Is My Perturbative Solution of this Equation Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter norman86
  • Start date Start date
norman86
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi all! I want to perturbatively solve this equation in \beta at second order in \alpha

\frac{\beta^{2}}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\beta^{4}\alpha+\frac{2}{3}\beta^{6}\alpha^{2}=\frac{1}{4}

I rewrite this formula in this way

\beta^{2}=1+\frac{3}{2}\beta^{4}\alpha-\frac{8}{3}\beta^{6}\alpha^{2}

When I try to solve it perturbatively, I obtain

\beta^{2}=1+\frac{3}{2}1^{2}\alpha-\frac{8}{3}\alpha^{2}\left(1+\frac{3}{2}1^{2}\alpha\right)^{3}

The result is

\beta^{2}=1+\frac{3}{2}\alpha-\frac{8}{3}\alpha^{2}

The square root of which gives

\beta=1+\frac{3}{4}\alpha-\frac{155}{96}\alpha^{2}

I know that the correct result is

\beta=1+\frac{3}{4}\alpha+\frac{61}{96}\alpha^{2}

Clearly, there is something wrong in the second order of my calculus.

Can anyone please tell me where I'm mistaking? Thanks a lot.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hmm..
Not quite sure what you are doing here, I'm afraid.
Here's how I would do it.
Assume a power series expansion as the following:
\beta=1+k_{1}\alpha+k_{2}\alpha^{2}+++
We are to determine the k's in orders of alpha.
Inserting in your equation, and retaining terms of order 0 and 1, we get:
1+2k_{1}\alpha=1+\frac{3}{2}*1\to{k}_{1}=\frac{3}{4}

To order 2, we have:
k_{1}^{2}\alpha_{2}+2k_{2}\alpha^{2}=\frac{3}{2}*4k_{1}\alpha^{2}-\frac{8}{3}*1*\alpha^{2}
Or, we get the equation for k_2:
\frac{9}{16}+2k_{2}=\frac{9}{2}-\frac{8}{3}
Which yields:
2k_{2}=\frac{216-128-27}{48}=\frac{61}{48}
whereby the result follows.
 
You are right. That's the right way to do it. Thank you very much!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top