Integral problems with polar coordinates and variable substitution

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the integral I=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-u^2}\frac{1}{1+Cu} du, particularly focusing on the challenges posed by singularities and the use of polar coordinates and variable substitution. Participants explore various methods, including numerical approximations and complex variable techniques, while addressing the implications of singularities on the integral's convergence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the integral may diverge near the singularity at u=-1/C, questioning whether this affects the ability to compute the integral.
  • Others propose that integration limits approaching infinity might allow for handling singularities, though this remains uncertain.
  • One participant shares attempts at solving the integral using integration by parts, but finds the results unhelpful and complicated.
  • Another suggests that the residue theorem from complex analysis could be applicable, although complications arise due to the pole being on the x-axis.
  • Some participants discuss numerical integration methods, with one providing a detailed numerical approximation that suggests convergence to a value close to 1/√2.
  • There is a debate about the significance of the numerical results, particularly regarding the choice of step size in numerical integration.
  • One participant attempts to express the integrand as a geometric series but later questions the validity of this approach due to convergence issues.
  • Another participant reflects on the challenges of using polar coordinates for the integral, particularly with terms in the denominator complicating the calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the integral's solvability or the best approach to take. Multiple competing views on the handling of singularities and numerical methods remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the singularity at u=-1/C and the implications for convergence. There are also unresolved questions regarding the mathematical soundness of certain approaches, such as the geometric series representation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in advanced calculus, particularly those exploring integrals involving singularities and numerical methods for approximation.

  • #31
Not that informative, plaese explain the difference.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Edison Bias said:
Not that informative, plaese explain the difference.
If I walk 3km in one hour my average speed is 3km/h, but my average velocity depends on how far my finish point is from my start point (displacement). If the 3km was around a circle my average velocity is zero.
 
  • #33
Interesting! But I don't know if I grasp this one. Speed is then always measured "ahead" but velocity depends on how fast I have been moving from one point to another and if that point happens to coincide with my start point, velocity is zero, right? Velocity is then a measure of how fast you move from A to B with the destiction that you really need to have A separated from B otherwise velocity is zero, right? Strange how there can be a distiction of this in the english language, here in sweden we just call it "hastighet" (speed).
 
  • #34
Edison Bias said:
Interesting! But I don't know if I grasp this one. Speed is then always measured "ahead" but velocity depends on how fast I have been moving from one point to another and if that point happens to coincide with my start point, velocity is zero, right? Velocity is then a measure of how fast you move from A to B with the destiction that you really need to have A separated from B otherwise velocity is zero, right? Strange how there can be a distiction of this in the english language, here in sweden we just call it "hastighet" (speed).
In physics and maths, as expressed in English, position, velocity and displacement are vectors. Displacement is the change in position, and velocity is the rate of change of position. Average velocity is the displacement divided by the elapsed time.
Displacement is ##\Delta \vec r=\int \vec{dr}##, instantaneous velocity is ##\vec v=\frac{d\vec r}{dt}##, average velocity is ##\vec v_{avg}=\frac{\Delta \vec r}{\Delta t}##, where ##\vec r## is the position vector.
Speed is the magnitude of the velocity. Distance traveled is along the path taken, ##\int |\vec {dr}|##, instantaneous speed is ##\frac{|\vec {dr}|}{dt}##, and average speed is ##\frac{\int |\vec {dr}|}{\Delta t}##
 
  • #35
Interesting, thanks for trying to teach me!

Integrals aren't that easy to understand for me but as we just have solved a difficult integral numerically I now understand better. Your integrals contain only the differential part, thus the "function" equal 1. This is equivalent to viewing your integral expressions as pure summations (with pretty small steps, dr). And by viewing the integrals as pure summations, they make sense. So to try to understand what you have written I will comment expressions from left to right (don't know how to write vectors i Tex).

First we have that the rough step movement (displacement) equals the summation of all tiny movements added with direction in mind (vectorial addition), instantaneous velocity seems to be how fast a single tiny movement is being done (and velocity has the movement direction), average velocity is then the whole step movement divided by the total time. Speed is not a vector, only a magnitude (scalar), distance traveled is a summation of tiny steps where direction is of no importance, instantaneous speed once again is a scalar that only describes the rate of tiny movements, average speed is a summation of tiny scalar movements over time.

Now, I have tried to interpret what you have said, am I even close to the truth?

Edison.
 
  • #36
Edison Bias said:
Interesting, thanks for trying to teach me!

Integrals aren't that easy to understand for me but as we just have solved a difficult integral numerically I now understand better. Your integrals contain only the differential part, thus the "function" equal 1. This is equivalent to viewing your integral expressions as pure summations (with pretty small steps, dr). And by viewing the integrals as pure summations, they make sense. So to try to understand what you have written I will comment expressions from left to right (don't know how to write vectors i Tex).

