1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Solving the Helmholtzequation

  1. May 22, 2006 #1
    solve the Helmholtzequation laplace(u) + lamda*u = 0 in the unit circle with neumann condition for r = 1

    I dont get very far on this problem. What I start with is rewriting the problem with how laplace looks in this case.

    laplace(u) = (1/r) d/dr(r * du/dr) + (1/r^2) * d^2u/dtheta^2)

    so the equation will be

    R'/R + rR''/R + theta''/(r*theta) + lambda = 0

    but thats as far as I get
  2. jcsd
  3. May 22, 2006 #2


    User Avatar

    Could you write it in tex...

    The next step will be to separate variables.
  4. May 22, 2006 #3
    no, I'm sorry, I cant. Dont know how tex works.

    I know that the next thing is to separate the variables, but I dont get it right, that is as far as I get.
  5. May 22, 2006 #4


    User Avatar

    What's your capital R?

    First write: [tex]u(r,\theta)=u_r(r)u_\theta(\theta)[/tex]

    (multiplying the equation by [tex]r^2[/tex] to get it in a separable form)
  6. May 22, 2006 #5
    Yeah, well thats what I did. But I wrote it as u(r,Theta) = R(r)*Theta(theta). And thats how I got R'/R + rR''/R + theta''/(r*theta) + lambda = 0

    I just applied the laplace on it and divided everything with R*Theta
  7. May 22, 2006 #6


    User Avatar

    In the form you have, you need an r in front of the [tex]\lambda[/tex] - then multiply up by the second r (the one beneath the [tex]\theta''[/tex])...
  8. May 22, 2006 #7
    rR'/R + r^2R''/R + theta''/theta + r^2*lambda = 0

    but I still dont see how to continue. I would really appriciate if you would show some steps on how to solve this, since I'm kind of lost. In the other assignmensts I've solved it've only been like X''/X = Y'/Y. But here it looks much more complicated (atleast for my untrained eye)

    probably the next step would be something like rR'/R + r^2R''/R + r^2*lambda = -theta''/theta = k

    -theta''/theta = k is "easy" to solve, bt rR'/R + r^2R''/R + r^2*lambda = k is a bit worse
    Last edited: May 22, 2006
  9. May 22, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yeah, in fact it looks a lot like Bessel's equation! Of course, you know the general solutions to Bessel's equation: the two independent solutions are Ji(r) and Ii(r), Bessel's functions of the first and second kind, of order i.

    Yes, -theta"/theta= k is easy to solve- theta"= -k theta gives either exponential (if k is negative) or sine and cosine (if k is positive). Since the solutions had better be periodic, with period a multiple of [itex]2\pi[/itex] you have an idea of what k (and therefore i in Ji and Ii) had better be.
  10. May 24, 2006 #9


    User Avatar

    Was giving a presentation yesterday so couldn't follow this thread but adding to Halls of Ivy...

    I'll first write your stuff in latex so we get a better view:

    [tex]r^2 \frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial^2 R}{\partial r^2} + r \frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial R}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{\Theta}\frac{\partial^2\Theta}{\partial\theta^2} + r^2\lambda = 0[/tex]

    Separation of variables gives:


    which gives:

    [tex]r^2 \frac{\partial^2 R}{\partial r^2} + r \frac{\partial R}{\partial r} + (r^2\lambda-m^2)R = 0[/tex]

    This last term is Bessels equation: The boundary conditions (geometry of problem) give you which functions are valid - you should consider both normal and modified kind, both 1st and 2nd of.

    Again, [tex]\Theta[/tex] is periodic and therefore satisfies [tex]Ae^{\pm im\theta}[/tex]

    The above isn't the full answer but should help...
  11. May 24, 2006 #10
    Ok guys, thanks for all the help. Here's what I got. How do you guys get the tex code, do ypu write it by hand or do you have any help software?

    I didnt do it exactly as you wrote J77, but it's the same way of thinking.


    which I solved to T = A*exp(-i*sqrt(k)*t) + B*exp(-i*sqrt(k)*t)
    T(t) = T(t+2*pi)
    A*exp(-i*sqrt(k)*t) + B*exp(-i*sqrt(k)*t) =
    A*exp(-i*sqrt(k)*(t+2pi)) + B*exp(-i*sqrt(k)*(t+2pi))

    exp(i*sqrt(k)*t) = exp(i*sqrt(k)*(t+2*pi))
    sqrt(k)*t = sqrt(k)*t + 2pi*sqrt(k) + 2pi*n
    sqrt(k) = -n

    The R part get the solution

    R(r) = a*J_-n(sqrt(lambda)*r) + b*Y_-n(sqrt(lambda)*r)

    and the T part (former theta part, looks so greasy to write theta without tex) get the solution

    T(t) = A*exp(-i*n*t) + B*exp(i*n*t)

    and u(r,t) = R(r)*T(t)

    now the problem is how to fit the neumann condition u(1,t) = 0 to this.
    And I also want to know how to do for dirichlet condition for r = 1
  12. May 26, 2006 #11
    If u is bounded at r=0 then b=0 and with boundary conditions u(1,t)=0 you get



    from which




    the s:th root of the m:th besselfunction

    its similar for neumann conditions but u get it for the derivative of J. But there are some useful relations between J and J'. For homogenous dirichlet conditions you get the solution

    [tex]u(r,t)=\sum_{m=0}^\infty C_m*J_m(\gamma_{ms}r)*T(t)[/tex]

    And you need a second boundary condition to determine the constants C_m.
    More about how to find C_m you can read in the litterature for bessel series.

    If u isnt bounded at r=0 or isnt defined at r=0
    you get a system of linear equations for the coefficients a and b, and a "determinant-equation" gives the solution.
    Last edited: May 26, 2006
  13. May 28, 2006 #12
    ok, so in my case I would get sqrt(lambda) = my_ms for dirichlet where my_ms is the zeroes for the bessel function. In this case it will be
    sqrt(lambda)= 2.405 ; 3.382; 5.136; 5.520 ...
    and for neumann
    sqrt(lambda) = 0; 1.841: 3.054; 3.832...
    can anyone check if these values are right so I can be sure that I got this right

    this was wihot having to care about the z-axis. But lets try with a z-axis this time, then I get

    R''/R + R'/rR + T''/r^2T + Z''/Z + lambda = 0 how do I separete this when I have 3 variabels? doesnt that get complicated?


    I think I got it

    R''r^2/R + R'r/R + Z''r^2/Z + r^2*lambda = -T''/T = k

    and -T''/T = k is the same as in the first problem, and therefor I get that k = n^2 where n is an integer

    now I can rewrite the remaining part as

    R''/R + R'/Rr + lambda - (n/r)^2 = -Z''/Z = C ( another constant)

    and -Z''/Z = C ought to give me that c is an integer just as T''/T = k told me that. So C = j^2 where j is an integer

    now we have R''/R + R'/Rr + lambda - j^2 - (n/r)^2 = 0

    R'' + R'/r + R(lambda - j^2 - (n/r)^2) = 0

    which have the solution R = a*J_n(sqrt(lambda-j^2)*r) + bY_n(sqrt(lambda-j^2)*r)


    Just figured out that -Z''/Z = C doesnt say that C = j^2, the only reason that that worked for T is that I forced 2pi periodicity.

    In this case I have a rod with the radius R_0 and length L and it's closed at Z = 0 and opened at Z = L. so this would give me that Z = cos(pi/L (1/2 + j)*z) and C = (pi/2L + pi*j/L)^2 where j is an integer. Is this correct?
    Last edited: May 29, 2006
  14. May 31, 2006 #13
    yupp, s:th zero for the m:th besselfunction

    well, depending on the separation constants for Z and T you could get either the ordinary bessel functions as solutions for R or the modified
    bessel functions I_n and K_n. These functions you can say is the ordinary bessel functions but with complex argument. But they arent oscillating functions like J_n and N_n(or Y_n) they behave more like exponential functions.

    usually you use, k^2, as the separation constant. And in this case it has to be negative for T too. Thats because T is periodic. With a negative separation constant you get cos/sin as the solutions, and with a positive you get exp or sinh/cosh, which are not periodic. For Z you should get sinh.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook