The mere formal expression of an equation is not very useful, unless complemented by a more or less intuitive understanding. Different people may have different intuitions of a given formula or different mental images of one physical systems (more on that later).
The interesting part is that putting together two such different intuitions of a relation can yield non-trivial results with almost no algebraic manipulation, as I'll show below. What is the meaning of the following formula ?
1√2πσ∫∞−∞dxexp(iqx)exp(−x22σ2)- It can be seen as the Fourier transform of a Gaussian (or normal) distribution with zero mean and standard deviation σ: ∫∞−∞dxexp(iqx)⏟F(⋅)1√2πσexp(−x22σ2)=F(N(0,σ))
- ... or as the expectation of a phase factor over said Gaussian distribution: ∫∞−∞dx1√2πσexp(−x22σ2)⏟⟨⋅⟩exp(iqx)=⟨exp(iqx)⟩
Equating the rhs expressions in the two equations above (which are simply two different readings of (1)!) and recalling that the Fourier transform of a Gaussian is itself a Gaussian yields the very useful identity:
⟨exp(iqx)⟩=N(0,1σ)employed, for instance, in proving the Siegert relation.Note that both sides of (2) are now functions of q, since we have already integrated over x.
No comments:
Post a Comment