Skip to content

What remains unchanged when two KdV solitons collide, and what changes? Far before and after the interaction, each pulse has the same amplitude and speed, but its outgoing trajectory is displaced from its incoming trajectory. You will extract those straight lines from an exact two-soliton solution, calculate the advance of the faster pulse and the delay of the slower one, and explain why simply adding two travelling waves misses the collision.

Required background. Derive a KdV travelling wave establishes the single-pulse profile and its amplitude–speed relation. You will also use exponentials, logarithms and partial derivatives.

Helpful background. Reconstruct a one-soliton solution introduces u=2∂x2log⁡τu=2\partial_x^2\log\tau. The solitary-wave and soliton reference explains the distinction that this collision makes concrete.

Use the positive-pulse convention

ut+6uux+uxxx=0,x,t∈R,u_t+6uu_x+u_{xxx}=0,\qquad x,t\in\mathbb R,

with a real smooth field decaying as x→±∞x\to\pm\infty at each fixed time. Choose two distinct inverse widths and two real phase parameters:

κ1>κ2>0,x1,x2∈R.\kappa_1\gt\kappa_2\gt0,\qquad x_1,x_2\in\mathbb R.

Define

ηj=2κj(x−4κj2t−xj),j=1,2,A=(κ1−κ2κ1+κ2)2,τ=1+eη1+eη2+Aeη1+η2.\begin{aligned} \eta_j&=2\kappa_j(x-4\kappa_j^2t-x_j),\qquad j=1,2,\\ A&=\left(\frac{\kappa_1-\kappa_2}{\kappa_1+\kappa_2}\right)^2,\\ \tau&=1+e^{\eta_1}+e^{\eta_2}+Ae^{\eta_1+\eta_2}. \end{aligned}

The exact two-soliton field is

u(x,t)=2∂x2log⁡τ=2ττxx−τx2τ2.u(x,t)=2\partial_x^2\log\tau =2\frac{\tau\tau_{xx}-\tau_x^2}{\tau^2}.

Since 0<A<10\lt A\lt1, all four terms in τ\tau are positive, so its logarithm has no singularity. As x→−∞x\to-\infty, τ→1\tau\to1; as x→+∞x\to+\infty, the last exponential dominates. In either case the second logarithmic derivative decays. The full field, rather than a sum of independently prescribed pulses, supplies the initial condition at any chosen time.

The finite-rank reconstruction behind this expression is Aktosun 2009, § IX, equations (9.1)–(9.3). His KdV field has the opposite sign: writing it as q=−uq=-u converts his qt−6qqx+qxxx=0q_t-6qq_x+q_{xxx}=0 to our equation. The Library derivation obtains the two-by-two determinant, translates its phase parameters, and checks the PDE. Here the task is to read the collision from the resulting scalar function.

The labels 11 and 22 follow the parameters κj\kappa_j: soliton 11 is faster because 4κ12>4κ224\kappa_1^2\gt4\kappa_2^2. They do not mean “left peak” and “right peak” at every time. Also, x1,x2x_1,x_2 are phase parameters; they are not both incoming center intercepts.

Let τ~=eax+bt+dτ\widetilde\tau=e^{ax+bt+d}\tau, with real constants a,b,da,b,d. Does 2∂x2log⁡τ~2\partial_x^2\log\widetilde\tau give the same field? Does this allow you to discard a positive coefficient CC inside 1+Ceη1+Ce^\eta?

Repair: separate an overall factor from a relative coefficient

The logarithm of the overall factor is ax+bt+dax+bt+d, whose second xx derivative is zero. Thus multiplying the entire tau function by this factor leaves uu unchanged. In contrast, 1+Ceη1+Ce^\eta changes the relative size of its two terms:

1+Ceη=1+eη+log⁡C.1+Ce^\eta=1+e^{\eta+\log C}.

The coefficient shifts the phase and therefore the pulse center. It cannot be dropped unless the corresponding position shift is retained.

Read a center from a surviving exponential

Section titled “Read a center from a surviving exponential”

For C>0C\gt0 and η=2κ(x−4κ2t−x0)\eta=2\kappa(x-4\kappa^2t-x_0), direct differentiation gives

2∂x2log⁡(1+Ceη)=8κ2Ceη(1+Ceη)2=2κ2sech⁡2(η+log⁡C2).\begin{aligned} 2\partial_x^2\log(1+Ce^\eta) &=\frac{8\kappa^2Ce^\eta}{(1+Ce^\eta)^2}\\ &=2\kappa^2\operatorname{sech}^2 \left(\frac{\eta+\log C}{2}\right). \end{aligned}

Its maximum occurs when η+log⁡C=0\eta+\log C=0, so its center is

X(t)=4κ2t+x0−log⁡C2κ.X(t)=4\kappa^2t+x_0-\frac{\log C}{2\kappa}.

The coefficient CC changes the intercept. The amplitude 2κ22\kappa^2, speed 4κ24\kappa^2 and width scale 1/κ1/\kappa stay fixed. In particular, C=A<1C=A\lt1 shifts the center to the right because log⁡A<0\log A\lt0.

To apply this observation to a collision, follow one pulse as time grows in magnitude. Taking t→±∞t\to\pm\infty at a fixed laboratory position would miss both right-moving pulses. Instead, hold a coordinate moving at the chosen soliton’s speed fixed.

Follow the fast pulse through both time limits

Section titled “Follow the fast pulse through both time limits”

Set

ξ1=x−4κ12t−x1.\xi_1=x-4\kappa_1^2t-x_1.

At fixed ξ1\xi_1, the first phase is η1=2κ1ξ1\eta_1=2\kappa_1\xi_1, while

η2=2κ2[4(κ12−κ22)t+x1−x2+ξ1].\eta_2=2\kappa_2\left[ 4(\kappa_1^2-\kappa_2^2)t+x_1-x_2+\xi_1 \right].

The coefficient of tt is positive. Therefore, as t→−∞t\to-\infty, eη2→0e^{\eta_2}\to0 and

τ⟶1+eη1.\tau\longrightarrow1+e^{\eta_1}.

The incoming fast-pulse center approaches the line 4κ12t+x14\kappa_1^2t+x_1.

As t→+∞t\to+\infty, eη2e^{\eta_2} grows. Factor it out before taking the limit:

τeη2=e−η2(1+eη1)+1+Aeη1⟶1+Aeη1.\frac{\tau}{e^{\eta_2}} =e^{-\eta_2}(1+e^{\eta_1})+1+Ae^{\eta_1} \longrightarrow1+Ae^{\eta_1}.

The factor eη2e^{\eta_2} contributes nothing to the second logarithmic derivative. The outgoing fast-pulse line is consequently

4κ12t+x1−log⁡A2κ1.4\kappa_1^2t+x_1-\frac{\log A}{2\kappa_1}.

For fixed distinct κj\kappa_j, the discarded terms and their first two spatial derivatives tend to zero exponentially on each bounded ξ1\xi_1 interval. This justifies extracting the limiting profile after differentiating the logarithm; it is more than a comparison of the largest terms in τ\tau.

Follow the slow pulse and compare the lines

Section titled “Follow the slow pulse and compare the lines”

Now hold ξ2=x−4κ22t−x2\xi_2=x-4\kappa_2^2t-x_2 fixed. Then

η1=2κ1[4(κ22−κ12)t+x2−x1+ξ2].\eta_1=2\kappa_1\left[ 4(\kappa_2^2-\kappa_1^2)t+x_2-x_1+\xi_2 \right].

This time the coefficient of tt is negative. At early times η1→+∞\eta_1\to+\infty, and

τeη1=e−η1(1+eη2)+1+Aeη2⟶1+Aeη2.\frac{\tau}{e^{\eta_1}} =e^{-\eta_1}(1+e^{\eta_2})+1+Ae^{\eta_2} \longrightarrow1+Ae^{\eta_2}.

At late times η1→−∞\eta_1\to-\infty and τ→1+eη2\tau\to1+e^{\eta_2}. The slow pulse therefore carries the coefficient AA before the collision, whereas the fast pulse carries it after the collision.

Write each asymptotic line as

Xj±(t)=4κj2t+bj±,X_j^\pm(t)=4\kappa_j^2t+b_j^\pm,

where −- labels incoming and ++ outgoing. The calculation gives

SolitonIncoming intercept bj−b_j^-Outgoing intercept bj+b_j^+
Fast, j=1j=1x1x_1x1−log⁡A/(2κ1)x_1-\log A/(2\kappa_1)
Slow, j=2j=2x2−log⁡A/(2κ2)x_2-\log A/(2\kappa_2)x2x_2

Define the signed position shift by comparing these intercepts, or equivalently by comparing the two extrapolated lines at the same time:

ΔX1=b1+−b1−=−log⁡A2κ1>0,ΔX2=b2+−b2−=log⁡A2κ2<0.\begin{aligned} \Delta X_1&=b_1^+-b_1^- =-\frac{\log A}{2\kappa_1}\gt0,\\ \Delta X_2&=b_2^+-b_2^- =\frac{\log A}{2\kappa_2}\lt0. \end{aligned}

The fast soliton advances; the slow one lags. Their shifts are independent of x1,x2x_1,x_2, which set where and when the interaction occurs. A useful sign and normalization check is

κ1ΔX1+κ2ΔX2=0.\kappa_1\Delta X_1+\kappa_2\Delta X_2=0.

