On the Energy of a “One-Dimensional” Two-Electron Atom

  • V. V. Skobelev
Nuclei, Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Astrophysics


Based on the perturbation theory and variational method long known for a “three-dimensional” atom, the ground and first excited state energies are calculated for a “one-dimensional” two-electron atom in the “one-dimensional ortho-helium” configuration, which can be obtained experimentally in principle, as has been already done for a Na Bose condensate, or produced in a super strong magnetic field B ≫ (2α)2B0 (B0 = m2c3/ ≈ 4.41 × 1013 G). The “screening constant” σ for this atom in the ground and excited states was about 0.20 and 0.17, 0.18, respectively, depending on the relative parity PP' of the electronic states, which is somewhat smaller than in “two-dimensional” and “three-dimensional” variants (in these cases, this constant in the ground state is almost the same and about 0.3). The frequencies of the main spectral lines of a “onedimensional” He atom representing a doublet split over the relative parity PP' are found. The presence of the close lines of this doublet in the emission spectrum of magnetars at frequencies ω1, 2 ≈ {1.15; 1.17}α2(c/λC) (α = e2/ħc, λC =ħ/mc) corresponding to the “one-dimensional ortho-helium” would suggest the existence of a superstrong magnetic field in such astrophysical objects.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    V. V. Skobelev, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 125 (6), 1058 (2017).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Gorlitz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 130402 (2001).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    U. Eichmann, V. Lange, and W. Sandner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 274 (1990).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Richter and D. Wintgen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1965 (1990).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Lopez-Castillo, M. A. M. de Aguiar, and A. M. Ozorio de Almeida, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 29, 197 (1996).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Ya. Vilenkin, Special Functions and the Theory of Group Representations (Nauka, Moscow, 1965; Am. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1968).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. V. Skobelev, Russ. Phys. J. 57, 1038 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. V. Skobelev, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 124, 877 (2017).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. London, Am. J. Phys. 27, 649 (1959).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3: Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory (Nauka, Moscow, 1974, 3th ed.; Pergamon, New York, 1977, 3rd ed.).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. A. Sokolov, Yu. M. Loskutov, and I. M. Ternov, Quantum Mechanics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Austin, TX, 1966).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. I. Akhiezer and V. B. Berestetskii, Quantum Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Nauka, Moscow, 1969; Wiley, New York, 1965).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. A. Hylleraas, Z. Phys. 63, 291 (1930).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. A. Hylleraas, Z. Phys. 63, 771 (1930).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Moscow Polytechnic UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations