Testing Quantum Electrodynamics in the Lowest Singlet States of Beryllium Atom
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Testing quantum electrodynamics in the lowest singlet states of beryllium atom Mariusz Puchalski and Jacek Komasa Faculty of Chemistry, Adam Mickiewicz University, Grunwaldzka 6, 60-780 Poznan,´ Poland Krzysztof Pachucki Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Hoza˙ 69, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland (Dated: August 29, 2017) High-precision results are reported for the energy levels of 21S and 21P states of the beryllium atom. Calcu- lations are performed using fully correlated Gaussian basis sets and taking into account the relativistic, quantum electrodynamics (QED), and finite nuclear mass effects. Theoretical predictions for the ionization potential of the beryllium ground state 75 192:699(7) cm−1 and the 21P ! 21S transition energy 42 565:441(11) cm−1 are compared to the known but less accurate experimental values. The accuracy of the four-electron computa- tions approaches that achieved for the three-electron atoms, which enables determination of the nuclear charge radii and precision tests of QED. PACS numbers: 31.30.J-, 31.15.ac, 32.10.Hq Spectroscopic standards for the energy transitions of the Up to now, the precision of theoretical predictions for the beryllium atom have been established many years ago (1962) beryllium states with the non-vanishing angular momentum in the experiments by Johansson. In most cases the accuracy has been severely limited by the accuracy of the lowest-order of the wavelength measurements of 0.01-0.02 A˚ [1] has been relativistic (m α4) and QED (m α5) corrections. The most ac- reached. The only more precise beryllium energy level deter- curate calculations including the relativistic corrections was mination comes from the experiment by Bozman et al. [2] performed 20 years ago by Chung and Zhu [16] at the full- in which the transition energy of 21 978:925 cm−1 between core plus correlation level of theory, whereas the QED ef- 3 −1 the ground and the 2 P1 state accurate to about 0:01 cm fects have merely been approximated from hydrogenic for- (0:002 A)˚ has been measured [3]. Seaton, through a fit to a mulas [17, 18]. This approach has turned out to be unsatisfac- collection of excited states data, has determined the ionization tory for it has led to a significant discrepancy between theo- potential (IP) of the ground state to be 75 192:56(10) cm−1 retical predictions and experimental excitation energies. For [4]. Later, this quantity has been improved by Beigang et al., instance, the theoretical result [16] is by 3:45 cm−1 higher who obtained 75 192:64(6) cm−1 [5]. Contemporary high than the experimental wavelength value 2 349:329(10) A˚ of precision calculations [6, 7] are in good agreement with the the 21P ! 21S transition energy measured with 0:18 cm−1 rather old experimental IP values. Nevertheless, the precision uncertainty [1]. The fact that the theoretical excitation en- of the data available for beryllium is far from being satisfac- ergy is higher than the experimental value may indicate that tory compared to the exquisite accuracy of the modern atomic correlation effects have not been incorporated satisfactorily. spectroscopy. The level of the absolute precision achieved in Such a disagreement can only be resolved in an unequivocally modern measurements for three-electron systems [8, 9] is as more accurate computation of nonrelativistic energies as well many as four orders of magnitude higher than that obtained as the relativistic and QED effects using the explicitly corre- in the case of beryllium. As it has been shown for two- and lated wave functions. Recent nonrelativistic calculations of three-electron atoms, the availability of such accurate data, in low-lying P - and D-states with the relative precision of an or- connection with good understanding of the underlying atomic der of 10−10-10−11 [19, 20] represent a step in this direction. theory, opens up access to such interesting applications like In this paper, we present the first complete and highly ac- the determination of the nuclear charge radius or precision curate treatment of the leading relativistic (m α4) and QED tests of the quantum electrodynamics (QED). (m α5) effects for a four electron atomic P -state. Moreover, Remarkable advances in theoretical methods make it pos- we significantly improved numerical results for relativistic sible to approach the spectroscopic accuracy for the energies and QED effects for the 21S state, which permitted us to push and transition frequencies of few-electron atoms. This chal- the accuracy of the theoretical predictions of the 21P ! 21S lenge requires precise treatment of the electron correlations as transition energy beyond the experimental uncertainty. Addi- well as inclusion of relativistic and quantum electrodynamic tionally, in combination with the previously reported very ac- effects. The concise approach, which accounts for all the ef- curate data on beryllium cation [11], we obtained an improved fects beyond the nonrelativistic approximation, is based on the ionization potential with the accuracy an order of magnitude expansion of the energy levels in the fine structure constant α higher than that of the available experimental values. (see Eq. (1) below). This method has been successfully ap- In our approach, we expand the total energy not only in the plied in recent years to light atomic and molecular systems fine structure constant α ≈ 1=137 but also in the ratio of the [10–13]. The frontiers in this field of research have been es- reduced electron mass to the nuclear mass η = −µ/mN = 6 tablished by the calculation of higher order (m α ) corrections −m=(m + mN ) ≈ 1=16424. This way we reduce the isotope to helium energy levels [14] and of m α7 corrections to helium dependence to the prefactors only. In terms of these two pa- fine structure [15]. rameters, the energy levels can be represented as the following 2 expansion Ω1 = 4, Ω1=r = 1 for P -states (Eq. (5) ). If, additionally, gra- dients with respect to the nonlinear parameters are to be used, 2 (2;0) (2;1) 4 (4;0) E = m α E + η E + m α E both shell parameters have to be increased by two. +m α5 E(5;0) + m α6 E(6;0) + :::: (1) To control the uncertainty of our results we performed the calculations with several basis sets successively increasing Each dimensionless coefficient E(m;n) is calculated separately their size by a factor of two. From the analysis of con- as an expectation value of the corresponding operator with vergence we obtained the extrapolated nonrelativistic ener- the nonrelativistic wave function. The leading contribution gies and mean values of the operators presented in Table I. (2;0) E ≡ E0 is an eigenvalue of the Schrodinger¨ equation with The largest wave functions optimized variationally were com- the clamped nucleus Hamiltonian posed of 4096 and 6144 terms for the S- and P -state, respec- tively, leading to the nonrelativistic energies E(2;0)(21S) = X p2 X Z X 1 −14:667 356 494 9 and E(2;0)(21P ) = −14:473 451 33 4. H Ψ = E Ψ; H = a − + : (2) 0 0 0 2 r r These upper bounds improve slightly those obtained by a a a ab a>b Adamowicz et al. [7, 19]. The key to obtaining high-precision results is the use of a very The other coefficients of expansion (1) are calculated as accurate trial wave function Ψ, which contains all the inter mean values with the nonrelativistic wave function Ψ. The particle distances explicitly incorporated. We express Ψ as a nonrelativistic finite mass correction is given by E(2;1) = (2;0) P linear combination of N four-electron basis functions i E − a<b h~pa · ~pbi. In order to calculate the leading rel- ativistic corrections E(4;0) = hH(4;0)i we consider the Breit- N X Pauli Hamiltonian [23], which for the states with vanishing Ψ = ci i; i = A[φi(~r1; ~r2; ~r3; ~r4) χ] ; (3) spin can be effectively replaced by the form i X ~p 4 π Z α where A is the antisymmetry projector, χ = H(4;0) = − a + δ3(r ) (7) 1 8 2 a 2 ("1#2 − #1"2)("3#4 − #3"4) is the singlet spin func- a tion constructed using electron spinors. The spatial function ij ri rj φ is the explicitly correlated Gaussian (ECG) function for S- X 3 1 i δ ab ab j + π δ (rab) − pa + 3 pb : 2 rab r and P -state, respectively a<b ab X 2 X 2 φS = exp − wa ra − uab rab ; (4) Since the ECG basis does not reproduce the cusps of the wave a a<b function, a slow convergence becomes evident for relativistic X X φ~ = ~r exp − w r2 − u r2 : (5) matrix elements of the Dirac δ and the kinetic energy opera- P 1 a a ab ab tor p4. To speed up the convergence, the singular operators a a<b a can be transformed into their equivalent forms, whose behav- The main advantage of these Gaussian functions is the avail- ior is less sensitive to the local properties of the wave func- ability of analytical forms of the integrals required for matrix tion. For the Dirac δ expectation value, such a prescription elements of the Hamiltonian H0 has been proposed by Drachman [24]. For example, from di- rect calculation with the basis size of 4096 for S-state, we Z Z d3r d3r f(n ; : : : ; n ) = ::: 1 ::: 4 rn1 : : : rn4 (6) get hδ(ra)i = 35:366 89 :::, while using the Drachman regu- 1 10 π π 1 4 larization approach we improve the convergence by three or- X X × rn5 : : : rn10 exp − α r2 − β r2 : ders of magnitude (see Table I).