The electrical conductivity of thin metallic films 277

Hackspill, L. 1910 C.R.Acad. Sci., Paris,

Lovell, A. C. B. 1936 a Nature, Lond., 137, 493.
— 1936 b Proc.Roy. Soc. A. 157, 311-30.
Ogawa, S. 1937 Sci. Rep. Tohoku Univ. 26, 92-105.
Suhrmann, R. and Barth, G. 1936 Z.Phys. 103, 133-69.
Vand, V. 1937 Z. Phys. 104, 48-67.
Woltjer, H. R. and Onnes, H. K. 1924 4 Int. Congr. Refrig. Lond. (Commun.
Phys. Lab. Leiden, 173 a, 1-7).
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

T he dispersion form ula for n u clear reactions

B y P. L. K a p u r and R . P e ie r l s

(1 Communicatedby R. H. Fowler, F.R.S.— Received 17 Februar

1. I n tr o d u c t io n

Bohr has shown th at in a collision between two nuclei of which at least one
is heavy, an unstable compound nucleus will be temporarily formed and
that the lifetime of such a compound nucleus, measured on a nuclear scale,
is usually very large. For this reason these compound nuclei have fairly
well-defined energy levels (“ virtual” or “ resonance” levels), and the posi­
tions of these levels and the properties of the metastable states belonging
to them determine the cross-sections for all nuclear reactions.
Breit and Wigner (1936) gave a formula for the probability of a nuclear
reaction in terms of the virtual state, taking into account only one such
state, while Bethe and Placzek (1937) and Bethe (1937) generalized the
formula to take account of all possible virtual states. Their formula is usually
referred to as the “ dispersion formula” owing to its analogy with the
formula for the dispersion of light by atomic systems.
In all these papers perturbation theory was used in order to derive the
formula, and this involves the assumption that certain terms in the
Hamiltonian of the nuclear system (such as the interaction between some
of the constituents) may be considered as small, and that without these
terms the virtual state would actually become stable. The perturbation
theory was carried out only to the second order of approximation, and
additional terms ought to arise when higher approximations are con­
sidered.
 278 P. L. K apur and R. Peierls
Now it is known that in actual fact all interaction forces in the nucleus are
strong (this is essential to Bohr’s theory), and therefore the dispersion
formula might be expected to hold only in a very rough approximation. It
therefore seemed worth while to investigate whether one cannot give a
proof for this formula using only assumptions which are actually satisfied
in the cases to which the formula is to be applied.
It is the purpose of this paper to show that this can be done, and we shall
see that the dispersion formula can be justified provided only the widths of
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

the resonance levels which contribute strongly to the process under con­
sideration are smaller than the distances between the levels.
We start from the following consideration: If the levels are narrow, and
therefore the escape of a particle from the nucleus is a rare event, the state
of the compound nucleus will undergo very little change if we prevent the
escape of the particle altogether, by imposing a suitable restriction on the
wave function of the particle somewhere outside the nucleus. Thus, if we
know the wave functions and energy levels of the system which is restricted
by such a boundary condition, these will approximate to the solutions of
the actual problem, and one can obtain the latter from the former by means
of a kind of perturbation theory. This differs from the usual perturbation
theory in that one treats a small change in the boundary conditions rather
than a small change in the Hamiltonian of the system.

2. A S IM P L E E X A M P L E : T H E O N E -B O D Y P R O B L E M

Although the complete proof of the dispersion formula is simple in

principle, it is obscured by the rather complicated notation which is
necessary for the general case. We shall therefore illustrate the method by
treating the case of the scattering of one particle in a central field of force,
assuming this field to be wholly contained within a sphere of radius r0. We
further assume the wave-length of the particle to be so large that only the
partial wave with 1 = 0 need be taken into account.
This partial wave (j) = rij/ satisfies the wave equation

