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

  • Werner Sandhas
Conference paper
Part of the Acta Physica Austriaca book series (FEWBODY, volume 6/1969)


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).


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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Footnotes

  1. 1.
    L. D. Faddeev, Soviet Phys.-JETP 12, 1014 (1961).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 1.
    L. D. Faddeev, Soviet Phys. Dokl. 6, 384 (1961); 7, 600 (1963).MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 3.
    A. N. Mitra, Nucl. Phys. 32, 529 (1962).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 3.
    A. N. Mitra, Phys. Rev. 139, B1472 (1965).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Compare also: A. N. Mitra and V. S. Bhasin, Phys. Rev. 131, 1265 (1963).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 4.
    R. D. Amado, Phys. Rev. 132, 486 (1963); 141, 902 (1966)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. R. Amado, R. D. Amado and Y. Y. Yam, Phys. Rev. 136, B650 (1964); 140, B1291 (1965).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. R. Amado, R. D. Amado and Y. Y. Yam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 574 (1964).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 5.
    Compare also: P. E. Shanley and R. Amado, Annals of Physics 44, 363 (1967) where many relevant references are given.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 6.
    C. Lovelace, Phys. Rev. 135, B1225 (1964).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 7.
    See also: A. C. Phillips, Phys. Rev. 142, 984 (1966); 145, 733 (1966).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 8.
    H. Ekstein, Phys. Rev. 101, 880 (1956); Compare also [6] and Section 2 of the reference given in[11].MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 9.
    Uβα can be defined explicitly. Instead of doing this we give in the following the integral equations which it fulfills.Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    R. Amado, R. D. Amado and B. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. 121, 319 (1961).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Compare in this respect the discussion at the end of Section 7, and footnote [17].Google Scholar
  18. 12.
    Faddeev originally constructed his equations by summing up the subsystem series [1].Google Scholar
  19. 13.
    K. M. Watson, Phys. Rev. 89, 575 (1953).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 14.
    R. J. Glauber, in: High Energy Physics and Nuclear Structure, ed.: G. Alexander (North Holland, Amsterdam (1967)).Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 17.
    Faddeev-type equations for transition operators which are different from our Uβα have previously been introduced by Lovelace who proposed many of the discussed ideas. Since his equations, however, contain the Tγ and the potentials Vγ 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
  24. 18.
    C. Lovelace, in: Strong Interactions and High Energy Physics, ed.: R. G. Moorhouse (Oliver and Boyd, London 1964).Google Scholar
  25. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 131, 440 (1963).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 19.
    To be precise: this property holds for complex energies. Some mathematical effort is required in going to the real axis.Google Scholar
  27. 20.
    In the Faddeev equations Tγ GO 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 Tγ GO as read in the three-particle space. Such properties are sufficient for our argumentation.Google Scholar
  28. 21.
    J. Carew and L. Rosenberg, preprint.Google Scholar
  29. 22.
    H. Feshbach, Annals of Phys. 5, 357 (1958); 19, 287 (1962).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 23.
    P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Zeitschr. f. Physik 220, 29 (1969).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 25.
    Y. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. 95, 1628 (1954).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 26.
    Recall that solvable field theoretical models, as, e.g., the Zachariasen model (F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rev. 121, 1851 (1961).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. W. Thirring, Nuovo Cimento 23, 1064 (1962)) have usually such a structure.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 27.
    An equivalent field theoretical (Lee-type) model has been developed by R. D. Amado [4].Google Scholar
  36. 28.
    The separation (10.3) leads to a splitting of T of the structure (7.1) [16].Google Scholar
  37. 29.
    P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Zeitschr. f. Physik 217, 9 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 30.
    Compare the relevant papers cited in [3], [4], [7].Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 33.
    J. S. Ball and D. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. 169, 1362 (1968) Compare alsoADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. T. A. Osborn, SLAC-report 79 (1967).Google Scholar
  43. 34.
    V. A. Alessandrini, H. Fanchiotti and C. A. Garcia, Phys. Rev. 170, 935 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 36.
    Compare the references 2–7 given in [37] and furthermoreGoogle Scholar
  46. R. G. Newton, J. Math. Phys. 8, 851 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. R. Omnes, Phys. Rev. 165, 1265 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 37.
    P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Nucl. Phys. B2, 181 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 40.
    E. O. Alt, P. Grassberger and W. Sandhas, Bonn-preprint 2-48(1968).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag / Wien 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • Werner Sandhas
    • 1
  1. 1.Physikalisches InstitutUniversität BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations