Antiscreening versus screening excitations for low-energy ion-ion

collisions in dense plasmas using the screened hyperbolic-orbit

trajectory method
Jung-Sik Yoon and Young-Dae Jung
a)
Department of Physics, Hanyang University, Ansan, Kyunggi-Do 425-791, South Korea
Received 21 December 1998; accepted 5 May 1999
Plasma screening effects are investigated on antiscreening and screening channels for excitation of
a one-electron target ion by a one-electron projectile ion in dense plasmas. In weakly coupled
plasmas, the ion-ion interaction potential is given by the nonspherical Debye-Hu

ckel model. The

semiclassical screened hyperbolic-orbit trajectory method is applied to the path of the projectile ion
in order to investigate the variation of the antiscreening and screening transition probabilities as
functions of the impact parameter and collision energy. The results show that the antiscreening
transition probability is always greater than the screening transition probability. It is found that the
plasma screening effect on the antiscreening transition probability is more effective than that on the
screening transition probability. The maximum position of the transition probability is getting closer
to the target core with increasing projectile energy. The plasma screening effect on the antiscreening
excitation cross section is also found to be stronger than that on the screening excitation cross
section. 1999 American Institute of Physics. S1070-664X9903808-2
I. INTRODUCTION
Atomic processes in dense and high-temperature plasma
have been investigated both theoretically and experimentally
for more than a quarter of a century. Recently, the ion-ion
collision process in plasmas has been of great interest since
this process is one of the basic processes in atomic collision
physics
1,2
and it can be a useful tool for plasma diagnostics.
In plasma heating processes, the plasma heating method was
given by directly injecting a high power, energetic particle
and deposing its energy onto plasmas. The principle of these
processes is largely based on various collision processes and
their cross-section data.
3
The laboratory fusion and astro-
physical plasmas are usually classied as weakly coupled
plasmas. In these situations, the Debye-Hu

ckel model
4
of the
screened Coulomb potential is known to be quite reliable to
describe the interaction potential because the plasma cou-
pling parameter is much smaller than unity. Thus, in this
paper, we investigate the plasma screening effects on low-
energy ion-ion collisional excitation in dense plasma using
the nonspherical Debye-Hu

ckel model.
The excitation of a one-electron target by a one-electron
projectile is governed by two different mechanisms,
1,2,5,6
which are directly related to the state of the projectile system
after the collision. These are called the screening and anti-
screening channels. In screening channels target inelastic-
projectile elastic, the projectile electron remains in its
ground state after the collision. However, in antiscreening
channels target inelastic-projectile inelastic, the projectile
electron is excited due to target nucleus-projectile electron
interaction. In recent papers by Yoon and Jung,
7,8
the anti-
screening excitations for high-energy ion-ion collisions in
dense plasmas are obtained by the semiclassical straight-line
trajectory method. However, within the semiclassical formal-
isms no comparison has been given of the screening and
antiscreening channels. Also, for a neutral target system, the
straight-line trajectory method is quite reliable because of the
weak Coulomb eld. However, for an ion target system, the
situation is quite different because of the strong Coulomb
effect. In this case we have to consider a deection of the
projectile path due to the Coulomb interaction. Thus, in this
paper we investigate the plasma screening effects on screen-
ing and antiscreening channels for low-energy ion-ion colli-
sional excitations in dense plasmas using the nonspherical
Debye-Hu

ckel model and the screened hyperbolic-orbit tra-

jectory method.
In Sec. II, we derive the transition amplitudes and effec-
tive charges for the screening and antiscreening channels for
ion-ion collisions in dense plasmas using the nonspherical
Debye-Hu