( £ “ H )^ 3 £ ^ + [ £ - F(r)]?i = 0’ (1)
in which V{r) is the potential energy, and E the energy of the particle.
For r ^ r0, V vanishes, and the equation reduces to
d26 70 i
 The dispersion formula for nuclear reactions 279
where the wave vector 1c is defined by
k2 = 2m
2.
The solution of (2) may be written

(j)= ^ sin kr + Seikr, (4)

rC
where I is the amplitude of the incident wave and S that of the scattered
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

wave. Evidently
^ = I cos kr+ ik (5)
dr
and hence we can express I and S by the value and slope of the function at
ro:
fd$\
Ie~ikro ity(r o) ( 6)
ydr

S = cos kr0. <j>(r0)- ^ sin kr0. . (7)

From (6) it is seen that a state of affairs, in which no incident wave is present,
would be described by the boundary condition
d(j)
—ik(j> = 0. (r = ( 8)

However, such a state of affairs is evidently impossible (unless vanishes

throughout). The boundary condition (8) is not compatible with the wave
equation (1). The condition (8), together with the requirement that (j)
vanishes at the origin in order to keep \Js finite, are two homogeneous
boundary conditions at the ends of a finite interval, and it is known that
with such boundary conditions the energy spectrum becomes discrete.
Our energy value E is not an eigenvalue of this problem. We may, however,
suppose we know the eigenvalues Wn of this problem. In other words, we
suppose that we know the solutions (f)n of the equation

£ ^ + r c .- F ( r ) M .- 0 (9)

with the boundary condition (8). It is important to realize that we consider

k in (8) as a fixed constant, the same for all eigenvalues Thus for each
value of k we obtain a different set of solutions (j)n and eigenvalues Wn.
The eigenvalues Wn are complex, owing to the fact that the boundary
 280 P. L. K apur and R. Peierls
condition (8) contains i. Nevertheless, they form a complete set of orthogonal
functions.
To show their orthogonality we multiply equation (9) by another function
and subtract the equation obtained by interchanging n and n '. After
integration we obtain
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

The second term vanishes owing to the boundary condition (8), and it follows
that
j W + Wn>) (10

It is important to note that the integrand in (10) is the direct product of

the two functions, notthe product of the one with the com
of the other.
Once the orthogonality has been established it follows in the usual way
that the functions form a complete set, in the sense that any function 0
which satisfies the boundary condition (8) and is sufficiently regular, can
be expressed as a series
<j) £(11)

Using these functions, we can then find an expression for the actual
solution (j)r)which is a solution of the Schrodinger equation (1). It is tr
that this function does not satisfy the boundary condition (8) but instead
the condition (6), and therefore cannot be expressed as a series of the
type (11). But if we subtract from <j)(r) any arbitrary function y(r) which
only satisfies the equation

—ikx(rt>) =(12)
\ / r0

the remainder satisfies (8) and can therefore be expanded:

0 = ^ ,an<
f)n +
n

We can now determine the coefficients an from the condition that the
expansion (13) must satisfy the wave equation (1). Inserting in (1) and
using (9), we easily obtain

(H0-E)4>= Zan(Wn- E) +(H0-

 The dispersion formula for nuclear reactions 281
We multiply this equation by one particular (j)n and integrate. Owing to
the orthogonality the sum then reduces to one term and we have

aniwn ~ E)\ <j>ldr + f - xdr =

Jo Jo
The second term can be transformed into J y (//0— by means of an
integration by parts. This leaves two integrated terms, viz.
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

dx _ v dA
- u * n dr x
Transforming these with the aid of (8) and (12), we obtain

(W„ - ) af f a d r = ! ^ „ ( r 0) /e -"* .- (Wn -

E (15)

The integral on the left-hand side might be made equal to unity by suitably
normalizing the eigenfunction (j)n,b ut it seems more conve
the function in the usual way, by

(16)

and then Nn = f / r dr (17)

is a fixed constant of modulus less than unity, which is in general complex.

