Low‐energy electron‐atom and electron‐molecule scattering theory circa 1964

MAY 01, 1965

E. Gerjuoy

Let me begin with the remark that, to avoid continual reiteration of an awkward phrase, I shall simply say “electron scattering” where it is obvious that I am referring to electron‐atom and/or electron‐molecule collisions, which collisions may be elastic or inelastic. Progress in electron‐scattering theory has been reviewed on numerous occasions in recent years, by various authors. Thus, there is not much point in trying to re‐review in detail here the whole subject of electron scattering, especially since I couldn’t possibly do it within the pages of this entire issue of Physics Today. Instead, I shall confine my attention largely to topics wherein what has been happening within the past two years or so seems important. By important, I mean that—to me at least—these happenings suggest modifications of apparently established points of view. Even with this very severe restriction on the subjects I intend to discuss, I really can’t do justice to the available material in an article of this length. A reasonable idea of the feverish present activity in the field of electron scattering, as well as a notion of the breadth of topics falling under this general subject heading, can be obtained from thumbing through the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Physics of Electronic and Atomic Collisions.

This article is only available in PDF format

References

1. In particular, the general theory has been reviewed by B. L. Moiseiwitsch, and by M. J. Seaton, in Chapters 9 and 11, respectively, of D. R. Bates, Atomic and Molecular Processes (Academic Press, New York, 1962).
Low‐energy electron‐hydrogen scattering has been very thoroughly discussed by P. G. Burke and Kenneth Smith, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 458, (1962). https://doi.org/RMPHAT
Shorter reviews, on various special topics, may be found in M. R. C. McDowell, Atomic Collision Processes (North‐Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1964),
comprising the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Physics of Electronic and Atomic Collisions, University College, London, July 22–26, 1963.
Specifically, these Proceedings include reviews by H. S. W. Massey, p. 3;
D. W. O. Heddle and M. J. Seaton, p. 137;
and C. A. McDowell, p. 395.
Moreover, the classic treatises by Massey and collaborators: N. F. Mott and H. S. W. Massey, The Theory of Atomic Collisions (Oxford University Press, London, 1949) ;
H. S. W. Massey and E. H. S. Burhop, Electronic and Ionic Impact Phenomena (Oxford University Press, London, 1952);
H. S. W. Massey in Encyclopedia of Physics (Springer‐Verlag, Berlin, 1956), Vol. 36, p. 307;
and J. D. Craggs and H. S. W. Massey in Encyclopedia of Physics (Springer‐Verlag, Berlin, 1959), Vol. 32/1, p. 314 are by no means wholly out of date.
2. C. C. J. Roothaan and P. S. Bogus, in Methods in Computational Physics (Academic Press, New York, 1963), Vol. 2, p. 47;
Douglas R. Hartree, The Calculation of Atomic Structures (Wiley, New York, 1957), esp. p. 164.
3. C. C. J. Roothaan and P. S. Kelly, Phys. Rev. 131, 1177 (1963).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
4. L. C. Allen and A. M. Karo, J. Phys. Chem. 66, 2329, (1962); https://doi.org/JPCHAX
L. C. Allen and A. M. Karo, Rev. Mod. Phys. 32, 275 (1960). https://doi.org/RMPHAT
Cf. also C. A. Coulson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 32, 170, (1960); https://doi.org/RMPHAT
M. Kotani, K. Ohno and K. Kayama in Encyclopedia of Physics (Springer‐Verlag, Berlin, 1961), Vol. 37/2, p. 1.
5. I am indebted to L. C. Allen, S. Borowitz, F. Herman, and J. A. Pople for private communications concerning the utility and availability of atomic and molecular wave functions. However, they should not be held responsible for the assertions in this and the preceding paragraphs.
6. James M. Peek, Phys. Rev. 134, A877 (1964).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
7. V. I. Ochkur, Soviet Physics‐JETP, 18, 503 (1964).https://doi.org/SPHJAR
8. Results similar to Ochkur’s were obtained by Presynakov, Sobelman and Vainnshtein, in a paper in the Proceedings of the Third International Conference (see reference 1). They refer to Ochkur, but adopt a different line of reasoning which I find less convincing.
9. A. Temkin, Phys. Rev. 107, 1004 (1957) https://doi.org/PHRVAO
and A. Temkin, 116, 358 (1959).https://doi.org/PHRVAO , Phys. Rev.
10. Y. Hahn, T. F. O’Malley, and L. Spruch, Phys. Rev. 134, B911 (1964), and references therein.https://doi.org/PHRVAO
11. A. Temkin, Phys. Rev. 126, 130 (1962); https://doi.org/PHRVAO
Proceedings of the Third International Conference (see reference 1), 107 (1964).
12. Elizabeth Baranger and Edward Gerjuoy, Phys. Rev. 106, 1182 (1957).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
13. Especially Schulz at Westinghouse, and Simpson, Kuyatt and coworkers at the National Bureau of Standards.
14. G. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. Letters 13, 583 (1964).https://doi.org/PRLTAO
15. P. G. Burke and H. M. Schey, Phys. Rev. 126, 147 (1962).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
16. M. Gryzinski, Proceedings of the Third International Conference (see reference 1) p. 226, and references therein.

More about the authors

E. Gerjuoy, American Physical Society.