Fourier Transform and zero wave-vector

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between the limit of a function in "r space" as r approaches infinity and its Fourier transform in "k space" at zero wave-vector. The user suggests that the limit of C(r) as r approaches infinity equals C_hat(k) for k=0, which is not a universally applicable rule. Jason counters this by referencing the final value theorem for Laplace transforms and providing a counterexample with the function C(r) = exp(-0.5 r^2), demonstrating that the limit does not necessarily imply the Fourier transform at k=0 is also zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fourier Transform concepts and terminology
  • Familiarity with limits and functions in mathematical analysis
  • Knowledge of Laplace transforms and their theorems
  • Basic principles of complex analysis related to convergence
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the final value theorem for Laplace transforms in detail
  • Explore the properties of Fourier Transforms, particularly in relation to convergence
  • Investigate the implications of complex wave-vectors in Fourier analysis
  • Learn about counterexamples in mathematical proofs to understand limitations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying Fourier analysis or mathematical analysis who seek to deepen their understanding of the relationship between spatial and frequency domains.

O_chemist
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am not sure if I am crazy, I am not a mathematician or physicist by training, but I recall doing some work where if I was interested in the limit of a function in "r space" as r-> Infinity I could just use the value of the function in "k-space" at 0 to get the value I was interested in. Is this a real thing or did I make this up(I have been known to be "creative" sometimes with my mathematics)? Perhaps more simply I could write:
Limit r-> Infinity of C(r) is equal to C_hat(k) for k = 0
Thank you in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You probably didn't make it up, but it's not a general rule. It's a statement that could be true in certain contexts.
 
Do you have any more details about exactly what you were doing? This sounds a little like the final value theorem for Laplace transforms (see wikipedia), but without more information it isn't obvious to me what applies.

By the way, to me your limit "theorem" (at least as written) doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If lim C(r) = 0, then you are saying that C_hat(k) = 0 at k=0. As a counter example, let C(r) = exp(-0.5 r^2); clearly lim C(r) = 0. The Fourier transform is proportional to exp(-0.5 k^2), which is not zero at k=0. Now if lim C(r) isn't zero, then its Fourier transform does not exist if k is real. Thus k is complex, but then the Fourier transform doesn't converge for k on the real axis, which includes zero of course.

cheers,

jason
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K