What is the Fourier transform of sin(x) with non-zero terms?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Fourier transform of sin(x) using the substitution sin x = (e^{ix} - e^{-ix})/(2i) reveals critical errors in integration, particularly for k = 1. The discussion highlights that the transformation is incorrect due to the complex nature of e^{-ikx} and emphasizes that the primitive function fails for k = 1. Participants agree that the integration must be corrected for all k where e^{-ikx} has a real part, indicating a broader issue with the transformation process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fourier transforms
  • Familiarity with complex numbers
  • Knowledge of integration techniques
  • Basic grasp of trigonometric identities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Fourier transforms in relation to complex functions
  • Learn about the implications of integrating complex exponentials
  • Research the significance of primitive functions in Fourier analysis
  • Explore common errors in Fourier transform calculations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers involved in signal processing, as well as students studying Fourier analysis and complex integration techniques.

lys04
Messages
144
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
Why is what I'm doing here not correct? (Because last line seems to give me 0) Could someone point me in the right direction please.
Relevant Equations
Fourier transform
1729514023111.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1729516645362.png


This transformation seems incorrect because ##e^{-ikx}## is a complex number. How about checking it by substitution of \sin x = \frac{e^{ix}-e^{-ix}}{2i}
 
Last edited:
anuttarasammyak said:
View attachment 352508

This transformation seems incorrect because ##e^{-ikx}## is a complex number. How about checking it by substitution of \sin x = \frac{e^{ix}-e^{-ix}}{2i}
Indeed, but more importantly it should also be realised that the primitive function is incorrect for ##k = 1##.
 
anuttarasammyak said:
This transformation seems incorrect because e−ikx is a complex number
Ohh alright yeah that makes sense. Ty!
 
Orodruin said:
Indeed, but more importantly it should also be realised that the primitive function is incorrect for k=1.
What does this mean?
 
lys04 said:
What does this mean?
That your integration is wrong when k = 1.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: lys04
Orodruin said:
That your integration is wrong when k = 1.
It's gonna be wrong for all k s.t e_-ikx has a real part?
 
lys04 said:
It's gonna be wrong for all k s.t e_-ikx has a real part?
You are misunderstanding my comment. I said that apart from the fact pointed out by @anuttarasammyak in post #2, the integral is also wrong for ##k = 1##. This will be crucial to correct also when you have corrected the imaginary part error.
Orodruin said:
Indeed, but more importantly it should also be realised that the primitive function is incorrect for ##k = 1##.
(my emphasis)
 
Oh, and on top of that, the last line is not equal to zero either. The sine terms have the same sign.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K