Approximating Electromagnetic Waves with Derivatives

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the approximation of electromagnetic wave properties using derivatives, specifically focusing on the linear approximation of the electric field E at a point. Participants explore the mathematical foundations of this approximation and its implications in the context of electromagnetic theory.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the theorem underlying the approximation of E(x+dx,t) using the derivative of E.
  • Another participant identifies the approximation as a linear approximation based on the tangent at a point.
  • A question is raised regarding the use of the approximation as an exact equality in textbooks, with a focus on the conditions under which this is valid.
  • It is noted that the approximation can be derived from the definition of the derivative, and that it holds as long as dx is small.
  • Participants discuss the implications of using infinitesimally small dx, suggesting that it can lead to exact results, while also acknowledging the potential for nonzero infinitesimals to introduce error.
  • A participant expresses appreciation for the clarity gained regarding the application of Taylor and Maclaurin series in real contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the mathematical basis of the approximation and its validity under certain conditions, but there is some disagreement regarding the interpretation of infinitesimals and their implications for accuracy.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on the limitations of approximations, particularly regarding the treatment of dx as infinitesimally small and the potential for error when considering higher-order terms in Taylor expansions.

yoran
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
Hi,

In my textbook they derive that a solution to the law of Faraday and the law of Ampère-Maxwell is an electromagnetic wave.

In one of the steps they have to calculate [tex]E(x+dx,t)[/tex] where E is the magnitude of the electric field of the wave. They say
[tex]E(x+dx,t) \approx E(x,t)+\frac{dE}{dx} \Big|_{t=constant}dx[/tex]
On what theorem is this step based?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The fact that a function can be approximated well at point a by the tangent at point a.
 
So basically you do a linear approximation? In my textbook they write that it's an approximation but they use it later as if it's an exact equality. Is this wrong or can you do it because dx is infinitesimally small?
 
That's generally known as a first order Taylor expansion. But it can be obtained from the definition of the derivative:

[tex]\frac{dE}{dx} = \lim_{dx \rightarrow 0}\frac{E(x+dx)-E(x)}{dx}[/tex]

Forget about the limit and solve for E(x+dx). As an approximation, the result works as long as dx is small. The reason is you can expand any function in a Taylor series, which is a power series in dx. Terms above dx^2 get cut in an expansion like that, so the error for small, non-zero dx is roughly proportionate to dx^2
 
yoran said:
In my textbook they write that it's an approximation but they use it later as if it's an exact equality. Is this wrong or can you do it because dx is infinitesimally small?

Hi yoran! :smile:

Yes … if dx is only very small, then it's only an approximation.

But if dx is infinitesimally small, then it's exact! :smile:
 
tiny-tim said:
But if dx is infinitesimally small, then it's exact! :smile:
Except when the error is a nonzero infinitessimal. :-p

(Tiny-tim and I, are talking about other arithmetic systems -- in the real numbers, 0 is the only infinitessimal number)
 
Thanks a lot guys. I've seen Taylor and Maclaurin series in a Calculus course but I never applied it in a "real" context. Now I can see why it's so useful. It's much clearer now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K