Unable to solve an approximation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kidiz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approximation
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around an approximation related to electromagnetic theory, specifically in the context of a problem from Griffiths' solutions manual. The original poster is attempting to understand a specific approximation involving the parameters k, ω, ε, μ, and σ.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the assumption σ >> ωε and how it affects the approximation of k. There are attempts to simplify the expression by considering the dominant terms and questioning the validity of certain approximations.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide guidance on how to approach the approximation, suggesting that carrying the σ/ωε expression through the reasoning could clarify the problem. There is a recognition of the need for careful interpretation of the approximations being used, and some participants express confusion about the implications of these approximations.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted misunderstanding regarding the use of approximation symbols, which has led to some confusion in the discussion. Participants are also curious about resources for understanding such approximations better.

Kidiz
Messages
21
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement



I'm trying to understand an approximation Griffiths does (in his solutions' manual - exercise 9.18-b) and I'm not quite getting it.
Let
$$k = \omega \sqrt{\dfrac{\epsilon \mu}{2}} [\sqrt{ 1 + (\dfrac{\sigma}{\epsilon \omega}})^2-1]^{1/2}$$

He says that, because ##\sigma >> \omega \epsilon##, we have:$$k = \sqrt{\dfrac {\mu \sigma \omega}{2}}$$

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
Essentially, my attempt was to say that ##(\dfrac{\sigma}{\epsilon \omega})^2 \approx \sigma ^2##. After that, and since sigma >> 1, I'd say that ##\sqrt {1 + \sigma ^2} \approx \sigma##, and for the same reasoning ##\sigma -1 \approx \sigma##, which would make everything inside the straight brakets be ##\sqrt{\sigma}##. After all this, ##k## would be ##\omega \sqrt {\dfrac{\epsilon \mu \sigma}{2}}##. Now, sadly, that's no way near the solution I'm supposed to arrive.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Kidiz said:
Essentially, my attempt was to say that ##(\dfrac{\sigma}{\epsilon \omega})^2 \approx \sigma ^2##.
That would correspond to ##\epsilon \omega \approx 1##. The approximation gives ##(\dfrac{\sigma}{\epsilon \omega})^2 \approx 1## which allows to simplify the expression.
You can use the same approximation for the first ω in the equation and then ignore some prefactor.
 
mfb said:
That would correspond to ##\epsilon \omega \approx 1##. The approximation gives ##(\dfrac{\sigma}{\epsilon \omega})^2 \approx 1## which allows to simplify the expression.
You can use the same approximation for the first ω in the equation and then ignore some prefactor.

I don't quite understand what you're saying. You're saying that ##(\dfrac{\sigma}{\epsilon \omega})^2 \approx 1## solves my problem? If so, I don't understand how, as it would eliminate my ##\omega ##.
 
If σ >> ωε then (σ/ωε) >>1.

And so (σ/ωε)2 +1 ≈ (σ/ωε)2

You'd then use your same reasoning however carrying the σ/ωε expression instead of just the σ.
 
Oh sorry, I read ##\approx## instead of >>. See the post above this how to do the approximation then.
 
rock.freak667 said:
If σ >> ωε then (σ/ωε) >>1.

And so (σ/ωε)2 +1 ≈ (σ/ωε)2

You'd then use your same reasoning however carrying the σ/ωε expression instead of just the σ.

Thank you! This works wonderfully. I wonder if there's a text somewhere that explains how to do this type of approximations or if one just picks them up as one goes.

mfb said:
Oh sorry, I read ##\approx## instead of >>. See the post above this how to do the approximation then.

That was my bad mfb, sorry. Initially, I had ##\approx##, but then edited and by mistake made it ##>>##, and then saw the error and edited again.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K