Deriving the Dirac Delta Function Equation in Field Theory

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the equation involving the Dirac delta function, specifically the expression δ(x-a) δ(x-a) = δ(0) δ(x-a), which participants find confusing. The integral definition of the delta function is referenced, leading to the conclusion that δ(0) arises from integrating the product of delta functions. Concerns are raised about the legitimacy of multiplying distributions like the delta function, as such operations are often inconsistent. The context of the equation is linked to calculations in quantum field theory, particularly in scattering amplitudes involving multiple delta functions. The importance of maintaining clear notation and the integral sign in these expressions is emphasized for clarity and consistency.
touqra
Messages
284
Reaction score
0
I found this equation in a field theory book, which I can't figure how it was derived:

\delta(x-a) \delta(x-a) = \delta(0) \delta(x-a)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
touqra said:
I found this equation in a field theory book, which I can't figure how it was derived:

\delta(x-a) \delta(x-a) = \delta(0) \delta(x-a)

From the definition of the delta function

<br /> \int_{ - \infty }^\infty {f(x)\delta (x - a)dx = f(a)} <br />

you get

<br /> \int_{ - \infty }^\infty {\delta (x - a)\delta (x - a)dx = \delta (a - a)} = \delta (0)<br />

I expect this is part of the answer.
 
Ugh. If that's supposed to be the dirac delta distribution, then both sides of that equation are gibberish. What is the context in which you saw it?
 
From what I know (very slightly!), products of distributions like the delta "function" cannot be defined in a consistent manner.
 
Hurkyl said:
Ugh. If that's supposed to be the dirac delta distribution, then both sides of that equation are gibberish. What is the context in which you saw it?

I was reading a section dealing with cross sections and scattering. He calculated some amplitude, A (first order) for a Feynman diagram which contains four 4-momentum delta functions. And with that amplitude, we need to get this invariant amplitude, iM which is the square of A.
Squaring A yields us 8 delta functions.
He states that 8 delta functions is bad news, and basically he gave a simple example, which was the one I posted in this forum.

It's from Gauge Theories in Particle Physics Volume I by I J R Aitchison, page 152.
 
Equations such as f(x) \delta(x-a) = f(a) are supposed to be read as \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x) \delta(x-a) dx= f(a), I think dropping the integral sign is just some sort of convention, not one I'm a fan of though... I think people keep swapping limits and integral signs too, I think things like that should be made more consistent, as you can't do stuff like that in general.

But yeah don't forget the integral sign!
 
delta(0) can sometimes be taken to mean the volume of space (with appropriate 2pi factors) in relating delta function normalization with box normalization.
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K