ckel potential and the screened hyperbolic-orbit

trajectory method. In Sec. III, we obtain the closed forms of
the transition probabilities for the screening and antiscreen-
ing channels. The plasma screening effects on the screening
and antiscreening excitation transition probabilities and scat-
tering cross sections are also discussed. The results show that
the antiscreening transition probability is always greater than
the screening transition probability. The maximum position
of the transition probability is getting closer to the target core
with an increase of the collision energy. The plasma screen-
ing effect on the antiscreening excitation is found to be more
effective than that on the screening excitation. In. Sec. IV, a
summary and discussion are given.
II. TRANSITION AMPLITUDE
In ion-ion collisions, the excitation cross section from
the unperturbed state i
T
, i
P
to an excited state f
T
, f
P
is
given by the semiclassical approximation
9
a
Electronic mail: yjung@bohr.hanyang.ac.kr
PHYSICS OF PLASMAS VOLUME 6, NUMBER 8 AUGUST 1999
3391 1070-664X/99/6(8)/3391/5/$15.00 1999 American Institute of Physics
Downloaded 24 Oct 2008 to 202.56.207.52. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pop.aip.org/pop/copyright.jsp
2

b dbT
f
P
, i
P
f
T
, i
T

2
, 1
where T
f
P
, i
P
f
T
, i
T
is the transition amplitude and b is the impact
parameter. Here, f and i denote the nal and initial states and
the subscripts T and P stand for the target and projectile
systems, respectively. For simplicity, we consider a collision
system consisting of a one-electron projectile ion (Z
P
) inci-
dent on a one-electron target ion (Z
T
). In the nonspherical
Debye-Hu

ckel model, the projectile-target interaction Hamil-

tonian in weakly coupled plasmas is given by
H
int
r
P
, r
T
, R
Z
P
Z
T
e
2
R
e
R/

Z
P
e
2
Rr
T

e
Rr
T
/

Z
T
e
2
Rr
P

e
Rr
P
/

e
2
Rr
P
r
T

e
Rr
P
r
T
/
, 2
where is the Debye length.
10
Here, R is the position of the
projectile nucleus with respect to the target nucleus and the
projectile electron has the coordinate r
P
with respect to the
projectile nucleus; the target electron has the coordinate r
T
with respect to the target nucleus Z
T
. This static nonspheri-
cal Debye-Hu

ckel potential is quite reliable for low-energy

projectiles since the dynamic interaction potential is known
to be only important for high-energy projectiles, i.e., when
the projectile velocity is greater than the electron thermal
velocity.
8
For low-energy projectiles, the plasma screening
effect on the projectile is mainly determined by the curved
trajectory, including the screening phenomena. From a rst-
order time-dependent perturbation theory, the transition am-
plitude is given by
T
f
P
, i
P
f
T
, i
T

dt e
i
f , i
t
f
P
, f
T
H
int
r
P
, r
T
, Ri
T
, i
P
,
3
where
f , i
E/ and E(E
f
P
E
i
P
E
f
T
E
i
T
) is the total
energy change of the collision system. If the collision veloc-
ity is fast with respect to the Bohr velocities of projectile and
target electrons, the electron exchange effect can be ne-
glected and the initial and nal state wave functions can be
written as products of target and projectile wave functions
f
T
, f
P

f
T
(r
T
)
f
P
(r
P
) and i
T
, i
P

i
T
(r
T
)
i
P
(r
P
).
1
The excitation of a one-electron target by a one-electron
projectile is governed by two different mechanisms screen-
ing and antiscreening channels which are directly related to
the state of the projectile ion after the collision. In the screen-
ing channels, the projectile electron remains in its ground
state ( f
P
i
P
) after the collision, but in the antiscreening
channels, the projectile electron is excited ( f
P
i
P
) due to
target nucleus-projectile electron interaction. For target in-
elastic collisions, Z
P
Z
T
e
2
e
R/
/R and Z
T
e
2
e
Rr
P
/
/R
r
P
terms in Eq. 2 do not have any contribution to the
transition amplitude due to the orthogonality of the initial
and nal states of the target system, then, the transition am-
plitude can be written as
T
f
P
, i
P
f
T
, i
T

