Fourier transform in Minkowski space

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the feasibility of performing Fourier transforms in Minkowski space, particularly in the context of representing functions and charge distributions. Participants explore the implications of Lorentz transformations on the properties of Fourier transforms and the nature of wave propagation in this framework.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a true Fourier transform cannot be accomplished in Minkowski space due to the loss of orthogonality between dimensions after applying Lorentz transformations.
  • Others argue that Fourier transforms are routinely used in field theory within Minkowski space, emphasizing the importance of Lorentz-invariant formulations.
  • A participant notes that while different frequencies can have different speeds in dispersive media, in Minkowski space, waves should ideally travel at the speed of light, c.
  • There is mention of pseudo-Fourier transforms and the need for a transformation equivalent to the Lorentz transformation in the frequency domain.
  • Concerns are raised about the independence of the time dimension in the Fourier transform kernel and its implications for the application of the transform after Lorentz transformations.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the signs in the exponential argument of the Fourier transform, which are said to ensure Lorentz invariance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of Fourier transforms in Minkowski space, with some asserting that it is standard practice in field theory while others challenge the validity of such transforms due to the effects of Lorentz transformations. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexities introduced by Lorentz transformations, including the redefinition of inner products and the implications for orthogonality in Minkowski space. The discussion touches on the mathematical treatment of special relativity and the conditions under which Fourier transforms may be applied.

zlasner
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi,

In Fourier analysis, we can decompose a function into sine waves with different wavenumbers that travel at different speeds (i.e., for a given wavenumber k they can have different frequencies ω and therefore different speeds v = ω/k). There is no upper bound on the speed of propagation v for an ordinary Fourier transform. I am wondering whether it is possible to similarly represent a function in Minkowski space by a superposition of some convenient functions (e.g., we could still use sine waves if we only have 1 spatial and 1 temporal dimension) that propagate at speeds LESS than c.

The specific application I have in mind is to represent an arbitrary charge distribution as a superposition of charge distributions moving inertially (ideally, at speeds less than c).

Thanks for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi zlasner,

A true Fourier Transform cannot be accomplished in Minkowski space. The FT is essentially a mapping of a displacement along one or more spatial coordinates with respect to time into frequency and phase components. Each spatial dimension must be orthogonal to any other and all must be orthogonal to (independent of) the time dimension. However, applying the Lorentz Transformation destroys the orthogonal relationships between the dimensions (you no longer work within Euclidean geometry)

There are some proposals for remedial measures that would allow some types of pseudo-Fourier Transforms I believe. But it's unclear what there usefulness is and how the results should be interpreted. However, within each Galilean reference frame that you get after after applying the LT you can apply the FT. Maybe you want to find a transformation that is equivalent to the LT for values in the frequency domain?
 
Last edited:
While different frequencies / wavenumbers can have different speeds (in a dispersive medium, for example), there isn't anything that says they HAVE to have different speeds.

So if you're doing a Fourier transform in Minkowski space, you'd want all the waves to travel at 'c', because that's how fast waves travel in Minkowski space.
 
What??! A Fourier transform in Minkowski space is done all the time in field theory, where configuration space is hardly ever used in favor of momentum space.

ψ(x) = (2π)-2 ∫ φ(k) d4k
φ(k) = (2π)-2 ∫ ψ(x) d4x

When a dispersion formula is known, ω2 = f(k2) it is handled just by inserting a delta function in φ(k).
 
As Bill says, it is a standard thing to do Lorentz-invariant Fourier transforms in Minkowski space. He forgot the kernel in his integrals, though:

\varphi(x) = \int \frac{d^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \, \hat \varphi(k) \, e^{-i k_\mu x^\mu} = \int \frac{dt}{2 \pi} \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} \, \hat \varphi(t, \vec k) \, e^{i \omega t - i \vec k \cdot \vec x}

(various signs depend on your metric conventions)
 
I'm wondering how that can work. Is the FT effectively applied after the LT has been applied so that you're in a new Galilean reference frame? The right hand side of the kernel has an independent time dimension, doesn't it?

Apparently the inner product is re-defined so that the transform is actually a pseudo-Fourier Transform:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space

Because of this, two vectors satisfying <x | y> = 0 are called orthogonal. An important variant of the standard dot product is used in Minkowski space: R4 endowed with the Lorentz product

&lt;x | y&gt; = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 + x_3 y_3 - x_4 y_4.[49]

In contrast to the standard dot product, it is not positive definite: <x | x> also takes negative values, for example for x = (0, 0, 0, 1). Singling out the fourth coordinate—corresponding to time, as opposed to three space-dimensions—makes it useful for the mathematical treatment of special relativity.
 
Last edited:
Phil, if you look carefully at the formulas I wrote, you will see that the argument of the exponential gives \omega and \vec k opposite signs. This is why it is Lorentz-invariant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K