For the integral on the right-hand side we introduce the abbreviation
fro
(18)

but we shall see presently that it can be made as small as we like by suitably
choosing y. We have now
h2 <+>n(ro) 1 • bn (19)
2m (Wn - E) Nn
Thus, in principle, the function 0 is known from (13) and we can therefore
calculate the scattered amplitude from (7). By inserting (13) and using (8)
and (12)
S= Zane~ikr<>(f>n(r0) + e~ikr y(r0) —^ sin Jcr0e~ikr°.
Inserting for an from (19)

(20 a)
 282 P. L. K apur and R. Peierls
This formula must hold, whatever the function y, provided only it satisfies
(12). But we can make both the last terms in (20a) as small as we like; for
example, by choosing
X(r) = const. e_a(ro_r).

We can satisfy (12) by choosing the value of the constant, and it is easy to
see that if we let oc^bo th the integral (18) and the value y(r0) will t
to zero.
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

Thus (20) becomes

IV h - e-2itr»</4()'0)
S sin kr0e~ikro\ I. ( 21 )
I f 2 m(Wn - E ) N n

Introducing further the abbreviation

un = j(k h 2/m)(f>n(r0) (22)

and writing Wn= E n- \iy n

so that hjyn represents the “ mean life” of the state n, the integral cross-
section or= 4771 SJI2| becomes

8 un e~2
2 sin kr0e~ikro (24)
I ' {(En —E) —U yn}Nn
The width y n of the level can be connected with the boundary value of the
eigenfunction (j)n. If we multiply (9) by and, after subtracting the com­
plex conjugate equation, integrate, we obtain

(24 a)

Using the boundary condition (8), the normalization (16), and (22), this
becomes
r» = l « J 2- (25)

So far we have not made use of any approximating assumption. Our

results, (24) and (25), are very similar to formulae (260) and (261) of Bethe
(1937) as applied to pure scattering, if allowance is made for the term which
Bethe and Placzek call “ potential scattering” (Beth 1937, §54A). Our
formula differs, however, in two respects: it contains the factor Nn in the
denominator, and the quantity un is not in general real. Further, we do not
know yet how un depends on k.
 Thedispersion formula for nuclear reactions 283

3. P e r tu r b a t io n t h e o r y fo r small w id t h of t h e l e v e l

Our results would be completely equivalent to the dispersion formula

in its more usual form if we could show that (i) un is real, (ii) = 1, and
(iii) | un| 2 proportional to Jc.
One can see from (22) and (16), (17), that the conditions (i) and (ii) would
be satisfied if <frn(r) were real, while it follows from (22) that the last condition
would be satisfied if <fin{r0) could be considered to be independent of
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

We shall now see th at (f)n is indeed approximately real and independent of

k, if the level is sufficiently narrow. First of all, it is quite evident that this
will be the case if the width y n of the level actually vanishes. For then it
follows from (25) th at <j)n(r0) must vanish, and from (8) that both (fin(r0) and
(idfj>njdr)r are zero. In this limiting case it is, of course, irrelevant which
value of k we use in (8) and we might replace (8) by the condition

(26)

This boundary condition is real and independent of k, and the same must
then be true for the solution (j)n.
However, this argument does not tell us how narrow the level must
actually be made in order for this approximation to apply. This may be
decided in the following way: If the level is narrow we may expect that the
solutions (j)n belonging to the boundary condition (8) will be similar to the
functions 0 n,say, which solve (9) with the boundary condition (26). These
will be real functions and will belong to real eigenvalues ®:
ft2 d20
= <27>

(21a)

Let now <f>n = 0 n + vn> (28)

and suppose vn and en= (29)
to be small of first order. Then, neglecting terms of second order,
(H~E°n)vn = en0 n, (30)

with (31)
[d r ) >0
As before, we m ay expand vn= Z am0 m + y (32)
 284 P. L. K apur and R. Peierls
with an arbitrary function y which must satisfy

( J ) ro = ik 0 ^ r«)’ (33)

and which we can eventually eliminate. By applying to (30) the same

transformation which led to (15) and leaving out at once the integral
involving y,
am{E°m- E l ) = en8mn + i k ~ 0 m(ro)0 n{ro). (34)
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

