Langevin equation - derivative of random force?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SchroedingersLion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative Force Random
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Langevin equation and the derivation of a solution for a particle's momentum in a stochastic system. Participants explore the implications of a random force and the mathematical techniques required to manipulate the equation, including the use of integrals and potential connections to Green's functions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a differential equation for momentum and seeks to derive a solution in the limit of infinite friction.
  • Another participant suggests using Green's functions to express the solution as an integral over the fluctuating force, cautioning against taking derivatives of stochastic forces.
  • A different participant questions the necessity of Green's functions, indicating that the exercise does not require rigorous proof.
  • One participant describes a method to derive the position equation from the momentum equation, expressing uncertainty about the treatment of the random force in the integral.
  • Another participant points out that the function F(r) is not specified, complicating the analysis.
  • Several participants discuss the application of Leibniz's integral rule to manipulate integrals involving the random force and the position equation.
  • One participant successfully resolves the issue by flipping the order of integration, while expressing confusion about the relevance of Leibniz's rule as a hint.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the necessity and applicability of Green's functions, with some preferring to avoid them due to a lack of coverage in their lectures. There is no consensus on the best approach to derive the equations, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the treatment of the random force.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding of stochastic calculus and the implications of the random force, indicating a reliance on assumptions that may not be fully justified. The discussion also reflects varying levels of familiarity with mathematical techniques relevant to the Langevin equation.

SchroedingersLion
Messages
211
Reaction score
56
TL;DR
calculation exercise, problems with Ito calculus?
Greetings,

I am struggling with an exercise to the Langevin equation.

Suppose we are given the following differential equation for a particle's 1D time-dependent momentum ##p(t)##:
$$\text{d}p = -\gamma p \text{d}t + F(r)\text{d}t + \sqrt{C\gamma}\text{d}W $$
with a constant ##C##, a position-dependent function ##F(r)##, a friction parameter ##\gamma## and a Wiener process ##W##.
Moreover:
$$ \text{d}r = \frac {p}{m}\text{d}t $$

I am interested in the solution in the limit ##\gamma \rightarrow \infty ##.

In a first step, I am to show that ##p(t)## is given by:
$$p(t)=p(0)e^{-\gamma t} + \int_0^t e^{-\gamma(t-s)}(F(r)+\sqrt{C\gamma}f(t)) \, ds $$

The hint was to first rewrite the differential equation (with a lack of rigor) as ##\frac {dp}{dt} + \gamma p = F(r) + \sqrt{C\gamma}f(t) ##, so apparently ##f(t) = \frac{dW}{dt}##, a random force.

My naive try was now to simply take the time derivative of the given ##p(t)## and show that it suffices the differential equation of the hint. The integral can be calculated analytically, but I don't know what I have to do about the time derivatives of the function ##f(t)##. I get the correct result, aside from terms ~##\frac {d}{dt} f(t)##. Can I assume that these are zero? If the random force is 0 aside from discrete points in time, this might or might not be legit. I might be missing some Ito calculus basics here, so would be happy for a hint.
SL
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually you take the "Green's function" of the non-stochastic part and express the solution as an integral over the fluctuating force. Then you never need to take the derivative of the stochastic force, which is ill-defined.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SchroedingersLion
Thank you Vanhees.

Is there a way to do it without Green's function? We did not cover it in that lecture. The exercise also says that the proof does not need to be entirely rigorous.
 
Maybe, there is another way, but Green's functions are always good to learn about. Another way is of course to derive the Fokker-Planck equation from the Langevin equation and analyse the phase-space distribution function describing the stochastic motion of the Brownian particle statistically. You find a simple (non-rigorous) derivation for the most simple relativistic case in Sect. 3.1 of

https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1096
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SchroedingersLion
Thank you Vanhees, but I would like to follow the lined out hints. Maybe you can say something to the stuff below?

