Pair creation with bound electron for photon impact on bare heavy nuclei

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 402-413

  Agger, Carsten K ^a   Sørensen, Allan H ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001073633     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.55.402     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. See, for instance, the following reviews and references therein: C. A. Berturlani and G. Baur, Phys. Rep. 163, 299 (1988);
2. J. Eichler, Phys. Rep. 193, 167 (1990);
3. J. Eichler and W. E. Meyerhof, Relativistic Atomic Collisions (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1995).
4. See, for instance, K. Momberger, A. Belkacem and A. H. Sørensen, Europhys. Lett. 32, 401 (1995) and Phys. Rev. A 53, 1605 (1996).
5. A. Aste, K. Hencken, D. Trautmann and G. Baur, Phys. Rev. A 50, 3980 (1994).
6. H. A. Bethe and E. E. Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics of One- and Two-Electron Atoms (Springer, Berlin, 1957).
7. E. Merzbacher, Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1971).
8. W. Greiner, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics — Wave Equations (Springer, Berlin, 1990).
9. I. I. Sobel'man, Atomic Spectra and Radiative Transitions, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1992).
10. M. Weissbluth, Atoms and Molecules (Academic, San Diego, 1978).
11. I. Øverbø, K. J. Mork and H. Olsen, Phys. Rev. 175, 443 (1968).
12. W. R. Alling and W. R. Johnson, Phys. Rev. 139, A1050 (1965).
13. W. R. Johnson, D. J. Buss and C. O. Carroll, Phys. Rev. 135, A1232 (1964).
14. As Sørensen and Belkacem, Phys. Rev. A 49, 81 (1994), we might arrive at the very same result by using, not the integral representation for the confluent hypergeometric function, but the series expansion. This would lead to the same result, with the hypergeometric function expressed by the Gauss series. The present approach is more general, however, since it is immediately valid in the case (Formula presented), where the Gauss series fails to converge. This makes no difference at all for the calculations considered in the present work, but for calculations involving the photoelectric effect the Gauss series would be inapplicable. Indeed, the only reason for introducing the Kummer transformation in Eq. (44) was that this step gives the expressions a form that enables us to use the Gauss series.
15. F. Sauter, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 11, 454 (1931).
16. R. H. Pratt, Phys. Rev. 117, 1017 (1960).
17. A. I. Milstein and V. M. Strakhovenko, Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. 103, 1584 (1993);
18. A. I. Milstein and V. M. Strakhovenko, [JETP 76, 775 (1993)]. The original formula published by Hall, Rev. Mod. Phys. 8, 358 (1936).
19. W. Heitler, The Quantum Theory of Radiation (Dover, New York, 1984).
20. R. H. Pratt, A. Ron and H. K. Tseng, Rev. Mod. Phys. 45, 273 (1973).
21. R. H. Pratt, Phys. Rev. 119, 1619 (1960).
22. M. Gavrila, Phys. Rev. 124, 1132 (1961).
23. M. E. Rose, Relativistic Electron Theory (Wiley, New York, 1961).
24. W. R. Johnson, Phys. Rev. 159, 61 (1967).
25. H. Olsen, Springer Tracts Mod. Phys. 44, 83 (1968).
26. E. J. Williams, Kgl. Dan. Vidsk. Selsk. Mat. Fys. Medd. XIII, No. 4 (1935).
27. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1975).
28. and J. Eichler, Phys. Rev. A 15, 1856 (1977). This implies an evaluation of matrix elements between initial and final states of the operator exp(iχ), where χ is the time integral of the perturbing potential. However, it should be realized that two approximations are applied to reach this result. The calculation is performed in the interaction representation. First, in an expansion involving commutators of the interaction potential at different times, only the lowest-order nonvanishing term is retained. Second, in the remaining term the usual Schrödinger representation is used for the potential rather than the interaction representation. While the first approximation is valid due to the rapid variation of the electromagnetic field of the relativistic projectile, the second is highly questionable. Essentially, the second approximation corresponds to neglect of a phase factor which varies over distances of order v/((Formula presented)+E) and this length is certainly not large compared to the extent of the bound state.
29. U. Becker, N. Grün and W. Scheid, J. Phys. B 20, 2075 (1987).
30. A. J. Baltz, M. J. Rhoades-Brown and J. Weneser, Phys. Rev. A 50, 4842 (1994).