How is the Bessel function approximated by a ln function

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the approximation of the Bessel function of the second kind, Y_0(x), as it approaches zero, specifically relating it to a logarithmic function. Participants reference a source text that provides limited details on this approximation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions of Bessel functions and their relationships, questioning the derivation of the logarithmic approximation. Some express confusion regarding the correct form of the Bessel function and the implications of different definitions. Others discuss methods such as the Frobenius method and L'Hôpital's rule as potential avenues for understanding the approximation.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and references to external resources. Some have begun to formulate arguments regarding the approximation, while others are questioning the validity of certain steps in the reasoning process. There is no explicit consensus yet, but various lines of inquiry are being pursued.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through the definitions and properties of Bessel functions, with some noting the need for clarity on the definitions used in their coursework. There is also mention of the limitations imposed by homework guidelines and the complexity of the Bessel differential equation.

sinbaski
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


It is stated in "Mathematical methods of Physics" by J. Mathews, 2nd ed, p274, that the Bessel function of the second kind and of order zero, i.e. [itex]Y_0(x)[/itex] can be approximated by [itex]\frac{2}{\pi}\ln(x)[/itex]+constant as [itex]x \to 0[/itex], but no more details are given in the same text.

Homework Equations


Could you show me how that approximation comes about?

The Attempt at a Solution


Visually I see the resemblance between the functions, but I cannot derive the approximation myself.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
sinbaski said:

Homework Statement


It is stated in "Mathematical methods of Physics" by J. Mathews, 2nd ed, p274, that the Bessel function of the first kind and of order zero, i.e. [itex]Y_0(x)[/itex] can be approximated by [itex]\frac{2}{\pi}\ln(x)[/itex]+constant as [itex]x \to 0[/itex], but no more details are given in the same text.


Homework Equations


Could you show me how that approximation comes about?


The Attempt at a Solution


Visually I see the resemblance between the functions, but I cannot derive the approximation myself.

Hi sinbaski, welcome to PF!:smile:

Do you mean the Bessel function of the second kind? (Bessel functions of the first kind are finite at the origin. and [itex]\frac{2}{\pi}\ln(x)[/itex] is not)
 
Yes, gabbagabbahey, I meant the second kind. Sorry, that was a careless typo! :|
 
Okay, well there are a few different ways of defining the Bessel functions, so what definition are you using in your course?
 
In the same book [itex]Y_m[/itex] is defined as

[itex] Y_m(x) = \frac{J_m(x) \cos m\pi - J_{-m}(x)}{\sin m\pi}[/itex]

while [itex]J_m(x)[/itex] is defined as
[itex] J_m(x) = \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^r}{r! \Gamma(r+m+1)}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{2r+m}[/itex]
 
I think the answer will pop out if you go back to solving the Bessel differential equation for m=0. The method of Frobenius will yield one solution J0(x), and now you need to construct a second, independent one.
 
I have to admit I can't solve by hand the Bessel equation
[itex] x^2 y'' + x y' + x^2 y = 0[/itex]

Matlab gives the solution to the equation as
[itex] A J_0(x) + B Y_0(x)[/itex]

Still I don't see how [itex]\frac{2}{\pi}\ln(x)[/itex] emerges from the equations :(
 
You want to learn about the Frobenius method. Depending on the roots so the indicial equation, sometimes it'll yield two independent solutions, but in this case, it doesn't. Wikipedia just tells you the form of the second solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frobenius_method#Double_roots

If you look on page 16 of Mathews and Walker, there's a discussion of how to solve Bessel's equation using Frobenius, including how to find the second solution.
 
I did a bit more reading, and it looks like to get the constant factor of ##2/\pi##, you're going to have to look at the definition of Ym(x). It's an indeterminate form when m is an integer, so you want to evaluate it using L'Hopital's rule.
 
  • #10
sinbaski said:
In the same book [itex]Y_m[/itex] is defined as

[itex] Y_m(x) = \frac{J_m(x) \cos m\pi - J_{-m}(x)}{\sin m\pi}[/itex]

For integer [itex]m[/itex], this should really be

[tex]Y_m(x) = \lim_{\alpha \to m} \frac{J_{\alpha}(x) \cos \alpha \pi - J_{-\alpha}(x)}{\sin \alpha \pi}[/tex]

while [itex]J_m(x)[/itex] is defined as
[itex] J_m(x) = \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^r}{r! \Gamma(r+m+1)}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{2r+m}[/itex]

Okay, so use this definition, with the (corrected) one above to find an expression for [itex]Y_0(x)[/itex].

Note: There's no need for you to actually solve Bessel's differential equation for this problem (the above equations are the two independent solutions), but it is a good exercise and one you may want to do after this problem (or before)
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Thank you for your kind reply! The wikipage is very comprehensive compared with the book. Now I think I have got something, following your advice:
[itex] \lim_{m\to 0} \frac{\cos m\pi J_m(x) - J_{-m}(x)}{\sin m\pi}[/itex]
[itex] = \lim_{m\to 0}\frac{<br /> -\pi\sin m\pi J_m(x) + \cos m\pi \frac{\partial}{\partial m}J_m(x) + \frac{\partial}{\partial (-m)}J_{-m}(x)<br /> }{\pi \cos m\pi}[/itex]
[itex] = \frac{2}{\pi} \lim_{m\to 0} \frac{\partial}{\partial m}J_m(x)[/itex]

Then
[itex] \frac{\partial}{\partial m}J_m(x) = \frac{\partial}{\partial m}\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^r}{r!\Gamma(m+r+1)}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{m+2r}[/itex]
[itex] = \ln(x/2)\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^r}{r!\Gamma(m+r+1)}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{m+2r} +<br /> \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{m+2r} \frac{\partial}{\partial m}\frac{(-1)^r}{r!\Gamma(m+r+1)}[/itex]

Taking the limit [itex]x \to 0, m\to 0[/itex], the first sum reduces to [itex]\ln(x/2)[/itex] while the second becomes a constant. Thus we get the desired result of [itex]\frac{2}{\pi}\ln(x)+C[/itex]

Do you think this argument is correct?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
sinbaski said:
[itex] = \ln(x/2)\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^r}{r!\Gamma(m+r+1)}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{m+2r} +<br /> \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{m+2r} \frac{\partial}{\partial m}\frac{(-1)^r}{r!\Gamma(m+r+1)}[/itex]

Taking the limit [itex]x \to 0, m\to 0[/itex], the first sum reduces to [itex]\ln(x/2)[/itex] while the second becomes a constant. Thus we get the desired result of [itex]\frac{2}{\pi}\ln(x)+C[/itex]

Do you think this argument is correct?

I'm not sure it makes any sense to say that taking the limit [itex]x \to 0[/itex] and [itex]m \to 0[/itex] of [itex]\ln(x/2)\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^r}{r!\Gamma(m+r+1)}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{m+2r}[/itex] results in [itex]\ln(x/2)[/itex]. I think you should take the limit [itex]m \to 0[/itex] of the whole expression (obviously you will need to first calculate [itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial m}\frac{(-1)^r}{r!\Gamma(m+r+1)}[/itex] ), simplify it as much as possible, and then do a Taylor Series approximation for small [itex]x[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K