4.6 Article

Li I spectra in the 4.65-8.33 micron range: high-L states and oscillator strengths

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 545, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219852

关键词

atomic data; line: identification; methods: laboratory; techniques: spectroscopic; infrared: general

资金

  1. Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [IAAX00100903]
  2. Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic [ECPF:049/4V]
  3. Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic [LM2010014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. Infrared (IR) astronomy capacities have rapidly developed in recent years thanks to several ground-and space-based facilities. To take advantage of these capabilities efficiently, a large amount of atomic data (such as line wavenumber, excited-level energy values, and oscillator strengths) are needed. These data are incomplete, in particular, for lithium whose abundances are important for several astrophysical problems. Aims. No laboratory-measured spectra of Li I have been reported for wavelengths longward of 6.6 microns. We aim to find new Li I lines in the 4.65-8.33 microns range due to transitions between states with high orbital momentum (l >= 4) and to determine the excitation energies of these states. Methods. The Li I lines were studied using the time-resolved Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy of a plasma created by the laser ablation of a LiF target in a vacuum. The classification of the lines was performed by accounting for oscillator strengths (f-values) calculated using quantum defect theory (QDT). The adequacy of QDT for these calculations was checked by comparison with the available experimental and theoretical results. Results. We report four new Li I lines in the 900-2200 cm(-1) range that allow us to extract the excitation energies of the 6g, 6h, and 7h states of Li I, which have not been measured before. We also provide a large list of QDT-calculated f-values for Li I in the range of 1-20 microns.

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