First we have that the rough step movement (displacement) equals the summation of all tiny movements added with direction in mind (vectorial addition), instantaneous velocity seems to be how fast a single tiny movement is being done (and velocity has the movement direction), average velocity is then the whole step movement divided by the total time. Speed is not a vector, only a magnitude (scalar), distance traveled is a summation of tiny steps where direction is of no importance, instantaneous speed once again is a scalar that only describes the rate of tiny movements, average speed is a summation of tiny scalar movements over time.

Now, I have tried to interpret what you have said, am I even close to the truth?

Edison.
You have got it. Well put in plain language.
 
  • #37
Just to finish this, the density (n) may equal

n=2A\sqrt{\frac{2kT}{m}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-u^2}du-2A\sqrt{\frac{2kT}{m}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-u^2}\frac{v_0}{v_0+u\sqrt{\frac{kT}{m}}}du

which with

mv_0^2=kT

gives

n=2A\sqrt{\frac{2kT}{m}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-u^2}du-2A\sqrt{\frac{2kT}{m}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-u^2}\frac{1}{1+u}du

where the first integral equals

\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}

according to our previous reasoning.

And the last integral equals 0,61 according to Charles Link's tedious numerical evaluation.

So we have that

n=A\sqrt{\frac{2kT}{m}}(\sqrt{\pi}-2*0,61)=A\sqrt{\frac{2kT}{m}}*0,55

which is almost half of the normally calculated particle density.

Edison
 
  • #38
Ok, I've just read your post #27, which I had not done before because although I understand your integral problem as a purely algebraic question I am not a thermodynamicist.
But I do understand why the average velocity should be zero. The mean velocity, as a vector, represents the bulk motion of the gas or body. This is mechanical energy. Thermal energy, by definition, comes from only velocities relative to this.
Of course, a body traveling through a gas experiences higher speed impacts, on average, and thus a higher effective temperature.
 
  • #39
haruspex said:
Ok, I've just read your post #27, which I had not done before because although I understand your integral problem as a purely algebraic question I am not a thermodynamicist.
But I do understand why the average velocity should be zero. The mean velocity, as a vector, represents the bulk motion of the gas or body. This is mechanical energy. Thermal energy, by definition, comes from only velocities relative to this.
Of course, a body traveling through a gas experiences higher speed impacts, on average, and thus a higher effective temperature.

This is interesting, "the mean velocity, as a vector, represents the bulk motion of the gas or body". Well yes of course, the body stands still. Even a balloon stands still (when it is filled with air). But the air inside the balloon has a temperature and I have learned that that means that the body's molecules move. They will not move in such a way as to push the balloon in one direction, but they move. Now, there has to be a kind of huge difference between the bulk stand-still of the balloon and the thermal speed of the air molecules inside. I mean that the mean velocity is not zero but centers around a velocity that is equally probabable for +v_0 as it is for -v_0 because there has to be a thermal velocity and the sign doesn't matter because it is simply a speed (scalar) that gives the temperature.

Edison
 
  • #40
Edison Bias said:
This is interesting, "the mean velocity, as a vector, represents the bulk motion of the gas or body". Well yes of course, the body stands still. Even a balloon stands still (when it is filled with air). But the air inside the balloon has a temperature and I have learned that that means that the body's molecules move. They will not move in such a way as to "automatically" push the balloon in one direction, but they move. Now, there has to be a kind of huge difference between the bulk stand-still of the balloon and the thermal speed of the air molecules inside. I mean that the mean velocity is not zero but centers around a velocity that is equally probabable for +v_0 as it is for -v_0 because there has to be a thermal velocity and the sign doesn't matter because it is simply a speed (scalar) that gives the temperature.

Edison
If you look carefully through my post #28, it shows the results that come from using the speed "v" scalar parameter. Some of the mathematics getting there is semi-complex-it uses a coordinate system in velocity space(##v_x, v_y, v_z ##) and superimposes a spherical coordinate system representing speed "v".
 
  • #41
I actually kind of understand your mathematics, but I do not get your results. Would be nice if you could derive them for me. Because I'm kind of getting comfortable with advanced math, it is fun!

Edison
 
  • #42
Edison Bias said:
I actually kind of understand your mathematics, but I do not get your results. Would be nice if you could derive them for me. Because I'm kind of getting comfortable with advanced math, it is fun!

Edison
Simplest way might be to google HyperPhysics-Development of Maxwell Distribution. That article contains the results I mentioned, but there are most likely numerous other papers with the same result=google "Maxwellian Distribution for gas particles"", etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K