The reasoning behind doing series expansions and approximating functions in physics
It is usual in physics, that when we have a variable that is very small or very large we do a power series expansion of the function of that variable, and eliminate the high order terms, but my question is, why do we usually make the expansion and then approximate, why don't we just do the limit in that function, when that value is very small (tends to zero) or is very large (tends to infinity).
mathematics approximations
add a comment |
It is usual in physics, that when we have a variable that is very small or very large we do a power series expansion of the function of that variable, and eliminate the high order terms, but my question is, why do we usually make the expansion and then approximate, why don't we just do the limit in that function, when that value is very small (tends to zero) or is very large (tends to infinity).
mathematics approximations
Just taking the limit will probably give you less information about how the function behaves in the limit. A series expansion might give you information about how fast the function converges/diverges.
– SaudiBombsYemen
4 hours ago
In the Stark effekt, the first approximation gives the right answer although the series does not converge.
– Pieter
4 hours ago
add a comment |
It is usual in physics, that when we have a variable that is very small or very large we do a power series expansion of the function of that variable, and eliminate the high order terms, but my question is, why do we usually make the expansion and then approximate, why don't we just do the limit in that function, when that value is very small (tends to zero) or is very large (tends to infinity).
mathematics approximations
It is usual in physics, that when we have a variable that is very small or very large we do a power series expansion of the function of that variable, and eliminate the high order terms, but my question is, why do we usually make the expansion and then approximate, why don't we just do the limit in that function, when that value is very small (tends to zero) or is very large (tends to infinity).
mathematics approximations
mathematics approximations
edited 4 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
101k121831151
101k121831151
asked 4 hours ago
orochi
344
344
Just taking the limit will probably give you less information about how the function behaves in the limit. A series expansion might give you information about how fast the function converges/diverges.
– SaudiBombsYemen
4 hours ago
In the Stark effekt, the first approximation gives the right answer although the series does not converge.
– Pieter
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Just taking the limit will probably give you less information about how the function behaves in the limit. A series expansion might give you information about how fast the function converges/diverges.
– SaudiBombsYemen
4 hours ago
In the Stark effekt, the first approximation gives the right answer although the series does not converge.
– Pieter
4 hours ago
Just taking the limit will probably give you less information about how the function behaves in the limit. A series expansion might give you information about how fast the function converges/diverges.
– SaudiBombsYemen
4 hours ago
Just taking the limit will probably give you less information about how the function behaves in the limit. A series expansion might give you information about how fast the function converges/diverges.
– SaudiBombsYemen
4 hours ago
In the Stark effekt, the first approximation gives the right answer although the series does not converge.
– Pieter
4 hours ago
In the Stark effekt, the first approximation gives the right answer although the series does not converge.
– Pieter
4 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The key reason is that we want to understand the behavior of the system in the neighborhood of the state rather than at the state itself.
Take the equation of motion for a simple pendulum, for example:
$$ddot{theta} = -frac{g}{ell}sin(theta)$$
If we take the limit where $theta rightarrow 0$, we find $ddot{theta}= 0$, and we would conclude that the pendulum angle increases or decreases linearly with respect to time.
If we however take a Taylor expansion and truncate at the linear term, we find $ddot{theta} = -frac{g}{ell}theta$, which is a simple harmonic oscillator! This expansion shows us that in the neighborhood of $0$, the system returns back to $0$ as if it was a simple harmonic oscillator: completely unlike what we could state in the limit approximation above.
In fact, you could consider the limiting behavior around a state to be the zeroth-order component of a local expansion, which holds true straightforwardly for the example above since the limit term contributes no terms to the dynamics of the pendulum (but correctly notes that the angle increases/decreases linearly very close to $0$).
add a comment |
Consider the function $f(x)$ defined by
$$
f(x)equiv int^infty_{-infty} ds big(exp(-s^2-xs^4) - exp(-s^2)big).
tag{1}
$$
When $x=0$, we get $f(0)=0$. What if we want to know the value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is a very small positive number? We don't know how to evaluate this integral exactly and explicitly, and just saying that the result will be "close to zero" is not very enlightening.
