Inverse fourier transform of gaussian

Dazedandconfu
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
well, i have to prove that the inv. Fourier transform of a gaussian (e^(-(k^2/2)) is a gaussian, i know some elementary complex analysis(never actually taken a class in it), not well enough, it seems, to find the solution to this. I tried to integrate over a circular contour, and let the radius of the circle go to infinity, i couldn't solve the integral that i obtained (it was pretty complicated). Also, i don't quite understand this, the integrand is complex analytic everywhere, so if i integrate it over a circular contour, wouldn't i get 0, by cauchy's theorem?
Any help much appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dazedandconfu said:
well, i have to prove that the inv. Fourier transform of a gaussian (e^(-(k^2/2)) is a gaussian, i know some elementary complex analysis(never actually taken a class in it), not well enough, it seems, to find the solution to this. I tried to integrate over a circular contour, and let the radius of the circle go to infinity, i couldn't solve the integral that i obtained (it was pretty complicated). Also, i don't quite understand this, the integrand is complex analytic everywhere, so if i integrate it over a circular contour, wouldn't i get 0, by cauchy's theorem?
Sure, but why are you integrating over a circular contour in the first place?

Start by writing out the integral you have to do to find the inverse Fourier transform.
 
well its the integral (e(-k^2)e^ikx)dk over the entire complex plane right?, so unless I am wrong there are two ways to integrate over the complex plane, a circle of infinite radius, or k=x+iy, and x,y go to infinity
riight??
 
For one thing, you can't integrate over the entire complex plane. Well, you can, but it has to be a double integral, which is not what you have here. There's only one differential (dk), so you only get to integrate in one dimension.

Check your references if you need to, in order to find the correct limits of integration for the integral
\int_?^? e^{-k^2/2}e^{ikx}\mathrm{d}k
which is involved in the Fourier transform.
 
im fairly certain that the limits are -inf. to inf . well yes, i get that you only integrate in one variable, but isn't it true that a complex number a+bi, with arbitrary a and b can span the entire complex plane? so you would have a line integral in da and idb, with both a and b (-∞,∞) or equivalently circle of radius of r, a=rcosθ ; b= rsinθ with r going to ∞.
sorry if I am being slow btw
 
Dazedandconfu said:
im fairly certain that the limits are -inf. to inf.
Yes, that's correct.
Dazedandconfu said:
well yes, i get that you only integrate in one variable,
Not just one variable, but one dimension. A single integral with a single differential dk is a one-dimensional integral. A dimension corresponds to one real variable.
Dazedandconfu said:
but isn't it true that a complex number a+bi, with arbitrary a and b can span the entire complex plane? so you would have a line integral in da and idb, with both a and b (-∞,∞) or equivalently circle of radius of r, a=rcosθ ; b= rsinθ with r going to ∞.
Yes, but if you have both da and db, then it's not a line integral, it's a (two-dimensional) surface integral.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top