Computing (distributional) gradient of a singular function












1












$begingroup$


This question could well belong better to the physics stackexchange, but I'm hoping that posting it here could give me a more mathematical perspective.



I am trying to find the expression for the electric field of a point dipole $vec{d}$, which I have figured out the expression for its potential to be $phi = frac{vec{d}cdotvec{r}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}$. To find the electric field I need to take its gradient, to which I get:
begin{align}
vec{E} = -nablaphi = frac{3(vec{d}cdothat{r})hat{r}-vec{d}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}
end{align}



However I was told that the expression is not valid at the origin, and one has to add a correction term:
begin{align}
vec{E} = -nablaphi = frac{3(vec{d}cdothat{r})hat{r}-vec{d}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}-frac{4pi}{3}delta^3(vec{r})vec{d},
end{align}
where $delta^3(vec{r})$ is the three dimensional dirac delta function. Could someone explain the reasoning behind this? Does this have something to do with ensuring that $vec{E}$ acts correctly on the some space of compactly supported functions?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Similar Phys.SE question: physics.stackexchange.com/q/432827/2451
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Jan 21 at 12:19
















1












$begingroup$


This question could well belong better to the physics stackexchange, but I'm hoping that posting it here could give me a more mathematical perspective.



I am trying to find the expression for the electric field of a point dipole $vec{d}$, which I have figured out the expression for its potential to be $phi = frac{vec{d}cdotvec{r}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}$. To find the electric field I need to take its gradient, to which I get:
begin{align}
vec{E} = -nablaphi = frac{3(vec{d}cdothat{r})hat{r}-vec{d}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}
end{align}



However I was told that the expression is not valid at the origin, and one has to add a correction term:
begin{align}
vec{E} = -nablaphi = frac{3(vec{d}cdothat{r})hat{r}-vec{d}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}-frac{4pi}{3}delta^3(vec{r})vec{d},
end{align}
where $delta^3(vec{r})$ is the three dimensional dirac delta function. Could someone explain the reasoning behind this? Does this have something to do with ensuring that $vec{E}$ acts correctly on the some space of compactly supported functions?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Similar Phys.SE question: physics.stackexchange.com/q/432827/2451
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Jan 21 at 12:19














1












1








1





$begingroup$


This question could well belong better to the physics stackexchange, but I'm hoping that posting it here could give me a more mathematical perspective.



I am trying to find the expression for the electric field of a point dipole $vec{d}$, which I have figured out the expression for its potential to be $phi = frac{vec{d}cdotvec{r}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}$. To find the electric field I need to take its gradient, to which I get:
begin{align}
vec{E} = -nablaphi = frac{3(vec{d}cdothat{r})hat{r}-vec{d}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}
end{align}



However I was told that the expression is not valid at the origin, and one has to add a correction term:
begin{align}
vec{E} = -nablaphi = frac{3(vec{d}cdothat{r})hat{r}-vec{d}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}-frac{4pi}{3}delta^3(vec{r})vec{d},
end{align}
where $delta^3(vec{r})$ is the three dimensional dirac delta function. Could someone explain the reasoning behind this? Does this have something to do with ensuring that $vec{E}$ acts correctly on the some space of compactly supported functions?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




This question could well belong better to the physics stackexchange, but I'm hoping that posting it here could give me a more mathematical perspective.



I am trying to find the expression for the electric field of a point dipole $vec{d}$, which I have figured out the expression for its potential to be $phi = frac{vec{d}cdotvec{r}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}$. To find the electric field I need to take its gradient, to which I get:
begin{align}
vec{E} = -nablaphi = frac{3(vec{d}cdothat{r})hat{r}-vec{d}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}
end{align}



However I was told that the expression is not valid at the origin, and one has to add a correction term:
begin{align}
vec{E} = -nablaphi = frac{3(vec{d}cdothat{r})hat{r}-vec{d}}{4pi|vec{r}|^3}-frac{4pi}{3}delta^3(vec{r})vec{d},
end{align}
where $delta^3(vec{r})$ is the three dimensional dirac delta function. Could someone explain the reasoning behind this? Does this have something to do with ensuring that $vec{E}$ acts correctly on the some space of compactly supported functions?







functional-analysis physics distribution-theory dirac-delta electromagnetism






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 21 at 12:21









Qmechanic

5,08211856




5,08211856










asked Jan 21 at 7:15









Zhanfeng LimZhanfeng Lim

463316




463316








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Similar Phys.SE question: physics.stackexchange.com/q/432827/2451
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Jan 21 at 12:19














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Similar Phys.SE question: physics.stackexchange.com/q/432827/2451
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Jan 21 at 12:19








1




1




$begingroup$
Similar Phys.SE question: physics.stackexchange.com/q/432827/2451
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic
Jan 21 at 12:19




$begingroup$
Similar Phys.SE question: physics.stackexchange.com/q/432827/2451
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic
Jan 21 at 12:19










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

From what I gathered when checking some sources, the dirac delta at the origin comes from an ad-hoc argument rather than anything mathematical (cf. also this preprint which shortly revises how one can justify the delta). Mathematically speaking, the mapping in question is
$$
phi_{vec d}: mathbb R^3setminuslbrace0rbracetomathbb R^3quadqquad vec rmapsto frac{langlevec d,vec rrangle}{4pi|vec r|^3}
$$

for some fix $vec dinmathbb R^3$ which is infinitely differentiable on the open set $mathbb R^3setminuslbrace0rbrace$ but can not be continuously extended to $mathbb R^3$ let alone be differentiated at the origin, unless we are in the trivial case $vec d=0$ (which we shall exclude explicitely for what follows).



