Fourier transform of a function in spherical coordinates

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Fourier transform of functions in spherical coordinates, exploring the relationship between Fourier conjugates in this basis. Participants examine the mathematical formulation of the Fourier transform, coordinate transformations, and the implications of these transformations on the integrals involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a Fourier transform equation in spherical coordinates and questions whether their interpretation is correct.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on the definitions of the angles ##\theta_1## and ##\theta_2## used in the transformation.
  • A participant provides the definitions of ##\theta_1## and ##\theta_2##, specifying their ranges.
  • Concerns are raised about the correctness of the coordinate transformation, with a request for the transformation steps to be shown.
  • Participants discuss the correct form of the transformation equations for Cartesian to spherical coordinates.
  • One participant points out that the integral should be over physical space, not wave-vector space, and highlights a dimensional inconsistency in the integral setup.
  • Another participant reiterates the need for proper transformation of the volume element in the integral, suggesting a specific form for the transformed volume element.
  • There is a reiteration of the correct transformation equations and a challenge to the understanding of multivariable calculus concepts related to the discussion.
  • A later post presents a modified form of the Fourier transform integral, incorporating the corrected volume element.
  • One participant questions the relationship between the function evaluated at squared coordinates and its original form, seeking clarification on the implications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the coordinate transformation and the setup of the integrals. There is no consensus on the validity of the initial approach or the subsequent corrections, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the original transformation and integral setup, including dimensional inconsistencies and the need for proper definitions of the spherical coordinates. The discussion remains focused on these unresolved aspects.

redtree
Messages
335
Reaction score
15
TL;DR
I am trying to understand the relationship between Fourier conjugate bases in spherical coordinates
I am trying to understand the relationship between Fourier conjugates in the spherical basis. Thus for two functions ##f(\vec{x}_3)## and ##\hat{f}(\vec{k}_3)##, where

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\hat{f}(\vec{k}_3) &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} e^{-2 \pi i \vec{k}_3 \cdot \vec{x}_3} f(\vec{x}_3 d\vec{k}_3

\end{split}

\end{equation}

where ##\vec{x}_3 = [x_1,x_2,x_3]## and ##\vec{k}_3 = [k_1,k_2,k_3]##
In spherical 3-space coordinates,

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\hat{f}(\varrho, \xi_1, \xi_2) &= \int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{1} \int_{0}^{1/2} e^{-2 \pi i (\varrho r + \xi_1 \theta_2 + \xi_2 \theta_2)} f(r,\theta_1,\theta_2) dr d\theta_1 d\theta_2

\end{split}

\end{equation}

where ##\vec{x}_3 = [r,\theta_1,\theta_2]## and ##\vec{k}_3 = [\varrho,\xi_1,\xi_2]##
Thus, for a function ##\hat{f}\left( \big(\vec{k}_3\big)^2 \right)##, where in spherical coordinates ##\big(\vec{k}_3\big)^2 = \big( \varrho \big)^2##,

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\hat{f}\left( \big(\vec{k}_3\big)^2 \right) &= \hat{f}\left(\big( \varrho \big)^2 \right)

\\

&= \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-2 \pi i \varrho r} f(r^2) dr

\end{split}

\end{equation}

such that ##\hat{f}\left( \big(\vec{k}_3\big)^2 \right)## is independent of ##\theta_1## and ##\theta_2##. Is that correct? Am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How are ##\theta_1## and ##\theta_2## defined?
 
##0 \leq \theta_1 \leq 1/2 ##, such that ## 0 \leq 2 \pi \theta_1 \leq \pi##
## 0 \leq \theta_2 \leq 1##, such that ## 0 \leq 2 \pi \theta_2 \leq 2 \pi##
 
I’m not sure I really understand, but in any case you definitely did your coordinate transformation wrong. Show us how you did it.
 
