Will separation of variables work in solving this PDE?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a partial differential equation (PDE) of the form p_t = -vk^2 p - k δ p_k, where p = p(k,t) and v, δ are constants. The original poster is exploring the method of separation of variables to find a solution and is comparing their results with those obtained from Mathematica.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to solve the PDE using separation of variables, leading to a specific solution. They express uncertainty about the need for integration or summation over constants to achieve a general solution. They also inquire about the differences between their solution and the one provided by Mathematica.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the approach taken by the original poster and examining the validity of the solutions derived. Some participants have expressed agreement with the original poster's method, while others are awaiting further details on the calculations involved.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of a potential typo correction in the variable notation, and the original poster is considering the implications of their findings in relation to the generality of the solution.

AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


As part of the solution to a HW problem of mine, I have to solve the PDE

<br /> p_t = -vk^2 p - k \delta p_k,<br />

where p = p(k,t) and v,\delta are known constants.

Homework Equations



I tried to look for a solution of the form p(k,t) = K(k)T(t) and found one, but I'm not sure if I need to sum/integrate over my arbitrary constant.

The Attempt at a Solution



Separation of variables gave me the solution

<br /> p(k,t) = A_0 e^{-ct} k^{c/\delta} e^{-vk^2/2\delta},<br />

where c is the constant one gets from the separation of variables and A_0 is a constant of integration. But I tried solving the PDE in Mathematica, and got a different solution:

<br /> p(k,t) = A_0(t-(\log k)/\delta) e^{-vk^2/2\delta}.<br />

Can someone explain why Mathematica's answer differs from mine? Also, do I need to perform an integration/sum in c to get the most general solution? I've plugged both my solution and Mathematica's in, and they both work, so I'm thinking I have to go another step to get the general solution.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


AxiomOfChoice said:
...

I tried to look for a solution of the form p(x,t) = X(x)T(t) and found one, but I'm not sure if I need to sum/integrate over my arbitrary constant.

The Attempt at a Solution



Separation of variables gave me the solution

<br /> p(k,t) = A_0 e^{-ct} k^{c/\delta} e^{-vk^2/2\delta},<br />
...

Can someone explain why Mathematica's answer differs from mine? Also, do I need to perform an integration/sum in c to get the most general solution? I've plugged both my solution and Mathematica's in, and they both work, so I'm thinking I have to go another step to get the general solution.

Show us some details about how you arrived at your solution.

One thing I noticed:

<br /> \log\left(e^{-ct} k^{c/\delta}\right)=-c\left(t-\frac{\log(k)}{\delta}\right)<br />
 
I'll be happy to. I have a function to go to right now, but I'll be back in a few hours and will type up how I arrived at my separation of variables solution.
 
Ok. So, on to my separation of variables calculations. Note that I have also corrected a typo in my original post, replacing some x's with k's. Writing p(k,t) = K(k)T(t) and plugging into the PDE, we find (after dividing through on both sides by KT)

<br /> \frac{1}{T} \frac{\partial T}{\partial t} = -v^2 k^2 - k \delta \frac{1}{K} \frac{\partial K}{\partial k}.<br />

The LHS is a function of t only; the RHS a function of k only. So we can (I think) set them both equal to a constant, which I call -c (anticipating that it will be negative). The equation for T becomes

<br /> \frac{d T}{d t} = -c T.<br />

This has the obvious solution T(t) = C_0 e^{-ct}. The equation for K, however, becomes (after canceling the minus sign)

<br /> v^2 k^2 + k \delta \frac{1}{K} \frac{d K}{d k} = c.<br />

This can be rearranged and rewritten as

<br /> \frac{dK}{K} = \left( \frac{c}{k \delta} - v^2 k \right) dk.<br />

Integrating on both sides, we obtain (after combining the two constants we get into one, C^0_1, on the RHS)

<br /> \log K = \frac{c}{\delta} \log k - \frac{v^2 k^2}{2\delta} + C^0_1.<br />

Hence, after exponentiating both sides, we obtain

<br /> K(k) = C_1 k^{c/\delta} \exp \left( -\frac{v^2 k^2}{2\delta} \right).<br />

Now we put them together:

<br /> p(k,t) = K(k)T(t) = A_0 e^{-ct} k^{c/\delta} \exp \left( -\frac{v^2 k^2}{2\delta} \right),<br />

which is what I have listed above. Does anyone see anything wrong with this?
 
It looks good to me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K