I’m trying to develop a geometric intuition about what the d’Alembert operator actually signifies. Specifically, I’m looking for a geometric intuition as to why equations of the form

\[\square =0\]

have waves as solutions, as opposed to something else that “lives” on the light cone. I can see where the light cone comes in, and I also understand why analytically/algebraically the solutions to this PDE are waves; I’m just missing a geometric intuition as to where these “waves” come from, if that makes sense. I’m a very visual thinker, so having such an intuition is always really helpful to me.

Any takers?

Huygens-Fresnel principle

Very quickly since I'm on my way out,

The Darlambertian or box operator is the four dimensional equivalent of the 3D nabla or del operator.

As such it is a partial differential operator.

The solution to ordinary differential equations involvesarbitrary constants of integration to be added or accounted for.

The solution to partial differential equations involves arbitrary functions, not constants to be added or accounted for.

A differential equation connecting space and time is an equation of motion and may also be an equation of something else such as energy.

Schroedinger's equation is an example of this.

Some, but not all, solutions to such equations are wave equations.

A wave equation is an equation of motion - wave motion.

Sorry it's only partially (pun intended) geometric, I will try to add more when time permits.

Hope this helps

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I’m trying to develop a geometric intuition about what the d’Alembert operator actually signifies. Specifically, I’m looking for a geometric intuition as to why equations of the form

□=0

have waves as solutions, as opposed to something else that “lives” on the light cone. I can see where the light cone comes in, and I also understand why analytically/algebraically the solutions to this PDE are waves; I’m just missing a geometric intuition as to where these “waves” come from, if that makes sense. I’m a very visual thinker, so having such an intuition is always really helpful to me.

An analogous case occurs in fluid mechanics only featuring sonic velocity instead of c.

My kneejerk simplification would be to convert to spherical spatial coordinates and look at a spherically symmetrical system such as an oscillating bubble (all the phis and thetas drop out)

1/r² d/dr(r²dY/dr) - 1/c² d²Y/dt² = 0

The standard substitution Y(r,t) = u(r,t)/r yields the 1D wave equation:

d²u/dr² - 1/c²d²u/dt² = 0 which has the general solution:

Y(r,t) = f(r - ct)/r + g(r + ct)/r (outgoing wave + incoming wave)

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I’m just missing a geometric intuition as to where these “waves” come from

The general solution just happens to support standing waves, so we can insert one or two as boundary conditions yielding forms such as::

Y(r,t) = A/r e^i(kr-wt) + B/r e^-i(kr+wt) (k = w/c as per usual)

If we relax the spherical symmetry, terms in phi and theta appear as interference patterns.

Apologies if I've missed something much deeper, but its where my mental pictures come from. Oscillating bubbles.

Markus, the following is strictly for intuition ONLY.

The d'Alembertian is a second-order differential operator acting on scalar, vector or tensor fields in 4-space. As such it is merely a generalization of the Laplacian that we see in 3-space, that is, it is the divergence of the gradient of a field.

Intuitively, if, in a physics context, one assumes that the gradient of a field has something to do with electrostatic or gravitational potential (does one?) then the Laplacian tells you how the value of the potential at a point differs from average value of the potential in the neighbourhood of that point

Hence, for an arbitrary field, say \(\phi\) in the absence of a point charge, or mass, say, then

\(\nabla^2 \phi=0\). Why this is not used in the General Theory to describe curvature I cannot say for sure, but suspect it may have something to do with the Bianchi identities.

(As you can see, I am not a physicist)

Edited Wednesday at 02:44 PM1 day by Xerxes

16 hours ago, studiot said:

A differential equation connecting space and time is an equation of motion

An important piece of the puzzle, thank you!

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Some, but not all, solutions to such equations are wave equations.

Yes, that’s where I’m stuck - I’ve only ever seen the equation used as a wave equation, but I never got the geometric intuition as to why it is specifically waves, as opposed to something else.

15 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Apologies if I've missed something much deeper, but its where my mental pictures come from. Oscillating bubbles.

Interesting, thanks! I’ll have to think about this a little more, before I can comment.

13 hours ago, Xerxes said:

then the Laplacian tells you how the value of the potential at a point differs from average value of the potential in the neighbourhood of that point

13 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Why this is not used in the General Theory to describe curvature I cannot say for sure,

These operators are linear, but the dynamics of GR are not, so the field equations needed to be something a little more complex.

17 hours ago, KJW said:

Huygens-Fresnel principle

Good point! But again - why waves in the first place?

But thanks everyone for the inputs :) It still hasn’t quite “clicked” for me yet, so do keep it coming if you can!

30 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes, that’s where I’m stuck - I’ve only ever seen the equation used as a wave equation, but I never got the geometric intuition as to why it is specifically waves, as opposed to something else.

I meant to add to my posting that those modes of vibration that are a) consistent with the general solution and b) are self-reinforcing due to system harmonic resonance tend to appropriate most of the energy available to the system into a dynamic equilibrium of standing waves that dominate system behaviour. I've really only gone deeply into this in acoustics, where for instance musical instruments driven by a 'white noise' excitation produce clear notes with harmonic wavelengths based on integer fractions of a characteristic dimension of the instrument. Non-harmonic waves and other possible modes simply can''t compete.

17 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

  17 hours ago, KJW said:

Huygens-Fresnel principle

Good point! But again - why waves in the first place?

What precisely do you mean by "waves"? Do you know the general solution of the two-dimensional wave equation?

[math]\dfrac{1}{c^2}\dfrac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial t^2} - \dfrac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2} = 0[/math]

[math]\psi = f(ct+x) + g(ct-x)\ \ \ \ \text{where }f()\text{ and }g()\text{ are arbitrary functions of a single variable.}[/math]

Note that:

[math]\dfrac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = cf'(ct+x) + cg'(ct-x)\ \ \ \ \ ;\ \ \ \ \ \dfrac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} = f'(ct+x) - g'(ct-x)\\\dfrac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial t^2} = c^2f''(ct+x) + c^2g''(ct-x)\ \ \ \ \ ;\ \ \ \ \ \dfrac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2} = f''(ct+x) + g''(ct-x)[/math]

Thus, we see that "wave" refers to the motion of a function through spacetime rather than any sinusoidal character of the function. However, arbitrary functions can be decomposed into their sinusoidal Fourier component functions. In the case of the four-dimensional wave equation, a disturbance at each spacetime point propagates along the light cone emanating from that point. And because the wave equation is linear, superposition applies at the intersections of the various light cones, as well as any decomposition of a function into component functions. Also note that because the wave equation is a differential equation, the general solution is valid at each spacetime point, which is the basis of the Huygens-Fresnel principle.

Edited yesterday at 06:17 AM1 day by KJW

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes, that’s where I’m stuck - I’ve only ever seen the equation used as a wave equation, but I never got the geometric intuition as to why it is specifically waves, as opposed to something else.

To further expand on what I hastily dashed off (and +1 to KJW for expanding on the arbitrary function aspect)

We should consider the (geometric) nature of the functions we want f and g to be.

First and foremost they must be bounded at all points of interest.

f(x) = x² for instance is not good for our purposes as it increases without bound as x increases / decreases.

Secondly it must be at least twice differentiable everywhere.

Thirdly we need it to have identifiable points where it vanishes or is identically zero.
These points correspond to the nodes in standing waves and lead to quantum energy levels and the principal quantum number.
Formally this comes from boundary/initial conditions as noted by KJW.

Fourthly we would like a function that, unlike x², dies away to zero at infinity.

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

the geometric intuition as to why it is specifically waves

An arbitrary function f(x-ct) is a wave in the sense that the entire set of the function values rigidly moves along x by ct when the time advances by t.

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by Genady

I would have to double check this after work but if I recall one of the distinctions between the Laplace operator and the D'Albertian operator is that the former is positive norm. This in GR applications relates to the signature with regards to one of its usage. However as I mentioned I'm at work so will have to check that later

Had a chance to look into it the Laplace operator is positive semi definite while the D'alambertian is not hence its usage with hyperbolic geometry

22 hours ago, KJW said:

Thus, we see that "wave" refers to the motion of a function through spacetime rather than any sinusoidal character of the function.

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Thirdly we need it to have identifiable points where it vanishes or is identically zero.

13 hours ago, Genady said:

An arbitrary function f(x-ct) is a wave in the sense that the entire set of the function values rigidly moves along x by ct when the time advances by t.

This is extremely helpful - I knew about the general analytical solution in terms of arbitrary functions, but hadn’t thought about what it actually means. So the above is an important piece of the puzzle.

I will think about this some more. But already now, thanks so much to you all, you are very helpful, as always!

The thing about asking for a geometrical interpretation these days is that Geometry to a mathematician tends to be largely algebraic, and you have to be versed in the terminology as this extract from Professor Frankel's comprehensive treatise (Cambridge University Press) shows.

It does however explain Modred's comments in more detail.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by studiot