This question is related to this other question on Phys.SE.
In quantum mechanics is often useful to use the following statement:
$$\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx\, e^{ikx} = 2\pi \delta(k)$$
where $\delta(k)$ is intended to represent Dirac's Delta Function. I would like to understand this statement, or at least know a justification of it, rather than blindly apply this result. From what I currently understand about this topic the equation above should be the Fourier representation of the Dirac's Delta Function, however I don't see how to prove it. Furthermore, since the Delta Function is not even a function, this statement appears to me as really strange.
Keep in mind that I am no expert on this topic, and an elementary explanation is what I seek. I would prefer a proof suited for an undergraduate student rather than a really rigorous and complex one.
Best Answer
I'll put a rigorous explanation first, then a loosey-goosey one afterwards.
This is all rooted in distribution theory. I'll work in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and use the convention that the Fourier transform has a $(2\pi)^{-n/2}$ out front (making it unitary), as well as the more standard sign. That is, $$\mathcal{F}f(\xi)=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^n}f(x)e^{-ix\cdot\xi}\, dx$$
The Dirac delta is an example of a tempered distribution, a continuous linear functional on the Schwartz space. We can define the Fourier transform by duality: $$\langle\mathcal{F} u,\varphi\rangle=\langle u,\mathcal{F}\varphi\rangle$$ for $u\in\mathcal{S}'$ and $\varphi\in\mathcal{S}.$ Here, $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the distributional pairing. In particular, the Fourier inversion formula still holds. So, for $u=\delta,$ $$\langle\mathcal{F}\delta, \varphi\rangle=\langle\delta,\mathcal{F}\varphi\rangle=\mathcal{F}\varphi(0)=\langle (2\pi)^{-n/2},\varphi\rangle\implies \mathcal{F}\delta=(2\pi)^{-n/2}.$$ Now, the inversion formula gives that $$(2\pi)^{n/2}\delta=\mathcal{F}1,$$ and $\mathcal{F}1$ "equals" $$(2\pi)^{-n/2}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^n}e^{-ix\cdot \xi}\, dx$$ (sign in the exponential doesn't matter here). This is what you wrote if $n=1$.
Since you also wanted a less rigorous answer, this is how you might see it done in physics books:
Loosely, $$\mathcal{F}\delta(\xi)=(2\pi)^{-1/2}\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty \delta(x)e^{-ix\xi}\, dx=(2\pi)^{-1/2}e^{-ix\xi}|_{x=0}=(2\pi)^{-1/2},$$ so "Fourier inversion" gives
$$\delta(x)=(2\pi)^{-1/2}\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty \mathcal{F}\delta(\xi)e^{ix\xi}\, d\xi=(2\pi)^{-1}\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty e^{ix\xi}\, d\xi.$$
Of course, these formal calculations are made rigorous by doing what I original wrote.