Prove a formula with Dirac Delta

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between the Laplacian of the function ##1/r## in spherical coordinates and the Dirac Delta function. Participants explore the implications of this relationship, particularly in the context of mathematical proofs and physical interpretations, including references to Gauss' law and the behavior of distributions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the Laplacian of ##1/r## is proportional to the Dirac Delta function, suggesting that the left-hand side results in zero.
  • Another participant proposes that the right-hand side should include a factor of ##4 \pi##, referencing its appearance in E&M texts and suggesting a connection to Gauss' law applied to a small sphere.
  • A different participant reiterates the question about the Laplacian and the Dirac Delta function, noting that if ##\delta(r)## is treated as a distribution, it leads to further questions about the interpretation of the left-hand side as a distribution as well.
  • One participant recalls the correct form as ##-4 \pi \delta^3(\vec{r})## and discusses the integration over a small volume, confirming that it aligns with their expectations regarding the result.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the presence of the ##4 \pi## factor and the interpretation of the Dirac Delta function in this context. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact formulation and implications of the Laplacian of ##1/r##.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of the Dirac Delta function and the treatment of distributions in the context of the Laplacian operator. The discussion also highlights the need for clarity on the dimensionality of the delta function being referenced.

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