Boltzmann equation with collision term

In summary, the Boltzmann equation for a homogeneous plasma with no external forces present can be solved by using techniques such as Laplace transforms or Fourier transforms. The separation of variables approach may not work due to the presence of an inhomogeneous term. Additionally, the proposed solution may not be correct due to incorrect manipulations and not accounting for vector components.
  • #1
Uniquebum
55
1

Homework Statement


Solve the Boltzmann equation for a homogeneous plasma with not external forces present when the collision term is
[itex]\frac{\partial f(v,t)}{\partial t} = -\nu (f(v,t) - f_0(v))[/itex],
where [itex]\nu[/itex] and [itex]f_0[/itex] are constants.


Homework Equations


Boltzmann equation
[itex]\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + v\cdot \nabla f + a \cdot \nabla_v f = -\nu (f(v,t) - f_0(v))[/itex]
where [itex]\nabla_v f[/itex] is the gradient of f in respect to vx, vy and vz.

The Attempt at a Solution


Right, first off, I'm assuming that [itex]v \cdot \nabla f = 0[/itex] since in the collision term it claims that the function f(v,t) doesn't depend on x. This follows that
[itex]\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + a \cdot \nabla_v f = -\nu (f(v,t) - f_0(v))[/itex]

After this i'd assume that the function can be represented as [itex]f(v,t)=g(v)h(t)[/itex]
Now with a little algebra we can get the equation in the form of
[itex]\frac{1}{h(t)}\frac{\partial h(t)}{\partial t} + \nu = \nu \frac{f_0(v)}{g(v)} - \frac{1}{g(v)}a \cdot \nabla_v g(v) = constant = \lambda[/itex]

Now i have a pair of equations and calculating h(t) is fairly simple
[itex]\frac{1}{h(t)}\frac{\partial h(t)}{\partial t} + \nu = \lambda[/itex]
which by integrating leads to
[itex]h(t) = Ce^{(\lambda - \nu)t}[/itex] where C is the integration constant.

However, solving the other equation (below) is a bit harder
[itex]\nu \frac{f_0(v)}{g(v)} - \frac{1}{g(v)}a \cdot \nabla_v g(v) = \lambda[/itex]

I can guess the solution to this would be
[itex]g(v) = e^{(\lambda/a)v}+\nu \frac{f_0(v)}{a}+D[/itex] where D is again some constant.
And as stated before, connecting the two solutions like [itex]f(v,t)=g(v)h(t)[/itex], would give the answer... maybe.

Now the problem is, i have no clue if this correct or even close to the solution. Could anyone check if I'm correct and if not (which is very likely), where have i messed up and how could i do the calculation right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Uniquebum said:

Homework Statement


Solve the Boltzmann equation for a homogeneous plasma with not external forces present when the collision term is
[itex]\frac{\partial f(v,t)}{\partial t} = -\nu (f(v,t) - f_0(v))[/itex],
where [itex]\nu[/itex] and [itex]f_0[/itex] are constants.

I would definitely use a different symbol than ##\nu## for that constant. It took me seeing the LaTeX to notice that there was a ##\nu## and a ##v##. I could definitely see myself mixing the two up by accident during a hand calculation.

Homework Equations


Boltzmann equation
[itex]\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + v\cdot \nabla f + a \cdot \nabla_v f = -\nu (f(v,t) - f_0(v))[/itex]
where [itex]\nabla_v f[/itex] is the gradient of f in respect to vx, vy and vz.

The Attempt at a Solution


Right, first off, I'm assuming that [itex]v \cdot \nabla f = 0[/itex] since in the collision term it claims that the function f(v,t) doesn't depend on x. This follows that
[itex]\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + a \cdot \nabla_v f = -\nu (f(v,t) - f_0(v))[/itex]

After this i'd assume that the function can be represented as [itex]f(v,t)=g(v)h(t)[/itex]
Now with a little algebra we can get the equation in the form of
[itex]\frac{1}{h(t)}\frac{\partial h(t)}{\partial t} + \nu = \nu \frac{f_0(v)}{g(v)} - \frac{1}{g(v)}a \cdot \nabla_v g(v) = constant = \lambda[/itex]

It looks like here is where you made your mistake. When you separate variables and divide by ##h(t)g(v)##, you'll end up with a term ##f_0(v)/(h(t)g(v))##, not ##f_0(v)/g(v)## as you have written. Because of this inhomogeneous term, separation of variables is probably not the best approach to take.

