Integral problems with polar coordinates and variable substitution

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on evaluating the integral I=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-u^2}\frac{1}{1+Cu} du, particularly when C is a real number. Participants highlight the potential divergence at the singularity u=-1/C and explore various methods, including numerical integration and the residue theorem. Numerical attempts with C=1 suggest convergence towards values close to 1/√2, but the accuracy of these approximations is debated. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of finding a closed-form solution and the effectiveness of numerical methods for approximating the integral.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of improper integrals and convergence
  • Familiarity with numerical integration techniques, such as the trapezium method
  • Knowledge of polar coordinates and variable substitution in calculus
  • Basic concepts of complex analysis, particularly the residue theorem
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore numerical integration methods in Python, such as SciPy's quad function
  • Study the residue theorem in complex analysis for evaluating integrals with singularities
  • Learn about Gaussian integrals and their properties for better understanding of related integrals
  • Investigate the trapezium rule and its applications in numerical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physics students, and anyone interested in advanced calculus, particularly those dealing with 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
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K