Dirac Delta function as a Fourier transform

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Dirac delta function and its relationship with the Fourier transform of the plane wave function. Participants explore the mathematical implications and challenges of interpreting integrals involving the Dirac delta function, particularly in the context of Fourier transforms and convergence issues.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims that the Dirac delta function can be shown to be the Fourier transform of the plane wave function, leading to the assertion that the integral of the exponential function should equal zero.
  • Another participant questions the validity of the statement that δ(1) = 0 and notes the complexities surrounding the Dirac delta function in rigorous mathematics.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the Dirac delta function is a generalized function or distribution, which only makes sense when integrated with another function.
  • One participant suggests modifying the integral by adding a term to help it converge, indicating a method to handle the integral more rigorously.
  • Another participant acknowledges the Cauchy principal value of the integral, suggesting a way to interpret the results obtained.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the Dirac delta function and the validity of certain integrals. There is no consensus on the resolution of the contradictions presented, and multiple competing interpretations remain.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the understanding of the Dirac delta function as a distribution rather than a conventional function, and the challenges in rigorously defining integrals involving it. The conversation also touches on convergence issues related to the integrals discussed.

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.
 

Similar threads

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