Timeline for Spherical wave as sum of plane waves
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2022 at 0:03 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 32 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| S Sep 8, 2021 at 15:40 | vote | accept | Boy S | ||
| Sep 4, 2021 at 15:33 | answer | added | Ruslan | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 29, 2011 at 13:52 | comment | added | a06e | @David, @Marek, I agree with @nibot. We have a tag in this site called Mathematical Physics and I think this type of question merits that tag and thus belongs to this site. Sometimes we don't need an all too rigorous or involved mathematical answer to a mathematical question and that's when a physicist's view may be helpful. So I hope this type of question doesn't get closed in the future. | |
| Dec 2, 2010 at 2:00 | comment | added | David Z | @nibot: although I disagree (for now), that is an excellent point. And @Boy Simone: I completely agree with Marek's last comment, there's no need to be sorry. You haven't done anything wrong by asking this question (and in fact you're helping us define the scope of this site). | |
| Dec 2, 2010 at 0:17 | comment | added | nibot | I know I'm in the minority, but I like seeing these "mathematical" questions here. Physicists have a different culture of math than mathematicians, and are more likely to get a useful answer from other physicists. | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 20:54 | history | edited | Boy S |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 1, 2010 at 20:47 | vote | accept | Boy S | ||
| S Sep 8, 2021 at 15:40 | |||||
| Dec 1, 2010 at 20:24 | comment | added | Marek | @David: right, I also wouldn't be comfortable to just close it on my own. @Boy: no need to be sorry, closing a question is no big deal. It's really more about setting boundaries of what should and shouldn't be asked on this site so that people know in the future. | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 20:08 | comment | added | Boy S | @David: I'm sorry but I didn't know if the question was resolvable with "rigorous method", or this could be very complicated, so I asked here because I thought that some physicist knowed this simple problem was more probable, even if the solution wasn't "rigorous"...I have already posted questions like this...I'm sorry, if you want I delete this question... | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 19:42 | comment | added | David Z | @Marek: I think I agree... I mean, the title suggests a physics question, but in essence it is just about how to do an integral. I'm voting to close it (but only because it requires four other people to agree before the question actually gets closed - I wouldn't be comfortable unilaterally closing this if I had the power to do so). | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 19:34 | comment | added | Marek | This question might have a physical motivation but I think it is purely mathematical in nature. You should probably ask for the answer at math.SE. | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 19:31 | answer | added | kennytm | timeline score: 14 | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 19:13 | comment | added | kennytm | Yeah of course, but the definition of the wave vector will be in the opposite direction. | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 18:56 | comment | added | Boy S | It's the same: like in 1D: you can define Fourier trasform as $\int f(x) e^{\pm ikx}dx$, and the inverse trasform is $\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\widetilde f(k) e^{\mp ikx}dk$ ;-) | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 18:43 | comment | added | kennytm | This is the 3D Fourier transform of $\frac{e^{ik'r}}r$? If so, the formula should be $\iiint_V \frac{e^{ik'r}}r e^{{\color{red}-}i\mathbf k\cdot\mathbf r} d^3\mathbf r$ | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 18:37 | history | asked | Boy S | CC BY-SA 2.5 |