We could evaluate the integral numerically, but that requires a computer (or a very patient person with a lot of time), and if we do the calculation that way, then we have to re-do it for each new value of $x$ that we care about.
An alternative is to expand in powers of $x$:
$$
f(x)
= int^infty_{-infty} ds (-xs^4)exp(-s^2)
+ int^infty_{-infty} ds frac{(-xs^4)^2}{2!}exp(-s^2)
+ int^infty_{-infty} ds frac{(-xs^4)^3}{3!}exp(-s^2)
+cdots
tag{2}
$$
Each term in this expansion is an elementary integral, which can be evaluated explicitly, so we end up a series in powers of $x$ with explicit numeric coefficients. The expansion doesn't converge (it's an asymptotic expansion), but if $x$ is small enough, then the first few terms give a good approximation, and we don't have to re-compute the coefficients every time we want to try a new value of $x$.
Examples like this are everywhere in physics. This particular example is the single-variable version of an integral that shows up in the simplest type of non-trivial quantum field theory (the "$phi^4$ model").
add a comment |
The idea behind any expansion is to express a "complicated" function in terms of simpler ones. In the case of a series expansion, the simpler ones are polynomials. Thus for instance the function
$$
frac{1}{a+x}-frac{1}{a-x} tag{1}
$$
is a difference of two approximately equal quantities when $x/ato 0$ and so appears to be $0$ when $x/ato 0$ but that's not really useful information so it is convenient to reexpress it as
$$
frac{1}{a(1+x/a)}-frac{1}{a(1-x)} approx
-frac{2 x}{a^2}-frac{2 x^3}{a^4}
$$
which gives some additional information in this limit.
There are also multiple circumstances where some equations - say a differential equation - cannot be solved exactly but can be solved in some limit (often yielding a linearized equation or systems of equations), which still allows some qualitative understanding of the features of the solutions: this is the basis for perturbation theory. For instance, solving the Schrodinger equation for the Lennard-Jones potential
$$
V(r)= 4epsilonleft[left(frac{sigma}{r}right)^{12}
-left(frac{sigma}{r}right)^6right]
$$
cannot be done analytically, but near the minimum $r_0=2^{1/6}sigma$ one can expand to obtain
$$
V(r)approx -epsilon+ frac{18 2^{2/3} epsilon (r-r_0)^2}{sigma ^2}
$$
which, up to an unimportant constant and shift in $r$, is a harmonic oscillator potential for which the solutions are known. Thus, we can get some approximate insight (or at least some orders of magnitude) into the appropriate molecular transitions.
Of course great care must be taken to insure that the assumptions behind the expansion are not ultimately violated by the solutions, i.e. one must understand that the resulting solutions are approximate and may fail badly in some cases.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451588%2fthe-reasoning-behind-doing-series-expansions-and-approximating-functions-in-phys%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The key reason is that we want to understand the behavior of the system in the neighborhood of the state rather than at the state itself.
Take the equation of motion for a simple pendulum, for example:
$$ddot{theta} = -frac{g}{ell}sin(theta)$$
If we take the limit where $theta rightarrow 0$, we find $ddot{theta}= 0$, and we would conclude that the pendulum angle increases or decreases linearly with respect to time.
If we however take a Taylor expansion and truncate at the linear term, we find $ddot{theta} = -frac{g}{ell}theta$, which is a simple harmonic oscillator! This expansion shows us that in the neighborhood of $0$, the system returns back to $0$ as if it was a simple harmonic oscillator: completely unlike what we could state in the limit approximation above.
In fact, you could consider the limiting behavior around a state to be the zeroth-order component of a local expansion, which holds true straightforwardly for the example above since the limit term contributes no terms to the dynamics of the pendulum (but correctly notes that the angle increases/decreases linearly very close to $0$).
add a comment |
The key reason is that we want to understand the behavior of the system in the neighborhood of the state rather than at the state itself.
Take the equation of motion for a simple pendulum, for example:
$$ddot{theta} = -frac{g}{ell}sin(theta)$$
If we take the limit where $theta rightarrow 0$, we find $ddot{theta}= 0$, and we would conclude that the pendulum angle increases or decreases linearly with respect to time.
If we however take a Taylor expansion and truncate at the linear term, we find $ddot{theta} = -frac{g}{ell}theta$, which is a simple harmonic oscillator! This expansion shows us that in the neighborhood of $0$, the system returns back to $0$ as if it was a simple harmonic oscillator: completely unlike what we could state in the limit approximation above.
In fact, you could consider the limiting behavior around a state to be the zeroth-order component of a local expansion, which holds true straightforwardly for the example above since the limit term contributes no terms to the dynamics of the pendulum (but correctly notes that the angle increases/decreases linearly very close to $0$).
add a comment |
The key reason is that we want to understand the behavior of the system in the neighborhood of the state rather than at the state itself.
Take the equation of motion for a simple pendulum, for example:
$$ddot{theta} = -frac{g}{ell}sin(theta)$$
If we take the limit where $theta rightarrow 0$, we find $ddot{theta}= 0$, and we would conclude that the pendulum angle increases or decreases linearly with respect to time.
If we however take a Taylor expansion and truncate at the linear term, we find $ddot{theta} = -frac{g}{ell}theta$, which is a simple harmonic oscillator! This expansion shows us that in the neighborhood of $0$, the system returns back to $0$ as if it was a simple harmonic oscillator: completely unlike what we could state in the limit approximation above.
In fact, you could consider the limiting behavior around a state to be the zeroth-order component of a local expansion, which holds true straightforwardly for the example above since the limit term contributes no terms to the dynamics of the pendulum (but correctly notes that the angle increases/decreases linearly very close to $0$).
The key reason is that we want to understand the behavior of the system in the neighborhood of the state rather than at the state itself.
Take the equation of motion for a simple pendulum, for example:
$$ddot{theta} = -frac{g}{ell}sin(theta)$$
If we take the limit where $theta rightarrow 0$, we find $ddot{theta}= 0$, and we would conclude that the pendulum angle increases or decreases linearly with respect to time.
If we however take a Taylor expansion and truncate at the linear term, we find $ddot{theta} = -frac{g}{ell}theta$, which is a simple harmonic oscillator! This expansion shows us that in the neighborhood of $0$, the system returns back to $0$ as if it was a simple harmonic oscillator: completely unlike what we could state in the limit approximation above.
In fact, you could consider the limiting behavior around a state to be the zeroth-order component of a local expansion, which holds true straightforwardly for the example above since the limit term contributes no terms to the dynamics of the pendulum (but correctly notes that the angle increases/decreases linearly very close to $0$).
answered 3 hours ago
aghostinthefigures
728114
728114
add a comment |
add a comment |
Consider the function $f(x)$ defined by
$$
f(x)equiv int^infty_{-infty} ds big(exp(-s^2-xs^4) - exp(-s^2)big).
tag{1}
$$
When $x=0$, we get $f(0)=0$. What if we want to know the value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is a very small positive number? We don't know how to evaluate this integral exactly and explicitly, and just saying that the result will be "close to zero" is not very enlightening.
We could evaluate the integral numerically, but that requires a computer (or a very patient person with a lot of time), and if we do the calculation that way, then we have to re-do it for each new value of $x$ that we care about.
An alternative is to expand in powers of $x$:
$$
f(x)
= int^infty_{-infty} ds (-xs^4)exp(-s^2)
+ int^infty_{-infty} ds frac{(-xs^4)^2}{2!}exp(-s^2)
+ int^infty_{-infty} ds frac{(-xs^4)^3}{3!}exp(-s^2)
+cdots
tag{2}
$$
Each term in this expansion is an elementary integral, which can be evaluated explicitly, so we end up a series in powers of $x$ with explicit numeric coefficients. The expansion doesn't converge (it's an asymptotic expansion), but if $x$ is small enough, then the first few terms give a good approximation, and we don't have to re-compute the coefficients every time we want to try a new value of $x$.
