A Question about fractional calculus

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of fractional calculus, specifically focusing on the function \( E_\mu^t \) and its properties, including the generalized natural logarithm \( \ln_\mu \). Participants explore the implications of varying the parameter \( \mu \) and its significance in mathematical and physical contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the meaning of \( \mu \) in the context of fractional calculus and its implications when \( \mu \) is not equal to 1.
  • One participant explains that \( E_\mu^t \) is a function analogous to \( e^t \) and that its inverse is defined as \( \ln_\mu \), particularly noting that when \( \mu = 1 \), \( E_1^t = e^t \) and \( \ln_1 x = \ln x \).
  • Another participant questions the use of \( E_\mu^t \) when \( \mu \) takes on values other than 1, specifically asking if it implies a different definition of \( e \).
  • Responses clarify that while \( E_\mu^t \) varies with \( \mu \), the definition of \( e^t \) remains unchanged, and the relationship between \( E_\mu^t \) and \( e^t \) does not hold for all values of \( \mu \).
  • Participants express curiosity about the applications of fractional calculus in physics and seek examples of its importance in the field.
  • References to literature and works by authors such as K.B. Oldham and Ralf Metzler are provided to illustrate the relevance of fractional calculus in physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions and properties of \( E_\mu^t \) and \( \ln_\mu \), but there remains uncertainty regarding the implications of varying \( \mu \) and its applications in physics. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the specific uses of fractional calculus in physical contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference an equation from a source that is not fully provided, which may limit understanding of the definitions and properties discussed. There is also mention of a bibliography that could provide further context but is not elaborated upon.

bubblewrap
Messages
134
Reaction score
2
Okay, maybe not really fractional calculus but I don't know what this stands for. Its in the black circle (more like an ellipse though), what does the mu under the natural logarithm mean?
 

Attachments

  • FractionalCal.png
    FractionalCal.png
    75.6 KB · Views: 650
Physics news on Phys.org
[itex]E_\mu^t[/itex] is a function similar to [itex]e^t[/itex] in that [itex]D_t^\mu E_\mu^t= E_\mu^t[/itex]

Its often useful to define the inverse function. [itex]E_\mu^t[/itex] is similar to [itex]e^t[/itex] so we suppose that the inverse of [itex]E_\mu^t[/itex] should be similar to the inverse of [itex]e^t[/itex].

We call this new inverse function the generalized natural log, [itex]\ln_\mu[/itex], to highlight this similarity. In the case where [itex]\mu=1[/itex], [itex]E_1^t=e^t[/itex] and [itex]\ln_1 x= \ln x[/itex].
 
What happens when##\mu## is not 1? I don't understand how this is used. For example when ##\mu## is 2, does it mean that you use ##e## defined in ##E^t_\mu##? What does that mean though?
 
bubblewrap said:
What happens when##\mu## is not 1? I don't understand how this is used. For example when ##\mu## is 2, does it mean that you use ##e## defined in ##E^t_\mu##? What does that mean though?

No. The function [itex]e^t[/itex] is always [itex]e^t[/itex], its definition does not change. The function [itex]E_\mu^t[/itex] is a different function, it sounds like it can be calculated using Equation 28 in the reference you posted (you didn't post the page that contains this equaion).

[itex]E_\mu^t[/itex] has the property [itex]E_1^t=e^t[/itex], but this equaility does not hold for all [itex]\mu[/itex]. For instance [itex]E_{1.3333}^t \ne e^t[/itex].
 
Yeah but as I said what happens when mu is not 1, other than it not being ##e^t##?
 
bubblewrap said:
Yeah but as I said what happens when mu is not 1, other than it not being ##e^t##?

When [itex]\mu \ne 1[/itex] the function [itex]E_\mu^t[/itex] is defined by equation 28 in the reference you are using. The function [itex]\ln_\mu x[/itex] is its inverse. What part of this is unclear?
 
I think I understand now. One more thing, which area of physics uses fractional calculus? Is fractional calculus important in physics?
 
There are many examples of use in physics which are reported in the book of K.B.OLdham & J.Spanier "The fractional Calculus" AcademicPress, N.-Y.

The littérature on the subject is extensive. A short bibliography is given p.12 in the paper for general public : https://fr.scribd.com/doc/14686539/The-Fractional-Derivation-La-derivation-fractionnaire . Also, this paper shows an use of fractional differ-integration to generalize the basic electrical components.
 
Ralf Metzler has also worked a lot on these things. Here is a fairly straight forward introduction:
The random walk's guide to anomalous diusion: a fractional dynamics approach
http://www.tau.ac.il/~klafter1/258.pdf
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
12K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
988