2ie
2

dt e
i
f , i
t

d
3
q
e
iqR
q
2
Z
P
eff
F
f , i
T
, 4
where q is the momentum transfer and Z
P
eff
is the momentum
transfer-dependent effective projectile charge including the
plasma screening effect,
Z
P
eff
q
1
2
2
q
2
q
2

f
P
, i
P
Z
P
G
f , i
P
q, 5
and G
f , i
P
(q) and F
f , i
T
(q) are the atomic form factors of the
projectile and target systems, respectively,
G
f , i
P
q f
P
e
iqr
P
i
P
, 6
F
f , i
T
q f
T
e
iqr
T
i
T
. 7
Using the expansion relation with the spherical harmonics
Y
l, m
,
e
iqR
4

l0

ml
l
i
l
Y
l, m
* q

Y
l, m
R

j
l
qR, 8
where j
l
(qR) is a spherical Bessel function. Then, the tran-
sition amplitude becomes
T
f
P
, i
P
f
T
, i
T

2
3
ie
2

dq Z
P
eff
qF
f , i
T
qI q, 9
where
I q

dt e
i
f , i
t
j
0
qR. 10
Since the straight-line path approximation is not reliable for
low projectile energies and for small impact parameters, we
use the curved trajectory method called the screened
hyperbolic-orbit path approximation to investigate the be-
havior of the antiscreening excitations for low-energy ion-
ion collisions in dense plasmas. The hyperbolic-orbit trajec-
tory method was rst suggested by Alder et al.
11
for the
nuclear-nuclear collisions. Later, Bang and Hansteen
12
used
this method for proton impact ionization of atomic electrons.
Since then, several authors
13,14
have used this method for
heavy projectile impact ionization and excitation.
The convenient parametric representation
9,15
of the
screened hyperbolic-orbit trajectory R(t), for the repulsive
case, in the xy plane, is given by
R
x
d
2
1
1/2
sinh w,
R
y
d cosh w,
R t R t d cosh w1,
t
d
v
sinh ww, w, 11
where d, (1b
2
/d
2
)
1/2
, and v are half of the distance of
closest approach in a head-on collision, the eccentricity, and
the initial velocity of the projectile ion, respectively. Includ-
ing the plasma screening effects, the parameter d can be
obtained by a simple perturbational calculation with the non-
spherical screened interaction potential Eq. 2
3392 Phys. Plasmas, Vol. 6, No. 8, August 1999 J.-S. Yoon and Y.-D. Juns
Downloaded 24 Oct 2008 to 202.56.207.52. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pop.aip.org/pop/copyright.jsp
d

1
d
0

1
, 12
where d
0
Z
P
Z
T
e
2
/v
2
. From Eq. 12, we can readily nd
that the plasma screening effect () on the projectile path is
more important for low-energy projectiles. After some alge-
bra, the integral I(q) is found to be
I q
1
2iqv

dwe
i( sinh ww)
e
iqd( cosh w1)

dwe
i( sinh ww)
e
iqd( cosh w1)

, 13
where
f , i
d/v. To evaluate this equation, we dene the
quantity by the following relations,
cosh
qd
q
2
d
2

2
, 14
sinh

q
2
d
2

2
. 15
After some straightforward manipulations, we can obtain the
integral I(q) of the form
I q
2
qv
sin qdK
i

2
q
2
d
2
, 16
where tanh
1
(/qd), and K
i
is the modied Bessel
function
16
with order i. Thus, we obtain a closed form of
the transition amplitudes for the screening and antiscreening
channels using the screened hyperbolic-orbit trajectory
method,
T
f
P
, i
P
f
T
, i
T

