Solve complex exponential equation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving the complex exponential equation B = A1 e^(-λ1 t) + A2 e^(-λ2 t) for t. The original poster struggles with finding an analytical solution due to the differing coefficients A1 and A2. Participants suggest using numerical methods, specifically root-finding algorithms like Newton's method, to approximate the value of t. The original poster eventually learns about these methods and successfully solves the equation iteratively. This highlights the importance of numerical routines when analytical solutions are not feasible.
Smed
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
I'm having some trouble solving for t in the following exponential equation.

$$ B = A_1 e^{-\lambda_1 t} + A_2 e^{-\lambda_2 t} $$

I can't divide out the leading coefficients A1 and A2 because they differ. I'm not really sure how to immediately take the natural logarithm of both sides since the rhs would just become,

$$ \ln({A_1 e^{-\lambda_1 t} + A_2 e^{-\lambda_2 t}}) $$

Any help is appreciated.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey Smed and welcome to the forums.

How much mathematics have you taken?

Usually for general problems, we don't often have an analytic solution, or the analytic solution is either unknown or too complicated.

In the above case we use what is known as root-finding algorithms like Newtons method to solve the root of an equation which would give you a value.

If you can't find an analytic version easily or at all, try and use a numerical routine to calculate a good enough approximation of t which should suit your purposes. The value of t won't give exactly 0, but it will be close enough depending on what you calculate and how accurate you want it to be.
 
Chiro,

I've taken enough mathematics that I probably should be familiar with root-finding algorithms, but I wasn't. I think part of my problem is that I'm not sure what makes the equation not have an analytical solution. It seemed that way after trying to solve it for a while, but I figured I was just missing some simple technique.

After reading up on the Newton method, I was able to solve the problem iteratively.

Thanks for your help.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top