At first glance it seems that $lim_{|vec r|to 0}phi_vec d(vec r)=infty$, so this is what we define as $phi_vec d(0)$ to in same rather "weird" way justify a delta "function" - this however is not true (check the example below). Even the limit $lim_{vec rto 0}|phi_{vec d}(vec r)|$ usually does not exist as it depends on the direction at which one approaches the origin.



To be more precise, as an example we may choose $vec d=(1,0,-1)$ so
$$
phi_{vec d}(r_1,r_2,r_3)=frac{r_1-r_3}{4pi(r_1^2+r_2^2+r_3^2)^{3/2}},.
$$

Choosing the real null sequences $vec r_n=(frac 1n,0,0)$, $vec s_n=(0,frac 1n,0)$ and $vec t_n=(0,0,frac1n)$ for $ninmathbb N$ yields
$$
lim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec r_n)= +inftyqquad lim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec s_n)=0 qquadlim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec t_n)= -infty
$$

so the path on which you approach the origin does matter for the limit (even for the limit of the absolute value $|phi_vec d(vec r)|$), which would not happen if the limit in question existed in the usual sense. Of course if there is no meaningful continuous extension of the mapping to the origin, speaking about differentiating it in the usual way is out of the question per se.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    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%2f3081591%2fcomputing-distributional-gradient-of-a-singular-function%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












    $begingroup$

    From what I gathered when checking some sources, the dirac delta at the origin comes from an ad-hoc argument rather than anything mathematical (cf. also this preprint which shortly revises how one can justify the delta). Mathematically speaking, the mapping in question is
    $$
    phi_{vec d}: mathbb R^3setminuslbrace0rbracetomathbb R^3quadqquad vec rmapsto frac{langlevec d,vec rrangle}{4pi|vec r|^3}
    $$

    for some fix $vec dinmathbb R^3$ which is infinitely differentiable on the open set $mathbb R^3setminuslbrace0rbrace$ but can not be continuously extended to $mathbb R^3$ let alone be differentiated at the origin, unless we are in the trivial case $vec d=0$ (which we shall exclude explicitely for what follows).



    At first glance it seems that $lim_{|vec r|to 0}phi_vec d(vec r)=infty$, so this is what we define as $phi_vec d(0)$ to in same rather "weird" way justify a delta "function" - this however is not true (check the example below). Even the limit $lim_{vec rto 0}|phi_{vec d}(vec r)|$ usually does not exist as it depends on the direction at which one approaches the origin.



    To be more precise, as an example we may choose $vec d=(1,0,-1)$ so
    $$
    phi_{vec d}(r_1,r_2,r_3)=frac{r_1-r_3}{4pi(r_1^2+r_2^2+r_3^2)^{3/2}},.
    $$

    Choosing the real null sequences $vec r_n=(frac 1n,0,0)$, $vec s_n=(0,frac 1n,0)$ and $vec t_n=(0,0,frac1n)$ for $ninmathbb N$ yields
    $$
    lim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec r_n)= +inftyqquad lim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec s_n)=0 qquadlim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec t_n)= -infty
    $$

    so the path on which you approach the origin does matter for the limit (even for the limit of the absolute value $|phi_vec d(vec r)|$), which would not happen if the limit in question existed in the usual sense. Of course if there is no meaningful continuous extension of the mapping to the origin, speaking about differentiating it in the usual way is out of the question per se.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      From what I gathered when checking some sources, the dirac delta at the origin comes from an ad-hoc argument rather than anything mathematical (cf. also this preprint which shortly revises how one can justify the delta). Mathematically speaking, the mapping in question is
      $$
      phi_{vec d}: mathbb R^3setminuslbrace0rbracetomathbb R^3quadqquad vec rmapsto frac{langlevec d,vec rrangle}{4pi|vec r|^3}
      $$

      for some fix $vec dinmathbb R^3$ which is infinitely differentiable on the open set $mathbb R^3setminuslbrace0rbrace$ but can not be continuously extended to $mathbb R^3$ let alone be differentiated at the origin, unless we are in the trivial case $vec d=0$ (which we shall exclude explicitely for what follows).



      At first glance it seems that $lim_{|vec r|to 0}phi_vec d(vec r)=infty$, so this is what we define as $phi_vec d(0)$ to in same rather "weird" way justify a delta "function" - this however is not true (check the example below). Even the limit $lim_{vec rto 0}|phi_{vec d}(vec r)|$ usually does not exist as it depends on the direction at which one approaches the origin.



      To be more precise, as an example we may choose $vec d=(1,0,-1)$ so
      $$
      phi_{vec d}(r_1,r_2,r_3)=frac{r_1-r_3}{4pi(r_1^2+r_2^2+r_3^2)^{3/2}},.
      $$

      Choosing the real null sequences $vec r_n=(frac 1n,0,0)$, $vec s_n=(0,frac 1n,0)$ and $vec t_n=(0,0,frac1n)$ for $ninmathbb N$ yields
      $$
      lim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec r_n)= +inftyqquad lim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec s_n)=0 qquadlim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec t_n)= -infty
      $$

      so the path on which you approach the origin does matter for the limit (even for the limit of the absolute value $|phi_vec d(vec r)|$), which would not happen if the limit in question existed in the usual sense. Of course if there is no meaningful continuous extension of the mapping to the origin, speaking about differentiating it in the usual way is out of the question per se.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        From what I gathered when checking some sources, the dirac delta at the origin comes from an ad-hoc argument rather than anything mathematical (cf. also this preprint which shortly revises how one can justify the delta). Mathematically speaking, the mapping in question is
        $$
        phi_{vec d}: mathbb R^3setminuslbrace0rbracetomathbb R^3quadqquad vec rmapsto frac{langlevec d,vec rrangle}{4pi|vec r|^3}
        $$

        for some fix $vec dinmathbb R^3$ which is infinitely differentiable on the open set $mathbb R^3setminuslbrace0rbrace$ but can not be continuously extended to $mathbb R^3$ let alone be differentiated at the origin, unless we are in the trivial case $vec d=0$ (which we shall exclude explicitely for what follows).



        At first glance it seems that $lim_{|vec r|to 0}phi_vec d(vec r)=infty$, so this is what we define as $phi_vec d(0)$ to in same rather "weird" way justify a delta "function" - this however is not true (check the example below). Even the limit $lim_{vec rto 0}|phi_{vec d}(vec r)|$ usually does not exist as it depends on the direction at which one approaches the origin.



        To be more precise, as an example we may choose $vec d=(1,0,-1)$ so
        $$
        phi_{vec d}(r_1,r_2,r_3)=frac{r_1-r_3}{4pi(r_1^2+r_2^2+r_3^2)^{3/2}},.
        $$

        Choosing the real null sequences $vec r_n=(frac 1n,0,0)$, $vec s_n=(0,frac 1n,0)$ and $vec t_n=(0,0,frac1n)$ for $ninmathbb N$ yields
        $$
        lim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec r_n)= +inftyqquad lim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec s_n)=0 qquadlim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec t_n)= -infty
        $$

        so the path on which you approach the origin does matter for the limit (even for the limit of the absolute value $|phi_vec d(vec r)|$), which would not happen if the limit in question existed in the usual sense. Of course if there is no meaningful continuous extension of the mapping to the origin, speaking about differentiating it in the usual way is out of the question per se.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        From what I gathered when checking some sources, the dirac delta at the origin comes from an ad-hoc argument rather than anything mathematical (cf. also this preprint which shortly revises how one can justify the delta). Mathematically speaking, the mapping in question is
        $$
        phi_{vec d}: mathbb R^3setminuslbrace0rbracetomathbb R^3quadqquad vec rmapsto frac{langlevec d,vec rrangle}{4pi|vec r|^3}
        $$

        for some fix $vec dinmathbb R^3$ which is infinitely differentiable on the open set $mathbb R^3setminuslbrace0rbrace$ but can not be continuously extended to $mathbb R^3$ let alone be differentiated at the origin, unless we are in the trivial case $vec d=0$ (which we shall exclude explicitely for what follows).



        At first glance it seems that $lim_{|vec r|to 0}phi_vec d(vec r)=infty$, so this is what we define as $phi_vec d(0)$ to in same rather "weird" way justify a delta "function" - this however is not true (check the example below). Even the limit $lim_{vec rto 0}|phi_{vec d}(vec r)|$ usually does not exist as it depends on the direction at which one approaches the origin.



        To be more precise, as an example we may choose $vec d=(1,0,-1)$ so
        $$
        phi_{vec d}(r_1,r_2,r_3)=frac{r_1-r_3}{4pi(r_1^2+r_2^2+r_3^2)^{3/2}},.
        $$

        Choosing the real null sequences $vec r_n=(frac 1n,0,0)$, $vec s_n=(0,frac 1n,0)$ and $vec t_n=(0,0,frac1n)$ for $ninmathbb N$ yields
        $$
        lim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec r_n)= +inftyqquad lim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec s_n)=0 qquadlim_{ntoinfty} phi_{vec d}(vec t_n)= -infty
        $$

        so the path on which you approach the origin does matter for the limit (even for the limit of the absolute value $|phi_vec d(vec r)|$), which would not happen if the limit in question existed in the usual sense. Of course if there is no meaningful continuous extension of the mapping to the origin, speaking about differentiating it in the usual way is out of the question per se.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 21 at 12:13

























        answered Jan 21 at 12:01









        Frederik vom EndeFrederik vom Ende

        7521321




        7521321






























            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%2f3081591%2fcomputing-distributional-gradient-of-a-singular-function%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

            Mario Kart Wii

            What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese