Mathematics Asked by jonathan x on January 5, 2022
Is there a reason for the Laplace Transform starting at zero? Could the transform go from -1 to ∞ or 1 to ∞? I understand that the upper bound is for the sake of convergence; however, the lower bound seems fairly arbitrary. What does the Transform gain from starting at zero?
For a physicist's or engineer's perspective, let's examine what is probably the most common application of Laplace transforms in the real world. Suppose that $x(t)$, the position of a particle at time $t$ is given by the differential equation, $$ m frac{d^2 x}{dt^2} + gamma frac{dx}{dt} + k x = F(t),$$ where $F(t)$ is the force applied on the particle at time $t$. ($m$, $gamma$ and $k$ represent the particle's mass, the friction and the strength of the restorative force respectively.)
Furthermore, we suppose that when $t < 0$, the force is zero and the system is stationary. The force is only "turned on" at time $t = 0$. Therefore, $x(t)$ and $F(t)$ are non-zero only for $t geq 0$, we only really need to solve the differential equation for $t geq 0$. (The initial conditions at $t = 0$ are $x(0) = 0$ and $frac{dx}{dt}(0) = 0$.)
We can solve this equation using Laplace transforms. Taking Laplace transforms of both sides, the differential equation turns into an algebraic equation which is easier to solve. Once we have solved this algebraic equation, we invert the Laplace transform, giving the final answer, $$ x(t) = mathcal L^{-1} left[ frac{mathcal L[F](s)}{ms^2 + gamma s + k}right].$$
But the thing I want to draw your attention to is the fact that, in the context of this physics problem, the $x(t)$ and the $F(t)$ are only non-zero when $t geq 0$. So when you define their Laplace transforms, it is only natural to integrate over $t geq 0$: $$ mathcal L[x](s) := int_0^infty e^{-ts} x(t) dt, mathcal L[F](s) := int_0^infty e^{-ts} F(t) dt.$$ Integrating over the whole of $mathbb R$ is pointless, seeing that $x(t)$ and $F(t)$ are zero when $t < 0$ anyway! So in the context of this physics problem, it is natural to define the Laplace transforms using integrals over $[0, infty)$.
Answered by Kenny Wong on January 5, 2022
2 Asked on March 8, 2021 by danoram
1 Asked on March 7, 2021 by juju9708
1 Asked on March 6, 2021 by edohedo
0 Asked on March 6, 2021 by rising_sea
0 Asked on March 6, 2021 by dansidorkin
0 Asked on March 5, 2021 by able20
1 Asked on March 5, 2021 by pedro-mariz
1 Asked on March 4, 2021 by jibber032394
elementary number theory number theory quadratic reciprocity quadratic residues
1 Asked on March 4, 2021 by big_golfuniformindia
central limit theorem probability probability distributions random variables
2 Asked on March 4, 2021 by mc5555
discrete mathematics elementary set theory functions inverse function
2 Asked on March 4, 2021 by dip
0 Asked on March 3, 2021 by rmdnusr
integration multiple integral multivariable calculus spherical coordinates volume
0 Asked on March 2, 2021
1 Asked on March 2, 2021 by 2316354654
0 Asked on March 1, 2021 by briantag
analysis derivatives dynamical systems functional analysis ordinary differential equations
2 Asked on March 1, 2021 by hitesh
1 Asked on March 1, 2021 by ariana-tibor
complex analysis complex integration complex numbers laurent series
1 Asked on March 1, 2021 by maksymilian5275
exponential distribution probability random variables statistics
2 Asked on March 1, 2021 by stephan-psaras
Get help from others!
Recent Answers
Recent Questions
© 2023 AnswerBun.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, MenuIva, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP, SolveDir