What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight

  • Context: Insights 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Dirac introduced the delta function in his 1930 work, "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics," as a continuum analogue to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Dirac delta function, denoted as δ(x), is defined to be zero everywhere except at x = 0, where it is infinite, and its integral over the entire real line equals 1. This function serves crucial roles in quantum mechanics, particularly in representing continuous eigenstates and simplifying calculations in electrodynamics and signal processing. The formalization of the Dirac delta as a distribution was later developed by Laurent Schwartz in the 1940s and 1950s.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with the Kronecker delta and its applications
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical functions and distributions
  • Awareness of Dirac's contributions to physics and mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties and applications of the Dirac delta function in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the theory of distributions as developed by Laurent Schwartz
  • Explore the mathematical rigor behind generalized functions and their implications in physics
  • Investigate the historical context of Dirac's work and its impact on modern physics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on quantum mechanics, mathematical physics, and applied mathematics. This discussion is also beneficial for educators and researchers interested in the historical development of mathematical tools in physics.

  • #31
I'm going to leave you to your dusty echo chamber on the web. It's only there because people like me built it for you. Furthermore, a computer technician shouldn't have to point out to a Physicist and a Mathematician the foundational work Schwartz's Théorie des distributions written before they were born." Do it yourself. I'm out of here, account deleted.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
You have become Idolaters of syntax and grammar, I'm dealing with priests of the page, not engineers of reality. And as for the Guessing machine you so rightly fear. Do you hear that sound the Ai makes?, its the sound of the 21st Century steam engine and you're the threshers of old. Science's reputation under siege like never before, and you not helping with this "Attitude".
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy and berkeman
  • #33
TensorTronic-270 said:
cut something from a paper I thought looked useful.
TensorTronic-270 said:
OF COURSE, I wouldn't know, I cant ... I can no more tell you the correct syntax than i can tell you what the equation means! let alone its syntax!.
TensorTronic-270 said:
Do you hear that sound the Ai makes?, its the sound of the 21st Century steam engine and you're the threshers of old. Science's reputation under siege like never before, and you not helping with this "Attitude".
On PF, AI output is not considered to be a valid source, and this thread is an excellent example why. What you posted is an AI hallucination, and because you didn't know the material you didn't recognize it as a hallucination.

In my personal opinion, it is AI's reputation that is more in question today. The problem of hallucinations is becoming widely recognized. As AI technology advances, there may be some future fix to this issue, but today's AI's simply hallucinate too much to be reliable.

The thread is reopened, but I want to leave this exchange in place as a good example of why we currently have the policy that we do. We will continue to reevaluate the policy as new technology develops.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: QuarkyMeson, Lord Jestocost, berkeman and 1 other person
  • #34
I was transported infront of a bodega watching a neighorhood whino chugg a 40 oz reading this thread.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: renormalize

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
71K