Why Don't First-Order Terms Disappear in the Taylor Expansion for Scalar Fields?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from Jackson's Electrodynamics concerning the Taylor expansion of a scalar field related to the Poisson equation. The original poster attempts to understand why first-order terms do not vanish in the Taylor expansion of the density function, particularly in the context of a potential solution involving a parameter that approaches zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the Taylor expansion of the density function and question the behavior of first-order terms as a parameter approaches zero. Some express confusion over the integration process and the emergence of specific coefficients in the expansion.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their attempts to reconcile their calculations with the results presented in the textbook. Some provide insights into the integration techniques and the implications of aligning axes with the gradient of the function, while others express uncertainty about the relevance of certain terms in the limit.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of specific constraints related to the integration limits and the behavior of the density function within a sphere, as well as the assumption that the density changes little inside the sphere. Participants are also navigating the complexities of spherical coordinates in their calculations.

ibyea
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Page 35 of Jackson's Electrodynamics (3rd ed), it gives the following equation (basically trying to prove your standard 1/r potential is a solution to Poisson equation):

\nabla^2 \Phi_a = \frac{ -1 }{ \epsilon_0 } \int \frac{ a^2 }{( r^2 + a^2)^{5/2} } \rho( \boldsymbol{x'} ) d^3 x'

Where r is distance from center of a sphere with radius R, centered at \boldsymbol{x} and a is a parameter much smaller than R whose limit approaches to 0. And note that r = \sqrt{ (x' - x)^2 + (y' - y)^2 + (z' - z)^2}. R is chosen such that \rho( \boldsymbol{x'} ) changes little inside the sphere. The integral is zero outside the sphere as a approaches zero, so only the inside of the sphere is considered.

Then the book says, "with a Taylor series expansion of the well behaved \rho( \boldsymbol{x'} ) around \boldsymbol{x'} = \boldsymbol{x}, one finds":

\nabla^2 \Phi_a = \frac{ -1 }{ \epsilon_0 } \int_0^R \frac{ a^2 }{( r^2 + a^2)^{5/2} } [ \rho( \boldsymbol{x} ) + \frac{ r^2 }{ 6 } \nabla^2 \rho + \ldots ] r^2 dr + O( a^2 )

Essentially I tried to fill in the gaps between those two steps.

Homework Equations


Taylor expansion for scalar field:

f(\boldsymbol{x'}) = f(\boldsymbol{x}) + \boldsymbol{x} \cdot \nabla f + \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } (\boldsymbol{x} \cdot \nabla)^2 f

The Attempt at a Solution


Well, essentially I attempted to solve the problem by using the relevant equations. First of all, I changed d^3 x' into spherical polar and the angular parts integrate into 4 \pi.

This is where I get lost because when I did the Taylor expansion, the first order terms did not go away. Secondly the second order term is a problem because I never managed to get a six at the bottom. In fact, what I get is:

\rho + r \frac{ \partial \rho }{ \partial r } + \frac{1}{2} r^2 \frac{ \partial \rho }{ \partial r } + \frac{1}{2} r^2 \frac{ \partial^2 \rho }{ \partial r^2 }

Which is not the same as
\rho( \boldsymbol{x} ) + \frac{ r^2 }{ 6 } \nabla^2 \rho = \rho( \boldsymbol{x} ) + \frac{ r^2 }{ 6 } \frac{\partial^2 \rho}{\partial r^2}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I really don't understand that expansion, either, but it seems pretty much irrelevant, because when you write:

\rho(x') = \rho(x) + ...

the only term that survives, in the limit as a \rightarrow 0, is the first term.

What's important is that

lim_{a \rightarrow 0} \int_0^R \frac{-3a^2}{(r^2 + a^2)^{\frac{5}{2}}} r^2 dr = -1

Jackson claims that this can be done by "direct integration", but I don't see that, at all. I would first let r = a u, to get:
lim_{a \rightarrow 0} \int_0^\frac{R}{a} \frac{-3}{(u^2 + 1)^{\frac{5}{2}}} u^2 du
= \int_0^\infty \frac{-3}{(u^2 + 1)^{\frac{5}{2}}} u^2 du

Then I would use a trig substitution: u = tan(\theta).
 
Thanks! Good to know I wasn't just being too dumb to see the obvious.
 
ibyea said:

Homework Statement


Page 35 of Jackson's Electrodynamics (3rd ed), it gives the following equation (basically trying to prove your standard 1/r potential is a solution to Poisson equation):

\nabla^2 \Phi_a = \frac{ -1 }{ \epsilon_0 } \int \frac{ a^2 }{( r^2 + a^2)^{5/2} } \rho( \boldsymbol{x'} ) d^3 x'

Where r is distance from center of a sphere with radius R, centered at \boldsymbol{x} and a is a parameter much smaller than R whose limit approaches to 0. And note that r = \sqrt{ (x' - x)^2 + (y' - y)^2 + (z' - z)^2}. R is chosen such that \rho( \boldsymbol{x'} ) changes little inside the sphere. The integral is zero outside the sphere as a approaches zero, so only the inside of the sphere is considered.

Then the book says, "with a Taylor series expansion of the well behaved \rho( \boldsymbol{x'} ) around \boldsymbol{x'} = \boldsymbol{x}, one finds":

\nabla^2 \Phi_a = \frac{ -1 }{ \epsilon_0 } \int_0^R \frac{ a^2 }{( r^2 + a^2)^{5/2} } [ \rho( \boldsymbol{x} ) + \frac{ r^2 }{ 6 } \nabla^2 \rho + \ldots ] r^2 dr + O( a^2 )

Essentially I tried to fill in the gaps between those two steps.

Homework Equations


Taylor expansion for scalar field:

f(\boldsymbol{x'}) = f(\boldsymbol{x}) + \boldsymbol{x} \cdot \nabla f + \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } (\boldsymbol{x} \cdot \nabla)^2 f

The Attempt at a Solution


Well, essentially I attempted to solve the problem by using the relevant equations. First of all, I changed d^3 x' into spherical polar and the angular parts integrate into 4 \pi.

This is where I get lost because when I did the Taylor expansion, the first order terms did not go away. Secondly the second order term is a problem because I never managed to get a six at the bottom. In fact, what I get is:

\rho + r \frac{ \partial \rho }{ \partial r } + \frac{1}{2} r^2 \frac{ \partial \rho }{ \partial r } + \frac{1}{2} r^2 \frac{ \partial^2 \rho }{ \partial r^2 }

Which is not the same as
\rho( \boldsymbol{x} ) + \frac{ r^2 }{ 6 } \nabla^2 \rho = \rho( \boldsymbol{x} ) + \frac{ r^2 }{ 6 } \frac{\partial^2 \rho}{\partial r^2}
If we align the z axis with the vector ##\nabla f##, then the ## \boldsymbol{x} \cdot \nabla f## term introduces an extra factor ##\cos \theta##. Integrating

\int_0^\pi d\theta \sin \theta \cos \theta
gives zero which kills that term.

The next term introduces a factor ##(\cos \theta )^2##. The integral is
\int_0^\pi d\theta \sin \theta \cos^2 \theta = \frac{2}{3} which is 1/3 of the result with no factor of ##\cos \theta##. Taking into account the factor of 1/2 from the Taylor expansion, we get the factor of 1/6 of Jackson.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K