Interpreting Imaginary Component Amplitudes in Fourier Series

da_willem
Messages
594
Reaction score
1
If you express a wave as a Fourier series like:

z(x,t)= \sum _{n=1} ^{ inf.} A_n cos(nk_0 x - \omega (n) t )

Then what is the physical interpretation of a non-zero imaginary part of a component amplitude?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
da_willem said:
If you express a wave as a Fourier series like:

z(x,t)= \sum _{n=1} ^{ inf.} A_n cos(nk_0 x - \omega (n) t )

Then what is the physical interpretation of a non-zero imaginary part of a component amplitude?


Hi Willem

Somebody wants to prevent me from helping you out here so i have written this answer for you


regards
marlon
 
Last edited:
I read your word document, and would like to thank you very much for that. But maybe I should have specified my question some more, it is still not very clear to me...

If you want to describe a real wave in a formula you give it's height as a function of position and time. A height cannot be imaginary. So when an imaginary component amplitude appears in you Fourier representation of that wave there must be somethig wrong. This component cannot be canceled by another component can it? Is the appearance of an imaginary component in the sum a mathematical curiosity, or does it simply never appear for a real signal, or...?
 
da_willem said:
I read your word document, and would like to thank you very much for that. But maybe I should have specified my question some more, it is still not very clear to me...

If you want to describe a real wave in a formula you give it's height as a function of position and time. A height cannot be imaginary. So when an imaginary component amplitude appears in you Fourier representation of that wave there must be somethig wrong. This component cannot be canceled by another component can it? Is the appearance of an imaginary component in the sum a mathematical curiosity, or does it simply never appear for a real signal, or...?


The imaginary factor does not have a real and direct physical meaning. When you take the real and imaginary parts (Re and Im) of this complex term you get physical useful info, just as explained in my word-doc.

As an example : these complex factors in the wave-equation often arise from the differential-equations that describe the physical system or from a process called harmonization that is used in order to set up the MHD-equations that describe the classical plasma-physics


regards
marlin
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top