1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Fourier inverse

  1. Mar 1, 2014 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Doing some exam revision and one of the questions from an old exam has me stuck at the last step, simply need to inverse the following

    [tex]F( \omega ) = \frac{e^{i \omega}}{1+\omega ^2} [/tex]


    We're allowed to use a table on the exams but I cannot find anything quite resembling what I have (nor in any way that I can manipulate it). The inverse formula lead me to an integral that seems to be well over my head or the content of this course.

    Is there some specific method to utilize when I have a product of two functions whose Fourier inverse I know? The exponential or denominator on its own wouldn't be a problem.

    Thanks
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 1, 2014 #2

    vela

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor

    Use the convolution theorem.
     
  4. Mar 2, 2014 #3

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    For the inverse FT just use the formula. I don't know your convention. In theoretical high-energy physics it would read
    [tex]f(t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} \omega \frac{1}{2 \pi} F(\omega) \exp(-\mathrm{i} \omega t).[/tex]
    Now you can use the theorem of residues easily in your case. You just close the contour in the appropriate upper or lower half-plane for [itex]t<0[/itex] or [itex]t>0[/itex] respectively. Your function has only simple poles along the imaginary axis. So there is no big trouble getting the result.
     
  5. Mar 2, 2014 #4
    Didn't think of going backwards with the convolution theorem, that should certainly work thank you.

    Only half a year since I finished our course in complex analysis and the fact that I could use residues completely slipped my mind, thanks. Going to need to revise that a tiny bit, but was rather algorithmic if I recall correctly.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Fourier inverse
Loading...