Dirac delta; fourier representation

Physgeek64
Messages
245
Reaction score
11

Homework Statement


I know that we can write ## \int_{-\infinity}^{\infinity}{e^{ikx}dx}= 2\pi \delta (k) ##

But is there an equivalent if the interval which we are considering is finite? i.e. is there any meaning in ##\int_{-0}^{-L}{e^{i(k-a)x}dx} ## is a lies within 0 and L?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I get the feeling the solution, if one exists, will be in the form ##\frac{2\pi}{L}## but I'm not sure if this is right,

Many thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes.

The outcome is still ##2\pi\delta(k-a)##, though. the integral over the remainder of the domain gives zero. Check out distributions

Edit, sorry, too quick. a can not lie in ##[0,L]##
 
So you get a transform of the (sin x)/x kind (#6 here). Something that in the limit goes towards a delta function.
 
BvU said:
Yes.

The outcome is still ##2\pi\delta(k-a)##, though. the integral over the remainder of the domain gives zero. Check out distributions

Edit, sorry, too quick. a can not lie in ##[0,L]##
Why can a not lie in [0,L]?
 
Physgeek64 said:
But is there an equivalent if the interval which we are considering is finite? i.e. is there any meaning in ##\int_{-0}^{-L}{e^{i(k-a)x}dx} ## is a lies within 0 and L?

To see what happens, why don't you just do the integral? Hint: if you feel uneasy integrating an imaginary exponential, use ##e^{i\theta}= \cos\theta + i \sin\theta##.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top