Integrals in the derivation of the Optical Theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the evaluation of integrals related to the Optical Theorem in nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics, particularly focusing on the behavior of these integrals as the radius \( r \) approaches infinity. Participants explore various methods for handling these integrals and their implications for understanding the theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents specific integrals that need to be evaluated in the limit as \( r \rightarrow \infty \), expressing uncertainty about the correct approach to proceed without using an asymptotic solution.
  • Another participant suggests the saddle point method as a potential technique, indicating that for large \( r \), the integral's contribution will come from a narrow range of \( \theta \) where the argument of the exponential is extremal.
  • A further reply questions the rigorous justification of the saddle point method, indicating a desire for a more formal understanding of the approach.
  • One participant mentions the possibility of using the asymptotic form of spherical Bessel functions to analyze the limit, suggesting an alternative perspective on the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of confidence in the methods proposed, with some suggesting the saddle point method while others seek clarification on its justification. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to evaluate the integrals.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of evaluating integrals in the context of the Optical Theorem, with participants noting the dependence on specific mathematical techniques and the behavior of functions as \( r \) approaches infinity. There is an acknowledgment of the need for rigorous justification of proposed methods.

maverick280857
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
5
Hi everyone,

I'm trying to work out all the intricate details of the limits involved in computing the integrals leading to the Optical Theorem in nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics. In doing so, I have arrived at the following integrals which are to be evaluated in the [itex]r \rightarrow \infty[/itex] regime:

[tex] r^{2}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{-1}^{+1}f(\theta)e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}\left(\frac{ik}{r}(1+\cos\theta)-\frac{1}{r^2}\right)d(\cos\theta)d\phi = I_{1}[/tex]
[tex] r^{2}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{-1}^{+1}f^{*}(\theta)e^{-ikr(1-\cos\theta)}\left(\frac{ik}{r}(1+\cos\theta)+\frac{1}{r^2}\right)d(\cos\theta)d\phi = I_{2}[/tex]

Modulo the [itex]\phi[/itex] integral, the expression for [itex]I_{1}[/itex] is

[tex]r^{2}\int_{-1}^{+1}f(\theta)e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}\left(\frac{ik}{r}(1+\cos\theta)-\frac{1}{r^2}\right)d(\cos\theta) = r^{2}\int_{-1}^{+1}f(\theta)e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}\left(\frac{ik}{r}(1+\cos\theta)\right)d(\cos\theta) - \int_{-1}^{+1}f(\theta)e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}d(\cos\theta)[/tex]

I am stuck at these integrals. I know what the "final" term in the optical theorem is, but without using the asymptotic solution, I don't know the right direction to proceed in. Specifically, if I consider [itex]f(\theta)(1+\cos\theta)[/itex] as the "first" function in the first integral, then integrating by parts I get

[tex]\int_{-1}^{+1}f(\theta)e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}(1+\cos\theta)d(\cos\theta) = \left[f(\theta)(1+\cos\theta)\frac{e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}}{-ikr}\right]_{-1}^{+1} - \int_{-1}^{+1}\frac{e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}}{-ikr}\left((1+\cos\theta)\frac{df(\theta)}{d(\cos\theta)} + f(\theta)\right)d(\cos\theta)[/tex]

Therefore,

[tex]r^{2}\int_{-1}^{+1}f(\theta)e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}\left(\frac{ik}{r}(1+\cos\theta)\right)d(\cos\theta) = ikr\left[\mbox{b.d.}\right] + \int_{-1}^{+1}e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}\left((1+\cos\theta)\frac{df(\theta)}{d(\cos\theta)} + f(\theta)\right)d(\cos\theta)[/tex]

where b.d. denotes the boundary term in the second last equation. Put together, these equations give

[tex]r^{2}\int_{-1}^{+1}f(\theta)e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}\left(\frac{ik}{r}(1+\cos\theta)-\frac{1}{r^2}\right)d(\cos\theta) = ikr\left[\mbox{b.d.}\right] + \int_{-1}^{+1}e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}\left((1+\cos\theta)\frac{df(\theta)}{d(\cos\theta)}\right)d(\cos\theta)[/tex]

Clearly the boundary term tends to zero as [itex]r \rightarrow \infty[/itex], so my original question reduces to the following question:

How does one evaluate the following integrals

[tex]\int_{-1}^{+1}e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}\left((1+\cos\theta)\frac{df(\theta)}{d(\cos\theta)}\right)d(\cos\theta)[/tex]
[tex]\int_{-1}^{+1}f(\theta)e^{ikr(1-\cos\theta)}d(\cos\theta)[/tex]

in the [itex]r \rightarrow \infty[/itex] regime? I want to get some more insight into the physics as [itex]r \rightarrow \infty[/itex] so I'm hoping that an explicit evaluation of all these terms will be helpful.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Someone please help...
 
Doesn't the saddle point method work? If r is very large, then the contribution to the integral will come from a narrow range of theta near the point where the aregument of the exponential is extremal.

So, you expand i k r (1-cos(theta)) around its extremal values and then, for large r, you end up with Gaussian integrals.
 
Count Iblis said:
If r is very large, then the contribution to the integral will come from a narrow range of theta near the point where the aregument of the exponential is extremal.

That seems intuitive. But I don't know how to rigorously justify it. Is this the saddle point method?

(I can plug in the asymptotic form of the spherical bessel functions in

[tex]e^{ikr\cos\theta} = \sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)i^{l}j_{l}(kr)P_{l}(\cos\theta)[/tex]

and get the limit.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K