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
x_1 &= r \sin{2 \pi \theta_1} \cos{2 \pi \theta_2}
\\
x_2 &= r \sin{2 \pi \theta_1} \sin{2 \pi \theta_2}
\\
x_3 &= r \cos{2 \pi \theta_1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ##r \geq 0##, ##0 \leq \theta_1, \leq \frac{1}{2}## and ##0 \leq \theta_2 \leq 1##
 
Of course your first integral should be over physical space, not wave-vector space. That integral should include (using your notation I think) ##d\vec{x}_3## which has dimensions of volume. However, when you transformed the coordinates you somehow have ##dr d\theta_1 d\theta_2## which has dimensions of length. That should clue you in that it cannot possibly be correct. Have you transformed integrals from Cartesian to spherical coordinates before?
 
redtree said:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
x_1 &= r \sin{2 \pi \theta_1} \cos{2 \pi \theta_2}
\\
x_2 &= r \sin{2 \pi \theta_1} \sin{2 \pi \theta_2}
\\
x_3 &= r \cos{2 \pi \theta_1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ##r \geq 0##, ##0 \leq \theta_1, \leq \frac{1}{2}## and ##0 \leq \theta_2 \leq 1##
Where is the mistake in the coordinate transformation?
 
These equations

redtree said:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
x_1 &= r \sin{2 \pi \theta_1} \cos{2 \pi \theta_2}
\\
x_2 &= r \sin{2 \pi \theta_1} \sin{2 \pi \theta_2}
\\
x_3 &= r \cos{2 \pi \theta_1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ##r \geq 0##, ##0 \leq \theta_1, \leq \frac{1}{2}## and ##0 \leq \theta_2 \leq 1##
Are fine, but when you used them to change the variables of integration you did most of it wrong. For example ##d\vec{x}_3## should transform (if I did the math right) to ##4\pi^2 \, r^2 \, \sin(2\pi\theta_1) \, dr \, d\theta_1 \, d\theta_2##. Also
$$
\vec{k}_3\cdot \vec{x}_3 = k_1\, r\, \sin{2 \pi \theta_1} \cos{2 \pi \theta_2} + k_2\, r\, \sin{2 \pi \theta_1} \sin{2 \pi \theta_2} + k_3\, r\, \cos{2 \pi \theta_1}
$$

This is standard stuff for changing coordinates in multiple integrals, as learned in a standard calculus sequence. Have you learned multivariable calculus?

jason
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: redtree
jasonRF said:
These equationsAre fine, but when you used them to change the variables of integration you did most of it wrong. For example ##d\vec{x}_3## should transform (if I did the math right) to ##4\pi^2 \, r^2 \, \sin(2\pi\theta_1) \, dr \, d\theta_1 \, d\theta_2##. Also
$$
\vec{k}_3\cdot \vec{x}_3 = k_1\, r\, \sin{2 \pi \theta_1} \cos{2 \pi \theta_2} + k_2\, r\, \sin{2 \pi \theta_1} \sin{2 \pi \theta_2} + k_3\, r\, \cos{2 \pi \theta_1}
$$

This is standard stuff for changing coordinates in multiple integrals, as learned in a standard calculus sequence. Have you learned multivariable calculus?

jason
Got it. Thanks!
 
  • #10
such that,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{f}(\varrho,\xi_1,\xi_2) &= \int_{0}^{1} \int_{0}^{1/2} \int_{0}^{\infty} \text{Exp}\left[-2 \pi i \varrho r \big(\cos{2 \pi \theta_1 } \cos{2 \pi \xi_1 } + \cos{2 \pi (\theta_2 - \xi_2) } \sin{2 \pi \theta_1 } \sin{2 \pi \xi_1 }\big) \right]
\\
&4\pi^2 \, r^2 \, \sin(2\pi\theta_1) \, dr \, d\theta_1 \, d\theta_2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
 
  • #11
Does it remain true that if ##f\left( (\vec{x}_3)^2 \right) = r^2##, then ##f(\vec{x}_3) = f(r)##, where ##f(r) = \mathscr{F}^{-1}[\hat{f}(\varrho)]##?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K