Advertisement

Pressure Dependence of X-Ray Yields in Protonium

  • E. Borie
Part of the Ettore Majorana International Science Series book series (EMISS, volume 17)

Abstract

In view of the interest in studying the p̄p system in gas at low to moderate pressures, it has seemed worthwhile to extend previous calculations1 of the atomic cascade to provide the best possible estimates of the yields of K- and L-x rays in protonium as a function of target pressure. The processes involved — Stark mixing, annihilation, chemical (or Coulomb) and Auger deexcitation, as well as radiative transitions, have been described in Refs. 1 and 2. In comparison to previous work1,3 the following changes have been made:
  1. 1:

    The shift and width of the 1s state have been taken from the most recent calculations by Richard and Sainio4. The calculation by Kaufmann, based on a boundary condition model5, gives essentially the same result, namely Γ1S=700 eV, ΔE1S=1000eV (spin averaged). In most of the present work, the annihilation width of the 2p state was taken to be 30 meV, or 75 times the radiative width, also in accordance with the calculations of Refs. 4 and 5.

     
  2. 2:

    The role of Coulomb deexcitation, as proposed by Bracci and Fiorentini6 has been studied.

     

Keywords

Pressure Dependence Moderate Pressure Radiative Width Muonic Hydrogen Coulomb Deexcitation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Borie, M. Leon, Phys. Rev. A; 21:1460 (1980).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Leon, H.A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 127:636 (1962).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Borie, p LEAR Note Nr. 79 (1979).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.H. Richard, M.E. Sainio, CERN TH-3224 (1980).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W.B. Kaufmann, Proc. Kaon Factory Workshop, Vancouver ed. by M.K. Craddock, TRIUMPF Report TRI-79–1. p. 160 (1979).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Bracci, G. Fiorentini, Nuovo Cimento 43A:9 (1978).ADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.S. Cohen, R.L. Martin, W.R. Wadt, Phys. Rev. A24 (1981).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T.B. Day, G.A. Snow, J. Sucher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3:61 (1959).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    E.G. Auld, et. al., Phys. Lett. 77B:454 (1978).ADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Anderhub, et. al., Phys. Lett. 71B:443 (1977).ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P.O. Egan, et. al., Phys. Rev. A23:1152 (1981)ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Devons, et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett.27:1614 (1971)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. C. Baltay, et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett.15:532 (1965).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Borie
    • 1
  1. 1.Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Institut für Kernphysik und Institut für Experimentelle KernphysikUniversität KarlsruheKarlsruheFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations