Fourier transform of a wave equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Fourier transform of a wave equation \Psi(n,t), specifically addressing the presence or absence of a minus sign in the exponential term of the transform. Participants explore the implications of different conventions in Fourier analysis as applied to quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the absence of a minus sign in the Fourier transform as presented in a paper, noting that the standard definition typically includes it.
  • Another participant suggests that since n is an integer, the absence of the minus sign may not affect the outcome, although they express uncertainty about the author's reasoning.
  • A participant provides definitions for the 4D Quantum mechanical Fourier transform, indicating that the minus sign is standard for spatial coordinates.
  • There is a discussion about the different transformations for time and space, with a participant seeking clarification on when to use each transformation.
  • One participant asserts that it does not matter whether the minus sign is included in the forward transform or the inverse, as long as consistency is maintained, and notes that different conventions exist among authors.
  • A participant expresses gratitude for the clarification and indicates that they now understand the topic better.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of the minus sign in the Fourier transform, with some suggesting it is a matter of convention while others emphasize the standard definitions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these conventions in practical applications.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various texts and papers, indicating a lack of consensus on the appropriate sources for understanding the conventions used in Fourier transforms in quantum mechanics.

mvillagra
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hello, I have a question about the following problem:

Given a wave equation \Psi(n,t) where t is the time, and n is an integer. What is the Fourier transform?

I'm trying to reproduce this paper: One-dimensional Quantum Walks by Ambainis et al. (http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/old/514019.html"), and here says that the spatial Fourier transform of such a wave is \widetilde{\Psi}(k,t)=\sum_n \Psi(n,t)e^{ikn}, without a "-" minus sign on the exponential. Why is that?

The Fourier transform is defined with a minus there! Or am I missing some property?

I am no expert in Fourier analysis but can we interchange the use of the signs between the transform and the inverse transform?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Notice that n is in Z (integers) not N, so assuming that the wavefunction is even, it makes no difference whether we put the minus sign there or not. I don't claim to know what the author is getting at with this line of reasoning, though.
The author refers to [11] when that transform is put forward. I daresay if you look at that reference you would probably get a definitive answer to your question.
 
mvillagra said:
The Fourier transform is defined with a minus there! Or am I missing some property?

I am no expert in Fourier analysis but can we interchange the use of the signs between the transform and the inverse transform?

The plus sign is because it's the time component of the wavefunction.

The 4D Quantum mechanical Fourier transform is defined as:

<br /> \mbox{\Large F} (p^\mu) \ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\ ~~\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}~dx^4~ \mbox{\Large f}(x^\mu) ~~ e^{+i\, p_\mu\, x^\mu}<br />

and its inverse is defined as:

<br /> ~\mbox{\Large f}(x^\mu) ~~\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} ~~ \int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dp^4}{(2 \pi)^4}~\mbox{\Large F}(p^\mu) \ e^{-i\, p_\mu\,x^\mu}<br />

With the standard definition:

p_\mu\, x^\mu ~~=~~ Et-p_x x-p_y y-p_z zSo for the spatial coordinates you do have the normal minus sign.

Regards, Hans
 
Hans de Vries said:
The plus sign is because it's the time component of the wavefunction.

So for the spatial coordinates you do have the normal minus sign.

I understand these definitions, but its not clear why we have two different transformations, one for time and one for space. How do we know when to use one or the other?

Is there any reference on this? I don't have the reference given in the paper in my library. I tried looking in Griffiths book and Ballentine's book but didn't find anything.
 
mvillagra said:
I understand these definitions, but its not clear why we have two different transformations, one for time and one for space. How do we know when to use one or the other?

Is there any reference on this? I don't have the reference given in the paper in my library. I tried looking in Griffiths book and Ballentine's book but didn't find anything.

This is because in QM we interprete the 4D Fourier domain as the Energy-momentum
domain and the de Broglie matter waves are defined as:


<br /> \psi ~~=~~ \exp\Big\{\,\tfrac{1}{\hbar}\left(-Et+p_x x+p_y y+p_z z\right)\,\Big\}<br />

Regards, Hans
 
Maybe it is worth pointing out that it doesn't really matter if we put the minus sign in the forward transform or the inverse as long as you are consistent; the final result of the calculations will be the same. The fact that you are free to choose is just due to way the Fourier transform is defined; it has nothing to do with physics.
So the answer to the OP is yes; we are free to interchange the signs.

This can be quite confusing since different authors use different conventions but it is rarely a problem as long as you are aware of it.
E.g. electrical engineers and physicists generally use different conventions for historical reasons.
 
aaah, I see now, crystal clear!

As a computer scientist I'm not very use to these technical details in QM.

Thank you very much guys for all your answers, now I can continue with this :-)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K