Chapter 8 - Charge Exchange

Chapt er 8
Charge Exchange
8. 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n
The transfer of an electron between target and projectile is one of the
basic processes in atomic collision physics. In this chapter, we consider
nonradiative or Coulomb capture, while the discussion of another process,
namely electron transfer with the simultaneous emission of a photon or
"radiative electron capture," is deferred to Chap. 9.
In general, charge changing (nonradiative and radiative) reactions can
be studied experimentally by passing an ion beam of known charge-state
composition t hrough a target and measuring the fraction of ions t hat have
either capt ured or lost an electron. Such a measurement yields total cross
sections. For testing details of the theory, it would be desirable to specify
experimentally the states between which capture occurs. This has been
done in a few cases, see Sec. 8.7.2.
From nonrelativistic capture theory it is known (see, e.g., [BrM92]) t hat
for large projectile velocities v the nonradiative charge changing cross sec-
tion decreases asymptotically as v -12 or E -6 in first-order and as v -11 or
E-11/2 in second-order pert urbat i on theory. This dramatic velocity depen-
dence occurs because the overlap in moment um space between the initial
and final electron wave functions quickly diminishes as the relative veloc-
ity increases. The question then arises whether there is any measurable
cross section left at relativistic velocities. There is a simple qualitative
reason why the relativistic cross section decreases less rapidly with the col-
lision energy t han the nonrelativistic estimate would indicate: owing to
the Lorentz contraction of the electron space wave function in the beam
direction, the moment um wave functions acquire (Lorentz-) extended tails
207
208 CHAPTER 8. CHARGE EXCHANGE
1 . 2
1 . 0
0 . 8
9 ~ 0 . 6
0 . 4
0 . 2
0.0
i i i i
A A
H : t I I
H i ~ I i
/i/i
I \
i
5.0 /
i "\ %
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
j.1
. . . . . . . . . 9
' l 0 2 a ' ' ' J 0 ' 6 j '
0 . 0 1 . ' . 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 5 . . 0 7 . 0
E l e c t r o n m o m e n t u m p
Fi gur e 8.1. Overlap of target and projectile ls momentum wave functions along
the beam axis. The atomic wave functions for ZT = Zp = 40 are taken to be non-
relativistic, the momenta are given in units of mcc. Solid line: momentum wave
function of the target; dotted, short-dashed, and long-dashed lines represent the
projectile momentum wave function Lorentz transformed to the laboratory sys-
tem for projectile energies of 0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 GeV/u, respectively. The maximum
amplitudes are normalized to unity.
in this direction and thus give rise to a more slowly decreasing overlap in
moment um space.
This is illustrated in Fig. 8.1, in which we have used Eq. (2.28) to calcu-
late t he projectile moment um di st ri but i on as seen from the t arget syst em
for various projectile energies. Wi t h increasing energy, the moment um wave
function of the projectile along the beam axis is st ret ched wi t h the Lorentz
factor -7. Consequently, the overlap between t arget and projectile momen-
t um wave functions decreases less rapidly t han according to nonrelativistic
kinematics. In the l at t er case, the shape of the moment um wave function
would be ret ai ned and simply shifted by the projectile velocity. Actual cal-
culations show, almost i ndependent l y of the approxi mat i ons involved, t hat
the relativistic capt ure cross section decreases only wi t h about E -1 rat her
t han wi t h E -a.
We st art the present at i on in See. 8.2 wi t h a discussion of the Born
approxi mat i on (or the Oppenhei mer-Bri nkman-Kramers approxi mat i on)
which is the simplest and historically first approach to relativistic electron
capt ure. It already yields the correct asympt ot i c E -1 energy dependence,
8.2. THE B ORN APPROXI MATI ON 209
but cross sections t hat are by far too large. This approxi mat i on ignores the
distortion of the atomic states by the long-range Coulomb interaction. By
imposing proper Coulomb boundary conditions in Sec. 8.3, one can obtain
a short-range effective interaction and realistic cross sections. In Sec. 8.4
we t reat the eikonal approxi mat i on which is comparatively easy to imple-
ment and also yields reasonable cross sections. In Sec. 8.5, we compare the
results of the theories derived so far with one another and with existing
measurements. In Sec. 8.6 we discuss at t empt s to improve the theoretical
cross sections by using various distorted-wave methods. In Sec. 8.7, two-
center coupled-channel calculations are presented and compared with other
theoretical results and with measured cross sections.
We use full units in the maj or part of this chapter, except for the more
technical sections 8.2.2, 8.4.1, and 8.4.3, where we adopt atomic units h =
me = e = 1, see Appendix.
8. 2 Th e Bo r n a p p r o x i ma t i o n
8. 2. 1 The c r o s s s e c t i o n i n f i r s t o r d e r
As shown in Chaps. 6 and 7, for excitation and ionization, first-order per-
t urbat i on theory is a valid approximation, except for very small i mpact
paramet ers where the interaction may become extremely strong. For re-
arrangement collisions, the situation is more complicated. We st art our
discussion with the simplest and historically earliest approach to relativis-
tic electron capture, namel y the relativistic version [Mit64, Sha79, MoS80]
of the OBK approxi mat i on [Opp28, BrK30]. It also serves to introduce
some of the concepts and the not at i on needed for any other t reat ment . In
this met hod, the initial and final electronic states are assumed to be undis-
t ot t ed atomic eigenstates ~ai and ~af of t arget and projectile, respectively.
Strictly speaking, this assumpt i on is not valid since a Coulomb field leads
to distortions even at infinite distances. The problem of asympt ot i c distor-
tions is discussed in Secs. 6.1.2 and 6.5.4 for excitation and ionization, and
its relevance for electron capt ure is studied in Sec. 8.3.
For the time being, we may j ust adopt the ampl i t ude (5.78) given by
pert urbat i on theory and rewrite it in the prior form (5.83), with the per-
t urbat i on (6.56), as
e2 / /
A~ - i - ~ dt d3rT lff (r~p) eiEft,/hS Zp e_igit/h
r--~p qPi (rT) , (8.1)
where Ei and Ef are the atomic eigenenergies including the electron rest
mass, and 99i and p} are initial and final bound-st at e spinor wave functions
in the target and projectile frame, respectively. At this point, we may
convince ourselves t hat in the nonrelativistic limit (energies ci, ef) the phase
describing the time oscillation in the projectile frame
( " V Z T) e 2 1 (v rw) + (8.2)
Ef t ~ - 7 Ef t - ~ - me t + cf t + ~ rn ev2 t - me . . . .
consists of an immaterial contribution from the electron mass (which is can-
celled by the corresponding t erm from El), the nonrelativistic eigenoscilla-
tion, and the translation factor, see Eqs. (1.6) and (1.9). Thus the nonrel-
ativistic limit of the transition amplitude (8.1) can be obtained as a special
case.
!
By introducing the Fourier transforms ~ and ~' t hrough
~( r T) -- (27rh)-~ / @~(q)e iq' rT/h d3q
(8.3)
and
, 1 / ,
qp~' (r~)2-7- -- (27rh)-~ O~ (P) eipr~/h d3p
Pp
( 8.4 )
where #, #~ denote the angular moment um projections (suppressing the
! !
label j ) of the four-spinors ~[' , @i ~, ~, and ~ whose spin-angular part is
constructed according to Eq. (4.87) with appropri at e space or moment um
angles. Furthermore, by decomposing q = (qb, qz ) as well as p = ( PD, Pz ) ,
we are able to move all space-time variables to the exponent and to perform
the integrations over r T and t, which yield Dirac delta functions in the
moment um vector and in the energy. As a result, we obtain the transition
ampl i t ude
A~ ' " - i27rv7--1 e2 Ze f ~ , t ( q b , q _) S~.Ul ( q b , q + ) eiq b .b / h d2qb, (8.5)
where the z-components of the moment a q and p, respectively, are
q+ = (El - Ef / 7 ) / v
q - = ( Ei / 7 - Ef ) / v (8.6)
with the nonrelativistic limits
q - +1
-~ me V . (8.7)
Here, the + or - sign indicates t hat the relevant longitudinal moment um
points forward or backward, with respect to the beam direction.
8.2. THE B O RN APPRO XI M ATI O N 211
In an experiment, it will normally not be possible to specify the ini-
tial and final magnetic substates. We are therefore interested in the cross
section
1 f IA~,. ] 2
crfi = 2 j + 1 ~ d2b (8.8)
averaged over the initial and summed over the final projections p, p~, re-
spectively, of the electron angular moment a j, j~. In evaluating Eq. (8.8)
with the ampl i t ude (8.5), it is convenient to construct density matrices from
the initial and final four-spinors 93i and ~f and to perform the sum over the
(currently unobservable) angular moment um projections within each of the
density matrices [Eic85]. Hence we define the matrices
Pi -- E P'~ - E @~ (qb, q+) ~5~ t (qb, q+) (8.9)
p #
and
r f - E Pf~' - E 0~' (qb, q-) 0~ ' t (qb, q-). (8.10)
t d tt ~
These expressions are diagonal in the moment a (qb, q+) because the b-
integration in Eq. (8.8) produces a Dirac delta function in qb, q~ owing to
the exponential exp(i qb, b / h ) in Eq. (8.5). The total cross section is now
wri t t en in the compact form
crfi = 2j + 1 fl2,,/2 hcc Z~ Tr{S Pf S Pi} d2qb, (8.11)
where the integrand is expressed as the trace of a product of 4 x 4 matrices.
The task is reduced to constructing the matrices Pi and Pf for each individ-
ual case. Owing to axial symmet ry of the collision, the right-hand side of
Eq. (8.11) is a one-dimensional integral. It t urns out t hat in this case, the
post and prior forms of the cross section as defined in Eqs. (5.82) and (5.83)
are identical. From Eq. (8.11) and the "y dependence of the t ransformat i on
mat ri x S it follows t hat the cross section decreases asymptotically as ? - 1
or E -1 as the collision energy E increases. The general dependence on
the paramet ers characterizing the collision can be best seen in the simple
analytical expression (8.52).
8. 2 . 2 Ca p t u r e f r om i ni t i al 1s - s t at e s i nt o fi nal 1s - s t at e s
The presence of hi gh-moment um components in initial and final states ren-
ders l s-l s capt ure the most i mport ant case at collision energies high above
the mat chi ng energy, see Fig. 5.1.