For m = n this equation shows that

e™= E n- E l - ± i = (35)

i.e. that there is no shift of the level in first approximation, and for m 4=

n (36)
m 2m E°m-E °n •
In order to keep (j)n normalized, we put 0 for m = We have then
from (36) and (32), dropping again a term in y,

<t>n(ro) ®n{rQ) + ik 0 n{ro) — y / (37)

^ E l-E l
Here the accent on the summation sign indicates that the term m = is
to be omitted. Using (35), we see that the ratio between the imaginary
and the real part is given by
1 y/ ym (38)
2 w. ^•*-• fio
-n*m - '

In a similar way we can calculate Nn. Since = Owe evidently still have
Nn = 1 in first approximation. If we write, up to second order,

we know that vn is purely imaginary, while it is easy to prove that wn is real.

Hence if we further note that vn is orthogonal to 0 n, we have, up to terms of
second order,
r0 y*Q
Wn = i + V%dr+2 0n
Jo Jo
whereas from the normalization condition
rnrr0
1 = 1— (40)
v\dr+ 210 nw
Jo Jo
 The dispersion formula for nuclear reactions 285
Using (40), the integral (39) becomes

Nn 1 + 2 1\ dr = 1 + 2 2 X = 1 —i T
0 my-^m—^n)
It differs from unity by the term

(41)
m (Em~ &n)2
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

The two sums, (38) and (41), are slightly different in character. (41) consists
of positive terms only, and in order to make it small each separate term
must be small compared to unity.
The sum (38), on the other hand, contains terms of both signs, and for this
reason it might be small even when some of the individual terms are large.
In th at case the imaginary part of (37) would in first approximation be
small. That, however, does not prove that the method of approximation
converges. One can, in fact, show that the influence of the higher-order
approximations will become large unless each separate term in (38) is smaller
than unity, i.e. unless the width of the levels does not exceed their distance.f
Both sums, (38) and (41), converge at large m, owing to the fact that in the
one-dimensional case which we are considering the density of eigenvalues is
ultimately proportional to E~*, but we shall have to take
again in the case of the many-body problem.
We may then summarize the results of this section by saying that the
dispersion formula in the form given by Bethe and Placzek can be justified
in our special example if the width of all levels is less than their distances
apart.
Finally, we want to add a word about the choice of the radius r0. The
only assumption we have made about r 0 was that the potential should
vanish for r>r0, but this would be compatible with an arbitrarily large r0
However, if we choose r0very large, the second term in (24), which represents
the amplitude scattered by a hard sphere of radius r0, would become large,
and it would evidently have to be compensated by larger terms in the
sum. Indeed, if r0 is increased, the number of resonance levels is increased,
and in particular there will now be more levels of very high energy. Thus
the expression (24) is correct for any value of r0, but it is more convenient
for evaluation if r0 is chosen as small as possible, i.e. so as just to enclose the
potential field.
t The proof for this and a more detailed discussion of the case of a level width
exceeding the distance apart will be given in a separate paper.
 286 P. L. K a p u r a n d R . P eierls

4. N e c essa r y g en er a liza tio n s

The proof for the general case, which is applicable to actual nuclei, pro­
ceeds on very similar lines as that in the simplified example. Slight modifica­
tions are only necessary to allow for the coulomb field in the case of charged
particles or the centrifugal force in the case of particles having a non­
vanishing angular momentum, and also for the possible presence of magnetic
forces inside the nucleus. In this section we shall outline the necessary
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

modifications.
If the particle that collides with the nucleus is charged, or has an angular
momentum, its wave equation is no longer given by (1), even outside the
nucleus. This difficulty might be overcome by choosing the radius r0 so
large that beyond r0 the coulomb field and the centrifugal force are
negligible, but as explained at the end of the preceding section this would
lead to a practically useless form of the dispersion formula, in which the
result appears as a small difference between two large terms.
Instead, it is possible to proceed in the following way: At very large
distances, the wave equation may certainly be replaced by (l),f and we
may write its solutions in the form exp[ + — where l is the angular
momentum. The second term in the exponent has been added merely for
convenience.
Consider now the first of these two solutions which represents an out­
going spherical wave,
(j)+ = ei(.kr-iiir)}p arge r)
and introduce for its value and slope at r0 the abbreviations

<f>+(ro) = A,=f.A. (426)

We have then for the second solution

<P-{r) = e-i(.kr-hn)^large r)

r0) = A*, =/*A *. (436)

It then follows immediately from the continuity equation as applied to

either of the two functions that
( f- f* ) A A * = (44)
If It is the contribution of the incident wave, and that of the scattered
t Strictly speaking, this is not correct for a coulomb field, but it does apply to a
screened coulomb field, which is sufficient for all practical purposes.
 The dispersion formula for nuclear reactions 287
spherical wave, the wave function is at large distances given by an expression
which differs from (4) only by its phase

<!>= -~sm(Jcr —\I tt)+ Slei(kr~^l7T) at large

(45) r.

Hence, by comparison with (42 a, 43 a),

It (46)
2i k ^ + ~ ^ + S l^+’
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

and hence at r0 It (f>(r0= ~ r { A —A*) + StA

(47)

& )r - m
Solving for I, and
(14
- f t
m v ~ w - (48)

| ( A - A * ) df- ( ! A - f * A * ) ^ = - S ,( f - f * ) A A * = - 2 ikS,

(the last equality from (44)).

The natural generalization of the boundary condition (8) is then
d(j)
0, (49)
dr - f t

and we shall now suppose we know the solutions of the Schrodinger equation
with the boundary condition (49). We denote these solutions by (j)n as before,
and by Wn the corresponding eigenvalues. Since / is complex, Wn will be
complex and, denoting again by — \ y nits imaginar
obtain from (24 a) and (44)
2 1Jc,
»r« = 2-(/-/*) M^»)r0= m A A * ^ * ^ ' (50)

The rest of the calculation proceeds as before. One sees from (48) that in the
first term on the right-hand side of (15), has to be replaced by /*(/—
At the same time (48) shows that in the first term on the right-hand side of
(20) we have to replace
e~ikro^>n(0r)

by (f~f*)A*<f>n(r0)
n ,rr0 2
(cf. the boundary condition (49) for <f>n).
 288 P. L. K apur and R. Peierls
Then a repetition of the calculation which led to (20 a) yields
S j _ _ i Y *2 -nma* j. / a *\
(51)
It~ 2 ikf2 m (W n - E ) N nA

and if we put J (/-/* ) j o) = un> (52)

we have now
” _y________ K A* 1
477 S i 2 (53)
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

Ii k2 (En- E + \iyn) ‘A
4*)
Here the relation (25) holds again, because of (50) and (52), and therefore
the first part of the formula is the same as in (24). The second term is dif­
ferent, but it represents again the “ potential scattering ” , i.e. the amplitude
that would be scattered by an impenetrable sphere of radius r0, super­
imposed on the coulomb and centrifugal forces, because it is the scattered
amplitude one would obtain from (14) by imposing the condition 0 (ro) = 0.
Perturbation theory can be used as before to show that un is approximately
real and independent of k, but we see from (50) that the width is now
proportional to k/A*rather than to k, if may be considered
pendent of k.
If the particle is uncharged, A A* may easily be seen to be equal to
( kr0)~2Z, and then the width

lit
yn= I0r>()) I2

is proportional to k2l+1. In the case of a charged particle, 1 contains

also the transparency of the potential barrier.
The other modification we have to consider is due to the possibility of
magnetic forces inside the nucleus, or other forces that will give rise to
terms with imaginary coefficients in the differential equation; with these
the derivation of (10) will no longer be applicable.
Instead, we consider, in addition to the functions (f)n which satisfy the
boundary condition (49), new functions <pn which are the solutions of the
Schrodinger equation with the conjugate complex boundary condition

= 0. (55)
ro
They belong to the eigenvalues W*. Then instead of the orthogonality
relation (10) we have

J $n(r )<
f>n'(r)dr = 0 , if ft + n . (56)
 The dispersion formula for nuclear reactions 289
This result can easily be obtainedf without reference to the detailed form of
the Hamiltonian by applying the continuity equation to the function
$ = a<f>ne - iWnW + e-iWn^m (5 7 )

which for any value of the coefficients a and /? is a solution of the time-
dependent wave equation. Therefore our previous results apply to this case
if only we now define the constant Nnby
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

(58)
instead of (17).

5. T h e g e n e r a l case

For the general proof we shall assume that the energy of the incident
particle is not sufficient to release a particle from the nucleus by an inelastic
collision, or, in other words, that the energy of the virtual state which we
are considering is insufficient to remove two particles from the nucleus. The
results could without much difficulty be generalized to allow for the
possibility of emission of two particles, but the formulae would then become
too lengthy.
We assume further that the probability of more than one particle being
found at a distance greater than r 0 from the centre of the nucleus is
negligible. This is, with the above assumption about the energy, certainly
correct for sufficiently large r0, but it may imply choosing r0 slightly larger
than the actual radius of the nucleus.
If we denote (using as nearly as possible the notations of Bethe (1937))
the different particles that may possibly escape, by Q, the co-ordinates of
the particle Qby xQ,and its spin variable by sQ, then for rQ>
expand the total wave function W of the system into a series with respect
to the stationary states q of the nucleus B which is left after the emission
of Q:
T = Z x q(B ) 'f t q(XQSQ)- (59)
a
Then \]sq must satisfy the differential equation

V%fq(xQsQ) + {k l1- ^ ^ ^ f f f } i l r 1(xQsQ) = 0 (rs i r , ) . (60)

t The detailed proof will be carried out in the next section for the more general
case.

Vol. CLX V I. A. 19
 290 P. L. K apur and R. Peierls
Here M QB is the reduced mass for the motion of the particle Q against the
nucleus B, while 1cqqis defined by
2M
= ( 61 )

where E is the total energy, EBq the energy of the nucleus B in the state q,
and E q the internal energy (if any) of the particle Q. Analysing in
normalized spherical harmonics, we may write
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

' Ql, m
We shall denote shortly as “ the interior” that region of configuration
space in which all particles have distances not exceeding r0from their common
centre of gravity. This interior is then bounded by regions in which one of
the distances is just equal to r0 and where the boundary values of the wave
function in the interior must fit on continuously to the expressions (59).
For all particles except the incident one we have to impose the boundary
condition that there be only outgoing waves at large distances, and
according to the arguments of the preceding section this means imposing
on <j>qSqim the boundary condition

( ^ - / i s e ) « W m = °> (r© = ro) (63)

where / is the quantity defined in (42) which in general depends on the

angular momentum l and the wave vector, mass and charge of the particle Q
and the residual nucleus B.
The boundary condition (63) does not apply if Q is the incident particle,
but we shall, as before, suppose we know the solutions of the problem in
which it holds on all boundaries. The eigenvalues of this problem we call
again Wn, with
K = K -iiy „ <64>
and the eigenfunctions Wn.At the boundary at which
particle Q is just equal to r0, the expansion of the function Wn,

Wn =IX qiB ) 2 ~ ^ s lm{rQ)Ylm{dQ(l)Q),

q l,m'Q
must then, by definition, have the property that
I
(^ fIqQ^fiqsqlm = 6* (' Q —*o) (65)
 Thedispersion formula for nuclear reactions 291
We define another set of functions T n which satisfy the conjugate complex
boundary condition

