- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Absorbing detectors versus scattering theory

Will Cavendish*

Siddhant Das†

  • John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics, New York, New York 10003, United States

  • *Contact author: willcavendish@johnbellinstitute.org
  • †Contact author: siddhant.das@physik.uni-muenchen.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 112, 062217 – Published 16 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/332p-4nl1

Abstract

Any proposed solution to the screen problem in quantum mechanics—the challenge of predicting the joint distribution of particle arrival times and impact positions—must align with the extensive data obtained from scattering experiments. In this paper, we conduct a direct consistency check of the absorbing boundary condition (ABC) proposal, a prominent approach to address the screen problem, against the predictions derived from scattering theory (ST). Through a series of exactly solvable one- and two-dimensional examples, we demonstrate that the ABC proposal's predictions are in tension with the well-established results of ST. Specifically, it predicts sharp momentum- and screen-orientation-dependent detection probabilities, along with secondary reflections that contradict existing experimental data. We conclude that while it remains possible that physical detectors described by the ABC proposal could be found in the future, the proposal is empirically inadequate as a general solution to the screen problem, as it is inconsistent with the behavior of detectors in standard experimental settings.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (47)

  1. M. Born, Quantenmechanik der stoßvorgänge, Z. Phys. 38, 803 (1926).
  2. N. F. Mott and H. S. W. Massey, The Theory of Atomic Collisions, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, London, 1949).
  3. R. G. Newton, Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles, 2nd ed., Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (United States) (Springer, Berlin, 1982).
  4. L. S. Rodberg and R. M. Thaler, Introduction to the Quantum Theory of Scattering, Pure and Applied Physics (Academic Press, New York, 1967).
  5. W. O. Amrein, J. M. Jauch, and K. B. Sinha, Scattering Theory in Quantum Mechanics: Physical Principles and Mathematical Methods, Lecture Notes and Supplements in Physics, edited by D. Pines (W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1977).
  6. John Day Dollard, Scattering into cones I: Potential scattering, Commun. Math. Phys. 12, 193 (1969).
  7. J. M. Combes, R. G. Newton, and R. Shtokhamer, Scattering into cones and flux across surfaces, Phys. Rev. D 11, 366 (1975).
  8. Steven Weinberg, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015).
  9. B. Lohmann and E. Weigold, Direct measurement of the electron momentum probability distribution in atomic hydrogen, Phys. Lett. A 86, 139 (1981).
  10. M. A. Coplan, J. H. Moore, and J. P. Doering, (e, 2e) Spectroscopy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 985 (1994).
  11. J. Gonzalo Muga, Characteristic times in one-dimensional scattering, in Time in Quantum Mechanics, J. G. Muga, R. Sala Mayato, and Í. L. Egusquiza, (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 31–72.
  12. M. Sassoli de Bianchi, Time-delay of classical and quantum scattering processes: A conceptual overview and a general definition, Centr. Eur. J. Phys. 10, 282 (2012).
  13. C. Kurtsiefer, T. Pfau, and J. Mlynek, Measurement of the wigner function of an ensemble of helium atoms, Nature (London) 386, 150 (1997).
  14. C. Kurtsiefer, T. Pfau, C. R. Ekstrom, and J. Mlynek, Time-resolved detection of atoms diffracted from a standing light wave, Appl. Phys. B 60, 229 (1995).
  15. J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, A. Dorn, R. Dörner, L. Ph H. Schmidt, and H. Schmidt-Böcking, Recoil-ion and electron momentum spectroscopy: Reaction-microscopes, Rep. Prog. Phys. 66, 1463 (2003).
  16. B. Mielnik, The screen problem, Found. Phys. 24, 1113 (1994).
  17. J. G. Muga and C. R. Leavens, Arrival time in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rep. 338, 353 (2000).
  18. R. Werner, Arrival time observables in quantum mechanics, Ann. Phys. Théor. 47, 429 (1987).
  19. R. Tumulka, Distribution of the time at which an ideal detector clicks, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 442, 168910 (2022).
