 in the context of the equations derived from it.
  • Another participant notes that while \(\alpha\) is harmonic in \(V\), the Green's function \(g\) is not harmonic at the point \((x^*, y^*)\), suggesting the need for a limiting process involving a small ball around this point.
  • A participant proposes that the factor of 1/2 arises when \((x^*, y^*)\) is on the boundary, leading to a different interpretation of the integral around the boundary curve.
  • Several participants express uncertainty regarding the derivation of equation (10.8) from (10.7) and the role of the factor \(r\) in the equations.
  • One participant attempts to derive the equations but struggles with eliminating certain terms and understanding the implications of the logarithmic behavior as \(\epsilon\) approaches zero.
  • Another participant suggests that the equations can be derived using Green's theorem and emphasizes that the factor \(r\) should be on the right side of the equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the placement of the factor \(r\) in the equations or the derivation of (10.8) from (10.7). There are multiple competing views regarding the interpretation of the integrals and the conditions under which they hold.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their calculations, particularly in handling the boundary conditions and the behavior of logarithmic terms as \(\epsilon\) approaches zero. There is also a noted dependence on the definitions of harmonic functions and the conditions of the domain.

rsq_a
Messages
103
Reaction score
1
This appears on the bottom of p.279 of this book.

The author begins with Green's second identity:
[tex] \int_V \alpha \nabla^2 \beta - \beta \nabla^2 \alpha \ dV = <br /> \int_C \left( \alpha \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial n} - \beta \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial n} \right) \ ds[/tex]

Here, C is a closed curve, s is the arc length for C and n is the outward unit normal. We then let [itex]\alpha[/itex] satisfy Laplace's equation and let [itex]g = 1/(4\pi)\log [(x-x^*)^2 + (y-y^*)^2][/itex], i.e. the free-space Green's function. Then he gets

[tex] \alpha(x^*, y^*) = r\int_C \left( \alpha \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial n} - \beta \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial n} \right) \ ds,[/tex]

where r = 1 if (x*,y*) is inside C, but r = 1/2 if (x*, y*) is on C.

I'm confused at this point. I thought that
[tex] \int_V \alpha \nabla^2 \beta - \beta \nabla^2 \alpha \ dV = <br /> \int_V \alpha \delta((x,y) - (x^*, y^*)) \ dV = \alpha(x^*, y^*)[/tex]

Where is the factor of 1/2 or 1 coming in?

Moreover, the next equation, the factor of r = 1/2 has switched to the left-hand-side. I can't figure out how this is done (but perhaps if someone firsts helps me understand the above, this will be clear).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[tex]\alpha[/tex] is harmonic in V,but [tex]g[/tex] is harmonic in V except in [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex],so (10.7)doesn't exist for [tex]g[/tex].

if [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex] is inside C,we need to construct a ball [tex]B_\eplson[/tex] to cover [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex],and the formula is wright for [tex]\int_{C \cup C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds = 0[/tex],you can get the formula (10.8) from this.You need to do it yourself when the point is on C
 
[tex]C_\epsilon[/tex] is the boundary curve of B_\epsilon,you need to take limit for epsilon
 
kakarotyjn said:
[tex]\alpha[/tex] is harmonic in V,but [tex]g[/tex] is harmonic in V except in [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex],so (10.7)doesn't exist for [tex]g[/tex].

if [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex] is inside C,we need to construct a ball [tex]B_\eplson[/tex] to cover [tex](x^*,y^*)[/tex],and the formula is wright for [tex]\int_{C \cup C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds = 0[/tex],you can get the formula (10.8) from this.You need to do it yourself when the point is on C

Ah, I see. Can you verify that the formula (10.7) is indeed right, and the 'r' is supposed to be on the right-hand side?

I think it's supposed to be on the LHS. Then the 1/2 factor on the LHS of (10.9) would make sense.

I reason that for the case that (x*, y*) is inside C,
[tex]0 = \int_{C \cup C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds = \int_{C} {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds -\alpha(x^*, y^*)[/tex]

because you end up with going around an entire circle for [itex]C_\epsilon[/itex], but if (x*, y*) is on the boundary, then
[tex]0 = \int_{C \cup C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds = \int_{C} {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \;ds - \frac{1}{2}\alpha(x^*, y^*)[/tex]

where the factor of 1/2 results from only going around half a circle.
 
I'm sorry I don't know how to derive (10.8) from (10.7),(10.7) is right,but my calculation don't get (10.8).
this is my calculation:

[tex] \left. {\frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}}} \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = \left. { - \frac{1}{{2\pi r}}} \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = - \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
[tex]\left. g \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
so [tex]\int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = - \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}\int_{C_\varepsilon } \alpha \:ds - \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon \int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = - \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
then [tex] \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}\int_{C_\varepsilon } \alpha \:ds + \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon \int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds[/tex],
but I don't know how to eliminate the second term,and I also don't know where does the r come from.

Sorry
 
Last edited:
kakarotyjn said:
I'm sorry I don't know how to derive (10.8) from (10.7),(10.7) is right,but my calculation don't get (10.8).
this is my calculation:

[tex] \left. {\frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}}} \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = \left. { - \frac{1}{{2\pi r}}} \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = - \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
[tex]\left. g \right|_{C_\varepsilon } = \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
so [tex]\int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = - \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}\int_{C_\varepsilon } \alpha \:ds - \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon \int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = - \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds[/tex],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
then [tex] \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}\int_{C_\varepsilon } \alpha \:ds + \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\ln \varepsilon \int_{C_\varepsilon } {\left( {\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds = \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds[/tex],
but I don't know how to eliminate the second term,and I also don't know where does the r come from.

Sorry

The second term ends up being lower-order than the first as [itex]\epsilon \to 0[\itex] (you'll get epsilon*log(epsilon)). And thus we are left with <br /> <br /> [tex] \frac{1}{{2\pi \varepsilon }}\int_{C_\varepsilon } \alpha \:ds = \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial g}}{{\partial n}} - g\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} \:ds[/tex]<br /> <br /> The LHS will either give you [itex]alpha[/itex] (not on the boundary) or [itex]\alpha/2[/itex] (on the boundary). I'm not sure how that gives you (10.7). As I said in my post above, I think the 'r' should be on the other side in the formula.[/itex]
 
we can get this equation [tex] \int_V {\alpha \nabla ^2 \beta } dV + \int_V {\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial x}}\frac{{\partial \beta }}{{\partial x}}} + \frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial y}}\frac{{\partial \beta }}{{\partial y}}dV = \int_C {\left( {\alpha \frac{{\partial \beta }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} ds[/tex]by Green Theorem,the same one[tex]\int_V {\beta \nabla ^2 \alpha } dV + \int_V {\frac{{\partial \beta }}{{\partial x}}\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial x}}} + \frac{{\partial \beta }}{{\partial y}}\frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial y}}dV = \int_C {\left( {\beta \frac{{\partial \alpha }}{{\partial n}}} \right)} ds[/tex],then you can ge (10.7) by subtracting the first one from the second one.

and the r is on the right side,not left.But I can't see clear of your last post,the formula can't be displayed well.

How can we eliminate the second term?when eplison tends to 0,ln(eplison) tend to be minus infinity...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
950
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K