Why Are the Results in My PDF Different from the Attached Paper?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDestroyer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Debye Plasma Shielding
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on discrepancies between results obtained by a participant in their PDF and those presented in an attached academic paper. The focus is on the mathematical treatment of exponential terms and their implications for the results, involving both theoretical and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • A participant questions why their results differ from those in the attached paper, specifically noting the presence of exponential terms in their work that are absent in the paper.
  • Another participant suggests expanding the exponential in terms of an infinite series and ignoring higher order terms for small arguments, which may provide a reasonable approximation.
  • A participant challenges this suggestion by pointing out that the terms are subtracted rather than added, leading to a linear term that must be accounted for, which does not align with the paper's results.
  • One participant proposes that using the relationship ei = -ee = e could clarify the discrepancy, suggesting that the second term is multiplied by -1, leading to a specific expression that matches the paper.
  • A request for further clarification is made regarding the participant's PDF, asking for insights into why their results differ if the exponential terms are expanded as suggested.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of exponential terms and their impact on the results, indicating that multiple competing interpretations exist without a clear consensus on the correct approach.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the treatment of exponential terms and their expansion, as well as dependencies on specific assumptions about the terms involved.

TheDestroyer
Messages
401
Reaction score
1
Hi Guyz,

Why the results in the paper I've attached aren't like the results I got in my pdf?

Please look at the paper in the last line, the second term doesn't correspond to what I calculated, What i calculated is in the pdf file, is it wrong?

Why in my work there is exponential terms while it's not in the paper?

Thank you for reading
 

Attachments

  • p0009.jpg
    p0009.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 640
  • ns.pdf
    ns.pdf
    137.2 KB · Views: 356
Physics news on Phys.org
Expand the exponential in terms of an infinite series, and ignore higher order terms, e.g. 1/T2 and higher, which one can do with reasonable accuracy for small arguments.
 
What you said might be correct if the terms are added, but they are subtracted, that means this will happen

e^x=1+x+0.5 x^2
e^-x=1-x+0.5 x^2

(e^x)-(e^-x)=(1+x+0.5 x^2)-(1-x+0.5 x^2)=((((2x))))

That means a linear term value will remain and must be multiplied in the term, Right? and this doesn't agree with the paper :(

Thank you anyway,

Any other ideas?
 
I believe if one uses the fact that ei = -ee = e, then the second term is multiplied by -1, and

e (e^x) - -e (e^-x) = e (1 + x + . . . ) + e (1 - x + . . .) = 2e (x), where

x = -e ([tex]\delta\phi[/tex]) / T

and the expression becomes

-2 e2 ([tex]\delta\phi[/tex]) / T

as in the paper or text.
 
Mr. Astronuc, Can you please check what I've written in the PDF?

if we did as you said then there will be more items multplied in the term, can you tell me what's the problem in the PDF? why it's not like the paper if we expanded the exponential terms in series?

Thank you
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
14K