An advance does not mean that the outgoing fast pulse has a permanently larger speed: the two lines have the same slope. A position shift is also different from subtracting the pulse’s positions at two different times, which includes ordinary travel.

Use nondimensional values κ1=1\kappa_1=1, κ2=1/2\kappa_2=1/2, so A=1/9A=1/9. Choose

x1=−log⁡32,x2=−log⁡3.x_1=-\frac{\log3}{2},\qquad x_2=-\log3.

These phases give the following asymptotic data:

QuantityFast solitonSlow soliton
Amplitude, before and after221/21/2
Speed, before and after4411
Incoming line4t−log⁡3/24t-\log3/2t+log⁡3t+\log3
Outgoing line4t+log⁡3/24t+\log3/2t−log⁡3t-\log3
Signed position shiftlog⁡3\log3−2log⁡3-2\log3

For example, the slow incoming intercept is x2−log⁡(1/9)=log⁡3x_2-\log(1/9)=\log3, not the phase parameter x2=−log⁡3x_2=-\log3. Both shifts follow from one exact field.

The three profiles below show what happens between those separated limits. At t=0t=0, the phases give the independent check

τ(x,0)=(1+ex)3,u(x,0)=32sech⁡2(x/2).\tau(x,0)=(1+e^x)^3, \qquad u(x,0)=\frac32\operatorname{sech}^2(x/2).

The overlap peak has height 3/23/2, which differs from both separated amplitudes 22 and 1/21/2.

Exact KdV profiles before, during and after collision: two unequal pulses form one broader peak, then separate with the faster pulse ahead.

One exact field at t=−4,0,4t=-4,0,4, with the parameters above and shared linear axes. Dashed vertical lines mark the extrapolated incoming centers at t=−4t=-4 and outgoing centers at t=4t=4; they are asymptotic predictions, not exact finite-time maxima. No individual pulse centers are assigned during overlap. The plot uses the exact tau function, not a numerical PDE evolution.

“Before and after” means the separated limits, not every moment of overlap. During the collision the field is deformed, and two distinct local maxima need not persist. Matching the solitons by their asymptotic speeds avoids assigning a physical identity to a peak through an ambiguous merger. The result establishes elastic two-soliton scattering in this exact family; it is not a claim that arbitrary initial waves have no radiation.

Let u1,u2u_1,u_2 be two exact single-pulse solutions and define the KdV residual of a field ww by

R[w]=wt+6wwx+wxxx.\mathcal R[w]=w_t+6ww_x+w_{xxx}.

Expanding the nonlinear term and using R[u1]=R[u2]=0\mathcal R[u_1]=\mathcal R[u_2]=0 yields

R[u1+u2]=6(u1u2x+u2u1x)=6∂x(u1u2).\mathcal R[u_1+u_2] =6(u_1u_{2x}+u_2u_{1x}) =6\partial_x(u_1u_2).

Their product is positive at finite positions and tends to zero at spatial infinity, so it is not constant; its derivative cannot vanish identically. Thus the sum fails the PDE, even though its residual may vanish at particular points. When the pulses are far apart, overlap is exponentially small and the sum is a useful approximation. Through the interaction, use the full tau function.

The collision laboratory tests a numerical evolution against this exact solution. At finite observation times, measured centers have remaining interaction corrections as well as discretization error. Increasing pulse separation and refining the computation answer different questions.

Take κ1=3/2\kappa_1=3/2, κ2=1/2\kappa_2=1/2 and x1=x2=0x_1=x_2=0. Compute AA, all four intercepts, both position shifts, and the two amplitudes and speeds. Check the weighted-shift identity.

Hint

Here (κ1−κ2)/(κ1+κ2)=1/2(\kappa_1-\kappa_2)/(\kappa_1+\kappa_2)=1/2. Insert the resulting log⁡A\log A into the intercept table before subtracting.

