• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,743 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  How to solve Cahn-Hilliard free energy extremization for a domain of finite size ?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

First I have to say I asked this question in physicsSE but afterwards somebody advised me to ask it here. Do I have to remove it from SE ?

I'm trying to get the solution of the Cahn-Hilliard equation in 1d with a certain mass $C$. We have two components, and let's assume we have the relation $c_1+c_2=1$.Hence we take only the variable $c=c_1$.

The total energy with the Lagrange parameter $\tilde{\mu}$ (which is a sort of non-local chemical potential) writes :

$$ F[c(\mathbf{r})]=\int \{f(c(\mathbf{r}))+\frac{\epsilon^2}{2} (\nabla c)^2 \}d\Omega -\tilde{\mu}\int (c(\mathbf{r}) -C) d\Omega  $$
In 1 dimension :
$$ \frac{\delta F}{\delta c}=0\implies \frac{df}{dc}-\tilde{\mu}-\epsilon^2 \frac{d^2c}{dx^2}=0$$
Multiplying with $dc/dx$ leads to :
$$\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{dc}{\sqrt{f-\tilde{\mu}(c-C)}}=dx $$
Symmetry imposes $$c'(0)=0\implies f(c(0))-\tilde{\mu}(c(0)-C)=0 $$
At infinity, we also have $c'(\infty)=0 \; ;\;c(\infty)=-1$ (or $0$ depending on the potential you're using).

This equation is solvable for the classical Cahn-Hilliard with  $f-\tilde{\mu}(c-C)=(c^2-c_0^2)^2$. The classical way is to get $x(c)$ and then invert it. You find a $\tanh$ solution. But this solution does not respect the symmetry condition $c'(0)=0$ (right you can make it very very close to $0$ by building manually a solution with tanh functions... but I'm looking for an exact solution of the equation). Meaning it only gives the profile of an interface between 2 semi-infinite media.

What I don't understand is how to get a profile respecting the symmetry condition, meaning with a nucleus/aggregate of one phase into the other phase. Meaning a phase of finite size (for example $c=1$) into the other phase ($c=-1$).

I'm wondering wether my problem is overconstrained since the equation $\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{dc}{\sqrt{f-\tilde{\mu}(c-C)}}=dx $ admits only one new constant and there are 3 constraints : $c'(0)=c'(\pm \infty)=0$ and $\int_{\mathbb{R}}c dx=C$ (about this one I have a doubt since $C$ enters the potential).

Could you help please ?

I'm also surprised I didn't find any litterature about this problem.

REMARK :  I was wondering maybe there was something missing in the equations. But actually no, since the dynamical equation used in simulations is :$\partial_t c = \nabla.(M(c)\nabla((f'(c)-\tilde{\mu)}-\epsilon^2\Delta c))$, so it's logical that the static picture is given by $(f'(c)-\tilde{\mu)}-\epsilon^2\Delta c=0$.

However what could be is that indeed the system is overconstrained and there is no stable solution. Fortunately the $\tanh$ function provides a landscape that is "quasi-stable" (very very slowly unstable) in the sense that beyond the size of the interface it's as if we had a semi-infinite domain since we are very close to it and that's why we use this model in simulations.

What do you think about it ? If this proposition were to be right, what could be a formalism with whom we could build a solution for a finite domain ?

asked Aug 1, 2019 in Theoretical Physics by JA (20 points) [ revision history ]
edited Aug 2, 2019 by JA

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights