Functional Analysis - Eigenfunctions of The Helmholtz Equation in Toroidal Geometry - Mathematics Stack Exchange
Functional Analysis - Eigenfunctions of The Helmholtz Equation in Toroidal Geometry - Mathematics Stack Exchange
2
Δψ + k ψ = 0
14
has a lot of fundamental applications in physics since it is a form of the wave equation
Δϕ − c
−2
∂tt ϕ = 0 with an assumed harmonic time dependence e ±iωt
.
k can be seen as some kind of potential - the equation is analogue to the stationary
Schrödinger equation.
2
k to r ∈ T
k(r) = {
k out else
− −−−−− 2
where T 2
= {(x, y, z) : r
2 2 2 2
≥ (√ x + y − R) + z }
Are there known solutions (in terms of eigenfunctions) of the Helmholtz equation
for the given geometry?
Robert
Edit: As Hans pointed out, there might not be any solution according to a corresponding
Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, there is no reference given - does anyone know where I
could find the proof?
Share Cite Follow edited Apr 13, 2017 at 12:21 asked Jan 14, 2011 at 9:31
Community Bot Robert Filter
1 1,490 1 10 19
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/17476/eigenfunctions-of-the-helmholtz-equation-in-toroidal-geometry#:~:text=has a lot of fundamental,… 1/3
06/12/2023, 13:02 functional analysis - Eigenfunctions of the Helmholtz equation in Toroidal geometry - Mathematics Stack Exchange
You probably mean R instead of R (if R has its usual interpretation). – Hans Lundmark Jan 14, 2011
2
at 10:49
@Hans: Thanks for pointing out to the error, I will correct it. And also thank you for the link. It really
is a pitty that there is no reference given. Greets – Robert Filter Jan 14, 2011 at 14:32
2 Another correction: existence of solutions is not linked to the coordinate system at all. The Laplace
operator (or the Laplace-Beltrami operator) are geometric, so does not depend on the coordinates
chosen. The existence of solutions however do depend on the global geometry of the manifold on
which you are asking for the solution: it has to do with the spectrum of the Laplace-Beltrami
operator. What you probably mean is "existence of nice, simple, closed-form expressions" of the
solutions. – Willie Wong Jan 14, 2011 at 17:35
@Willie Wong: Thank you for the correction. Indeed, I mean it in this way. It seems to as if it is just a
historic issue of applied mathematics that some "special" functions (trigonometric, Bessel etc) paved
their way into standard textbooks. Nevertheless, do you know if there are implicit definitions of
solutions available like the elliptic ones? If I remember correctly, the Greens function of the
Helmholtz equation is normally constructed from eigenfunctions of the Laplace... Isn't an application
of this procedure applicable here somehow? – Robert Filter Jan 14, 2011 at 19:05
Sorted by:
1 Answer
Highest score (default)
−−−−−−−
bears the form: for m ∈ Z
2
,ψ k = e
im⋅x
, with |m| = √m
2
1
+ m
2
2
= k. The reason
behind this is that T ≅ S (r) × S (R) , and for (1) on S has eigenvectors e
2 1 1 1 imx
where
|m| = k , then the Fourier expansion on product spaces use basis ∏ e . imi x i
In your case it is actually a Toroid, according to the Field Theory Handbook the
chapter about rotational system, the Helmholtz equation is not separable in toroidal
geometry. Only Laplace equation is separable, please see section 6 in here.
By that wikipedia article about Toroidal coordinates: we make the substitution for (1) as
well:
−−−−−−−−−− −
ψ = u√cosh τ − cos σ,
2
∂ sinh τ ∂Φ 1 ∂ Φ
+ ( ) + ].
2
∂τ cosh τ − cos σ ∂τ sinh τ (cosh τ − cos σ) ∂ ϕ
(one extra thing to mention, the wiki entry failed to mention that a 2
= R
2
− r
2
)
Equation (1) can be reduced as follows:
2 2 2 2 2 2
∂ u cosh τ ∂ u 1 ∂ u ∂ u (R − r )k 1
+ + + + ( + ) u = 0.
2 2 2 2 2
∂τ sinh τ ∂τ sinh τ ∂ϕ ∂σ (cosh τ − cos σ) 4
u = K (τ , σ)Φ(ϕ).
2 2 2 2
cosh τ ∂ K (R − r )k 1 m
Δτ ,σ K + + ( + − ) K = 0, (2)
2 2
sinh τ ∂τ (cosh τ − cos σ) 4 sinh τ
and
′′ 2
Φ + m Φ = 0.
Hence u m
= K (τ , σ)e
imθ
, and K satisfies (2). If someone knows how to proceed using
analytical method for (2), I am interested in it as well.
1 Dear Shuhao, thanks for your answer, although my thanks is quite late. Thanks for your
argumentation and calculation. Most valuable, though, seems to be the reference to Boyer et al.,
Nagoya Math. J. 60 (1976) you provided and therein, P. Morse and H. Feshbach, "Methods of
Theoretical Physics", a must-have. – Robert Filter Jan 2, 2014 at 12:17