Examples like this are everywhere in physics. This particular example is the single-variable version of an integral that shows up in the simplest type of non-trivial quantum field theory (the "$phi^4$ model").
add a comment |
Consider the function $f(x)$ defined by
$$
f(x)equiv int^infty_{-infty} ds big(exp(-s^2-xs^4) - exp(-s^2)big).
tag{1}
$$
When $x=0$, we get $f(0)=0$. What if we want to know the value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is a very small positive number? We don't know how to evaluate this integral exactly and explicitly, and just saying that the result will be "close to zero" is not very enlightening.
We could evaluate the integral numerically, but that requires a computer (or a very patient person with a lot of time), and if we do the calculation that way, then we have to re-do it for each new value of $x$ that we care about.
An alternative is to expand in powers of $x$:
$$
f(x)
= int^infty_{-infty} ds (-xs^4)exp(-s^2)
+ int^infty_{-infty} ds frac{(-xs^4)^2}{2!}exp(-s^2)
+ int^infty_{-infty} ds frac{(-xs^4)^3}{3!}exp(-s^2)
+cdots
tag{2}
$$
Each term in this expansion is an elementary integral, which can be evaluated explicitly, so we end up a series in powers of $x$ with explicit numeric coefficients. The expansion doesn't converge (it's an asymptotic expansion), but if $x$ is small enough, then the first few terms give a good approximation, and we don't have to re-compute the coefficients every time we want to try a new value of $x$.
Examples like this are everywhere in physics. This particular example is the single-variable version of an integral that shows up in the simplest type of non-trivial quantum field theory (the "$phi^4$ model").
add a comment |
Consider the function $f(x)$ defined by
$$
f(x)equiv int^infty_{-infty} ds big(exp(-s^2-xs^4) - exp(-s^2)big).
tag{1}
$$
When $x=0$, we get $f(0)=0$. What if we want to know the value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is a very small positive number? We don't know how to evaluate this integral exactly and explicitly, and just saying that the result will be "close to zero" is not very enlightening.
We could evaluate the integral numerically, but that requires a computer (or a very patient person with a lot of time), and if we do the calculation that way, then we have to re-do it for each new value of $x$ that we care about.
An alternative is to expand in powers of $x$:
$$
f(x)
= int^infty_{-infty} ds (-xs^4)exp(-s^2)
+ int^infty_{-infty} ds frac{(-xs^4)^2}{2!}exp(-s^2)
+ int^infty_{-infty} ds frac{(-xs^4)^3}{3!}exp(-s^2)
+cdots
tag{2}
$$
Each term in this expansion is an elementary integral, which can be evaluated explicitly, so we end up a series in powers of $x$ with explicit numeric coefficients. The expansion doesn't converge (it's an asymptotic expansion), but if $x$ is small enough, then the first few terms give a good approximation, and we don't have to re-compute the coefficients every time we want to try a new value of $x$.
Examples like this are everywhere in physics. This particular example is the single-variable version of an integral that shows up in the simplest type of non-trivial quantum field theory (the "$phi^4$ model").
Consider the function $f(x)$ defined by
$$
f(x)equiv int^infty_{-infty} ds big(exp(-s^2-xs^4) - exp(-s^2)big).
tag{1}
$$
When $x=0$, we get $f(0)=0$. What if we want to know the value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is a very small positive number? We don't know how to evaluate this integral exactly and explicitly, and just saying that the result will be "close to zero" is not very enlightening.
We could evaluate the integral numerically, but that requires a computer (or a very patient person with a lot of time), and if we do the calculation that way, then we have to re-do it for each new value of $x$ that we care about.
An alternative is to expand in powers of $x$:
$$
f(x)
= int^infty_{-infty} ds (-xs^4)exp(-s^2)
+ int^infty_{-infty} ds frac{(-xs^4)^2}{2!}exp(-s^2)
+ int^infty_{-infty} ds frac{(-xs^4)^3}{3!}exp(-s^2)
+cdots
tag{2}
$$
Each term in this expansion is an elementary integral, which can be evaluated explicitly, so we end up a series in powers of $x$ with explicit numeric coefficients. The expansion doesn't converge (it's an asymptotic expansion), but if $x$ is small enough, then the first few terms give a good approximation, and we don't have to re-compute the coefficients every time we want to try a new value of $x$.
Examples like this are everywhere in physics. This particular example is the single-variable version of an integral that shows up in the simplest type of non-trivial quantum field theory (the "$phi^4$ model").
answered 3 hours ago
Dan Yand
7,0521930
7,0521930
add a comment |
add a comment |
The idea behind any expansion is to express a "complicated" function in terms of simpler ones. In the case of a series expansion, the simpler ones are polynomials. Thus for instance the function
$$
frac{1}{a+x}-frac{1}{a-x} tag{1}
$$
is a difference of two approximately equal quantities when $x/ato 0$ and so appears to be $0$ when $x/ato 0$ but that's not really useful information so it is convenient to reexpress it as
$$
frac{1}{a(1+x/a)}-frac{1}{a(1-x)} approx
-frac{2 x}{a^2}-frac{2 x^3}{a^4}
$$
which gives some additional information in this limit.
There are also multiple circumstances where some equations - say a differential equation - cannot be solved exactly but can be solved in some limit (often yielding a linearized equation or systems of equations), which still allows some qualitative understanding of the features of the solutions: this is the basis for perturbation theory. For instance, solving the Schrodinger equation for the Lennard-Jones potential
$$
V(r)= 4epsilonleft[left(frac{sigma}{r}right)^{12}
-left(frac{sigma}{r}right)^6right]
$$
cannot be done analytically, but near the minimum $r_0=2^{1/6}sigma$ one can expand to obtain
$$
V(r)approx -epsilon+ frac{18 2^{2/3} epsilon (r-r_0)^2}{sigma ^2}
$$
which, up to an unimportant constant and shift in $r$, is a harmonic oscillator potential for which the solutions are known. Thus, we can get some approximate insight (or at least some orders of magnitude) into the appropriate molecular transitions.
Of course great care must be taken to insure that the assumptions behind the expansion are not ultimately violated by the solutions, i.e. one must understand that the resulting solutions are approximate and may fail badly in some cases.
add a comment |
The idea behind any expansion is to express a "complicated" function in terms of simpler ones. In the case of a series expansion, the simpler ones are polynomials. Thus for instance the function
$$
frac{1}{a+x}-frac{1}{a-x} tag{1}
$$
is a difference of two approximately equal quantities when $x/ato 0$ and so appears to be $0$ when $x/ato 0$ but that's not really useful information so it is convenient to reexpress it as
$$
frac{1}{a(1+x/a)}-frac{1}{a(1-x)} approx
-frac{2 x}{a^2}-frac{2 x^3}{a^4}
$$
which gives some additional information in this limit.
There are also multiple circumstances where some equations - say a differential equation - cannot be solved exactly but can be solved in some limit (often yielding a linearized equation or systems of equations), which still allows some qualitative understanding of the features of the solutions: this is the basis for perturbation theory. For instance, solving the Schrodinger equation for the Lennard-Jones potential
$$
V(r)= 4epsilonleft[left(frac{sigma}{r}right)^{12}
-left(frac{sigma}{r}right)^6right]
$$
cannot be done analytically, but near the minimum $r_0=2^{1/6}sigma$ one can expand to obtain
$$
V(r)approx -epsilon+ frac{18 2^{2/3} epsilon (r-r_0)^2}{sigma ^2}
$$
which, up to an unimportant constant and shift in $r$, is a harmonic oscillator potential for which the solutions are known. Thus, we can get some approximate insight (or at least some orders of magnitude) into the appropriate molecular transitions.
