Thank You vanhees71. I see your reply to my question about Dirac notation in an email from PhysicForums but I do not see it in the thread. However the email said I needed to reply in the thread. In any case thank you, I was guessing it was to stress something that had yet to be introduced in the...
Thank you for your reply. You are speaking of the outer product as the projection operator? Right. But I am asking, why must it be written as such. What is wrong with writing:
|V> = Σ <i|V> |i>
if <i|V> = vi?
Shankar Prin. of QM 2nd Ed (and others) introduce the inner product:
<i|V> = vi ...(Shankar 1.3.4)
They expand the ket |V> as:
|V> = Σ vi|i>
|V> = Σ |i><i|V> ...(Shankar 1.3.5)
Why do they reverse the order of the component vi and the ket |i> when they...
Here is another reference (Podogorsak (2010)) that also sheds light on this:
So my confusion was focused on how the differential cross section w.r.t. to solid angle tends toward forward scattering (i.e. low energy transfer to the recoil electrons) - but the differential cross section w.r.t...
Yes well this is what I was thinking. Considering that even for alpha=1 the polar plot shows the cross section at near-zero scattering angle (low energy transfer) to be several times larger than for 180-deg scattering. That is why I did not expect the recoil energy to peak at the Compton Edge...
Yes but the alpha=1 curve in the polar plot appears to be forward peaked (photon scattering angle near zero - i.e. little energy transferred to the electron) - it's like the two plots are contradictory.
My understanding of the Compton Effect is that maximum energy transfer to the electron takes place when the photon scattering angle is 180 degrees.
For the following please reference Evans "The Atomic Nucleus" ...