Prove a formula with Dirac Delta

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Laplacian of the function \( \frac{1}{r} \) in spherical coordinates is expressed as \( \left(\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial r^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial }{\partial r}\right)\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)=-\frac{\delta(r)}{r^2} \). This result is derived using Gauss' law, which indicates that the divergence is zero except at \( r=0 \), where it becomes undefined. The discussion highlights the necessity of the Dirac Delta function to account for the behavior at the origin, with the correct interpretation involving a factor of \( -4\pi \) when integrating over a small volume.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of spherical coordinates in calculus
  • Familiarity with the Dirac Delta function and its properties
  • Knowledge of Gauss' law in electromagnetism
  • Basic concepts of differential operators and distributions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Gauss' law in three-dimensional space
  • Learn about the properties and applications of the Dirac Delta function
  • Explore the derivation of the Laplacian in spherical coordinates
  • Investigate the role of distributions in mathematical physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students studying electromagnetism or mathematical analysis, particularly those interested in the applications of the Dirac Delta function and differential equations in spherical coordinates.

Salmone
Messages
101
Reaction score
13
Why is the Laplacian of ##1/r## in spherical coordinates proportional to Dirac's Delta, namely:

##\left(\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial r^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial }{\partial r}\right)\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)=-\frac{\delta(r)}{r^2}##

I get that the result is zero.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe there should be a ## 4 \pi ## on the right side. (Edit: See post 4. What they have is correct.) I have seen this result in E&M books, e.g. Classical Dynamics by J.D. Jackson, but I have forgotten the details of the proof... I think it might be an application of Gauss' law to a small sphere centered at the origin. In addition, the gradient on ## 1/r ## gives ##- (1/r^2) \hat{a}_r##, and when the ## \nabla \cdot ## is done on this and then integrated over the small sphere (in ## d \tau ## about the origin), the result is that it needs the delta function, because the volume integral by Gauss' law then integrates the function over the surface of the small sphere and gives a ## 4 \pi ## result.

See https://www.therightgate.com/deriving-divergence-in-cylindrical-and-spherical/
The divergence will be zero except for ## r=0 ## where it will be undefined. Gauss' law then tells what it needs to be at ## r=0 ##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Salmone
Salmone said:
Why is the Laplacian of ##1/r## in spherical coordinates proportional to Dirac's Delta, namely:

##\left(\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial r^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial }{\partial r}\right)\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)=-\frac{\delta(r)}{r^2}##

I get that the result is zero.
If you read the LHS as differential operators, then the result is zero. The interesting part is the RHS. What does ##\delta (r) ## stand for? If it is a distribution, then ##\delta (r)=r(0)=0## and everything is fine. But then you have to read the LHS as distribution, too. However, I cannot explain it without further information about the definition of ##\delta (r).##

@Charles Link The ##\pi## factor is a convention for Fourier transforms according to Wikipedia.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Salmone
Looking at it more closely, I remember ## - 4 \pi \delta^3(\vec{r}) ## for the right hand side.

Edit: and what they have I think is consistent with this. Integrating their RHS over a small volume will have ## d \tau= 4 \pi r^2 \, dr ##, and it will integrate to ## - 4 \pi ##, just as it should. They use a one dimensional delta function, where mine is 3D.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Salmone

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K