How Does the Plancherel Theorem Relate to Fourier Transforms?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Plancherel theorem and its relationship to Fourier transforms, specifically examining the equality of integrals involving functions and their Fourier transforms. Participants are exploring the properties and definitions of Fourier transforms in the context of complex functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to manipulate integral definitions of Fourier transforms to show a specific equality. Questions arise regarding the correctness of their integration variables and the signs used in the exponential functions. Some participants express uncertainty about the conventions used in their coursework compared to other sources.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and corrections regarding integration techniques and conventions. There is a recognition of potential sign errors and varying conventions in Fourier transform definitions, but no consensus has been reached on the correct approach yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note discrepancies between their class notes and other references, indicating a need to clarify the conventions used in their specific context. The discussion also highlights the complexity of integrating functions with complex components and the implications of different definitions on the results.

Seda
Messages
70
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If F(p) and G(p) are the Fourier transforms of f(x) and g(x) respectively, show that

∫f(x)g*(x)dx = ∫ F(p)G*(p)dp

where * indicates a complex conjugate. (The integrals are from -∞ to ∞)

Homework Equations



F(p) = ∫f(x)exp[2∏ipx]dx
G(p) = ∫g(x)exp[2∏ipx]dx
G*(p) = ∫g(x)exp[-2∏ipx]dx
f(x) = ∫F(p)exp[-2∏ipx]dp
g(x) = ∫G(p)exp[-2∏ipx]dp
g*(x) = ∫G(p)exp[2∏ipx]dp

The Attempt at a Solution



Well this question is kind of weird to me since most of the in class examples have been based on knowing the function and then using different methods of integration to find the transforms, but in this proof it's all arbitrary, obviously.

Well simply subbing definitions in I get:

∫f(x)g*(x)dx = ∫[∫F(P)exp[-2∏ipx]dp∫G(p)exp[2∏ipx]dp]dx

and

∫F(p)G*(p)dp = ∫[∫f(x)exp[2∏ipx]dx∫g(x)exp[-2∏ipx]dx]dp

Now I guess if I can show that these two lines simplify to the same thing I have my proof. However, I am not sure how to simplify this. Maybe I am forgetting some basic property of integrals?

Also I have no idea if this approach is even correct and it would be better to start someplace else.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to be a bit more careful with the integration variables. You have
\begin{align*}
f(x) &= \int F(p)e^{-2\pi ipx}\,dp \\
g^*(x) &= \int G^*(p')e^{2\pi ip'x}\,dp'.
\end{align*} Remember that F(p) and G(p) are complex. So now you have
\begin{align*}
\int f(x)g^*(x)\,dx &= \int\int F(p)e^{-2\pi ipx}\,dp \int G^*(p')e^{2\pi ip'x}\,dp' \,dx \\
&= \iiint F(p) G^*(p') e^{-2\pi ipx} e^{2\pi ip'x}\,dp\,dp'\,dx
\end{align*} Now you want to identify the Dirac delta function that's in there somewhere.
 
Do I have my signs backwards? When taking the Fourier transform on a function do I have a negative exponential? My class notes don't match will other things I've found...
 
It depends on what convention your instructor has decided to use. There can also be factors of ##2\pi## that move around depending on the convention you choose.

The Wikipedia entry on the Fourier transform lists the common ones.
 
vela said:
It depends on what convention your instructor has decided to use. There can also be factors of ##2\pi## that move around depending on the convention you choose.

The Wikipedia entry on the Fourier transform lists the common ones.

My instructor has the 2∏ in the exponential. Yes I've seen cases where it is infront of the integral as a 1/(2∏). I don't fully understand the (non) difference, just sticking with what I've seen.
 
Aha, I believe I have to use

FT of g*(x) = G*(-x)
Fixes my sign issue I believe.
 
Ugh, still have 1 sign error tripping me up...

going by my definitions..

replacing only g*(x)

∫f(x)g*(x)dx = ∫f(x)[∫G(p)exp[2∏ipx]dp]dx = ∫f(x)[∫G*(p)exp[-2∏ipx]dp]dx

= ∫G*(p)[∫f(x)exp[-2∏ipx]dx]dp

In that last line if the negative wasn't there I could replace it with F(P) from y definitions and be done...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K