Why Does Using Power Series Help Approach the Classical Limit in Physics?

AI Thread Summary
Using power series approximations helps approach classical limits in physics by allowing for simplifications when the argument of the function is small. In the case of the Planck radiation formula, the series expansion of e^{(hc/λkT)} shows how it reduces to the Rayleigh-Jeans formula under classical conditions. Similarly, the expression E_k = mc^2(γ - 1) approximates to mv^2/2 as velocities become small. The first terms of a power series provide a good approximation when the argument is small, making it easier to understand classical behavior. This method effectively captures the transition from quantum to classical physics.
CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87

Homework Statement


I have to show that the Planck radiation formula reduces to the Rayleigh-Jeans formula in the classical limit for blackbodies.

The Attempt at a Solution


I can easily show it using power series expansion of e^{(hc/\lambda kT)} but I don't understand really why using a power series approximation makes something tend to the classical limit?

Similarly, for E_k = mc^2(\gamma -1) tending to \frac{mv^2}{2}, in the classical limit. The results are clear, I just don't understand why using a power series actually works.

Many thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first term (or terms) of a power series is a good approximation of a function only when its argument is small. Use any estimate of the approximation error to show that formally.

If you can cast "classicality" as a smallness of some argument to some function, then a power series (polynomial, actually) approximation would describe the phenomenon "classically". See how that applies to these two cases.
 
voko said:
The first term (or terms) of a power series is a good approximation of a function only when its argument is small. Use any estimate of the approximation error to show that formally.
What do you mean by the word 'argument' here?
 
f(x) is function f of argument x.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top