Advertisement

Stationary Theory of Scattering

Conference paper
Part of the Acta Physica Austriaca book series (FEWBODY, volume 17/1977)

Abstract

As soon as quantum mechanics was formulated by Schrodinger [1] as an eigenvalue problem, the problem of continuous spectrum arose as something new that did not exist (or was not recognized as such) in classical mathematical physics. The continuous spectrum is an essential ingredient of the Hamiltonian operator, and one is naturally led to the question of completeness for the (discrete and continuous) set of eigenfunctions. (It is strange that the same question for classical continuum mechanics was not considered until 1950 s, when Weyl [2] started to study the existence of solutions for the Dirichlet and Neumann problems for exterior domains.)

Keywords

Base Space Hamiltonian Operator Wave Operator Selfadjoint Operator Exterior Domain 
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

  1. 1.
    Ann. d. Physik 79., 361–376; 489–527; 80, 437–490; 81, 109–139, 1926.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 37, 832–836, 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    See B. Simon’s lecture in this Symposium.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For basic properties of the wave operators, see e. g. T. Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators, Second Ed., Springer 1976.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See reference 4 and also T. Kato. Actes, Congrès intern, math. 1970, Tome 1, 135–140.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Functional Analysis and Related Fields, Springer 1970, pp. 99–131; Rocky Mountain J. Math. 1, 127–171, 1971.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See e. g. S. Agmon, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa, Ser. 4, 2, 151–218, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    For details of the material in §§2–5, see reference 6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    For details see references 6 and 7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 12, 513–542, 1972.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Functional Anal. 5, 368–382, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Mathematical Phys. 5, 729–738, 1964.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    V.S. Buslaev and V.B. Matveev, Teoret. Mat. Fiz. 1., 367–376, 1970; P. Alsholm and T. Kato, Proc. Symp. in Pure Math. 23, Amer. Math. Soc. 1973, pp.393–399. Cf. also a recent paper by L. Hòrmander, Math. Z. 146, 69–91, 1976.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    To appear.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Functional Anal. 20, 158–177, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Kato, J. Functional Anal. 1, 342–369, 1967.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    This section is mostly a sketch without proof. A more complete theory will be published elsewhere.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See reference 4, Chapter 10, §3.3.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trud. Mat. Inst. Steklov. 49, 1–122, 1963.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré, Sec. A, 21, 97–145, 1974. See also Ginibre1s lecture in this Symposium.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ann. Phys. 90, 127–165, 1975.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    To appear.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    To appear.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Helv. Phys. Acta 31, 661–684, 1958.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. T. Kuroda, Nuovo Cimento 12, 431–454, 1959; M.N. Hack, ibid. 13, 231–236, 1959.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Kato
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of MathematicsUniv. of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations