Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Quantum Simulation

Wave packets in quantum theory of collisions

arXiv
Authors: M. I. Shirokov

Year

2007

Paper ID

50248

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

114

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Two methodological troubles of the quantum theory of collisions are considered. The first is the undesirable interference of the incident and scattered waves in the stationary approach to scattering. The second concerns the nonstationary approach to the theory of collisions of the type a+b→ c+d. In order to calculate the cross section one uses the matrix element <cd|S|ab> of the S-matrix. The element is proportional to δ-function expressing the energy conservation. The corresponding probability |< cd|S|ab>|2 contains δ2 which is mathematically senseless. The known regular way to overcome the difficulty seems to be unsatisfactory. In this paper, both the troubles are resolved using wave packets of incident particles.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2007 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Two methodological troubles of the quantum theory of collisions are considered.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #50248 #69978 Distribution Complexity of Elec... #69974 Hierarchical separation of rela... #69964 Bounded-depth spacetime lattice... #69945 Phase Stable Integrated Delay L...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.