From the spinor wave functions Eq. (4.86) for the hydrogenic 1s-state
1 (we use atomic units in this subsection)
~s ( r ) - ( 47r ) - 89 (
i f ( r ) ( a . ~ ) Xu ~
(8.12)
!
with ~ = r / r , one obtains the Fourier transforms ~5~ s and ~ by inverting
the defining equations (8.3) and (8.4), respectively, and by inserting the
partial-wave expansion (6.42) of the plane wave. Only the L = 0 and
L = 1 terms in the expansion contribute to the integrals over g and f,
respectively, and leave us with radial integrals whose evaluation yields the
radial moment um functions [Eic85]
[ q ) ] 1 Ng F ( s T + 1) sin (8 T -~- 1)arctan(~--TT
ai(q) = q ( Z 2 + q2)(ST+l)/2
1 NfF(ST) [ q
bi(q) - - q-~ ( Z 2 + q 2 ) sT/ 2 sin 8Tar ct an( ~T)
1 NfF(s T + 1) [ q
q ( Z ~ + q2)(ST+1)/2 COS (8 T q- 1)arctan(~--TT )
, ( 8 . 1 3 )
where q = (qb, q+), 8T is the parameter s defined in Eq. (4.94) for Z = ZT,
and the normalization factors Ng and Nf are defined in Eq. (4.102). As a
result, we get the Fourier-transformed spinor
l ( ai(q) x~s ) (8.14)
~5~ (q) -- 7rv~ - bi(q)(tr. (t)X~
in a form t hat closely resembles Eq. (8.12). When inserting into Eq. (8.9)
and performing the spin summat i on we obtain the density matrix
1( a2 ab , 0 ,)
Pi - 2~ 2 - ab ( a . (t) b2
(8.15)
which is built from blocks of 2 2 matrices. Here and in the following,
we do not explicitly display the unit matrix I multiplying the diagonal
quantities. In deriving Eq. (8.15), use is made of the relation (~r.u)(er-v) =
1
1We use the notation X~s for the Pauli spinor with ~s --
8.2. THE B O RN APPRO XI M ATI O N 21 3
u. v + i cr-(u x v). The spin summat i on within the density mat ri x leads to a
substantial simplification of the subsequent development. In an analogous
t
fashion, we may construct ~ and Pf. One obtains the quantities af and
bf by replacing ZT --~ Zp, s T ~ Sp- 1, and q = (qb, q+) --+ P = (qb, q- )
in Eq. (8.13). From Pf we then assemble the mat ri x product
S Pf S =
3` + 1
87r 4
~tll
-- m12( o"" ~1) + mi 2( O' " ez)
--? Y t12 (O " " 1 ~)?Tt22n t- ? Tti2 ( tT" { ~z ) )
( 8.16 )
where ~z is a unit vector in the beam direction, and the coefficients are
r ol l
f nl 2
t
rrtl2
m22
- - a~ + 2 5 af b f q _ / p + 52b~
- af bf ( 1- 52 )
= - ~( 4 + 2ea f bf q_ /p + b~)
- e ~ 4 + 2 eaf b f q _ / p + hi.
(8.17)
Here, 5 - [(3` - 1)/(3' + 1)1 ~/2 and p - (q~ + q2_)1/2. In the final mat ri x
multiplication according to Eq. (8.11), we only need consider those terms
t hat contribute to the trace.
Total l s - l s cross sectio n s
The OBK cross section for capture of an (unpolarized) 1s-electron into bot h
possible 1s-states of the projectile is then obtained (in atomic units) as
.OBK __ 271.Z 2 3` nt- 1 fo ~
l s l s V2~2 Q( q ~ ) d( q ~)
(8.18)
where the integrand is
2m12
Q- rnlla~ + aibi( q~ + q+q-) 2rn i2 aibiq+ + rn22b2i (8.19)
Pq q
and q - (q~ + q2_)1/2. We have used the relation Zp 2 + q2_ _ Z~ + q~_ which
is rigorously valid for l s-l s transitions.
It is possible to derive a simple analytical expression (8.52) from Eq.
(8.18) which is valid for aZ << 1. Since the expression so obtained [MOSS0]
is a special case of a formula derived for the eikonal approximation [Eic85],
we defer the discussion to See. 8.4.
@in - f lip cross section s
It is instructive to use the explicit formulas given in [MoS80] to compare
the cross sections a mp for spin-flip and a non for non-spin-flip transitions in
l s-l s capture. For a Z ~ 1 the ratio is given by
0 "flip 1 5 4
= 1 (~2 Zp) ( ~] " ( 8. 20)
O "n~ 16 ( 1- 89 [ + ~87roz(ZT -l-
In the limit of low velocities, this ratio quickly approaches zero as one
would expect since the magnetic field generated by the projectile motion in
the target frame decreases with decreasing velocity. While some correction
terms entering in Eq. (8.20) are treated in the high-velocity limit, the
equation should nevertheless give a useful estimate for low velocities. For
example, in p+ H collisions at the energy of 100 keV, Eq. (8.20) yields
a ratio of 1.8 x 10 - l ~ whereas an exact numerical evaluation gives the
ratio 3.6 x 10 - l ~ [ToE90a]. On the other hand, in the extreme-relativistic
regime, 7 ~ oo or 5 ~ 1, the ratio tends to 1/4 in the limit of small
charges and decreases for higher charges. The approximate validity of Eq.
(8.20) has been confirmed [Dec90] for U + U collisions by exact numerical
evaluation of the OBK cross sections. For U + U collisions at 500 MeV/ u,
the ratios following from various other approaches are collected in Table
8.2, see See. 8.7.
It should be remarked t hat spin-flip capture occurs for very high veloc-
ities even when target and projectile charges tend to zero. This is due to
the Dirac magnetic moment of the free electron. Hence, if the wave func-
tions (8.12) are replaced by some distorted wave functions, this will only
affect the terms of the order aZ T and aZ p ignored in Eq. (8.20). In other
words, we will expect Eq. (8.20) to be approximately valid for more general
distorted-wave approaches provided OLZT << 1 and aZp << 1.
8. 2 . 3 Second- order Born approxi mat i on
Capt ure cross sections calculated in the relativistic first-order Oppenheim-
er-Brinkman-Kramers approximation (denoted as OBK1 when the second-
order term is also considered), Eq. (8.18), are larger t han the experimental
values, in many cases by an order of magnitude, see, e.g., Fig. 8.8. The
question arises whether this defect will be cured in the second order. The
first calculations in the relativistic second-order OBK or OBK2 approx-
imation have been performed by Humphries and Moiseiwitsch [HUM84,
HUM85] and later, on a larger scale, by Moiseiwitsch [Moi88, Moi89]. Since
a second-order OBK, t heory involves intermediate plane-wave states, mul-
tidimensional integrals occur.
8.2. THE BORN APPROXIMATION 215
The transition amplitude in the post form within the second-order OBK
can be written [DeE91a] as
A(
+) i f d tf d 3 rT[ ~ ( r~ p t ' ) ] t s - l ( ZTe 2) @i(rT, t )
OBK2 -- ~ ~ rT
i / d t / d 3 r T/ d t l f darT [~b}(r~ t t ) ] t s- l ( ZT(32)
h 1 , rT
x G + (rT, rT1 ; t -- t l ) S 2 D-- ~i ( r r l , tl). (8.21)
fP1
While the first term describes a first-order or single-step transition, the sec-
ond term comes about by a two-step mechanism. In the first step, mediated
by the electron-projectile interaction, the bound target state r is excited to
an intermediate free-particle state with moment um k. In the second step,
mediated by the electron-target interaction, the free electron is captured
into the bound projectile state ~f. The electron motion in the intermediate
state is described by the free-field Feynman propagator [Sak67, Sch61]
1 / G+ (rT, rT1;S) e-ie(t-tl)/hdc (8.22)
Go + (r T, rT1; t -- t l ) -- 27rh
where
(+) (+)t ( - ) ' r ' ( - ) t , ]
9 ~k,s (rT)~k,s (rT1) qPk,s ~, T)99k,s ~,rT1)
G0+(rT, rTl, e) -- ~ + ~
(8.23)
Here, one has to take the limit r/ +0. The spinors ~(+)
--+ k,s (rT) and ~(.2 (rT)
for positive and negative energy, respectively, satisfy the free-field Dirac
equation
( - ich ~. VT q- meC2"y 0) ~(+) E(k =k) ~(
k,s (rT) -- +l I k,s (rT)"
(8.24)
The initial and final wave functions ~i and ~f in Eq. (8.21) are taken as hy-
drogenic lsl/2 Dirac wave functions. The summat i on in (8.23) extends over
all free-particle spinors with intermediate moment um k and bot h positive
and negative energy.
From the analytical form of Eq. (8.21), one may obtain the asymptotic
behavior of the OBK2 cross section for very large energies. Expressed in
terms of the Lorentz factor 7, the asymptotically dominant dependence is
[JaA85, DeE91a]
(lnT) 2
(YOBK2 O( - - . (8.25)
Except for the slowly varying factor (ln 7) 2, which is caused by the infi-
nite range of the Coulomb interaction and would disappear for a screened
potential, the energy dependence is the same as in first-order perturbation
theory.
The integrals occurring in (8.21) have been evaluated by using a "peak-
ing approximation" [HUM84, HUM85], in which the integral is evaluated
at the maximum of the integrand, and a related "averaging approxima-
tion" [Moi88, Moi89]. While the former approximation gave a moderate
reduction of the cross sections with respect to the OBK1 values, the lat-
ter approximation brought about a large enough reduction to achieve good
agreement with the experimental dat a [Cra79, Anh85a] in most cases. How-
ever, it has been shown [DeE91a] t hat an exact numerical evaluation of the
7-dimensional integrals required for the second-order cross section using a
Monte-Carlo technique [Kaw86] points in the opposite direction: the exact
OBK2 cross sections are not smaller but larger t han the OBK1 cross sec-
tions by about one order of magnitude. This is, in fact, analogous to the
nonrelativistic case where exact OBK2 cross sections are larger t han the
corresponding OBK1 cross sections for high but not yet asymptotic colli-
sion energies. For a more detailed discussion, see [Eic90, DeE91a,b, Moi92,
DEE93].
We conclude t hat peaking-type approximations, which are widely used
for mathematical convenience, are often not adequate except for asymptot-
ically high energies. More importantly, however, we learn from the striking
discrepancy between the first-order and second-order OBK cross sections
for high-Z target atoms t hat the OBK expansion is not a suitable pertur-
bation series at the energies considered.
8. 3
The b oundar y- c or r e c t e d Bor n approxi -
mat i on
Similar to its nonrelativistic counterpart, the relativistic OBK approxi-
mation discussed in the preceding section has a serious defect: the wave
functions in entrance and exit channels do not satisfy the correct asymp-
totic wave equations, Eqs. (5.48) and (5.49). Indeed the long-range nature
of the Coulomb interaction does not allow one to use unpert urbed atomic
wave functions even at infinite separations. The vital importance of proper
boundary conditions for nonrelativistic charge transfer has first been rec-
ognized by Dewangan and Eichler [DEE85, DEE86] when they showed t hat
disregard of boundary conditions may lead to singularities in the transition
amplitudes of second-order theories. Subsequently, a boundary-corrected
8.3. THE B O U ND ARY - CO RRECTED B O RN APPRO XI M ATI O N 217
first-Born (B1B) approxi mat i on has been worked out for many cases (for
a review see, e.g., [DEE94]) and was shown to yield good agreement wi t h
experi ment al t ot al cross sections.
In analogy to the nonrelativistic case, it is necessary to const ruct a
first-order t ransi t i on ampl i t ude from the solutions of the asympt ot i c Dirac
equations (5.48) and (5.49). A boundary-correct ed first Born approxi ma-
tion for relativistic electron capt ure has been formulated in [Eic87a]. Since
we keep the nonrelativistic acronyms t hroughout this book, we here denote
it as B1B approxi mat i on.
Adopt i ng a formul at i on in the t arget inertial frame, the solutions of the
asympt ot i c equations for the initial t arget and the final projectile states
can be wri t t en in the forms (5.61) and (5.62) as 2
(I)~(rT, t ) - - e- iu p ln ( R' - vt' ) ~ ) i( rT, t )
for t --~ - oc (8.26)
and
O~ (rT, t) -- e i' T ln(R+vt) S-I ~( r ~, t' )
for t --~ + c o (8. 27)
where the Sommerfeld paramet ers are given by Eq. (5.52) as u T = Z Te2 / vh
and Up = Zp e 2 / vh , while the internuclear separat i ons R and R ~ are defined
by Eq. (5.47). The phase factors, which are absent in the OBK approx-
imation, serve to eliminate the asympt ot i c Li~nard-Wiechert interactions
caused by the projectile in the l aborat ory frame [Eq. (5.48)] and by the
t arget in the projectile frame [Eq. (5.50)].
In cont rast to the nonrelativistic case, the t arget wave function (8.26)
does not depend on the t arget t i me variable t alone but also on the projectile
time coordi nat e t ~. Conversely, the projectile wave function (8.27) also
depends on the t arget t i me t. Now, since t ~ = ~ / ( t - V ZT/C 2) and t =
~ ( t' + v@/ c2 ) , this means t hat the electron ic space coordin ates z T and
z~ enter in the phase factors of (8.26) and (8.27), respectively. This is
in cont rast to the nonrelativistic distorted-wave theory, where only the
in tern u clear coordin ates enter in the di st ort i ng phase factor.
Once the asympt ot i c form of the channel wave functions a has been es-
tablished, we are ready to derive the exact t ransi t i on ampl i t ude for electron
capture. According to Eq. (5.80) we have for the post form
A ( + ) - l im <O F[ ~ +> ( 8.2 8)
2A constant phase factor depending on the unit of length is dropped here and in the
following phase factors.
3By the term "channel" we denote an asymptotic specification of the fragmentation
of the total system, including the characterization by a set of quantum numbers.
where ~+ is the exact solution of the full Dirac equation (5.40). With
the aid of the corresponding exact solution ~- and by applying the exact
and asymptotic Dirac equations we may derive the p rior form (5.81) in a
similar way. In summary, the exact amplitudes may be cast into one of the
alternative forms
F {
h
ZW ZT
r T R
~+ > (post form) (8.29)
or
F {
A ( - ) = i e 2 dt ~ f
h
s~( z , z , )
r~ R'
9 F > (prior form). (8.30)
The perturbing potential in the matrix elements is no longer of the long-
range Coulomb form but of a sutticiently short range to render conventional
scattering theory applicable. This is indeed the very reason to choose
a particularly convenient gauge by introducing the phase-distorted wave
functions (I) ~ In order to obtain a first-order approximation with rela-
f,i"
tivistically modified Coulomb boundary conditions, we have to replace ~+
with (I)~ and ~f with (I)~. Inserting Eqs. (8.26) and (8.27), we obtain the
explicit amplitudes [Eic87a]
/ ?/
a(+) - - ie2 dt d3rT [r t')] te -iuT ln(R+vt) (post form)
~B1B h cx~
x , 1
r T R
and
/ ?/
A (-) - ie2 dt d 3 r r [ ~ ( r ' p t ' ) ] t e -i~Tln(R+~t) (prior form)
BI B ~ oo
( Z PZ P) iupln(R'-vt')
S r~, R' e- r t). (8.32)
These transition amplitudes are matrix elements taken between exact so-
lutions (I)~ and (I)~ of the asymptotic Dirac equations (5.48) and (5.49),
respectively. In this point, the B1B approximation is distinguished from
other distorted-wave approximations for which the distorted waves are n ot
exact eigenstates of the asymptotic Hamiltonian.
Similarly as for the OBK approximation, one may convince oneself that
the post and prior amplitudes are identical, provided r and r obey Eqs.
(5.53) and (5.54), respectively.
8.4. THE EI KONAL APPROXI MATI ON 219
In general, there are infinitely many ways to generate a short-range per-
t urbi ng potential. For example, in Eq. (8.32), one may replace the residual
interaction - Zp/ R ~ by
U( R' ) = Zp [ ( WR' + 1) e xp( - 2WR' ) - 1] /R' , (8.33)
where W > 0 is a suitable paramet er. The modified residual interaction
U( R' ) tends to - Z p / R' as R' ~ oc, but becomes a constant for R' ~ 0. If
U( R' ) is used in Eq. (8.32), the phase factor distorting the initial st at e has
to be modified accordingly; in general, it will be defined by a time integral
[Toi87]. The choice among various distorted-wave approaches is guided by
physical argument s and by calculational convenience, see also Sec. 8.6.
From Eqs. (8.31) and (8.32) one may calculate capt ure cross sections.
Owing to the oscillatory factors in the integrand, the exact numerical eval-
uation is difficult. Cross sections have been obtained in the limit c~Z << 1
[Eic87a]. Some results are presented in Section 8.5 and compared with
other theoretical and experi ment al data. Results for U 92+ + U 91+ colli-
sions at 500 MeV/ u are included in Table 8.3, Sec. 8.7.1, for ls capt ure
into various final shells. In these cases, an exact numerical evaluation of
the cross section has been performed.
The asympt ot i c energy dependence of the B IB cross sections for large
collision energies is the same as t hat of the OBK approximation: the cross
section decreases a s ~,--1 or E -1 as the projectile energy increases.
8. 4 The ei konal a ppr o x i ma t i o n
It is the aim of a distorted-wave t reat ment of electron transfer to incor-
porat e the effect of the projectile on the t arget states and the effect of
the t arget on the projectile states, the rigorous prescription being given
by Eqs. (5. 82)and (5.83). A special case is provided by the boundary-
corrected Born approximation, Sec. 8.3, in which the asympt ot i c distortion
is taken into account by replacing in the interaction t erm the electron-
nucleus separation with the internuclear distance.
A suggestive ansatz for a more accurate description of the mut ual dis-
t ort i on is given by initial and final wave functions, each of t hem being a
product of a bound-st at e wave function with respect to one of the part-
ners times a Coulomb cont i nuum wave function with respect to the other
collision partner. This concept is the basis of the "continuum distorted-
wave" (CDW) approxi mat i on [Che64] which is successful in nonrelativistic
collisions, but difficult to implement for relativistic collisions, see Sec. 8.6.
A related but simpler approxi mat i on is obtained if the full Coulomb con-
t i nuum wave function is replaced with its asympt ot i c form, namely a phase
factor depending on the electronic coordinates. In a more general context,
this approach is called the eikonal method which has a time-honored history
in optics. It was introduced in potential scattering by Moli~re [Mo147], in
high-energy scattering by Glauber [Gla58] and in fast atomic collisions by
Wilets and Wallace [WiW68]. The eikonal approach, in its asymmetric form
in which the distortion is included in only one of the channels, was applied
to nonrelativistic charge transfer in [Dew75, ChE79a, ChE79b, Eic81] and
was shown to be a rather accessible distorted-wave theory which yields good
overall agreement with experimental data at high but not yet asymptotic
velocities. It includes higher-order Born terms describing multiple soft col-
lisions in an approximate fashion [EiN80] while at the same time preserving
the simplicity of the OBK approximation, which drastically overestimates
the cross sections.
The relativistic eikonal approximation has been introduced and worked
out for arbitrary initial and final states in [Eic85]. Since a relativistic
symmetrical treatment gives rise to serious problems and misrepresents the
experimental data, see Sec. 8.6, it is reasonable to adopt the unsymmetrical
treatment, in which only the initial or the final wave function is distorted.
This corresponds to replacing the asymptotic states (I)~ in Eq. (5.82) for
the post form and (I)~ in Eq. (5.83) for the prior form, respectively, by
unperturbed bound final and initial states, while for the exact states ~+
and ~f phase-distorted eikonal wave functions are substituted.
To be specific, let us choose the prior form. Following the presentation
of the OBK approximation in Sec. 8.1, the eikonal transition amplitude in
the prior form is written as
+/ /
Af t - i - ~ d t d3rT [r t )l t S Z__~pr t)" (8.34)
' r ~
In the prior form, the initial and final wave functions 4
r t) -- ~i(rT) C - iEit/ h (8.35)
and
r t' ) - 7~(r~) e - iE~ t' / h e i:+ ln(rT+ZT) (8.36)
are expressed by the unperturbed target and projectile wave functions
~i and ~ in their respective frames. The Sommerfeld parameter u~: =
Z ~ e2 / h v and the charge number Z~: in the eikonal wave function (8.36) are
labeled by a prime in order to provide a unique signature for the electron-
target interaction in the eikon al phase. This allows one to recover the OBK
approximation by simply setting Z~: - 0 or u~: - 0.
4A constant phase factor depending on the unit of length is dropped in the eikonal
phase factor.
8.4. THE EI KO NAL APPRO XI M ATI O N 221
In the prior version of the eikonal approach, the final wave function
is phase-distorted by the electron-target interaction. The distorting phase
factor exp[iu~: ln(r T + ZT) ] is the asymptotic form of the Coulomb wave
function (8.57). It may also be represented by an eikonal integral through
the relation
[ ' ln(r T+ z T)] c( exp - i ~ rT
exp[iuT (s.37)
where the proportionality factor is an irrelevant constant phase factor and
i is kept fixed when evaluating the integral. This is in line with the where rp
condition for the validity of the eikonal approach [EiNS0] that the collision
is "fast" in the sense of Sec. 5.4.1.
Equation (8.37) shows that the electron-target interaction (occurring in
the exponent) acting from the time of capture to infinity is treated nonper-
turbatively, while the electron-projectile interaction in Eq. (8.34) explicitly
enters in first order. Although the wave function (8.36) has the correct
asymptotic behavior, the treatment as a whole does not satisfy Coulomb
boundary conditions and the interaction in Eq. (8.34) is not of short range,
because the initial wave function (8.35) remains undistorted.
The eikonal approximation may also be formulated in the post version,
which is obtained by inverting the role of target and projectile in Eqs. (8.34)
to (8.36), that is by replacing Zp by ZT and vice versa and by interchanging
initial and final states. As the theory is not post-prior symmetric, both
versions yield different results.
Since in an asymmetric theory like the eikonal approximation, the
stronger one of the electron-target and electron-projectile interaction should
be treated nonperturbatively, the usual prescription, which we denote as
Z-criterion, is
if Zp < ZT then use the p rior form
if Zp > ZT then use the post form. (8.38)
An alternative prescription, Eq. (8.49), which deviates from (8.38) for
higher principal shells has also been proposed [MeA85]; however, in this
section, we adopt the standard form (8.38).
