Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The following is an identity concerning the Bessel functions of the first kind $J_n(x)$ for integers $n$ and $m$:

$$\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty J_n(x) J_{n+m}(x) = \delta(m)$$ where $\delta(x)$ is the Kronecker delta function.

This can be derived from the Jacobi-Anger identity, but is there a simpler way to derive it, for instance using well-known recurrence relations of the Bessel functions?

share|improve this question
a side comment: Jacobi-Anger identity is IMHO more natural than recurrence relations. It's a splitting of the wave $\psi(x,y)=\exp(ix)=$ (or of $\exp(ikx)$) to functions with given angular momentum, $\exp(ix)=\sum i^nJ_n(r)\exp(in\theta)$. As $\Delta\psi=-\psi$, also $\Delta(J_n(r)\exp(in\theta))=-J_n(r)\exp(in\theta)$, which is the Bessel equation for $J_n$. –  user8268 Mar 24 '11 at 20:15
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Here's a hand-wavey argument using the generating function $e^{\frac{x}{2}(t-1/t)} = \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty t^m J_m(z)$:

$$\begin{eqnarray} e^{\frac{x}{2}(t-1/t)+\frac{x}{2}(u-1/u)} &=& e^{\frac{x}{2}(t-1/t)}e^{\frac{x}{2}(u-1/u)}\\\ &=& \left(\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty t^m J_m(x)\right)\left(\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty u^n J_n(x)\right)\\\ &=&\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty\;\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty t^{m}u^{n}J_m(x)J_n(x)\\\ &=&\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty\;\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty t^{m}u^{m+k}J_m(x)J_{m+k}(x)\\\ &=&\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty u^k\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty (tu)^{m}J_m(x)J_{m+k}(x)\;. \end{eqnarray}$$

Now let $t=1/u$ and we get

$$1 = \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty u^k \left(\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty J_m(x)J_{m+k}(x)\right)\;,$$

which gives the desired result (since the parenthesized term is independent of $u$).

[Thanks to Joriki for cleaning up the LaTeX.]

share|improve this answer
Voilà some nicer formatting; you can click on "edit" to see how it's done. –  joriki Mar 24 '11 at 20:43
add comment

If $m = 2k+1$, this sum always contains the two different terms $J_n(x)J_{n+m}(x)$ and $J_{-(n+m)}(x)J_{-n}(x)$. I believe we can rewrite this sum as $$\sum_{n=-k}^\infty (J_n(x)J_{n+m}(x) + J_{-(n+m)}(x)J_{-n}(x))$$ and then by using the identity $J_{-r}(x) = (-1)^{r}J_r(x)$ we can rewrite this as $$\sum_{n=-k}^\infty (J_n(x)J_{n+m}(x) + (-1)^{2n+m} J_{n+m}(x)J_n(x) = \sum_{n=-k}^\infty (J_n(x)J_{n+m}(x) - J_{n+m}(x)J_n(x)) = 0.$$ So that does it for odd $m$, assuming that reordering the terms is legal in this case.

For even $m = 2k \neq 0$ I haven't a clue. You can try this same trick but it doesn't work, because all the $-1$s cancel out completely rather than leaving one behind to cancel out the whole sum. Plus there's a single awkward $J_{-k}(x)J_{k}(x)$ term in the middle. I'm betting the trick is to use the recurrence $${2r \over x}J_r(x) = J_{r-1}(x) + J_{r+1}(x)$$ to unzip the whole thing starting from the awkward term into two similar sums with $m' = m \pm 1$ (which obviously won't work if $m = 0$, as expected), and then use the above to show both parts are zero. But I have no concrete reason to believe that this will actually work, just a gut instinct.

share|improve this answer
Yes, it's exactly the m=even case that prompted the question. That recurrence looks tempting, but also a bit messy since it brings out a factor of "x", and the identity should hold for all x. I'll give it a try and see what happens. –  Tobin Fricke Mar 16 '11 at 2:48
I'm not worried about the x, it falls completely out of the whole problem since we're not changing it. The problem is the 2r, which I have no idea what happens with that as it's summed over. –  Paul Z Mar 16 '11 at 2:52
Ah, good point. I think all the Jn(x) are non-negative (for n≥0) before the first zero of Jn. Which means the 'awkward term' is the only negative one (for certain values of x) and thus the only possibility for cancellation. –  Tobin Fricke Mar 16 '11 at 3:44
It looks like this is a special case of the Neumann Addition Formula: dlmf.nist.gov/10.23#E4 with $n=1$. Unfortunately, that doesn't lend much insight. Maybe I'll have to settle for "magical property of the Bessel functions". –  Tobin Fricke Mar 16 '11 at 4:20
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.