Possible analytical solution of transcendental equation by an assumption.

Azorspace
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to solve the next transcendental equation analytically (obviously for k):

sinh(k)=(b/2)(1+(e^(-2kl)))

making the assumption that (bl >>1). I think that is not possible, but in an article that i found,
they solve it by making that assumption, and they reach to the solution:

E=Eo+(d/2)

where:

E=-2cosh(k), Eo=-{(4+b²)^(1/2)}, and d=(2b²/|Eo|)(e^(-bl))

physically this problem corresponds to that of finding the energy of bound states in an infinite one dimensional regular lattice, with two embedded impurities.

Thanks everybody in advance.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Well... the solution they get isn't exact. But its precision is as great as the "goodness" of their assumption. In other words, as they assumed that bl>>1, as greater bl were, as precise their solution will be.
 
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.
Back
Top