From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:48 PM
Subject: rejection of paper
Dear Author
on the basis of the following referee report, I
am very sorry to communicate you that your paper
"CONTRADICTIONS OF NON RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM SCATTERING
THEORY" cannot be accepted for publication on
IJQI, special issue on "Advances in foundations
of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information".
Sincerely yours
Marco Genovese
Editor of the special issue of IJQI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referee 1
Re.: Referee report on V.K. Ignatovich "Contradictions of Quantum .."
The author claims contradictions of quantum
scattering theories and bundles the critics on
neutron scattering phenomena. He criticizes the
lack of wave packets, the quantization of
scattering angle and non-linearity effects. The
first point seems justified, the second and third
one not because there is a continuous eigen-value
solution for the scattering angle and non-linear
effects have not been observed yet.
The author starts with the scattering from a
rigidly bound nucleus and critisizes that the
scattered wave is described by a spherical wave
which exists only at distance from the nucleus.
This is not a drawback since the scattering cross
section is defined as number of particles
scattered into the far region around the nucleus.
The spherical wave describes the single particle
quantum mechanically since we do not know its
direction, we know the probability only. The
question how many nuclei within the sample are
involved in the scattering process is justified.
Within the standard scattering theory scattering
from a single particle is considered which means
that the size of the wave packet and the
wavelength itself are considerably smaller than
the inter-atomic distances. The collective action
of many nuclei is taken into account afterwards
when the spherical waves are added coherently
(i.e. with the same phase shift) or incoherently
(i.e. with different phase shifts). Here it
should be mentioned that the size of the wave
function (wave packet) can be well measured in
all three directions by measuring the related
coherence functions (e.g. Clothier et al. PRA 44
(1971) 5357; Rauch et al. PRA 53 (1996) 902) and
it can always be calculated by Fourier
transformation when one knows the momentum
distribution. The scattering pattern depends on
the sizes of the wave packet, i.e. sharper Bragg
peaks when large packets are used (i.e. narrow momentum distributions).
The standard scattering theory is critisized with
the same arguments. Here also the mistake
happened that a plane wave is assumed as scattered wave.
The fundamental scattering theory based on
scattering matrices is also critisized thereby he
claims again a monochromatic plane wave at the
exit. k(vector) in Eq. 22 means the mean momentum
of the packet, or? In Eq.(47) the
Lippmann-Schwinger equation is derived but not
used in the subsequent discussion.
In Chap. 5 he author jumps into non-linear
Schrodinger equation by assuming a non-spreading
wave packet. This is interesting but not physical
since spreading is observed in many situations
when t=0 is defined and therefore the
time-dependent Schrodinger equation has to be
used. Then he assumes that the wave packet is an
intrinsic property of a particle itself which is
in strong contradiction to quantum optics laws
(e.g. L. Mandel and E. Wolf "Optical coherence
and quantum optics", Cambridge Univ.Press 1995).
The dimensions of the wave packet depend
exclusively on the preparation of the beam. It
should also made clear that a wave packet does
not spread in free propagation since time
factorizes and the stationary Schrodinger
equation does not give spreading since the
solution is an eigen-value solution and not the
result of a non-linear interaction.
The starting comment to Chap. 6 "We cannot deduce
A, but we can explore its properties" is
completely misleading and should be removed since
A can be determined rather precisely (see above)
and therefore the discussion whether s is small
or large is irrelevant because it is as defined by the beam preparation.
In the discussion of related experiments he
mentions several effects which are proportional
to the packet spread in momentum space (thin
plate transmission, Goos-Hanchen effect
etc). These effects exist but can be explained
directly by the non-spreading wave-packets from
the stationary Schrodinger equation because more
wave components k > ko have higher transmission.
The statement s =prop.k is purely technically
justified because it becomes more difficult to
monochromatize and collimate higher energy neutrons (particles).
A comment to Chap.8: It is right that for
neutrons A>>lamda-square, but that is not a
criterion for scattering of particles et all,
i.e. very heavy molecules (fullerenes etc) but
also ultra-cold neutrons can have packet
dimensions smaller than the wave length.
The arguments discussed above make the conclusion
of the manuscript questionable and misleading
since at least many aspects of the standard
scattering theory are well verified and useful tools in physical science.
Another week point of the manuscript is the
frequent self-citation of the author (9 self
citations out of 16). Many other relevant
literature has not been mentioned et all (e.g.
V.F. Sears, Can. J.Phys. 56 (1978) 1261 and
Phys.Rep. 82 (1982) 1 and "Neutron Optics", Oxford Univ.Press 1989).
Although I welcome competent discussions about
quantum and scattering theories I believe the
present manuscript does not contribute to make
the issue clearer mainly because all effect
described as crucial experiments are well
described by the standard theory as well. A major
revision would be necessary to make the manuscript publishable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referee 2
Title: CONTRADICTIONS OF QUANTUM SCATTERING THEORIES
Auth: V Ignatovich
Dear Editor,
I carefully read the author's reply and the revised version of
this manuscript. I appreciated the author's revision but I still
believe that his polemic attitude make the manuscript of little
use for the community in order to start a debate, which I sincerely
believe is the main aim of the author. I'm anyway ready to admit
that I missed something of this manuscript and thus I believe that
a second opinion is in order.