What is the purpose of the Dirac delta function in three dimensions?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the purpose and properties of the Dirac delta function in three dimensions, particularly in the context of integration and its behavior when applied to functions. Participants explore its mathematical implications and relationships to one-dimensional cases.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the Dirac delta function in 3D and questions the integral of a function involving the delta function, suggesting it should pick out specific values.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on the integration variables being used in the examples provided.
  • A participant suggests that the notation implies integrating over the variable associated with the delta function, indicating that the delta function is used to sum contributions from other points.
  • There is a discussion about the equivalence of expressions involving the delta function, where participants propose that both (x-a) and (a-x) yield the same result in the context of the delta function.
  • Some participants emphasize that the Dirac delta function only has meaning within an integral, reiterating that it is zero unless its argument is zero.
  • There is a clarification that the integral of a function multiplied by the delta function results in the function evaluated at the point where the delta function is non-zero.
  • One participant concludes that the key aspect of the Dirac delta function is to satisfy its definition, being infinite at a specific point while integrating to one over all space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the Dirac delta function in three dimensions, and multiple viewpoints regarding its properties and applications remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about integration limits and the notation used, indicating potential limitations in understanding the mathematical framework being discussed.

quietrain
Messages
648
Reaction score
2
i don't really understand the dirac delta function in 3D.

is it right that integral of f(r)d3(r-a)dt = f(a)

where a = constant ,r is like variable x in 1D dirac delta function?




so why when i have f(r')d3(r-r') , it picks out f(r)?

where r is now a constant and r' is a variable

shouldn't it be f(r')d3(r'-r), then it picks out f(r) ?

it is as though saying that (r-r') = (r'-r) when we use dirac delta function?

thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What are your integration variables in each case?
 
there is like no limits? i don't know. on the 2nd line, it picks out r...

dirac.jpg
 
Ah, I'm almost certain you've got Griffiths there. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that [tex]d\tau[/tex] is ranging over the r' though I'm not familiar with the notation. But it would make sense if 'r' is the position we're interested in knowing the potential at we'd want to add up (i.e. integrate) all the contributions from other points (the r').

So a 1-d version would look like:

[tex] \int \rho(x')\delta(x-x')dx' = \rho(x)[/tex]
 
but i thought the dirac delta function works like this

f(x)d(x-a), it picks out f(a)

so from your 1d example, you mean it also works like this

f(x)d(a-x) = f(a)

so mathematically, the (x-a) or (a-x) are equal in the dirac delta function?

(x-a) is just a shift of the axis right? where a is constant, meaning it shifts the x-axis towards +a right?

so (a-x) is also a shift of axis? so now it shifts the axis in +a or -a?
 
quietrain said:
but i thought the dirac delta function works like this

f(x)d(x-a), it picks out f(a)

It doesn't make sense to write the delta function outside of an integral. It only has meaning inside of an integral. So yes,

[tex] \int_{b_1}^{b_2} f(x)\delta(x-a)dx=f(a)[/tex]

if [tex]a\in[b_1,b_2][/tex]

so from your 1d example, you mean it also works like this

f(x)d(a-x) = f(a)

so mathematically, the (x-a) or (a-x) are equal in the dirac delta function?
In both cases the delta function is zero unless x=a
(x-a) is just a shift of the axis right? where a is constant, meaning it shifts the x-axis towards +a right?

so (a-x) is also a shift of axis? so now it shifts the axis in +a or -a?

x-a is a shift right by a, and a-x=-x+a is a reflection of the x-axis and then a shift left (which means a shift right). But just try to see it this way, the integral is zero unless the argument of the delta function is zero. That happens when (above) x=a. But notice that:

[tex] <br /> \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x)\delta(x+a)dx=f(-a)<br /> [/tex]

I can do that without thinking about how the function's been shifted but rather just seeing where the delta function is equal to zero. Its the same in 3D. When is [tex]\vec{r}-\vec{r'}=\vec{0}[/tex] same time that [tex]\vec{r'}-\vec{r}=\vec{0}[/tex]
 
homology said:
It doesn't make sense to write the delta function outside of an integral. It only has meaning inside of an integral. So yes,

[tex] \int_{b_1}^{b_2} f(x)\delta(x-a)dx=f(a)[/tex]

if [tex]a\in[b_1,b_2][/tex]


In both cases the delta function is zero unless x=a


x-a is a shift right by a, and a-x=-x+a is a reflection of the x-axis and then a shift left (which means a shift right). But just try to see it this way, the integral is zero unless the argument of the delta function is zero. That happens when (above) x=a. But notice that:

[tex] <br /> \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x)\delta(x+a)dx=f(-a)<br /> [/tex]

I can do that without thinking about how the function's been shifted but rather just seeing where the delta function is equal to zero. Its the same in 3D. When is [tex]\vec{r}-\vec{r'}=\vec{0}[/tex] same time that [tex]\vec{r'}-\vec{r}=\vec{0}[/tex]



OH i see . so the crux is just to make the dirac delta function 0 so that it satisfy the definition that it is infinity at that point and the integral over all space is thus 1.

thank you very much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
12K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K