Poisson equation with a dirac delta source.

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
6 replies · 5K views
Coffee_
Messages
259
Reaction score
2
Consider:

##\nabla^{2} V(\vec{r})= \delta(\vec{r})##

By taking the Fourier transform, the differential equation dissapears. Then by transforming that expression back I find something like ##V(r) \sim \frac{1}{r}##.

I seem to have lost the homogeneous solutions in this process. Where does this happen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks. Maybe you could get this one as well since you already bothered to answer so I don't have to make another post:

What's the difference in the evolution of ##f## for ##t>0## between saying

1) ##\partial_{x}^{2} f - \frac{1}{c^{2}} \partial_{t}^{2}f = -\delta(x) \delta(t)## where nothing is happening before ##t=0##

2) ##\partial_{x}^{2} f - \frac{1}{c^{2}} \partial_{t}^{2}f = 0 ## and to impose a delta peak as initial condition?
 
I was talking about the condition on ##f##, the derivative condition is zero everywhere.

Is it correct to say that the first expression is more general. It can encompass the state of the system at ##t<0##. For example, if an oscillatory motion already exists before this delta peak, this expression can still be in agreement with it.

The second one is only a description for ##t>0## of a special case of the above description (namely, when everything is zero before the delta peak).
 
Well, it's all correct with your calculation of the Green function of the Laplace operator. The solution is not square integrable, because it's a distribution and not a function since the source is already a distribution. The Green's function in fact is
$$G(\vec{x})=-\frac{1}{4\pi |\vec{x}|} \; \Leftrightarrow \; \Delta G(\vec{x})=\delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}).$$