Dirac delta function definition

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
By definition of the Dirac delta function, we have:

\int f(x) \delta(x-a) dx=f(a)

This is fair enough. But in ym notes there is a step that goes like the following:

\mathbf{\nabla} \wedge \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r})=-\frac{\mu_0}{4 \pi} \int_V dV' \nabla^2(\frac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'}|}) \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r'}) = \mu_0 \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r})

where we have used that \nabla^2(\frac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'}|}) =-4 \pi \delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'})

clearly the minus signs and the 4 \pi's cancel so it's now just

\mathbf{\nabla} \wedge \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r})=\mu_0 \int_V dV' \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r'}) \delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'})

i don't see how that goes from there to give \mu_0 \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r}) as we are integrating with respect to V' are we not? and so i would assume that the delta function would need to be of the form \delta(\mathbf{r'}-\mathbf{r}) in order to give the desired answer.

the onnly explanation i can come up with is that \delta(\mathbf{r'}-\mathbf{r})=\delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'}) since the delta function is symmetric about the spike. however the spike would be at different positions in these two cases. I'm kind of lost-any advice?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
latentcorpse said:
the onnly explanation i can come up with is that \delta(\mathbf{r'}-\mathbf{r})=\delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'}) since the delta function is symmetric about the spike.

Yes, that's true.

however the spike would be at different positions in these two cases. I'm kind of lost-any advice?

No, the delta function has a spike whenever it's argument is zero. In both cases this occurs at r=r'.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top