4.6 Article

Model-QED operator for superheavy elements

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 106, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.106.012806

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation [075-10-2020-117]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces a model-QED-operator approach for calculating the radiative corrections to binding and transition energies in atomic systems, extended to the range of nuclear charges 110 ≤ Z ≤ 170. The method utilizes the self-energy operator based on the Dirac-Coulomb wave functions to represent the self-energy part of the model operator, and represents the vacuum-polarization part with matrix elements similar to the self-energy part. The performance of the method is studied by comparing its predictions with ab initio calculations, and it is noted that the model-QED operator can be used to account for QED effects in a wide variety of superheavy elements.
The model-QED-operator approach [V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, and V. A. Yerokhin, Phys. Rev. A 88, 012513 (2013)] to calculations of the radiative corrections to binding and transition energies in atomic systems is extended to the range of nuclear charges 110 Z 170. The self-energy part of the model operator is represented by a nonlocal potential based on diagonal and off-diagonal matrix elements of the ab initio self -energy operator with the Dirac-Coulomb wave functions. The vacuum-polarization part consists of the Uehling contribution, which is readily computed for an arbitrary nuclear-charge distribution and the Wichmann-Kroll contribution represented in terms of matrix elements similarly to the self-energy part. The performance of the method is studied by comparing the model-QED-operator predictions with the results of ab initio calculations. The model-QED operator can be conveniently incorporated in any numerical approach based on the Dirac -Coulomb-Breit Hamiltonian to account for the QED effects in a wide variety of superheavy elements.

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

4.6
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