  20. R. Tumulka, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2022).
  21. G. R. Allcock, The time of arrival in quantum mechanics III. The measurement ensemble, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 53, 311 (1969).
  22. J. J. Halliwell, Path-integral analysis of arrival times with a complex potential, Phys. Rev. A 77, 062103 (2008).
  23. A. Ruschhaupt, J. A. Damborenea, B. Navarro, J. G. Muga, and G. C. Hegerfeldt, Exact and approximate complex potentials for time observables, Europhys. Lett. 67, 1 (2004).
  24. J. A. Damborenea, Í. L. Egusquiza, G. C. Hegerfeldt, and J. G. Muga, Measurement-based approach to quantum arrival times, Phys. Rev. A 66, 052104 (2002).
  25. G. C. Hegerfeldt, The quantum jump approach — applications to quantum optics and to spin-boson detector models, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 196, 012024 (2009).
  26. R. Tumulka, arXiv:1601.04571 [quant-ph].
  27. A. S. Tahvildar-Zadeh and S. Zhou, Detection time of dirac particles in one space dimension, in Physics and the Nature of Reality: Essays in Memory of Detlef Dürr, edited by A. Bassi, S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì (Springer, Cham, 2024), pp. 187–201.
  28. R. Tumulka, Detection-time distribution for several quantum particles, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042220 (2022).
  29. L. Frolov, S. Teufel, and R. Tumulka, Existence of Schrödinger evolution with absorbing boundary condition, Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. 28, 27 (2025).
  30. R. Tumulka, On a derivation of the absorbing boundary rule, Phys. Lett. A 494, 129286 (2024).
  31. R. Tumulka, Absorbing boundary condition as limiting case of imaginary potentials, Commun. Theor. Phys. 75, 015103 (2023).
  32. L. Frolov, Detecting screens modeled by schrodinger operators that generate C0 contraction semigroups, Rev. Math. Phys. 20, 1 (2025).
  33. V. Dubey, C. Bernardin, and A. Dhar, Quantum dynamics under continuous projective measurements: Non-hermitian description and the continuum-space limit, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032221 (2021).
  34. H. M. Nussenzveig, Moshinsky Functions, Resonances and Tunneling, in Symmetries in Physics, edited by A. Frank and K. B. Wolf (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992), pp. 293–310.
  35. J. Kiukas, A. Ruschhaupt, P. O Schmidt, and R. F Werner, Exact energy–time uncertainty relation for arrival time by absorption, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 185301 (2012).
  36. A. A. Rafsanjani, M. Kazemi, A. Bahrampour, and M. Golshani, Can the double-slit experiment distinguish between quantum interpretations,? Commun. Phys. 6, 195 (2023).
  37. A. A. Rafsanjani, M. Kazemi, V. Hosseinzadeh, and M. Golshani, Non-local temporal interference, Sci. Rep. 14, 3615 (2024).
  38. P. Exner, Open Quantum Systems and Feynman Integrals (Springer, Dordrecht, 1985).
  39. P. Busch, M. Grabowski, and P. J. Lahti, Operational Quantum Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 436 (Springer, Berlin, 1995).
  40. T. Pfau and C. Kurtsiefer, Partial reconstruction of the motional wigner function of an ensemble of helium atoms, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2551 (1997).
  41. I. Bray, D. V. Fursa, A. S. Kadyrov, A. T. Stelbovics, A. S. Kheifets, and A. M. Mukhamedzhanov, Electron-and photon-impact atomic ionisation, Phys. Rep. 520, 135 (2012).
  42. M. B. Shah, D. S. Elliott, and H. B. Gilbody, Pulsed crossed-beam study of the ionisation of atomic hydrogen by electron impact, J. Phys. B 20, 3501 (1987).
  43. J. D. Bondurant and S. A. Fulling, The dirichlet-to-robin transform, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, 1505 (2005).
  44. M. A. Doncheski and R. W. Robinett, Anatomy of a quantum ‘bounce,’, Eur. J. Phys. 20, 29 (1999).
  45. D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1995).
  46. H. M. Nussenzveig, Moshinsky functions, resonances and tunneling, in Symmetries in Physics, edited by A. Frank and K. B. Wolf (Springer, Berlin, 1992), pp. 293–310.
  47. Otto Neall Strand, A method for the computation of the error function of a complex variable, Math. Comput. 19, 127 (1965).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 112, 062217– Published 16 December, 2025
  • Received 9 September 2025
  • Accepted 28 October 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation