I Why is E(t) multiplied by e^(-ix) in Plancherel's Theorem proof?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter QuantumDuality
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about Plancherel's Theorem proof, the multiplication of E(t) by e^(-ix) is clarified as being related to the complex conjugate of e^(ix). The proof begins with a function that is smooth and decays quickly, ensuring the existence of its integrals. The first equation is derived from the definition of Fourier Transform pairs, emphasizing that the inverse Fourier transform of a function returns the original function. The conversation also touches on the importance of accurately representing changes of variables in integrals, particularly when discussing definite integrals. Overall, the discussion highlights the mathematical principles underlying the theorem and the significance of variable transformations.
QuantumDuality
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
the first step of the Plancherel's Theorem proof found in: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PlancherelsTheorem.html, says:
let
Inline1.gif
be a function that is sufficiently smooth and that decays sufficiently quickly near infinity so that its integrals exist. Further, let
Inline2.gif
and
Inline3.gif
be FT pairs so that:
Inline4.gif
Inline5.gif
Inline6.gif

Inline7.gif
Inline8.gif
Inline9.gif


assuming x = 2*pi*v*t, why is E(t) multiplied by e^(-ix)?, i guess it has to do with the fact that it is the conjugate of e^(ix), but i can't figure it out
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The first equation follows from the definition of Fourier Transform pairs (to be more precise from a theorem that the inverse Fourier transform of the Fourier transform of a function, is the function itself).

The second equation follows from first by taking the complex conjugate at each side of the first equation. And of course changing the name of the variable but I guess you know that ##\int f(x)dx=\int f(y)dy## no matter what x and y are.
 
but if we have for example:
f(x) = x³
y = x²
then
f(y) = (x²)³ = x⁶
dy/dx = 2x
dy = 2x dx

using the equation you suggest:
∫f(x)dx=∫f(y)dy
∫x³ dx=∫2x⁷ dx

i'm missing something?
 
Well the equation I wrote is for definite integrals (ok I admit I didn't write it in an accurate way) , so i should ve write ##\int\limits_{a}^{b}f(x)dx=\int\limits_{a}^{b}f(y)dy##

What you doing is a change of variable ##y=x^2## in the integral ##\int\limits_{a}^{b}f(y)dy## so the interval of integration changes from ##(a,b)## to ## (\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b})##. So the last line of your post should be actually ##\int\limits_{a}^{b}x^3dx=\int\limits_{\sqrt{a}}^{\sqrt{b}}2x^7dx##.
 
  • Like
Likes QuantumDuality
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top