1
$\begingroup$

In electrostatics, we often encounter the following 3-dimensional integral: \begin{equation} V=\int d^{3}\vec{k}\,\dfrac{e^{i\vec{k}.\vec{r}}}{|\vec{k}|^{2}} \end{equation}

which yields the Coulomb potential, $V\simeq1/|\vec{r}|.$ In my current research, I am running into the following integral:

\begin{equation} U=\int d^{3}\vec{k}\,\dfrac{e^{i\vec{k}.\vec{r}}}{|\vec{k}|^{4}} \end{equation}

which is expected to produce a linear potential, i.e., $U\simeq|\vec{r}|$, based on dimensional ground. Direct integration does not work because the integral diverges.

Some source in the arxiv (see Equations (4.21) and (4.22) in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.07657.pdf) stated that the function $1/|\vec{k}|^{4}$ is interpreted as a generalized function and quoted a result: \begin{equation} U=-\pi^{2}|\vec{r}| \end{equation}

But the source did not provide a derivation or a hint. I understand that the integrand must be seen as some sort of "generalized" function to cure the divergence, but precisely how? I have been searching the internet, to no avail. Would you please kindly help give me a cue? Thank you. I appreciate.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am puzzled with the reference which you give. The integrand behaves as $k^{-4}$ at the origin since the exponential is $\sim1$. This is definitely not integrable, even marginally (I should admit a discussion if it was $k^{-3}$) and there is no possible cancellation. At least the authors should explain what they mean by the very vague xpression "generalized function". $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 21, 2022 at 7:19
  • $\begingroup$ Some remarks, hopefully helpful. By spherical symmetry, it süffifes to consider the one dimensional case, i.e., the functions $|x|^\alpha$ on the reals. In the classical framework, these present integrability problems either at $0$ or $\infty$ independent of the parameter. However they are always interpretable as distributions or generalised functions (not, with respect, a vague term but the standard soviet terminology), even tempered distributions and for these a coherent and elegant theory of Fourier transforms was developed by L. Schwartz right from the beginning. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 21, 2022 at 8:30
  • $\begingroup$ The good news is that the F.T. of a function of the above form is of the same nature. The best reference for you is probably the multi-volume "Generalised Functions" by Gelfand and Silov. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 21, 2022 at 8:33
  • $\begingroup$ Two remarks which might be helpful. Firsly, you can easily reduce to the one-dimensional case by the usual methods (spherical coordinates). Secondly, for any $\alpha$, $|x|^\alpha$ has a natural interpretation as a distribution and has a Fourier transform (in the sense of a distributional parametrised integral) which is, up to a factor which depends on $\alpha$, |x|^{-1-\alpha}$. This was all worked out (using elementary methods without functional analysis in the 50‘s and 60‘s). I would be happy to supply references. $\endgroup$
    – klempner
    Commented Dec 3, 2022 at 8:17

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

One way to make sense of this is to regularize the integrand, $$\begin{equation} U_\epsilon(\vec{r})=\int d^{3}\vec{k}\,\dfrac{e^{i\vec{k}.\vec{r}}}{|\vec{k}|^{2}}\frac{1}{|\vec{k}|^2+\epsilon^2},\;\;\epsilon>0. \end{equation}$$ This can now be evaluated straighforwardly, with the result $$U_\epsilon(\vec{r})=-\pi^2|\vec{r}|+\frac{2\pi^2}{\epsilon}+{\cal O}(\epsilon).$$ So this gives the expected linear potential, with an $\epsilon$-dependent offset that will have no effect on the force exerted by that potential.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ That is it. Thank you so much, Carlo. Following your cue, we may also consider 1/(k^2+epsilon^2)^2 then the result is pi^2*exp(-epsilon * r)/epsilon. Upon Taylor expanding exp(-epsilon * r), the term that is independent of epsilon is indeed -pi^2*r (consistent with yours). On the other hand, the divergent term is pi^2/epsilon and thus dependent on "regularization" scheme, which is expected. Thanks again! [Before posting my question, I had tried both ways, but I was too dumbstruck with the epsilon in the denominator that I failed to realize the Taylor expansion. Life is good.] $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 21, 2022 at 15:00
  • $\begingroup$ Carlo, I do find your comment on the force rather than the potential being the "real" thing that is measurable insightful... Indeed, if this question were raised to a mathematician, the divergence of U would overwhelm the physics behind it. Thank you again. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23, 2022 at 4:17
  • $\begingroup$ Could you provide some steps on how you are solving the regluarised integral? I seem to eventually get an integrand like $e^{ikr}/[k(k + ia)(k-ia)]$. But this doesn't give me the result you have. $\endgroup$
    – newtothis
    Commented Nov 22, 2022 at 8:47
  • $\begingroup$ @newtothis -- you need the integral $$\int_0^\infty \frac{\sin kr}{k(k^2+\epsilon^2)}\,dk=\pi\frac{1-e^{-\epsilon r}}{2\epsilon^2},$$ which you then expand in powers of $\epsilon$ to get the result in the answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2022 at 10:55
  • $\begingroup$ @CarloBeenakker, yes. I considered that as the imaginary part of the $e^{ikr}/(k(k+ia)(k-ia))$ but I still didn't get result. I was however, able to derive it by using a regularisation method mentioned by another commenter $e^{ikr}/(k^2 + a^2)^2$. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – newtothis
    Commented Nov 22, 2022 at 19:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .