The plane wave decomposition is mathematically universal?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical representation of waves, specifically whether a given function, such as a potential function from an ideal radiation electric dipole, can be expressed as a sum of uniform plane waves. The scope includes theoretical aspects of wave decomposition, Fourier transforms, and the implications for electromagnetic waves.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the expression "expi[wt-(w/c)*r]/r" can be represented as a sum of uniform plane waves, noting the singularity at r=0.
  • Another participant expresses doubt that any mathematical function can be expressed as a linear sum of plane waves, suggesting that non-uniform media complicate this representation.
  • A different viewpoint states that the decomposition of a function in plane waves corresponds to the Fourier transform, implying that any function with a valid Fourier transform can be decomposed in this manner.
  • Some participants argue that any physical wave can be represented by a sum of plane waves, contingent on the convergence of its Fourier series representation.
  • There is a discussion about the definitions of plane waves, with some suggesting that complex numbers in the Fourier transform can lead to non-physical interpretations.
  • One participant distinguishes between two types of Fourier transforms: one involving real plane waves and another involving complex plane waves, arguing that the given expression cannot be represented as a sum of real uniform plane waves.
  • Another participant notes that plane waves can be expanded in terms of spherical waves and vice versa, with convergence in the sense of generalized functions.
  • Some participants clarify the mathematical framework of Fourier transforms, discussing the roles of complex coefficients and the implications for non-planar functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the representation of waves as sums of plane waves, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the applicability of Fourier transforms, while others challenge the conditions under which such representations hold true.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations regarding definitions of plane waves, the nature of the media involved, and the conditions required for Fourier series convergence. The discussion remains open-ended with unresolved mathematical steps and varying interpretations of the implications of complex numbers in wave representations.

  • #31


keji8341 said:
(1) A uniform plane wave in free space does NOT produce conducting current. Because of symmetry, EM fields E and B must be perpendicular to the wave vector k, -----> div E = 0 -----> electric charge density = 0 -----> div (J= conducting current) = 0 -----> J = 0.
It does if it has components not moving at c. A general Fourier decomposition is not limited to null wave four-vectors.

keji8341 said:
(2) A physical wave usually means that it satisfies Maxwell equations and boundary conditions, and consequently, it can exist independently. For example, in the spherical-wave decomposition of a plane wave [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, (John Wiley & Sons, NJ, 1999), p. 471, Eq. (10.44) in Chapter 10], each of the component spherical waves is physical and can exist independently. If an “EM wave” cannot exist independently, then this “EM” wave is not physical. A uniform plane wave with a complex wave number in free space cannot exist independently, and it is not physical.
None of these waves are claimed to exist independently. They are all claimed to exist only as an infinite sum. It is not uncommon that a solution to some specified differential equation and boundary conditions can be expanded in a basis where the basis functions are not solutions to the specified differential equation and boundary conditions. Again, this is exactly why I think this whole line of reasoning is completely irrelevant to the discussion of Doppler shifts.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


keji8341 said:
It IS relevant to the Doppler shift. Because some scientists insist that the Einstein’s plane-wave Doppler formula is applicable to any cases, and of course, it is applicable to the spherical wave produced by a moving point source. So the first thing we have to check is whether the component plane wave in the plane-wave decomposition of the point-source generated spherical wave is physical or not.
Again, if you have a problem with someone's claims, it is only reasonable to take it up with the person making the claim.
 
  • #33


keji8341 said:
As I mentioned in my opinion, there are two kinds of (inverse) Fourier transforms:

1. “Sum of real plane waves”. 1D-example: f(x)=Inte{F(k)*exp(-ikx)*dk}, where F(k)*exp(-ikx)*dk is real plane wave component, with k is real. The integration is carried out from –infinity<k<+infinity, and the integral is convergent.

This kind of Fourier transform is based on classical analysis. What you referred to is this one.
That is the DEFINITION of the Fourier transform.

keji8341 said:
2. “Math correspondence”. 1D-example: f(x)=Inte{F(k)*exp(-ikx)*dk}, where F(k)*exp(-ikx)*dk is NOT a real plane wave, because k is set to be complex to make the integral converge. The integration is carried out in a complex plane by designating a contour for poles. Such Fourier transform is usually used to solve differential equations.
That is the DEFINITION of the Laplace transform. And indeed, the purpose of the Laplace transform is to solve differential equations

keji8341 said:
In fact, it doesn't matter what you call it.
Then call it the Lapalce transform. Proper use of terminology is important for communication.

Suppose that you told me that horses were unacceptable animals for riding because they are too small and as evidence you showed me a dog on a scale weighing 30 kg. I might reasonably reply, "That's a dog, dogs are not horses, and I agree that dogs are not suitable for riding, but horses are". Would you then reply, "It doesn't matter what you call it".
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
16K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K