8. 4 . 1 Ca pt ur e f r om i ni t i a l i nt o f i nal l Sl / 2- s t a t e s
Similarly as for the OBK approximation, Sec. 8.2.1, we explicitly consider
the simplest case which is also the most important one, namely ls1/2-1s1/2
transitions. We adopt atomic units throughout this subsection.
The analytical t reat ment of the eikonal approximation starts from the
relation [GaM74]
L(X~
e-ivy, ln(rT+ZT) __ [r(iv~)]-i ,~iu@--i e--A(rT+ZT)d/~
(8.39)
and the corresponding Fourier transform ~ti(q, )~) defined by
y) ~ s( rT) e - x( rT+ z T) = (2~)-~r(iu~) f ~t~ (q, A)e iq'rT d3q
(8.40)
which replaces qSi(q) in Eqs. (8.3) and (8.5). The prior form of the eikonal
transition amplitude is therefore given by
A# : t ~ - - - - Z p d 2 ' t ~ . ) ~ ) / ~ i v ~ - l e i q b . b
" fi v'7 qb dA O~s (qb, q-) S (qb, q+, ,
(8.41)
where q+ and q_ are defined in Eq. (8.6).
The expression (8.41) is valid for arbi t rary initial and final states. The
cross section is again conveniently written in terms of density matrices in
the form of Eq. (8.11). The density mat ri x for the final state is the same as
for the OBK approximation, Eq. (8.10), and only the initial state density
mat ri x has to be modified compared to Eq. (8.9). The construction of
Pr is complicated by the presence of the factor e -~(~T+zT) i n Eq. (8.40)
and by the integration over A. While the radial part of the exponent can
be combined with t hat of the wave function, the t erm e - ~T is handled
conveniently by absorbing it into the plane wave t hrough the definition of
a complex wave vector
k~, = q - iA6z = (qb, q+ - iA) (8.42)
with k~ - q2 + q~_ _ A2 _ 2iAq+. As a result, the quantities ai, bi, and ft
in Eqs. (8.14) and (8.15) are replaced with complex integrals. Wi t h the
abbreviation A = A+ ZT +ik~, and with s = 8 w [see Eq. (4.94) for Z = ZT]
and u = u~, the integrals for 1s-ls transitions take the form
Ao(q) = Ng~
F( s + 1) L ~ dA A_( s+l)
r ( i u) 2- ~ ( -
_ _ ) ~; ( s+1) ) ) ~iu--1
Bin(q)
p~~;b)) L cx) d)~ ~iu ~l+m
Nf 2- ~ ( s - A+~)
_Nfr(s+ 1) L ~ dA ()k__(s+l) aiu _l+ m
r( i.- - - - - ~ ~ + a+ ( ~+~) ) . ( 8.4 3 )
If the integrals Bm with m = 0, 1 are combined to build a vector
K = (B0qb, Boq+ - i B 1 ) , (8.44)
the A-integral over the spinor funct i on/ t ~ s assumes a structure analogous
to Eq. (8.14), namely
f0 a(,s (q, a) da -
1 ( )
rrv~ - (cr 9 K)X, s "
(8.45)
The density mat ri x for the initial state is then obtained as
1 ( [Aol 2 -Ao( cr.K * ) )
Pi = 27r2 - A; (er. K) (er. K) ( t r . K*)
(8.46)
in place of Eq. (8.15). The mat ri x multiplication is now carried out using
Eqs. (8.16) and (8. 17)i n the expression (8.11) for the cross section. The
eikonal cross section for the capture of an unpolarized 1s-electron into bot h
possible projectile is-states then reads [Eic85]
j~0 (x)
_elk -- 2rr Z~, ? + 1 Qeik (q2
O - l s _ l s - - V2.y 2 ) d(q~)
(8.47)
with the integrand
Qeik
m111Aol 2 + ( 2m1 2/ q ) [ Re( AoB~) ) ( q ~ + q+q_) - I m( AoB' ~) q _]
+ 2m' 1 2[ - Re( AoB~) ) q + + Im(doB~)]
+ m 22[IBo12(q~ + q~_) - 2 I m( B oB ~ ) q + + IB112]. (8.48)
The moment a q+ are defined in Eq. (8.6), the parameters rn~k in Eq. (8.17),
and the mat ri x elements A0, Bk in Eq. (8.43).
The calculation of the cross section requires the numerical evaluation of
the A-integrals in A0, B0, B1 and the additional one-dimensional integration
over q2. Explicit expressions including initial and final L-shells have also
been given [Eic85]. Numerical results have been published in [AnE85] and
[MeA85] and are presented in Sec. 8.5.1.
8. 4 . 2 Tr a ns f e r be t we e n hi ghe r i ni t i a l a nd f i na l s he l l s
The met hod outlined in Section 8.4.1 can be generalized to arbi t rary initial
and final states. In fact, the eikonal approximation, owing to its intrinsic
simplicity, is particularly suited for this extension, and no other perturba-
tive approach has been carried so far. For details of the formulation and of
the resulting expression, we refer to [Eic85] and [Eic90].
We just mention here an alternative prescription for choosing between
the prior and the post form of the eikonal approximation. If the initial and
final shells are different, one may think of replacing the prescription (8.38)
by another one in which the weighting of the interaction with the Coulomb
wave functions is taken into account. Since the expectation value of the
Coulomb potential is equal to <Z/r>. = ( Z/ n ) 2 irrespective of the subshell,
the effective strength of the potential should be measured by Z/ n rather
t han by Z. This leads to an alternative prescription [MeA85], which we
denote as Z/n-criterion:
if Zp / n p < ZT/ n T then use the prior form,
if Ze/ n p > ZT/ n T then use the post form. (8.49)
This rule may entail different choices for different combinations of initial
and final states within the same projectile-target combination. In Figs.
8.9- 8.11, we compare the prediction of the usual Z-criterion (8.38) with
t hat of the Z/ n-criterion (8.49).
The eikonal approach has been compared with other theoretical calcu-
lations as well as with experimental data. For electron capture by 1.05
GeV/ u Ne 1~ ions from target atoms with charges ZT =13, 30, 47, 73, and
92, the eikonal calculations are in rather close agreement with relativistic
boundary-corrected Born calculations, see Fig. 8.8, which are post-prior
symmetric, in contrast to the eikonal theory. Furthermore, the approach
is support ed by the reasonable agreement with a variety of experimental
dat a [Eic90]. In some cases, detailed two-center coupled-channel calcula-
tions [ToE88a,b], see See. 8.7.2, yield cross sections of a similar, but not
superior quality.
We now present a survey of calculated cross sections in their dependence
on the various parameters entering into the theory. Since capture cross
sections vary over many orders of magnitude, even approximate results will
help to assess the paramet er dependence and the qualitative behavior of
the cross section.
In Fig. 8.2, we show the dependence on target and projectile charges for
the leading transition (1s1/2-1s1/2) at a fixed projectile energy of 10 GeV/ u.
As can be seen from the subsequent figures, the other cross sections follow
a similar pattern. The set of curves reflects the approximate dependence
as Z~rZ ~ of the capture cross section, which is characteristic for all capture
theories, see, e.g., [DeE94].
In Figs. 8.3-8.7, we display the capture cross sections for completely
.J3
E
O
o ~
o
(/3
1 0 2
1 0 1
1 0 o
1 0 -1
1 0 - 2
1 0 - 3
1 0 - 4
q~
L. 1 0 - 5
EL 10 - s
O
(J
1 0 - 7
1 0 - 8
1 0 - 9
Zp = 1 O0
f
/
f Lt
/ /
/
/
/
f l I
f l
/ ~ Z p = 1 0
0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 O0
To r ge t c hor ge n u mbe r ZT
Fi gur e 8.2. Cross sections (in barn) for lsl/2-1Sl/2 electron capture at a pro-
jectile energy of 10 GeV/u as a function of the target and projectile charges ZT
and Zp in steps of 10 units. The cross sections are calculated according to the
pr escr i pt i on (8.38) and refer t o a single t ar get el ect ron capt ur ed into a vacant
proj ect i l e K-shell. They are averaged over t he initial and s ummed over t he final
angul ar mome nt um proj ect i ons. Fr om [ICS93].
st ri pped Au ions i mpi ngi ng on hydrogen-like C, A1, Cu, Ag, and Au t arget s
as a function of energy. The dat a are averaged over t he initial and summed
over t he final angul ar moment um projections. For ot her heavy projectiles,
one can scale these curves approxi mat el y as Zp 5. In t he st at e-t o-st at e cross
sections presented, either t he initial or the final st at e is a lSl/2 st at e (in
order to reduce t he number of curves). As a function of t he projectile
energy, t he curves clearly exhibit t he t ransi t i on from an essentially nonrel-
ativistic to a relativistic behavior: at rat her low collision energies around
1 GeV/ u, t he cross section curves still reflect t he rapi d decrease as E -6
known from nonrelativistic collisions, while in t he ext reme relativistic en-
ergy range above 10 GeV/ u, t he curves bend over to t he E -1 dependence.
1 0 -1
- 1 8 1 / 2 Au 79+ + C 5+
1 0 - 2
1=
~ 1 ~ / , - 1 Sl / 2
\ \ 1 sl / 2 - 2p3 ,
~ ~ 1 S l / 2 - - 2 p l / 2
i
2 p l / 2 - 1 s l / 2
1 0 -11 ~ ~ , ~ 1
2 p 3/z - 1 S l / 2 " ~ ~
1 0 - 1 2 ~ ~. 1
1 0 _ 1 3 , i , , l l i , l ' I l l Ll , i l , , * * i H , l i i , , i H , l = i i , l l i , l
1 0 -1 1 0 0 101 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 4
Energy (C eV /u)
1 0 - 3
J::3
r - 1 0 - 4
0
; ~ 1 0 - 5
u
q~
u~ 1 0 - s
0 1 0 - 7
L_
o
1 0 - 6
q)
- ~ 1 0 - 9
C L
0
C .) 1 0 - 1 0
r'~
v
r
o
~
(9
O,)
83
(/)
03
0
IL
(9
(9
I,,,_
::3
I : L
0
r,,3
1 0 1
1 0 0
1 0 -1
1 0 - 2
1 0 - 3
1 0 - 4
1 0 --~
1 O- S
1 0 - 7
1 0 - e
I 0 - 9 I
1 0 - l o
1 0 - 1 1
1 0 - 1
\ ~x . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . t"
9 ~- 1 , , / 2 Au79+ + AI 1 2+
%'% \ '~x~X, ,1,,- 1,,,,
\ \ \ ~ 1 , I / 2 - 2sz / 2
x /2- P / ~ ~
2 p l / 2 - 1 Sl /2 ~ ~
~ ~ l l ~ l t ~ =1111 d ~ ~ I ~ 1 J = ~==~. 1 ~ ~ J=~=HL
1 0 0
]
1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 4
Energy (C eV /u)
Fi gur es 8.3 ( t op) and 8.4 ( bot t om) . Cross sections for electron capture by
Au79+ ions as a function of the collision energy. See caption of Fig. 8.2.
