Trouble proving equivalence at limit

In summary, the conversation discusses proving the equivalence of the electric field away from a line segment of charge and a point charge, given that the observer is far enough away. The equations for potential for both cases are given and the attempt at a solution involves graphing and simplifying the equations. The expert suggests using a series expansion technique to simplify the expressions and shows how to apply it to the given equations. The conversation ends with a clarification on using the Taylor series for the log function.
  • #1
boris.rarden
4
0

Homework Statement


I'm trying to prove that Electric field away from a line segment of charge, is equivalent to the field away from a point charge, provided I observe from far enough.


Homework Equations



Ignoring all the constants:

potential_line = log( (sqrt(r^2 + a^2) + a) / (sqrt(r^2 + b^2) - b) )

potential_charge = 1/r

Here a+b is the length of the line segment, such that a and b are the parts of the line segment 'above' and 'below' the line of sight of the observer, assuming the line is vertical one. 'r' is the distance to the line along the line of sight.

Trying to show that the two equations become equivalent (close) when r is much bigger than a+b.

The Attempt at a Solution



I graphed with WorlframAlpha both formulas and the graphs look the same. Here are the two links. I took a=2, b=1 for an experiment.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y=log((sqrt(x^2+4)+2)/(sqrt(x^2+1)-1))++from+1+to+100

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3/x+from+1+to+100

The graph looks very close, which is good. But how do I show this algebraically ? I tried to simplify that sqrt(r^2 + a^2) = sqrt(r^2 + b^2) = r, when r >> a+b. The graphs continue to look similar. I tried to simplify the numerator, and got this:

log( 1 + (a+b)/r + ab/r^2 )
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome to PF.

Looks like an interesting problem!

Normally, I try to rewrite functions in the form f(1+ε), where ε is a small quantity compared to 1. Then replace the expression f(1+ε) with a series expansion to 1st or 2nd order in ε.

So, for example, if we had an expression [itex]\sqrt{x^2 + 9}[/itex], where x is large compared to 9, we can rewrite this as

[tex]\begin{align}
\sqrt{x^2 + 9} & = \sqrt{x^2 (1 + 9/x^2)} \\
&= \sqrt{x^2} \cdot \sqrt{1 + 9/x^2} \\
&\approx x \cdot (1 + \frac{1}{2}\frac{9}{x^2}) \\
&= x + \frac{9}{2x}
\end{align}[/tex]

This works because the quantity 9/x2 is small when x is large. Note the use of the approximation [itex]\sqrt{1+\epsilon} =(1+\epsilon)^{1/2} \approx 1+\frac{1}{2} \epsilon[/itex].

See if you can apply that technique to your √-expressions and eventually to the logarithm as well.
 
  • #3
Actually, is there an equivalent approximation trick for log ? I'm stuck because I have to consolidate 1/r and log( f(r) ). Should I use Taylor series ?
 
  • #4
boris.rarden said:
Actually, is there an equivalent approximation trick for log ? I'm stuck because I have to consolidate 1/r and log( f(r) ). Should I use Taylor series ?
Yes, for the log use the Taylor series about the point x=1. I.e.,

log(1+ε) ≈ ?​
 
  • #5
thanks, looks like i was able to show it after all following your ideas and the log expansion.
 

What is meant by "equivalence at limit"?

"Equivalence at limit" refers to the concept that two mathematical expressions or functions are equal or equivalent as the input approaches a certain value or limit. This means that as the input gets closer and closer to the specified limit, the two expressions are essentially the same.

Why is it often difficult to prove equivalence at limit?

Proving equivalence at limit can be challenging because it requires showing that two expressions or functions behave in the same way as the input approaches a certain value or limit. This can be complicated by the fact that some expressions may behave differently as the input approaches different limits, making it difficult to show equivalence for all possible limits.

What are some common methods for proving equivalence at limit?

Some common methods for proving equivalence at limit include using algebraic manipulations, applying theorems such as the squeeze theorem or the limit laws, and using graphical or numerical evidence to support the equivalence.

What are the implications of not being able to prove equivalence at limit?

If equivalence at limit cannot be proven, it means that the two expressions or functions being compared may not be equivalent as the input approaches a certain limit. This can have significant consequences in various mathematical applications, as it may lead to incorrect results or misinterpretation of data.

How can one improve their ability to prove equivalence at limit?

One can improve their ability to prove equivalence at limit by practicing various methods and techniques, developing a strong understanding of mathematical concepts and properties, and seeking help and guidance from others, such as teachers or peers. It can also be helpful to break down the problem into smaller, more manageable parts and to approach it from different perspectives.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
716
Replies
39
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
191
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
64
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
725
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
436
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
718
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
190
Back
Top