1: %
2: % Jentschura and Haas
3: %
4: \documentclass[genTeX]{nrc1}
5:
6: \usepackage{psfrag}
7: \usepackage{nicefrac}
8: \usepackage{dcolumn}
9: \usepackage{graphicx}
10: \usepackage{epsfig}
11: \usepackage{amsfonts}
12: \usepackage{amsmath}
13: \usepackage{amssymb}
14: \usepackage{bbold}
15: \usepackage{bm}
16: \usepackage{cite}
17:
18: \def\half{{\textstyle{\frac12}}}
19: \def\LZa{{\ln\left[\half(Z\alpha)^{-2}\right]}}
20: \def\LZasquared{{\ln^2\left[\half(Z\alpha)^{-2}\right]}}
21:
22: \setcounter{page}{1}
23: \volyear{xx}{2006}
24: \journal{Can. J. Phys.}
25: \received{xxx}
26: \accepted{xxx}
27:
28: \bibliographystyle{myprsty.bst}
29:
30: \begin{document}
31:
32: \newcolumntype{d}[1]{D{.}{.}{#1}}
33: \newcolumntype{.}{D{.}{.}{-1}}
34:
35: \title{Two--Loop Effects and Current Status of the
36: $\bf ^4$He$^{\boldsymbol +}$ Lamb Shift}
37: %
38: \author[U.D.Jentschura]{U. D. Jentschura}
39: \address{Max--Planck--Institut f\"{u}r Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1,
40: 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. \email{Ulrich.Jentschura@mpi-hd.mpg.de}}
41: \author[M.Haas]{M. Haas}
42:
43: \shortauthor{Jentschura and Haas}
44:
45: \maketitle
46: %
47: \begin{abstract}
48: We report on recent progress in the treatment of
49: two-loop binding corrections to the Lamb shift,
50: with a special emphasis on $S$ and $P$ states.
51: We use these and other results in order
52: to infer an updated theoretical value of the
53: Lamb shift in $^4$He$^+$.
54: \\\\PACS Nos.: 12.20.Ds, 31.30.Jv, 06.20.Jr, 31.15.-p
55: \end{abstract}
56: %
57: \begin{resume}
58: Nous examinons le progr\`{e}s r\'{e}cent concernant
59: le traitement des corrections \`{a} l'ordre \'{e}lev\'{e}
60: des diagrammes \`{a} deux boucles contribuants aux
61: d\'{e}placement de Lamb, sp\'{e}cialement en ce qui concerne
62: les \'{e}tats $S$ et $P$. Par cons\'{e}quent,
63: on d\'{e}duit de nouvelles
64: pr\'{e}cises valeurs th\'{e}oriques pour le
65: d\'{e}placement de Lamb en $^4$He$^+$.
66: \end{resume}
67:
68: %
69: % Introduction
70: %
71: \section{Introduction}
72: \label{intro}
73:
74: Recently, the higher-order two-loop corrections to the
75: Lamb shift have been studied rather intensively,
76: both within the $Z\alpha$-expansion
77: (see~\cite{Pa1993pra,Pa1994prl,EiSh1995,Ka1996,EiGrSh1997,Pa2001,EiGrSh2001,JeCzPa2005}
78: and references therein) as well
79: as within the nonperturbative (in $Z\alpha$) numerical
80: approach, as described in
81: Refs.~\cite{MaSa1998a,MaSa1998b,YeSh2001,YeInSh2003,%
82: YeInSh2005jetp,YeInSh2005,YeInSh2006}.
83: In the current note, we review some recent
84: progress for the so-called $B_{60}$ coefficient,
85: which is generated by the entire gauge-invariant set
86: of two-loop diagrams, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
87: We also review some very recent progress~\cite{Je2006}
88: regarding the $B_{60}$ coefficient for general
89: excited hydrogenic states with nonvanishing angular
90: momentum, with a special emphasis on states with $P$ symmetry.
91:
92:
93: \begin{figure}
94: \begin{center}
95: \begin{minipage}{14cm}
96: \begin{center}
97: \includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig1.eps}
98: \end{center}
99: \caption{\label{fig1} Feynman diagrams
100: for the two-loop self-energy corrections,
101: separated into subsets $i$--$iv$ according to
102: Ref.~\cite{JeCzPa2005}. Subset $i$ is the pure two-loop self-energy,
103: subset $ii$ comprises the vacuum-polarization insertion into
104: the virtual-photon line of the one-photon self-energy,
105: subset $iii$ contains vacuum-polarization corrections
106: to the electron line in the one-photon self-energy, and
107: subset $iv$ contains remaining vacuum-polarization effects.}
108: \end{minipage}
109: \end{center}
110: \end{figure}
111:
112: Applications of the recent progress to
113: high-precision spectroscopy are numerous.
114: As one example of current interest,
115: the status of the $^4$He$^+$ Lamb shift
116: ($1S$ and $2S$ states) is summarized, based on the
117: recent analytic and numerical results, and
118: on information about further known contributions
119: to the Lamb shift from the literature
120: (see in particular~\cite{EiGrSh2001,vWHoDr2001,JeDr2004}
121: and references therein).
122:
123: %
124: % Two--Loop Results
125: %
126: \section{Two--Loop Results}
127: \label{twoloop}
128:
129: The two-loop energy shift of an atomic level
130: in a hydrogenlike atomic system reads
131: (in units with $\hbar = c = \epsilon_0 = 1$)
132: %
133: \begin{eqnarray}
134: \label{DefESE2L}
135: \Delta E^{\rm (2L)}_{\mathrm{SE}} &=& \left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2 \,
136: \frac{(Z\alpha)^4 m_{\rm e}}{n^3} \, H(Z\alpha)\,,
137: \end{eqnarray}
138: %
139: where $m_{\rm e}$ is the electron mass,
140: and $H$ is a dimensionless function.
141: In the current Section of this
142: article, we are primarily concerned with recently
143: obtained~\cite{JeCzPa2005,Je2006}
144: results for the normalized
145: (or ``weighted'') difference $H(nS, Z\alpha) - H(1S, Z\alpha)$ of
146: $S$ states, whose importance for the
147: determination of fundamental constants has been
148: stressed in Refs.~\cite{Ka1994,Ka1997,Ka2005}, and for individual $P$ states.
149:
150: For these states and/or combinations of states,
151: the first nonvanishing terms in the semi-analytic expansion
152: of the dimensionless function
153: $H(Z\alpha)$ in powers for $Z\alpha$ and $\ln(Z\alpha)$
154: read as follows,
155: %
156: \begin{equation}
157: \label{defH}
158: H(Z\alpha) = B_{40}
159: + (Z\alpha)^2 \biggl\{ B_{62} \ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]
160: + B_{61} \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] + B_{60} \biggr\}.
161: \end{equation}
162: %
163: The first index of the $B$ coefficients marks the
164: power of $Z\alpha$, whereas the second corresponds to the
165: power of the logarithm $\ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$.
166: For individual $S$ states, we only mention here
167: the existence of a $B_{50}$
168: coefficient~\cite{Pa1993pra,EiGrSh1997,Pa1994prl,EiSh1995},
169: which goes beyond the coefficients listed in (\ref{defH}).