1 0 3
1 0 2
1 0 1
.D
1 O0
t -
O
: . ~ 1 0 - 1
(9
u3 1 0 . 2
oO
oo
0 1 0 . 3
t,_
(9
@ 0 - 4
Q_
0 1 0 -5
C.)
1 0 - S
1 0 - 7
1 0 - 8
1 0 - 1
~ ' ' ' " I ' ' ' ' ' ' " I ' ' ' ' ' ' " I ' ' ' ' ' ' " I ' ' ' ' ' ' " I
\ ~/z-,,,,/, Au 79+ + Cu 28+
X X 1 Sl / 2 / - 1 Sl / 2
2p1/2 - I s + / 2~
2ps/z - IsI/2 ~ ~
-
1 0 o 1 0 + 1 0 2 1 03 1 0 +
Energy (C eV /u)
1 0 +
1 0 3
1 0 2
. Q
1 O+
c-
0
~.~ 1 0 ~
(,.)
q,)
e3 1 0 -1
oo
oo
0 1 0 . 2
t,_
(9
0-3
L I
C1
1 0 - 4
0
( D
1 0 - 5
1 0 - s
1 0 . 7
1 0 - 1
, , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , , I , w t w i r l | v i I l l v v l | I I w v v v v v |
2, , / , - , s , / , Au 79+ + Ag 46+
\ \ %
2 p l / 2 - / ~ ~
" 2 p 3 / 2 - / 1 s l / 2
i I i i * | l | l i i I I l l l l l I I I I I l | l l I I I I I I l l l I I I l l l l l l
1 0 o 1 0 3 1 0 + 1 0 1 1 0 2
Energy (C eV /u)
Fi gur es 8.5 (t op) a nd 8.6 ( bot t om) . Cross sections for electron capture by
Au79+ ions as a function of the collision energy. See caption of Fig. 8.2.
1 0 .5
1 0 4
1 0 3
"z"
1 0 2
g
~.~ 101
m lOO
0 1 0 -~
0
Q.} 0 - 2
L 1
r~
O 1 0 - 3
r j
1 0 - 4
1 0 - 5
, , ; wl l . I w I ' ; ' ' " l 9 w I l , , , n| ! , , , , s , , | I i , , , , , , |
Au 79+ 4- Au 78+
2 s I / 2 - 1 $ I / 2
1 s l / ? - I s l / 2
~' , ~ 1 si /2 - 2 Sl /2
1 s l / 2
2 p 3/ 2 - 1 s l / 2 ~
1 0 - 6 i i , , , l l i l l I i l , , , * I , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , , i
1 0 -1 1 0 0 1 01 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 4
Energy (C eV /u)
Fi gure 8.7. Cross sections for electron capture by Au 79+ ions as a function of
the collision energy. See caption of Fig. 8.2.
For the more asymmetric systems, the spread of curves is much larger t han
for symmetric collisions. One also observes the effect of increased spin-orbit
splitting with increasing charge of the collision partner.
The eikonal cross sections presented here are available in t abul ar form
for more initial and final states and also for uranium projectiles [ICS93].
We believe t hat these cross sections are useful global estimates. While it is
difficult to quantitatively assess the accuracy of the results, it is expected
to increase with the collision energy.
8. 4 . 3 A n a ppr o xi ma t e f ormul a for l s - l s t r ans i t i ons
Although the eikonal cross section Eq. (8.47) can be evaluated numerically,
it is useful to give an approximate analytical expression. Any relativistic
t reat ment includes two kinds of relativistic effects, namely the relativistic
projectile motion, characterized by the parameter 5 - [ ( ~- 1)/('T + 1)] 1/2,
and the relativistic motion of the electron, characterized by aZ, in its ini-
tial and final atomic orbits. Compared to the nonrelativistic case, the rela-
tivistic electron motion has two i mport ant consequences. (1) The electron
orbitals and their binding energies are modified. (2) The electron acquires
a Dirac magnetic moment which, in turn, interacts with the induced mag-
netic field produced by the projectile motion. The occurrence of a Dirac
magnetic moment is, of course, independent of the charge Z.
In order to derive an approximate cross section formula we expand the
electronic wave functions in powers of aZp, T << 1 keeping only the leading
terms and at the same time adopting a high-energy approximation for the
correction terms in the cross section. This means t hat in Eq. (8.13) we
take [q+[ ~ 1375 >> Zp, T and arctan ( q / ZT) ~ 7v/2. Correspondingly,
in (8.43) we assume t hat contributions to the integrals arise mainly from
values A << 137. Writing the Sommerfeld paramet er u T - ZT/ V (in atomic
units) explicitly, Eichler [Eic85] has derived an analytical formula bot h for
the eikonal cross section (setting Z~ - ZT) and for the OBK cross section
(setting Z~ - 0) . For convenience, we state the two expressions separately.
The l s-l s eikonal cross section per initial electron summed over the two
final spin states is given by
2 sTrZSZ5 "7 + 1 7rl2 T
.eik
l s - - l s - -
5v2(Z 2 + q~_)5 272 sinh(TCUT)
e - 2 u Tar c t an ( q + / Z T) (Seik -~- Smag -+- Sorb) (8. 50)
with
5 1 - 1 --2Z~
Seik - - 1 - ~ V- q + + 5 V 2 q ~_ + ~V
__ 1(~2 --2 (~4V--2
v Smag - - ( 5 2+ ~6~4 + ~ 7+ 1
_ _ - - 550/V - 1 152
Sorb -- 5 7r(~o~(Zp -[- ZT) - ~67I'(~30~(Zp -'[- ZT) - ~ Z~:(1 - ~ )
18
5 7 7
lS ~ ~ aZp + ~ 7r5 aZp
7+ 1 7+ 1
5 7r5 7 a( Zp + Z T- - 5 2 Z e ) (8.51)
2s 7+ 1
where q+ is defined in Eq. (8.6). This expression can be used to estimate
capture cross sections and allows us to discuss a few limiting cases. (a) If
we only keep Seik in Eq. (8.50), we obtain the eikonal cross section for rela-
tivistic projectiles but nonrelativistic spinless electrons. (b) If, furthermore,
we let 7 -~ 1 and use the nonrelativistic limit tt+~n~ -- ( s 6~ f ) / V - ~ - ~vl of
Eq. (8.7), we recover the nonrelativistic eikonal cross section [ChE79a,b,
EiC79]. (c) The term Smag survives for vanishing target charges [since the
last two terms originally arise from Z~: or u~ in (8.34) and hence represent a
final-state interaction] and tends to zero with decreasing projectile velocity.
Therefore, it is interpreted as a magnetic contribution to capture medi at ed
by the interaction between the relativistically induced magnetic field of the
projectile and the Dirac magnetic moment of the electron. (d) The quant i t y
Sorb is composed of terms t hat explicitly include C~Zp or aZT and hence
are interpreted as correction terms arising from a relativistic modification
of the electronic orbitals.
Setting Z~ = 0, the approxi mat e OBK cross section [MoS80] is simul-
taneously derived as
~O BK _ 2s~z~ z5 7 + 1 O BK r ( 8.52 )
l s - I s 5~o2(Z 2 + q~_)5 272 (1 + Smag -Jr- ~orb )
with
s OBK __ 52 54
5
- - + i - 6
ma g
So ~ - ~ ~ ( Z p + z ~ ) - ~ ~ ( Z p + z ~ ) ( 8.5a)
rb
Bot h in the relativistic and in the nonrelativistic case [DEE94], the OBK
cross sections considerably overestimate the experimental results. For a
rough estimate of total cross sections involving higher principal shells, one
may use Eq. (8.50) by applying a scaling rule. One st art s from the obser-
vation t hat in the nonrelativistic OBK approximation and in the nonrela-
tivistic eikonal approximation up to second order in the expansion of the
eikonal phase factor, the cross section scales with Z / n where n is the prin-
cipal quant um number of the shell in question. Thus one may formulate an
approxi mat e scaling rule [MeA85].
Approxi mat e relativistic capture cross sections averaged over subshells
within arbi t rary initial and final principal shells specified by their principal
quant um numbers nT and np, respectively, can be obtained from Eq. (8.50)
by replacing
ZT
ZT --~
nT
Zp
Zp --~ (8.54)
np
in the prior form. To obtain the post form, the target and the initial and
final states are interchanged.
If this scaling rule is adopted, the decision between the prior and the post
form will be automatically based on the Z/ n - criterion (8.49). A numerical
comparison between the exact and the approximate form of the eikonal
cross section is given in Table 8.1 and, more systematically, in [Eic90].
8.5. THEO RETI CAL AND EXPERI M ENTAL CRO S S S ECTI O NS 2 3 1
Tab l e 8.1. Theoretical cross sections per electron (in barn) for ls-ls electron
capture by 1050 MeV/u Ne 1~ ions. The number in square brackets gives the
power of 10 multiplying the preceding number. The OBK, exact, and approximate
eikonal results are calculated from Eqs. (8.18), (8.47), and (8.50), respectively,
the BIB results are taken from [Eic87a].
ZT OBK exact eikonal approx, eikonal BI B
13 2 .0 0 [ -4 ] 3.93[ -5] 3.85[ -5] 5.53[ -5]
30 1.19[ -2 ] 1.81[ -3] 1.76 [ -3] 2 .31[ -3]
4 7 8.4 7[ -2 ] 1.10 [ -2 ] 1.10 [ -2 ] 1.31[ -2 ]
73 3.35[ -1] 4 .10 [ -2 ] 4 .81[ -2 ] 4 .86 [ -2 ]
92 4 .15[ -~] 5.6 0 12 ] S.3 4 12 ] 7.2 4 [ -2 ]
8 . 5 T h e o r e t i c a l a n d e x p e r i me n t a l c r o s s s e c -
t i o n s
8 . 5 . 1 T h e o r e t i c a l t o t a l c r o s s s e c t i o n s
We now have at our disposal several theories which are all based on a
pert urbat i ve t reat ment . It is worthwhile to compare their predictions for
capt ure cross sections among each ot her and with existing experi ment al
data.
In order to compare various theoretical approxi mat i ons, we present in
Table 8.1 cross sections for l sl / 2-1sl / 2 electron capt ure by 1050 MeV/ u
bare Ne ions from various single-electron (idealized) targets. A comparison
wi t h experi ment al dat a is given below. Besides the OBK approxi mat i on,
which yields considerably too large cross sections, we show results for the
eikonal approxi mat i on in an exact [Eq. (8.47)] and an approxi mat e [Eq.
(8.50)] evaluation, and the B1B approxi mat i on, see Sec. 8.2. It is seen t hat
the eikonal and the BI B approxi mat i ons yield similar results. Of course the
numbers for the highest charges ZT have to be taken with some caution,
since one gets close to the energy matching, see Sec. 5.5.1, between electron
and projectile, and also the a Z expansion used for the approxi mat e eikonal
and for the B IB approxi mat i on will lead to inaccuracies. Nevertheless, a
compari son between the exact and the approxi mat e eikonal results shows
t hat the deficiencies of the ctZ expansion are not too dramat i c in this case.
For a compari son of various theories for the (because of the smallness
of the cross sections, somewhat academic) case of p + H collisions up to 1
1 I I
10 0 -- /
- 1 0 5 0 M e V l a m u I
[ N e O B K / /
/
- / .,.,r~.,
10 -1 _-- / ,~T~':
- /
# - ] /
Z I /#"'K+'L I
7 - // ./'
lO-Z __ / / / ; K . /' k _
- , / , ; ' . /' -
_ i / I / " 1.1" _
10 -3 E - / / 2 , ' -'=-
L / 1# / _~
~/ / / " . /
,,
I O-L. V / / I / I I
10 20 30 50 100
ZT
Fi gur e 8.8. Experimental and theoretical capture cross sections for 1050 MeV/u
Ne 1~ ions versus target charge number. Data from [Cra79, Anh85a]; dashed
curve: OBK approximation for K-K capture; dash-dot curve: eikonal calculations
(with shielding) for target K, L, and the sum of K and L capture [AnE85, Eic90];
solid curve: K-K capture from the B IB approximation [Eic87a], see Section 8.2.
GeV, we refer to [Eic90]. In t hat review, a systematic comparison (including
higher principal shells) is made between the exact [Eq. (8.47)] and the
approxi mat e [Eq. (8.50)] evaluation of the eikonal cross section.
8. 5 . 2 Compa r i s on wi t h e xpe r i me nt a l da t a
There is a qualitative difference between charge exchange involving low-Z
and high-Z ions In the former case, ls 1 2-1Sl/2 capture is clearly dominant
9 /
whereas in the latter case charge exchange between excited t arget and pro-
jectile states is of equal i mport ance in the energy range below 2 GeV/ u. For
bot h cases, we present a comparison between experimental and theoretical
total cross sections.
Figure 8.8 shows a comparison between experimental capture cross sec-
tions and theoretical results for 1050 MeV/ u bare Ne ions impinging on
various targets. The dashed line represents the OBK approximation for K-
8.5. THEO RETI CAL AND EXPERI MENTAL CROSS S ECTI ONS 233
Xe54. Xe52*
,o t' : : ,4 '
x\ X 0:3 "
1051 - , " 1
, o4 , , - F
/
Be
b i 0 5 , \ % ~ ~ l I ' - - I05 t, C
1 0 4 - \ ' \ ' \ % 1 " I 2 _ 104
1 0 3 i \ I i I I I I 1 0 3 I t \ \
5 0 I 00 200 5 0 I 00 200 50 I 00 200 50 I 00 200
Ep (MeV /amu) Ep (MeV/omu)
Fi gur es 8.9 (left) and 8.10 (ri ght ). Total (nonradiative plus radiative)cap-
ture cross section [MeA85] for Xe 54+ and Xe 52+, respectively, impinging on vari-
ous targets (My denotes mylar foils). Solid lines denote eikonal calculations using
the Z/ n criterion Eq. (8.49), dashed lines the conventional Z criterion (8.38) for
selecting between the post and prior form. For low-Z targets such as Be and
mylar, the radiative electron capture (dash-dot lines) is dominant.
K capt ure which overestimates the dat a by about one order of magni t ude.
The dash-dot lines indicate eikonal calculations using Slater-screened effec-
tive charges for K-K and L-K capt ure and also show the sum of both. These
results agree reasonably well wi t h experi ment al data. The solid curve repre-
sents K-K capt ure cross sections calculated from the relativistic boundary-
corrected Born approxi mat i on B1B, see Section 8.3. This curve (based on
Slater-screened effective charges) lies slightly above the eikonal K-K curve
and represents the dat a quite well considering t hat a cont ri but i on from L-K
capt ure has to be added.
Figures 8.9 and 8.10 show a comparison between measured and theoret-
ical eikonal cross sections for Xe 54+ and Xe 52+ projectiles [MeA85]. The
difference between the two sets of curves can be ascribed to capt ure into
lSl/2 states as discussed in Sec. 8.7.2. It is seen t hat in most cases the shell-
size Z / n criterion, Eq. (8.49), (solid line) for choosing the post or prior
form is in bet t er accord with the dat a t han the conventional Z-criterion
(dashed line). In some cases, though, the Z-criterion seems to yield a bet-
ter agreement with the data. In all calculations, the full nuclear charge
was used for the projectile. For the t arget atoms, effective nuclear charges
Z~ = ZT - AZ based on the Slater rules were adopted, with AZ = 0.3 for
the K-shell, 4.15 for the L-shell, 11.0 for the 3s and 3p shells, and 21.0 for
the 3d shell. For the L- and M-shells, nonrelativistic t arget wave functions
were used, which was found to have a very small effect on the total cross
section summed over subshells. Experi ment al and theoretical results in Fig-
ures 8.9 and 8.10 include radiative electron capture (REC), see Chap. 9,
indicated by a dash-dot line. For Be and mylar targets, REC is domi nant ,
whereas for higher t arget charges, REC is negligible.
8 . 5 . 3 T h e o r e t i c a l a ng l e - d i f f e r e nt i a l c r os s s e c t i o n s
For most theories, angle-differential cross sections have not been calculated
because, at present, measurement s with sufficient angular resolution are
not feasible. However, when experiments have developed to this point, it is
no maj or problem to calculate differential cross sections using Eqs. (5.84)
or (5.87) within the theories described here.
For purely theoretical reasons, differential cross sections are of interest in
order to st udy the Thomas peak [Tho27], which can be interpreted as arising
from a double-scattering mechanism at asympt ot i cal l y high velocities. In
the first step of the classical Thomas model, the electron scatters off the
projectile by 60 ~ with a speed equal to the speed of the projectile. In the
second step, the electron is elastically rescattered off the t arget nucleus by
again 60 ~ , so t hat it travels along with the projectile. The connection of this
classical model with the nonrelativistic second-order OBK approxi mat i on
has been discussed in great detail in the l i t er at ur e, see e.g. [SHS79, Dri55,
BrM92].
Since these discussions invariably assume asympt ot i cal l y high nonrela-
tivistic velocities, it is necessary to make a proper relativistic t reat ment .
According to classical mechanics [Sha79, MOS79], a peak of the differential
cross section in the l aborat ory frame should occur at the Thomas angle
OTh ~ V/2~ -~- 1 me (8.55)
7+ 1 Mp'
where me is the electron mass and Mp the projectile mass. It is interesting
to note t hat the classical total cross section for the double-scattering mech-
anism decreases for large values of ~/as 3 `.3 [Sha79]. Hence this mechanism
is not asympt ot i cal l y domi nant as it is in nonrelativistic charge transfer.
8.6. O THER D I S TO RTED - WAV E THEO RI ES 235
Exact quant um mechanical calculations of differential cross sections
within a second-order OBK approximation (OBK2) yield the following re-
sults [DeE91a]: (a) For p + H collisions at 1 GeV, the differential OBK2
cross section has a sharp spike at the Thomas angle OTh. This confirms
earlier results [HUM84, Moi85] which are based on peaking approximations
[A1888, DeE91a]. (b) On the other hand, for U + U collisions at energies
of 0.5, 5, and 100 GeV/ u, the differential OBK2 cross sections do not show
any indication of a structure t hat might suggest a Thomas peak [DeE91b].
8 . 6 O t h e r d i s t o r t e d - wa v e t h e o r i e s
While the eikonal approximation discussed above is reasonably success-
ful in accounting for experimental cross sections, it is not quite satis-
factory theoretically. It does not satisfy Coulomb boundary conditions
(8.26) and (8.27) and is not post-prior symmetric. We discuss briefly some
other approaches in which multiple electron-target or electron-projectile in-
teractions are taken into account in an approximate way. We use atomic
units in this section.
I mp u l s e ap p r o x i mat i o n
One of the earliest theories for relativistic electron capture, due to Jakubas-
sa-Amundsen and Amundsen [JaAS0], is based upon the impulse approxi-
mation which includes an infinite number of electron-target interactions. In
this approximation, the exact projectile eigenfunctions ~f is replaced with a
superposition of continuum target Coulomb eigenfunctions ~, k( r w, t) with
energy E = hco and moment um hk weighted with the moment um distri-
bution of the bound projectile state ~b~(r~, t' ). This is implemented in two
steps. First, the projectile state ~b~ is expanded in terms of free projectile
' , t' - exp(i k' ' - ico' t' ) where u' E, , p, is a free- eigenstates v~,,k, (r' ) u~,,v, 9 r e
I
particle spinor. Subsequently, the free-particle wave functions v~ , , k, are
transformed into the target system and expanded into free target eigen-
states v~ , k = UE, p exp( i k, r T - icot) . Finally, each moment um component
in the target system is weighted with the target Coulomb eigenfunction
in moment um space, so t hat one arrives at an ionization matrix element
leading from a bound target state r t hrough the projectile pert urbat i on
to a continuum target state. Denoting space-time integrations by angu-
lar brackets and introducing the spinor labels s, s' one gets the transition
amplitude in the impulse approximation as
A/A _
i / dak, f , l( s' ) lvl( S' ) S _ l v( S )
8 . 8 p
This equation is studied at asymptotically high collision energies within a
peaking approximation. It is found t hat the cross section decreases asymp-
totically as (ln ~)2/~/in agreement with the result (8.25) of the second-order
OBK approximation and in contrast to the OBK1, the B1B, and the eikonal
approximations which all give a decrease as ~-1. Owing to the complicated
integrals appearing in the expression (8.56), the impulse approximation has
not yet been evaluated at finite energies.
Target con tin uum distorted-wave approximation
A "target continuum distorted wave" (TCDW) approximation derived from
Eq. (5.82) is proposed by McCann [Mcc85]. In this approximation, the
eikonal phase factor multiplying the final-state wave function of Eq. (8.36)
is replaced by
e l - - el~' ~r(1 + iuT) 1FI[--iPT, 1,--i~/(VrT + V ZT) me/ h ] (s.57)
which for large values of r T has the same behavior as the eikonal phase
factor and for finite values reflects the Coulomb distortion. Initial and final
wave functions are approximated by the Darwin form (4.109). Everything
else is the same as in Eqs. (8.34), (8.35), and (8.36). As a consequence,
in the nonrelativistic limit, spin-flip transitions are forbidden, as expected,
since the magnetic field produced by the projectile motion tends to zero in
this limit. For 500 MeV/ u p + H collisions, the r a t i o o- f l i p/ o - n~ - - 3 X 10 . 3
which is in reasonable agreement with the OBK value (8.20). Numerical
calculations have been performed for p + H and p + Be 4+ collisions between
1 and 105 MeV.
