Applying the convolution theorem to the two-dimensional magnetic inverse problem

The Biot-Savart law describes the generation of a magnetic field by some bounded current, such that time-dependence does not need to be considered (i.e., a magnetostatic situation). In the case of current flowing through a wire, this law may be expressed in terms of an integral along some path that models the wire. When it is more appropriate to consider a volume of current, the Biot-Savart law instead takes the form of a triple integral [6, 12]:

where $\mathbold{H(r)}$ is the magnetic field, $\mathbold{J(r^{\prime})}$ is the current density, $\mathbold{r}$ is the position vector of the measurement of the magnetic field, and $\mathbold{r^{\prime}}$ is the position vector associated with the current density. All these vectors are three-dimensional and have real components (i.e., they are in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$). $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{3}$ denotes the bounded current-carrying region. The magnetic inverse problem amounts to solving (1) for $\mathbold{J}$ in terms of $\mathbold{H}$.

Here, an operator is said to have translation equivariance if the combined result of applying the operator and a coordinate translation is indifferent to the order in which this is performed – i.e., the operator in question, $T$, is generally affected by the shift operator, $S_{a}$, but also commutes with it, for all constant shifts of $a\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$:

A special case of this is translation invariance, whereby the operator $T$ is unaffected by coordinate translation – i.e., it still commutes with the shift operator, but in a trivial sense: $S_{a}T=TS_{a}=T$. This nomenclature is consistent with the concept of an equivariant map in the context of group theory [29], and it allows for a precise distinction to be made between $T$ and its associated $G$.

We are considering coordinate translations here because $\delta(x-x^{\prime})$ is shifted by $x^{\prime}$ and so, by (3), so is $TG(x,x^{\prime})$. Roughly speaking, if $T$ possesses translation equivariance (i.e., if it obeys (7)), then it makes no difference whether this shift occurs before or after the application of $T$ to $G$. We may therefore apply the shift to $G$ before operating with $T$, which leads to $G(x,x^{\prime})=K(x-x^{\prime})$. More precisely, consider the unshifted cases: $G(x,0):=G_{0}(x)$ and $\delta(x-0):=\delta_{0}(x)$. In terms of the operators, from (3), we have

Shifting by $x^{\prime}$ gives

By associativity of the operators and translation equivariance, (7), we have

Combining (9) and (10) and evaluating the operators at $x$ gives

We have

and

so (11) becomes

Comparing with (3) results in

Assuming that $G$ is unique, we obtain

The use of translation equivariance in (10) is the key step in the above reasoning. A subtlety that is worth noting is that (16) is not asserting that a function of two arguments is the same as a function of one argument, but rather that, for all values of $x$ and $x^{\prime}$, the values of $G(x,x^{\prime})$ and $G(x-x^{\prime})$ are equal. The symbol $G$ is reused here, now a function of $x-x^{\prime}$, as a shorthand for $(S_{x^{\prime}}G_{0})(x)$. This mild ambiguity in notation is then resolved by the definition of $K$, as distinct from $G$, which makes it explicit that we are henceforth talking about a different mathematical object from $G$, with only one argument $(x-x^{\prime})$. The form that (6) now takes is a type of integral transform known as a convolution:

and $K(x-x^{\prime})$ is referred to as a convolution kernel. As an illustration of the effects of coordinate shifts, make the replacements $x^{\prime}\rightarrow x^{\prime}-a$ and $x\rightarrow x-a$. This results in

Consequently, a shift in the input, $g(x^{\prime}-a)$, is associated with the same shift in the output, $f(x-a)$, thereby showing translation equivariance. On the other hand, the convolution kernel, $K(x-x^{\prime})$, is unaffected by this shift, and is therefore translation-invariant. In this way, translation equivariance of the operator $T$, given by (7), is connected with translation invariance of its Green function, $G$, associated via (3).

There are several slightly different ways to define the Fourier transform, depending on whether or not angular variables are used and, if so, on how angular prefactors (i.e., functions of $2\pi$) are allocated between the forward and inverse transforms. This can result in (19) needing to be slightly modified. These definitions may be found in Ref. [23], for example.

We limit ourselves to the greatest dimensionality of $\mathbold{J}$ that allows for a general unique solution to the inverse problem: two. We do this by considering a sheet of current, extended in the $x$-$y$-plane, but sufficiently thin or otherwise structured in such a way that the $z$-component of $\mathbold{J}$ may be neglected, along with any $z$-dependence of the $x$- and $y$-components. Without loss of generality, we consider that this current sheet is centred at the origin, and that we are measuring its associated magnetic field at a measurement plane located at $z=z_{\mathrm{M}}>0$. Under these assumptions, the $x$-component of the magnetic field, $H_{x}$ takes the following form [12]:

Here, we have introduced $\Delta z=z_{\mathrm{M}}-z^{\prime}$, where $z_{\mathrm{M}}>z^{\prime}$, so that $\Delta z$ is the difference in $z$ between the measurement plane and the current element being integrated over. $H_{x}$ is considered here as an example, but an analogous relation to (30) associates $H_{y}$ with $-J_{x}$. Using Fubini’s theorem for triple integrals, the order of integration may be changed in order to view this as a convolution in $x$ and $y$:

where the associated convolution kernel is

Comparing with the general form of a convolution given in (17), $H_{x}$ fulfils the role of the function $f$, and $J_{y}$ stands in for $g$ as the source.

Prior to taking the Fourier transform of (32) in order to use the convolution theorem, it is useful to recognise that it may first be simplified: let $r=\sqrt{(x-x^{\prime})^{2}+(y-y^{\prime})^{2}+\Delta z^{2}}$. (32) then becomes [10, 11, 12]

The Fourier transform (in $x$ and $y$) of this kernel then, assuming sufficient smoothness to permit Leibniz’s integral rule, takes the form

Our task is therefore to calculate $\mathcal{F}(1/r)$.

It should be noted here that a necessary condition for the validity of the Fourier transform of a function is that the integral of that function over its entire domain be finite, which does not hold for $\mathcal{F}(1/r)$ [23]. Two options for addressing this are:

At any rate, we will proceed assuming that the transform holds in a manner that is useful for physical modelling and we will not consider its validity any further here.

By (23), we have

It is natural to express both the spatial coordinates and the spatial frequencies in a polar representation: let
$\rho=\sqrt{(x-x^{\prime})^{2}+(y-y^{\prime})^{2}}$, $x=\rho\cos(\phi)$, $y=\rho\sin(\phi)$, $dxdy=\rho d\rho d\phi$, $k=\sqrt{k_{x}^{2}+k_{y}^{2}}$, $k_{x}=k\cos(\varphi)$, and $k_{y}=k\sin(\varphi)$. (35) then becomes

The integrand of the inner integral is periodic over the limits of integration, so $\varphi$ may be set to zero, without loss of generality. To see this, let $\theta:=\phi-\varphi$, $d\theta=d\phi$, so that this inner integral becomes

Call (37) $F(\varphi)$. Using the fundamental theorem of calculus, we then have

Consequently, $F(\varphi)$ is a constant, so $\varphi$ has no influence on this integral and may be neglected:

This result holds for the integral of any periodic function over its period [24]. The Fourier transform now takes the form

where

defines a zeroth-order Hankel transform. Here,

is a zeroth-order Bessel function of the first kind [3]. The solution of (41) forms the final part of calculating the Fourier transform of the Biot-Savart kernel.

The solution to the Hankel transform in (41) is a known result, given by Gradshteyn and Ryzhik [25], for example, as

where $k\neq 0$ and $\Delta z>0$. This a result that is frequently quoted without proof in literature on the magnetic inverse problem. However, a relatively direct way of proving that this result holds is outlined by Ref. [26]. This involves using the fact that the Hankel transform is an involution, meaning that, for a function $f(r)$,

Consequently, in the case of $f(r)=1/r$, where $r=\sqrt{\rho^{2}+\Delta z^{2}}$, it suffices to show that

The left-hand side of (45) is

where we have introduced $q=\rho k$ and $\sigma=\Delta z/\rho$. Due to having previously re-expressed the two-dimensional Fourier transform in polar coordinates – motivated by the radial symmetry of $1/r$ – and the consequent integral over the non-negative half-line in (46) (rather than the entire real line), we have a Laplace transform, $\mathcal{L}$, of the Bessel function $J_{0}(q)$:

Having noticed this, we can combine the properties of Laplace transforms and Bessel functions in order to extract an algebraic expression, from which we can obtain the right-hand side of (45). A Bessel function of order $\nu$, $J_{\nu}(q)$, satisfies Bessel’s equation:

In this particular case ($\nu=0$), we have (for $q\neq 0$)

A key property of Laplace transforms is their ability to simplify equations by converting operations in calculus into algebraic operations; it is the algebraic structure of the Laplace-transformed version of (49) that will demonstrate that (45) holds. We next consider the Laplace transform, $\mathcal{L}$, of each term in (49).