170:
171: For the normalized difference of $S$ states, we
172: have~\cite{Pa2001}
173: %
174: \begin{equation}
175: \label{B62}
176: B_{62}(nS) - B_{62}(1S)
177: = \frac{16}{9} \left( \frac34 + \frac{1}{4 n^2} -
178: \frac1n + \gamma - \ln(n) \! + \! \Psi(n) \right)\,,
179: \end{equation}
180: %
181: where $\gamma = 0.577216\dots$ is Euler's constant,
182: and $\Psi$ is the logarithmic derivative of the Gamma function.
183: The normalized difference for $B_{61}$ reads~\cite{Pa2001}
184: %
185: \begin{eqnarray}
186: \label{B61}
187: B_{61}(nS) - B_{61}(1S)
188: &=& \frac43\, \left[ N(nS) - N(1S) \right]
189: \nonumber\\[2ex]
190: & & + \left[ \frac{304}{135} - \frac{32}{9} \, \ln(2) \right] \,
191: \left( \frac34 - \frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{4\,n^2}
192: + \gamma - \ln(n) \! + \! \Psi(n) \right)\,.
193: \end{eqnarray}
194: %
195: The normalized difference of the nonlogarithmic term
196: can be expressed as~\cite{JeCzPa2005}
197: %
198: \begin{equation}
199: \label{defAnS}
200: B_{60}(nS) - B_{60}(1S) = b_L(nS) - b_L(1S) + A(n),
201: \end{equation}
202: %
203: where $A(n)$ is an additional contribution
204: beyond the $n$-dependence of the two-loop Bethe logarithm
205: $b_L$. The result for $A$ is~\cite{CzJePa2005,JeCzPa2005},
206: %
207: \begin{align}
208: \label{An}
209: & A(n) =
210: \left( \frac{38}{45} - \frac43\ln(2) \right) [N(nS) - N(1S)]
211: - \frac{337043}{129600} - \frac{94261}{21600n} + \frac{902609}{129600n^2}
212: \nonumber\\
213: & + \left( \frac{4}{3}
214: - \frac{16}{9n}
215: + \frac{4}{9n^2} \right) \ln^2 (2)
216: %
217: + \left( -\frac{76}{45}
218: + \frac{304}{135n}
219: - \frac{76}{135n^2} \right) \ln(2)
220: %
221: + \left( - \frac{53}{15}
222: + \frac{35}{2n}
223: - \frac{419}{30n^2} \right)
224: \nonumber\\
225: %
226: &
227: \times \zeta(2)\ln(2)
228: + \left( \frac{28003}{10800}
229: - \frac{11}{2n}
230: + \frac{31397}{10800n^2} \right) \zeta(2)
231: %
232: + \left( \frac{53}{60}
233: - \frac{35}{8 n}
234: + \frac{419}{120 n^2} \right) \zeta(3)
235: \nonumber\\
236: %
237: & + \left( \frac{37793}{10800}
238: + \frac{16}{9}\ln^2(2)
239: - \frac{304}{135}\ln (2)
240: + 8\zeta(2)\ln(2)
241: - \frac{13}{3}\zeta(2)
242: - 2\zeta(3)\right)
243: \left[ \gamma + \Psi(n) - \ln(n) \right] .
244: \end{align}
245: %
246: Here, $N(n)$ is a nonlogarithmic term generated by a Dirac-$\delta$
247: correction to a one-loop Bethe logarithm, as calculated
248: in Ref.~\cite{Je2003jpa}. Of course, $\zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-s}$
249: is the Riemann zeta function.
250:
251: For $P$ states, we have the known
252: results~\cite{Ka1996,CzJePa2005,JeCzPa2005}
253: %
254: \begin{align}
255: B_{62}(nP) =& \; \frac{4}{27} \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2} \,,
256: \nonumber\\[2ex]
257: %
258: B_{61}(nP_{1/2}) =& \; \frac43\, N(nP) + \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2}
259: \left(\frac{166}{405} -\frac{8}{27} \, \ln 2 \right) \,,
260: \nonumber\\[2ex]
261: %
262: B_{61}(nP_{3/2}) =& \; \frac43\, N(nP) +
263: \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2}
264: \left(\frac{31}{405} -\frac{8}{27} \, \ln 2 \right) \, .
265: \end{align}
266: %
267: The results for the nonlogarithmic terms of $P$ can be inferred
268: on the basis of Eq.~(8.1) of Ref.~\cite{JeCzPa2005} and the
269: two-loop Bethe logarithms for $P$ states (see~\cite{Je2006}
270: and Table~\ref{table2}),
271: %
272: \begin{subequations}
273: \label{b60P}
274: \begin{align}
275: \label{b60P12}
276: & B_{60}(nP_{1/2}) = \;
277: b_L(nP) + \beta_4(nP_{1/2}) + \beta_5(nP_{1/2}) +
278: \left[ \frac{38}{45} - \frac43\ln(2) \right] N(nP)
279: -\frac{27517}{25920} - \frac{209}{288n}
280: \nonumber\\[2ex]
281: %
282: &
283: + \frac{1223}{960 n^2}
284: + \frac{4}{27} \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2} \ln^2(2)
285: - \frac{38}{81} \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2} \ln(2)
286: + \left( \frac{25}{6} + \frac{3}{2 n} - \frac{9}{2 n^2} \right)
287: \zeta(2) \ln(2)
288: \nonumber\\[2ex]
289: %
290: & + \left( -\frac{9151}{10800} -\frac{1}{4n} + \frac{1009}{1200 n^2}
291: \right) \zeta(2)
292: + \left( -\frac{25}{24} -\frac{3}{8n} + \frac{9}{8 n^2}
293: \right) \zeta(3)\,,
294: \\[2ex]
295: %
296: \label{b60P32}
297: & B_{60}(nP_{3/2}) =
298: b_L(nP) + \beta_4(nP_{3/2}) + \beta_5(nP_{3/2}) +
299: \left[ \frac{38}{45} - \frac43\ln(2) \right] N(nP)
300: -\frac{73321}{103680} + \frac{185}{1152n}
301: \nonumber\\[2ex]
302: &
303: + \frac{8111}{25920n^2}
304: + \frac{4}{27} \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2} \ln^2(2)
305: - \frac{11}{81} \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2} \ln(2)
306: + \left( \frac{299}{80} - \frac{3}{8 n} - \frac{53}{20 n^2} \right)
307: \zeta(2) \ln(2)
308: \nonumber\\[2ex]
309: & \quad
310: + \left( -\frac{24377}{21600} + \frac{1}{16n} - \frac{3187}{3600 n^2}
311: \right) \zeta(2)
312: + \left( -\frac{299}{320} + \frac{3}{32n} + \frac{53}{80 n^2}
313: \right) \zeta(3) \,.
314: \end{align}
315: \end{subequations}
316: %
317: In these formulas, $\beta_4$ and $\beta_5$ are low-energy spin-dependent
318: contributions, defined in Eq.~(4.21) of Ref.~\cite{JeCzPa2005},
319: whose numerical values may be inferred from
320: one-loop calculations~\cite{Je2003jpa,JeEtAl2003}.
321:
322: The evaluation of the two-loop
323: Bethe logarithm for $1S$ and $2S$ has been discussed in
324: Ref.~\cite{PaJe2003}, and for $3S$--$6S$ in Ref.~\cite{Je2004b60}.
325: For $1S$ and $2S$, there is no ambiguity in the definition
326: of the Bethe logarithm, which can roughly be explained
327: as follows: essentially, the two-loop Bethe logarithm
328: results from a renormalized integration over two
329: photon energies. Both of these integrations are free of singularities
330: for $1S$ and $2S$. However, for all higher excited $S$ states and
331: all $P$ states, one incurs
332: real (rather than imaginary) contributions to the energy shift
333: from the product of imaginary contributions due to singularities
334: along both photon integrations (these are
335: ``squared decay rates'' in the sense of Ref.~\cite{JeEvKePa2002}).
336: It is thus necessary to make a clear distinction between the
337: singularity-free, principal-value part $\overline{b}_L$ and
338: a real part $\delta^2 B_{60}$, which is incurred by
339: ``squared'' (or, more precisely, products of)
340: imaginary contributions from the pole terms. We write
341: %
342: \begin{equation}
343: \label{bLdef}
344: b_L = \overline{b}_L + \delta^2 B_{60}\,,
345: \end{equation}
346: %
347: where $\overline{b}_L$ is obtained as the nonlogarithmic
348: energy shift stemming from the nonrelativistic
349: self-energy, with all integrations carried out by principal
350: value, and $\delta^2 B_{60}$ is the corresponding
351: contribution defined in Refs.~\cite{JeEvKePa2002,Je2004b60},
352: due to squared imaginary parts.
353: For $3S$--$6S$ states, the above
354: separation is not really essential, because $\delta^2 B_{60}$
355: is a numerically marginal contribution as compared to
356: $\overline{b}_L$ (see Ref.~\cite{Je2004b60}),
357: and thus $b_L(nS) \approx \overline{b}_L(nS)$ to a
358: very good approximation.
359: For $P$ states under investigation here, the distinction (\ref{bLdef}),
360: surprisingly, is already important (see Table~\ref{table1}).
361: Final numerical values of the weighted difference
362: of $B_{60}$ for $S$ states, and for individual $P$ states,
363: are summarized in Table~\ref{table2}.
364:
365: \begin{center}
366: \begin{table}
367: \begin{center}
368: \begin{minipage}{12.0cm}
369: \begin{center}
370: \caption{\label{table1}
371: Total numerical values of the two-loop Bethe logarithms $b_L$
372: for $S$ and $P$ states, broken down for the
373: principal-value contribution $\overline{b}_L$ and the
374: squared-decay term $ \delta^2 B_{60}$.}
375: \begin{tabular}{c@{\hspace{0.3cm}}c@{\hspace{0.7cm}}%
376: c@{\hspace{0.3cm}}c@{\hspace{0.7cm}}c@{\hspace{0.3cm}}%
377: c@{\hspace{0.7cm}}c@{\hspace{0.3cm}}c}
378: \hline
379: \hline
380: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
381: level & $\overline{b}_L$ & $\delta^2 B_{60}$ & $b_L$ &
382: level & $\overline{b}_L$ & $\delta^2 B_{60}$ & $b_L$ \\
383: \hline
384: $1S$ & $-81.4(3)$ & $0.0$ & $-81.4(3)$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ \\
385: $2S$ & $-66.6(3)$ & $0.0$ & $-66.6(3)$ & $2P$ & $-2.2(3)$ & $-0.008$ & $-2.2(3)$ \\
386: $3S$ & $-63.5(6)$ & $-0.071$ & $-63.6(6)$ & $3P$ & $-2.5(3)$ & $-0.177$ & $-2.7(3)$ \\
387: $4S$ & $-61.8(8)$ & $-0.109$ & $-61.9(8)$ & $4P$ & $-2.8(3)$ & $-0.243$ & $-3.0(3)$ \\
388: $5S$ & $-60.6(8)$ & $-0.129$ & $-60.7(8)$ & $5P$ & $-2.8(3)$ & $-0.276$ & $-3.1(3)$ \\
389: $6S$ & $-59.8(8)$ & $-0.141$ & $-59.9(8)$ & $6P$ & $-2.9(3)$ & $-0.295$ & $-3.2(3)$ \\
390: \hline
391: \hline
392: \end{tabular}
393: \end{center}
394: \end{minipage}
395: \end{center}
396: \end{table}
397: \end{center}
398:
399: \begin{center}
400: \begin{table}
401: \begin{center}
402: \begin{minipage}{12.0cm}
403: \begin{center}
404: \caption{\label{table2}
405: Numerical values for the weighted difference of $B_{60}$
406: for $S$ states, and for individual $P$ states.}
407: %
408: \begin{tabular}{c@{\hspace{0.3cm}}c@{\hspace{0.7cm}}%
409: c@{\hspace{0.3cm}}c@{\hspace{0.7cm}}c@{\hspace{0.3cm}}%
410: c@{\hspace{0.7cm}}c@{\hspace{0.3cm}}c}
411: \hline
412: \hline
413: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}
414: level & $B_{60}(nS)-B_{60}(1S)$ & level & $B_{60}(2P_{1/2})$ & level & $B_{60}(2P_{3/2})$ \\
415: \hline
416: $2S$ & $15.1(4)$ & $2P_{1/2}$ & $-1.6(3)$ & $2P_{3/2}$ & $-1.8(3)$ \\
417: $3S$ & $18.3(7)$ & $3P_{1/2}$ & $-2.0(3)$ & $3P_{3/2}$ & $-2.2(3)$ \\
418: $4S$ & $20.0(10)$ & $4P_{1/2}$ & $-2.4(3)$ & $4P_{3/2}$ & $-2.5(3)$ \\
419: $5S$ & $21.2(11)$ & $5P_{1/2}$ & $-2.4(3)$ & $5P_{3/2}$ & $-2.5(3)$ \\
420: $6S$ & $22.0(11)$ & $6P_{1/2}$ & $-2.5(3)$ & $6P_{3/2}$ & $-2.6(3)$ \\
421: \hline
422: \hline
423: \end{tabular}
424: \end{center}
425: \end{minipage}
426: \end{center}
427: \end{table}
428: \end{center}
429:
430: % ---- 1S and 2S ----
431:
432: \begin{center}
433: \begin{table}[!htb]
434: \begin{center}
435: \begin{minipage}{1.0\textwidth}
436: \caption{\label{ContribsForS}
437: Contributions to the Lamb shifts of the $1S_{1/2}$ and $2S_{1/2}$ states
438: in $^4$He$^+$. All equation numbers are connected to the
439: contributions as listed in Ref.~\cite{EiGrSh2001}, unless indicated
440: otherwise. SE$=$ self-energy, VP$=$ vacuum polarization,
441: num.~int.$=$ numerical integration, $m=$ mass of orbiting particle,
442: for the electron $m=m_{\rm e}$, and $M=$ nuclear mass.}
443: %
444: %\begin{scriptsize}
445: \begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{0.1cm}}l@{\hspace{0.1cm}}d{5.3}d{5.3}}
446: %
447: \hline
448: \hline
449: %
450: \multicolumn{1}{l}{\rule[-3mm]{0mm}{8mm}
451: Order of contribution [$m_{\rm e} c^2$]} &
452: Equation in Ref.~\cite{EiGrSh2001} &
453: \multicolumn{1}{c}{${\cal L}(1S)$ \; [MHz] \hspace{0.4cm} $ $} &
454: \multicolumn{1}{c}{${\cal L}(2S)$ \; [MHz]} \\
455: \hline
456: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
457: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^4 \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] $ & Eq.~(59) [part] & 146\,724.762 & 18\,340.595\\
458: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
459: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^4 $ & Eq.~(59) [part] & -40\,796.296 & -4\,725.621\\
460: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
461: $ \alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^4 $ & Eq.~(59) [part] & 16.295 & 2.037\\
462: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
463: $ \alpha^3 (Z\alpha)^4 $ & Eq.~(59) [part] & 0.029 & 0.004\\
464: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
465: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^4 $ (muonic vac. pol.) & Eq.~(63) & -0.081 & -0.010\\
466: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
467: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^4 $ (hadronic vac. pol.)& Eq.~(65) & -0.051 & -0.006\\
468: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
469: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^5$ (SE$+$VP) & Eq.~(73) & 1\,827.214 & 228.402\\
470: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
471: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^5$ (two one-loops) &Eqs.~(74$+$76$+$79$+$80)& 0.492 & 0.061\\
472: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
473: $ \alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^5 $ (two-loop VP) & Eq.~(75) & 0.704 & 0.088\\
474: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
475: $ \alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^5 $ (two-loop SE) & Eq.~(81) & -10.709(1) & -1.339\\
476: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
477: $ \alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^5 $ (two-loop sum) & sum of 3 above & -9.513(1) & -1.189\\
478: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
479: $ \alpha(Z\alpha)^6 \ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$ & Eq.~(84) [part] & -198.172 & -24.771\\
480: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
481: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^6 \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] $ & Eq.~(84) [part] & 123.906 & 16.985\\
482: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
483: $\alpha (Z\alpha)^6 G_{\rm SE}(Z\alpha)$& Ref.~\cite{JeMoSo2001pra} & -82.542 & -10.621\\
484: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
485: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^6 G_{\rm VP}(Z\alpha) $ & Ref.~\cite{Mo1996} & -1.685 & -0.276\\
486: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
487: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^6 G_{\rm WK}(Z\alpha) $ & Eq.~(101) & 0.157 & 0.020\\
488: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
489: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^6\ln^3[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$ & Ref.~\cite{Ka1996} & -1.153 & -0.144\\
490: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
491: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^6\ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$ & Ref.~\cite{Pa2001} & -0.213 & 0.037\\
492: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
493: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^6\ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$ & Ref.~\cite{JeCzPa2005} & 2.666 & 0.279\\
494: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
495: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^6$ & Refs.~\cite{JeCzPa2005,YeInSh2005} & -0.607(211) & -0.064(26) \\
496: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
497: $ (Z\alpha)^5 m/M $ & Eq.~(136) & 17.786 & 2.547\\
498: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
499: $ (Z\alpha)^6 m/M $ & Eq.~(144) & -0.119 & -0.015\\
500: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
501: $ (Z\alpha)^7 \ln^2(Z\alpha) m/M $ & Eq.~(147) & -0.010 & -0.001\\
502: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
503: $\alpha (Z\alpha)^5 m/M$ & Eq.~(151)$+$Eq.~(46) of Ref.~\cite{EiGrSh2001pra} & -0.112 & -0.014\\
504: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
505: $\alpha (Z\alpha)^6 \ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] m/M $ & Eq.~(155) & 0.018 & 0.002\\
506: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
507: $ (Z\alpha)^4 (m/M)^2 $ & Eq.~(15) of Ref.~\cite{PaKa1995} & -0.053 & -0.007\\
508: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
509: $ Z\,(Z\alpha)^5 (m/M)^2 $ & approx., Eq.~(152) & 0.019(19) & 0.002(2)\\
510: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
511: Nucl.~size [rel., 1.680(5)\,fm] & Eq.~(\ref{ResFS}) of this work & 70.865(422)& 8.860(53)\\
512: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
513: Nucl.~size [rel., 1.673(1)\,fm] & Eq.~(\ref{ResFS}) of this work & 70.275(84) & 8.786(11)\\
514: \hline
515: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
516: Sum [1.680(5)\,fm] & & 107693.112(472)& 13837.031(59)\\
517: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
518: Sum [1.673(1)\,fm] & & 107692.522(228)& 13836.957(29)\\
519: \hline
520: \hline
521: \end{tabular}
522: \end{minipage}
523: \end{center}
524: \end{table}
525: \end{center}
526:
527: % ---- 2P1/2 and 2P3/2 ----
528:
529: \begin{center}
530: \begin{table}[!htb]
531: \begin{center}
532: \begin{minipage}{1.0\textwidth}
533: \caption{\label{ContribsForP}
534: Contributions to the Lamb shifts of the $2P_{1/2}$ and $2P_{3/2}$ states
535: in $^4$He$^+$.
536: As in Table~\ref{ContribsForS}, all equation numbers are connected to the
537: contributions as listed in Ref.~\cite{EiGrSh2001}, unless indicated
538: otherwise. The acronyms used for the corrections are also the same
539: as in Table~\ref{ContribsForS}.}
540: %
541: %\begin{scriptsize}
542: \begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{0.1cm}}l@{\hspace{0.1cm}}d{5.3}d{5.3}}
543: %
544: \hline
545: \hline
546: %
547: \multicolumn{1}{l}{\rule[-3mm]{0mm}{8mm}
548: Order of contribution [$m_{\rm e} c^2$]} &
549: Equation in Ref.~\cite{EiGrSh2001} &
550: \multicolumn{1}{c}{${\cal L}(2P_{1/2})$ \; [MHz] \hspace{0.4cm} $ $} &
551: \multicolumn{1}{c}{${\cal L}(2P_{3/2})$ \; [MHz]} \\
552: \hline
553: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
554: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^4 \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] $ & Eq.~(60) [part] & 0.000 & 0.000\\
555: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
556: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^4 $ & Eq.~(60) [part] & -206.095 & 200.725\\
557: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
558: $ \alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^4 $ & Eq.~(60) [part] & 0.414 & -0.207\\
559: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
560: $ \alpha^3 (Z\alpha)^4 $ & Eq.~(60) [part] & -0.003 & 0.002\\
561: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
562: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^4 $ (muonic vac. pol.) & Ref.~\cite{vWHoDr2001} & 0.000 & 0.000\\
563: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
564: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^4 $ (hadronic vac. pol.)& Ref.~\cite{vWHoDr2001} & 0.000 & 0.000\\
565: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
566: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^5$ (SE$+$VP) & Eq.~(73) & 0.000 & 0.000\\
567: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
568: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^5$ (two one-loops) &Eqs.~(74$+$76$+$79$+$80)& 0.000 & 0.000\\
569: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
570: $ \alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^5 $ (two-loop VP) & Eq.~(75) & 0.000 & 0.000\\
571: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
572: $ \alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^5 $ (two-loop SE) & Eq.~(81) & 0.000 & 0.000\\
573: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
574: $ \alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^5 $ (two-loop sum) & sum of 3 above & 0.000 & 0.000\\
575: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
576: $ \alpha(Z\alpha)^6 \ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$ & Eq.~(86) [part] & 0.000 & 0.000\\
577: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
578: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^6 \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] $ & Eq.~(86) & 1.677 & 0.944\\
579: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
580: $\alpha (Z\alpha)^6 G_{\rm SE}(Z\alpha)$ &Ref.~\cite{JeMoSo2001pra}& -0.329 & -0.163\\
581: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
582: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^6 G_{\rm VP}(Z\alpha) $ & Ref.~\cite{Mo1996}& -0.022 & -0.005\\
583: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
584: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^6 G_{\rm WK}(Z\alpha) $ & Eq.~(101) & 0.000 & 0.000\\
585: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
586: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^6\ln^3[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$ & Ref.~\cite{Ka1996} & 0.000 & 0.000\\
587: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
588: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^6\ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$ & Ref.~\cite{Ka1996} & 0.006 & 0.006\\
589: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
590: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^6\ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$ & Ref.~\cite{JeCzPa2005}& 0.001 & -0.001\\
591: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
592: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^6$ & Refs.~\cite{JeCzPa2005,Je2006} & -0.001 & -0.001\\
593: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
594: $ (Z\alpha)^5 m/M $ & Eq.~(136) & -0.138 & -0.138\\
595: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
596: $ (Z\alpha)^6 m/M $ & Eq.~(145) & 0.007 & 0.007\\
597: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
598: $ (Z\alpha)^7 \ln^2(Z\alpha) m/M $ & Eq.~(147) & 0.000 & 0.000\\
599: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
600: $\alpha (Z\alpha)^5 m/M$ & Eq.~(151) & 0.000 & 0.000\\
601: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
602: $\alpha (Z\alpha)^6 \ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] m/M $ & Eq.~(155) & 0.000 & 0.000\\
603: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
604: $ (Z\alpha)^4 (m/M)^2 $ & E.g., Ref.~\cite{SaYe1990} & 0.002 & -0.001\\
605: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
606: $ Z\,(Z\alpha)^5 (m/M)^2 $ & approx., Eq.~(152) & 0.000 & 0.000\\
607: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
608: Nucl.~size & Eq.~(\ref{ResFS}) of this work & 0.000 & 0.000\\
609: \hline
610: \rule[-1.5mm]{0mm}{5mm}
611: Sum & & -204.481 & 201.168\\
612: \hline
613: \hline
614: \end{tabular}
615: \end{minipage}
616: \end{center}
617: \end{table}
618: \end{center}
619:
620:
621:
622: %
623: % Two--Loop Results
624: %
625: \section{Status of the $^4$He$^+$ Lamb Shift}
626: \label{helamb}
627:
628: In the current section (we keep units with $\hbar = c = \epsilon_0 = 1$),
629: we would like to use the results described above, in order to infer the current
630: theoretical status of the Lamb shift of $1S$ and $2S$ in the
631: ${}^4$He$^+$ ion. Before we start our actual discussion, however,
632: we should remember that an ideal way to carry out a related calculation
633: would involve a full-featured least-squares adjustment
634: according to Ref.~\cite{JeEtAl2005}, which includes all available
635: data from relevant high-precision experiments (see~\cite{vWHoDr2001})
636: and which, in principle, allows for a deduction of the nuclear
637: charge radius. In order to infer an approximate theoretical
638: prediction, though, one has to use a charge radius obtained
639: from other sources, and we intend to follow this different
640: route in the current work.
641:
642: We partly base our evaluation on
643: Refs.~\cite{vWHoDr2001,JeDr2004,EiGrSh2001}
644: and choose a format as in Table~1 of Ref.~\cite{vWHoDr2001}.
645: In the evaluations described in
646: Tables~\ref{ContribsForS} and~\ref{ContribsForP}, the 2002 CODATA
647: values of the fundamental constants~\cite{MoTa2005} were used.
648:
649: For the Lamb shift ${\cal L}$,
650: we use the implicit definition~\cite{SaYe1990,PaKa1995}
651: %
652: \begin{equation}
653: \label{defElamb}
654: E = m_{\rm r} \left[ f(n,j)-1 \right] - \frac{m_{\rm r}^2}{2 (m_{\rm e} + M)}
655: \left[ f(n,j) - 1 \right]^2 + {\cal L} + E_{\rm hfs}\,.
656: \end{equation}
657: %
658: Here, $E$ is the energy level of the bound two-body system
659: under investigation, and $f(n,j)$ is the dimensionless Dirac energy.
660: E.g., we have $f(1,1/2) = f(1S) = \sqrt{1 - (Z\alpha)^2}$,
661: and $f(2,1/2) = f(2S) = \sqrt{\frac12\,(1 + \sqrt{1 - (Z\alpha)^2})}$
662: for the $1S$ and $2S$ states, respectively.
663: Furthermore, $m_{\rm r}$ is the reduced mass of the system,
664: $M$ is the nuclear mass, and $E_{\rm hfs}$ is the energy
665: shift due to hyperfine effects, which are absent for the
666: spinless ${}^4 {\rm He}$ nucleus.
667:
668: In order to avoid confusion, we would like to include a few clarifying
669: words regarding specific entries in
670: Tables~\ref{ContribsForS} and~\ref{ContribsForP}.
671: In general, we have added the factor $\alpha$
672: to all scales for the contributions listed in
673: Tables~\ref{ContribsForS} and~\ref{ContribsForP}.
674: giving all contributions with an overall scaling of
675: $m_{\rm e}c^2$, in contrast to $\alpha\, m_{\rm e}c^2$,
676: which had been used in Ref.~\cite{vWHoDr2001}.
677: Regarding the contribution of order $ (Z\alpha)^4 \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] $
678: in the first row of Table~\ref{ContribsForS},
679: it is worthwhile to note that this term
680: represents the leading logarithm of the Lamb shift, given by
681: %
682: \begin{equation}
683: \label{q}
684: \alpha \, \frac{(Z\alpha)^4 m_{\rm e}}{n^3} \,
685: \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] \, \left( \frac{ m_{\rm r} }{ m_{\rm e} } \right)^3 \,.
686: \end{equation}
687: %
688: Here, $m_{\rm r}$ is the reduced mass of the system,
689: given by
690: $m_{\rm r} = m_{\rm e} m_{\rm N}/(m_{\rm e} + m_{\rm N})$,
691: where $m_{\rm N}$ is the mass of the nucleus.
692: The reduced-mass dependence of the argument of the logarithm
693: itself, $\ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] \to \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2} \, m_{\rm e}/m_{\rm r} ]
694: = \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] + \ln[m_{\rm e}/m_{\rm r} ]$,
695: is being included here and in Ref.~\cite{vWHoDr2001}
696: into the nonlogarithmic term of order
697: $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^4 $.
698: One might wonder why there is a theoretical uncertainty associated to this
699: contribution at all. The reason is that the most accurate
700: theoretical value for the quantity (\ref{q}) is obtained
701: by expressing it in terms of the 2002 CODATA Rydberg
702: constant, which has a relative uncertainty of $6.6 \times 10^{-12}$,
703: and the 2002 CODATA fine-structure constant,
704: which has a relative uncertainity of $3.3 \times 10^{-12}$.
705: The latter is responsible for the small theoretical uncertainty
706: of the leading logarithmic contribution to the Lamb shift
707: of the $1S$ level.
708: The term of order $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^5 $ contains both
709: contributions from the self-energy and the vacuum
710: polarization, as indicated by the explanatory note ``SE$+$VP.''
711:
712: The term of order $\alpha (Z\alpha)^6 \ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] $
713: corresponds to the self-energy coefficient $A_{62}$,
714: as given e.g.~in Ref.~\cite{Pa1993}, and
715: the indicated term of order $\alpha (Z\alpha)^6 \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] $
716: is the sum of a self-energy and a vacuum-polarization
717: contribution in this order. Note that the latter
718: distinction differs from the one used in Ref.~\cite{vWHoDr2001},
719: where the term of order $\alpha (Z\alpha)^6 \ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] $
720: denotes the sum of a double logarithmic, and a single logarithmic
721: {\em self-energy} contribution, and the term of order
722: $\alpha (Z\alpha)^6 \ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}] $ was reserved
723: exclusively for the {\em vacuum-polarization} contribution
724: in this order.
725: The values of the self-energy remainder $G_{\rm SE}(Z\alpha)$ for
726: $S$ and $P$ states are listed in~\cite{JeMoSo2001pra,JeMo2004pra}.
727: The vacuum polarization remainder function $G_{\rm VP}(Z\alpha)$
728: is taken from~\cite{Mo1996} and corresponds exclusively
729: to the Uehling part of the one-loop vacuum polarization.
730: It might be worthwhile to point out that at
731: the current level of accuracy, it is entirely sufficient
732: to consider the vacuum-polarization higher-order
733: remainder for $P$ states via the formula
734: %
735: \begin{equation}
736: \Delta E_{\rm VP}(nP_j) = \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \,
737: \frac{(Z\alpha)^6 m_{\rm e}}{n^3} \,
738: \left( \frac{ m_{\rm r} }{ m_{\rm e} } \right)^3 \,
739: \left\{A^{\rm VP}_{60}(nP_j) +
740: (Z\alpha) \, A^{\rm VP}_{70}(nP_j) \right\} \,,
741: \end{equation}
742: %
743: where the analytic coefficients read
744: %
745: \begin{subequations}
746: \label{ResVP}
747: \begin{align}
748: & A^{\rm VP}_{60}(nP_{1/2}) = - \frac{3}{35}\, \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2}\,,
749: \qquad
750: A^{\rm VP}_{60}(nP_{3/2}) = - \frac{2}{105}\, \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2}\,,
751: \\[2ex]
752: %
753: & A^{\rm VP}_{70}(nP_{1/2}) = \frac{41 \pi}{2304}\, \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2}\,,
754: \qquad
755: A^{\rm VP}_{70}(nP_{3/2}) = \frac{7 \pi}{768}\, \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2}\,.
756: \end{align}
757: \end{subequations}
758: %
759: These have been obtained in Refs.~\cite{JeSoMo1997,EiGrSh2001,Je2006}
760: for general principal quantum number $n$.
761:
762: For the $B_{62}$-term for $S$ states of order
763: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)^6\ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$, the result from
764: Ref.~\cite{Pa2001} was used, which supersedes the
765: estimate given in Eq.~(101) of Ref.~\cite{EiGrSh2001}.
766: For the analytic $B_{61}$-term of order
767: $\alpha^2(Z\alpha)\ln[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$, the result given in
768: Ref.~\cite{JeCzPa2005} provides the most recent value.
769:
770: For the $B_{60}$ coefficient corresponding to the
771: nonlogarithmic term of order $\alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^6$
772: for the ground state,
773: two mutually contradictory results of $-61.6 \pm 15\,\%$
774: (Ref.~\cite{PaJe2003}) and $-127 \pm 30\,\%$
775: (Ref.~\cite{YeInSh2005}) have been reported. The latter is
776: based on an extrapolation of an all-order (in $Z\alpha$)
777: numerical calculation. Note, however, that there is a known missing
778: piece in the analytic result reported in Ref.~\cite{PaJe2003},
779: which is currently under study and which will need to be
780: evaluated before final conclusions can be drawn.
781: M. Eides~\cite{EiPriv2006}
782: therefore suggested that a valid interim way of estimating the uncertainty
783: of $B_{60}$ would consist in taking the arithmetic mean
784: of these two results, and taking the half difference
785: as an estimate for the theoretical uncertainty.
786: This uncertainty would comprise all higher-order analytic terms,
787: as it involves a comparison to a nonperturbative (in $Z\alpha$) calculation.
788: For the $2S$ state, we can use the result for $1S$ and add the
789: weighted difference listed in Table~\ref{table2}.
790: For $P$ states, the results reported in Sec.~\ref{twoloop}
791: of this paper (see also~\cite{Je2006}) provide enough information
792: to eliminate all theoretical uncertainty at the current level
793: of accuracy.
794:
795: Finally, let us remark that
796: a term of order $ \alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^7 \ln^2[(Z\alpha)^{-2}]$
797: could be estimated in principle on the basis of taking a ``local'' Lamb-shift
798: potential that corresponds to the self-energy part of
799: $A_{50}$, namely,
800: %
801: \begin{equation}
802: \delta V = 4 \, \alpha \, (Z\alpha)^2 \left[\frac{139}{128} -
803: \frac12\, \ln(2) \right]\, \frac{\pi \delta^3(r)}{m_{\rm e}^2},
804: \end{equation}
805: %
806: taken as an input for a Dirac-$\delta$ induced correction to the
807: one-loop self-energy. The result of this approach could alternatively
808: be used as an uncertainty estimate for all the higher-order terms.
809: This procedure leads to the estimate
810: %
811: \begin{equation}
812: B_{72}(nS) = \pm \frac83\, \pi \,\left[\frac{139}{128} -
813: \frac12\, \ln(2) \right]\,,
814: \end{equation}
815: %
816: For $1S$, this leads to a value
817: of $\pm 0.337$~MHz for the higher-order two-loop remainder.
818: However, the uncertainty due to the $B_{72}$-contribution is already
819: contained in the uncertainty of the remainder term
820: of order $\alpha^2 (Z\alpha)^6$, because in determining
821: the uncertainty of $B_{60}$, a comparison was made to a
822: nonperturbative numerical calculation for higher nuclear charge
823: numbers. The latter necessarily contains all contributions from the
824: $B_{72}$ term and all higher-order remainders. The above result
825: of $\pm 0.337$~MHz therefore likely overestimates the uncertainty
826: due to the higher-order two-loop remainder and is mentioned
827: here only for illustrative purposes.
828:
829: Concerning radiative-recoil corrections, we note that the
830: discrepancy between~\cite{Pa1995} and~\cite{BhGr1987} concerning radiative
831: insertions into the electron line in the $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^5 m/M $
832: radiative recoil correction was resolved in~\cite{EiGrSh2001pra}. The
833: analytical result from that work was used. According to
834: Eq.~(46) of Ref.~\cite{EiGrSh2001pra},
835: the coefficient multiplying the non-vacuum-polarization part of order
836: correction of order $ \alpha (Z\alpha)^5 m/M $ is $-1.32402796\dots/n^3$.
837:
838: The nuclear spin in $^4$He$^+$ is different as compared
839: to atomic hydrogen. The former is a spin-$1/2$--spin-zero system, whereas the
840: latter is a spin-$1/2$--spin-$1/2$ system.
841: Recoil corrections of first order in the mass ratio are
842: unaffected by the different spin of the nucleus as compared
843: to hydrogen. However, recoil terms of order $ Z (Z\alpha)^5 (m/M)^2 $ are
844: nuclear spin-dependent.
845: Without carrying out a detailed analysis, we approximately
846: calculate the nuclear self-energy effects of
847: order $ Z (Z\alpha)^5 (m/M)^2 $ by leaving out the Pauli
848: form-factor correction from Eq.~(153) of Ref.~\cite{EiGrSh2001},
849: which is certainly absent for a spinless nucleus,
850: and we conservatively take the Dirac form factor contribution as an
851: uncertainty, while we note that a more detailed analysis would be of interest
852: and currently lacking in the literature.
