Dirac delta integral form proof












5












$begingroup$


While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:




begin{align*}
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
&= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
\
&= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
+ int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
right].
end{align*}
The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
$$
int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
= lim_{epsilon to 0}
left[
frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
right]
= lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
= 2 pi delta(x).
$$
(Original image here.)




I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.






dirac-delta







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    5












    $begingroup$


    While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:




    begin{align*}
    int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
    &= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
    + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
    \
    &= lim_{epsilon to 0}
    left[
    int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
    + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
    right].
    end{align*}
    The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
    $$
    int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
    = lim_{epsilon to 0}
    left[
    frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
    right]
    = lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
    = 2 pi delta(x).
    $$
    (Original image here.)




    I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.






    dirac-delta







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      5












      5








      5


      4



      $begingroup$


      While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:




      begin{align*}
      int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      &= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
      \
      &= lim_{epsilon to 0}
      left[
      int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
      + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
      right].
      end{align*}
      The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
      $$
      int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      = lim_{epsilon to 0}
      left[
      frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
      right]
      = lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
      = 2 pi delta(x).
      $$
      (Original image here.)




      I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.






      dirac-delta







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      While reading the book "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill, on page 13 I've encountered a Dirac function integral representation. The proof the book provides is the following:




      begin{align*}
      int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      &= int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ikx}
      \
      &= lim_{epsilon to 0}
      left[
      int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{ik(x+iepsilon)}
      + int_0^infty text{d}k, e^{-ik(x-iepsilon)}
      right].
      end{align*}
      The convergence factors make the integrands zero at the upper limit, so
      $$
      int_{-infty}^infty text{d}k, e^{ikx}
      = lim_{epsilon to 0}
      left[
      frac{i}{x + i epsilon} - frac{i}{x - i epsilon}
      right]
      = lim_{epsilon to 0} frac{2 epsilon}{x^2 + epsilon^2}
      = 2 pi delta(x).
      $$
      (Original image here.)




      I don’t see how the convergence makes the first term inside the limit vanish at the upper limit. I can understand the rest from there as the the $k$-independent factor appears while integrating and the final conclussion is from one of the informal dirac delta definitions.






      dirac-delta




      dirac-delta






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Sep 26 '18 at 20:33









      Mefitico

      1,087118




      1,087118










      asked Feb 12 '15 at 22:04









      Mark A. RuizMark A. Ruiz

      9119




      9119






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          Looking at the first one:



          $$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$



          Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.



          The second one is basically the same.



          Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:20










          • $begingroup$
            Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
            $endgroup$
            – Ian
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:38












          • $begingroup$
            Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
            $endgroup$
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:56











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1145718%2fdirac-delta-integral-form-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0












          $begingroup$

          Looking at the first one:



          $$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$



          Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.



          The second one is basically the same.



          Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:20










          • $begingroup$
            Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
            $endgroup$
            – Ian
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:38












          • $begingroup$
            Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
            $endgroup$
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
















          0












          $begingroup$

          Looking at the first one:



          $$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$



          Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.



          The second one is basically the same.



          Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:20










          • $begingroup$
            Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
            $endgroup$
            – Ian
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:38












          • $begingroup$
            Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
            $endgroup$
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:56














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          Looking at the first one:



          $$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$



          Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.



          The second one is basically the same.



          Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Looking at the first one:



          $$int_0^infty dk e^{ik(x+i epsilon)} = int_0^infty dk e^{ikx} e^{-k epsilon}.$$



          Now $e^{ikx}$ is bounded in modulus while $e^{-k epsilon}$ (for fixed $epsilon$) decays exponentially in modulus. So the integral converges by comparison to $int_0^infty dk e^{-k epsilon}$.



          The second one is basically the same.



          Note that the first step is quite informal (one cannot justify it by the application of some convergence theorem which can be formulated without distribution theory.) I think you might get more insight by looking at a formal definition of the Fourier transform on tempered distributions. The formal definition is quite simple, and the desired statement (that the Fourier transform of the Dirac delta is a constant function) follows quite easily from it.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Feb 12 '15 at 22:18

























          answered Feb 12 '15 at 22:11









          IanIan

          68.2k25388




          68.2k25388












          • $begingroup$
            I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:20










          • $begingroup$
            Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
            $endgroup$
            – Ian
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:38












          • $begingroup$
            Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
            $endgroup$
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:56


















          • $begingroup$
            I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
            $endgroup$
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:20










          • $begingroup$
            Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
            $endgroup$
            – Ian
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:38












          • $begingroup$
            Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
            $endgroup$
            – Mark A. Ruiz
            Feb 12 '15 at 23:56
















          $begingroup$
          I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
          $endgroup$
          – Mark A. Ruiz
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:20




          $begingroup$
          I missed looking at the modolus. Can you recomend me some literature on the subject? Had very little exposition to distributions formally as a physicist.
          $endgroup$
          – Mark A. Ruiz
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:20












          $begingroup$
          Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
          $endgroup$
          – Ian
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:38






          $begingroup$
          Consider volume 1 of Hormander's The analysis of partial differential equations. The notes for my current course are from there (I can check as to whether I am allowed to simply share them).
          $endgroup$
          – Ian
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:38














          $begingroup$
          Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
          $endgroup$
          – Mark A. Ruiz
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:56




          $begingroup$
          Would greatly apreaciate if so. Looking foward to that
          $endgroup$
          – Mark A. Ruiz
          Feb 12 '15 at 23:56


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1145718%2fdirac-delta-integral-form-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

          Image
          3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question ...
          Read more

          Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

          Image
          0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"...
          Read more

          Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

          Image
          up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx...
          Read more