Is the Gradient of Dirac Delta Independent of the Coordinate System?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the independence of the gradient of the Dirac delta function from the coordinate system used. Participants explore the mathematical implications of this independence, particularly in the context of vector calculus and distribution theory.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Ian questions whether the gradient of the Dirac delta function is independent of the coordinate system, presenting a specific equation for consideration.
  • Some participants note the importance of minus signs in the context of gradients when changing variables.
  • One participant suggests considering a more general case involving arbitrary functions of a vector to understand the relationship between gradients with respect to different variables.
  • A later reply provides an integration-based argument to show that the gradient of the Dirac delta function with respect to one variable is the negative of the gradient with respect to another variable.
  • There is a request for clarification regarding a potential typo in the integration argument, highlighting confusion about the placement of functions within the integral.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the initial equation and the implications of the gradient's behavior under coordinate transformations. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple perspectives on the mathematical treatment of the Dirac delta function.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the need for careful handling of integration by parts and the definitions of distributions, indicating that assumptions about the functions involved may affect the conclusions drawn.

IanBerkman
Messages
52
Reaction score
1
Dear all,

I have a quick question, is the following statement true?
$$\nabla_\textbf{x'} \delta(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x'}) = \nabla_\textbf{x} \delta(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x'})?$$

I thought I have seen this somewhere before, but I could not remember where and why.
I know the identity ##d/dx \delta(x) = \delta(x)/x## but I do not see how to implement this into the above equation.

Thanks in advance,

Ian
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I suggest you think about the more general question when you replace the delta by an arbitrary function of a vector, i.e., how is the gradient of f(x-x') wrt x related to its derivative wrt x'?
 
BvU said:
I'm missing the minus signs...

Orodruin said:
I suggest you think about the more general question when you replace the delta by an arbitrary function of a vector, i.e., how is the gradient of f(x-x') wrt x related to its derivative wrt x'?

.For a general function the answer is ##\nabla'f(x-x')=-\nabla f(x-x')##. I was too distracted with the delta function itself, this also explains the minus sign
 
To check, what's right, you need to remember the meaning of the ##\delta## distribution. It's a functional acting on an appropriate set of test functions (e.g., the smooth functions with compact support, ##C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3)##. Then you have by definition [corrected due to #7 and #8]
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}' \vec{\nabla}_x \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}') f(\vec{x}')=\vec{\nabla}_x \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}' \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}') f(\vec{x}')=\vec{\nabla}_x f(\vec{x}).$$
On the other hand, via integration by parts,
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}' \vec{\nabla}_{x'} \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}') f(\vec{x}')=-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}' \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}') \vec{\nabla}_{x'} f(\vec{x}')=-\vec{\nabla}_{x} f(\vec{x}).$$
Thus comparing the two formulae tells you
$$\vec{\nabla}_x \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}')=-\vec{\nabla}_{x'} \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}').$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: IanBerkman
It is clear now, thank you.
 
Groleix said:
dear vahnees71, i don't understant the first equation you write. on LHS you write f(x-x'), while on RHS you write f(x') under the integrand, why so ? How can we manage to put the gradient out of the integral without involving integration by parts ?
Thank you !
Both cases should be f(x').
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Groleix
Orodruin said:
Both cases should be f(x').
Of course, it's a stupid typo. I'll correct it right now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K