Differentiatiang Bessel functions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding expressions for the derivatives of the Bessel function J_1 at the point x = 2. Participants explore various mathematical identities and approaches to simplify the expressions, including series expansions and relationships between different Bessel functions. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a series representation for J_1 and seeks a simplified expression for its derivatives at x = 2, suggesting it might be expressible in terms of two Bessel functions.
  • Another participant introduces an identity relating the derivatives of Bessel functions, proposing that the nth derivative can be expressed recursively.
  • A participant shares a derived expression for the nth derivative but expresses a desire to reduce it further to involve only two Bessel functions.
  • Some participants discuss the potential use of other identities to manipulate the sums but acknowledge the complexity due to differing coefficients.
  • One participant suggests using the binomial theorem to reformulate the series, aiming to derive Taylor coefficients directly at x = 2.
  • Another participant realizes that their reformulation leads back to the original expression, indicating a cyclical nature in their approaches.
  • A later post reveals that the overall goal is to evaluate integrals involving Bessel functions, complicating the search for a closed form for the derivatives.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on a simplified expression for the derivatives of the Bessel function at x = 2. Multiple approaches and identities are proposed, but no single method is agreed upon as definitive.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include unresolved mathematical steps and the dependence on specific identities that may not yield straightforward results. The discussion reflects ongoing exploration rather than established conclusions.

Pere Callahan
Messages
582
Reaction score
1
Hi all,

I am trying to find an expression for the values of the derivates of the Bessel-[tex]J_1[/tex] functions at two.

The function is defined by

[tex]J_1(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty{\frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)!k!}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{2k+1}}[/tex]

this I can differentiate term by term, finding for the n^th derivative at two:[tex]J_1^{(n)}(2)=\sum_{k=\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor}^\infty{\frac{(-1)^k(2k+1)!}{(k+1)!k!(2k+1-n)!2^n}}[/tex]

Does anybody know a nice expression for this? It can probably be written as the sum of two Besselfunctions evaluated at two, but I have no idea how to find the coefficients...

Thanks

-PereEdit:

I found that for n even the result can be written as a linear combination of [tex]J_1(2)\text{ and } J_2(2)[/tex]. When multiplied by 2^n the coefficients are all integral ... (Experimental results).
I tried the sequence of these integers in that famous integers sequence database, but nothing ...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There's an identity

[tex]J_s'(z) = \frac{1}{2}\left(J_{s-1}(z) - J_{s+1}(z)\right)[/tex]

So the nth derivative would look like

[tex]J_s^{(n)}(z) = \frac{1}{2}\left(J_{s-1}^{(n-1)}(z) - J_{s+1}^{(n-1)}(z)\right)[/tex]

I guess you might be able to figure out an expression that way. (It might perhaps be best to start with n = 2, 3... to see if you can see a pattern forming, and then use an inductive argument).

(edit: apparently I forgot the forum tag slashes are not the same direction as in LaTeX...)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your answer. That's what I actually did first :smile:

I got:

[tex]J_\nu^{(n)}(x)=\frac{1}{2^n}\sum_{k=0}^n{(-1)^k\left(\stackrel{n}{k}\right)J_{\nu-n+2k}(x)}[/tex]


Ok, granted, that's way nicer than the infinite sum I posted above, but still it's a sum of n Bessel functions evaluated at two.. I want to reduce it so that it only involves two Besselfunctions...any idea how this can systematically be done?

Thanks

-Pere
 
Last edited:
I can't think of anything else to do that seems likely to produce anything nice. You might be able to use the identity

[tex]J_{s-1}(z) + J_{s+1}(z) = \frac{2s}{z}J_s(z)[/tex]
to move things around, but given that all the terms in that sum have different coefficients it might not work out so nicely (if at all).

You might see if any of the identities in http://www.math.sfu.ca/~cbm/aands/page_358.htm would help (though I didn't see any that looked useful).
 
Pere Callahan said:
Thanks for your answer. That's what I actually did first :smile:

I got:

[tex]J_\nu^{(n)}(x)=\frac{1}{2^n}\sum_{k=0}^n{(-1)^k\left(\stackrel{n}{k}\right)J_{\nu-n+2k}(x)}[/tex]


Ok, granted, that's way nicer than the infinite sum I posted above, but still it's a sum of n Bessel functions evaluated at two.. I want to reduce it so that it only involves two Besselfunctions...any idea how this can systematically be done?

Thanks

-Pere

Sense Bessel functions are orthogonal why should should you be able to empress a sum of n Bessel functions as a some of only two Bessel functions?
 
Only their values evaluated at two .
 
Pere Callahan said:
Only their values evaluated at two .
So you are trying to evaluate the derivatives at X equal to 2. How about.

[tex]J_1(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty{\frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)!k!}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{2k+1}}[/tex]
[tex]J_1(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty{\frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)!k!}\left(\frac{x-2+2}{2}\right)^{2k+1}}[/tex]
Using the binomial theorem.
[tex]J_1(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty{\frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)!k!}\sum_{m=0}^{2k+1}\left(\stackrel{2k+1}{m}\right)\left(\frac{2}{2}\right)^{2k+1-m}\left(\frac{x-2}{2}\right)^{m}}[/tex]
[tex]J_1(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty{\frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)!k!}\sum_{m=0}^{2k+1} \left(\stackrel{2k+1}{m}\right)\left(\frac{x-2}{2}\right)^{m}}[/tex]

Now if you can figure out how to reverse these sums you will get the Taylor coefficients at X equal to 2. This will give you your derivatives directly without having to evaluate Bessel functions. I guess this will still give you an infinite series though.
 
Last edited:
Hi john, this looks like a good idea, thanks. I will try to work it out:smile:
 
Here's what I get when I change the order of the sum:

[tex]J_1(x)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=2m-1}^\infty{\frac{(-1)^k}{(k+1)!k!}\left(\stackrel{2k+1}{m}\right)\left(\frac{x-2}{2}\right)^{m}}[/tex]

Or equivalently:

[tex]J_1(x)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=2m-1}^\infty{\frac{(-1)^k(2k+1)!}{(k+1)!(k!)(2k+1-m)!m!}\left(\frac{x-2}{2}\right)^{m}}[/tex]

Okay, well, duh!. This gives me the exact same thing that you got above by differentiating the series term by term and then setting x=2.
 
  • #10
HI John, I just realized that as well - that it gives the same thing.

Hm, maybe it's easier to find a way to avoid calculating these numbers altogether ... after all I'm not interested in them for their own sake but just in order to calculate something else:smile:

Thanks for your help anyways.
 
  • #11
Pere Callahan said:
HI John, I just realized that as well - that it gives the same thing.

Hm, maybe it's easier to find a way to avoid calculating these numbers altogether ... after all I'm not interested in them for their own sake but just in order to calculate something else:smile:

Thanks for your help anyways.

What's the problem that you are trying to solve?
 
  • #12
I have some nasty integral as functions of their upper integration bound. These integrals involve Bessel functions (and some other stuff as well). Since a closed form for these integrals seems not to exist I tried to find their derivatives at the upper integration bound equal to zero (the lower integration bound is always zero, so this makes some sense). The derivatives of the integral-function at zero involve derivatives of the Bessel function at two (because the Bessel functions only occur as

[tex]J_1(2e^{-x})[/tex]

inside the integral ... However even it were possible to find the values of the derivatives of the Bessel function, the overall expression I would get looks ugly to say the least ...

My goal was to then write my function as a power series but it seems to be no more handy than the original integral representation ..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K