Dirac delta integral form proof
$begingroup$
While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:
begin{align*}
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
&= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
\
&= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
right].
end{align*}
The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
$$
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
right]
= lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
= 2 pi delta(x).
$$
(Original image here.)
I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.
dirac-delta
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:
begin{align*}
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
&= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
\
&= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
right].
end{align*}
The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
$$
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
right]
= lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
= 2 pi delta(x).
$$
(Original image here.)
I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.
dirac-delta
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:
begin{align*}
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
&= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
\
&= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
right].
end{align*}
The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
$$
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
right]
= lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
= 2 pi delta(x).
$$
(Original image here.)
I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.
dirac-delta
$endgroup$
While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:
begin{align*}
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
&= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
\
&= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
right].
end{align*}
The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
$$
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
right]
= lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
= 2 pi delta(x).
$$
(Original image here.)
I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.
dirac-delta
dirac-delta
edited Sep 26 '18 at 20:33
Mefitico
926117
926117
asked Feb 12 '15 at 22:04
Mark A. RuizMark A. Ruiz
8619
8619
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Looking at the first one:
$$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$
Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.
The second one is basically the same.
Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:20
$begingroup$
Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
$endgroup$
– Ian
Feb 12 '15 at 23:38
$begingroup$
Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1145718%2fdirac-delta-integral-form-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Looking at the first one:
$$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$
Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.
The second one is basically the same.
Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:20
$begingroup$
Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
$endgroup$
– Ian
Feb 12 '15 at 23:38
$begingroup$
Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Looking at the first one:
$$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$
Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.
The second one is basically the same.
Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:20
$begingroup$
Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
$endgroup$
– Ian
Feb 12 '15 at 23:38
$begingroup$
Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Looking at the first one:
$$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$
Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.
The second one is basically the same.
Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.
$endgroup$
Looking at the first one:
$$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$
Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.
The second one is basically the same.
Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.
edited Feb 12 '15 at 22:18
answered Feb 12 '15 at 22:11
IanIan
67.6k25387
67.6k25387
$begingroup$
I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:20
$begingroup$
Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
$endgroup$
– Ian
Feb 12 '15 at 23:38
$begingroup$
Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:20
$begingroup$
Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
$endgroup$
– Ian
Feb 12 '15 at 23:38
$begingroup$
Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
$begingroup$
I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:20
$begingroup$
I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:20
$begingroup$
Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
$endgroup$
– Ian
Feb 12 '15 at 23:38
$begingroup$
Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
$endgroup$
– Ian
Feb 12 '15 at 23:38
$begingroup$
Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
$begingroup$
Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
$endgroup$
– Mark A. Ruiz
Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1145718%2fdirac-delta-integral-form-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown