Insights An Integral Result from Parseval's Theorem - Comments

Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the evaluation of an integral related to Parseval's Theorem, with participants exploring methods such as residue theory and transformations. One contributor successfully evaluated the integral using residue theory, highlighting the importance of identifying poles and employing contour integration techniques. The result obtained aligns with expectations, confirming the validity of the approach. Additionally, there is clarification regarding the application of Parseval's theorem for real versus complex-valued functions. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the mathematical intricacies involved in solving the integral and the desire for alternative evaluation methods.
Charles Link
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
5,968
Reaction score
3,166
Charles Link submitted a new PF Insights post

An Integral Result from Parseval's Theorem
Parsevalstheorem.png


Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2, S.G. Janssens, scottdave and 1 other person
Physics news on Phys.org
Additional comments: The result for this integral is similar to the type of result that would be obtained from residue theory if the integrand gets evaluated at the "pole" at ## x=x_o ##. Alternatively, with the transformations ## y=x-x_o ## and ## y=\pi u ##, in the limit ## T \rightarrow +\infty ##, ## \frac{\sin(\pi u T)}{\pi u }=\delta(u) ##, but this only gives a result for large ## T ## for an evaluation of the integral. So far, the Parseval method is the only way I have of solving it.
 
Thanks Charles! Some day I will understand this :)
 
  • Like
Likes Charles Link
Greg Bernhardt said:
Thanks Charles! Some day I will understand this :)
Hi @Greg Bernhardt
I will be very pleased if someone comes up with an alternative method to evaluate this integral. I am pretty sure I computed it correctly, but I would really enjoy seeing an alternative solution. :) :)
 
I believe I have now also succeeded at evaluating this integral by use of the residue theorem: ## \\ ## The integral can be rewritten as ## I=-\frac{1}{2} \int Re[ \frac{e^{i2z}[1-e^{-i2(z-x_o)}]}{(z-x_o)(z+x_o)}] \, dz ##. ## \\ ## (Using ## sin(x-x_o)sin(x+x_o)=-\frac{1}{2}[cos(2x)-cos(2x_o)] ## and then writing ## cos(2x) ## as the real part of ## e^{i2x} ##). ## \\ ## A Taylor expansion shows the only pole is at ## z=-x_o ## (from the ## (z+x_o) ## term in the denominator. ## \\ ## (Note that ## e^{-i2(z-x_o)}=1-2i(z-x_o)+higher \, order \, terms \, in \, (z-x_o) ##. Thereby, there is no pole at ## z=x_o ##). ## \\ ## The contour will go along the x-axis with an infinitesimal semi-circle loop over the pole at ## z=-x_o ##, and will be closed in the upper half complex plane. (I needed to consult my complex variables book for this next part:). The infinitesimal semi-circle loop over the pole in the clockwise direction results in ## -B_o \pi i ## where ## B_o ## is the residue of the function at ## z=-x_o ##. ## \\ ## Upon evaluating the residue ## B_o ##, this results in ## -\pi \frac{sin(2x_o)}{2x_o} ## for the portion containing the infinitesimal semi-circle loop over the pole (which is not part of the integration of the function along the x-axis, where the entire function is considered to be well-behaved.). Since the contour doesn't enclose any poles, the complete integral around it must be zero, so the functional part along the x-axis must be equal to ## \pi \frac{sin(2x_o)}{2x_o} ##, which is the result that we anticipated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
Just a small addition regarding the statement of Parseval's theorem:
If ##V(t)## is real-valued (and in this article it is )then it is correct as it is stated
if ##V(t)## is complex-valued then in the statement of theorem it has to be put inside norm, that is ##\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|V(t)|^2dt=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|\tilde{V}(\omega)|^2d\omega##
 
  • Like
Likes Charles Link
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
4K