Inverse Fourier Transform of X(w): Real Values for x(t)

AI Thread Summary
The inverse Fourier transform of the given function X(w) results in an expression for x(t) that yields imaginary values, which raises concerns about the expected real values. The MATLAB output is deemed correct if the same sign conventions are used, with the imaginary result indicating a phase difference in quantum mechanics. A reference from a book provides a different expression for x(t) that is real and includes a negative sign and an additional 2π in the exponential term. The discussion seeks clarification on how to reconcile these differences between the MATLAB result and the book's solution. Understanding the implications of imaginary solutions in quantum mechanics is crucial for interpreting the results accurately.
hula
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
X(w) = 1/(j*(w*hbar-Ek)+(hbar/T2)) - 1/(j*(w*hbar+Ek)+(hbar/T2))

The inverse Fourier transform of the above equation using MATLAB will obtain the following:

x(t) = 2*j/hbar*heaviside(t)*sin(t/hbar*Ek)*exp(-t/T2)

We can see that the values of x(t) are all imaginary values, however this shouldn't be the case, should have real values for x(t) instead.

Does anyone knows what should be the correct inverse Fourier transform?

Thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The result given by Matlab will be correct, assuming you have adopted the same sign conventions when setting up the analytic FT. In particular the antisymmetry of X results in imaginary x.

Also, this looks like a QM problem, and as far as I know there's no reason you can't have an imaginary solution: it just means the time evolution is 90 degrees out of phase with that of a real solution.
 
I've found an answer from a book which states that

x(t) = -2/hbar*heaviside(t)*sin(t/hbar*Ek)*exp(-2*pi/T2*t)

I'm wondering how to get this answer, because it's a bit different from what I got from MATLAB (the difference is that the solution obtained from the book is in real values, and now there's a negative sign in front, and lastly the exponential term has an additional 2*pi)

Hope that someone would be able to assist me in my queries! Thanks in advance!
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top