Dirac Delta function as a Fourier transform

andrewkirk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
4,140
Reaction score
1,741
It is fairly easy to demonstrate that the Dirac delta function is the Fourier transform of the plane wave function, and hence that:

\delta(x)=∫_{-∞}^{∞}e^{ikx}dk (eg Tannoudji et al 'Quantum Physics' Vol 1 p101 A-39)

Hence it should be the case that ∫_{-∞}^{∞}e^{ik}dk = \delta(1) = 0

However the integral on the LHS does not even seem to exist, let alone equal zero. We can write:

∫_{-∞}^{∞}e^{ik}dk = ∫_{-∞}^{∞}cos(k)+i sin(k) dk

= ∫_{-∞}^{∞}cos(k)dk+i ∫_{-∞}^{∞}sin(k)dk

and neither of these integrals exist.

Yet, based on the Fourier argument, they must both exist and equal zero.

I have probably done something silly to get myself into this contradiction. Can somebody please help me by showing what it is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are a number of things going on here I don't really understand but chronologically why does delta(1)=0? Also there is nothing trivial about a Dirac delta function, it's always been a trouble maker in terms of rigorous mathematics.
 
andrewkirk said:
I have probably done something silly to get myself into this contradiction. Can somebody please help me by showing what it is?
It seems you're missing the crucial piece of information that the Dirac delta is not an ordinary function in the usual sense. Rather it's a generalized function known as a "linear functional" or "distribution".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_(mathematics)

It only makes mathematical sense when integrated with another function, e.g.,
$$
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!\! dx f(x) \delta(x-a) ~=~ f(a)
$$
 
andrewkirk said:
Hence it should be the case that ∫_{-∞}^{∞}e^{ik}dk = \delta(1) = 0

Rigorously, the dirac delta function is actually a distribution, not a function. Even still, you can do a bit of 'physics math' by adding a term like -epsilon*k^2 to the exponential in the integral to help it converge, and then limiting it away after the calculation.
 
That is indeed the Cauchy principle value of the integral, so you can at least make some sense of what you got.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top