Three-body momentum exchange in singly ionizing 2-MeV/u C6+-helium collisions

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2003, Pages

  Fischer, D ^a   Voitkiv, A B ^a   Moshammer, R ^a   Ullrich, J ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR KERNPHYSIK   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; ELECTRON EMISSION; ELECTRON SPECTROSCOPY; HELIUM; HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS; ION EXCHANGE; MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS; PHOTONS;

BORN APPROXIMATION; ION COLLISIONS; PHOTON EXCHANGES; THREE BODY MOMENTUM EXCHANGE;

IONIZATION;

EID: 0242526113     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. M.R.C. McDowell and J.P. Coleman, Introduction to the Theory of Ion-Atom Collisions (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970).
2. N. Stolterfoht, R. DuBois, and R. Rivarola, Electron Emission in Ion-Atom Collisions (Springer, Berlin, 1997).
3. p are the electron and target nucleus masses, respectively) and is not considered here since it would result in negligible cross sections.
4. 6+ + He) were considered in Ref. [5] where energy and angular distributions of emission from helium were explored. The present study could, to some extent, be viewed as complementary to those performed in Ref. [5].
5. L.C. Tribedi, P. Richard, Y.D. Wang, C.D. Lin, L. Gulyas, and E.M. Rudd, Phys. Rev. A 58, 3619 (1998)
6. L.C. Thibedi, P. Richard, Y.D. Wang, C.D. Lin, R.E. Olson, and L. Gulyas, ibid. 58, 3626 (1998)
7. L.C. Tribedi, P. Richard, L. Gulyas, and E.M. Rudd, ibid. 63, 062724 (2001).
8. R. Moshammer, M. Unverzagt, W. Schmitt, J. Ullrich, and H. Schmidt-Böcking, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 108, 425 (1996).
9. M. Inokuti, Rev. Mod. Phys. 43, 279 (1971).
10. D.S.F. Crothers and J.F. McCann, J. Phys. B 16, 3229 (1983).
11. Dz. Belkic, J. Phys. B 11, 3529 (1978).
12. P.D. Fainstein, V.H. Ponce, and R.D. Rivarola, J. Phys. B 24, 3091 (1991).
13. V.D. Rodrigues, J. Phys. B 29, 275 (1996).
14. S. Jones and D.H. Madison, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2886 (1998).
15. S. Jones and D.H. Madison, Phys. Rev. A 62, 042701 (2000).
16. Note that very recently a generalization of the CDW-EIS, GCDW-EIS, was proposed in Ref. [15].
17. D.S.F. Crothers, D.M. McSherry, S.F.C. O'Rourke, M.B. Shah, C. McGrath, and H.B. Gilbody, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 053201 (2002)
18. S.F.C. O'Rourke, D.M. McSherry, and D.S.F. Crothers, J. Phys. B 36, 341 (2003).
19. J.H. McGuire, E. Salzborn, and A. Müller, Phys. Rev. A 35, 3265 (1987).
20. One should mention that in cases we have tested, both the hydrogenlike approximation and the Hartree-Fock description, being used to model the helium ground state, yielded rather similar results.
21. P.D. Fainstein, V.H. Ponce, and R.D. Rivarola, Phys. Rev. A 36, 3639 (1987)
22. J. Phys. B 21, 287 (1988).
23. A more sophisticated way to treat the (free) helium target within the one-active-electron approximation would be to apply the Hartree-Fock description for both initial and final states of the active electron [20]. However, when the n-n interaction is taken into account, CDW-EIS calculations for projectile and target recoil distributions become very time consuming and at the moment are not feasible for us. Yet, this does not seem to be crucial for the present study since, as was discussed in Refs. [21,22], the changes in singly differential cross sections, introduced by the "full" Hartree-Fock description, are not expected to be very substantial for the case of rather a high collision velocity of 9 a. u.
24. L. Gulyas, P.D. Fainstein, and A. Salin, J. Phys. B 28, 245 (1995).
25. P.D. Fainstein, J. Phys. B 29, L763 (1996).
26. P.D. Fainstein and V.D. Rodriguez, J. Phys. B 33, 4637 (2000).
27. The "hydrogenlike" result is finally multiplied by a factor of 2 in order to account for two electrons in helium.
28. R. Moshammer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3371 (1994).
29. R. Moshammer et al., Phys. Rev. A 56, 1351 (1997).
30. C.J. Wood, C.R. Feeler, and R.E. Olson, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3701 (1997).
31. Kh. Khayyat et al., J. Phys. B 32, L73 (1999).
32. Note that in Ref. [29] it was pointed out that already the first Born approximation predicts the angular distribution of the emitted electrons to be asymmetric.
33. P.D. Fainstein, L. Gulyas, F. Martin, and A. Salin, Phys. Rev. A 53, 3243 (1996).
34. V.D. Rodriguez, Y.D. Wang, and C.D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 52, R9 (1995)
35. J. Phys. B 28, L471 (1995).
36. One should mention that the details of the electron angular distribution could be sensitive to the form of the interaction between the active electron and the target core [29].