Are characteristics the only solution to the advection equation in 1+1D?
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I'm currently reading about fluid dynamics and the Riemann problem, and a very commonly used equation to introduce the topic is the 1+1D advection equation with constant coefficient $v$:
$$ fracpartial upartial t + v fracpartial upartial x = 0tag1$$
for which a solution is
$$ u(x,t) = u(x-vt, 0) = u_0(x-vt) $$
where $u_0 = u(t=0)$ is some initial condition.
This can be easily derived using the method of separation of variables: Let $u(x,t) = f(x)g(y)$.
Then
$$ fracpartial upartial t = f(x) fracpartial gpartial t$$
$$ fracpartial upartial x = g(t) fracpartial fpartial x
$$
Inserting into the advection equation and restructuring a little, we get
$$frac1g fracpartial gpartial t = frac1ffracpartial fpartial x = -lambda $$
where $lambda$ is some constant. Solving each equation separately gives us
$$ g = K_1 e^-lambda v t $$
$$ f = K_2 e^lambda x $$
$$ Rightarrow u(x,t) = fg = K e^lambda (x - vt) $$
with $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K=K_1 K_2$ are constants stemming from integration.
With
$$u_0 = u(x,t=0) = K e^lambda x$$
one can easily see that the solution can be expressed as
$$u(x,t) = u_0(x-vt)$$
So far, so good. Here's my question: Is that the only solution of the 1+1D advection equation with constant coefficients? Is there a proof that this is the only solution?
fluid-dynamics waves mathematics differential-equations
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I'm currently reading about fluid dynamics and the Riemann problem, and a very commonly used equation to introduce the topic is the 1+1D advection equation with constant coefficient $v$:
$$ fracpartial upartial t + v fracpartial upartial x = 0tag1$$
for which a solution is
$$ u(x,t) = u(x-vt, 0) = u_0(x-vt) $$
where $u_0 = u(t=0)$ is some initial condition.
This can be easily derived using the method of separation of variables: Let $u(x,t) = f(x)g(y)$.
Then
$$ fracpartial upartial t = f(x) fracpartial gpartial t$$
$$ fracpartial upartial x = g(t) fracpartial fpartial x
$$
Inserting into the advection equation and restructuring a little, we get
$$frac1g fracpartial gpartial t = frac1ffracpartial fpartial x = -lambda $$
where $lambda$ is some constant. Solving each equation separately gives us
$$ g = K_1 e^-lambda v t $$
$$ f = K_2 e^lambda x $$
$$ Rightarrow u(x,t) = fg = K e^lambda (x - vt) $$
with $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K=K_1 K_2$ are constants stemming from integration.
With
$$u_0 = u(x,t=0) = K e^lambda x$$
one can easily see that the solution can be expressed as
$$u(x,t) = u_0(x-vt)$$
So far, so good. Here's my question: Is that the only solution of the 1+1D advection equation with constant coefficients? Is there a proof that this is the only solution?
fluid-dynamics waves mathematics differential-equations
I voted to migrate this to Mathematics.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 9 at 17:19
Fluid Dynamics and solutions thereof may require maths, but certainly is a physics question...
– Kyle Kanos
Nov 10 at 18:04
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I'm currently reading about fluid dynamics and the Riemann problem, and a very commonly used equation to introduce the topic is the 1+1D advection equation with constant coefficient $v$:
$$ fracpartial upartial t + v fracpartial upartial x = 0tag1$$
for which a solution is
$$ u(x,t) = u(x-vt, 0) = u_0(x-vt) $$
where $u_0 = u(t=0)$ is some initial condition.
This can be easily derived using the method of separation of variables: Let $u(x,t) = f(x)g(y)$.
Then
$$ fracpartial upartial t = f(x) fracpartial gpartial t$$
$$ fracpartial upartial x = g(t) fracpartial fpartial x
$$
Inserting into the advection equation and restructuring a little, we get
$$frac1g fracpartial gpartial t = frac1ffracpartial fpartial x = -lambda $$
where $lambda$ is some constant. Solving each equation separately gives us
$$ g = K_1 e^-lambda v t $$
$$ f = K_2 e^lambda x $$
$$ Rightarrow u(x,t) = fg = K e^lambda (x - vt) $$
with $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K=K_1 K_2$ are constants stemming from integration.
