Laplace equation in polar coordinates.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Laplace equation in polar coordinates, specifically the representation of the function \( u \) in terms of polar coordinates \( u(r, \theta) \) versus Cartesian coordinates \( u(x, y) \). Participants explore the derivation and application of the Laplace operator in different coordinate systems.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that the Laplace equation should be expressed in terms of \( u(r, \theta) \) rather than \( u(x, y) \), emphasizing that the latter does not incorporate the polar coordinate transformation.
  • Another participant provides a link to a complete derivation of the Laplace equation in polar coordinates, suggesting that it may clarify the discussion.
  • A participant expresses familiarity with the derivation but seeks confirmation on the appropriate representation of the function, reiterating the preference for \( u(r, \theta) \).
  • One contribution discusses the use of vector operators and the action principle to derive the Laplace operator in polar coordinates, detailing the steps involved in the derivation and the relationship between the gradient and the Laplace operator.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the choice of coordinate system should match the form of the function, indicating that if \( u \) is expressed in Cartesian coordinates, the Cartesian form of the Laplace operator should be used, and vice versa.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the representation of the function \( u \). Some advocate for the polar form, while others highlight the necessity of using the Cartesian form depending on the function's expression.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific steps in the derivation process that are not fully detailed in the discussion, which may lead to varying interpretations of the Laplace operator in different coordinate systems.

yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
291
\nabla^2 u=\frac {\partial ^2 u}{\partial x^2}+\frac {\partial ^2 u}{\partial y^2}=\frac {\partial ^2 u}{\partial r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac {\partial u}{\partial r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac {\partial ^2 u}{\partial \theta^2}

I want to verify ##u=u(r,\theta)##, not ##u(x,y)##

Because for ##u(x,y)##, it will just be ##\frac {\partial ^2 u}{\partial x^2}+\frac {\partial ^2 u}{\partial y^2}##

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I know the derivation, I just want to confirm as none of the books or notes specify this.

It should be ##u(r,\theta)## not ##u(x,y)##.
 
Of course for \vec{r} \neq 0 you have
u(\vec{r})=u[\vec{r}(r,\theta)]=u[\vec{r}(x,y)].
The vector operators are better defined through covariant integrals than by brute force as in UltrafastPED's source, although it's of course a valid way to find the expression for the covariant differential operators.

A third, more physicist's way, is to use the action principle. Define the action
A<u>=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{r} \left [\frac{1}{2}(\vec{\nabla} u)^2+u \Phi \right],</u>
where \Phi is an arbitrary external field. Taking the variation you see that the stationary point is
\frac{\delta A}{\delta u}=0 \; \Rightarrow \; \Delta u=\Phi.
To evaluate thus the Laplace operator in polar coordinates, you simply write out the action in these coordinates. You only need the gradient in polar coordinates, which is very easy to derive by using differential forms:
\mathrm{d} u=\mathrm{d} \vec{x} \cdot \vec{\nabla} u=\mathrm{d} r \vec{e}_r \cdot \vec{\nabla} u + r \mathrm{d} \theta \vec{e}_\vartheta \cdot \vec{\nabla} u=\mathrm{d} r \partial_r u + \mathrm{d} \theta \partial_{\theta} u.
Comparison of both sides of the last equation of this line shows that
\vec{\nabla} u = \vec{e}_r \partial_r u + \vec{e}_{\theta} \frac{1}{r} \partial_{\theta} u.
Further you have
\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{r}=r \mathrm{d} r \mathrm{d} \theta,
and thus
A<u>=\int_0^{\infty} \mathrm{d} r \int_0^{2 \pi} \mathrm{d} \theta r \left [\frac{1}{2}(\partial_r u)^2+\frac{1}{2r^2} (\partial_{\theta}) u + u \Phi \right].</u>
Then via the Euler-Lagrange equations you get the stationary point of the action as given by
\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left (r \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \right )+\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial \theta^2}=r \Phi,
and finally dividing by r
\Phi=\Delta u=\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left (r \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \right )+\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial \theta^2}.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
See steps (4) and (5).

If your function is expressed as u(x,y) you should use the cartesian form.
If it is in polar form then you should use the polar form.

Otherwise you have to go through all of the steps (4) and (5), making use of the chain rule.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K