Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
The elastic scattering of Yukawa's particles, or mesons, by a static electric field is recalculated by considering the scattering as a process in which the incident meson is absorbed and another meson, i.e. the scattered meson, is created, and Laporte's result is confirmed. This method promises an easier handling of the second approximation.
A similar dependence of the angular distribution of the emitted quanta upon the spin of the incident mesons in a process like Y− + P → N + hν is found. Thus, the angular distribution contains a dependence upon the azimuthal angle in general. For the reverse process, the angular distribution of the emitted mesons, both longitudinal and transverse, contains also a dependence upon the azimuthal angle, which disappears only when the incident light is circularly polarized.
The writer wishes to thank Prof. W. Pauli for calling his attention to the azimuthal dependence in the problem of elastic scattering and Dr C. Møller for help given during the preparation of the paper.
† Laporte, O., Phys. Rev. 54 (1938), 905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‡ Heitler, W., Proc. Roy. Soc. 166 (1938), 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
† Yukawa, , Sakata, and Taketani, , Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Japan, 20 (1938), 319.Google Scholar
‡ Yukawa, Sakata and Taketani, loc. cit.
† It is needless to say that ψ N, ψ P are only the constant parts of the corresponding wave functions, which in the complete form contain another factor exp(i pN· x/ħ) or exp (i pp· x/ħ).
† This signs of one or two terms in (7) are different from those given by Heitler, which are incorrect.