With
$$u_0 = u(x,t=0) = K e^lambda x$$
one can easily see that the solution can be expressed as
$$u(x,t) = u_0(x-vt)$$
So far, so good. Here's my question: Is that the only solution of the 1+1D advection equation with constant coefficients? Is there a proof that this is the only solution?
fluid-dynamics waves mathematics differential-equations
I'm currently reading about fluid dynamics and the Riemann problem, and a very commonly used equation to introduce the topic is the 1+1D advection equation with constant coefficient $v$:
$$ fracpartial upartial t + v fracpartial upartial x = 0tag1$$
for which a solution is
$$ u(x,t) = u(x-vt, 0) = u_0(x-vt) $$
where $u_0 = u(t=0)$ is some initial condition.
This can be easily derived using the method of separation of variables: Let $u(x,t) = f(x)g(y)$.
Then
$$ fracpartial upartial t = f(x) fracpartial gpartial t$$
$$ fracpartial upartial x = g(t) fracpartial fpartial x
$$
Inserting into the advection equation and restructuring a little, we get
$$frac1g fracpartial gpartial t = frac1ffracpartial fpartial x = -lambda $$
where $lambda$ is some constant. Solving each equation separately gives us
$$ g = K_1 e^-lambda v t $$
$$ f = K_2 e^lambda x $$
$$ Rightarrow u(x,t) = fg = K e^lambda (x - vt) $$
with $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K=K_1 K_2$ are constants stemming from integration.
With
$$u_0 = u(x,t=0) = K e^lambda x$$
one can easily see that the solution can be expressed as
$$u(x,t) = u_0(x-vt)$$
So far, so good. Here's my question: Is that the only solution of the 1+1D advection equation with constant coefficients? Is there a proof that this is the only solution?
fluid-dynamics waves mathematics differential-equations
fluid-dynamics waves mathematics differential-equations
edited Nov 9 at 17:45
Qmechanic♦
101k121821135
101k121821135
asked Nov 9 at 12:20
lemdan
949
949
I voted to migrate this to Mathematics.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 9 at 17:19
Fluid Dynamics and solutions thereof may require maths, but certainly is a physics question...
– Kyle Kanos
Nov 10 at 18:04
add a comment |
I voted to migrate this to Mathematics.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 9 at 17:19
Fluid Dynamics and solutions thereof may require maths, but certainly is a physics question...
– Kyle Kanos
Nov 10 at 18:04
I voted to migrate this to Mathematics.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 9 at 17:19
I voted to migrate this to Mathematics.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 9 at 17:19
Fluid Dynamics and solutions thereof may require maths, but certainly is a physics question...
– Kyle Kanos
Nov 10 at 18:04
Fluid Dynamics and solutions thereof may require maths, but certainly is a physics question...
– Kyle Kanos
Nov 10 at 18:04
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Yes, it is the only solution. Hints for proof:
Go to lightcone coordinates: $x^pm~:=~x pm vt$.
Show that OP's eq. (1) in 1+1D becomes $fracpartial upartial x^+~=~0$.
Deduce that $u=u(x^-)$ is a function of $x^-$ only.
I see that using $fracpartial upartial x^+ = 0$ implies that $u = u(x^ -)$, but I don't see how that excludes any other solution?
– lemdan
Nov 9 at 14:12
There are only 2 coordinates $(x^+,x^-)$ in 1+1D and $u$ cannot depend on $x^+$. So the above conclusion follows.
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 9 at 17:44
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The equation is linear, and the solution to a linear equation in one unknown is always unique.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f439877%2fare-characteristics-the-only-solution-to-the-advection-equation-in-11d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Yes, it is the only solution. Hints for proof:
Go to lightcone coordinates: $x^pm~:=~x pm vt$.
Show that OP's eq. (1) in 1+1D becomes $fracpartial upartial x^+~=~0$.
Deduce that $u=u(x^-)$ is a function of $x^-$ only.
I see that using $fracpartial upartial x^+ = 0$ implies that $u = u(x^ -)$, but I don't see how that excludes any other solution?
– lemdan
Nov 9 at 14:12
There are only 2 coordinates $(x^+,x^-)$ in 1+1D and $u$ cannot depend on $x^+$. So the above conclusion follows.
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 9 at 17:44
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Yes, it is the only solution. Hints for proof:
Go to lightcone coordinates: $x^pm~:=~x pm vt$.
Show that OP's eq. (1) in 1+1D becomes $fracpartial upartial x^+~=~0$.
Deduce that $u=u(x^-)$ is a function of $x^-$ only.
I see that using $fracpartial upartial x^+ = 0$ implies that $u = u(x^ -)$, but I don't see how that excludes any other solution?
– lemdan
Nov 9 at 14:12
There are only 2 coordinates $(x^+,x^-)$ in 1+1D and $u$ cannot depend on $x^+$. So the above conclusion follows.
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 9 at 17:44
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Yes, it is the only solution. Hints for proof:
Go to lightcone coordinates: $x^pm~:=~x pm vt$.
Show that OP's eq. (1) in 1+1D becomes $fracpartial upartial x^+~=~0$.
Deduce that $u=u(x^-)$ is a function of $x^-$ only.
Yes, it is the only solution. Hints for proof:
Go to lightcone coordinates: $x^pm~:=~x pm vt$.
Show that OP's eq. (1) in 1+1D becomes $fracpartial upartial x^+~=~0$.
Deduce that $u=u(x^-)$ is a function of $x^-$ only.
edited Nov 9 at 17:45
answered Nov 9 at 12:34
Qmechanic♦
101k121821135
101k121821135
I see that using $fracpartial upartial x^+ = 0$ implies that $u = u(x^ -)$, but I don't see how that excludes any other solution?
– lemdan
Nov 9 at 14:12
There are only 2 coordinates $(x^+,x^-)$ in 1+1D and $u$ cannot depend on $x^+$. So the above conclusion follows.
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 9 at 17:44
add a comment |
I see that using $fracpartial upartial x^+ = 0$ implies that $u = u(x^ -)$, but I don't see how that excludes any other solution?
– lemdan
Nov 9 at 14:12
There are only 2 coordinates $(x^+,x^-)$ in 1+1D and $u$ cannot depend on $x^+$. So the above conclusion follows.
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 9 at 17:44
I see that using $fracpartial upartial x^+ = 0$ implies that $u = u(x^ -)$, but I don't see how that excludes any other solution?
– lemdan
Nov 9 at 14:12
I see that using $fracpartial upartial x^+ = 0$ implies that $u = u(x^ -)$, but I don't see how that excludes any other solution?
– lemdan
Nov 9 at 14:12
There are only 2 coordinates $(x^+,x^-)$ in 1+1D and $u$ cannot depend on $x^+$. So the above conclusion follows.
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 9 at 17:44
There are only 2 coordinates $(x^+,x^-)$ in 1+1D and $u$ cannot depend on $x^+$. So the above conclusion follows.
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 9 at 17:44
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The equation is linear, and the solution to a linear equation in one unknown is always unique.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The equation is linear, and the solution to a linear equation in one unknown is always unique.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The equation is linear, and the solution to a linear equation in one unknown is always unique.
The equation is linear, and the solution to a linear equation in one unknown is always unique.
answered Nov 9 at 15:24
Chester Miller
14.4k2723
14.4k2723
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f439877%2fare-characteristics-the-only-solution-to-the-advection-equation-in-11d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I voted to migrate this to Mathematics.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 9 at 17:19
Fluid Dynamics and solutions thereof may require maths, but certainly is a physics question...
– Kyle Kanos
Nov 10 at 18:04