Advertisement

The Three-Body Problem

  • W. Sandhas
Conference paper
Part of the Acta Physica Austriaca book series (FEWBODY, volume 9/1972)

Abstract

The quantum mechanical three-body problem has been studied with increasing interest in the last decade. The main progress was achieved by deriving integral equations which are not only theoretically correct, but also practically applicable. Such equations allow us in particular to investigate, besides three-body bound states, the scattering of an elementary particle from a bound two-particle system.

Keywords

Composite Particle Projection Property Faddeev Equation Interaction Picture Resolvent Equation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Footnotes

  1. 1.
    Formal scattering theory is explained in several well known text books. Original papers, where the single-channel case is extended to multichannel problems, are: H. Ekstein, Phys. Rev. 101, 880 (1956); Nuovo Cim. 4, 1017 (1956);Google Scholar
  2. J. M. Jauch, Helv. Phys. Acta 31, 127 (1958); 31, 661 (1958).Google Scholar
  3. Many general points are discussed in the article by W. Brenig and R. Haag, Fortschritte der Physik 7, 183 (1959). For further references see T. F. Jordan, J. Math. Phys. 3, 429 (1962) and the bibliography given in Ref. 18.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    We assume 0a=fIpcPa(p)d3p, the momentum distribution 0a(p) being a tempered test function.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    The reduced masses are u3=m1m2/(m1+m2) and M3=m3(m1+m2)/ /(m1+m2+m3).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    Three-body interactions are easily incorporated in all our considerations but are left out for simplicity.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    It is rather characteristic for any multichannel situation that various different channel Hamiltonians have to be introduced which implies that there does not exista single splitting of H into a “free” Hamiltonian and the interaction.Google Scholar
  8. J. M. Cook, J. Math. and Phys. 36, 82 (1957); M. N. Hack, Nuovo Cim. 9, 731 (1958); 13, 231 (1959);Google Scholar
  9. J. M. Jauch and I. I. Zinnes, Nuovo Cim. 11, 553 (1959).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Most general proofs which also include the case of singular potentials are given by J. Kupsch and W. Sandhas, Commun. Math. Phys. 2, 147 (1966);Google Scholar
  11. W. Hunziker, Heiv. Phys. Acta 40, 1052 (1967).MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 7.
    J. D. Dollard, J. Math. Phys. 5, 729 (1964).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 8.
    For a review see L. D. Faddeev, in Three Body Problem in Nuclear and Particle Physics, ed.: J. S. C. McKee and P. M. Rolph ( North Holland, Amsterdam, 1970 ).Google Scholar
  14. 10.
    This step is, of course, by no means trivial. Several careful investigations have been devoted to this point which, however, show that under suitable assumptions on the potential this procedure is justified. Hereby the gap is filled between time-dependent scattering theory and the usual formalism of the time-independent (stationary) theory. See, e.g., Ref. 18;Google Scholar
  15. J.J.H.J. M. Jauch, loc. cit. (Ref. 1);Google Scholar
  16. K. Hepp, Heiv. Phys. Acta 42, 425 (1969);MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. C. Chandler and A. G. Gibson, preprint.Google Scholar
  18. 11.
    Here and in the following we assume c +o, without explicit notation.Google Scholar
  19. 12.
    L. D. Faddeev, Zh. Eksperim. i. Teor. Fiz. 39Google Scholar
  20. 1459.
    ) (English transi.: Soviet Phys. - JETP 12, 1014 (1961)).Google Scholar
  21. 15.
    This difference is characteristic for all sufficiently complex situations. It becomes decisive in relativistic quantum field theory: R. Haag, Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd. 29, 12 (1955). For a review of these questions see: R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman, PCT, Spin and Statistics, and all that ( Benjamin, New York, 1964 ).Google Scholar
  22. 16.
    See, in particular, H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik and W. Zimmermann, Nuovo Cim. 1, 205 (1955); 1, 425 (1955); W. Zimmermann, Nuovo Cim. 10, 597 (1958). For an application to the relativistic three-body problem see D. Z. Freedman, C. Lovelace and J. M. Namyslowski, Nuovo Cim. 43, 258 (1966).Google Scholar
  23. 17.
    E. O. Alt, P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Nucl. Phys. B2, 167 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 18.
    Compare also L. D. Faddeev, Mathematical Aspects of the Three-Body Problem in the Quantum Scattering Theory, Publications of the Steklov Mathematical Institute, Vol. 69 (Leningrad, 1963) (English transi.: Israel Program for Scientific Translation, Jerusalem, 1965, distributed by Oldbourne Press, London).Google Scholar
  25. 19.
    C. Lovelace, Phys. Rev. 135, B1225 (1964).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 20.
    W. Sandhas, loc. cit. (Ref. 9).Google Scholar
  27. 21.
    L. D. Faddeev, loc. cit. (Ref. 18).Google Scholar
  28. 22.
    These considerations sketch a new derivation of the unitarity relation given in Ref. 17. For a different approach see C. Lovelace, in Strong Interactions and High Energy Physics, ed.: R. G. Moorhouse (Oliver and Boyd, London, 1964). Compare also K. L. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. 188, 2235 (1969).Google Scholar
  29. 23.
    See in particular Ref. 18.Google Scholar
  30. 24.
    The mathematics needed for the following considerations is explained, e.g., in F. Riesz and B. Sz.-Nagy, Functional Analysis (Blackie, 1956 );Google Scholar
  31. R. Schatten, Norm Ideals of Completely Continuous Operators ( Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1960 );MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. F. Smithies, Integral Equations ( Cambridge University Press, New York, 1958 );MATHGoogle Scholar
  33. R. Courant and D. Hilbert, Methods of Mathematical Physics (Interscience Publishers, New York, 1953 ). For further useful publications see the bibliography given in C. Lovelace, loc. cit. (Refs. 19 and 22 ).Google Scholar
  34. 25.
    H. Rollnik, Zeitschr. f. Physik 145, 639 (1956). An extensive application of this method is given in: M. Scadron, S. Weinberg and J. Wright, Phys. Rev. 135, B202 (1964).Google Scholar
  35. 26.
    A description of these ideas has been given by the author in a seminar at the Schladming winter school 1969: Acta Physica Austriaca, Suppl. VI, 454 (1969). This may be used as a first introduction to the approach explained in the following sections.Google Scholar
  36. 27.
    K. M. Watson, Phys. Rev. 89, 575 (1953). Compare also K. M. Watson and J. Nuttall, Topics in Several Particle Dynamics (Holden-Day, San Francisco, 1967). Another early attempt is G. V. Skornjakov and K. A. TerMartirosjan, JETP 31, 775 (1956).Google Scholar
  37. 28.
    R. J. Glauber, in High Energy Physics and Nuclear Structure, ed.: G. Alexander (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1967 ). Compare also the seminar by J. M. Namyslowski, given at this Schladming winter school.Google Scholar
  38. 29.
    Y. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. 95, 1628 (1954). A list of further publications concerning separable potentials is given in footnote 28 of Ref. 19.Google Scholar
  39. 30.
    A. N. Mitra, Nucl. Phys. 32, 529 (1962);MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. A. N. Mitra, Phys. Rev. 139, B1472 (1965);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. A. N. Mitra and V. S. Bhasin, Phys. Rev. 131, 1265 (1963);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. A. N. Mitra, in Advances in Nuclear Physics, ed.: M. Baranger and E. Vogt (Plenum Press, Inc., New York, 1969 ), Vol. I II.Google Scholar
  43. 31.
    A. G. Sitenko and V. F. Kharchenko, Nucl. Phys. 49, 15 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 32.
    R. D. Amado, Phys. Rev. 132, 485 (1963); 902 (1966). See also:MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. R. Aaron, R. D. Amado, and Y. Y. Yam, Phys. Rev. 140, 81291 (1965)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R. D. Amado, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 19, 635 (1969).Google Scholar
  47. 33.
    An example is the Zachariasen-Thirring model: F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rev. 121, 1851 (1961);Google Scholar
  48. W. Thirring, Nuovo Cim. 23, 1064 (1962).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 34.
    For a review see W. Sandhas, lecture given at the Symposium on the Nuclear Three-Body Problem and Related Topics, Budapest 1971 (preprint, to be published in the proceedings of the conference). Compare also:Google Scholar
  50. E. O. Alt, seminar given at this Schladming winter school.Google Scholar
  51. 35.
    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 130, 776 (1963); 131, 440 (1963).Google Scholar
  52. K. Meetz, J. Math. Phys. 3, 690 (1962).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 36.
    In practice the ideal choice can be determined by the method of J. Wright and M. Scadron, Nuovo Cim. 34, 1571 (1964).Google Scholar
  54. 37.
    The only difference is that it is now the “free Green’s function”, not the “potential” which is split into separable terms and a non-separable rest (see Sec. 9). The algebra, however, is nearly the same.Google Scholar
  55. 38.
    Our derivation of effective two-particle equations followed Ref. 17. For other approaches see:Google Scholar
  56. J. H. Sloan, Phys. Rev. 165, 1587 (1968);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. M. G. Fuda, Phys. Rev. 166, 1064 (1968);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. F. Riordan, Nuovo Cim. 54A, 552 (1968);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. L. Rosenberg, Phys. Rev. 168, 1756 (1968);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. R. Yaes, Phys. Rev. 170, 1236 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weinberg himself proposed a generalization of the quasi particle concept to the three-body (and even to the n-body) case: Phys. Rev. 133, B232 (1964).Google Scholar
  62. Being applied, however, to the whole kernel instead of the subsystem operators only, this method is completely different from the one developed in Ref. 17 and described in this lecture. In practice Weinberg’s approach seems to be too complicated.Google Scholar
  63. 39.
    E. O. Alt, P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Nucl. Phys. A139, 209 (1969);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. V. Vanzani, Nuovo Cim. Lett. 2, 706 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 40.
    P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Zeitschr. f. Physik 220, 29 (1969).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 41.
    E. O. Alt, P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Phys. Rev. D1, 2581 (1970), Appendix C.Google Scholar
  67. 42.
    W. Sandhas, loc. cit. (Ref. 9);Google Scholar
  68. P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas,Zeitschr. f. Physik 217, 9 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 43.
    Compare in particular R. Haag, Phys. Rev. 112, 669 (1958). Nonrelativistic composite particle fields are studied in strict analogy to this approach inGoogle Scholar
  70. W. Sandhas, Commun. Math. Phys. 3, 358 (1966).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 44.
    This is discussed in detail by W. Sandhas, loc. cit. (Ref. 9). Here also the relation to the “weak convergence method” of axiomatic field theory (see Ref. 43) is established.Google Scholar
  72. 45.
    In this way also a treatment of the four-(and even of the n-) body problem becomes possible, without starting from four-body integral equations with connected kernels. Incorporating step by step the dominant two-and three-body subsystem properties, by means of separable terms, we directly arrive at effective two-particle equations also in the four-body case: P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Nucl. Phys. B2, 181 (1967); Zeitschr. f. Physik 217, 9 (1968). Practical applications of this approach are given in E. O. Alt, P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Phys. Rev. Cl, 85 (1970). For a short description see Ref. 26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Sandhas
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für PhysikUniversität MainzGermany

Personalised recommendations