Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Double check the derivation integral representation of Bessel Function

  1. Jul 9, 2013 #1
    I am reading the article Mirela Vinerean:


    On page 6, I have a question about
    [tex]e^{\frac{x}{2}t} e^{-\frac{x}{2}\frac{1}{t}}=\sum^{\infty}_{n=-\infty}J_n(x)e^{jn\theta}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}J_n(x)[e^{jn\theta}+(-1)^ne^{-jn\theta}][/tex]

    I think there is a mistake at the last term. If you look at n=0, the equation will be:
    Which is not correct. The problem is n=0 is being repeated in both the n=+ve and n=-ve.

    The equation should be:
    [tex]e^{\frac{x}{2}t} e^{-\frac{x}{2}\frac{1}{t}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[J_n(x)e^{jn\theta}]\;+\;\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}[(-1)^ne^{-jn\theta}][/tex]

    With this, the first term covers the original n=+ve from 0 to ∞. The second term covers the original from -∞ to -1. Now you only have one term contain n=0. Am I correct?

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 9, 2013 #2
    Also in the same page right below the equations of the first post:
    [tex]\int_0^{\pi} \sin n\theta \sin m\theta d\theta\;=\;\frac{\pi}{2}\delta_{mn}[/tex]

    1) What is ##\delta_{mn}##?
    2) If m≠n, the result should be zero. But [itex]\int_0^{\pi} \sin n\theta \sin m\theta d\theta\;≠0[/itex] because the integration is from 0 to ##\pi##, not from -##\pi## to +##\pi##.

  4. Jul 9, 2013 #3
    I can't help you with your first post. [itex] \delta_{mn} [/itex] is the Kronecker delta. It is 1 is m=n and 0 if m≠n. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronecker_delta

    That integral is zero if m≠n. One to show that is using complex exponentials [tex] \int_0^\pi sin(n\theta)sin(m\theta)d\theta = \int_0^\pi \frac{e^{in\theta}-e^{-in\theta}}{2i}\frac{e^{im\theta}-e^{-im\theta}}{2i} d\theta= -\frac{1}{4} \int_0^\pi e^{i(m+n)\theta}-e^{i(m-n)\theta}-e^{i(n-m)\theta}+e^{-i(m+n)\theta}d\theta [/tex]. Since we know that this integral will be real, we can just consider the real parts of each of the expressions. [itex] \mathrm{Re}(e^{ix})=cos(x) [/itex] so we can write the integral as [tex] -\frac{1}{4} \int_0^\pi cos((m+n)\theta)-cos((n-m)\theta)-cos((m-n)\theta)+cos(-(m+n)\theta) d\theta [/tex]. This is zero since cosine is odd about [itex] \pi/2 [/itex] in sense that [itex] cos(\pi/2+x)=-cos(\pi/2-x) [/itex]. Note that you need m≠n. Else, the [itex] cos((n-m)\theta) [/itex] is constantly one and does not integrate to zero.
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2013
  5. Jul 9, 2013 #4
    Thanks for the Kronecker delta, I forgot about this one.

    I know the cosine part is fine. But if you look at page 6 of the provided link in the first post, the author claimed orthogonality properties with the sine function. That's the part I am challenging.

  6. Jul 9, 2013 #5
    I am confused. Didn't I just show that [itex] \int_0^\pi sin(mx)sin(nx) dx =0 [/itex] where [itex] m \neq n [/itex], which is the orthogonality condition?
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2013
  7. Jul 9, 2013 #6
    An integral does not have to be real, I don't think you can assume it's real and get rid of the imaginary part.

    A very simple test is not use exponential and just go with integration with n=0 and m=1

    [tex]\int_0^{\pi} \sin \theta d\theta =-\cos\theta|_0^{\pi}=-[-1-1]=2[/tex]
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2013
  8. Jul 9, 2013 #7
    It is real. If you wanted to verify this, you could expand all of the [itex] e^{ik\theta} [/itex] (where k is one of the linear combinations of m and n) terms as [itex] cos(k\theta)+isin(k\theta) [/itex] and find that all of the imaginary terms drop out. I skipped this step because the original integral with just sines must be real, and the integral with complex exponentials is only different by a factor of -1/4, so it too must be real.

    Edit: I just saw your edit. If n=0, then the integrand is 0 and the integral is trivially zero.
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2013
  9. Jul 9, 2013 #8
    The forum is so slow that we are cross posting. I just edited the last post, I don't even use exponential, just use n=0 and m=1. that will be just integrate a sine function and show it's not zero.
  10. Jul 9, 2013 #9
    Yes, it is a bit annoying. See my last edit. Look more carefully at what happens to the integrand if one of m or n is zero.
  11. Jul 9, 2013 #10
    You're taking the integral of a real function. That will always be real.
  12. Jul 9, 2013 #11
    Yes, I was wrong on the integration. I kept thinking if n=0, then it's an integration of a sine function and it's not zero. But if n=0, the whole thing is zero to start with!!!


    Can you help with my first post?
  13. Jul 9, 2013 #12
    Sorry, I can't as I don't know anything about Bessel functions. I hope that you get the answer you need though.
  14. Jul 9, 2013 #13
    Actually the question has not much to do with Bessel Function. All you need to know is if n is an integer, ##J_{-n}(x)=(-1)^n J_n(x)##, the rest is a series problem. It should be


    Not as the article that:

    According to the article, n=0 are being repeated in both and result in twice the value for n=0.
  15. Jul 12, 2013 #14
    Anyone please?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook