4
$\begingroup$

Find a solution of the PDE $u_{tt} - c^2 u_{xx} = 0$, (where $c$ is a constant) in the half plane $t > 0$ with initial conditions $u(x, 0) = g_0(x)$ and $u_t(x, 0) = g_1(x)$.

$$\therefore \mathcal{L} = \partial^2_t - c^2 \partial^2_x = (\partial_t + c \partial_x)(\partial_t - c \partial_x)$$ (Linear/Differential Operator.)

Apparently, this factorisation suggests the change of variables

$$y = x - ct, s = x + ct$$

How/Why does factoring the linear/differential operator suggest a specific change of variables? I see the obvious similarity between the change of variables above and the linear operator of the wave equation, but, speaking in terms of the general concept/theory, this was not explained before this example.

Thank you.

Postscript: Please note that this is within the context of a section on characteristics of second-order PDEs (method of characteristics for Second-Order PDEs).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could it be that it should $y = ct - x$ ? $\endgroup$ – denklo Aug 10 '18 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ @denklo Yes! Thank you for spotting that. :) $\endgroup$ – Wyuw Aug 10 '18 at 12:07
1
$\begingroup$

Just give it a try: $$ (\partial_t+c \partial_x)y = 0 = (\partial_t -c \partial_x)s $$

$$ (\partial_t - c \partial_x)y = -2c = -(\partial_t + c \partial_x)s $$ which means $$ (\partial_t - c \partial_x) = -2c \partial_y \text{ and } (\partial_t + c \partial_x) = 2c \partial_s. $$ This will strongly simplify your differential equation: $$ \mathcal{L} = -4 c^2 \partial_y\partial_s $$ which means g only depends on s or y, if $\mathcal{L}g = 0$.

In general, having $$ \mathcal{L} = (a_{11}\partial_x + a_{12}\partial_t)(a_{21}\partial_x+a_{22}\partial_t) $$ by the ansatz $$ y = b_{11}x + b_{21}t \text{ and } s = b_{12}x + b_{22}t $$ you set $$ (a_{11}\partial_x + a_{12}\partial_t)y = 1 $$ $$ (a_{21}\partial_x + a_{22}\partial_t)y = 0 $$ $$ (a_{11}\partial_x + a_{12}\partial_t)s = 0 $$ $$ (a_{21}\partial_x + a_{22}\partial_t)s = 1 $$ This is equivalent to $$ \left(\matrix{a_{11} && a_{12}\\a_{21}&&a_{22}}\right) \left(\matrix{b_{11}\\b_{21}} \right)= \left(\matrix{1\\0} \right) $$ and $$ \left(\matrix{a_{11} && a_{12}\\a_{21}&&a_{22}}\right) \left(\matrix{b_{12}\\b_{22}} \right)= \left(\matrix{0\\1} \right) $$ In other words $(b_{ij})_{ij} = (a_{ij})^{-1}_{ij}$.

Then the transform $y = b_{11}x + b_{21}t$ and $s = b_{12}x + b_{22}t$ will simplify your eqation as above.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Give what a try? I don’t understand what your answer is saying. $\endgroup$ – Wyuw Aug 10 '18 at 12:43
  • $\begingroup$ I'm just suggesting to you to calculate $(\partial_t+ c \partial_x)y$ and the others, to convince youself of $ \partial_t + c\partial_x \propto \partial_y$... $\endgroup$ – denklo Aug 10 '18 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, but does that address my question? $\endgroup$ – Wyuw Aug 10 '18 at 12:57
  • $\begingroup$ "How/Why does factoring the linear/differential operator suggest a specific change of variables?" : because now you have a new, orthogonal coordinate system wich trivially solves your equation, as i tried to explain in my response. $\endgroup$ – denklo Aug 10 '18 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ I extended my response, does it fit your question better now? $\endgroup$ – denklo Aug 10 '18 at 13:46
0
$\begingroup$

From your comments it seems like you're more interested in some intuition about why to make that change of variables aside from the similarity of the two? Forgive me if I have misinterpreted. Also the answer of denklo is the more complete one, as I'm really just saying in words what that last eigensystem is saying.

The most intuitive way I grasp it is from a physics perspective: that factorization suggests a type of symmetry, that what happens going leftwards is the same as that going rightwards.

Changing to $x \pm c t$ is to follow the information packets traveling left and rightwards with speed $c$. In physical terms, it's a change of frame of reference to that of the waveform, which because the system has no diffusion or dispersion, must retain its structure.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I do want intuition, but that intuition can also be gained from a mathematical explanation. The problem is that whatever mathematical explanation is provided needs to have sufficient explanation to make it understandable to a person who doesn't already understand the concept. $\endgroup$ – Wyuw Aug 10 '18 at 14:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.