Dear Math enthusiasts,

I am struggeling with a problem for which a solution is already given to me, but I can just not see why it is true. Here is the setting: I am given a function $f(x,y,t)$. It's well behaved let's say. Smooth and things like that. Now, this function should be reexpressed in the following form $$f(x,y,t) = \int g(k_x,k_y,w) {\rm e}^{-\jmath (k_x x + k_y y - w t)} d k_x dk_y dw. \tag{1}\label{eq1}$$ If it were only this it would be very simple, $g$ is some sort of 3-D Fourier transform of $f$. However, the trouble is that the variables $k_x, k_y, w$ are not independent. They need to satisfy the relation $k_x^2 + k_y^2 = w^2$. Therefore, I would claim that the correct form of the above expression should be $$f(x,y,t) = \int \oint_{S(w)} g(k_x,k_y,w) {\rm e}^{-\jmath (k_x x + k_y y - w t)} d \begin{bmatrix} k_x\\ k_y\end{bmatrix} dw,\tag{2}\label{eq2}$$ where $S(w)$ is a circle of radius $w$, so that the inner integral goes over the perimeter of the circle and the outer over circle radii.

My question is essentially: given a target function $f(x,y,t)$, how do I find $g(k_x, k_y, w)$ such that \eqref{eq2} is true for every point $x,y,t$?

The reference I have for this simply redefines $g(k_y,k_y,w)$ into $h(k_x,w)$ since only two variables are independent (I'm assuming this means $h(k_x,w)=g(k_x,\pm \sqrt{w^2-k_x^2},w)$ though that's never written) and uses this in the first integral. This leads to $$f(x,y,t) = \int \int h(k_x,w) {\rm e}^{-\jmath (k_x x+k_y y - w t)} d k_x dw = \int \int \tilde{g}(k_x,y,w) {\rm e}^{-\jmath (k_x x - w t)} d k_x dw,\tag{3}\label{eq3}$$ where $\tilde{g}(k_x,y,w) = h(k_x,w) {\rm e}^{-\jmath k_y y} $ (again, omitting the argument $k_y$ for me can only mean the implicit relation $k_y = \pm \sqrt{w^2-k_x^2}$). From \eqref{eq3}, they claim that $f$ is the 2-D Fourier transform of $\tilde{g}$ along the first and third dimension so that all we need to do to find $\tilde{g}$ is $$ \tilde{g}(k_x,y,w) = \frac{1}{4\pi^2} \int \int f(x,y,t) {\rm e}^{\jmath (k_x x-wt)} dx dt$$ which gives $h$ as $ h(k_x,w) = \tilde{g}(k_x,y,w) {\rm e}^{\jmath k_y y} $.

However, I have the feeling this is oversimplifying things a bit. I'm lacking rigor. My feeling is that the original problem \eqref{eq2} may not have a unique solution (due to the variable dependence) and a particular one was chosen here. Integration limits are always skipped which may be a delicate issue (after all, $k_x$ should never leave the interval $[-w,w]$, maybe this can be solved by defining $h$ zero outside this support). The fact that we cannot directly solve for $k_y$ (due to the $\pm$) troubles me. Overall I have a vague feeling that this may work but I cannot quite put my finger on it and really understand what's going on.

Would anyone be able to enlighten me how to treat such problems rigorously?

edit: A concrete example I am interested in is the function $f(x,y,t)={\rm e}^{-\jmath \left(\omega_0 t - \frac{\omega_0}{c}\sqrt{(x-x_0)^2+(y-y_0)^2}\right)}$. I'm awarding a bounty to anyone who can systematically explain me how to find the (set of) function(s) $g(k_x,k_y,\omega)$ that satisfy \eqref{eq2} for a given $f(x,y,t)$ everywhere. A concrete example may be helpful for the understanding, it can be the one I provided in this paragraph, but I'm also happy with any other non-trivial example, as long as it aids the understanding.

This question has an open bounty worth +50 reputation from Florian ending tomorrow.

This question has not received enough attention.

As I explained in the question, I'm awarding a bounty to anyone who can systematically explain me how to find the (set of) function(s) $g(k_x,k_y,\omega)$ that satisfy (2) for a given $f(x,y,t)$ everywhere. A concrete example may be helpful for the understanding, it can te the one I provided in this paragraph, but I'm also happy with any other non-trivial example, as long as it aids the understanding.

  • 1
    $f$ seems some kind of Radon transform of $g$: these problems are studied within the realm of integral geometry. – Daniele Tampieri Nov 7 at 16:04
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I added a tag. I know Radon transform only as integrals over lines, but you are right, this might be strongly related. – Florian Nov 7 at 16:23

For this problem, it is much more convenient to introduce the polar coordinates ($\phi \in [0,2\pi)$) $$k_x = w \cos(\phi), \qquad k_y=w \sin(\phi)$$ which fulfill the constraint explicitly.

We then define $$f(x,y,t) = \int_0^\infty \int_{0}^{2\pi} g(w \cos\phi, w \sin\phi,w)e^{i w (t- x \cos\phi - y\sin\phi)} w d\phi dw . \tag{1} $$ Note that $w>0$ is required as otherwise the constraint $w^2 = k_x^2 + k_y^2$ does not have a solution.

We will apply, the 2D Fourier inversion theorem (in polar coordinates) $$ H(\rho, \theta) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{2\pi} h(r,\phi) e^{-i \rho r \cos(\phi-\theta)} r\,d\phi \,dr \tag{2}$$ $$h(r,\phi) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{2\pi} H(\rho,\theta) e^{i \rho r \cos(\phi-\theta)} \rho\,d\theta \,d\rho \tag{3}$$

We introduce the function (that implicitly depends on $t$) $$h(w,\phi;t) = 2\pi g(w \cos\phi, w \sin\phi, w) e^{i w t} .$$ Then, we see that (1) is equivalent to (2) with $$f(\rho \cos\theta,\rho \sin\theta ,t)= H(\rho, \theta;t).$$ The inverse expression is thus given by (3). In particular, we have that $$2\pi g(w \cos\phi, w \sin\phi, w) e^{i w t} =\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{2\pi} f(\rho \cos\theta,\rho \sin\theta ,t) e^{i \rho r \cos(\phi-\theta)} \rho\,d\theta \,d\rho $$ or equivalently $$ g(w \cos\phi, w \sin\phi, w) =\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2} e^{-i w t}\int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{2\pi} f(\rho \cos\theta,\rho \sin\theta ,t) e^{i \rho r \cos(\phi-\theta)} \rho\,d\theta \,d\rho. $$ We note that $g$ is only specified on the points that fulfill the constraint!

  • @Florian: my response uses the 2D Fourier transform to obtain an inverse (I give explicit limits). Note that $g$ can only be obtained for the points that fulfill the constraints (parameterized by $w$ and $\phi$). This is of course to be expected. If you agree with the initial definition (1) (which I hope is the same as your equation (2)), then my post should give you the inverse. If you want, I can apply the transform to your example... – Fabian 8 hours ago

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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