There's an intuitive interpretation of the inverse Fourier Transform with a system of connected wheels spinning in the complex plane. Then the signal (a real one, like usual sine for example) is the the real part of position of a point attached to the system in time. This is pretty easily explained in below article.
I think I understood the concept quite well, however I puzzle over some symmetric intuitive interpretion solely for Fourier Transform (FT) not the inverse. In other words: I know how to reproduce a signal knowing it's FT, but I struggling to imagine how a particular signal can be decomposed into its compononets.
To further explain I will stick to the below convention:
$$f(t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} F(\omega) e^{i \omega t} \mathrm{d}\omega $$ $$F(\omega) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} f(t) e^{-i \omega t} \mathrm{d}t$$ where $f(t)$ is a signal and $F(\omega)$ its FT.
If we take a look at the equations we can see, that the only difference is the sign in the exponent. It suggests, that one should think of it as spinning backwards through the wheels system with each point of a particular signal. However, now we integrate over frequency. Choosing an arbitrary $\omega$ we can think of moving points with the angular speed of $\omega$. My idea is that if chosen $\omega$ matches a frequency of some compononent of the considered signal, then all the contribution to the integral value comes from that compononent, the not-mathing frequencies somehow cancel.
Let now consider a sine wave. Following the above idea we choose the matching frequency. We know the integral does not exist as it oscilates between -1 and 1 as sine itself. At least if we don't divide it into its positive and negative part. Then we get two delta functions as we should - a negative and a positive one.
There's where my questions arise.
Why is it like that? Why the rest of a signal cancels when integrating at an arbitrary frequency? What about for example constant wave then? Maybe I should look at such a sine wave as a corresponding complex pulse? Should we look differently at odd and even functions or decompose into positive and negative parts?
That bothers me for so long I eventually decided to search here for help.
I would appreciate some deeper explanation as it stays unclear to me. It would be great if it would follow my presented idea.
I've also asked this question one of my professors. He gave me a different approach with matrix diagonalization and spectral theorem, if that's a better way to understand it I would be also grateful for hints or explanation.
Also, maybe you can point me to an appropriate book or paper regarding this topic?
Imagine your function $f(t)$ is a pure tone signal, $\textit{i.e.}$ it is of the form: $$f(t) = \sin{t}$$ with $\omega$ arbitrary.
Because of the fact that the Fourier transform comes from some limit we can define it as a sum: $$\mathcal{F}(f(t)) =\lim_{T\to \infty} a_0(T) + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}a_k(T)\cos{(2\pi k \,t/T )} + b_k(T) \sin{(2\pi k\,t/T )}$$ Where the coefficients are defined as $$a_0(T) = \frac{1}{T}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}{f(t)\,dt}$$ $$a_k(T) = \frac{2}{T}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}{f(t)\cos{(2\pi k \,t/T )}\,dt} \qquad b_k(T) = \frac{2}{T}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}{f(t)\sin{(2\pi k \,t/T )}\,dt}$$
Take for visualisation $T$ finite, let's say for simplicity $T=2\pi$.
Ii is easy to see that all coefficients give 0 but $b_1$, that equals $1$. That is so because the integrals over one period of product of sinusoidal functions with distinct frequency cancels out as T L Davis pointed out.
Therefore we expect that the "best fit" to the proposed function $f(t)$ is a sine wave with amplitude and frequency unity.
For the continuum case, the delta functions have complex amplitude because of the definition of the transform in terms of complex exponentials. Now there are no basis functions like $\sin{nt}$ or $\cos{nt}$ but $\exp{int}$ (in some sense) that group both. Recall Euler's formula: $$\exp{int}=\cos{nt}+i\sin{nt}$$ You may note that the amplitudes of the waves associated with the sine part must be purely complex to recover the physical significance.
Hope this helps.