Fourier Transform of a Square Annulus

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on computing the Fourier transform of a square annulus, drawing parallels to known transforms of circular annuli and square apertures. It suggests representing the square annulus as the difference between two square boxes, leading to a combination of sinc functions. The conversation also explores using delta functions and separating the transform into x and y components, resulting in periodic sinusoidal patterns. Numerical results are shared, indicating challenges in achieving an analytical limit for the transform. Ultimately, participants are seeking a more effective technique or coordinate system to simplify the problem.
DrFurious
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Hello all. I'm trying to compute the Fourier transform of a square annulus analytically. A "square annulus" would be the square analog of an infinitely thing ring (circular annulus). Here's what I know:

The Fourier transform of a circular annulus is a Bessel function. In polar coordinates,

\int_0^\infty\int_0^{2 \pi}\!\delta(r-a)e^{i k r \cos{\theta}}r\,\mathrm{d}r \,\mathrm{d}\theta=2 \pi J_0(ka)

The Fourier transform of a square aperture is a sinc function:
\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}e^{i(k_x + k_y y)}\mathrm{d}x\,\mathrm{d}y=\frac{4\sin\left(\frac{k_x}{2}\right)\sin\left(\frac{k_y}{2}\right)}{k_x k_y}

I was thinking of maybe convolving the functions to get the correct output, but I'm not so sure. Any ideas on how to solve the square annulus problem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try writing your annulus as a large square box minus a smaller square box. The FT will be the difference of two sincs.
 
I don't know if that quite does it. In that case, the annulus still has some thickness... I want it to be a true delta function.

I think that if one could take the derivative of the two dimensional box function and use that, then maybe something tractable might pop out...
 
Ah, I missed that you wanted a square line of infinitesimal thickness. In that case use delta functions. The problem is separable--that is, you can transform x and y separately because your function has the form
f(x,y)=g(x)h(y)
where g and h are each the sum of two delta functions. Here's g
g(x)=a[\delta(x+x0)+\delta(x-x0)].
The transform will be the product F(kx,ky)=G(kx)H(ky), where G and H each are cosines.
 
So this is getting trickier. I have attached two files: One is the Fourier transform of just a "square", and the other a "square annulus". I did these two numerically.

If you make something like

\frac{4 \sin\left(\frac{k_x}{2}\right) \sin\left(\frac{k_y}{2}\right)}{k_x k_y}-\frac{4 \sin\left(0.999\frac{k_x}{2}\right) \sin\left(0.999\frac{k_y}{2}\right)}{k_x k_y}

You get the correct answer as you get closer to 1. However, there doesn't seem to be a way to do the limit analytically... (just get zero)

Separating the Fourier transform as suggested seems to produce a periodic sinusoidal "lattice", which is also not quite the correct answer.

There must be some technique I'm missing... maybe a way to do Fourier transforms piecewise, or some strange coordinate. I tried making this delta function box in polar coordinates but the integrals were too nasty.
 

Attachments

  • fftsquareannulus.png
    fftsquareannulus.png
    35.4 KB · Views: 630
  • fftsquare.png
    fftsquare.png
    23.6 KB · Views: 581
Sorry, you are right, I flubbed the function f. It is a sum of four line segments, each of finite length.
f(x,y)=a[\delta(x+x_0)+\delta(x-x_0)]rect\left(\frac{y}{2y_0}\right)+a[\delta(y+y_0)+\delta(y-y_0)]rect\left(\frac{x}{2x_0}\right).
Now do the x transform of f(x,y), then do the y transform of the result. You will get the sum of two terms, each of which is a product of a sinc times a cosine.

Sorry again to lead you astray.
 
Thread ''splain this hydrostatic paradox in tiny words'
This is (ostensibly) not a trick shot or video*. The scale was balanced before any blue water was added. 550mL of blue water was added to the left side. only 60mL of water needed to be added to the right side to re-balance the scale. Apparently, the scale will balance when the height of the two columns is equal. The left side of the scale only feels the weight of the column above the lower "tail" of the funnel (i.e. 60mL). So where does the weight of the remaining (550-60=) 490mL go...
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Scalar and vector potentials in Coulomb gauge Assume Coulomb gauge so that $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=0.\tag{1}$$ The scalar potential ##\phi## is described by Poisson's equation $$\nabla^2 \phi = -\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}\tag{2}$$ which has the instantaneous general solution given by $$\phi(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0}\int \frac{\rho(\mathbf{r}',t)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^3r'.\tag{3}$$ In Coulomb gauge the vector potential ##\mathbf{A}## is given by...
Back
Top