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!
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
4K