# Why first-order Born Approximation doesn't satisfy optical theorem?

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
149 views

First-order Born Approximation in Quantum Mechanics states that scattering amplitude is a Fourier transform of potential:

$$f(\theta) = \int d^3 r^{\prime} e^{-i (\bf k - k_i)r^{\prime}} V(r^{\prime})$$

where $$\bf k$$ is a wave vector of incident wave and $$\bf k_i$$ is a wave vector of scattered wave. $$\theta$$ is defined as the angle between $$\bf k$$ and $$\bf k_i$$ (i.e. scattering angle). $$|\bf k|$$ is equal to $$|\bf k_i|$$ in elastic scattering, so $$\bf k - k_i =0$$ for $$\theta = 0$$ as far as we consider elastic scattering.

Therefore:

$$f(0) = \int d^3 r^{\prime} V(r^{\prime})$$

However, this fails to satisfy the optical theorem:

$$\mbox{Im}f(0) = \frac{k}{4\pi} \sigma_{tot}$$

because $$f(0)$$ is obviously real. Why is it happened?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2022-08-14 10:22 (UTC), posted by SE-user tak
Where is $\theta$ in $f(\theta)$?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2022-08-14 10:22 (UTC), posted by SE-user InertialObserver
$\theta$ is defined as the angle between $\bf k$ and $\bf k_i$ (i.e. scattering angle). Then, $\bf k - k_i$ becomes zero when $\theta=0$ because $|\bf k|$ is equal to $|\bf k_i|$ in elastic scattering.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2022-08-14 10:22 (UTC), posted by SE-user tak

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

$$\let\th=\theta \let\dag=\dagger \def\bk{\mathbf k} \def\br{\mathbf r} \def\st{\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\Im{\mathrm{Im}}$$ Shortly, because it's a first-order perturbative approximation. Let me recall how optical theorem is proven. There are two ways, equivalent at their root:

• flux conservation
• unitarity of $$S$$-matrix.

By flux conservation I mean the following. Start from $$u(\br) = e^{i\bk\cdot\br} + f(\th)\,{e^{ikr} \over r}$$ as the asymptotic form of solution for a scattering problem. We expect that asymptotically outgoing flux equates ingoing one, i.e. that total asymptotic flux vanishes. Let's write shortly $$u = u_1 + u_2.$$ Computing flux, which is quadratic in $$u$$, we shall find three terms: $$\Phi(u_1) + \Phi(u_2) + \hbox{interference term}.$$

$$\Phi(u_1)$$ is obviuosly zero. $$\Phi(u_2)$$ is proportional to $$\st$$, and the interference term gives $$\Im f(0)$$. Result is the optical theorem.

Now note that $$f(\th)$$ is of the first order in $$V(r)$$, whereas $$\st$$ is of second order. A first-order perturbative approach neglects second-order terms, thus giving $$\Im f(0) = 0$$.

Unitarity of $$S$$-matrix means $$SS^\dag=I$$. Define $$S = I + T$$. Then $$I = SS^\dag = I + T + T^\dag + TT^\dag.$$ Again $$T$$ expresses outgoing wave, i.e. scattering amplitude (with an $$i$$ multiplier, so that $$T+T^\dag$$ is $$\Im f$$). $$TT^\dag$$ gives $$\st$$, and the above argument may be repeated.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2022-08-14 10:22 (UTC), posted by SE-user Elio Fabri
answered Dec 26, 2018 by (30 points)

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsOve$\varnothing$flowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.