Skip to main content

equation solving - Why does the integral not converge?


I am trying to solve for Ω this nonlinear integral equation:


1+zk2z2K2(z)Ωk31γ2ArcTanh(γ21γ2kΩ)ezγdγ=0


where K2(z) is the modified Bessel function of the second kind, Ω and k are reals, z>0.



The Mathematica input is:


f[Ω_?NumericQ, k_?NumericQ, z_?NumericQ] := 1 + (z/k^2) - (z^2/BesselK[2, z]) (Ω/k^3) 
NIntegrate[γ^2 (ArcTanh[Sqrt[(γ^2 - 1)/γ^2] (k/Ω)]) Exp[-z γ], {γ, 1, Infinity},
MaxRecursion -> 500]

The solutions Ω(k,z) are given by :


 W[k_,z_] := Re[Ω /. FindRoot[f[Ω, k, z], {Ω, .895}]]

I need to calculate all solutions Ω(k,z) for k=3 when $0.1

My problem is that I get accurate solutions for $1

For example:


Block[{k=3},Table[{z, W[k,z]},{z,{100,10,5,1,0.5,0.1}}]]

{{100, 1.139642672363642}, {10, 1.96313715768855}, {5, 2.393983432376982}, {1, 2.905633499901334}, {0.5, 202.5621368946721}, {0.1, 104.1929384069426}}


The true values for z=0.5 and 0.1 are:


W[3,0.5]= 2.98 ; W[3,0.1]= 2.99


Please, why do the computations do not converge? Is there an easy way to resolve this problem ?


(I should mention that I'm using Mathematica 10.2.0.0.)



Answer



Difficulties encountered in solving the dispersion relation in the Question are due not so much to convergence of the integral as to the branch point in complex γ- space, which occurs where the argument of ArcTanh[] is equal to 1. Based on the related article cited in a comment above, the integration contour {γ, 1, Infinity} must pass below all non-analytic points in complex γ- space. Moreover, on both physical and mathematical grounds Im[Ω] < 0, which implies that the corresponding value of γ also has a negative imaginary part. I had hoped to take the branch point into account in the same way that I did in answering Question 113240, but this proved to be impractical, because the corresponding branch cut is not a straight line in complex γ- space.



Alternatively, the branch point, which is logarithmic, can be eliminated from the integrand


γ^2 (ArcTanh[Sqrt[(γ^2 - 1)/γ^2] (k/Ω)]) Exp[-z γ]

by means of integration by parts:


arg1 = Integrate[γ^2 Exp[-z γ], γ, Assumptions -> z > 0];
arg2 = Simplify[D[ArcTanh[Sqrt[(γ^2 - 1)/γ^2] (k/Ω)], γ], γ > 1];
arg = -arg1 arg2
(* (k*(2 + 2*z*γ + z^2*γ^2)*Ω)/(E^(z*γ)*z^3*Sqrt[γ^2 - 1]*(-(k^2*(-1 + γ^2)) + γ^2*Ω^2)) *)

Based on the discussion in the first paragraph, the dispersion relation becomes not just the first equation in the question with the new integrand, but also the Residue of the pole.



pole = Solve[Denominator[arg] == 0, γ] // Last
(* {γ -> k/Sqrt[k^2 - Ω^2]} *)
res = FullSimplify[Residue[arg, {γ, γ /. pole}]]
(* (-(k^2*(2 + z^2)*Ω) + 2*Ω^3 - 2*k*z*Ω*Sqrt[(k - Ω)*(k + Ω)])/
(2*E^((k*z)/Sqrt[k^2 - Ω^2])*z^3*((k - Ω)*(k + Ω))^(3/2)*Sqrt[Ω^2/(k^2 - Ω^2)]) *)

Inserting this term, along with the new integrand given above, into the definition of f from the Question yields the new dispersion function,


h[Ω_?NumericQ, k_?NumericQ, z_?NumericQ] := 
1 + (z/k^2) - (z^2/BesselK[2, z]) (Ω/k^3) (NIntegrate[(E^(-z γ)
k (2 + 2 z γ + z^2 γ^2) Ω)/(z^3 Sqrt[-1 + γ^2] (-k^2 (-1 + γ^2) + γ^2 Ω^2)),

{γ, 1, Infinity}] + 2 Pi I (E^(-((k z)/Sqrt[k^2 - Ω^2])) Ω (-2 k^3 z + 2 k z Ω^2 -
k^2 (2 + z^2) Sqrt[k^2 - Ω^2] + 2 Ω^2 Sqrt[k^2 - Ω^2]))/(2 z^3 Sqrt[Ω^2/(k^2 - Ω^2)]
(k^2 - Ω^2)^2))

A comment above by Betatron estimates that h[Ω, 3, 100] is satisfied by Ω such that Im[Ω]/Re[Ω] is of order -0.0075. The new dispersion relation yields,


Ω /. Last@FindRoot[h[Ω, 3, 100], {Ω, 1.1 - .1 I}]
(* 1.13917 - 0.0075706 I *)
Im[%]/Re[%]
(* -0.0066457 *)


In contrast, the original dispersion relation yielded 1.1397 + 4.04927*10^-11 I, along with error messages. A few minutes of computation are sufficient to generate the following plots.


enter image description here


enter image description here


As requested in the Question, the new dispersion relation gives credible solutions for small z, and credible values for Im[Ω] throughout.


Addendum


As requested by Betatron in a Chat Room conversation, the code used to create the two plots above is


t1 = Table[{i, Ω /. FindRoot[h[Ω, 3, i], {Ω, 3 - I/1000}]}, {i, 1/10, 1, 1/10}];
t2 = Table[{i, Ω /. FindRoot[h[Ω, 3, i], {Ω, 2.5 - .3 I}]}, {i, 1, 3, 1/10}];
t3 = Table[{i, Ω /. FindRoot[h[Ω, 3, i], {Ω, 2. - .3 I}]}, {i, 4, 20}];
ListLogLinearPlot[Union[Re[t1], Re[t2], Re[t3]], AxesLabel -> {z, "Re[Ω]"}]

ListLogLinearPlot[{First@#, Im[Last@#]/Re[Last@#]} & /@
Union[t1, t2, t3], PlotRange -> All, AxesLabel -> {z, "Im[Ω]/Re[Ω]"}]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...