ODE with non-constant coefficient

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhDorBust
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coefficient Ode
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on solving the ordinary differential equation (ODE) R'' + 2rR' - Rl(l+1) = 0, which arises in the context of Laplace's equation in spherical coordinates. The user attempted to apply the Laplace transform but encountered an integral that does not yield an analytic solution. The conversation suggests that a series solution may be the most viable approach, as it aligns with the nature of the problem, potentially involving Hermite polynomials and other complex functions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ordinary differential equations (ODEs)
  • Familiarity with Laplace transforms
  • Knowledge of series solutions for differential equations
  • Basic concepts of spherical coordinates in mathematical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore series solutions for ODEs, focusing on methods like Frobenius series
  • Study the application of Laplace transforms in solving differential equations
  • Investigate Hermite polynomials and their role in solutions to differential equations
  • Learn about the numerical methods for approximating solutions to complex integrals
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineering students dealing with differential equations, particularly those interested in solutions to Laplace's equation and spherical harmonics.

PhDorBust
Messages
141
Reaction score
0
[tex]R'' + 2rR' - Rl(l+1) = 0[/tex], where [tex]R = R(r)[/tex] and l is a constant. This is portion of sol'n by separation by variables to laplace's equation in spherical coordinates.

I tried laplace transform, but reached integral that I don't think admits analytic sol'n.

[tex]F'(s) + F(s)[\frac{1 + l(l+1)}{s} - s] = sA + B[/tex], where R(0) = A, R'(0) = B.

What am i missing? Is series sol'n the only way?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
series sounds like a good idea for this type of problem asnd would be my first approach - is there reason you don't want to use it, or is an analytic expression just going to be simpler to deal with?
 
Last edited:
froma mathematica check it looks like the solutions involve hermite polynomials and other complex functions
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K