Greens functions inspection method

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter center o bass
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Method
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the application of Green's functions and Fourier transforms to solve differential equations in physics, particularly Poisson's equation in electromagnetism. The method involves using the Green's function to derive the electrostatic potential, leading to the equation G = -1/(4π|r - r'|). A challenge arises when attempting to apply this method to one-dimensional equations, where the integration leads to an imaginary Green's function. The resolution of this issue is explored through contour integration, ultimately yielding the correct Green's function G(x,x') = sin(x - x')/2.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Green's functions in differential equations
  • Familiarity with Fourier transforms and delta functions
  • Knowledge of contour integration techniques
  • Basic principles of electromagnetism, specifically Poisson's equation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Green's functions in various differential equations
  • Learn advanced contour integration methods and the residue theorem
  • Explore the implications of singularities in Green's functions
  • Investigate the differences between solutions in higher dimensions versus one-dimensional cases
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers dealing with differential equations, particularly those interested in electromagnetism and mathematical methods for solving boundary value problems.

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
Hi! A nice method for solving differential equations that occur in physics utilize greens functions as well as the Fourier transform of the delta function to solve them partially by inspection. For example in electromagnetism Poisson's equation reads
\nabla^2 \phi = - \rho/\varepsilon_0
which can be solved by using the greens function
\nabla^2 G(\vec r,\vec r') = \delta(\vec r-\vec r') = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \int e^{\vec k \cdot(\vec r-\vec r')}d^3\vec k
where the right hand side is the Fourier integral of the 3 dimensional delta function (integration is understood to be over all space). Now if we inspect the equation above one sees that
G(\vec r,\vec r') = -\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \int \frac{e^{\vec k \cdot(\vec r-\vec r')}}{k^2}d^3\vec k
satisfies it. This is the 'inspection step'.
Now by performing the integration one gets
G = - \frac{ 1}{4\pi |\vec r - \vec r'|}
and by substituting back into
\phi = \int G(\vec r, \vec r') (\frac{-\rho(\vec r')}{\varepsilon_0}) d^3\vec r' = \frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon_0 }\int \frac{\rho(\vec r')}{|\vec r - \vec r'|} d^3\vec r'
one get the correct equation for the electrostatic potential. These kind of arguments inspired me to try the same thing out for one dimensional equations like for example

(\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + 1)f(x) = \frac{1}{sin(x)}
Using the same procedure
(\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + 1)G(x,x') = \delta(x-x')= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int e^{ik(x-x')}dk
inspection indicates that
G(x,x') = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int\frac{ e^{ik(x-x')}}{1-k^2}dk
But solving this equation by complex contour integration I get an imaginary greens function which is nonsense.

Specifically I did it like
G(x,x') = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int\frac{ e^{ik(x-x')}}{1-k^2}dk = \frac{1}{2\pi (x-x')} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{e^{iy}}{1-(\frac{y}{x-x'})^2}dy = \frac{2 \pi (x-x')}2\pi i = \frac{i}{x-x'}
which would give a solution
f(x) = i \int \frac{1}{x-x'} \frac{1}{\sin x'} dx'

I see that we get some problems above with divergences when x=x', however I do not see that we do _not_ get these problems in the higher dimensional examples.

So the question is if it's something special with my electromagnetic example above or numerous other examples (from physics) which allows them to be solved by this method? And what is it about the one dimensional example above which does not allow it to be solved by this method?

Is there some way that allows it to be solved?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
center o bass;3971199 [tex said:
G(x,x') = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int\frac{ e^{ik(x-x')}}{1-k^2}dk[/tex]
But solving this equation by complex contour integration I get an imaginary greens function which is nonsense.

Up until this point you are fine. It is in the contour integration that you made a mistake. I did it this way: define f(k)=\frac{ e^{ik(x-x')}}{2\pi(1-k^2)} and consider
\int_\gamma dk \, f(k)
where \gamma has several parts: 1) goes along the real axis from -R to -1-\epsilon_1, 2) is a ccw semicircle of radius \epsilon_1 about k=-1, 3) along the real axis from -1+\epsilon_1 to 1-\epsilon_2, 4) a ccw semicircle of radius \epsilon_2 about k=1, 5) along the real axis from 1+\epsilon_2 to R, and 6) is a ccw semicircle of radius R. Take limit as R\rightarrow\infty, \, \epsilon_1\rightarrow 0,\epsilon_2\rightarrow 0 and use residue theorem. I end up with,
G(x,x') = \frac{\sin( x' - x)}{2}

I may have made a mistake, but at least this may help.

jason
 
jasonRF said:
Up until this point you are fine. It is in the contour integration that you made a mistake. I did it this way: define f(k)=\frac{ e^{ik(x-x')}}{2\pi(1-k^2)} and consider
\int_\gamma dk \, f(k)
where \gamma has several parts: 1) goes along the real axis from -R to -1-\epsilon_1, 2) is a ccw semicircle of radius \epsilon_1 about k=-1, 3) along the real axis from -1+\epsilon_1 to 1-\epsilon_2, 4) a ccw semicircle of radius \epsilon_2 about k=1, 5) along the real axis from 1+\epsilon_2 to R, and 6) is a ccw semicircle of radius R. Take limit as R\rightarrow\infty, \, \epsilon_1\rightarrow 0,\epsilon_2\rightarrow 0 and use residue theorem. I end up with,
G(x,x') = \frac{\sin( x' - x)}{2}

I may have made a mistake, but at least this may help.

jason

Thank you Jason. I checked it up and it turned out that the answer was sin(x-x'). I then get an answer

f(x) = \int_a^b \frac{\sin(x-x')}{\sin x'} dx' = \left[\sin x \ln(\sin x') - \cos x x'\right]_a^b

if I now chose a = x then this produces the correct answer. However I am unsure of an argument on how to choose the suitable integration limits. The method seem to produce correct special solutions, but not without somehow setting x=x'.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K