The different Fourier Transforms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Identity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fourier
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the difference in definitions of the Fourier transform between waves and PDEs courses, where the former uses angular frequency (ω) and the latter uses ordinary frequency (ν). The presence of the factor 1/2π in the waves course ensures correct normalization during the inverse transform, preventing discrepancies in results. The choice of including or excluding factors like 1/√(2π) is a matter of convention, impacting the symmetry of the equations. Ultimately, both approaches yield valid transformations, but the definitions affect the interpretation of frequency. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for accurate application in different contexts.
Identity
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
In my waves course, the Fourier transform we learn is:

X(\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty x(t)e^{-i\omega t}\,dt

x(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty X(\omega) e^{i\omega t}\,d\omega

In my PDEs course, we learn

X(\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty x(t)e^{-i2\pi\omega t}\,dt

x(t)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty X(\omega) e^{i2\pi\omega t}\,d\omega

What is the difference between them? Given x(t) they obviously give different answers for X(\omega) so what does this mean?

Thx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Identity said:
In my waves course, the Fourier transform we learn is:

X(\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty x(t)e^{-i\omega t}\,dt

x(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty X(\omega) e^{i\omega t}\,d\omega

In my PDEs course, we learn

X(\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty x(t)e^{-i2\pi\omega t}\,dt

x(t)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty X(\omega) e^{i2\pi\omega t}\,d\omega

What is the difference between them? Given x(t) they obviously give different answers for X(\omega) so what does this mean?

Thx

In the "waves" your ω is angular frequency. (T=2π/ω) In PDEs, you are defining it as ordinary frequency. (T=1/ω). I'm not really sure why, in the later case, as the angular frequency definitions are more common.

The reason for factor out front in the first case is to make sure the numbers work out if you do a reverse transform. Suppose you skip the factor.

x(t) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega e^{i\omega t}X(\omega) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega e^{i\omega t} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt' e^{-i\omega t'} x(t') = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt' \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega e^{i\omega t} e^{-i\omega t'} x(t') = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt' 2\pi \delta(t-t') x(t') = 2\pi x(t)

And that's bad. So one of these has to have a 1/2π in it. Or, alternatively, both of these could be defined to have 1/sqrt(2π). This is purely a matter of choice.

If you have 2π in the exponent, the 2π factor in front of the delta function in the last step goes away, and you are left with x(t)=x(t), so you don't need any factors in definition to fix it.
 
When I was first exposed to this subject, we used the form without the 2π in the exponent, but for the sake of symmetry we used 1/√(2π) as the coefficient for both integrals.
 
Ah I see, thanks :)
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top