Simple Fourier transformation calculation

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of the Fourier transform, specifically examining the integral of the function p(t) multiplied by an exponential term. It questions why the numerator approaches zero as t approaches infinity, despite concerns that the minus sign in the exponent could suggest divergence. The assumption that γ is greater than zero is crucial, as it ensures convergence of the integral. The conversation highlights the importance of this assumption in the context of Fourier transformation calculations. Understanding these nuances is essential for accurate application of the Fourier transform in various mathematical and engineering fields.
schniefen
Messages
177
Reaction score
4
Homework Statement
Calculate the Fourier transform of ##p(t)=Ae^{-\gamma t}e^{-i\omega_0t}\Theta(t)##, where ##\Theta(t)## is the step function, i.e. ##1## for ##t\geq 0## and ##0## otherwise, and ##A##, ##\gamma## and ##\omega_0## are unspecified constants. Do not use the "known" formula. The answer given is ##A/(\gamma+i(\omega-\omega_0))##.
Relevant Equations
I guess the "known" formula alludes to the Laplace transform, which the Fourier transform reduces to, i.e. I use the notation ##\hat{p}(\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} p(t)e^{-i\omega t}\mathrm{d}t## for the Fourier transform of ##p(t)##.
So,
##\hat{p}(\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} p(t)e^{-i\omega t}\mathrm{d}t=A\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-t(\gamma+i(\omega+\omega_0))}=A\left[-\frac{e^{-t(\gamma+i(\omega+\omega_0))}}{\gamma+i(\omega+\omega_0)}\right]_0^\infty,##​
provided ##\gamma+ i(\omega+\omega_0)\neq 0## for the last equality. Now, considering the answer given, why does the numerator go to ##0## at ##\infty##? The minus sign in front of the exponent could also be absorbed by the constants and then one could argue the numerator diverges at ##\infty##, or?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's definitely being assumed that##\gamma > 0## here. This is pretty common - otherwise why would they bother putting the minus sign in the first place?
 
First, I tried to show that ##f_n## converges uniformly on ##[0,2\pi]##, which is true since ##f_n \rightarrow 0## for ##n \rightarrow \infty## and ##\sigma_n=\mathrm{sup}\left| \frac{\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x\right)}{n^{x^2-3x+3}} \right| \leq \frac{1}{|n^{x^2-3x+3}|} \leq \frac{1}{n^{\frac 34}}\rightarrow 0##. I can't use neither Leibnitz's test nor Abel's test. For Dirichlet's test I would need to show, that ##\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x \right)## has partialy bounded sums...