Dirac Delta function as a Fourier transform

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Dirac delta function is established as the Fourier transform of the plane wave function, represented mathematically as δ(x) = ∫_{-∞}^{∞} e^{ikx} dk. The integral ∫_{-∞}^{∞} e^{ik} dk does not exist in the conventional sense, leading to confusion regarding the assertion that δ(1) = 0. The Dirac delta function is classified as a generalized function or distribution, which only holds meaning when integrated with another function. To resolve convergence issues in integrals involving the Dirac delta function, one can introduce a damping term, such as -εk², to facilitate calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fourier transforms and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concept of distributions in mathematics
  • Knowledge of complex analysis, particularly integrals involving exponential functions
  • Basic grasp of Cauchy principal value in integral calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Dirac delta function as a distribution
  • Learn about convergence techniques in improper integrals
  • Explore the Cauchy principal value and its applications in complex analysis
  • Investigate the relationship between Fourier transforms and generalized functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying advanced calculus or quantum mechanics who seek a deeper understanding of the Dirac delta function and its implications in Fourier analysis.

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.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
877
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K