= °’ (rQ = r°> (66)

where (j)is defined by an obvious generalization of (59) and (62). If

denotes the corresponding eigenvalues,
= aWn e~iWn m + e- if r n'iih
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

is a solution of the time dependent Schrodinger equation. Hence it must

satisfy the continuity equation

fiy |2 _ y [ i W* dcrf (67)

dt J; ? ro ar 0 )
interior rQ=r0
The summation on the right-hand side extends over all particles that can
possibly be emitted, and in each integral daQ denotes the integration with
respect to all variables except rQ. This relation must hold for all values of a
and /?, and if we equate the coefficients of a/?* we find that

(Wn - W * ') ] T nV*,dT = 0.

interior
Hence it follows that the integral must certainly vanish if the real parts of
the eigenvalues are different:

[ P l 'F J r = 0. (68)
interior
If n — n', we must either have
W* = (69)

or else the integral Nn = jT * W nd

(r70)
interior
must vanish. It is clear that Nn will vanish only in exceptional cases and
therefore we may assume (69) to hold.
Equating the coefficients of aa* in (67), we find, if we assume <ftn to be
normalized by
J i m ^ T = i,
interior

the relation yn = 2 2 2 — (fiaQ ~ fto ) I I2- (71)

. Q l , m s,q Z ly l Q B
 292 P. L. K apur and R. Peierls
In analogy with Bethe (1937), equations (261), (261 a), we can write this in
the form:
7n = 2 (?2)
Qlmqs

where 7 Qlmqs= | qs12 =

uQlm

is the partial width of the level n which is due to the possible escape of the
particle Q with angular momentum l,m a
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

the state q.
If we equate the coefficients of /?/?* in (67) we obtain in the same way
7,2
~^7n = 2 2 2 9 71 1( )I
Q l, m s, qL1UQB

which, in connexion with (69), shows that

lfe m P o )|2== I fernPo) I2* (74)

The two functions differ at the boundary only by a factor of modulus unity.
The actual wave function (59) describing the nuclear reaction in which the
incident particle P collides with the nucleus A in the state p
boundary condition (63) on all boundaries, except for and
In the latter case we see from (48) that W must satisfy, instead, the con­
dition

~ fip p j ^pspim —~ 2 ikp —

where Ilm
sis the partial amplitude of the incident wave belonging to the
angular momentum l, m and spin s.If the inc
the z direction, carrying, in the centre of gravity system, one particle per
unit area and per unit time, it is well known that
P^(2/ + i ) \ t 7 m _ 0
Iims 4„hkPp ) * ’ (76)
0, m =f= 0
We now write again = ZanWn + X, (77)

where y is an arbitrary function, subject only to the condition that it

vanishes in the neighbourhood of all boundaries, except at that where
rP = r0, and at the latter has the form

^ r Xp(-d) 2 0 ’
l, m
 The dispersion formula for nuclear reactions 293
where A is the initial nucleus, ptsi wave function in th
X
nmst satisfy the condition
Xpsim

{ f j / r f ~ f i pPj Xpsim = ~ ^iJcp U

according to (76). As before, all these conditions are compatible with making
the function X in the interior and on all boundaries as small as we like,
provided only its slope on the boundary = r0 keeps a finite value.
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

Then, from the condition that (77) is a solution of the wave equation we
find in the same way as when deriving (19) that coefficient an has the value

I,Ims f*
an (f Ppl' j pi )A*rplf*V,slM , (79)
Nn {Wn - E) s 2MPA

except for terms which contain A, but not its derivative. On the other hand,
the partial wave representing the emission of the particle Q with angular
momentum V,m ' and spin s', leaving the nucleus B in the state q, is,
according to (48),
i
*Qql'm's' 2 ik ,
A Qql’) ^ ( f Q q l ' A Qq f t q l ' A Qql' ) J
rQ =
(80)
For Q, q=(= ,p, this takes the form (cf. (77))
P

A Q q l ' m ' s '9 "7, 2 ^ n \ f f Qql’ o) O

L lK ,Q q n

and inserting the value of an from (79) and Ilms from (76)

