What would the new limits be for this integral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xyius
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral Limits
Xyius
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
I am working on an physics problem and it has boiled down to this integral.

\int_{0}^{∞} r e^{-\frac{1}{2 r_0}(r-i r_0^2 q)^2}dr

I found that if I make the substitution ##u=r-i r_0^2 q##, then I can do the integration, but I am a little confused about what the limits would be in terms of u. Normally I would just replace u with its expression in terms of r, but one of the integrals turns out being a gaussian integral and thus, doesn't have an indefinite form.

I have for the upper limit to be ∞, but the lower limit is ##-i r_0^2 q##. This lower limit obviously will not work for the gaussian integral. Plus it doesn't make sense to me, a negative, complex radial limit?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Xyius said:
I am working on an physics problem and it has boiled down to this integral.

\int_{0}^{∞} r e^{-\frac{1}{2 r_0}(r-i r_0^2 q)^2}dr

I found that if I make the substitution ##u=r-i r_0^2 q##, then I can do the integration, but I am a little confused about what the limits would be in terms of u. Normally I would just replace u with its expression in terms of r, but one of the integrals turns out being a gaussian integral and thus, doesn't have an indefinite form.

$$\int_a^b f(x)dx = \int_{u(a)}^{u(b)}g(u)du$$

I have for the upper limit to be ∞, but the lower limit is ##-i r_0^2 q##. This lower limit obviously will not work for the gaussian integral. Plus it doesn't make sense to me, a negative, complex radial limit?

I see... perhaps the way to make sense of it for you is to separate the integrand into real and imaginary parts before you do the substitution.

You can also consider that u is not a radius.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top