I Laplace equation with irregular boundaries

Click For Summary
Solving Laplace’s Equation on irregular domains analytically is challenging, as separation of variables typically requires boundaries where one coordinate is constant. In 2D cases, complex functions and conformal mappings offer elegant solutions, but irregular geometries are common in real-life applications, often necessitating numerical methods. The use of generalized Fourier series can help in boundary-value problems, but these methods are limited to specific coordinate systems. While analytical solutions may not be feasible for all irregular shapes, studying simpler textbook problems can provide valuable insights. Ultimately, numerical techniques are frequently employed for practical applications involving irregular boundaries.
physwiz222
Messages
79
Reaction score
9
TL;DR
We can solve Laplace’a Equation on regular shapes like squares and circles but what if we have an irregular shape can it still be solved
Is there a way to solve Laplace’s Equation on irregular domains if the domain’s shape is given by a function for example a 2D parabolic plate. I keep seeing numerical methods but I want to know is there an ANALYTICAL method to solve it on an irregular domain. If there isn't are there approximate analytical methods to solve it. If it isn't solvable why not.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually you need coordinates, where the Laplacian "separates". Then you can find solutions of boundary-value problems by expansion in terms of the corresponding orthogonal function systems (generalized Fourier series).

The 2D case is special since there you can apply the very elegant formulation in terms of complex functions and conformal mappings.

A good book about all this is

P. M. Morse, H. Feshbach, Methods of Theoretical Physics, 2 Vols., McGraw-Hill (1953)
 
vanhees71 said:
Usually you need coordinates, where the Laplacian "separates". Then you can find solutions of boundary-value problems by expansion in terms of the corresponding orthogonal function systems (generalized Fourier series).

The 2D case is special since there you can apply the very elegant formulation in terms of complex functions and conformal mappings.

A good book about all this is

P. M. Morse, H. Feshbach, Methods of Theoretical Physics, 2 Vols., McGraw-Hill (1953)
Interesting but one more question can separation of variables be used for a solution on an irregular boundary given by a function. And how common are irregular geometries encountered in real life problems
 
Last edited:
vanhees71 said:
Usually you need coordinates, where the Laplacian "separates". Then you can find solutions of boundary-value problems by expansion in terms of the corresponding orthogonal function systems (generalized Fourier series).

The 2D case is special since there you can apply the very elegant formulation in terms of complex functions and conformal mappings.

A good book about all this is

P. M. Morse, H. Feshbach, Methods of Theoretical Physics, 2 Vols., McGraw-Hill (1953)
How about the 3D case
 
physwiz222 said:
Interesting but one more question can separation of variables be used for a solution on an irregular boundary given by a function. And how common are irregular geometries encountered in real life problems
For The Laplace equation you can only use separation of variables when the boundaries are on surfaces where one of the coordinates is a constant. In Cartesian coordinates, the boundaries must be x=constant or y=constant or z=constant. In cylindrical coordinates the boundaries must be r=constant, z=constant or theta=constant. Etc.

In real life it is common to have irregular boundaries, and we usually must resort to numerical techniques. However, solving the simple problems in textbooks and examining properties of the solutions often yields a lot of insight to help with understanding those real-life cases.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. I am in no way trolling. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. Yes, I'm questioning the most elementary physics question we're given in this world. The classic elevator in motion question: A person is standing on a scale in an elevator that is in constant motion...