Can Any Wave Be Expressed as a Complex Fourier Series?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the expression of waves as linear combinations of sinusoidal functions, specifically in the context of Fourier transforms and series. Participants are examining the validity of Griffiths' assertion that any wave can be represented in this manner.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the distinction between Fourier series and Fourier transforms, questioning the implications of expressing any wave in terms of sinusoidal components. There is a focus on the conditions under which this representation holds true.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and clarifications regarding the mathematical framework. Some have offered explanations about the decomposition of waves and the role of dispersion relations, while others are seeking further understanding of specific aspects of the theory.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of uncertainty regarding the assumptions made in the original statement about wave representation, particularly concerning the conditions under which the decomposition is valid. Participants are also reflecting on the implications of harmonic modes in wave equations.

Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi

In Griffiths (chapter 9) he states that any wave can be expressed as a linear combination of sinusoidal waves,

<br /> f(z,t)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{A(k)e^{i(kz-\omega t)}dk} = e^{-i\omega t}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{A(k)e^{ikz}dk}<br />

Is it correct to say that this in principle is a complex Fourier series?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes.
 
Thanks.
 
Actually, it's not the series; it's the Fourier transform. It's the same basic idea though.
 
If its the transform and not the series, I don't see why Griffiths believes we can write *any* wave like that. I agree that if
<br /> f(z,t)=A(r)e^{-i\omega t}<br />
then we can always write
<br /> f(z,t)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{A(k)e^{i(kz-\omega t)}dk}<br />
But that is not the same as saying that we can express *any* wave like this.
 
You could look at it this way. At t=0, for any wave, you can write f(z,0) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty A(k)e^{ikz}\,dk. You're taking a snapshot of the wave at an instant in time and expressing it in terms of its spatial frequency components. Each component then propagates independently, so at time t, the kth component is given by A(k)e^{i(kz-\omega t)}. Then by superposition, you simply sum over all the components to find the total wave, which gives you the expression Griffith's has.

Keep in mind that the waves satisfy the dispersion relation \omega=|k|v. When you integrate over k, you're not simply varying k but \omega as well.
 
vela said:
You could look at it this way. At t=0, for any wave, you can write f(z,0) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty A(k)e^{ikz}\,dk. You're taking a snapshot of the wave at an instant in time and expressing it in terms of its spatial frequency components. Each component then propagates independently, so at time t, the kth component is given by A(k)e^{i(kz-\omega t)}. Then by superposition, you simply sum over all the components to find the total wave, which gives you the expression Griffith's has.

Keep in mind that the waves satisfy the dispersion relation \omega=|k|v. When you integrate over k, you're not simply varying k but \omega as well.

Thanks, that is a good explanation, but one thing remains unclear to me: Why can I always decompose a wave at some time t=0 as

<br /> f(z,0) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty{A(kt)e^{ikz}dk}<br />

There is a final thing, and it is perhaps a little relevant to the above. If you know the answer, I would very much appreciate it: In a book I have, they state that:" If we assume that we are dealing with harmonic modes, then we can write

<br /> E(r,t)=E(r)e^{-i\omega t}<br />

My question is why we can factor the spatial and temporal parts in this case?Niles.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K