Orthogonality condition for disimilar Bessel functions

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the orthogonality conditions of Bessel functions, specifically focusing on integrals involving the Bessel functions \(J_0\) and \(Y_0\). The original poster seeks to understand the implications of these conditions for specific integrals and their outcomes under different scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to determine the outcome of integrals involving \(J_0\) and \(Y_0\) under various conditions of their parameters. Some participants suggest using known integral identities to aid in evaluating these integrals. Others question whether certain assumptions about the integrals being equal to zero hold true, particularly in cases where the indices differ.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively exploring the implications of the orthogonality conditions and discussing relevant integral identities. There is a recognition of the need for further investigation into specific cases, and some guidance has been offered regarding the use of integral tables. However, there is no explicit consensus on the outcomes of the integrals being discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of specific integral forms and the potential need for additional resources, such as Gradshteyn and Ryzhik, to clarify certain relationships between the Bessel functions. The discussion also highlights the complexity of evaluating constants in series expansions involving these functions.

itisali
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
As per orthogonality condition this equation is valid:

\int_0^b xJ_0(\lambda_nx)J_0(\lambda_mx)dx = 0 for m\not=n

I want to know the outcome of the following:

\int_0^b xJ_0(\lambda_nx)Y_0(\lambda_mx)dx = 0

for two cases:
m\not=n
m=n
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I didn't have access to Gradshteyn and Ryzhik earlier. Integral 5.54 claims that, for ##X,Z## any of the Bessel functions (##J,Y,\ldots##),

$$\begin{split} \int x X_p(\alpha x) Z_p(\beta x) & = \frac{x}{\alpha^2-\beta^2} \left( \alpha X_{p+1}(\alpha x) Z_p(\beta x) -\beta X_{p}(\alpha x) Z_{p+1}(\beta x) \right) \\
& = \frac{x}{\alpha^2-\beta^2} \left( \beta X_{p}(\alpha x) Z_{p-1}(\beta x) -\alpha X_{p-1}(\alpha x) Z_{p}(\beta x) \right) .\end{split} $$

You should be able to work out your integral by setting the appropriate integration limits and using other identities as necessary.
 
Thanks a lot!

I can now solve the problem. But there is still one more thing left. Is it safe to assume that above integral will be equal to zero in case


\int x X_p(\alpha x) Z_q(\beta x) = ? <br /> <br /> \\<br /> <br /> when p\not = q
 
itisali said:
Thanks a lot!

I can now solve the problem. But there is still one more thing left. Is it safe to assume that above integral will be equal to zero in case


\int x X_p(\alpha x) Z_q(\beta x) = ? <br /> <br /> \\<br /> <br /> when p\not = q

I am unable to find precisely that integral. The integral I gave above can be derived from the expressions for the derivative of the Bessel functions (which involves specific factors of ##x##), using integration by parts. The intermediate result that applies to ##p\neq q## is

attachment.php?attachmentid=61093&stc=1&d=1377277967.png


So the part involving the integral you want involves ##x^{-1}## instead of ##x##.

However, the universality of the formula seems to agree with my suggestion that the orthogonality relations of ##J## with ##Y## are precisely analogous to ##J## with ##J##. I urge you to try to get your hands on a copy of Gradshteyn and Rhyzik, at least from a library, since you might note a useful result that I have overlooked.
 

Attachments

  • bessel1.png
    bessel1.png
    8.4 KB · Views: 502
I managed to get Gradshteyn and Ryzhik today. The book is really useful.


Now that we have got the formula...

\begin{split} \int x X_p(\alpha x) Z_p(\beta x) &amp; = \frac{x}{\alpha^2-\beta^2} \left( \alpha X_{p+1}(\alpha x) Z_p(\beta x) -\beta X_{p}(\alpha x) Z_{p+1}(\beta x) \right) \\ <br /> &amp; = \frac{x}{\alpha^2-\beta^2} \left( \beta X_{p}(\alpha x) Z_{p-1}(\beta x) -\alpha X_{p-1}(\alpha x) Z_{p}(\beta x) \right) .\end{split}

... I would like to evaluate the constant c_n for the following equation:

T = \sum^{∞}_{n=1} c_n e^{-\alpha \lambda^{2}_{n}t}(\frac{-Y_0(\lambda_nb)J_0(\lambda_nr)}{J_0(\lambda_nb)} +Y_0(\lambda_nr))

Applying initial condition leads to:
T(r,0) = X

X = \sum^{∞}_{n=1} c_n (\frac{-Y_0(\lambda_nb)J_0(\lambda_nr)}{J_0(\lambda_nb)} +Y_0(\lambda_nr))

Multiply both sides by rJ_0(\lambda_mr) and integrate from r=a to r=b.

∫^{b}_{a}rJ_0(\lambda_mr)Xdr = \sum^{∞}_{n=1} c_n (∫^{b}_{a}\frac{-Y_0(\lambda_nb)rJ_0(\lambda_mr)J_0(\lambda_nr)}{J_0(\lambda_nb)}dr +∫^{b}_{a}rJ_0(\lambda_mr)Y_0(\lambda_nr)dr)

The first term on the right side of equation will be taken care of by using the orthogonality condition:

\int_a^b xJ_0(\lambda_nx)J_0(\lambda_mx)dx = 0
for n\not=m
So for first term on right side all integrals of the series would vanish except for the case n =m.

The second term on right side will be evaluated using the formula that you mentioned in your post.

Since for our case, the below equation is not equal to zero:

\begin{split} \int x X_p(\alpha x) Z_p(\beta x) &amp; = \frac{x}{\alpha^2-\beta^2} \left( \alpha X_{p+1}(\alpha x) Z_p(\beta x) -\beta X_{p}(\alpha x) Z_{p+1}(\beta x) \right) \\ <br /> &amp; = \frac{x}{\alpha^2-\beta^2} \left( \beta X_{p}(\alpha x) Z_{p-1}(\beta x) -\alpha X_{p-1}(\alpha x) Z_{p}(\beta x) \right) .\end{split}\not=0


... the summation sign would stay intact and c_n cannot be evaluated.


Would you please help me get rid of the summation sign. I want to evaluate c_n.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K