The standing wave solution to the Schrodinger equation defined in terms of the standing wave Green's function for the full Hamiltonian is discussed. This solution is compared with the more usual standing wave solution. The former is shown to be one-half the sum of the usual ingoing and outgoing wave
On standing wave solutions to the Schrödinger equation
✍ Scribed by D.J Kouri; F.S Levin
- Publisher
- Elsevier Science
- Year
- 1974
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 437 KB
- Volume
- 83
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0003-4916
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
The standing wave solution to the Schriidinger equation defined in terms of the standing wave Green's function for the full Hamiltonian is discussed. This solution is compared with the more usual standing wave solution. The former is shown to be onehalf the sum of the usual ingoing and outgoing wave solutions obeying Lippmann-Schwinger equations. Partial wave elements of the two solutions as well as of the two reaction (K) matrices are found to be related by a simple normalization factor, viz. co? 6, ) where 6, is the Ith partial wave phase shift. Thus, either of the two standing wave solutions can be used to obtain the correct K matrix element, tan 6, , since in each case it is the asymptotic ratio of the irregular to the regular solution.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract We first construct traveling wave solutions for the Schrödinger map in ℝ^2^ of the form __m__(__x__~1~, __x__~2~ − ϵ __t__), where __m__ has exactly two vortices at approximately $\font\open=msbm10 at 10pt\def\R{\hbox{\open R}}(\pm {{1}\over{2 \epsilon}}, 0) \in \R^2$ of degree ±1. We
We prove local existence of analytic solutions for nonlinear Schrödinger-type equations. The class we consider includes a number of equations derived from the physical context of water waves. 1993 Academic Press, Inc.
The proof of lemma 5.2 in [1] contains several mistakes. Nevertheless, the statement is correct and is proven in an elementary fashion, correctly this time, in [3, lemma 2.4], which is in this issue of the journal. In the proof of corollary 3.2 in [1], we misquoted from Kato's textbook on perturbat