2
4
ie
2

v

0

dq
Z
P
eff
qF
f , i
T
q
q
sin qdK
i

2
q
2
d
2
. 17
In the following section, we shall investigate the plasma
screening effects on screening and antiscreening excitation
processes.
III. TRANSITION PROBABILITY AND CROSS SECTION
In order to specically investigate the plasma screening
effects on the screening and antiscreening transition prob-
abilities, we rst obtain the atomic form factors F
f , i
T
and
G
f , i
P
. Since the main purpose of this paper is the investiga-
tion of the plasma screening effects on the screening and
antiscreening excitation processes, we retain the unscreened
bound wave functions throughout this paper.
A. Screening excitation
For the 1s2p transition, there are three possible chan-
nels depending on the magnetic substates (m0,1) of the
2p state. Here, we shall consider the excitation to the m
0 state, i.e., 2p
0
state. Thus, from Eqs. 6 and 7 with the
unscreened hydrogenic wave functions,
17
the 1s2p
0
target
and 1s1s projectile atomic form factors are found to be
F
2p
0
,1s
T
qi
62
a
Z
T
5
q
q
2
3/2a
Z
T

3
, 18
G
1s,1s
P
q
16
a
Z
P
4
1
q
2
2/a
Z
P

2
, 19
where a
Z
T
(a
0
/Z
T
) is the Bohr radius of the target ion and
a
Z
P
(a
0
/Z
P
) is that of the projectile ion. From the semi-
classical excitation cross section Eq. 1, the scaled differ-
ential excitation cross section can be written in the form
Z
T
4
d/db

a
0
2
2b

f
P
, i
P
f
T
, i
T
b

2
, 20
where b

(b/a
Z
T
) is the scaled impact parameter and
T

f
P
, i
P
f
T
, i
T
(Z
T
T
f
P
, i
P
f
T
, i
T
) is the scaled transition amplitude. For
simplicity, we assume that Z
P
Z
T
(Z), then, the scaled
screening transition probability for the 1s2p
0
target and
1s1s projectile excitations is found to be
2b

1s,1s
2p
0
,1s
b

2
7
3
2

dQ
Q
4
Q
2
8sin Qd

K
i

2
Q
2
d

Q
2
a

2
Q
2
4
2
Q
2
9/4
3

2
, 21
where Qq/a
Z
, a

a
Z
/, (3/4)(/m) (d

/
i
), and
d

d/a
Z
. Here, m is the electron mass, is the reduced
mass of the collision system,
i
(v
2
/2Z
2
Ry) is the scaled
collision energy, and tanh
1
(/Qd

). Then, the scaled to-

tal semiclassical screening excitation cross section can be
given by
Z
T
4

S
a
0
2

db

2b

1s,1s
2p
0
,1s
b

2
. 22
B. Antiscreening excitation
Here, we consider the excitations to both the 2p
0
states
in target and projectile ions ( f
P
i
P
). From Eqs. 5 and 6
with the unscreened hydrogenic wave functions, the 1s
2p
0
projectile atomic form factor is given by
G
2p
0
,1s
P
qi
62
a
Z
P
5
q
q
2
3/2a
Z
P

3
. 23
The 1s2p
0
target atomic form factor is already given in
3393 Phys. Plasmas, Vol. 6, No. 8, August 1999 Antiscreening versus screening excitations for low . . .
Downloaded 24 Oct 2008 to 202.56.207.52. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pop.aip.org/pop/copyright.jsp
Eq. 17. If we also set Z
T
Z
P
(Z), then the scaled anti-
screening transition probability for the 1s2p
0
target and
1s2p
0
projectile excitations is given by
2b

2p
0
,1s
2p
0
,1s
b

2
11
3
4

dQ
Q
3
sin Qd

K
i

2
Q
2
d

Q
2
a

2
Q
2
9/4
6

2
.
24
The scaled total semiclassical antiscreening excitation cross
section can be obtained by
Z
T
4

A
a
0
2

db

2b

2p
0
,1s
2p
0
,1s
b

2
. 25
The differential antiscreening ionization cross section
1
target: 1scontinuum, projectile: if ) for high-energy
ion-ion collisions was obtained by the straight-line trajectory
method and the closure approximation. However, the specic
antiscreening excitation channel target: 1s2p
0
, projectile:
1s2p
0
) for low-energy ion-ion collisions has not been
reported in previous theoretical calculations or experimental
results even for the zero-density limit. Thus, this paper is the
rst attempt to evaluate the antiscreening excitation cross
section target: 1s2p
0
, projectile: 1s2p
0
) for low-
energy ion-ion collisions in dense plasmas using the semi-
classical hyperbolic-orbit trajectory method.
C. Plasma screening effects
In this subsection, we shall consider the plasma screen-
ing effects on the antiscreening and screening transition
probabilities for hydrogen-hydrogen H
0
(1s)H
0
(1s) col-
lisions for two cases of the collision energy:
i
2 and 10.
We also consider the plasma screening effects on the antis-
creening and screening excitation cross sections as a function
of the projectile energy. A recent investigation
8
shows that
the dynamic screening effects on ion-ion collisional excita-
tion are found to be important for very high energy projec-
tiles. Thus in low-energy ion-ion collisions
i
100, the dy-
namic screening effects can be completely neglected. Then,
static effective interactions are found to be sufcient at low
ion velocities.
18
In Fig. 1, the transition probabilities ob-
tained by the antiscreening and screening channels are plot-
ted as functions of the scaled impact parameter b

for two
cases of the Debye length: a

0.1 and 0. As we see in these

gures, plasma screening effects on the transition probability
for the antiscreening channel are found to be more effective
than those on the transition probability for the screening
channel. It is also found that the amplitude of the antiscreen-
ing transition probability is greater than that of the screening
transition probability. For
i
2, the maximum positions for
a

0.1 are closer to the target core than those for a

0
since the plasma screening effect reduces the Coulomb re-
pulsion between the projectile and target ions. However, for

i
10, the change of the maximum position by the plasma
screening effect is almost negligible since the kinetic energy
is greater than the interaction potential energy near the main
contribution region. As we see in Fig. 1, the maximum po-
sition of the transition probability is getting closer to the
target core with increasing projectile energy. For both the
screening and antiscreening channels, there is no change in
FIG. 1. The scaled antiscreening and screening transition probabilities for
a

0.1 and 0. a
i
2; b
i
10].
FIG. 2. The scaled antiscreening and screening excitation cross sections in
units of a
0
2
for a

0.1 and 0.
3394 Phys. Plasmas, Vol. 6, No. 8, August 1999 J.-S. Yoon and Y.-D. Juns
Downloaded 24 Oct 2008 to 202.56.207.52. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pop.aip.org/pop/copyright.jsp
the maximum position for a given projectile energy (
i
) and
Debye length (a

). In other words, for low-energy ion-ion

collisions, the excitation of the projectile ion has no effect on
the main contribution position of the matrix element. Figure
2 shows the scaled total cross sections for antiscreening and
screening excitations as functions of the scaled collision en-
ergy. As we see in Fig. 2, the plasma screening effect on the
antiscreening excitation cross section is found to be stronger
than that on the screening excitation cross section. Table I
shows the numerical values of the scaled total cross sections
for antiscreening and screening excitations.
IV. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
In this paper, we investigate the plasma screening effects
on screening and antiscreening channels for excitation of a
one-electron target by a one-electron projectile in dense plas-
mas. In weakly coupled plasmas, the ion-ion interaction po-
tential is given by the nonspherical Debye-Hu

ckel model.
The semiclassical screened hyperbolic-orbit trajectory
method is applied to the path of the projectile ion in order to
investigate the variation of the antiscreening and screening
transition probabilities as functions of the impact parameter
and collision energy. The close forms of the screening and
antiscreening transition probabilities are obtained in terms of
the modied Bessel function. The results show that the
plasma screening effects on the antiscreening transition prob-
ability are found to be more effective than those on the
screening transition probability. Also, the amplitude of the
transition probability for the antiscreening channel target
inelastic-projectile inelastic is found to be greater than that
of the transition probability for the screening channel target
inelastic-projectile elastic. For the low collision energy (
i
2), the maximum positions including the plasma screening
effects are closer to the target core than those neglecting the
plasma screening effects since the plasma screening weakens
the Coulomb repulsion between the projectile and target
ions. However, for
i
10, there is no change in the maxi-
mum position with a change of the strength of the plasma
screening effect. We found that the maximum position of the
transition probability is getting closer to the target core with
increasing the collision energy. It is also found that the main
contribution position of the matrix element is almost inde-
pendent of the nal state of the projectile ion. The plasma
screening effect on the antiscreening excitation cross section
is found to be more effective than that on the screening ex-
citation cross section. These results provide useful informa-
tion for low-energy antiscreening and screening excitations
in ion-ion collisions in weakly coupled plasmas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
One of the authors Y.-D. J. acknowledges Professor H.
Tawara and Dr. R. M. More for stimulating discussions and
useful comments. We also thank the anonymous referee for
suggesting improvements to this text. The authors wish to
acknowledge the nancial support of Hanyang University,
South Korea, made in the program year of 1999. This work
was supported by the Korea Science and Engineering Foun-
dation through Grant No. 981-0205-016-2 and by the Korea
Research Foundation through the Basic Science Research In-
stitute Program 1998-015-D00128.
1
J. Eicher and W. E. Meyerhof, Relativistic Atomic Collisions Academic,
New York, 1995, Chap. 7.
2
J. H. McGuire, Electron Correlation Dynamics in Atomic Collisions
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997, Chap. 8.
3
H. Tawara, NIFS-DATA 25, 1 1995; private communication, 1999.
4
Y.-D. Jung, Phys. Plasmas 2, 332 1995.
5
E. C. Montenegro and W. E. Meyerhof, Adv. At., Mol., Opt. Phys. 34, 249
1994.
6
J. Wang and J. H. McGuire, Phys. Rev. A 51, 504 1995.
7
J.-S. Yoon and Y.-D. Jung, Phys. Plasmas 4, 3477 1997.
8
J.-S. Yoon and Y.-D. Jung, Phys. Plasmas 5, 889 1998.
9
Y.-D. Jung, Astrophys. J. 409, 841 1993.
10
Y.-D. Jung, Phys. Fluids B 5, 3432 1993.
11
K. Alder, A. Bohr, T. Huus, B. Mottelson, and A. Winter, Rev. Mod.
Phys. 28, 432 1956.
12
J. Bang and J. M. Hansteen, Mat. Fys. Medd. K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. 31,
1 1959.
13
S. Brechot, Phys. Lett. A 24, 476 1967.
14
V. P. Myerscouch and G. Peach, Case Studies in Atomic Collision Physics
II, edited by M. R. C. McDowell and E. W. McDaniel North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1972, p. 293.
15
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Mechanics, 3rd ed. Pergamon, Oxford,
1975, Chap. 3.
16
M. Abramowitz and A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions
Dover, New York, 1965, p. 376.
17
H. A. Bethe and E. E. Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics of One- and Two-
Electron Atoms Academic, New York, 1957, p. 323.
18
G. Zwicknagel, C. Toepffer, and P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Rep. 309, 117
1999.
TABLE I. Numerical values of the antiscreening and screening excitation
cross sections in units of a
0
2
.
Scaled
energy
i
Antiscreening
a
Screening
b
a

0 a

0.1 a

0 a

0.1
2 0.127 991 0.106 941 0.067 577 0.063 220
5 0.056 391 0.048 036 0.029 817 0.028 445
10 0.032 009 0.027 415 0.016 973 0.016 282
15 0.020 866 0.017 872 0.011 100 0.010 649
20 0.013 446 0.011 517 0.007 178 0.006 887
a
The scaled total cross sections for antiscreening excitation using Eqs. 24
and 25.
b
The scaled total cross sections for screening excitation using Eqs. 21 and
22.
3395 Phys. Plasmas, Vol. 6, No. 8, August 1999 Antiscreening versus screening excitations for low . . .
Downloaded 24 Oct 2008 to 202.56.207.52. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pop.aip.org/pop/copyright.jsp