Our
work in this area encompasses the interaction between positrons,
positronium (a bound state of an electron and a positron),
antiprotons, and antihydrogen with atomic and molecular systems.
Atomic and molecular systems containing positrons exhibit
very high correlation. This arises from the competition between
the light mobile positron(s) and the slow heavy nuclei for
the "attention" of the electrons in the system. Modelling
this competition in a convincing way is a major theoretical
and computational challenge.
Positron Interactions
When a positron scatters off an atom, A, the following processes
(assuming A contains enough electrons) can take place:
- e+ + A ->
- e+ + A Elastic Scattering
- e+ + A* Excitation
- e+ + An+ + ne- Ionization
- Ps(nlm) + A+ Positronium (Ps) Formation
- Ps- + A++ Positronium Negative Ion Formation
- Ps + A(n+1)+ + ne- Transfer Ionization
- Ps- + A(n+2)+ + ne- Transfer Ionization with Ps- Formation
- A+ + Gamma rays Annihilation
The first three reactions are possible using electrons as
a projectile. The remaining reactions are unique to the positron.
It is these latter reactions which distinguish the positron
as a more subtle projectile than the electron. Positronium
formation is the most obvious manifestation of the competition
between the positron and the nucleus for electrons while the
annihilation process gives "pin-point" information on correlation
in the system in that it measures the probability that the
positron coincides with an electron.
Considerable success has been achieved using coupled-(pseudo)state
methods to treat positron scattering by "one-electron" and
"two-electron" atoms, eg, [1-4].
Pseudostates are a very effective way of representing ionization
channels. In a coupled-pseudostate approach we have a representation
of all the main physical processes, ie, excitation of the
atom, positronium formation, ionization, in effect a complete
dynamical theory.
Many-body theory has also been applied to positron-atom scattering
and has been found to be a very useful and insightful tool.
Using many-body theory the role of virtual positronium formation
in increasing positron-atom attraction has been identified
[5]. This led to the
prediction of bound states with neutral atoms [6]
that, at the time, were considered to be non-existent. As
a result great interest in the problem of positron binding
to atoms and molecules was stimulated. Many-body theory has
also provided an explanation of the origins of enhanced annihilation
rates observed for heavier atoms [7]
and has been used for the calculation of the spectra of annihilation
gamma quanta [8].
A long-standing problem has been the greatly enhanced annihilation
rates in polyatomic molecules. Experiments had observed rates
which were orders of magnitude (!) larger than estimates based
upon the number of electrons in the molecule. This has now
been explained [9] by
the existence of positron-molecule bound states which give
rise to a dense spectrum of positron vibrational Feshbach
resonances. Using a zero-range potential model the main trends
of positron binding to alkanes has been explained, including
the emergence of a second bound state [10].
It has been found that for small-sized polyatomic molecules
with infrared-active modes, such as methyl halides, a complete
analytical theory can be formulated [11].
This theory contains one free parameter, namely the positron-molecule
binding energy, and yields excellent agreement with experiment.
Positronium Interactions
The development of mono-energetic positronium beams has led
to growing interest in positronium-atom collisions. Positronium
is the lightest neutral atomic projectile, being like a hydrogen
atom but only 1/1000 th of its mass, positronium collisions
are therefore of considerable fundamental interest. The fact
that positronium has internal degrees of freedom as well as
the atom considerably complicates the theoretical description
of positronium scattering.
Using the coupled pseudostate formalism a sophisticated set
of computer programs has been developed to study positronium-atom
scattering. So far, work has been done on positronium scattering
by atomic hydrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and
lithium [12-16]. This
work has shown the importance of virtual excitation of the
atom at low energies [12,17]
and the important role of resonances associated with negative
ions of the atom [15,17].
It has also uncovered problems with measurements of the momentum
transfer cross at low energies [13,14,17]
and given the first reliable results for H- production in
Ps + H collisions [15]
as well as for e+ + H- scattering [18].
Most recently, differential fragmentation of positronium in
collision with inert gases has been studied for comparison
with experimental measurements from University College London
[19].
Antihydrogen
Antihydrogen is a bound state of an antiproton and a positron.
As far as we understand at present it is exactly like a hydrogen
atom but its antiparticle. The end of 2002 saw the announcement
of the first production of cold (< 15K) antihydrogen at CERN
by two experimental groups, ATHENA and ATRAP. A primary motivation
for the production of antihydrogen is that it offers the opportunity
of making very high precision tests of the Weak Equivalence
Principle of General Relativity for antimatter and of the
CPT invariance of relativistic quantum mechanics. To make
these tests, the antihydrogen is required to be in a low lying
quantum state, preferably the 1s ground state.
Relevant to these experiments are questions of collisional
cooling and survivability of the antihydrogen. Collisional
cooling takes place through elastic scattering with ordinary
atoms, but any sort of scattering also involves the possibility
of destruction either through a rearrangement collision or
by direct annihilation of the antiproton or positron. Work
is in progress to adapt the powerful coupled-pseudostate technique,
which has been successfully used for positron and positronium
scattering, to give definitive quantitative information on
these processes.
Antiprotons
In parallel with the antihydrogen work, it is informative
to look at what should be the simpler problem of antiproton
collisions. So far our studies of antiproton interactions
have been at somewhat higher energies [20,21],
but even here serious discrepancies between theory and experiment
are found. Work to resolve these problems is in progress as
well as extensions to much lower energies.
References
[1]
AA Kernoghan et al, J Phys B 29 2089 (1996)
[2]
AA Kernoghan et al, J Phys B 29 3971 (1996)
[3]
MT McAlinden et al, J Phys B 30 1543 (1997)
[4]
CP Campbell et al, Nucl Instrum Meth B 143 41 (1998)
[5]
GF Gribakin and WA King, J Phys B 27 2639 (1994)
[6]
VA Dzuba et al, Phys Rev A 52 4541 (1995)
[7]
VA Dzuba et al, J Phys B 29 3151 (1996)
[8]
LJM Dunlop and GF Gribakin, J Phys B 39 1647 (2006)
[9]
GF Gribakin, Phys Rav A 61 022720 (2000)
[10]
GF Gribakin and CMR Lee, Nucl Instrum Meth B 247 31 (2006)
[11]
GF Gribakin and CMR Lee, Phys Rev Lett 97 193201 (2006)
[12]
JE Blackwood et al, Phys Rev A 65 032517 (2002)
[13]
JE Blackwood et al, Phys Rev A 60 4454 (1999)
[14]
JE Blackwood et al, J Phys B 35 2661 (2002)
[15]
JE Blackwood et al, Phys Rev A 65 030502 (2002)
[16]
S Sahoo et al, Nucl Instrum Meth B 233 312 (2005)
[17]
HRJ Walters et al, Nucl Instrum Meth B 221 149 (2004)
[18]
MT McAlinden et al, Phys Rev A 65 032715 (2002)
[19]
C Starrett et al, Phys Rev A 72 012508 (2005)
[20]
S Sahoo et al, J Phys B 37 3227 (2004)
[21]
S Sahoo et al, Nucl Instrum Meth B 233 318 (2005)
|
|