Solution

We have A=1/4A=1/4 and log⁡A=−2log⁡2\log A=-2\log2. Hence

b1−=0,b1+=23log⁡2,b2−=2log⁡2,b2+=0.\begin{aligned} b_1^-&=0,& b_1^+&=\frac23\log2,\\ b_2^-&=2\log2,& b_2^+&=0. \end{aligned}

The shifts are ΔX1=(2/3)log⁡2\Delta X_1=(2/3)\log2 and ΔX2=−2log⁡2\Delta X_2=-2\log2. Their weighted sum is

32(23log⁡2)+12(−2log⁡2)=0.\frac32\left(\frac23\log2\right) +\frac12(-2\log2)=0.

The amplitudes are 9/29/2 and 1/21/2; the speeds are 99 and 11. Each pair of incoming and outgoing lines has the same slope. The larger negative shift belongs to the slower pulse, but both pulses still move to the right.

Independent: prescribe the incoming trajectories

Section titled “Independent: prescribe the incoming trajectories”

For κ1=1\kappa_1=1 and κ2=1/2\kappa_2=1/2, prescribe the incoming lines 4t−54t-5 and t+2t+2. Find the phase parameters x1,x2x_1,x_2 to use in τ\tau, then predict both outgoing lines. Explain the error in setting x2=2x_2=2.

Hint

Solve b1−=x1b_1^-=x_1 and b2−=x2−log⁡A/(2κ2)b_2^-=x_2-\log A/(2\kappa_2) for the phase parameters. This is an inverse use of the table.

Solution

Since A=1/9A=1/9, the phases are

x1=−5,x2=2−2log⁡3.x_1=-5,\qquad x_2=2-2\log3.

The outgoing lines are

X1+(t)=4t−5+log⁡3,X2+(t)=t+2−2log⁡3.X_1^+(t)=4t-5+\log3, \qquad X_2^+(t)=t+2-2\log3.

Setting x2=2x_2=2 would prescribe the slow incoming line t+2+2log⁡3t+2+2\log3, not the requested t+2t+2. The phase shifts would remain the same, but the initial arrangement and collision location would differ.

Transfer: let the two inverse widths approach each other

Section titled “Transfer: let the two inverse widths approach each other”

Keep x1=x2=0x_1=x_2=0 and let κ1,κ2→κ>0\kappa_1,\kappa_2\to\kappa\gt0 through κ1>κ2\kappa_1\gt\kappa_2. What happens to AA and the shift formulas? Separately take the limit of τ\tau at fixed finite x,tx,t. Identify the resulting field. Why is this not a collision of two distinct equal-speed pulses with infinite shifts?

Hint

At fixed x,tx,t, both phases tend to η=2κ(x−4κ2t)\eta=2\kappa(x-4\kappa^2t). Retain the coefficient of eηe^\eta when applying the single-exponential formula. Compare this limit with the moving-frame time limits used earlier.

Solution

Here A→0A\to0 and log⁡A→−∞\log A\to-\infty, so ΔX1→+∞\Delta X_1\to+\infty and ΔX2→−∞\Delta X_2\to-\infty. But at fixed finite x,tx,t,

τ⟶1+2eη.\tau\longrightarrow1+2e^\eta.

The same limit holds after the needed spatial differentiations on bounded space-time sets. Consequently,

u⟶2κ2sech⁡2[κ(x−4κ2t)+log⁡22].u\longrightarrow2\kappa^2\operatorname{sech}^2 \left[\kappa(x-4\kappa^2t)+\frac{\log2}{2}\right].

This is one pulse, centered at 4κ2t−log⁡2/(2κ)4\kappa^2t-\log2/(2\kappa). The distinct-pulse asymptotics assumed fixed κ1>κ2\kappa_1\gt\kappa_2 before sending t→±∞t\to\pm\infty. As their difference shrinks, the relative speed 4(κ12−κ22)4(\kappa_1^2-\kappa_2^2) vanishes and those limits cease to be uniform in the parameters. Interchanging them changes the question. This limiting calculation does not construct a two-pulse equal-speed scattering process.

From exact shifts to a numerical measurement

Section titled “From exact shifts to a numerical measurement”

You can now obtain each incoming and outgoing line by choosing a moving frame, removing an irrelevant overall exponential, and keeping the coefficient of the surviving phase. Continue to measure a collision numerically using the full exact solution as the benchmark. For the reconstruction and PDE proof supporting the formula, use two-soliton scattering in the Library.

  • Aktosun, Tuncay. “Inverse Scattering Transform and the Theory of Solitons.” In Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, edited by Robert A. Meyers, pp. 4960–4971. Springer, 2009. DOI. Author version arXiv:0905.4746v1, § IX, equations (9.1)–(9.3); open text, PDF.