We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Amongst the various modifications of the general theory of relativity (GRT), the scalar-tensor theory of Brans and Dicke (BDT) is treated most seriously ([2], [17], [13]). The BDT is consistent with observations as long as the coupling parameter ω between the scalar and tensor components of gravitation is about equal to or greater than 500 [18]. However, there are no a priori theoretical reasons for excluding other values of ω. In the limit ω → ∞, the BDT reduces to the GRT for a constant BDT-scalar field Φ
Born partial wave integrals are considered for electron-neutral atom collisions. It is shown that for relatively general atomic wave functions these may be evaluated analytically. These form the Born reactance matrix RB and can be used to calculate the collision strengths in the approximations ωI, ωII.
In this note we show that Propositions 5·2 and 5·3 of [1] are incorrect as stated. Thus statement (5) of Theorem 1·3 must be considered as a conjecture and certainly does not follow from our constructions. Our error does not affect any other results in the paper, and, indeed, § 5 was included mainly to provide some conceptual motivation for our constructions.