Coulomb imaging of H2+ nuclear wavefunctions using the pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics

Physics Letters, Section A: General, Atomic and Solid State Physics

Volumn 318, Issue 1-2, 2003, Pages 30-35

  Courtney, C R ^a   Frasinski, L J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Coulomb explosion; De Broglie Bohm theory; Interpretation of quantum mechanics; Molecular hydrogen ion; Pilot wave theory; Semi classical methods

Indexed keywords

DIELECTRIC DEVICES; MOLECULAR PHYSICS; QUANTUM THEORY;

CLASSICAL METHODS; COULOMB EXPLOSION; DE BROGLIE-BOHM THEORIES; INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS; MOLECULAR HYDROGEN; PILOT WAVES;

ITERATIVE METHODS;

PROTON;

ARTICLE; ENERGY; IONIZATION; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; PROTON TRANSPORT; QUANTUM MECHANICS; THEORY; VIBRATION;

EID: 0242318423     PISSN: 03759601     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2003.09.022     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. L. de Broglie, An Introduction to the Study of Wave Mechanics, Dutton, New York, 1930.
2. D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85 (1952) 166; D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85 (1952) 180.
3. D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85 (1952) 166; D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85 (1952) 180.
4. G. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 470.
5. M. Golshani, O. Akhavan, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 (2001) 5259, proposed a test to distinguish PWT from the standard formulation; G. Brida, et al., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 35 (2002) 4751, performed the test apparently rejecting PWT; W. Struyve, et al., J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 (2003) 1525, criticised the test on the grounds that it makes too restrictive assumptions about the centre of mass. It seems that the test is misguided and no deviation of (the correct) PWT has been detected from the standard formulation.
6. M. Golshani, O. Akhavan, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 (2001) 5259, proposed a test to distinguish PWT from the standard formulation; G. Brida, et al., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 35 (2002) 4751, performed the test apparently rejecting PWT; W. Struyve, et al., J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 (2003) 1525, criticised the test on the grounds that it makes too restrictive assumptions about the centre of mass. It seems that the test is misguided and no deviation of (the correct) PWT has been detected from the standard formulation.
7. M. Golshani, O. Akhavan, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 (2001) 5259, proposed a test to distinguish PWT from the standard formulation; G. Brida, et al., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 35 (2002) 4751, performed the test apparently rejecting PWT; W. Struyve, et al., J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 (2003) 1525, criticised the test on the grounds that it makes too restrictive assumptions about the centre of mass. It seems that the test is misguided and no deviation of (the correct) PWT has been detected from the standard formulation.
8. J.S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1987.
9. B.K. Dey, H. Rabitz, A. Askar, Phys. Rev. A 61 (2000) 043412.
10. D. Nerukh, J.H. Frederick, Chem. Phys. Lett. 332 (2000) 145.
11. O.V. Prezhdo, C. Brooksby, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 3215.
12. R.E. Wyatt, C.L. Lopreore, G. Parlant, J. Chem. Phys. 114 (2001) 5113.
13. E. Gindensperger, C. Meier, J.A. Beswick, M.C. Heitz, J. Chem. Phys. 116 (2002) 10051.
14. J.B. Maddox, E.R. Bittner, J. Phys. Chem. B 106 (2002) 7981.
15. C.L. Lopreore, R.E. Wyatt, J. Chem. Phys. 116 (2002) 1228.
16. H. Stapelfeldt, E. Constant, P.B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 3780.
17. A. Giusti-Suzor, F.H. Mies, L.F. Dimauro, et al., J. Phys. B 28 (1995) 309.
18. S. Chelkowski, P.B. Corkum, A.D. Bandrauk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 3416, and private communication.
19. S.E. Koonin, Computational Physics, Benjamin-Cummings, 1986.
20. S. Chelkowski, A.D. Bandrauk, Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002) 023403.
21. S. Geltman, J. Phys. B 32 (1999) 2309.
22. P.R. Holland, The Quantum Theory of Motion, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1993.
23. P.R. Holland, C. Philippidis, Phys. Rev. A 67 (2003) 062105.