Sakurai's proof of the Optical Theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific step in the proof of the Optical Theorem as presented in J. J. Sakurai's book Modern Quantum Mechanics. Participants explore the meaning of the notation used in the proof, particularly the term "Pr." in relation to the principal value of integrals, and the implications of this notation for understanding the theorem. The conversation includes attempts to derive the relation independently and clarify the mathematical reasoning involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on the meaning of "Pr." in the context of the Optical Theorem proof.
  • Another participant explains that "Pr." refers to the principal value and provides a mathematical expression involving integrals to illustrate this concept.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about how to derive the specific relation mentioned in the proof but acknowledges understanding its meaning.
  • One participant attempts to calculate the inner product related to the theorem without using the principal value relation, detailing their steps and arriving at a result.
  • Another participant suggests checking a different thread for additional information related to the question posed.
  • A later reply indicates that the original question was previously addressed in another thread, and the participant finds a relevant external resource that provides a simple proof of the theorem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the meaning of "Pr." as the principal value, but there is no consensus on the derivation of the relation or the steps involved in the proof. The discussion includes both attempts to clarify and independently verify aspects of the theorem, indicating a mix of understanding and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of the mathematical steps involved in the proof and the reliance on specific definitions and notations. Some participants express uncertainty about the application of the residue theorem and its connection to the delta function, which remains unresolved.

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
2K
  • · 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
2K