How do I Find the Dispersion Relation for a PDE?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on finding the dispersion relation for a partial differential equation (PDE) given by the equation \(\imath\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}=0\). Participants explore various approaches to derive the dispersion relation, including the use of Fourier transforms and integral representations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the PDE and attempts to derive the dispersion relation, expressing uncertainty about the next steps after substituting the Fourier transform into the equation.
  • Another participant suggests a simpler approach, indicating that the dispersion relation can be directly derived as \(w = k^2\) based on a reference book.
  • A different participant provides a method involving differentiation of the integral representation of \(u\) to derive the dispersion relation, emphasizing the need to insert these derivatives back into the original equation.
  • One participant questions the presence of "dk" in the context, seeking clarification on its role in the derivation process.
  • Another participant reiterates the approach of integrating over all possible wavenumbers \(k\) and states that the integral must equal zero for the dispersion relation to hold, leading to the conclusion that the integrand must be zero.
  • A later reply expresses understanding after receiving clarification on the integration process and its implications for finding the dispersion relation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the complexity of the problem and the methods to derive the dispersion relation. While some suggest a straightforward approach leading to \(w = k^2\), others propose more detailed steps involving integration and differentiation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the most effective method to derive the dispersion relation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants indicate uncertainty about the steps involved in the derivation, and there are varying interpretations of the role of the Fourier transform and the integral representation in finding the dispersion relation.

autobot.d
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
[itex]\imath\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}=0[/itex]

[itex]\left(x,t\right) = \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}A\left(k\right)e^{\imath\left(kx-wt\right)}dk[/itex]

[itex]u\left(x,0\right)=\delta\left(x\right)[/itex]

This is what I am working with. I am supposed to find the dispersion relation. So far I have gotten


[itex]A\left(k\right) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}\delta\left(x\right)e^{-\imath\left(kx\right)}dx = \frac{1}{2\pi}[/itex]

plugging this into u(x,t) do I work with


[itex]u\left(x,t\right) =\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}e^{\imath\left(kx-wt\right)}dk[/itex]

This is where I am stuck. I know w(k) is the dispersion relation. If I put in the pde do I just deal with

[itex]\imath \left(-\imath w\right) + \frac{d^{2}u}{dt^{2}} = w +\frac{d^{2}u}{dt^{2}}=0[/itex]

not sure how to pull out the dispersion equation or if I am even going the right route. Any clues on how to proceed would be most appreciated. Solving this equation does not seem to get me to where I want to be. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Am I making this too hard on myself. I just saw a similar problem and according to this book I should just get

[itex]w-k^2=0\Rightarrow w=k^2[/itex]

I figured this out I believe.
 
Last edited:
You have:
[tex] i\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial^{2}u}{\partial x^{2}}dk[/tex]
Write:
[tex] u=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}A(k)e^{i(kx-\omega (k)t)}[/tex]
So we just differentiate!
[tex] \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}(-i\omega (k))A(k)e^{i(kx-\omega (k)t)}dk,\quad\frac{\partial^{2}u}{\partial x^{2}}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}A(k)(-k^{2})e^{i(kx-\omega (k)t)}dk[/tex]
Insert the above into your equation to obtain the dispersion relation.
 
Is that dk a typo? Not sure what it is there for.

My professor said to just use

[itex]\phi\left(x,t\right)=A\left(k\right)e^\left(i\left(kx-wt\right)\right)[/itex]

to find the dispersion relation, therefore leaving me with

[itex]w=k^2[/itex]

and that the integral is just the "sum" of all the solutions.

Thanks for the help!
 
You have to integrate over all possible wavenumbers k, so when do the substitution as I suggested you can get everything to one side as:
[tex] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}(\omega (k)-k^{2})A(k)e^{i(kx-\omega (k)t)}dk=0[/tex]
The only way for this integral to be zero of if the integrand is zero and hence you have your dispersion relation.
 
Ahhhh...makes sense now. Thank you for the clarification.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K