Just to clarify the title before I start, there are some "fuzzy" words that I want to get out of the way:

  1. Divergence here is in the sense of the divergence theorem, the operator sometimes written $\operatorname{div} \vec F = \nabla \cdot \vec F = \partial_i F^i.$
  2. Distributions here are in the sense of generalized functions used to model, e.g., the Dirac $\delta$-function: linear functionals $(\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R) \to \mathbb R$.

In a post on Physics.SE a user was asking about the first Maxwell equation, $$\operatorname{div} \vec E = 4\pi\rho.$$The central point of confusion is this: we are using this to generalize Coulomb's law, which states that in 3D, for a point source of charge $q$ located at a point $\vec r'$, the resulting electric field is $$\vec E_q(\vec r) = q~\frac {\vec r - \vec r'}{|\vec r - \vec r'|^3},$$ but unfortunately here $\vec E_q$ is an ordinary function (albeit from $\mathbb R^3 \to \mathbb R^3$) and its divergence, defined traditionally, is also an ordinary function, $\operatorname{div} \vec E_q : (\mathbb R^3 - \{\vec 0\})\to \mathbb R.$ However the right hand side above is not an ordinary function.

The right hand side above can, however, be interpreted as a distribution where the distribution-product for "ordinary functions" $\langle f, g\rangle = \int_{\mathbb R^3} dx~dy~dz~ f(x, y, z) ~g(x, y, z).$ We can apparently more or less extend this to vector spaces by just allowing some unit vectors $\hat x, \hat y, \hat z$ and assuming that they and their products commute on both sides with distribution products $\langle,\rangle.$

The problem here is essentially a type error in the physics: in this scenario $\rho$ can only be interpreted as a distribution, which seems to imply that either $\operatorname{div}$ maps vector fields to distributions, or else $\vec E$ is a distribution and $\operatorname{div}$ maps distributions to distributions.

Either way, we need a slightly different definition for divergence from the physicist's pragmatic version. How can we prove the divergence theorem under a type-corrected definition for $\operatorname{div}$ that can properly return a distribution for the Coulomb field $\vec E_q$? Are there any subtleties that appear as a result of the new definition?

  • $\begingroup$ This is a great question. One could argue that the electric field should really be a vector distribution, looking at the definition (force on a test charge, which basically is the action on a test functio ). The problem then is that the force on a point charge has the same type error you mentioned in this question. Although this is not sooo bad, since we know that electrodynamics with point charges in inconsistent anyway. $\endgroup$ – lalala Dec 2 at 10:39

In THIS ANSWER, I discuss regularizing the Electric Field of a point charge to assign meaning to the Dirac Delta for use in the Divergence Theorem. This provides a rigorous way forward where Dirac Delta is interpreted in terms of the limit of the regularized function $\vec \psi$ given by

$$\vec \psi(\vec r;a)=\frac{\vec r}{(r^2+a^2)^{3/2}} \tag 1$$

Taking the divergence of $(1)$ reveals that

$$\nabla \cdot \vec \psi(\vec r; a)=\frac{3a^2}{(r^2+a^2)^{5/2}}$$

Now, in the Aforementioned Answer, I showed that for any sufficiently smooth test function $\phi$, we have that

$$\lim_{a \to 0}\int_V \nabla \cdot \vec \psi(\vec r; a)\phi(\vec r)dV= \begin{cases} 0&, \text{V does not include the origin}\\\\ 4\pi \phi(0)&,\text{V includes the origin} \end{cases}$$

and it is in this sense that

$$\bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{\lim_{a\to 0} \nabla \cdot \vec \psi(\vec r;a)=4\pi \delta(\vec r)}$$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.