There are a few potential ways to go about solving this problem. One would be to Laplace transform the equation over the time variable. This would leave you with a PDE in v only for the Laplace-transform ##\tilde{f}(v,s)##. Alternatively, assuming the components of v can run from ##-\infty## to ##+\infty##, you could do a 3d Fourier transform over v, leaving you with an ODE in time for the Fourier transform ##\hat{f}(k,t)##. These methods also work well if ##f_0(v)## is an unspecified function, as you could do a Green's function calculation.

Do you know any of these methods?

Now i have a pair of equations and calculating h(t) is fairly simple
[itex]\frac{1}{h(t)}\frac{\partial h(t)}{\partial t} + \nu = \lambda[/itex]
which by integrating leads to
[itex]h(t) = Ce^{(\lambda - \nu)t}[/itex] where C is the integration constant.

However, solving the other equation (below) is a bit harder
[itex]\nu \frac{f_0(v)}{g(v)} - \frac{1}{g(v)}a \cdot \nabla_v g(v) = \lambda[/itex]

I can guess the solution to this would be
[itex]g(v) = e^{(\lambda/a)v}+\nu \frac{f_0(v)}{a}+D[/itex] where D is again some constant.

Unless you just simplified the problem to one dimension without mentioning it, this cannot be correct. The parameter "a" in your original equation is a vector, as is "v", so we should expect to see some sort of dot product in the exponentials if this were the solution. If we plug this back into the PDE, we'll also see that this solution would generate a term ##\nabla_v f_0(v)##, which doesn't appear in the original equation, so something is amiss. If you're not sure of a solution, plugging it back into the PDE is always a good thing to check!
And as stated before, connecting the two solutions like [itex]f(v,t)=g(v)h(t)[/itex], would give the answer... maybe.

As a general comment on the separation of variables technique, ##f(v,t) = h(t)g(v)## itself would not likely be the solution. Typically, in solving the problem (if there were no inhomogeneous term), one would find a set of allowed values for ##\lambda## and sets of functions ##h_\lambda(t)## and ##g_\lambda(v)## to go with them, and the full solution would be

$$f(v,t) = \sum_\lambda c_\lambda h_\lambda (t)g_\lambda (v),##
where the ##c_\lambda## are ##\lambda##-dependent constants that help the series fit the overall boundary conditions you want to impose on the function f(v,t). Note also that the sum in this equation could also be an integral if the set of ##\lambda## are continuous, or the sum could be a sum plus an integral if ##\lambda## has a discrete set of allowed values and a continuous set.

Now the problem is, i have no clue if this correct or even close to the solution. Could anyone check if I'm correct and if not (which is very likely), where have i messed up and how could i do the calculation right?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I'm somewhat familiar with the laplace transform and thus had it a go.
I'll use "k" to replace that nu mark for the sake of convenience.

Now [itex]\frac{\partial f(v,t)}{\partial t} + a \cdot \nabla_v f(v,t) = -k (f(v,t) - f_0(v))[/itex].
What was probably clear before but what i didn't state, was that "v" and "a" are vectors standing for velocity and acceleration, "k" is just a constant and "f_0" is equilibrium distribution (as well a constant).
Using the laplace transform in respect to "t" yields (L stands for the laplace function symbol)
[itex]sL(f(v,t))-f(v,0) + a \cdot \nabla_v L(f(v,t)) = -kL(f(v,t)) - kL(f_0(v))[/itex]
What's the biggest concern here for me is the [itex]a \cdot \nabla_v[/itex] term. Could it be just as simple as [itex]\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial t}\hat{i} \cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial v_x}\hat{i}+... = 3\frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/itex] when done over 3 dimensions? The PDE would be very simple - at a quick glance - to solve even without laplace transform if that's so.

Actually i'll stop here now because the rest of the problem relies on that term and how it behaves. So could i get an answer to the question underlined above? If it behaves in other ways, any help on that would be appreciated.
 
  • #4
Uniquebum said:
I'm somewhat familiar with the laplace transform and thus had it a go.
I'll use "k" to replace that nu mark for the sake of convenience.

