Integrating Problem: Spherical Coordinates

  • Thread starter Thread starter georg gill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integrating
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a triple integral in spherical coordinates, specifically integrating the function \( e^{-2\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}} \) over all space. The original poster attempts to set up the integral using spherical coordinates and expresses concern about the behavior of the integral as \( p \) approaches infinity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the setup of the integral in spherical coordinates and the challenges of integrating the function as \( p \) approaches infinity. There are attempts to apply integration by parts and evaluate limits, with some questioning the application of L'Hôpital's rule and its implications for continuity and accuracy.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively exploring the implications of their calculations and questioning assumptions about the behavior of the integral. Some guidance is provided regarding the application of L'Hôpital's rule and the nature of the functions involved, though there is no explicit consensus on the resolution of the integral's behavior.

Contextual Notes

There are concerns about the potential for negative values in the integral, which is noted to be integrating a positive function. Participants also highlight the importance of correctly interpreting limits and the implications of substituting infinity into expressions.

georg gill
Messages
151
Reaction score
6

Homework Statement



Integrate:

\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-2\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}}dxdydz

hint: use spherical integration

Homework Equations



p=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}

dV=dp d\phi p sin\phi p d\theta

The Attempt at a Solution



\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}e^{-2p} p^2 sin\phi d\theta d\phi dp

look at integration for p since it is the most hard one first:

Integration by parts:

sin\phi\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-2p} p^2 dp

\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-2p} p^2 dp=[\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2} p^2+\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-2p}pdp]^{\infty}_0 (I)

\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-2p}pdp=[\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2}p+\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-2p}dp]^{\infty}_0=[\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2}p+\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2}]^{\infty}_0

and (I) becomes:

[\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2} p^2+\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2}p+\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2}]^{\infty}_0

but here i get infinity in numerator and denumerator for p=\infty. How do I solve this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you get infinity in the numerator as well as in the denumerator you should check which one goes to infinity fastest. In this case, p^2 approaches infinity much slower then e^(2p), so your fraction will become zero for p=infinity.
 
mxmt said:
If you get infinity in the numerator as well as in the denumerator you should check which one goes to infinity fastest. In this case, p^2 approaches infinity much slower then e^(2p), so your fraction will become zero for p=infinity.

Right. You can verify this by using l'Hopital's rule on p^2/e^(2*p).
 
Dick said:
Right. You can verify this by using l'Hopital's rule on p^2/e^(2*p).


I thought l'hospital's said what the limit was and that the limit said what value it was approaching as it went to that value. I just get confused in the accuracy of l'hospital's. Is it totally accurate in defining value of fraction?
 
georg gill said:
I thought l'hospital's said what the limit was and that the limit said what value it was approaching as it went to that value. I just get confused in the accuracy of l'hospital's. Is it totally accurate in defining value of fraction?

Your sentence "I thought l'hospital's said what the limit was and that the limit said what value it was approaching as it went to that value" is 100% incomprehensible. I don't know why you are worried about the "accuracy" of L'Hopital's rule: it is a rigorously proven theorem, not just some rule of thumb or heuristic; when it is applicable at all it is absolutely accurate, always.

RGV
 
Ray Vickson said:
Your sentence "I thought l'hospital's said what the limit was and that the limit said what value it was approaching as it went to that value" is 100% incomprehensible. I don't know why you are worried about the "accuracy" of L'Hopital's rule: it is a rigorously proven theorem, not just some rule of thumb or heuristic; when it is applicable at all it is absolutely accurate, always.

RGV

Good to know. I guess my worries was that a limit gives value as it approaches a given x. If this function was not continuous then then it could have had a different value for x which is here infinity. But l'hospital's assumes continuity since it assumes that function is differentiable

[\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2} p^2+\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2}p+\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2}]^{\infty}_0

\frac{e^{-2\infty}}{-2} (\infty)^2+\frac{e^{-2\infty}}{-2}\infty+\frac{e^{-2\infty}}{-2}-\frac{e^{-20}}{-2} 0^2+\frac{e^{-2\cdot 0}}{-2}0+\frac{e^{-2\cdot 0}}{-2}

-\frac{e^{-2\cdot 0}}{2}

Is it right that this integral could be negative? It is easier to see when integrals should be negative when they are in the plain. Is there any way of telling when it should be negative in the space?
 
georg gill said:
Good to know. I guess my worries was that a limit gives value as it approaches a given x. If this function was not continuous then then it could have had a different value for x which is here infinity. But l'hospital's assumes continuity since it assumes that function is differentiable

[\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2} p^2+\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2}p+\frac{e^{-2p}}{-2}]^{\infty}_0

\frac{e^{-2\infty}}{-2} (\infty)^2+\frac{e^{-2\infty}}{-2}\infty+\frac{e^{-2\infty}}{-2}-\frac{e^{-20}}{-2} 0^2+\frac{e^{-2\cdot 0}}{-2}0+\frac{e^{-2\cdot 0}}{-2}

-\frac{e^{-2\cdot 0}}{2}

Is it right that this integral could be negative? It is easier to see when integrals should be negative when they are in the plain. Is there any way of telling when it should be negative in the space?

It shouldn't be negative. You are integrating a positive function. It's negative because you are missing a sign. Check it again. And it's not a good idea to substitute 'infinity' into an expression f(p). What you mean is 'lim p -> infinity f(p)'. And I think you also may have dropped a factor of 1/2 on one of the terms.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K