Understanding Confusing Expansion: Taylor Series Expansion

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the Taylor Series Expansion, specifically the approximation of the expression $$\frac{1}{1+ \beta \hbar \omega /2 + (7/12)(\beta \hbar \omega)^2 +...}$$. Participants identified errors in the expansion process, particularly regarding the terms involving $$\beta \hbar \omega$$. The correct approximation should yield a quadratic term of $$+\frac{5}{12}$$ instead of $$-\frac{1}{3}$$. The source of the original equation is Steven Simon's "Oxford Solid State Basics", which contains typographical errors in the expansion steps.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Taylor Series Expansion
  • Familiarity with mathematical notation involving $$\beta$$, $$\hbar$$, and $$\omega$$
  • Basic knowledge of series convergence and approximation techniques
  • Experience with algebraic manipulation of fractions and polynomials
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Taylor Series Expansion in detail, focusing on convergence criteria
  • Review algebraic techniques for manipulating series and polynomial expressions
  • Examine common errors in mathematical texts, particularly in physics
  • Explore additional examples of Taylor Series applications in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying quantum mechanics, as well as mathematicians interested in series expansions and their applications.

WWCY
Messages
476
Reaction score
15
I came across the following working in my notes and would like some help understanding how the step was done. Many thanks in advance!

The following is the working, and we assume that ##\beta## is small
$$\frac{1}{1+ \beta \hbar \omega /2 + (7/12)(\beta \hbar \omega)^2 +...} \approx 1 - (\beta \hbar \omega)/2 + (5/12) (\beta \hbar \omega)^2 +...$$

I thought of trying the Taylor expansion for ##1/(1-x)## where the ##x## was everything apart from the "1" in the reciprocal term on the LHS but it doesn't seem to work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
WWCY said:
I thought of trying the Taylor expansion for ##1/(1-x)## where the ##x## was everything apart from the "1" in the reciprocal term on the LHS but it doesn't seem to work.
That should be the right procedure, but it does give a slightly different result. Can you give a source for the equation you quoted?
 
## \frac{1}{1-x}=1+x+x^2+x^3+... ##. In this case you need to consider the ## x^2 ## term as well.
 
If we multiply the two expressions, we get ##1 \approx 1+ O(\beta^2)## so my suspicion is, that a) this expression is good enough for what is to come and b) the expression on the right is in some meaning more helpful than the "correct" formula. In short: it suffices and fits the goal.
 
I get a ## -\frac{1}{3} ## instead of the ## +\frac{5}{12} ##. ## \\ ## Edit: I double-checked my arithmetic/algebra, and even worked a numerical example, letting ## \beta \hbar \omega=.02 ##. I think they goofed. It is something they should get right, but textbooks do contain errors on occasion.## \\ ## And you do get a +5/12 on the quadratic term if there is no 2 in the denominator of the ## \beta \hbar \omega ## term. I think it is probably an honest mistake.
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for the clarification.

DrClaude said:
That should be the right procedure, but it does give a slightly different result. Can you give a source for the equation you quoted?

It was a solution to one of the problems in Steven Simon's "Oxford Solid State Basics", I'll attach an image below. The step I refer to is the third from bottom.

Screen Shot 2018-08-28 at 6.21.44 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-08-28 at 6.21.44 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-08-28 at 6.21.44 PM.png
    39.9 KB · Views: 503
There is a mistake in step 3: expanding the square in the denominator leads to a term of βħω, not βħω/2. Then the term βħω/2 in step 4 is wrong, but the 5/12 is right.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWCY, DrClaude and Charles Link
Looks like the final line is correct=even though they made a couple of errors previous to that.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrClaude
Just a typo in one line. The author probably copied the previous line, adjusted it and forgot to remove the /2 there.

Another example where more context helps to spot the error.
 
  • #10
Cheers guys, I should have been a bit more attentive, and also uploaded the image from the get-go. Apologies.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K