Finite and infinite cross sections

Click For Summary
The discussion addresses the differences in total scattering cross sections between classical and quantum mechanics for Coulomb and Yukawa potentials. The Coulomb potential results in an infinite total cross section in both frameworks, while the Yukawa potential yields a finite total cross section in quantum mechanics due to the rapid fall-off of the potential. In classical mechanics, the expectation was that the Yukawa potential would also lead to an infinite cross section, but it is clarified that it is actually finite. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the conditions and mathematical formulations that govern these results. Ultimately, the classical and quantum approaches yield different outcomes for the Yukawa potential due to the nature of the potentials involved.
The_Duck
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
108
The cross section for scattering by a Coulomb potential 1/r is the same for both classical and quantum mechanics, and the total cross section is infinite. I understand this classically as saying that no matter how large an impact parameter an incoming particle has, it will still be deflected at least a little bit by the potential, so the cross sectional area in which incoming particles are scattered at some angle > 0 is infinite.

I have seen the Born approximation of the quantum mechanical scattering cross section for a Yukawa potential e^(-mr)/r. Here the total cross section is finite. In the classical case, though, I feel like the same argument as was used for the Coulomb potential applies: although the potential falls off quickly, there is always some force at arbitrarily large distances from the origin, so all incoming particles should be deflected at least a little bit, no matter how large their impact parameters. So I expect that in classical mechanics, the total cross section for the Yukawa potential is infinite.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this cross section being infinite in classical mechanics, but finite in quantum mechanics. Is there a conflict here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, for the Yukawa potential the classical total cross section is finite, too. The total cross section can is only in rare cases related to the "size" of the target.
 
I don't see how this can be :( In the classical case, consider the function b(\theta) which gives the impact parameter as a function of the scattering angle. For the Yukawa potential in particular and for a broad class of potentials I expect that this function has b(pi) = 0 (particles shot directly at the target bounce back) and b(theta->0) = infinity (you have to use arbitrarily large impact parameters to get arbitrarily small deflections), and b(theta) monotonically decreasing from theta=0 to theta=pi. Then write

\sigma = \int \frac{d\sigma}{d \Omega} d \Omega

My classical mechanics book tells me I can rewrite the differential scattering cross section:

= \int \left ( \frac{b}{\sin \theta} \left | \frac{d b}{d \theta} \right | \right ) (\sin \theta d \theta d \phi)

= 2 \pi \int_0^\pi b \left | \frac{db}{d \theta} \right | d \theta

If b satisfies the conditions I expect it to then this is

= -2 \pi \int_0^\pi b \frac{db}{d \theta} d \theta

= -2 \pi \int_\infty^0 db

= \infty

Where do I go wrong?
 
Good question. You should really check if all the conditions are met.

If you do the calculation in Born approx. (which should be equivalent to a classical approx.) then you see that in the Yukawa case the cross sections are modified due to the "range" a in exp(-r/a). The theta-diveregence in the denominator (for the Rutherford cross section) is softened as you get something like 1/(sin² + 1/a²)². Therefore the theta-integration is finite for the Yukawa potential.
 
I understand the Born approximation calculation of the QM cross section of the Yukawa and Coulomb potentials. In what way is it equivalent to something classical?
 
The Born approx. corresponds to tree graphs w/o quantum loops. You can see this for the Coulomb potential where the classical calculation based on trajectories and the qm Born approx. are identical.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
828
Replies
1
Views
676
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K