Stuck on inverse fourier transform pair

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inverse Fourier transform of a function that includes a phase term, specifically examining the implications of the term e^{j\theta} in the context of Fourier transform pairs. Participants explore the nature of the resulting function and its components, particularly focusing on whether the imaginary part of the function has physical significance.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the inverse Fourier transform involving a phase term and questions how to handle it, particularly whether it can be treated as a constant.
  • Another participant asserts that the phase term e^{j\theta} can be factored out of the integral, suggesting it leads to a delta function multiplied by a phase factor, assuming theta is real.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the imaginary component of the phase factor, noting that it seems to contradict their understanding of how time functions should behave, referencing Euler's formula.
  • Further discussion highlights that the presence of an imaginary component in a time function can be acceptable depending on the physical context, suggesting that complex numbers can have meaningful interpretations in certain applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the imaginary component in the time function. While some agree on the mathematical treatment of the phase term, others question its physical interpretation and the nature of time functions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the treatment of the phase term and its implications for the resulting function, particularly in relation to physical interpretations of complex numbers.

DragonPetter
Messages
831
Reaction score
1
I have been trying to solve the inverse Fourier transform:

[itex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left[e^{-j2\pi ft_0}e^{j\theta}\right]e^{j2\pi ft}df[/itex]

I know that the Fourier transform pair says

[itex]e^{-j2\pi ft_0}e^{j\theta} \leftrightarrow \delta(t-t_0)[/itex]

but the extra phase term [itex]e^{j\theta}[/itex] makes it so I can't use this pair. Can I just consider it a constant? If so, then it gives me a weird time based function of an imaginary number.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, [itex]e^{j\theta}[/itex] is independent of f (unless there's something you're not telling us), so you can just pull it out of the integral. I don't understand why you say it gives you "a weird time based function of an imaginary number." It gives you [itex]e^{j\theta}\delta\left(t-t_0\right)[/itex], which is just the delta function multiplied by a phase factor (assuming theta is real), with maybe a factor of [itex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}[/itex] or something like that.
 
pmsrw3 said:
Yes, [itex]e^{j\theta}[/itex] is independent of f (unless there's something you're not telling us), so you can just pull it out of the integral. I don't understand why you say it gives you "a weird time based function of an imaginary number." It gives you [itex]e^{j\theta}\delta\left(t-t_0\right)[/itex], which is just the delta function multiplied by a phase factor (assuming theta is real), with maybe a factor of [itex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}[/itex] or something like that.

Yes, but this phase factor has an imaginary component for any angle that is not a whole multiple of 0 or pi. I know what this phase means for my application, but I don't understand how a time function can have an imaginary component. In Euler's formula, there are imaginary components, but they always cancel out to a real value, and in this case they don't.
 
DragonPetter said:
Yes, but this phase factor has an imaginary component for any angle that is not a whole multiple of 0 or pi. I know what this phase means for my application, but I don't understand how a time function can have an imaginary component. In Euler's formula, there are imaginary components, but they always cancel out to a real value, and in this case they don't.
Why shouldn't a function of time have an imaginary part? It all depends on the application. Sometimes you're calculating something that, because of the physics it represents, must be a real number, and in those cases the imaginary parts must indeed cancel out. But you say that you know what the phase means for your application, which (correct me if I misunderstand) means that for your purposes, complex numbers do have a physical meaning. This is not uncommon, actually.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K