I Mixed topic : from FEM to analytical solution via limits?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of deriving an analytical solution from a finite element method (FEM) applied to a wave equation. It highlights the challenges in achieving a limit from discretization to continuum, emphasizing the need for a convergence proof and a clear definition of the limit. The conversation touches on the existence and uniqueness of weak solutions for the original partial differential equation (PDE) and the dependence of analytical solutions on mesh size and polynomial degree. There is also a mention of using spacetime finite elements for the Klein-Gordon equation and the transformation of coordinates to facilitate analysis. The participants express uncertainty about the well-posedness of the problem and the convergence of the analytical approach.
jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
Is this anyhow possible ?
The system would be a wave equation modelized by a finite elements basis in space and time.

Is there any method to do the limit discretization->continuum with paper and pencil ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Do you mean a convergence proof of the approximation method?

Rarely will such a proof give you an explicit, analytical expression for the solution, specially not if the domain has a non-trivial geometry. You will need a precise statement about existence and uniqueness of the (weak) solution to the original PDE, and you will need a precise definition of the limit. (These two requirements are usually not independent of each other.)
 
There are techniques for computing the analytical solution of your fem discretization. Your analytical solution is then a function of your (constant) mesh size and the polynomial degree of your basis functions. Maybe you can elaborate a bit on what you actually want to achieve.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
I have never learned well Fem, but I wanted to do spacetime finite elements for the Klein-Gordon equation : ##\frac{\partial^2\psi}{\partial x^2}-\frac{\partial^2\psi}{c^2\partial t^2}=\lambda\psi##.

Then I wanted to make the change of coordinates ##x'=ct-x,y'=x+ct## transforming the LHS in ##4\frac{\partial^2\psi'}{\partial x'\partial y'}=\lambda\psi'## ? if I'm not mistaken

Next step was to choose linear basis functions on squares such that their non zero value lie in ##x',y'\in[0,2ct] ## to respect the limit speed of ##c##. (I think now I should treat this with polar coordinates to be correct)

The usual integration by part to get the stiffness matrix is done and

Strangely it seems to give an eigenvalue problem and the eigenvalue ##\lambda=-\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar^2}## gives a quantized mass ?

Also there is no initial state to give which seems strange to me.

But I don't know how to code this but rather compute the limit of the steps ##\Delta x'=\Delta y'\rightarrow 0## analytically.

I don't even know if it is a well posed problem nor if it converges.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top