I made progress:
If I take the equation from the hint
##\frac {dp}{dt} + \gamma p = F(r) + \sqrt{C\gamma}f(t) ##, replace ##t## with dummy variable ##s##, multiply both sides with ##e^{-\gamma(t-s)}## and integrate over ##s## from ##0## to ##t##, I obtain
$$p(t)=p(0)e^{-\gamma t} + \int_0^t e^{-\gamma(t-s)}(F(r)+\sqrt{C\gamma}f(s)) \, ds $$
This is what I need (aside from the fact that the ##f(s)## was an ##f(t)## in the exercise description in my first post, so I assume that was a misprint - otherwise one could calculate the integral analytically immediately).

In the next step, I should show that
$$ r(t)=r(0) + \frac{1}{m\gamma}p(0)(1-e^{-\gamma t}) +\frac 1 m \int_0^t \int_0^{s'}e^{-\gamma (s'-s)}(F(r)+\sqrt{C\gamma}f(t))\, ds \, ds' $$
This can be done by writing ##\frac{dr(s')}{ds'} = \frac {p(s')}{m}## and integrating over ##s## from ##0## to ##t## (only that I have ##f(s)## under the integral again).

The next step is to make use of Leibniz integral rule to rewrite ##r(t)## as
$$ r(t)=r(0) + \frac{1}{m\gamma}p(0)(1-e^{-\gamma t}) +\frac 1 m \int_0^t (1-e^{-\gamma(t-s)})(F(r)+\sqrt{C\gamma}f(t))\, ds $$
where I don't know whether it really is an ##f(t)## this time or not.

I have no idea how to use Leibniz rule here to obtain the desired equation.
If one tries to take the the time derivative of the double integral (assuming ##f## to be ##f(s)##) and uses Leibniz rule, one obtains the correct exponential ##e^{-\gamma(t-s)}## under the integral, but the ##1-## is missing.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that ##F(r)## is not known but contains the variable ##r##. The technique of the Green's function only works for the harmonic oscillator, of course, i.e., for ##F(r)=-k r##. Then you have to look at the complete system of equations of motion,
$$p(t)=m \dot{r}(t), \quad \dot{p}(t)=-\gamma p + F(r) +\sqrt{C \gamma} f(t).$$
Now you can of cours write
$$m \ddot{r}+m \gamma \dot{r} + k r =\sqrt{C \gamma} f(t),$$
which you can rewrite using the Green's function of the operator on the left-hand-side, i.e.,
$$m \partial_t^2 G(t,t') + m \gamma \partial_t G(t,t') + k G(t,t')=\delta(t-t').$$
Using the retarded Green's function ##G(t,t') \propto \Theta(t-t')## leads to
$$r(t)=r_0 (t) + \int_0^t \mathrm{d} t G(t,t') \sqrt{C \gamma} f(t'),$$
where ##r_0(t)## is an arbitrary solution of the homogeneous equation,
$$m \ddot{r}+m \gamma \dot{r} + k r=0.$$
 
You keep speaking about Green's function, but as it was not part of the lecture, I do not intend to make use of it.
The function ##F(r)## is not specified in the exercise.

There must be some calculational trick to go from

$$ r(t)=r(0) + \frac{1}{m\gamma}p(0)(1-e^{-\gamma t}) +\frac 1 m \int_0^t \int_0^{s'}e^{-\gamma (s'-s)}(F(r)+\sqrt{C\gamma}f(s))\, ds \, ds' $$
over to
$$ r(t)=r(0) + \frac{1}{m\gamma}p(0)(1-e^{-\gamma t}) +\frac 1 m \int_0^t (1-e^{-\gamma(t-s)})(F(r)+\sqrt{C\gamma}f(t))\, ds $$
using Leibniz rule.
 
Just flip the integration order (be careful with the boundaries). The expression you are using is still implicit though. BTW: What you are using is nothing else than the "free" Green's function.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SchroedingersLion
Thanks Vanhees, I got it now. Flipping order of integration leads to the result even without Leibniz rule. Don't get why they gave that rule as a hint.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K