How Does the Casimir Effect Utilize the Euler-Maclaurin Formula?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula in the context of the Casimir effect, specifically focusing on the incorporation of a conversion factor as mentioned in a referenced paper. Participants are exploring the mathematical implications and potential typos in the text regarding the use of this formula.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to understand how to incorporate a conversion factor into the Euler-Maclaurin formula. There are discussions about the limits involved in the summation and whether the text contains a typo regarding the limits used. Some participants suggest using an exponential factor for convergence in the summation.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing hints and alternative perspectives on the use of the Euler-Maclaurin formula. There is acknowledgment of the need for clarity regarding the conversion factor and its role in the calculations. Multiple interpretations of the text are being explored, and some guidance has been offered regarding the use of convergence factors.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working within the constraints of the referenced paper and are questioning the accuracy of the text's presentation of the Euler-Maclaurin formula and the conversion factor. There is a focus on ensuring that the mathematical approach aligns with the intended application in the context of the Casimir effect.

epislon58
Messages
49
Reaction score
1
Hello,

I am attempting to repeat the math found on page 4 of this paper using the Euler-maclaurin summation formula. How would I incorporate the conversion factor because I can not figure it out for the life in me!

Thank you!

http://www.hep.caltech.edu/~phys199/lectures/lect5_6_cas.pdf
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Using the conversion factor means that we can write

$$\nu = -\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{d}{d\epsilon} e^{-\epsilon \nu}.$$

Note that I take ##\epsilon\rightarrow 0## instead of ##\infty## like in the text. I suspect the ##\infty## is a typo.

This conversion factor is useful, because we can then write the sum as

$$ \sum_{\nu = 1}^\infty \nu = -\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{d}{d\epsilon} \sum_{\nu = 1}^\infty e^{-\epsilon \nu}.$$

Since ##e^{-\epsilon} < 1##, we can recognize this as a geometric series and do the sum. Expanding the result in ##\epsilon## will leave a divergent term, a finite term, and terms that vanish as ##\epsilon\rightarrow 0##. Introducing ## e^{-\epsilon \nu}## into the integral gives a result that cancels the divergent term in the sum. We are then left with a finite result when we compute the difference between the sum and integral.

Alternatively, one can use the Euler-Maclaurin formula, which is also referred to in the text.
 
Thank you, but the text states that they used the Euler-Macluarin and the conversion factor. Could this have been a typo?
 
epislon58 said:
Thank you, but the text states that they used the Euler-Macluarin and the conversion factor. Could this have been a typo?

You only need one of the methods. Give it a try.
 
oh ok thank you. I will let you know how it turns out asap!
 
For using the Euler-Maclaurin formula, the hint might be that you should use ##e^{-\epsilon \nu}## as a "convergence" factor (rather than a "conversion" factor). Then let ##\epsilon \rightarrow 0## (not ∞, as fzero has already noted).

Thus, consider the argument of the sum or integral to be ##\nu e^{-\epsilon \nu}##. Without the convergence factor, you run into trouble for ##\nu \rightarrow \infty## in the Euler-Maclaurin formula.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
6K