I Is the Kroneker Delta Identity Used Correctly in this Paper?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the correct application of the Kronecker delta identity in a paper, specifically questioning the identity $$ \delta^3 (k) \delta^3 (k) = \frac{2\pi^2}{k^3} ~ \delta (k_1- k_2) $$ and its implications for wave numbers k, k1, and k2. It highlights the importance of distinguishing between the Kronecker delta, which applies to discrete variables, and the Dirac delta function, which is used for continuous variables. The left-hand side of the equation is dimensionally inconsistent with the right-hand side, raising concerns about the validity of the identity. Furthermore, it is noted that squaring the Dirac delta function is nonsensical, indicating a potential error in the paper. The conclusion emphasizes that the paper does not contain the erroneous formula in question.
Safinaz
Messages
255
Reaction score
8
TL;DR
A question about a Kroneker Delta identity
Is there a Kroneker Delta identity:

$$ \delta^3 (k) \delta^3 (k) = \frac{2\pi^2}{k^3} ~ \delta (k_1- k_2) $$?

Where k is a wave number. In this Paper: Equations 26 and 27, I think this identity is used to make ##k_1=k_2## and there is an extra negative sign.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could you tell us what is the relation among k, k_1 and k_2 ?
Assuming they have same dimension k, dimension of LHS is k^-6 that of RHS is k^-4. They do not coincide.
 
Last edited:
First of all you must clearly distinguish between a Kronecker (sic!) ##\delta## and Dirac ##\delta## distributions, which refers to discrete variables, i.e.,
$$\delta_{k_1 k_2}=\begin{cases} 1 &\text{for} \quad k_1=k_2, \\
0 &\text{for} k_1 \neq k_2. \end{cases}
$$
Then you have ##\delta_{k_1k_2}^2=\delta_{k_1 k_2}##.

For Dirac-##\delta## distributions the square doesn't make any sense. Whenever it occurs somewhere, the authors make a mistake. In the paper you linked, nowhere is such a non-sensical formula though!
 
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...