Solving N-S Eq: Fourier Space, Pressure, Interpretation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dakold
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Navier-stokes
dakold
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
As show below the Fourier Transform of Naiver-Stokes equation. I wonder if the pressure should be in the Fourier transform? In the below transformation there is no pressure.

N-S
\frac{\partial\vec{u}}{\partial t}\+(\vec{u}\bullet\nabla)\vec{u}=-\frac{\nabla P}{\rho}+\nu\nabla^{2}

N-S in Fourier space \frac{\partial u_{\alpha}}{\partial t}=-i\int(k_{\beta}-p_{\beta}u_{\beta}(\vec{p})u_{\alpha}(\vec{k}-\vec{p})d^{3}p+i\frac{k_{\alpha}}{k^{2}}\int(p_{\gamma}(k_{\beta}-p_{\beta})u_{\beta}(\vec{p})u_{\gamma}(\vec{k}-\vec{p})<br /> d^{3}p-\nu k^{2} u_{\alpha}(\vec{k})

I got another question also, how can one interpretate the second term on the left hand side?
(\vec{u}\bullet\nabla)\vec{u}
Is this acceleration?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know about the pressure terms in Fourier space. What do the 'p' terms represent if they do not represent pressures?

The (\vec{u}\bullet\nabla)\vec{u} term does indeed represent an acceleration. Both terms on the left hand side of the N-S equations represent acceleration.

The first term represents accelerations arising if the flow is unsteady, and the second term represents the acceleration of a fluid particle arising from its movement in the velocity field.
 
the small 'p' is the momentum.
Thanks that what I thought
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top