Sakurai's proof of the Optical Theorem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on J. J. Sakurai's proof of the Optical Theorem as presented in his book "Modern Quantum Mechanics." A key point of confusion arises regarding the notation "Pr." in the equation involving the transition operator T and the relationship between the energy operator and the Hamiltonian. The term "Pr." refers to the principal value, which is crucial for understanding the distributional nature of the equation. The participants successfully derive the imaginary part of the inner product without directly using the principal value relation, demonstrating an alternative approach to validating the theorem.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, specifically scattering theory.
  • Familiarity with the transition operator T and its role in quantum mechanics.
  • Knowledge of distribution theory, particularly the concept of principal value integrals.
  • Experience with complex analysis, including residue theorem applications.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Optical Theorem in quantum mechanics.
  • Learn about principal value integrals and their applications in physics.
  • Explore the residue theorem and its use in evaluating complex integrals.
  • Review scattering theory and its mathematical formulations in quantum mechanics.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, particularly those focusing on scattering theory and mathematical physics, will benefit from this discussion. It is also valuable for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of the Optical Theorem and its proof.

vega12
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Right now, I'm self-studying from J. J. Sakurai's book Modern Quantum Mechanics. In section 7.3, Optical Theorem, there is one step in the proof that he uses that escapes me. His proof involves using the transition operator T defined as:

<br /> V \mid\psi^{(+)} \rangle = T \mid\phi \rangle \\<br />

where \mid\phi \rangle is the free particle state and \mid\psi^{(+)} \rangle is the scattered state. In the proof for the optical theorem, he says "Now we use the well-known relation":

<br /> \frac{1}{E - H_0 - i\epsilon} = Pr. \left( \frac{1}{E-H_0}\right) + i \pi \delta(E-H_0)<br />

But I am at a loss as to what "Pr." means. I can follow the rest of the proof except for this one part, so a bit of clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That means the principle value. The equation has to be read as an equation about distribution, i.e., applied to a test function it reads (for z_0 \in \mathbb{R})

\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} z \frac{f(z)}{z-z_0-\mathrm{i} 0^+} = \mathrm{P} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \frac{f(z)}{z-z_0} + \ii \pi f(z_0),

Where the principal value of the integral is defined by

\mathrm{P} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} z \frac{f(z)}{z-z_0} = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \left [\int_{-\infty}^{z_0-\epsilon} \mathrm{d} z \frac{f(z)}{z-z_0} + \int_{z_0+\epsilon}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} z \frac{f(z)}{z-z_0} \right ].
 
Thanks for the quick reply. I'm still unsure how exactly I can arrive at that specific relation, but at least I now know what it means so can understand how to use it. Could you give me an idea how I would go about showing it?

Upon getting your response I decided to see if I can calculate the desired inner product without using that relation and get the same result to at least justify it. It went as follows:

<br /> \Im \langle\mathbf{k}\mid T\mid\mathbf{k}\rangle = \Im \left[ \left( \langle\psi^{(+)}\mid - \langle\psi^{(+)}\mid V \frac{1}{E-H_0-i\epsilon}\right)V\mid\psi^{(+)}\rangle\right]<br />

The first inner product is real so the imaginary part is zero. We only need to calculate the second one.

<br /> \langle\psi^{(+)}\mid V \frac{1}{E-H_0-i\epsilon}V\mid\psi^{(+)}\rangle<br />
<br /> = \int \mathrm{d}^3 k^\prime \langle\mathbf{k}\mid T^\dag \mid \mathbf{k^\prime} \rangle \langle \mathbf{k^\prime} \mid \frac{1}{\tfrac{\hbar^2}{2m}(k^2 - k^{\prime 2} - i\epsilon)} T \mid \mathbf{k}\rangle<br />
<br /> = - \frac{2m}{\hbar^2} \int \mathrm{d}\Omega^\prime \int_0^\infty \mathrm{d}k^\prime k^{\prime 2} \frac{\left| \langle \mathbf{k^\prime}\mid T \mid \mathbf{k} \rangle \right| ^2}{k^{\prime 2} - k^2 + i\epsilon}<br />
<br /> = - \frac{m}{\hbar^2} \int \mathrm{d}\Omega^\prime \int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{d}k^\prime k^{\prime 2} \frac{\left| \langle \mathbf{k^\prime}\mid T \mid \mathbf{k} \rangle \right| ^2}{(k^\prime - k e^{-\epsilon / 2 k^2})(k^\prime + k e^{-\epsilon / 2 k^2})}<br />

Using residue theorem (which is where I believe the delta function comes out in the distribution method but am still shaky on that part)

<br /> = \frac{m \pi k i}{\hbar^2} \int \mathrm{d}\Omega^\prime \left| \langle \mathbf{k^\prime}\mid T \mid \mathbf{k} \rangle \right|^2<br />

All together this gives

<br /> \Im \langle\mathbf{k}\mid T\mid\mathbf{k}\rangle = \frac{- m \pi k}{\hbar^2} \int \mathrm{d}\Omega^\prime \left| \langle \mathbf{k^\prime}\mid T \mid \mathbf{k} \rangle \right|^2<br />

So yeah, at least in the end I was able to complete the steps in the proof without using that relation.
 
Wow, I spent quite some time searching the net and here and couldn't find that thread. My apologizes as it seems my question was answered there quite well. I was even finally able to locate the theorem on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokhatsky%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem" . It even gives a simple proof of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K