I Expanding around 0 for multipole expansion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the multipole expansion of the electric potential, specifically the expansion of the term 1/|r - r'| around zero. Participants clarify that expanding around zero does not imply setting the expansion parameter to zero, but rather approximating the function for small values of the parameter. The expansion leads to a series of terms that represent monopole, dipole, and higher-order contributions, facilitating calculations involving complex charge distributions. The convergence properties of the series are also examined, noting that the binomial expansion and Taylor series yield different domains of convergence. Understanding these expansions is crucial for accurately modeling electric potentials in various physical scenarios.
deuteron
Messages
64
Reaction score
14
TL;DR Summary
why do we expand aound 0 for the multipole expansion?
For the multipole expansion of the electric potential, we expand ## \frac 1 {|\vec r-\vec r'|}## in the following way:
$$\frac 1 {|\vec r-\vec r'|} = \frac 1{\sqrt{(\vec r-\vec r')^2}} =\frac 1 {[ \vec r^2 +\vec r'^2 -2\vec r\cdot \vec r']^{-\frac 12}}=\frac 1{[\vec r^2 + \vec r'^2 - 2|\vec r||\vec r'| \cos\gamma]^{-\frac 12}}$$

Here, we define ##r_<=\min\{ |\vec r|,|\vec r'|\}## and ##r_>=\max\{|\vec r|,|\vec r'|\}##, and using the symmetry of the equation, we get:

$$ = \frac 1{[r_<^2 + r_>^2 -2r_<r_> \cos\gamma]^{\frac 12}} = \frac 1 {r_>} \frac 1 {[ 1 + (\frac {r_<}{r_>})^2 -2(\frac {r_<}{r_>}) \cos\gamma]^{\frac 12}}= \frac 1 {r_>} [ 1+(\frac {r_<}{r_>})^2 -2(\frac {r_<}{r_>}) \cos\gamma] ^{-\frac 1 2}$$

Here, we expand ##[ 1+(\frac {r_<}{r_>})^2 -2(\frac {r_<}{r_>}) \cos\gamma] ^{-\frac 1 2}## with the expansion parameter ##(\frac {r_<}{r_>})^2 -2(\frac {r_<}{r_>}) \cos\gamma## around ##0## to get the expansion of ## \frac 1 {|\vec r-\vec r'|}## in terms of the Legendre polynomials.

What I don't understand here is, why do we expand around ##0##? Doesn't that mean that we let ##(\frac {r_<}{r_>})^2 -2(\frac {r_<}{r_>}) \cos\gamma=0##, which would mean, for ##(\frac {r_<}{r_>})\approx 1##, ##1-2\cos\gamma=0\ \Rightarrow\ 1=2\cos\gamma\ \Rightarrow\ \cos\gamma=\frac 12##. I don't understand what leads us to make the expansion around ##\cos\gamma= \frac 12##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
deuteron said:
What I don't understand here is, why do we expand around ##0##? Doesn't that mean that we let ##(\frac {r_<}{r_>})^2 -2(\frac {r_<}{r_>}) \cos\gamma=0##, which would mean, for ##(\frac {r_<}{r_>})\approx 1##, ##1-2\cos\gamma=0\ \Rightarrow\ 1=2\cos\gamma\ \Rightarrow\ \cos\gamma=\frac 12##.
It doesn't mean that. It looks like you do not understand what expansions are all about. An expansion is an approximation of a function in the vicinity of certain fixed value of a variable. Expanding about ##~\dfrac{r_<}{r_>}~## does not mean "set ##~\dfrac{r_<}{r_>}=0.##" It means find an approximate expression for ##\dfrac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}## when ##~\dfrac{r_<}{r_>}~## is small. What you get is the multipole expansion which means a series of infinitely many terms. The more terms you keep, the more accurately the expansion matches the function.

Consider ##f(x)=\dfrac{1}{1+x}##. For small values of ##x##, the expansion is $$f(x)=\frac{1}{1+x}=1-x+x^2-x^3 +\dots$$Below is a plot of the ##\dfrac{1}{1+x}## (discrete points) and three solid lines representing increasingly more terms added to the expansion. As more terms are added, you can see how the expansion gets closer to the function at higher values of ##x##.

Expansion.png

The multipole expansion allows you to find an approximate expression to the potential when you have an amorphous blob of charge by finding its monopole, dipole, quadrupole, octupole, hexadecapole, etc. terms which are easier to handle mathematically than ##\dfrac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}##.
 
kuruman said:
It doesn't mean that. It looks like you do not understand what expansions are all about. An expansion is an approximation of a function in the vicinity of certain fixed value of a variable. Expanding about ##~\dfrac{r_<}{r_>}~## does not mean "set ##~\dfrac{r_<}{r_>}=0.##" It means find an approximate expression for ##\dfrac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}## when ##~\dfrac{r_<}{r_>}~## is small. What you get is the multipole expansion which means a series of infinitely many terms. The more terms you keep, the more accurately the expansion matches the function.

Consider ##f(x)=\dfrac{1}{1+x}##. For small values of ##x##, the expansion is $$f(x)=\frac{1}{1+x}=1-x+x^2-x^3 +\dots$$Below is a plot of the ##\dfrac{1}{1+x}## (discrete points) and three solid lines representing increasingly more terms added to the expansion. As more terms are added, you can see how the expansion gets closer to the function at higher values of ##x##.