S! —_ ^ (f _ f* \ A* V ^ is 'l'm '
Qql'm's' 2ik^ \ J Q q V J ql')A QqVZ
Q N n(Wn - E )

v h2 il, , , JM
X i ^ s 2M p a 2ikPp (fppi o)^ )*

This may be wrritten as

aV 1/ (21+ 1) MqB\ 5 il U*/oi
0<"'” v S 2 \ inhkQq ) kPp'Nn(En- E - l i y ny 1 ’

if we define u%qlms = (82)

This definition of u agrees with the definition of contained in (73)

because of (44).
 294 P. L. K apur and R. Peierls
Hence the integral cross section (number of emitted particles per unit
time with unit incident intensity) becomes

|Q 12 _JLV ^ ^Qql'm's' ^
(83)
W b QqVaV ~ nh ( K - E - i iy n)Nn

This equation has to be compared with the dispersion formula, for example,
in the form given by Bethe (1937, equations (393) and (392)). One sees that
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

the two formulae are identical (if allowance is made for the factor 2 in
Bethe’s definition of the matrix element (392)), except for the factor Nn
and for the difference between and
For Q= Pa nd q— ip,.e. elastic scattering, one obta
with the only difference that we have to add to the scattered amplitude a
term which arises from the contribution of X to (80) and which is identical
with the amplitude of the wave that would be scattered by an impenetrable
sphere of radius r0.
In order to obtain a cross section that can be immediately compared with
the experiment, one ought to take into account the fact that degenerate
states of the initial or the residual nucleus are not distinguished by the
experiment. The generalizations which are necessary for this purpose are,
however, completely identical with those discussed by Bethe and Placzek
(1937), and therefore it seems unnecessary to repeat them in detail.
In order to show that the formula becomes completely identical with the
usual dispersion formula if the levels are sufficiently narrow, we can again
use perturbation theory as in § 3. The results of § 3 can easily be seen to be
applicable to the general case, and it is again true that the phases of the
expressions u and u are nearly the same and that the factor Nn may be
replaced by unity if the level width is less than their distance.
A further remark seems necessary with regard to the convergence of the
sums of the type (38) which again represent the error committed in identi­
fying u with u. In our present case the numerator in each term is given by
the partial width of each level which is due to the emission of a particular
particle with a particular angular momentum, leaving the residual nucleus
in a particular state. Although the total level width increases with increasing
energy of the level, this partial width will eventually decrease, because from
a very high virtual state of the compound nucleus there is little chance of a
particle escaping in such a way that the residual nucleus remains in a very
low state of excitation. This is the reason why the sums converge in spite of
the fact that the density of levels increases very rapidly with the excitation
energy.
 Thedispersion formula for nuclear reactions 295
In conclusion, we would like to express our thanks to Dr L. Landau for
stimulating conversations. The results of our § 2 are similar, although
apparently not quite identical with results which Dr Landau obtained in a
different way and mentioned to us before we started our calculations.
We understand from Professor Bohr that Dr Kalckar was considering
a very similar method, but was prevented from completing the work by
his sudden death.
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 17 September 2023

S um m ary

The dispersion formula of Bethe and Placzek, which expresses the cross-
section for nuclear reactions in terms of the virtual levels of the compound
nucleus and their widths, is derived without using the assumption that the
motion of the incident particle within the nucleus can in any approximation
be regarded as a one-body problem.
It is possible to derive a formula of the type of the dispersion formula
without any assumption at all about the mechanism of the reaction.
However, in the general case this formula contains more parameters than
the usual dispersion formula and is therefore of less practical value.
The dispersion formula of Bethe and Placzek is shown to hold rigorously
if only the widths of all virtual levels which contribute essentially to the
expression are much smaller than the distances between the levels.

R eferences

Bethe, H. A. 1937 Rev.Mod. Phys. 9, 69-244.

Bethe, H. A. and Placzek, G. 1937 Phys. Rev. 51, 450.
Breit, G. and Wigner, E. 1936 Phys. Rev. 49, 519.