1

Most texts on quantum mechanics include a chapter on scattering theory which derives equations for the scattering amplitude. For example, $$f_k( \mathbf {\hat r}) = -\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}\mu}{\hbar^2}\int exp(-ik\mathbf {\hat r}\cdot \mathbf r’)V(\mathbf r')\psi_k(\mathbf r’)d \mathbf{\tau}' \tag{11.35a}.$$ $$f_k(\theta)=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{l=0}^\infty(2l+1)exp(i\delta_l(k))\sin\delta_l(k)P_l(\cos\theta)\tag{11.59}.$$

However, of interest is the relationship between the phase shift and the potential and radial eigenfunctions. In Merzbacher's Quantum Mechanics (2nd. ed.), the author mentions that a partial wave analysis, which uses the two equations given above, leads to the sought-after relationship, though he provides no derivation $$\sin\delta_l = -k\int_0^\infty j_l(kr')U(r')u_{l,k}(r')r'dr'\tag{11.83}$$ where $$U=\frac {2\mu V}{\hbar^2}.$$

I have tried to derive this equation but have been unsuccessful. I believe its derivation, besides being interesting in its own right, would likely demonstrate the use of concepts important to those learning scattering theory, such as the orthogonality of the complete sets $P_l$ and $j_l$ and their use in demonstrating various relationships.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone would derive the formula above for $\sin\delta_l.$

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Marcellus
  • 31
  • 4
  • Does this answer help? Does Wikipedia help? – Ghoster Jan 12 '23 at 18:52
  • But the text does derive it, no? You want a simpler text? Landau & Lifshitz, Ch XVII are quite informative.... – Cosmas Zachos Jan 12 '23 at 20:28
  • Sakurai & Naplitano, Ch 6, are slightly more explicit; but, frankly, Merzbacher adumbrates any and all glossed-over steps. – Cosmas Zachos Jan 12 '23 at 20:38
  • I have Landau & Lifshitz and found on p. 517 a derivation that gives a similar result with the Born approximation. Thank you for that reference. However, I'd like to use the approach which, as you say, Merzbacher adumbrates but doesn't explicitly state. I suppose the derivation is trivial, but I just don't see it. I don't have Sakurai & Naplitano. Could you derive the equation for me? – Marcellus Jan 12 '23 at 20:48
  • I can't read the book with you. If you have something less open-ended to be explained, fine, if you had specific limited questions, fine. But I cannot blindly rewrite/paraphrase 15 pages of something I last read in 1972, hoping it has enough detail to your satisfaction. – Cosmas Zachos Jan 12 '23 at 22:02
  • I didn't mean to offend, I just would like someone to derive the equation that I mentioned. – Marcellus Jan 12 '23 at 22:31
  • If you are unequivocally comfortable with eqn (11.82), you may derive (11.83) by using, as he stresses, the asymptotic forms (11.53), (10.26), and (10.30), which he took great (moving!) pains to establish in that and the previous chapter. But the book cannot be a substitute for a basic mathematical physics course. If you are conversant in orthogonal polynomials, asymptotic, and Green's functions, what he says is clear and solid. He is not Jackson's electrodynamics! – Cosmas Zachos Jan 12 '23 at 23:15
  • Maybe I am not being clear. I can work through the procedure that Merzbacher and you described to get the desired equation. That is not difficult for me. However, in the middle of p. 244, Merzbacher states that the formula can also be obtained directly from the two equations I provided at the top of my post. I don't see how to use those two equations to get the formula. In other words, I haven't been able to use the alternate method that he mentions. I'd like to see that done. – Marcellus Jan 13 '23 at 05:25
  • Indeed, you have not been. It should be in your question that you are really asking for a solution manual answer to the subsequent *Exercise 11.9* . The author left it as an exercise for a reason... – Cosmas Zachos Jan 13 '23 at 12:11
  • I am trying to learn this material on my own. I'm not in a class and have been making good progress, but this particular derivation eludes me. In this situation whether the derivation is an exercise or not shouldn't matter. The derivation requires something that I'm not seeing. I suspect the required insight is fairly simple, but then most things are simple when you see them! I appreciate your time and won't ask for more of it. – Marcellus Jan 13 '23 at 14:48
  • Merzbacher, like lots of authors (including me), leaves tedious plugin endurance marathon issues as "Exercises", often not worth the effort, clearly not his. Quite possibly, Goldberger & Watson's classic "Collisin Theory" book, the mother of all such "summaries" has more detail. As a parting hint, I would strongly urge you to read said chapter of the "Modern Quantum Mechanics" book by Sakurai & Napolitano, a masterpiece. I wish I had it available to me when learning. You can get free copies of it on the web, well-well worth opting for that chapter in lieu of Merzbacher. – Cosmas Zachos Jan 13 '23 at 15:09
  • 1
    Thank you. I'll look for that book right away. – Marcellus Jan 13 '23 at 18:41
  • I think section 9.1 of this is essentially the derivation you're looking for. – Ghoster Jan 15 '23 at 08:39
  • I don’t have a copy of Merzbacher. Did you leave out a factor of $e^{i\delta_l}$ on the left side of (11.83)? – Ghoster Jan 16 '23 at 06:50
  • I can see why you might say that since those factors are often seen together, but in this instance there is only the sine term. I'm eager to check the reference you mentioned, but I'm traveling today and have only poor internet service. I appreciate your interest. – Marcellus Jan 16 '23 at 19:03
  • I checked section 9.1 of the Cal Tech reference that you provided and that indeed was what I was looking for. Thank you! The reason the exponential factor on the LHS in Merzbacher's equation is not present is that he included it in the wave function term on the RHS so it cancels out of the equation. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to find this for me. – Marcellus Jan 19 '23 at 05:51

1 Answers1

1

I am answering my own question since two members of the Physics StackExchange (see the comment section) kindly provided me with enough information to derive the equation. Because of the somewhat intricate nature of the derivation, it is easy to make errors. If any are present, they fortuitously cancelled each other out.

Merzbacher indicates that the desired relationship

$\sin\delta_l = -k\int_0^\infty j_l(kr')U(r')u_{l,k}(r')r'dr'\tag{11.83}$

can be obtained from the two equations below by utilizing a partial wave analysis. $ U=\frac {2\mu V}{\hbar^2}$, and $\delta_l$ is understood to be a function of k.

$$f_k( \mathbf {\hat r}) = -\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}\mu}{\hbar^2}\int exp(-ik\mathbf {\hat r}\cdot \mathbf r')V(r')\psi_k(\mathbf r’)d \mathbf{\tau}' \tag{11.35a}$$ $$f_k(\theta)=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{l=0}^\infty(2l+1)exp(i\delta_l)\sin\delta_lP_l(\cos\theta)\tag{11.59}$$

One starts by setting the two equations equal to one another but with only a partial wave taken from Equation 11.59. For consistency, this decision necessitates the use of only a partial wave from the wave equation on the RHS later in this derivation. Alternatively, the summation in 11.59 can be left in place (and in the wave equation) and removed at the end of the derivation, but omitting it now is less cumbersome.

$$\frac{1}{k}exp(i\delta_l)\sin\delta_l P_l(\cos\theta)= -\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}}{2} \int exp(-ik\mathbf {\hat r}\cdot \mathbf r’)U(r’)\psi_k(\mathbf r’) d \mathbf {\tau}' $$

Next, an important identity is substituted for $exp(-ik \mathbf {\hat r}\cdot \mathbf r') $ on the RHS.

$$ = -\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}}{2} \int \sum_{l'=0}^\infty(2l'+1)i^{3l'}j_{l'}(kr')P_{l'}(\mathbf {\hat r}\cdot \mathbf {\hat r’})U(r')\psi_k(\mathbf r’)d \mathbf{\tau}'$$

Another identity is substituted for $P_{l'}(\mathbf {\hat r}\cdot \mathbf {\hat r’})$ (shown in the square brackets below), and a partial wave from the wave equation $\psi(\mathbf r')=\sum _{l=0}^\infty(2l+1)\frac {i^lexp(i\delta_l)}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}P_l(\cos\theta')u_{l,k}(r')/r' $ is substituted for $\psi.$

$$ = -\frac{1}{4\pi} \int \sum_{l'=0}^\infty(2l'+1)i^{3l'}j_{l'}(kr')\mathbf[\sum_{m=-l'}^{l'}\frac{4\pi}{2l'+1}Y_{l'}^{m*}(\theta',\phi')Y_{l'}^m(\theta,\phi) \mathbf]U(r')i^l exp(i\delta_l)P_l(cos \theta')u_{l,k}(r')/r'd \mathbf{\tau}'$$

The integral is now expanded in spherical polar coordinates, $P_l$ and $Y_{l'}^m$ are respectively converted to $Y_{l}^0$ and $P_{l'}^m$, and some rearranging is done.

$$ = -\frac{1}{4\pi} \int_0^\infty \sum_{l'=0}^\infty(2l'+1)i^{3l'+l}j_{l'}(kr')\sum_{m=-l'}^{l'}U(r')exp(i\delta_l)\int_{\phi'=0}^{2\pi} \int_{\theta'=0}^{\pi} \frac{4\pi}{2l'+1}Y_{l'}^{m*}(\theta',\phi')Y_{l}^0(\theta',\phi')[(-1)^m exp(im\phi)\sqrt{\frac{(2l'+1)(l'-m)!}{(2l+1)(l'+m)!}}] P_{l'}^m (cos\theta)sin(\theta')u_{l,k}(r')r'd{\phi'}d{\theta'}dr'$$

After taking orthogonality of terms into account, one obtains

$$ = -\int_0^\infty \sum_{l'=0}^\infty \sqrt {\frac {2l'+1}{2l+1}}i^{3l'+l}\delta_{ll'}j_{l'}(kr')U(r')exp(i\delta_l)P_{l'}(\cos \theta) u_{l,k}(r')r'dr'$$

$$ = -\int_0^\infty j_{l}(kr')U(r')exp(i\delta_l)P_{l}(\cos\theta)u_{l,k}(r')r' dr'$$

The LHS of the equation at the beginning of the derivation and the RHS above are now compared to get $$\sin\delta_l = -k\int_0^\infty j_l(kr')U(r')u_{l,k}(r')r'dr'\tag{11.83}$$

Marcellus
  • 31
  • 4