View attachment 341211
The multipole expansion allows you to find an approximate expression to the potential when you have an amorphous blob of charge by finding its monopole, dipole, quadrupole, octupole, hexadecapole, etc. terms which are easier to handle mathematically than ##\dfrac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}##.
Thank you! And I really like the quote below your post!

I understand from your post that the expansion of ##f(x)## with the expansion parameter ##x## around ##0## gives us an approximation of ##f(x)## for small ##x##, where the approximation gets better with increasing ##x## as we add more and more terms

What confuses me is that the expansion parameter in the expansion of ##\frac 1 {|\vec r-\vec r'|}## is not ##\frac {r_<}{r_>}## but it is instead ##(\frac {r_<}{r_>})^2-2(\frac {r_<}{r_>}) \cos\gamma##, which from what I'have understood would mean that, for the expansion around ##0##, that the expansion parameter is small, that was my reasoning for setting ##(\frac {r_<}{r_>})^2-2(\frac {r_<}{r_>}) \cos\gamma=0## above.
 
deuteron said:
What confuses me is that the expansion parameter in the expansion of ##\frac 1 {|\vec r-\vec r'|}## is not ##\frac {r_<}{r_>}## but it is instead ##(\frac {r_<}{r_>})^2-2(\frac {r_<}{r_>}) \cos\gamma##, which from what I'have understood would mean that, for the expansion around ##0##, that the expansion parameter is small, that was my reasoning for setting ##(\frac {r_<}{r_>})^2-2(\frac {r_<}{r_>}) \cos\gamma=0## above.

Your expansion parameter is f(r_{&lt;}/r_{&gt;}), where f(x) = x^2 - 2x\cos \gamma = (x - \cos \gamma)^2 - \cos^2 \gamma and by definition 0 &lt; x &lt; 1. The binomial expansion <br /> (1 + f(x))^\alpha = 1 + \alpha f(x) + \frac{\alpha(\alpha - 1)}2 f(x)^2 + \dots is valid when |f(x)| = |(x - \cos \gamma)^2 - \cos^2 \gamma|&lt; 1, ie when <br /> 0 &lt; x &lt; \cos \gamma + (1 + \cos^2 \gamma)^{1/2}. When \cos \gamma &gt; 0, this upp;er bound is actually greater than 1!
 
pasmith said:
Your expansion parameter is f(r_{&lt;}/r_{&gt;}), where f(x) = x^2 - 2x\cos \gamma = (x - \cos \gamma)^2 - \cos^2 \gamma and by definition 0 &lt; x &lt; 1. The binomial expansion <br /> (1 + f(x))^\alpha = 1 + \alpha f(x) + \frac{\alpha(\alpha - 1)}2 f(x)^2 + \dots is valid when |f(x)| = |(x - \cos \gamma)^2 - \cos^2 \gamma|&lt; 1, ie when <br /> 0 &lt; x &lt; \cos \gamma + (1 + \cos^2 \gamma)^{1/2}. When \cos \gamma &gt; 0, this upp;er bound is actually greater than 1!
This is interesting. So, start with the expression $$F(x)= \frac 1 {\sqrt{1 + x^2 - 2 x \cos \gamma }} = \left(1 + x^2 - 2 x \cos \gamma \right)^{-1/2}$$ Follow @pasmith and obtain an infinite series expansion of ##F(x)## in the following way. First, obtain the binomial expansion of ##\left(1 + y \right)^{-1/2}## : $$ \left(1 + y \right)^{-1/2} = 1 - \frac y 2 + \frac{3y^2}{8} - \frac {5y^3}{16} + . . . $$ Next, replace ##y## by ##(x^2 - 2 x \cos \gamma)## so we get $$ \left(1 + x^2 - 2 x \cos \gamma \right)^{-1/2} = 1 - \frac 1 2 (x^2 - 2 x \cos \gamma) + \frac 3 8 (x^2 - 2 x \cos \gamma)^2 - \frac {5}{16} (x^2 - 2 x \cos \gamma)^3 + . . . $$ I'll call this the "binomial series expansion" of ##F(x)##. As shown by @pasmith, if ##\cos \gamma > 0##, this infinite series has an upper bound of convergence greater than 1. For example, if ##\cos \gamma = 1/2##, the series converges for values of ##x## up to ##\frac 1 2 (1 + \sqrt{5}) \approx 1.618 \, .##

A different infinite series expansion of ##F(x)## is the Taylor Series expansion of ##\left(1 + x^2 - 2 x \cos \gamma \right)^{-1/2}##:
$$ \left(1 + x^2 - 2 x \cos \gamma \right)^{-1/2} = 1 + (\cos \gamma ) x + \left( \frac 3 2 \cos^2 \gamma - \frac 1 2 \right) x^2 + \left( \frac 5 2 \cos^3 \gamma- \frac 3 2 \cos \gamma \right) x^3 + ...$$ This power series could have been obtained from the binomial expansion series by rearranging the terms in the binomial expansion series to collect together terms with the same power of ##x##.

The power series corresponds to the "multipole expansion" of ##F(x)## where the coefficients of the powers of ##x## are the Legendre polynomials. But what I find interesting is that the power series has a smaller domain of convergence. The power series diverges for all ##x > 1##. I guess this shouldn't be surprising since rearranging terms in an infinite series can change the convergence properties of the series. But I find it interesting.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top