Confused about the effective range

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kelly0303
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused Range
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the effective range in quantum mechanics as described in "Introductory Nuclear Physics, Second Edition" by Samuel Wong. Participants express confusion regarding the equality of the functions \(v_0(k,r)\) and \(u_0(k,r)\) as \(r\) approaches infinity, particularly in relation to the phase shift \(\delta_0\). The key takeaway is that while \(v_0(k,r)\) and \(u_0(k,r)\) converge, the sine function does not converge to zero, leading to misunderstandings about the notation and implications of the limit. The notation indicates that the difference between these functions converges to zero, not that the functions themselves do.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with partial wave analysis
  • Knowledge of phase shifts in wave functions
  • Basic concepts of limits in mathematical analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the effective range theory in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about phase shifts in quantum scattering
  • Explore the implications of limits in wave function behavior
  • Review the mathematical properties of sine functions at infinity
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying quantum mechanics, wave functions, and scattering theory, will benefit from this discussion.

kelly0303
Messages
573
Reaction score
33
Hello! I am reading Introductory Nuclear Physics, Second Edition, by Samuel Wong and in Appendix B-3, he talks about the effective range. In the derivation of the formula, in equation B-34 he writes: $$v_0(k,r)=_{r \to \infty}u_0(k,r)=_{r \to \infty}=A\sin(kr+\delta_0)$$
where ##v_0(k,r)## is the ##l=0## partial wave solution to the Schrödinger equation without any potential, while ##u_0(k,r)## is the ##l=0## partial wave solution to the Schrödinger equation with a spherically symmetric, localized potential. I am not sure I understand why they are equal. On the contrary, the whole 2 parts of the appendix before, talked about how, as ##r \to \infty##, in the case with a potential the wavefunction gathers a phase shift relative to the case without. Basically, for the case without a potential, ##\delta_0=0##. Yet now that phase is not zero for the case without potential, too. I guess I am miss understaning something. Can someone clarify this for me please? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am puzzled by your notation. if v_0(k, r) is the limit of u_0(k, r) as r goes to infinity, how is it a function of r?
 
HallsofIvy said:
I am puzzled by your notation. if v_0(k, r) is the limit of u_0(k, r) as r goes to infinity, how is it a function of r?
Yeah, I don't really understand that, either. I guess figuring that out might also help me understand what he means in that appendix.
 
HallsofIvy said:
I am puzzled by your notation. if v_0(k, r) is the limit of u_0(k, r) as r goes to infinity, how is it a function of r?
I interpret the notation as "the difference converges to zero".
 
mfb said:
I interpret the notation as "the difference converges to zero".
That still doesn't make me understand his argument... Also, sin doesn't converge at infinity.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the argument either, but at least the notation I think I understand. The sine doesn't need to converge to zero.
$$v_0(k,r)=_{r \to \infty}u_0(k,r)=_{r \to \infty}=A\sin(kr+\delta_0)$$
Equivalently:
$$\lim_{r \to \infty} \left(v_0(k,r)-u_0(k,r)\right) = 0$$ and $$\lim_{r \to \infty} \left(v_0(k,r)-A\sin(kr+\delta_0)\right) = 0$$
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
746
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K