There is an important chain rule qualification in this part. The printed value of follows from the expansion. Its printed value of follows only if transverse differentiation of the translated correction profiles is omitted. For a consistent translation-covariant phase expansion, that omission is generally nonzero.
At the leading transverse threshold letwhere the last conditions fix the phase gauge. Put , , and , and use . At order the Fredholm solvability condition givesThe first two contributions follow directly by differentiating:Choose the reflection-symmetric roll with even. Then is odd and even. Projection onto the odd translation mode eliminates , and , leaving exactly the symmetry-allowed phase modulation equation. Its coefficients areandIf one freezes at the unshifted coordinate when taking transverse derivatives, , and its projection contributes only the term. The other two projected terms then give the printed expression . But freezing these profiles is inconsistent with the translated in for a general finite phase displacement. The printed expression needs the extra assumption , which is not an identity.
A small-amplitude calculation demonstrates the difference. For a critical roll of leading amplitude and fast wavenumber , the steady equation and giveThe third harmonic coefficient in follows by dividing its cubic forcing by the fast eigenvalue . Substituting in gives the displayed correction profiles; the near-zero first-harmonic eigenvalue in the even problem must be retained to obtain the first harmonic of . Periodic orthogonality then givesThus the supplied nonlinear coefficient is not generally an exact consequence of the finite-amplitude translated-roll expansion. The corrected coefficient above, the printed calculation under its additional freezing assumption, and the genuine near-threshold phase modulation equation are all distinguished explicitly.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.