Ionization of one-electron ions penetrating a target at relativistic energies

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 2895-2899

  Sørensen, Allan H ^a,b  

^a LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001765166     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.58.2895     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. N. Claytor, A. Belkacem, T. Dinneen, B. Feinberg, and Harvey Gould, Phys. Rev. A 55, R842 (1997).PLRAAN
2. H. F. Krause, C. R. Vane, S. Datz, P. Grafström, H. Knudsen, C. Scheidenberger, and R. H. Schuch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1190 (1998).PRLTAO
3. R. Anholt and U. Becker, Phys. Rev. A 36, 4628 (1987).PLRAAN
4. A. H. Sørensen and E. Uggerhøj, Comments At. Mol. Phys. 17, 285 (1986).CAMPBS
5. Allan H. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. A 36, 3125 (1987).PLRAAN
6. W. Heitler, The Quantum Theory of Radiation (Dover, New York, 1984).
7. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1975).
8. The reader may want to check out the problem section in Jackson’s book 7.
9. E. J. Williams, K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Mat. Fys. Medd. 13, No. 4 (1935).KDVSAK
10. For the close-collision contribution screening is only important if (Formula presented) is very small while at the same time (Formula presented) is very large. Roughly, something like (Formula presented) is required. Such cases shall not be considered in the following; throughout I assume the screening length of target atoms to be in excess of the radius of the projectile ion.
11. The result is an approximation, which is made simply for convenience. For a nucleus screened exponentially such as to yield the potential (Formula presented) in the laboratory, the combination of formulas (13) and (15) actually overestimates the spectrum. However, while stating this it should be remembered that actual atomic screening is somewhat less dramatic than (Formula presented) (The fact that the construction leads to an overestimate of photon intensities for the Yukawa case of course implies that the conclusion I shall reach concerning cross sections being lower than those of Anholt and Becker is not at danger.)
12. R. H. Pratt, Akiva Ron, and H. K. Tseng, Rev. Mod. Phys. 45, 273 (1973); cf. Eq. (6.1.8). The inclusion of the correct high-energy tail is actually not very crucial for the present purpose. If (Formula presented) was chosen simply as (Formula presented) the results for the case of screening included would only be approximately 2% lower than those actually appearing in the last column of the two tables. In view of the smallness of this correction, we have not attempted to include also the Compton effect (or other effects relevant only at very high photon energies); for a hydrogenlike lead ion it will not exceed the photoeffect before energies in excess of, roughly, (Formula presented)RMPHAT
13. Wm. J. Veigele, At. Data 5, 51 (1973); ATDAAE
14. J. H. Hubbell, Wm. J. Veigele, E. A. Briggs, R. T. Brown, D. T. Cromer, and R. J. Howerton, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 4, 471 (1975).JPCRBU
15. Randy Vane (private communication).
16. In 2 there is a reference to unpublished work by Baltz dealing with an exact time-dependent solution of the Dirac equation for a hydrogenic lead ion colliding with a bare lead ion. For (Formula presented) he finds 70% of the value of Anholt and Becker (unscreened). This may well reflect the remark on the effect of a nonperturbative photo cross section in the present construction.
17. C. K. Agger and A. H. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. A 55, 402 (1997).PLRAAN
18. A. Ichihara, T. Shirai, and J. Eichler, Phys. Rev. A 49, 1875 (1994); PLRAAN
19. Phys. Rev. AA. IchiharaT. ShiraiJ. Eichler 54, 4954 (1996).
20. Th. Stöhlker, D. C. Ionescu, P. Rymuza, F. Bosch, H. Geissel, C. Kozhuharov, T. Ludziejewski, P. H. Mokler, C. Scheidenberger, Z. Stachura, A. Warczak, and R. W. Dunford, Phys. Lett. A 238, 43 (1998). PYLAAG