Some Basic Questions in Nucleon-Nucleon Bremsstrahlung

  • Leon Heller


The problem of the correct form of the electromagnetic current operator is considered when the Schrödinger equation has a nonlocal potential. By looking at the mesonic origin of exchange potentials, and assuming the mesons are ‘minimally’ coupled to the electromagnetic field, it is concluded that the minimal prescription for the nonlocal potential is generally wrong. Doing nothing about the momentum dependence of the potential corresponds to choosing a ‘maximal’ current; this violates the soft photon theorem but is gauge invariant. The correct current to associate with the exchange of a charged scalar meson is written down, and it is intermediate between the minimal and maximal choices. The implications for nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung calculations are discussed.


Basic Question Scattered Wave Schrodinger Equation Soft Photon Meson Exchange 
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.


  1. 1.
    B. Bakamjian and L. H. Thomas, Phys. Rev. 92, 1300 (1953);MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. L. L. Foldy, Phys. Rev. 122, 275 (1961).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2.
    H. Osborn, Phys. Rev. 176, 1514 (1968);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. R. A. Krajcik and L. L. Foldy, Phys. Rev. Letts. 24, 545 (l970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 3.
    If there are one or more gradients present we call that a nonlocal potential.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    R. K. Osborn and L. L. Foldy, Phys. Rev. 79, 795 (1950).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 5.
    This was done by J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 50, 643 (1936), for an exchange potential.ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 6.
    R. G. Sachs, Phys. Rev. 74, 433 (1948).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 7.
    F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. 110, 974 (1958).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8.
    H. Ekstein, Phys. Rev. 117, 1590 (1960). This is not the most general unitary transformation; seeMathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. G. A. Baker, Phys. Rev. 128, 1485 (1962), andMathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. F. Coester, S. Cohen, B. Day, and C. M. Vincent, Phys. Rev. C 1, 769 (1970) for others.ADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 9.
    L. L. Foldy (private communication). I am indebted to Professor Foldy for this observation.Google Scholar
  14. 10.
    This suggestion was made by Dr. G. G. Zipfel, Jr. (private commimication).Google Scholar
  15. 11.
    R. Baier, H. Kiihnelt, and P. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B11, 675 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 12.
    M. L. Halbert, “Review of Experiments on Nucleon-Nucleon Bremsstrahlung,” invited paper for the Gull Lake Symposium on the Two-Body Force in Nuclei.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leon Heller
    • 1
  1. 1.Los Alamos Scientific LaboratoryUniversity of CaliforniaLos AlamosUSA

Personalised recommendations