Can the Fourier Transform Be Defined Without the Minus Sign?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of the Fourier transform, specifically the implications of defining it without the conventional minus sign. Participants explore whether this alternative definition can still maintain the physical meanings typically associated with the Fourier transform.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if the Fourier transform can be defined as \intf(x)e^{2\pi ix \varsigma}dx, omitting the minus sign, and whether this affects the physical interpretation.
  • Another participant asserts that it is acceptable to change the sign or constants in the definition without altering its operation or physical meaning.
  • A different participant warns that results obtained from this alternative definition may differ from those derived using the conventional definition.
  • It is noted that defining positive and negative frequencies may simply be a matter of convention, particularly when dealing with real-valued functions, where the negative-frequency spectrum mirrors the positive-frequency spectrum.
  • A later reply emphasizes that there are free parameters in the general Fourier transform definition, and different groups may adopt varying conventions for these parameters.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of changing the Fourier transform definition. While some agree that it is permissible, others highlight potential differences in results, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of this change.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention that the choice of definition may depend on conventions used in different contexts, and there are unresolved aspects regarding the physical meanings associated with the alternative definition.

jollage
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Hi All,

Usually the Fourier transform is defined as the one in the Wiki page here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform), see the definition.

My question is can I define Fourier transform as [itex]\int[/itex]f(x)e[itex]^{2\pi ix \varsigma}[/itex]dx instead, i.e., with the minus sign removed, as the forward Fourier transform? The backward one is the one with the minus sign. So the definition is the opposite to the definition on the wiki page.

Can I define this? Will the so-transformed frequency domain still bear the physical meanings as we usually talk about?

Thanks in advance. Any comment will help.

Jo
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF, jollage! :smile:

Yep. You can do that.
Fourier transforms are defined haphazardly as you may already have noticed.
Changing the sign or the constants does not change the way it operates, nor the physical meaning.
 
Just be aware that the result you get might differ from one found the other way.
 
OK, thank you for confirming this. This is great. I guess I could move on with this definition.
 
It just means that what you call a positive frequency, everyone else calls a negative frequency, and vice-versa. If you are dealing with real-valued functions only (i.e. not complex), it won't make much difference, because in that case the negative-frequency spectrum is just a mirror image of the positive-frequency spectrum.
 
Last edited:
jollage said:
Hi All,

Usually the Fourier transform is defined as the one in the Wiki page here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform), see the definition.

My question is can I define Fourier transform as [itex]\int[/itex]f(x)e[itex]^{2\pi ix \varsigma}[/itex]dx instead, i.e., with the minus sign removed, as the forward Fourier transform? The backward one is the one with the minus sign. So the definition is the opposite to the definition on the wiki page.
See equations 15 and 16 here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierTransform.html

To get a "general" Fourier transform there are two free parameters that you can set. Different groups use different choices of those free parameters as their "standard", but it is all just a matter of convention.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K