Question about differential cross section

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around clarifying the disappearance of n_t*l in equation 9.9, referencing equation 9.5 for context. Participants suggest that n_t*l should be incorporated into 9.9 to ensure dimensional consistency. A physical consideration is raised regarding the implications if either l or n_t equals zero, leading to an expected value of J_s being zero regardless of J_i. The conversation emphasizes the importance of maintaining consistent units in equations related to differential cross sections. Overall, the focus is on resolving dimensional discrepancies in the equations presented.
Clara Chung
Messages
300
Reaction score
13
Homework Statement
Attached below
Relevant Equations
Attached below
242124

242125

I have attached the two pages in my notes and I have the following question.
1. Where have the n_t*l gone in 9.9? (According to 9.5 why do they disappear?)
2. Why J_s=sigma_tot J_i? The dimension of flux is per m^2 and sigma is per area too, the dimension is not right...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Clara Chung said:
View attachment 242124
View attachment 242125
I have attached the two pages in my notes and I have the following question.
1. Where have the n_t*l gone in 9.9? (According to 9.5 why do they disappear?)
2. Why J_s=sigma_tot J_i? The dimension of flux is per m^2 and sigma is per area too, the dimension is not right...
Looks like an error to me...
 
  • Like
Likes Clara Chung
Yes, insert ##n_t l## into (9.9) in such a way that the units are consistent on both sides.

A physical reality check: if ##l = 0## or ##n_t = 0##, i.e. the target disappears completely, what should we expect ##J_s## to be, regardless of ##J_i##? :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes Clara Chung
jtbell said:
Yes, insert ##n_t l## into (9.9) in such a way that the units are consistent on both sides.

A physical reality check: if ##l = 0## or ##n_t = 0##, i.e. the target disappears completely, what should we expect ##J_s## to be, regardless of ##J_i##? :smile:
Yes, it should be zero :)
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top