Is This a Taylor Expansion in My EM Homework Solution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tigigi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Em
tigigi
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
I got this :

1 - z / (R^2 + Z^2) ^1/2 = 1- (1+ (R/Z)^2) ^-1/2
= 1 - 1 + (1/2) ( R/Z )^2

I'm confused why it got all these steps. it seems like taylor expansion ? or ?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, it is confusing to me that you are using both Z and z. Are they the same thing?

I can't speak for WHY they are doing this but how they do the first line is evident: Divide both numerator and denominator of the second term by "z". In the numerator you get z/z= 1, in the denominator the "z" becomes "z2" inside the square root: \sqrt{R^2/z^2+ z^2/z^2}= \sqrt{1+ (R/z)^2}. That is NOT exactly equal to the last line. The last line is an approximation. Yes, you could think of it as a 2nd[/b] degree Taylor polynomial approximation. You could also think of it as a special case of the binomial theorem- extended to fractional powers. Just as (1+ x)n= 1+ nx to first degree, (1+ (R/z)^2)^(-1/2) is 1+ (-1/2)(R/z). Of course, now the "1" and "-1" will cancel. To second degree, 1- z/(R2+ z2)-1/2= (1/2)(R/z)2. I assume the next step will involve a limit as R goes to 0 or z goes to infinity or at least that (R/z) is small to make the approximation as accurate as possible.
 
Thank you so much. I got it now.
btw, could I ask another question that how do you get those words in white block like that ? Thank you. I appreciate it.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top