Now [itex]\frac{\partial f(v,t)}{\partial t} + a \cdot \nabla_v f(v,t) = -k (f(v,t) - f_0(v))[/itex].
What was probably clear before but what i didn't state, was that "v" and "a" are vectors standing for velocity and acceleration, "k" is just a constant and "f_0" is equilibrium distribution (as well a constant).
Using the laplace transform in respect to "t" yields (L stands for the laplace function symbol)
[itex]sL(f(v,t))-f(v,0) + a \cdot \nabla_v L(f(v,t)) = -kL(f(v,t)) - kL(f_0(v))[/itex]
What's the biggest concern here for me is the [itex]a \cdot \nabla_v[/itex] term. Could it be just as simple as [itex]\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial t}\hat{i} \cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial v_x}\hat{i}+... = 3\frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/itex] when done over 3 dimensions? The PDE would be very simple - at a quick glance - to solve even without laplace transform if that's so.

Actually i'll stop here now because the rest of the problem relies on that term and how it behaves. So could i get an answer to the question underlined above? If it behaves in other ways, any help on that would be appreciated.

Ah, right, it didn't occur to me that ##a## was acceleration. It's been too long since I solved a Boltzmann equation, apparently. This will actually make the problem a lot simpler! First, a mathematical comment:

$$a \cdot \nabla_v \neq 3 \frac{\partial}{\partial t},$$
but there's a similar rule that is true: for a function f(x(t),v(t),t), the total derivative with respect to time can be written

$$\frac{d}{dt} f(x,v,t) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} f(x,v,t) + \frac{dx}{dt} \cdot \nabla_x f(x,v,t) + \frac{dv}{dt} \cdot \nabla_v f(x,v,t),$$
where as usual the gradients of f(x,v,t) are done with t held fixed.

You'll notice that this is basically just the Boltzmann equation! The only additional information we're using is that the total time derivative is equation to the 'collision' term and that there is some force we're imposing on the system, which is what sets ##a = dv/dt##.

...But your initial problem tells us there's no external force on the plasma, which means ##F = ma = 0##. So, basically that troublesome term just goes away! This should make the equation a lot easier to solve. You probably don't even have to Laplace transform.

Note, however, that if there were an external force on the plasma, the acceleration in the ##a \cdot \nabla_v## is set by the external force, and you can't write this term in terms of a time derivative. For example, if you had an external force due to an electric field, ##F = qE = qE_0 \hat{z}##, then ##a \cdot \nabla_v f(v,t) = qE_0 \partial_{v_z} f(v,t)##, and you'd have to solve the equation using the Laplace transform method, for example. Note, however, that if the acceleration from the external force were time-dependent, the Laplace transform of ##a(t) \cdot \nabla_v f(v,t)## is not ##a(t) \cdot \nabla_v L(f(v,t))## because the Laplace integral has to act on a(t) as well, so a Laplace transform wouldn't be a good approach in that case.

But anyways, you have a much simpler case to deal with right now. Give it a shot and let us know if you get stuck again.
 
  • #5
Oh nice! Everything seems so much clearer now :). Thanks a lot Mute!
 

FAQ: Boltzmann equation with collision term

What is the Boltzmann equation with collision term?

The Boltzmann equation with collision term is a mathematical equation used to describe the distribution of particles in a gas or fluid. It takes into account the effects of collisions between particles, which can cause changes in the distribution over time.

What are the variables in the Boltzmann equation with collision term?

The variables in the Boltzmann equation with collision term include the particle density, velocity, and distribution function. The collision term also includes variables such as the cross-section for collisions and the energy transfer between particles.

What is the purpose of the collision term in the Boltzmann equation?

The collision term in the Boltzmann equation is necessary to account for the interaction between particles. It allows the equation to accurately model the changes in particle distribution over time, which is important in understanding the behavior of gases and fluids.

How is the Boltzmann equation with collision term derived?

The Boltzmann equation with collision term is derived from the Boltzmann transport equation, which describes the evolution of a distribution function over time. The collision term is added to this equation to account for the effects of collisions between particles.

What are the applications of the Boltzmann equation with collision term?

The Boltzmann equation with collision term has many applications in the fields of fluid mechanics, plasma physics, and kinetic theory. It is used to model the behavior of gases and fluids, and can also be applied to study the dynamics of charged particles in a plasma.

Similar threads

Back
Top