Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Show that:

  1. Jul 1, 2006 #1
    show that (don't use Fourier-Transformation method):
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 1, 2006 #2

    StatusX

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Do you know complex contour integration?
     
  4. Jul 2, 2006 #3
    i dont know about complex contour integration
    can u show me the solution
     
  5. Jul 2, 2006 #4

    StatusX

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    No, I'll give you hints but I can't give the complete solution. What method are you supposed to use?
     
  6. Jul 2, 2006 #5

    shmoe

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What do you know then?

    We don't just give out solutions here. You have to show some work. Show us what you've tried, where you are stuck and why. You'll get much more help if we are convinced you're putting effort into this.
     
  7. Jul 2, 2006 #6
    i used
    cos ax=.(e^ajx + e^-ajx)/2 ,where lambda=a
    then i put
    jax=u at the first positive part
    i got the following integration
    a/2j int[(e^u)/(a^4-u^2)] respect to u
    i stoped here : i can't evaluate this integral by parts
    give me the name of method here only
    thanks for helping
     
  8. Jul 2, 2006 #7

    StatusX

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    The indefinite integral cannot be (finitely) expressed in terms of elementary functions. I can't really think of a way to do this besides contour integration. Fourier transforms might work, although I'm not exactly sure how, and I can't imagine why you wouldn't be allowed to use them if they did give the answer. Maybe someone else has some ideas.
     
  9. Jul 2, 2006 #8

    shmoe

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Your integrand is even, so you can change the limits of integration to (-infinity,infinity) and take half this value. Then replace cos(lambda*x) with exp(i*lambda*x), the imaginary part will be zero from symmetry. You can then write this in terms of a common fourier transfom pair that could be looked up on a table or derived, see the "Exponential Function" on the table in http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierTransform.html.

    One direction can be derived easily with some basic calculus(going from f(x) to F(k) in the table), but the other direction is the one you need unless you can invoke something to do with inverse fourier transforms. I'm not sure how to derive this direction without using contour integration (or inverting fourier transforms). Why must you avoid fourier transform techniques?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Show that:
  1. Show that (Replies: 2)

Loading...