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

Fourier Transform (basic table lookup)

  1. Mar 27, 2007 #1
    I have a practice exam I'm going through, and I am stumped on one of the basic problems.

    How is this a transform pair?

    [tex] 10 X(jt) [/tex] <-----> [tex] 20 \pi x (-\omega) [/tex]

    I don't see how one can make this relation. What is the [tex] 10 X (jt) [/tex].

    thanks in advance
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 28, 2007 #2
    Divide both sides by 10 to simplify!

    X(jt)<-----> 2pi x(-w)

    Still seems wrong to me. The 2pi is normally included in the defn. of the FT.
    What's j ?
  4. Mar 28, 2007 #3
    I'll post the exact question. I don't understand the X(jt) as I posted. Note: [tex] j = \sqrt{-1} [/tex]

  5. Mar 28, 2007 #4
    OK, I got it- but I don't like the j notation. Everyone else writes

    x(t) <-----> X(omega)

    Define FT[x(t)]= Int[e^-iwt x(t)] dt
    FT-1[X(w)]=(1/2pi)Int[e^iwt X(w)] dw

    (you may use a different convention, but the prefactors of FT and FT-1 must multiply to (1/2pi) no matter what convention you use)

    Start with FT[x(t)]=X(w)

    Int [ e^-iwt x(t)] dt = X(w)

    substitute w=t', t=w'

    Int [ e^-iw't' x(w') ] dw' =X (t')

    which is the same as writing

    Int [ e^-iwt x(w) ] dw =X (t)

    Substitute w -> -w

    -(1/2pi) Int [ e^iwt x(-w) ] dw =1/(2pi) X (t)

    The LHS is the inverse FT, which I'll call FT-1

    -FT-1 [x(-w)]=1/2pi X(t)

    Take 2pi to other side
    X(t)=-2pi FT-1 [x(-w)]

    FT both sides

    FT[ X(t) ] =-2pi x(-w)

    X(t) <----> - 2pi x(-w)

    I seem to have an extra minus sign- but who cares? You can have fun checking if it's me or the teacher who messed it up.

    Edit- the minus sign comes from changing the limits from +ininity,-infinity to -infinity,+infinity in the integral, when w-> -w

    You can then turn the integral 'the right way up' with the introduction of a minus sign.
    That always trips me up.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2007
  6. Mar 28, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The conjugation rule is :

    g\left( t \right) = \overline {f\left( t \right)} \Rightarrow G\left( \omega \right) = \overline {F\left( { - \omega } \right)}

    - Warren
  7. Mar 28, 2007 #6
    Is that a proof?
  8. Mar 28, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oops, actually, I read this too quickly. The example given is a form of the inversion rule:

    g\left( t \right) = F\left( t \right) \Rightarrow G\left( \omega \right) = f\left( { - \omega } \right)

    And no, it's not a "proof," it's an rule of the so-called Fourier transform calculus.

    - Warren
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook