Proving the Limit of Dirac Delta from Normal Distribution

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


How would one show that dirac delta is the limit of the normal distribution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta
using the definition \delta(k) = 1/(2\pi)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{ikx}dx

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Equality for distributions is defined pointwise. You just have to prove you get the same value if you convolve either one with a test function. I.E. for any test function f, you have to prove

<br /> \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \delta(k) f(k) \, dk<br /> =<br /> \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}<br /> e^{ikx} f(k) \, dk \, dx<br />
 
One way (not so rigorous mathematically) to define the delta function is that it is a function that satisfies \delta(x)=0 if x\ne 0, and \textstyle \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx\;\delta(x)=1. So you need to show (1) that the limit of the normal distribution has these properties, and (2) that \textstyle{1\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dk\;e^{ikx} has these properties. Part (1) is easy. Amusingly, the easiest way to do part (2) is to define it by inserting a convergence factor of \exp(-\epsilon^2 k^2/2) into the integrand, which turns it into a normal distribution that becomes a delta function in the limit \epsilon\to 0.
 
Oh, hah, I misread the problem. I thought the equation the OP posted was the equation he wanted to prove.

The idea is the same, though. For a distribution F(_) and a family of distributions G(_, y), to prove

<br /> F(x) = \lim_{y \rightarrow 0} G(x, y)<br />

you have to show

<br /> \int F(x) f(x) \, dx = \lim_{y \rightarrow 0} \int G(x, y) f(x) \, dx<br />
 
Can I choose any f(x)?
 
It has to be infinitely differentiable, or something like that (not up on my rigorous defs, sorry), but otherwise yes.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top