Is My Perturbative Solution of this Equation Correct?

  • Thread starter norman86
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation involved solving an equation perturbatively and obtaining a result for \beta. However, the calculated result did not match the correct answer, leading to the question of where the mistake was made. After discussing the approach, it was determined that the correct way to solve the equation was by assuming a power series expansion and solving for the coefficients. The final result for \beta was 1+\frac{3}{4}\alpha+\frac{61}{96}\alpha^{2}.
  • #1
norman86
5
0
Hi all! I want to perturbatively solve this equation in [tex]\beta[/tex] at second order in [tex]\alpha[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\beta^{2}}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\beta^{4}\alpha+\frac{2}{3}\beta^{6}\alpha^{2}=\frac{1}{4}[/tex]

I rewrite this formula in this way

[tex]\beta^{2}=1+\frac{3}{2}\beta^{4}\alpha-\frac{8}{3}\beta^{6}\alpha^{2}[/tex]

When I try to solve it perturbatively, I obtain

[tex]\beta^{2}=1+\frac{3}{2}1^{2}\alpha-\frac{8}{3}\alpha^{2}\left(1+\frac{3}{2}1^{2}\alpha\right)^{3}[/tex]

The result is

[tex]\beta^{2}=1+\frac{3}{2}\alpha-\frac{8}{3}\alpha^{2}[/tex]

The square root of which gives

[tex]\beta=1+\frac{3}{4}\alpha-\frac{155}{96}\alpha^{2}[/tex]

I know that the correct result is

[tex]\beta=1+\frac{3}{4}\alpha+\frac{61}{96}\alpha^{2}[/tex]

Clearly, there is something wrong in the second order of my calculus.

Can anyone please tell me where I'm mistaking? Thanks a lot.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hmm..
Not quite sure what you are doing here, I'm afraid.
Here's how I would do it.
Assume a power series expansion as the following:
[tex]\beta=1+k_{1}\alpha+k_{2}\alpha^{2}+++[/tex]
We are to determine the k's in orders of alpha.
Inserting in your equation, and retaining terms of order 0 and 1, we get:
[tex]1+2k_{1}\alpha=1+\frac{3}{2}*1\to{k}_{1}=\frac{3}{4}[/tex]

To order 2, we have:
[tex]k_{1}^{2}\alpha_{2}+2k_{2}\alpha^{2}=\frac{3}{2}*4k_{1}\alpha^{2}-\frac{8}{3}*1*\alpha^{2}[/tex]
Or, we get the equation for k_2:
[tex]\frac{9}{16}+2k_{2}=\frac{9}{2}-\frac{8}{3}[/tex]
Which yields:
[tex]2k_{2}=\frac{216-128-27}{48}=\frac{61}{48}[/tex]
whereby the result follows.
 
  • #3
You are right. That's the right way to do it. Thank you very much!
 

FAQ: Is My Perturbative Solution of this Equation Correct?

What is perturbation theory?

Perturbation theory is a mathematical method used to approximate solutions to equations that cannot be solved exactly. It involves breaking down the equation into a series of simpler, solvable equations and then adding terms to account for the complexity of the original equation.

Why is perturbation theory useful?

Perturbation theory is useful because it allows us to solve equations that would otherwise be impossible to solve. It is especially useful in physics and engineering, where many complex systems can only be understood through approximation methods.

How do you solve an equation perturbatively?

To solve an equation perturbatively, you first need to identify a small parameter in the equation that can be used to create a series expansion. Then, you can use this expansion to approximate the solution to the equation by adding terms of increasing complexity.

What is the difference between first-order and second-order perturbation theory?

In first-order perturbation theory, only the first term in the series expansion is used to approximate the solution, while in second-order perturbation theory, the first two terms are used. Generally, the higher the order of perturbation theory used, the more accurate the approximation will be.

Are there any limitations to perturbation theory?

Yes, perturbation theory is not always applicable and may fail to provide accurate solutions in certain situations. It also relies on the small parameter being significantly smaller than other terms in the equation, which may not always be the case.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top