Prove a formula with Dirac Delta

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
3 replies · 2K views
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:
Reply
  • 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.
 
Reply
  • 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:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Salmone