How to prove uniqueness (or non-uniqueness) of solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustinLevy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uniqueness
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the uniqueness of solutions to Maxwell's equations in a finite region with specific boundary conditions. The initial solution proposed is E=0 and B=0 everywhere, but alternative solutions are explored by defining an E field with no divergence at t=0 while keeping B=0. The participant demonstrates that the time evolution of the fields can be derived from Maxwell's equations, leading to a non-trivial solution that remains confined within the region. The challenge arises in ensuring that the function defining the E field is non-analytic, raising questions about the implications of this choice. Overall, the conversation delves into the complexities of uniqueness in solutions to differential equations in the context of electromagnetic theory.
JustinLevy
Messages
882
Reaction score
1
I've only learned differential equations for use in physics, and never took a rigorous math course on all their amazing features. So I'm hoping someone can teach me a bit here, in the context of this question:

Consider Maxwell's equations in vacuum, units don't matter here so I'll get rid of all constants:
\nabla \cdot \vec{E} = 0
\nabla \cdot \vec{B} = 0
\nabla \times \vec{E} = - \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \vec{B}
\nabla \times \vec{B} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \vec{E}

Now consider a finite region of space, with the boundary condition that the fields and their derivatives are zero on the boundary at time 0<=t<T. What solutions are there for the fields in the region during this time?

One obvious solution is: E=0, B=0 everywhere.

Is this question well posed enough to prove that this solution is unique?
If so, how? If not, what is missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Okay, I came up with another solution.

If we define, at t=0, an E field with no divergence, and let B=0. Then I can use Maxwell's equations to evolve the time dependence, right? So the problem is reduced to finding a finite volume E field with no divergence, which I don't see why that is a problem.

Using cylindrical coordinates, I can define:
\mathbf{E}(t_0) = \hat{\phi} f(r)g(z)
This field has no divergence.

Now looking at the time dependence
-\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} = -\hat{r} f(r) \frac{\partial}{\partial z}g(z) + \hat{z} \frac{1}{r} g(z) \frac{\partial}{\partial}[r f(r)]
So B will have r and z components. But these components only depend r and z. So the curl of B will only have
\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t} = \nabla \times \mathbf{B} = \hat{\phi}(\frac{\partial B_r}{\partial z}- \frac{\partial B_z}{\partial r})
So E will remain in the phi direction, and so on for all time.

This is true for any function f(r) and g(z). So I can just choose a solution initially confined enough that it doesn't have time to propagate to the boundary.

Does this look correct?
To do this I'd need f(r) to be non-analytic (since it needs to be identically zero for a region of r). Is that somehow a problem?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K