1974
DOI: 10.1063/1.1681085
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Space-fixed vs body-fixed axes in atom-diatomic molecule scattering. Sudden approximations

Abstract: The Arthurs and Dalgarno space-fixed (SF) axes formulation of the quantum theory of atom-diatom scattering is compared with the body-fixed (BF) axes formulation of Curtiss using consistent notation to facilitate the comparison. While equivalent, the two theories are not always equally convenient. When rotation is treated in a sudden approximation, the BF formulation has a tremendous conceptual and computational advantage: It allows an infinite-order sudden approximation, independent of the form of the potentia… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
290
0
8

Year Published

1975
1975
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,107 publications
(302 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
4
290
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…A more convenient and computationally efficient procedure for our purposes is to transform to a system of body-fixed coordinates. These coordinate systems were applied to quantum mechanical problems long ago by Hirschfelder and Wigner 30 and have been discussed extensively by Curtiss, Hirschfelder, and Adler 31 and more recently by Pack,32 and much of the present development will follow that of Pack. In a fully converged calculation, both the body-fixed and space-fixed formalisms lead to the same number of coupled equations and, for fully converged nonreactive atom diatom calculations, they may be implemented with comparable ease. However, body-fixed coordinate systems lead to an approximate decoupling of certain degrees of freedom which is not naturally present in the space-fixed analysis and which is useful in the development of approximate theories.…”
Section: The Body-fixed Schrodinger Equationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A more convenient and computationally efficient procedure for our purposes is to transform to a system of body-fixed coordinates. These coordinate systems were applied to quantum mechanical problems long ago by Hirschfelder and Wigner 30 and have been discussed extensively by Curtiss, Hirschfelder, and Adler 31 and more recently by Pack,32 and much of the present development will follow that of Pack. In a fully converged calculation, both the body-fixed and space-fixed formalisms lead to the same number of coupled equations and, for fully converged nonreactive atom diatom calculations, they may be implemented with comparable ease. However, body-fixed coordinate systems lead to an approximate decoupling of certain degrees of freedom which is not naturally present in the space-fixed analysis and which is useful in the development of approximate theories.…”
Section: The Body-fixed Schrodinger Equationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Its origin is placed into the center-of-mass of the entire ABM system. The same classical variables Q = (R, , ) are used, 41 but the quantum degrees of freedom are described by Jacobi coordinates q = (r, γ , ϕ ), as shown in Fig. 2.…”
Section: Mqct In the Bf Reference Framementioning
confidence: 99%
“…where the angle function G JM Ωℓ is expressed by the D-function, D J ΩM (ω ω ω), and the associated Legendre polynomials, P Ω ℓ (cos θ ) [9,10]. The wave-packet method is suited for the body-fixed representation because it can take an advantage of the sparsity of the Coriolis couplings.…”
Section: Tdwp Methods and Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%