Of course great care must be taken to insure that the assumptions behind the expansion are not ultimately violated by the solutions, i.e. one must understand that the resulting solutions are approximate and may fail badly in some cases.
add a comment |
The idea behind any expansion is to express a "complicated" function in terms of simpler ones. In the case of a series expansion, the simpler ones are polynomials. Thus for instance the function
$$
frac{1}{a+x}-frac{1}{a-x} tag{1}
$$
is a difference of two approximately equal quantities when $x/ato 0$ and so appears to be $0$ when $x/ato 0$ but that's not really useful information so it is convenient to reexpress it as
$$
frac{1}{a(1+x/a)}-frac{1}{a(1-x)} approx
-frac{2 x}{a^2}-frac{2 x^3}{a^4}
$$
which gives some additional information in this limit.
There are also multiple circumstances where some equations - say a differential equation - cannot be solved exactly but can be solved in some limit (often yielding a linearized equation or systems of equations), which still allows some qualitative understanding of the features of the solutions: this is the basis for perturbation theory. For instance, solving the Schrodinger equation for the Lennard-Jones potential
$$
V(r)= 4epsilonleft[left(frac{sigma}{r}right)^{12}
-left(frac{sigma}{r}right)^6right]
$$
cannot be done analytically, but near the minimum $r_0=2^{1/6}sigma$ one can expand to obtain
$$
V(r)approx -epsilon+ frac{18 2^{2/3} epsilon (r-r_0)^2}{sigma ^2}
$$
which, up to an unimportant constant and shift in $r$, is a harmonic oscillator potential for which the solutions are known. Thus, we can get some approximate insight (or at least some orders of magnitude) into the appropriate molecular transitions.
Of course great care must be taken to insure that the assumptions behind the expansion are not ultimately violated by the solutions, i.e. one must understand that the resulting solutions are approximate and may fail badly in some cases.
The idea behind any expansion is to express a "complicated" function in terms of simpler ones. In the case of a series expansion, the simpler ones are polynomials. Thus for instance the function
$$
frac{1}{a+x}-frac{1}{a-x} tag{1}
$$
is a difference of two approximately equal quantities when $x/ato 0$ and so appears to be $0$ when $x/ato 0$ but that's not really useful information so it is convenient to reexpress it as
$$
frac{1}{a(1+x/a)}-frac{1}{a(1-x)} approx
-frac{2 x}{a^2}-frac{2 x^3}{a^4}
$$
which gives some additional information in this limit.
There are also multiple circumstances where some equations - say a differential equation - cannot be solved exactly but can be solved in some limit (often yielding a linearized equation or systems of equations), which still allows some qualitative understanding of the features of the solutions: this is the basis for perturbation theory. For instance, solving the Schrodinger equation for the Lennard-Jones potential
$$
V(r)= 4epsilonleft[left(frac{sigma}{r}right)^{12}
-left(frac{sigma}{r}right)^6right]
$$
cannot be done analytically, but near the minimum $r_0=2^{1/6}sigma$ one can expand to obtain
$$
V(r)approx -epsilon+ frac{18 2^{2/3} epsilon (r-r_0)^2}{sigma ^2}
$$
which, up to an unimportant constant and shift in $r$, is a harmonic oscillator potential for which the solutions are known. Thus, we can get some approximate insight (or at least some orders of magnitude) into the appropriate molecular transitions.
Of course great care must be taken to insure that the assumptions behind the expansion are not ultimately violated by the solutions, i.e. one must understand that the resulting solutions are approximate and may fail badly in some cases.
answered 2 hours ago
ZeroTheHero
18.6k52956
18.6k52956
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451588%2fthe-reasoning-behind-doing-series-expansions-and-approximating-functions-in-phys%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Just taking the limit will probably give you less information about how the function behaves in the limit. A series expansion might give you information about how fast the function converges/diverges.
– SaudiBombsYemen
4 hours ago
In the Stark effekt, the first approximation gives the right answer although the series does not converge.
– Pieter
4 hours ago