Particle Physics pp 454-484 | Cite as

# Composite Particle Collisions in the Non-Relativistic Three-Body Theory

Conference paper

## Abstract

The composite particle collision problem is evidently of great importance in many fields of quantum physics. In the last eight years or so this problem has been studied with increasing interest, in particular for the case of three nonrelativistic elementary particles, i.e., for the scattering of an elementary particle by a two-particle bound-state (for instance, a nucleon by a deuteron).

## Keywords

Faddeev Equation Fredholm Theory Pure Pole Born Series Fredholm Condition
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.

## References and Footnotes

- 1.L. D. Faddeev, Soviet Phys.-JETP 12, 1014 (1961).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 1.
- 2.L. D. Faddeev, Mathematical Aspects of the Three-Body Problem in the Quantum Scattering Theory (Israel Program for Scientific Translation, Jerusalem 1965).Google Scholar
- 3.A. N. Mitra, Nucl. Phys. 32, 529 (1962).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.A. N. Mitra, Phys. Rev. 139, B1472 (1965).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Compare also: A. N. Mitra and V. S. Bhasin, Phys. Rev. 131, 1265 (1963).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.
- R. Amado, R. D. Amado and Y. Y. Yam, Phys. Rev. 136, B650 (1964); 140, B1291 (1965).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R. Amado, R. D. Amado and Y. Y. Yam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 574 (1964).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Compare also: P. E. Shanley and R. Amado, Annals of Physics 44, 363 (1967) where many relevant references are given.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.C. Lovelace, Phys. Rev. 135, B1225 (1964).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.See also: A. C. Phillips, Phys. Rev. 142, 984 (1966); 145, 733 (1966).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.H. Ekstein, Phys. Rev. 101, 880 (1956); Compare also [6] and Section 2 of the reference given in[11].MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.U
_{βα}can be defined explicitly. Instead of doing this we give in the following the integral equations which it fulfills.Google Scholar - 10.R. Amado, R. D. Amado and B. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. 121, 319 (1961).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.The Faddeev-type equations (5.1) were given by E. O. Alt, P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Nucl. Phys. B2, 167 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Compare in this respect the discussion at the end of Section 7, and footnote [17].Google Scholar
- 12.Faddeev originally constructed his equations by summing up the subsystem series [1].Google Scholar
- 13.K. M. Watson, Phys. Rev. 89, 575 (1953).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.R. J. Glauber, in: High Energy Physics and Nuclear Structure, ed.: G. Alexander (North Holland, Amsterdam (1967)).Google Scholar
- 15.Instead of more general expressions for the “form factors” can also be used. 16. We apply, in fact, a suitable version of the quasiparticle method developed for the two-body case by S. Weinberg: Phys. Rev. 130, 776 (1963); 131, 440 (1963)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- see also K. Meetz, J. Math. Phys. 3, 690 (1962). It should be noted that Weinberg himself proposed an extension of this treatment to the three-(n-)body-case (Phys. Rev. 133, B232 (1964)). However, his very complicated version seems to be beyond any practical applicability.MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Faddeev-type equations for transition operators which are different from our U
_{βα}have previously been introduced by Lovelace who proposed many of the discussed ideas. Since his equations, however, contain the T_{γ}and the potentials V_{γ}it is even cumbersome to apply the approximation of Section 6. For the performance of the general treatment of Section 7 the replacement of his relations by the equations (5.1) was decisive.Google Scholar - 18.C. Lovelace, in: Strong Interactions and High Energy Physics, ed.: R. G. Moorhouse (Oliver and Boyd, London 1964).Google Scholar
- S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 131, 440 (1963).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.To be precise: this property holds for complex energies. Some mathematical effort is required in going to the real axis.Google Scholar
- 20.In the Faddeev equations T
_{γ}G_{O}or is a two-par-tide operator acting in the three-particle space. The above considerations on the Schmidt norms are only valid for genuine two-particle operators. But they lead to similar statements with respect to the operator norms of T_{γ}G_{O}as read in the three-particle space. Such properties are sufficient for our argumentation.Google Scholar - 21.J. Carew and L. Rosenberg, preprint.Google Scholar
- 22.
- 23.P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Zeitschr. f. Physik 220, 29 (1969).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.E. O. Alt, P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Bonn preprint 2-37, See also the relevant references given there and in [5].Google Scholar
- 25.Y. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. 95, 1628 (1954).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Recall that solvable field theoretical models, as, e.g., the Zachariasen model (F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rev. 121, 1851 (1961).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- W. Thirring, Nuovo Cimento 23, 1064 (1962)) have usually such a structure.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.An equivalent field theoretical (Lee-type) model has been developed by R. D. Amado [4].Google Scholar
- 28.The separation (10.3) leads to a splitting of T of the structure (7.1) [16].Google Scholar
- 29.P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Zeitschr. f. Physik 217, 9 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Compare the relevant papers cited in [3], [4], [7].Google Scholar
- 31.For further references see H. P. Noyes and H. Fieldeldey, in: Three-Particle Scattering in Quantum Mechanics, ed.: J. Gillespie and J. Nuttall (Benjamin, New York 1968).Google Scholar
- 32.The details are given in: E. Alt, P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Bonn-preprint 2-55 (1969), where also the three-body bound-state problem is studied.Google Scholar
- 33.J. S. Ball and D. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. 169, 1362 (1968) Compare alsoADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- T. A. Osborn, SLAC-report 79 (1967).Google Scholar
- 34.V. A. Alessandrini, H. Fanchiotti and C. A. Garcia, Phys. Rev. 170, 935 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Note, that in contrast to the above results, variational calculations usually yield too small values of ΔE. Compare e.g., the discussion of the whole problem in [31], Section V. 1, where further methods and results are reviewed.Google Scholar
- 36.Compare the references 2–7 given in [37] and furthermoreGoogle Scholar
- R. G. Newton, J. Math. Phys. 8, 851 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R. Omnes, Phys. Rev. 165, 1265 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Nucl. Phys. B2, 181 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Applying such treatments, it is not necessary to start by first writing integral equations with connected kernels. This is in contrast to claims often made (compare also the discussion of this point in [29] and in Section 9).Google Scholar
- 39.More general expressions for the “potential” occur if nonpolar rest terms are retained in the subsystems (compare the generalizations of the treatment of Section 6 given in Section 7).Google Scholar
- 40.E. O. Alt, P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Bonn-preprint 2-48(1968).Google Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag / Wien 1969