Skip to main content
Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1567799912309428224
edited tags
Link
Qmechanic
  • 213.1k
  • 48
  • 590
  • 2.3k
Became Hot Network Question
added 5 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
Roger V.
  • 65.1k
  • 7
  • 69
  • 215

To what extendextent can we use the informal version of the Dirac delta function in Physics?

Apparently expressions such as $$ \int \delta (x) f(x)dx = f(0)\tag{1}$$ are widely used in Physics.

After a little discussion in the Math SE, I realizerealized that these expression are absolutely wrong from the mathematical point of view.

My question is: can this lack of rigourousnessrigorousness in Physics affect results (i.e. leading to mistakes or wrong results) or is it OK to use these expressions as long as we keep in mind that the diracDirac-delta function is a distribution?

PS: I'm adding an other example of fallacious expressions: the Fourier transform of the $\delta$ function being $1$ ($\hat \delta = 1$). It turns out the Fourier transform of the Dirac is not the function $1$, but the regular distribution associated with the function $1$.

To what extend can we use the informal version of the Dirac delta function in Physics?

Apparently expressions such as $$ \int \delta (x) f(x)dx = f(0)\tag{1}$$ are widely used in Physics.

After a little discussion in the Math SE, I realize these expression are absolutely wrong from the mathematical point of view.

My question is: can this lack of rigourousness in Physics affect results (i.e. leading to mistakes or wrong results) or is it OK to use these expressions as long as we keep in mind that the dirac-delta function is a distribution?

PS: I'm adding an other example of fallacious expressions: the Fourier transform of the $\delta$ function being $1$ ($\hat \delta = 1$). It turns out the Fourier transform of the Dirac is not the function $1$, but the regular distribution associated with the function $1$.

To what extent can we use the informal version of the Dirac delta function in Physics?

Apparently expressions such as $$ \int \delta (x) f(x)dx = f(0)\tag{1}$$ are widely used in Physics.

After a little discussion in the Math SE, I realized that these expression are absolutely wrong from the mathematical point of view.

My question is: can this lack of rigorousness in Physics affect results (i.e. leading to mistakes or wrong results) or is it OK to use these expressions as long as we keep in mind that the Dirac-delta function is a distribution?

PS: I'm adding an other example of fallacious expressions: the Fourier transform of the $\delta$ function being $1$ ($\hat \delta = 1$). It turns out the Fourier transform of the Dirac is not the function $1$, but the regular distribution associated with the function $1$.

added 11 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
Qmechanic
  • 213.1k
  • 48
  • 590
  • 2.3k

To what extend can we use the informal version of the Dirac delta function in Physics?

Apparently expressions such as $ \int \delta (x) f(x) = f(0)$$$ \int \delta (x) f(x)dx = f(0)\tag{1}$$ are widely used in Physics.

After a little discussion in the Math SE, I realize these expression are absolutely wrong from the mathematical point of view.

My question is: can this lack of rigourousness in Physics affect results (i.e. leading to mistakes or wrong results) or is it OK to use these expressions as long as we keep in mind that the dirac-delta function is a distribution  ?

PS: I'm adding an other example of fallacious expressions: the Fourier transform of the $\delta$ function being $1$ ($\hat \delta = 1$). It turns out the Fourier transform of the Dirac is not the function $1$, but the regular distribution associated with the function $1$.

To what extend can we use the informal version of the Dirac function in Physics?

Apparently expressions such as $ \int \delta (x) f(x) = f(0)$ are widely used in Physics.

After a little discussion in the Math SE, I realize these expression are absolutely wrong from the mathematical point of view.

My question is: can this lack of rigourousness in Physics affect results (i.e. leading to mistakes or wrong results) or is it OK to use these expressions as long as we keep in mind that the dirac-delta function is a distribution  ?

PS: I'm adding an other example of fallacious expressions: the Fourier transform of the $\delta$ function being $1$ ($\hat \delta = 1$). It turns out the Fourier transform of the Dirac is not the function $1$, but the regular distribution associated with the function $1$

To what extend can we use the informal version of the Dirac delta function in Physics?

Apparently expressions such as $$ \int \delta (x) f(x)dx = f(0)\tag{1}$$ are widely used in Physics.

After a little discussion in the Math SE, I realize these expression are absolutely wrong from the mathematical point of view.

My question is: can this lack of rigourousness in Physics affect results (i.e. leading to mistakes or wrong results) or is it OK to use these expressions as long as we keep in mind that the dirac-delta function is a distribution?

PS: I'm adding an other example of fallacious expressions: the Fourier transform of the $\delta$ function being $1$ ($\hat \delta = 1$). It turns out the Fourier transform of the Dirac is not the function $1$, but the regular distribution associated with the function $1$.

Source Link
niobium
  • 740
  • 3
  • 15
Loading