853:
854: Finally, we add the nuclear-spin dependent correction listed in
855: Eq.~(15) of Ref.~\cite{PaKa1995},
856: %
857: \begin{equation}
858: \Delta E = -\frac12 \,
859: \frac{(Z\alpha)^4 m_{\rm e}}{n^3} \,
860: \left( \frac{m_{\rm e}}{M} \right)^2 \,
861: \delta_{l0} \,,
862: \end{equation}
863: %
864: which is of second order in the mass ratio,
865: for the spin-$1/2$--spin-zero system under investigation.
866: This term is connected to the absence of the zitterbewegung term
867: in the Breit Hamiltonian for a spinless nucleus.
868: For $P$ states, we also add terms of order
869: $(Z\alpha)^4 \left( \frac{m_{\rm e}}{M} \right)^2$, which do not
870: depend on the zitterbewegung term and are given, e.g.,
871: in Ref.~\cite{SaYe1990}.
872:
873: Concerning the nuclear-size correction, we would like to
874: mention that a full integration of a nuclear potential
875: with a fully relativistic wave function (e.g., within a hard-sphere
876: approximation) turns out to be quite essential to obtain
877: reliable values for this correction. We have carried out such an integration
878: in the current investigation with the full
879: Dirac wave functions and obtain results in agreement with
880: Ref.~\cite{Sh1993}.
881: Results obtained with
882: two different values for the two different root-mean-square charge
883: radii of $1.673(1)\,{\rm fm}$~\cite{BoRi1978} and
884: $1.680(5)\,{\rm fm}$~\cite{SiPriv2006} are given in Table~\ref{ContribsForS}.
885: Note that the former charge radius of $1.673(1)\,{\rm fm}$ has been
886: questioned (see e.g.~\cite{Co1982pra,BrZa1990}).
887: The uncertainty due to the shape of the nuclear charge
888: distribution can be estimated to be much smaller
889: than the uncertainty due to the nuclear size, based on experience
890: with highly charged ions~\cite{BeEtAl1997pla}.
891: For the $^4$He-nucleus, a spherically symmetric model is well justified (closed
892: shell, spin $I\!=\!0$).
893:
894: The nuclear-size correction $\Delta E_{\rm fs}(nS)$
895: and $\Delta E_{\rm fs}(nP_j)$,
896: for low nuclear charge numbers, can be approximated
897: very well by the first few terms of an expansion in the two
898: small parameters $Z\alpha$ and $m \langle r^2 \rangle^{1/2}$, with the result
899: %
900: \begin{subequations}
901: \label{ResFS}
902: \begin{align}
903: \label{ResFSa}
904: \Delta E_{\rm fs}(nS) =&
905: \frac{(Z\alpha)^4 m^3 R^2}{n^3}
906: \, \left[ \frac25 -
907: \frac13 \, (Z\alpha \, m \, R) +
908: \right.
909: \nonumber\\[2ex]
910: & \left. + (Z\alpha)^2 \left\{ -\frac25\,
911: \left[ \ln\left( \frac{2 \, Z\,\alpha\,m\, R}{n} \right) + 2 \gamma
912: + \Psi(n) \right] + \frac{227}{150} + \frac{2}{5\,n} - \frac{9}{10 n^2}
913: \right\} \right] \,,
914: \\[2ex]
915: \label{ResFSb}
916: %
917: \Delta E_{\rm fs}(nP_j) =&
918: \frac{1}{10} \, \frac{(Z\alpha)^6 m^3 R^2}{n^3} \,
919: \frac{n^2 - 1}{n^2} \, \delta_{j,1/2}\,.
920: \end{align}
921: \end{subequations}
922: %
923: Here, $\gamma = 0.577216\dots$ is Euler's constant, $\Psi(n)$ is the
924: logarithmic derivative of the Gamma function, and
925: $R$ is the radius of the nucleus in a hard-sphere model, which is
926: related to the root-mean-square radius $\langle r^2 \rangle^{1/2}$
927: by the following formula [see Eq.~(7) of Ref.~\cite{Sh1993}],
928: %
929: \begin{equation}
930: \label{r0corrected}
931: R = \sqrt{\frac{5}{3}} \, \langle r^2 \rangle^{1/2}
932: \, \sqrt{ 1- \frac34\, (Z\alpha)^2 \,
933: \left\{ \frac{3}{25} \, \frac{\langle r^4 \rangle}{\langle r^2 \rangle^2} -
934: \frac17 \right\} } \,.
935: \end{equation}
936: %
937: For the $2P_{1/2}$ state, we obtain an upward finite nuclear-size
938: energy shift of $353\,{\rm Hz}$ which is barely significant on the kHz level
939: (see Table~\ref{ContribsForP}).
940:
941: The results in Eqs.~(\ref{ResFS}) and~(\ref{r0corrected}) have been
942: obtained in the approximation of an infinitely heavy nucleus, and with
943: exact Dirac wave functions for a point nucleus. Both of these
944: approximations should be valid for $^4{\rm He}^+$. In addition,
945: it should be noted that both the results
946: given in Eqs.~(\ref{ResFS}) and~(\ref{r0corrected}) are in excellent
947: numerical agreement with a full numerical integration of the
948: finite-size potential with Dirac wave functions. The linear
949: correction term
950: in $R$, i.e. the term $-\frac13 \, (Z\alpha \, m \, R)$ in
951: Eq.~(\ref{ResFSa}), is a consequence of the exponential factor
952: $\approx \exp(-Z\alpha m r/n)$ in the wave function, which should not
953: be ignored in the evaluation of the finite-size effect, although this
954: effect is primarily sensitive to the probability density
955: at the origin (at the nucleus).
956: Any further effects that influence the finite-size effect
957: like nuclear polarization are here absorbed into the
958: uncertainty of the nuclear radius (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Fr1979}
959: for an illustrative discussion of some of the further aspects that
960: are relevant to the finite-size effect).
961:
962: %
963: % Conclusions
964: %
965: \section{Conclusions}
966: \label{conclu}
967:
968: In Sec.~\ref{twoloop}, we summarize recent theoretical results
969: for the higher-order two-loop binding corrections to the Lamb shift.
970: These results are used,
971: in Sec.~\ref{helamb}, to infer updated values for the Lamb shift
972: of low-lying states of the $^4$He$^+$ ion.
973: Some of the analytic coefficients used in the evaluation
974: are given in Eqs.~(\ref{ResVP}) and~(\ref{ResFS}).
975: The analytic expansion of the nuclear finite-size correction~(\ref{ResFS})
976: might be useful in other contexts.
977:
978: The recent progress in the field has allowed for an improvement
979: of the theory beyond the limits set by the leading-order
980: effects, and for some of the most accurate predictions in
981: all of theoretical physics. In particular, we reemphasize that
982: for $P$ states, the results reported in Sec.~\ref{twoloop}
983: of this paper (see also~\cite{Je2006}) provide sufficient information
984: to eliminate all theoretical uncertainty at the kHz level for the
985: Lamb shift in the $^4$He$^+$ ion.
986:
987: %
988: % Acknowledgments
989: %
990: \section*{Acknowledgments}
991:
992: Helpful conversations with Krzysztof Pachucki, Vladimir M. Shabaev,
993: Vladimir A. Yerokhin and Peter J. Mohr are gratefully acknowledged.
994: U.D.J. acknowledges support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
995: (Heisenberg program).
996:
997: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
998:
999: \bibitem{Pa1993pra}
1000: K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 48}, 2609 (1993).
1001:
1002: \bibitem{Pa1994prl}
1003: K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 3154 (1994).
1004:
1005: \bibitem{EiSh1995}
1006: M.~I. Eides and V.~A. Shelyuto, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 52}, 954 (1995).
1007:
1008: \bibitem{Ka1996}
1009: S.~G. Karshenboim, J. Phys. B {\bf 29}, L29 (1996).
1010:
1011: \bibitem{EiGrSh1997}
1012: M.~I. Eides, H. Grotch, and V.~A. Shelyuto, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 55}, 2447
1013: (1997).
1014:
1015: \bibitem{Pa2001}
1016: K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63}, 042503 (2001).
1017:
1018: \bibitem{EiGrSh2001}
1019: M.~I. Eides, H. Grotch, and V.~A. Shelyuto, Phys. Rep. {\bf 342}, 63 (2001).
1020:
1021: \bibitem{JeCzPa2005}
1022: U.~D. Jentschura, A. Czarnecki, and K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 72}, 062102
1023: (2005).
1024:
1025: \bibitem{MaSa1998a}
1026: S. Mallampalli and J. Sapirstein, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 57}, 1548 (1998).
1027:
1028: \bibitem{MaSa1998b}
1029: S. Mallampalli and J. Sapirstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 5297 (1998).
1030:
1031: \bibitem{YeSh2001}
1032: V.~A. Yerokhin and V.~M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 64}, 062507 (2001).
1033:
1034: \bibitem{YeInSh2003}
1035: V.~A. Yerokhin, P. Indelicato, and V.~M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91},
1036: 073001 (2003).
1037:
1038: \bibitem{YeInSh2005jetp}
1039: V.~A. Yerokhin, P. Indelicato, and V.~M. Shabaev, Zh. \'{E}ksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf
1040: 128}, 322 (2005), [JETP Lett. {\bf 101}, 280 (2005)].
1041:
1042: \bibitem{YeInSh2005}
1043: V.~A. Yerokhin, P. Indelicato, and V.~M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 71},
1044: R040101 (2005).
1045:
1046: \bibitem{YeInSh2006}
1047: V.~A. Yerokhin, P. Indelicato, and V.~M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97},
1048: 253004 (2006).
1049:
1050: \bibitem{Je2006}
1051: U.~D. Jentschura, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 74}, 062517 (2006).
1052:
1053: \bibitem{vWHoDr2001}
1054: A. van Wijngaarden, F. Holuj, and G.~W.~F. Drake, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63},
1055: 012505 (2001).
1056:
1057: \bibitem{JeDr2004}
1058: U.~D. Jentschura and G.~W.~F. Drake, Can. J. Phys. {\bf 82}, 103 (2004).
1059:
1060: \bibitem{Ka1994}
1061: S.~G. Karshenboim, Zh. \'{E}ksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 106}, 414 (1994), [JETP {\bf
1062: 79}, 230 (1994)].
1063:
1064: \bibitem{Ka1997}
1065: S.~G. Karshenboim, Z. Phys. D {\bf 39}, 109 (1997).
1066:
1067: \bibitem{Ka2005}
1068: S.~G. Karshenboim, Phys. Rep. {\bf 422}, 1 (2005).
1069:
1070: \bibitem{CzJePa2005}
1071: A. Czarnecki, U.~D. Jentschura, and K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95},
1072: 180404 (2005).
1073:
1074: \bibitem{Je2003jpa}
1075: U.~D. Jentschura, J. Phys. A {\bf 36}, L229 (2003).
1076:
1077: \bibitem{JeEtAl2003}
1078: U.~D. Jentschura, E.-O. Le~Bigot, P.~J. Mohr, P. Indelicato, and G. Soff, Phys.
1079: Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 163001 (2003).
1080:
1081: \bibitem{PaJe2003}
1082: K. Pachucki and U.~D. Jentschura, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 113005 (2003).
1083:
1084: \bibitem{Je2004b60}
1085: U.~D. Jentschura, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 70}, 052108 (2004).
1086:
1087: \bibitem{JeEvKePa2002}
1088: U.~D. Jentschura, J. Evers, C.~H. Keitel, and K. Pachucki, New J. Phys. {\bf
1089: 4}, 49 (2002).
1090:
1091: \bibitem{JeMoSo2001pra}
1092: U.~D. Jentschura, P.~J. Mohr, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63}, 042512
1093: (2001).
1094:
1095: \bibitem{Mo1996}
1096: P.~J. Mohr, in {\em Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics Handbook}, edited
1097: by G.~W.~F. Drake (A. I. P., Woodbury, NY, 1996), pp.\ 341--351.
1098:
1099: \bibitem{EiGrSh2001pra}
1100: M.~I. Eides, H. Grotch, and V.~A. Shelyuto, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63}, 052509
1101: (2001).
1102:
1103: \bibitem{PaKa1995}
1104: K. Pachucki and S.~G. Karshenboim, J. Phys. B {\bf 28}, L221 (1995).
1105:
1106: \bibitem{SaYe1990}
1107: J. Sapirstein and D.~R. Yennie, in {\em Quantum Electrodynamics}, Vol.~7 of
1108: {\em Advanced Series on Directions in High Energy Physics}, edited by T.
1109: Kinoshita (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990), pp.\ 560--672.
1110:
1111: \bibitem{JeEtAl2005}
1112: U.~D. Jentschura, E.-O. Le~Bigot, J. Evers, P.~J. Mohr, and C.~H. Keitel, J.
1113: Phys. B {\bf 38}, S97 (2005).
1114:
1115: \bibitem{MoTa2005}
1116: P.~J. Mohr and B.~N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 77}, 1 (2005).
1117:
1118: \bibitem{Pa1993}
1119: K. Pachucki, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 226}, 1 (1993).
1120:
1121: \bibitem{JeMo2004pra}
1122: U.~D. Jentschura and P.~J. Mohr, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 69}, 064103 (2004).
1123:
1124: \bibitem{JeSoMo1997}
1125: U.~D. Jentschura, G. Soff, and P.~J. Mohr, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 56}, 1739
1126: (1997).
1127:
1128: \bibitem{EiPriv2006}
1129: M. Eides, talk given at PSAS--2006, and private communication (2006).
1130:
1131: \bibitem{Pa1995}
1132: K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 53}, 2092 (1995).
1133:
1134: \bibitem{BhGr1987}
1135: G. Bhatt and H. Grotch, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 471 (1987).
1136:
1137: \bibitem{Sh1993}
1138: V.~M. Shabaev, J. Phys. B {\bf 26}, 1103 (1993).
1139:
1140: \bibitem{BoRi1978}
1141: E. Borie and G.~A. Rinker, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 18}, 324 (1978).
1142:
1143: \bibitem{SiPriv2006}
1144: I. Sick, talk given at PSAS--2006.
1145:
1146: \bibitem{Co1982pra}
1147: J.~S. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 25}, 1791 (1982).
1148:
1149: \bibitem{BrZa1990}
1150: L. Bracci and E. Zavattini, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 41}, 2352 (1990).
1151:
1152: \bibitem{BeEtAl1997pla}
1153: T. Beier, P.~J. Mohr, H. Persson, G. Plunien, M. Greiner, and G. Soff, Phys.
1154: Lett. A {\bf 236}, 329 (1997).
1155:
1156: \bibitem{Fr1979}
1157: J.~L. Friar, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 122}, 151 (1979).
1158:
1159: \end{thebibliography}
1160:
1161: \end{document}
1162:
1163: