I Understanding the Dirac Delta Identity to Fetter and Walecka's Formula

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on verifying a formula from Fetter and Walecka related to the Dirac delta function and its application in a specific context. The main concern is the apparent omission of factors of 1/k_F^2 in the expression involving q·k - 1/2q^2. The user derives a relationship for q_0 and subsequently applies the delta function identity, leading to a modified delta function expression. There is a suggestion that additional definitions may be necessary for complete understanding. The conversation highlights the complexities in applying the Dirac delta identity within the framework of the authors' formula.
thatboi
Messages
130
Reaction score
20
Hi all,
I'm trying to verify the following formula (from Fetter and Walecka, just below equation (12.38)) but it doesn't quite make sense to me:
1698982648509.png

where
1698982665862.png
and
1698982691234.png

The authors are using the fact that ##\delta(ax) = |a|^{-1}\delta(x)## but to me, it seems like the ##\textbf{q}\cdot\textbf{k}-\frac{1}{2}q^{2}## are missing factors of ##\frac{1}{k_{F}^2}## right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From the definition you copied you get
$$q_0=\frac{\hbar k_F^2 \nu}{m}$$ and thus
$$\delta(q_0-\omega_{\boldsymbol{qk}})=\delta \left (\frac{\hbar k_F^2}{m} \nu -\frac{\hbar}{m} (\boldsymbol{q} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} + \frac{1}{2} q^2) \right)=\frac{m}{\hbar k_F^2} \delta \left (\nu- \frac{\boldsymbol{q} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} + q^2/2}{k_F^2} \right).$$
 
vanhees71 said:
From the definition you copied you get
$$q_0=\frac{\hbar k_F^2 \nu}{m}$$ and thus
$$\delta(q_0-\omega_{\boldsymbol{qk}})=\delta \left (\frac{\hbar k_F^2}{m} \nu -\frac{\hbar}{m} (\boldsymbol{q} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} + \frac{1}{2} q^2) \right)=\frac{m}{\hbar k_F^2} \delta \left (\nu- \frac{\boldsymbol{q} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} + q^2/2}{k_F^2} \right).$$
Ok cool that was what I got as well. Perhaps I missed some other definition along the way.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...