Monopole ’83 pp 295-315 | Cite as

Excitation of Simple Atoms by Slow Magnetic Monopoles

  • Norman M. Kroll
  • Venkatesh Ganapathi
  • Stephen J. Parke
  • Sidney D. Drell
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSB, volume 111)


We present a theory of excitation of simple atoms by slow moving massive monopoles. Previously presented results for a monopole of Dirac strength on hydrogen and helium are reviewed. The hydrogen theory is extended to include arbitrary integral multiples of the Dirac pole strength. The excitation of helium by double strength poles and by dyons is also discussed. It is concluded that a helium proportional counter is a reliable and effective detector for monopoles of arbitrary strength, and for negatively charged dyons.


Angular Momentum Impact Parameter Helium Atom Excitation Cross Section Order Perturbation Theory 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Drell, N. Kroll, M. Mueller, S. Parke, and M. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 644 (1983).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T.T. Wu and C.N. Yang, Nuclear Phys. B 107, 365 (1976).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Fierz, Helv. Phys. Acta 17, 27 (1944).MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    For divergence free magnetic fields and vector potentials, this field angular momentum is given by eA, so that the canonical angular momentum.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Zener, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 137, 696 (1932).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 125, 156 (1983). Compare with Eq. (15) of the above paper. We are including our time dependent Hamiltonian and hence do not have the dΩ/dz0 term which appears there. While we think that such a term should not be included in our treatment, to be on the safe side we have verified that it also satisfies the selection rule.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    We are using the phrase “quasi adiabatic” to refer to a situation in which relative velocities are slow enough to allow us to assume that excitations are dominated by transitions to levels whose energy separation from the incident state is small compared to the minimum excitation energy which would be required for the isolated atom. The transitions are actually non-adiabatic.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W.V.R. Malkus, Phys. Rev. 83, 899 (1951).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    In DKMPR we discussed this problem in a reference frame in which the nucleus was fixed at the origin. This made it natural to use as the perturbation Hamiltonian the change in H due to the addition of a point magnetic dipole instead of a point electric dipole. That is to say, in place of He we used That the two must give the same result follows from and = 0 for any eigenstate of H.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. 134, 1181 (1964).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. J.D. Prestage, E.A. Hinds and F.M.J. Pichanick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 828 (1983).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.
    There are four additional excitation states, including the 3F4 state to which all excitation occurs at zero impact parameter, which are not included in the lower Paschen-Bach multiplet discussed in the text. Their total contribution to the cross section is much smaller.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    R. Hagstrom, Theory of Excitation and Ionization of Matter by Monopoles, paper presented at this conference, Oct. 6, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman M. Kroll
    • 1
  • Venkatesh Ganapathi
    • 1
  • Stephen J. Parke
    • 2
  • Sidney D. Drell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of California — San DiegoLaJollaUSA
  2. 2.Stanford Linear Accelerator CenterStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations