Scattering theory - phase shift - best approx.

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on methods for calculating the phase shift δ_l in scattering theory within quantum mechanics. Two primary approaches are highlighted: the semi-classical method, which integrates the local wave number, and the first-order Born approximation, which utilizes matrix elements of the potential. The preference for the Born approximation is attributed to its greater accuracy under specific conditions, particularly when the criterion m |V_0| a^2 / ħ^2 is satisfied, indicating a weak potential. The conversation also notes that the validity of the Born approximation can be further improved by applying the second Born approximation. Overall, the choice of method depends on the scattering potential and the context of the problem.
jonas_nilsson
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

we're looking at scattering theory in the QM course right now, and I've got a question concerning the approximative ways of calculating the phase shift \delta_l of the partial waves in the partial wave expansion of the scattered wave.

One way (the semi-classical) to calculate it is through
\delta_l = \int^{r}_{r_0} k(r')dr' - kr,
where r_0 is the "border" of the classically allowed area for the particle(s) and k(r) is the "local" wave number (right choice of word :confused:).

The other way is through the 1st order Born approximation:
-\frac{tan ~\delta_l}{k} = <u^0_l | U | u^0_l>

Now if I remember right the second method was presented as the for sure preferred one. My question is: how's that?. How can we be sure that this is the best way. The clue might be that the first is (semi-) classical, but on the other hand it seems quite rough to just use the u_l of a free particle, that is u_l^0. It must be very depending on the kind of scattering potential we're dealing with, or?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The criterion for the validity of the Born approximation is
$$
\frac{m | V_0 | a^2}{\hbar^2} \ll 1
$$
where ##m## is the mass of the particle, ##V_0## and ##a## the height and range of the potential, respectively. Therefore, if this condition is met, then the Born approximation is a good approximation, and the result will be better than using a semi-classical approximation. One can also go further and use the second Born approximation to refine the result.
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
719
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
13K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K