Strogatz 3.3.1d: when is adiabatic elimination allowable?












2














I worked through much of 3.3.1 (Laser Threshold) in Strogatz's Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, but I'm struggling to understand the adiabatic elimination he does and when it's allowable.



We have a system modeling a laser where $n$ is the number of photons in the laser and $N$ is the number of excited atoms. The equations are:



$$dot n= GnN-kn$$
$$dot N= -GnN-fN+p$$



where $G$, $k$, $f$, and $p$ are various control parameters.



To convert it from a one-dimensional system, we make the 'quasi-static' approximation $dot N approx 0$, which Strogatz says represents "$N$ relaxing more rapidly than $n$".



This approximation is the part I'm confused about:



a) If $dot Napprox0$, do we assume that $N$ is constant? Or are these different assumptions? How can $dot Napprox0$ be true when $dot N$ has the constant, non-zero $p$ term?



b) In the 4th part of the question, we are asked to find the range of parameters for which this approximation is acceptable. I tried the 'dimensionless' groups approach from earlier in the book, but that led to a dead-end. Is there a good introduction to when adiabatic elimination is allowed that isn't in the context of complex Quantum Mechanics?










share|cite|improve this question



























    2














    I worked through much of 3.3.1 (Laser Threshold) in Strogatz's Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, but I'm struggling to understand the adiabatic elimination he does and when it's allowable.



    We have a system modeling a laser where $n$ is the number of photons in the laser and $N$ is the number of excited atoms. The equations are:



    $$dot n= GnN-kn$$
    $$dot N= -GnN-fN+p$$



    where $G$, $k$, $f$, and $p$ are various control parameters.



    To convert it from a one-dimensional system, we make the 'quasi-static' approximation $dot N approx 0$, which Strogatz says represents "$N$ relaxing more rapidly than $n$".



    This approximation is the part I'm confused about:



    a) If $dot Napprox0$, do we assume that $N$ is constant? Or are these different assumptions? How can $dot Napprox0$ be true when $dot N$ has the constant, non-zero $p$ term?



    b) In the 4th part of the question, we are asked to find the range of parameters for which this approximation is acceptable. I tried the 'dimensionless' groups approach from earlier in the book, but that led to a dead-end. Is there a good introduction to when adiabatic elimination is allowed that isn't in the context of complex Quantum Mechanics?










    share|cite|improve this question

























      2












      2








      2







      I worked through much of 3.3.1 (Laser Threshold) in Strogatz's Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, but I'm struggling to understand the adiabatic elimination he does and when it's allowable.



      We have a system modeling a laser where $n$ is the number of photons in the laser and $N$ is the number of excited atoms. The equations are:



      $$dot n= GnN-kn$$
      $$dot N= -GnN-fN+p$$



      where $G$, $k$, $f$, and $p$ are various control parameters.



      To convert it from a one-dimensional system, we make the 'quasi-static' approximation $dot N approx 0$, which Strogatz says represents "$N$ relaxing more rapidly than $n$".



      This approximation is the part I'm confused about:



      a) If $dot Napprox0$, do we assume that $N$ is constant? Or are these different assumptions? How can $dot Napprox0$ be true when $dot N$ has the constant, non-zero $p$ term?



      b) In the 4th part of the question, we are asked to find the range of parameters for which this approximation is acceptable. I tried the 'dimensionless' groups approach from earlier in the book, but that led to a dead-end. Is there a good introduction to when adiabatic elimination is allowed that isn't in the context of complex Quantum Mechanics?










      share|cite|improve this question













      I worked through much of 3.3.1 (Laser Threshold) in Strogatz's Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, but I'm struggling to understand the adiabatic elimination he does and when it's allowable.



      We have a system modeling a laser where $n$ is the number of photons in the laser and $N$ is the number of excited atoms. The equations are:



      $$dot n= GnN-kn$$
      $$dot N= -GnN-fN+p$$



      where $G$, $k$, $f$, and $p$ are various control parameters.



      To convert it from a one-dimensional system, we make the 'quasi-static' approximation $dot N approx 0$, which Strogatz says represents "$N$ relaxing more rapidly than $n$".



      This approximation is the part I'm confused about:



      a) If $dot Napprox0$, do we assume that $N$ is constant? Or are these different assumptions? How can $dot Napprox0$ be true when $dot N$ has the constant, non-zero $p$ term?



      b) In the 4th part of the question, we are asked to find the range of parameters for which this approximation is acceptable. I tried the 'dimensionless' groups approach from earlier in the book, but that led to a dead-end. Is there a good introduction to when adiabatic elimination is allowed that isn't in the context of complex Quantum Mechanics?







      differential-equations nonlinear-system approximation-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Mar 28 '17 at 22:11









      Perrako

      1111




      1111






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          As for the "a)" part - I searched for an answer to this question as well. I think I'm having a similar issue with Strogatz's book where he just assumes too much without explaining it properly.



          Adiabatic elimination assumes two timescales exist in the differential equation - one "fast" (here followed by $N$) and one "slow" (followed by $n$). In other words $N$ changes very, very fast compared to $n$ - so fast you could almost view $n$ as constant when considering changes in $N$.



          Let's say we're most interested in values of $n$, rather than $N$ and try to analyze the evolution of the equation. We can picture that at the beginning both $dot{N} neq 0$ and $dot{n} neq 0$. However, very quickly (given our timescale - we are interested in $n$) $N$ reaches some kind of equilibrium ($dot{N} = 0$). During this short time $n$ almost stays constant. Then the value of $n$ changes a little bit and so $N$ has to reach a new equilibrium for this value of $n$. This happens so quickly that it seems almost instant in our timescale and we again have $dot{N} = 0$. This is where the sentence from Strogatz's book comes in - We can say that evolution of $N$ is slaved to that of $n$. We can say that we're seeing only $dot{N} = 0$.



          You could imagine driving an indestrucible car into a slowly moving concrete wall on a runway. Assume both wall and your car are moving in the same direction. At time $t_0$, the wall is in the middle of the runway, moving 1 m/h and you're at the beginning, driving 230 km/h. After a very short time you hit the wall and then continue to move 1 m/h, despite pushing the pedal to the metal. Your movement is entirely controlled by movement of the concrete wall.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            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: "69"
            };
            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',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2207706%2fstrogatz-3-3-1d-when-is-adiabatic-elimination-allowable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0














            As for the "a)" part - I searched for an answer to this question as well. I think I'm having a similar issue with Strogatz's book where he just assumes too much without explaining it properly.



            Adiabatic elimination assumes two timescales exist in the differential equation - one "fast" (here followed by $N$) and one "slow" (followed by $n$). In other words $N$ changes very, very fast compared to $n$ - so fast you could almost view $n$ as constant when considering changes in $N$.



            Let's say we're most interested in values of $n$, rather than $N$ and try to analyze the evolution of the equation. We can picture that at the beginning both $dot{N} neq 0$ and $dot{n} neq 0$. However, very quickly (given our timescale - we are interested in $n$) $N$ reaches some kind of equilibrium ($dot{N} = 0$). During this short time $n$ almost stays constant. Then the value of $n$ changes a little bit and so $N$ has to reach a new equilibrium for this value of $n$. This happens so quickly that it seems almost instant in our timescale and we again have $dot{N} = 0$. This is where the sentence from Strogatz's book comes in - We can say that evolution of $N$ is slaved to that of $n$. We can say that we're seeing only $dot{N} = 0$.



            You could imagine driving an indestrucible car into a slowly moving concrete wall on a runway. Assume both wall and your car are moving in the same direction. At time $t_0$, the wall is in the middle of the runway, moving 1 m/h and you're at the beginning, driving 230 km/h. After a very short time you hit the wall and then continue to move 1 m/h, despite pushing the pedal to the metal. Your movement is entirely controlled by movement of the concrete wall.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              0














              As for the "a)" part - I searched for an answer to this question as well. I think I'm having a similar issue with Strogatz's book where he just assumes too much without explaining it properly.



              Adiabatic elimination assumes two timescales exist in the differential equation - one "fast" (here followed by $N$) and one "slow" (followed by $n$). In other words $N$ changes very, very fast compared to $n$ - so fast you could almost view $n$ as constant when considering changes in $N$.



              Let's say we're most interested in values of $n$, rather than $N$ and try to analyze the evolution of the equation. We can picture that at the beginning both $dot{N} neq 0$ and $dot{n} neq 0$. However, very quickly (given our timescale - we are interested in $n$) $N$ reaches some kind of equilibrium ($dot{N} = 0$). During this short time $n$ almost stays constant. Then the value of $n$ changes a little bit and so $N$ has to reach a new equilibrium for this value of $n$. This happens so quickly that it seems almost instant in our timescale and we again have $dot{N} = 0$. This is where the sentence from Strogatz's book comes in - We can say that evolution of $N$ is slaved to that of $n$. We can say that we're seeing only $dot{N} = 0$.



              You could imagine driving an indestrucible car into a slowly moving concrete wall on a runway. Assume both wall and your car are moving in the same direction. At time $t_0$, the wall is in the middle of the runway, moving 1 m/h and you're at the beginning, driving 230 km/h. After a very short time you hit the wall and then continue to move 1 m/h, despite pushing the pedal to the metal. Your movement is entirely controlled by movement of the concrete wall.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                0












                0








                0






                As for the "a)" part - I searched for an answer to this question as well. I think I'm having a similar issue with Strogatz's book where he just assumes too much without explaining it properly.



                Adiabatic elimination assumes two timescales exist in the differential equation - one "fast" (here followed by $N$) and one "slow" (followed by $n$). In other words $N$ changes very, very fast compared to $n$ - so fast you could almost view $n$ as constant when considering changes in $N$.



                Let's say we're most interested in values of $n$, rather than $N$ and try to analyze the evolution of the equation. We can picture that at the beginning both $dot{N} neq 0$ and $dot{n} neq 0$. However, very quickly (given our timescale - we are interested in $n$) $N$ reaches some kind of equilibrium ($dot{N} = 0$). During this short time $n$ almost stays constant. Then the value of $n$ changes a little bit and so $N$ has to reach a new equilibrium for this value of $n$. This happens so quickly that it seems almost instant in our timescale and we again have $dot{N} = 0$. This is where the sentence from Strogatz's book comes in - We can say that evolution of $N$ is slaved to that of $n$. We can say that we're seeing only $dot{N} = 0$.



                You could imagine driving an indestrucible car into a slowly moving concrete wall on a runway. Assume both wall and your car are moving in the same direction. At time $t_0$, the wall is in the middle of the runway, moving 1 m/h and you're at the beginning, driving 230 km/h. After a very short time you hit the wall and then continue to move 1 m/h, despite pushing the pedal to the metal. Your movement is entirely controlled by movement of the concrete wall.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                As for the "a)" part - I searched for an answer to this question as well. I think I'm having a similar issue with Strogatz's book where he just assumes too much without explaining it properly.



                Adiabatic elimination assumes two timescales exist in the differential equation - one "fast" (here followed by $N$) and one "slow" (followed by $n$). In other words $N$ changes very, very fast compared to $n$ - so fast you could almost view $n$ as constant when considering changes in $N$.



                Let's say we're most interested in values of $n$, rather than $N$ and try to analyze the evolution of the equation. We can picture that at the beginning both $dot{N} neq 0$ and $dot{n} neq 0$. However, very quickly (given our timescale - we are interested in $n$) $N$ reaches some kind of equilibrium ($dot{N} = 0$). During this short time $n$ almost stays constant. Then the value of $n$ changes a little bit and so $N$ has to reach a new equilibrium for this value of $n$. This happens so quickly that it seems almost instant in our timescale and we again have $dot{N} = 0$. This is where the sentence from Strogatz's book comes in - We can say that evolution of $N$ is slaved to that of $n$. We can say that we're seeing only $dot{N} = 0$.



                You could imagine driving an indestrucible car into a slowly moving concrete wall on a runway. Assume both wall and your car are moving in the same direction. At time $t_0$, the wall is in the middle of the runway, moving 1 m/h and you're at the beginning, driving 230 km/h. After a very short time you hit the wall and then continue to move 1 m/h, despite pushing the pedal to the metal. Your movement is entirely controlled by movement of the concrete wall.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 25 at 14:31









                ocmob

                1




                1






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics 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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2207706%2fstrogatz-3-3-1d-when-is-adiabatic-elimination-allowable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Aardman Animations

                    Are they similar matrix

                    “minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis