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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JustinLevy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uniqueness
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the uniqueness of solutions to Maxwell's equations in a vacuum under specific boundary conditions. The user proposes that the trivial solution (E=0, B=0) is not the only solution and presents an alternative solution using cylindrical coordinates. They define an electric field E that has no divergence at time t=0 and explore the implications for the magnetic field B over time. The conversation highlights the need for a non-analytic function f(r) to satisfy the boundary conditions, raising questions about the implications of this choice on the uniqueness of the solution.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Maxwell's equations in vacuum
  • Knowledge of differential equations and their applications in physics
  • Familiarity with boundary value problems
  • Basic concepts of cylindrical coordinates in vector calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the uniqueness theorem for solutions of partial differential equations
  • Explore the implications of non-analytic functions in boundary value problems
  • Learn about divergence-free vector fields and their properties
  • Investigate the role of boundary conditions in electromagnetic theory
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and engineering students interested in electromagnetic theory, particularly those studying boundary value problems and the uniqueness of solutions in differential equations.

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