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

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thatboi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dirac delta Identity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on verifying the Dirac Delta identity as applied in Fetter and Walecka's formula, specifically below equation (12.38). The participants confirm that the identity ##\delta(ax) = |a|^{-1}\delta(x)## is correctly utilized, but raise concerns about missing factors of ##\frac{1}{k_{F}^2}## in the expressions involving ##\textbf{q}\cdot\textbf{k} - \frac{1}{2}q^{2}##. The derived expression for ##\delta(q_0 - \omega_{\boldsymbol{qk}})## is confirmed as ##\frac{m}{\hbar k_F^2} \delta \left (\nu - \frac{\boldsymbol{q} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} + q^2/2}{k_F^2} \right)##, indicating a correct application of the delta function in this context.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Dirac Delta functions
  • Familiarity with Fetter and Walecka's theoretical framework
  • Knowledge of quantum mechanics, specifically wave functions
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical manipulation of equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Dirac Delta function in quantum mechanics
  • Review Fetter and Walecka's derivations in detail, focusing on equation (12.38)
  • Explore the implications of the ##k_F## parameter in quantum systems
  • Learn about the application of delta functions in various physical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, graduate students in quantum mechanics, and researchers working with Fetter and Walecka's models will benefit from this discussion.

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
$$\delta(q_0-\omega_{\boldsymbol{qk}})=\delta \left (\frac{\hbar k_F^2}{m} \nu -\frac{\hbar}{m} (\boldsymbol{q} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} + \frac{1}{2} q^2) \right)=\frac{m}{\hbar k_F^2} \delta \left (\nu- \frac{\boldsymbol{q} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} + q^2/2}{k_F^2} \right).$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K