S ymmetric eikonal approximation
The TCDW t reat ment as well as the eikonal treatment, see Sec. 8.4, are
asymmetric in target and projectile which certainly is an undesirable fea-
ture. Moiseiwitsch [Moi86, Moi87] and Deco and Rivarola [DeR87b] have
studied a symmetriz ed eikonal approximation (SE) and Deco and Rivarola
a symmetric "continuum-distorted wave" model [DeR86]. Both approaches
8.6. OTHER DISTORTED-WAV E THEORIES 237
use distorted initial and final wave functions in the general form
Hi -- gi @i(r T , t)
~f -- gf~)f (r~, t ' ), (8.58)
where @i and ~pf are the initial and final Dirac bound-st at e wave functions.
Considering first the SE approximation, the functions 5
Ui _ e-itJp ln(r~, +z~,)
Uf = e ivT ln(rT+ZT) (8.59)
are (phase) distortion factors. The i mpact -paramet er dependent transition
amplitude in the prior form then is given by [Moi86, Moi87, DeR87b]
ASE (b) = ~ dt
(N3
S 1 Vf~)~
ZPe2 /
- , S 1
?~p
1 a'r~P-7+C~zr~) S
Ui ~i > 9
(8.60)
Remembering t hat the Dirac matrices C~x and C~y mediate spin-flip transi-
tions, the explicit form (8.60) with the factor/3 = v/ c in the denominator
of the second term suggests the existence of large spin-flip contributions at
small velocities. This is unrealistic since spin-flip is caused by the motion-
induced magnetic field of the projectile interacting with the magnetic mo-
ment of the electron. These features appear as an artifact of the SE approx-
imation, which also significantly underestimates the experimental data.
The spurious contributions in the expression (8.60) are analyzed in
[ToE90a], who show t hat they vanish if either Ui = 1 or Uf = 1, a
choice which corresponds to the usual (nonsymmetric) eikonal approxima-
tion. The conclusions regarding the nonrelativistic limit of the SE ap-
proach are confirmed by exact numerical evaluations of capture cross sec-
tions [ToE90a]. While the OBK, eikonal, and BIB results show t hat the
spin-flip contribution is exceedingly small for p + H collision at 100 keV,
the SE approximation gives a spin-flip cross section t hat is by many orders
of magnitude too large and is of the same order as the non-spin-flip cross
section.
In order to avoid the spurious spin-flip contributions in the nonrelativis-
tic limit, a modified symmetric eikonal approximation has been introduced
5Constant phase factors depending on the unit of length are dropped in the eikonal
phase factors.
[G1M92] which, however, does not possess the correct relativistic behavior.
Con tin u u m distorted- wave approximation
Similar arguments as for the symmetric eikonal approximation hold for the
CDW approach [DeR86]. The only difference is t hat the functions Ui,f of
Eq. (8.59) are replaced by functions of the type (8.57). Only, if one of
the channels is left undistorted as in the TCDW approximation, Sec.8.4.2,
spurious terms do not arise.
In [DeR87a], a "matrix continuum-distorted wave" model has been
adopted. In this version, Ui,f is taken as a matrix operator t hat produces
an approximate Sommerfeld-Maue continuum wave function for c~Z << 1
when applied to nonrelativistic spinors. This procedure leads to the non-
relativistic CDW limit, but i mport ant terms in the residual interaction
are neglected. Post-prior symmet ry is not achieved. Moreover, the result-
ing expressions for the transition amplitudes are very complicated, so t hat
peaking and various additional approximations had to be used in order to
arrive at expressions t hat were amenable to numerical evaluation. A "rela-
tivistic continuum-distorted wave approximation" is proposed in [G1M94],
which removes some of these defects, but still does not have the correct
relativistic behavior and is not applicable to high-Z systems, see [TOE95].
At this level of complication with improved distorted-wave formulations,
and in view of the persisting limitations, it may be more appropriate to
resort to sophisticated numerical methods, like two-center coupled-channel
met hods discussed in the next section.
8. 7 Two - c e n t e r c o u p l e d - c h a nne l me t h o d s
As discussed in Sec. 6.5 for excitation and ionization, one may obtain an
approximate solution of the time-dependent Dirac equation (5.40) in the
l aborat ory frame with the two-center coupled-channel method. In this ap-
proach, the problem is treated rigorously within a limited space of basis
functions. For this purpose, the wave function ~( r w, t ) is expanded in
terms of a suitable set of basis states ~pk(r T, t). The degree of approxima-
tion then is essentially determined by the choice and the truncation of the
basis set. The met hod is suitable if the projectile energy is not too high,
otherwise the rapid oscillations of the phase factors in time and space pro-
hibit a numerical evaluation of the matrix elements (6.60) and (6.61). See
See. 5.4.1 for a definition of "fast" and "slow" collisions.
The time-dependent Dirac equation (5.40) for relativistic ion-atom colli-
8.7. TWO- CENTER COUPLED-CHANNEL METHODS 239
sions is solved in Sec. 6.5.1 using the expansion (6.55) of the time-dependent
wave function qJ (rT, t) in terms of target and projectile eigenstates ~k (rT, t)
!
and ~k, (rp, tl), respectively. These met hods apply equally for charge trans-
fer.
However, according to the discussion in Sec. 6.5.4, it is more appropriate
to use a set of basis states t hat satisfy Coulomb boundary conditions (8.26)
and (8.27). We therefore replace Eq. (6.55) with the basis expansion (6.69)
~(rT, t)
- - ~ ak(t)e-i~Pln(R'-~t')~;k(rT, t)
k
+ ~ ak,(t)ei~T ln(R+vt) s - l ~k, ( r ~, t' ).
k ~
(8.61)
The first t erm contains target states asymptotically phase-distorted by the
projectile, while the second sum contains projectile states asymptotically
phase-distorted by the target.
When we insert (8.61) into the time-dependent Dirac equation (5.39)
and write down the equations corresponding to (6.56) and (6.57), we find
t hat on the right-hand side, the time differentiation of the logarithmic phase
factors yields additional terms so t hat for the pert urbi ng potential we get
the replacement
Zp Zp Zp
! ! . ~ I
rp rp
ZT ZT Zr
( 8.6 2 )
r T r T R
The phase factors themselves drop out in the one-center integrals since
they are state-independent, but they remain in the two-center integrals.
We denote the expansion (8.61) as "boundary corrected" and in contrast
(6.55) as "unperturbed" since the asymptotic Coulomb distortion is not
accounted for in the basis set.
If the expansion coefficients ak(t) and ak,(t) in Eq. (8.61) are combined
into a column vector a = ( ak, - . . ; ak, , " " ), the coupled equations can be
written in a compact mat ri x form (6.59) as
i --1 ( 8. 63 )
ti -- ~N Va.
The overlap mat ri x N and the interaction mat ri x V are each built from four
submatrices corresponding to target-target, target-projectile, projectile-
target, and projectile-projectile transitions. The mat ri x elements are de-
fined in Eqs. (6.60) and (6.61) [with the replacements (8.62) for the expan-
sion (8.61)] and the cross section are given by Eq. (6.65).
2 4 0 CHAPTER 8. CHARGE EXCHANGE
Table 8.2. Comparison of theoretical cross sections per electron (in barn) for ls
capture in collisions of U 92+ + U 91+ at 500 MeV/u. CC: 36-state coupled-channel
calculations [ToE88b]; BIB: relativistic boundary-corrected Born approximation
[Eic873], see Sec. 8.3 (cross sections obtained by exact numerical integration);
EA prior and EA post: prior and post form eikonal approximation [Eic85]; OBK:
relativistic OBK approximation. The numbers in square brackets give the powers
of 10 multiplying the preceding number. From [ToE88b]. The table also includes
the ratio of spin-flip to non-spin-flip cross sections [ToE90a].
final shell CC BIB EA prior EA post OBK
181/2 4 .12 13 ] 3 .3 9[ 3 ] 4 . 14 13 ] 4 . 14 13 ] 4 .9 114 ]
2Sl /2 1.0 6 13 ] 5 . 13 12 ] 7.6 2 [ 2 ] 5.6 7[ 2 ] 5.2 8[ 3 ]
2 pl / 2 3 .9 112 ] 5 . 9 5 12 1 1. 3 5 13 ] 4 .4 4 [ 2 ] 9.0 2 [ 3 ]
2p3/2 2 .3 112 ] 2 .74 [ 2 ] 1. 2 4 13 ] 1. 0 7 12 ] 7.6 113 1
3Sl /2 3 .2 8[ 2 ] 1. 5 112 ] 2 .3 0 [ 2 ] 1. 5 812 ] 1.4 113 ]
3P l /2 1.0 3 12 ] 1. 75 12 ] 4 .3 7[ 2 ] 1. 3 0 12 ] 2 .6 0 [ 3 ]
3p3/2 7.2 511] 9 . 15 11] 4 .6 2 [ 2 ] 3 . 6 111] 2 .56 [ 3 ]
sum 6.3113] 5. 1913] 8.62[3] 5.58[3] 7.76[4]
O' fl i P/ o "n~ 5.73[--2] 3.41[--2] 5. 84[--2] 5. 83[--2] 7.30[--3]
8. 7. 1 A ppl i c a t i o n t o U 9 2 + --[ - U 9 1+ col l i s i ons
The time evolution of the transfer probabilities in urani um-urani um col-
lisions at 500 MeV/ u is included in Fig. 6.12 and the impact paramet er
dependence of the final transfer probability in Fig. 6.13. The 36-state
fully relativistic coupled-channel t reat ment [ToE88b] for 500-MeV/u U 92+
+ U 91+ collisions may serve as a st andard calculation for the basis set (6.55)
of unpert urbed states.
The detailed results for the U 92+ + U 91+ test system invite a comparison
with the results of other theories. For charge transfer, a comparison is pre-
sented in Table 8.2. In addition to BIB (Sec. 8.3) and OBK (See. 8.2) cross
section (calculated numerically without assuming the a Z expansion), the
prior and post versions of the relativistic eikonal approximation (Sec. 8.4)
are considered. We observe t hat in most cases the B IB cross sections have
a magni t ude intermediate between the prior and post form eikonal values.
For some final subshells, in particular for lSl/2, the BIB results are close to
8.7. TWO - CENTER CO U PLED - CHANNEL M ETHO D S 2 4 1
Tabl e 8.3. Excitation and transfer cross sections (in barn) between target
1
lsl/2(7) and projectile n lj ( #j ) states in U 92+ + U 91+ collisions at 1.0 GeV/u
laboratory energy. The 36-state close-coupling calculations with unperturbed
[Eq. (6.55)] or boundary-corrected [Eq. (8.61)] basis states include target and
projectile K-, L-, and M-shells. The number in square brackets gives the power
of 10 multiplying the preceding number. From [ToE90b].
excitation transfer
final st at e unpert, corrected Born appr. unpert, corrected
1
181/ 2(~)
1
181/ 2( - - ~)
1
281/2(~)
1
2 Sl /2 ( 5)
1
2pl / 2( ~)
1
2pl / 2 ( ~)
3
2p3/2(~)
1
2p3/2(~)
1
2p3/2 ( ~)
3
2p3/2(-~)
4 .95[ 3 ] 1. 6 6 13 ] 2 .13 13 ]
3.94 [ 2 ] 1. 14 12 ] 4 . 6 0 11]
3 .12 13 ] 6 .4 8[ 2 ] 4 .2 3 [ 2 ]
5.83[ 3] 4 . 7 113 ] 5.6 4 [ 3]
5.5113 ] 4 .6 0 [ 3 ] 6 . 1113 ]
7.54 [ 3] 1. 4 813 ] 9.0 2 [ 2 ]
1.16 13 ] 1. 0 113 ] 1.3 6 13 ]
1.0 6 12 ] 9 . 9 4 11] 1.1712 ]
6 .2 812 1 7.4 6 [ 2 ]
4 .6 111] 5.0 2 11]
2 .2 2 [ 2 ] 2 .4 5[ 2 ]
1.2 111] 1.2 811]
8.80 11] 7.2 6 11]
2 .3 0 11] 2 .3 111]
6 .6 0 [ 0 1 6 .6 3[ 0 ]
3 .4 4 11] 3 .2 4 11]
1.0 9 11] 4 .75[ 0 ]
9 .15[ - 1] 4 .9 2 [ - 1]
the coupled-channel results, for others t hey deviate by as much as a factor
of two. The t ot al K-shell capt ure cross sections are all in fair agreement
with one anot her except for those of the OBK theory, which systematically
yields cross sections t hat are by one order of magni t ude too hi gh. As has
been discussed in Section 8.2.2, the inclusion of second-order t erms in the
OBK expansion further increases the cross sections by one order of magni-
tude. Similarly, the ratio of spin-flip to non-spin-flip cross sections are in
close agreement with one another except again for the OBK approximation.
In See. 6.5.4, the influence of boundary conditions in coupled-channel
calculations for excitation and ionization is discussed. We observe in
Fig. 6.12 t hat with a given basis size, the excitation probabilities are appre-
ciably changed when proper Coulomb boundary conditions are imposed on
the basis functions by adopting the expansion (8.61). We may ask whether
the same effect becomes visible for charge exchange as well.
The effect of Coulomb boundary conditions is examined in Table 8.3
showing excitation and transfer cross sections for U 92+ -Jr- U 91+ collisions at
1 GeV/ u, resulting from 36-state two-center coupled-channel calculations.
Atomic states up to the 3pa/2 shell at bot h centers are included. In all cases,
1
the initial state is assumed to be lSl/2(~). We see t hat for excitation, the
inclusion of boundary corrections in coupled-channel calculations decreases
the cross section by a factor of about two, while for charge exchange the
corrections are of the order of 10% or less in most cases. The Born cross
section, which for excitation is also shown, does not have a systematic
correlation to the coupled-channel cross sections with or without boundary
conditions. In fact, at 1 GeV/ u, the projectile energy may still be too low
for the Born approximation to be valid.
8. 7. 2 Co mpa r i s o n wi t h e xpe r i me nt : Xe on A g and A u
It is desirable to compare calculated cross sections with experimental values.
Total cross sections have been measured for a variety of projectile-target
combinations [Cra79, MeA85, AnG86]. Coupled-channel calculations are
available for Xe 54+ on Ag and Au at collision energies of 82, 140, and
197 MeV/ u. Since the coupled-channel theory is constructed for a single-
electron target, additional assumptions have to be made for multielectron
targets. Transitions between occupied target shells cannot occur, there-
fore the contribution of each target subshell has been calculated separately
[ToE88b] by including only this specific target state in the two-center basis
and by blocking all other occupied target states. For the bare projectile,
all 28 states of the K-, L-, and M-shells are coupled. One after the other,
all target subshells up to 2P3/2 for Ag and up to 3P3/2 for Au have been
individually considered using effective charges Z* = ZT for the K-shell (the
value of ZT --0. 3 gives almost identical results), Z* = ZT- 4.15 for the
L-shell, and Z* = ZT -- 11.0 for the 3s and 3p shells.
In Figure 8.11, experimental and theoretical total experimental cross
sections for Xe 54+ + Ag and Xe 54+ + Au are plotted and compared with
calculated eikonal and coupled-channel cross sections. While the latter are
in reasonable agreement with the dat a for Au, they overestimate the cross
section for Ag by 20-40%.
An independent piece of experimental information can be extracted from
existing capture dat a for Xe 52+ projectiles [MeA85], see Fig. 8.10. Aside
from a small screening correction, the difference between the total cross
sections for capture into Xe 54+ and Xe 52+ may be identified with the cross
section for capture into the K-shell of Xe 54+. This experimentally obtained
number can be directly compared with the corresponding theoretical value,
so t hat the contribution to the cross section from higher excited and contin-
8.8. M ANY ELECTRO NS . M U LTI PLE CAPTU RE 243
10 6
I 0 s -
i 0 s -
1 I
C a pt ur e i n t o a l l Xe s~
\
\
Au
1 0 ~ I I
50 100 200
pr oj ect i l e ener gy (M e V /a mu )
Fi gur e 8.11. Cross sections for charge transfer in Xe 54+ -t- Ag and Au colli-
sions as a function of the laboratory projectile energy. The error bars include
estimated 20% systematic errors. The solid lines represent the results of coupled-
channel calculations [ToE88b]. The dashed and dash-dotted lines use the eikonal
approximation with the Z [Eq. (8.38)] and Z/ n [Eq. (8.54)] criteria, respectively.
Adapted from [MeA85].
uum projectile st at es is eliminated, see Fig. 8.10. The exact eikonal curves
are cal cul at ed according to [Eic85]. For Au, t he results of bot h prescrip-
tions, see Eqs. (8.38) and (8.49), to choose bet ween the post and prior
forms are included, for Ag bot h versions coincide. The agreement wi t h
t he more specific experi ment al dat a is quite satisfactory, in part i cul ar for
higher energies.
8.8 Many el ectrons. Mul t i pl e capt ure
As not ed in t he last subsection, in any compari son with experi ment , one
necessarily deals wi t h many electrons on t he t arget , whereas t he preceding
calculations assume a single electron in t he collision system. The compl exi t y
of t he experi ment al si t uat i on can be appreci at ed by considering Fig. 8.13.
This figure shows cal cul at ed relative capt ure cross sections from filled t arget
shells wi t h n T = 1, 2, 3 to vacant projectile shells with np = 1, 2, 3, and
1 0 6
I 0 s -
I 0 s -
1 0 ~ -
50
I I
Capture i nto Xe s~* K -shel l
~ . , A u
I I
100 :ZOO
p r o j e c t i l e e n e r g y ( f f e V l a m u )
Fi gur e 8.12. Cross sections for charge transfer into the projectile K-shell in
Xe 54+ -t- Ag and Xe 54+ -~- Au collisions as a function of the laboratory projectile
energy. The data points have been obtained as the difference between total cap-
ture cross sections into Xe s4+ and into Xe 52+. The notation for the theoretical
curves is the same as in Figure 8.11. For Ag, the two eikonal versions coincide.
From [ToE88b].
4-10 for several collision systems: 1050-MeV/ u Ne 1~ -t- Ag, 197-MeV/ u
Xe 54+ -s Ag, and 82-MeV/ u Xe 5a+ + Au. The calculations are based on
the eikonal equat i on (8.50) wi t h the subst i t ut i ons (8.54), using the Z / n
criterion, Eq. (8.49). (The absolute values of the cross sections can be
obt ai ned wi t h the help of Table 8.1 and Fig. 8.12.)
One sees from Fig. 8.13 t hat for low values of Zp and high projectile
velocities, ls --~ l s capt ure is domi nant , but for the opposite case of high Zp
and low velocities, capt ure from all filled t arget states into many projectile
states has to be considered.
Since absolute cross sections increase as Zp increases and the velocity
decreases, one can expect increasing multiple capt ure in such collisions.
This is indeed the case, as Fig. 8.14 shows. The figure gives measured
mul t i pl e-capt ure cross sections for 105- and 220-MeV/ u urani um projec-
tiles wi t h various charge states as a function of the multiplicity m of the
capt ure process [AnM87]. One finds an approxi mat el y exponential drop
of t he cross section for a given collision syst em wi t h increasing multiplic-
ity. The curves are based on a crude model of multiple capture, which
8.8. M ANY ELECTRO NS . M U LTI PLE CAPTU RE 245
Fi gur e 8.13. Relative capture cross sections from filled target states with n T - -
1, 2, 3 to vacant projectile shells with np - 1, 2, 3, and 4 - 10 for 1050-MeV/u
Ne 1~ + Ag, 197-MeV/u Xe 54+ + Ag, and 82-MeV/u Xe 54+ Au. The numbers
above each bar are the values of nT, but for np - - 4 - 10, only the sum over all
three target shells (A) is displayed. From [MeA85].
assumes t hat t he (mean) capt ur e probabi l i t y per el ect ron is i ndependent of
t he ot her electrons or vacancies. Thi s assumpt i on is based on t he obser-
vat i on t hat t he relative capt ur e cross sections are only little dependent on
t he proj ect i l e charge st at e (which implies t hat t he capt ur e processes must
go pr edomi nant l y to exci t ed proj ect i l e st at es, in agreement wi t h Fig. 8.13).
If one calls Pc t he mean capt ur e probabi l i t y per electron, t he t heoret i cal
cross section for m-fold capt ur e is
th,c /
o m ( P~ ) ' ~ d 2 b . (8.64)
In t he present model, this cross section must be i nt erpret ed as t he cross
section for t he si mul t aneous capt ur e of m t ar get electrons, i ndependent l y of
what happens to t he ot her electrons, i.e., it includes (m + 1, m + 2, ...)-fold
capt ure. But an exper i ment al cross section vm-ex'c, based on a charge-st at e
z
o
I-.-
( J
W
u3
ut)
o
r
( J
i , i
t r
( j
LLI
a
tY,
z
o
z
C
~ m
( b )
tO s
i 0 z,
1 0 3
i 0 2
1 0 5 - M e V / a m u U
I I
91 o ~ .~
,,,, [
2 2 0
91.~
! ! ! i i ! ! ! i I : 1 I I I i I
I 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 I 2 3 2 3
M U LT I P LI CI T Y ( m )
Fi gur e 8. 14. Multiple-capture cross sections of various charge states of 105-
and 220-MeV/ u U ions passing t hrough A1, Cu, Ag, and Au target foils, as a
function of the multiplicity rn of the capture. The curves are normalized to the
experimental rn = 1 cross sections. From [AnM87].
meas ur ement (Chap. 13), det er mi nes onl y t he m-fol d event s. Hence,
o. t h, c e x, c e x, c e x, c
m - - O' m -gr- O' m+ l ~ O' m+ 2 -~- "' "
( 8.6 5)
or
o. ex, c t h, c t h, c
r n - - a m - - O' m+ 1 9 (8.66)
[AnM87] deri ve a semi empi r i cal expressi on for _th,c, whi ch is nor mal i zed t o
0 m
t he Crl x'c val ues gi ven in Fig. 8.14. The t r end of t he dat a is r epr oduced.

Chapter 8 - Charge Exchange

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 8 - Charge Exchange

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapt er 8

You might also like