4.7 Article

Ab initio many-electron study for the low-lying states of the alkali hydride cations in the adiabatic representation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 136, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.3695997

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [10774186, 10979007, 11025417, 11179041, 11004014]
  2. NSAF [10876043]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An ab initio multireference single-and double-excitation configuration interaction (CI) study is carried out for the ground and excited electronic states of alkali-hydride cations (LiH+, NaH+, KH+, RbH+, and CsH+). For all alkali-metal atoms, the first inner-shell and valence electrons (nine active electrons, three for Li) are considered explicitly in the ab initio self-consistent-field and CI calculations. The adiabatic potential energy curves, radial and rotational couplings are calculated and presented. Short-range (similar to 3 a.u.) potential wells produced by the excitation of the inner-shell electrons are found. The depths of the inner potential wells are much greater than those of the outer wells for the CsH+ system. The computed spectroscopic constants for the long-range potential well of the 2 (2)Sigma(+) state are very close to the available theoretical and experimental data. The electronic states of alkali-hydrogen cations are also compared with each other, it is found that the positions of the potential wells shift to larger internuclear distances gradually, and the depths of these potential wells become greater with increasing alkali-metal atomic number. The relationships between structures of the radial coupling matrix elements and the avoiding crossings of the potential curves are analyzed. From NaH+ to CsH+, radial coupling matrix elements display more and more complex structures due to the gradual decrease of energy separations for avoided crossings. Finally, the behavior of some rotational couplings is also shown. (C) 2012 American Institute of Physics. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3695997]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据