1: \documentstyle[preprint,pra,aps]{revtex}
2: \tightenlines
3: \begin{document}
4: \draft
5: \title{\bf Off-Diagonal Hyperfine Interaction and Parity Non-conservation
6: in Cesium}
7: \author{V.A.Dzuba and V.V.Flambaum}
8: \address{School of Physics, University of New South Wales,
9: Sydney 2052,Australia}
10: \date{\today}
11: \maketitle
12:
13: \begin{abstract}
14: We have performed relativistic many-body calculations of the hyperfine
15: interaction in the $6s$ and $7s$ states of Cs, including the off-diagonal
16: matrix element. The calculations were used to determine the accuracy of the
17: semi-empirical formula for the electromagnetic transition amplitude
18: $\langle 6s|M1|7s \rangle$
19: induced by the hyperfine interaction. We have found that even though the
20: contribution of the many-body effects into the
21: matrix elements is very large, the square root formula
22: $\langle 6s|H_{hfs}|7s \rangle = \sqrt{\langle 6s|H_{hfs}|6s \rangle
23: \langle 7s|H_{hfs}|7s \rangle}$
24: remains valid to the accuracy of a fraction of $10^{-3}$.
25: The result for the M1-amplitude is used
26: in the interpretation of the parity-violation measurement
27: in the $6s-7s$ transition in Cs which claims a possible deviation from the
28: Standard model.
29:
30: \end{abstract}
31: \vspace{1cm}
32: \pacs{PACS: 32.80.Ys,31.15.Ar,32.10.Fn}
33:
34: %*************************************************************************
35:
36: \section{Introduction}
37:
38: Recent progress in highly accurate measurements of parity non-conservation
39: (PNC) in atoms has got to the point where new physics beyond the Standard
40: Model of elementary particles can be studied.
41: The latest analysis \cite{Bennett}
42: of the most precise measurements of the PNC in cesium \cite{Wood}
43: suggests that the value of the weak charge of the $^{133}$Cs nucleus may
44: differ from the prediction of the Standard Model.
45: In that experiment \cite{Wood} the ratio of the PNC $E1$ amplitude to
46: the tensor polarizability $\beta$ for the $7S_{1/2} - 6S_{1/2}$ transition
47: was measured with 0.35\% accuracy. The measured value can be written in the
48: form
49: \begin{equation}
50: \frac{k_{PNC}}{\beta}\frac{Q_W}{N},
51: \label{PNC}
52: \end{equation}
53: where $k_{PNC}$ is the electron matrix element of the electric dipole
54: transition induced by the weak interaction between $7S_{1/2}$ and $6S_{1/2}$
55: states of $^{133}$Cs, $Q_W$ is the weak nuclear charge and N is the number
56: of neutrons. To interpret the measurements in terms of the weak nuclear
57: charge one needs to know $k_{PNC}$ and $\beta$. The value of $k_{PNC}$ can
58: be obtained from atomic calculations only. Bennett and Wieman \cite{Bennett}
59: used the value $k_{\rm PNC} = 0.9065(36) iea_0$ which is the average of our
60: result $k_{\rm PNC} = 0.908(9) iea_0$ \cite{Dzuba89a} obtained in 1989 and
61: the result of the Notre-Dame group $k_{\rm PNC} = 0.905(9) iea_0$
62: \cite{Blundell} obtained in 1990. Note that Bennett and Wieman
63: assumed 0.4\% accuracy of the calculations contrary to the 1\% accuracy
64: claimed in both calculations. This assumption was based on the
65: comparison of the calculated atomic quantities relevant to the PNC
66: amplitude (electromagnetic transition amplitudes between lower $s$ and
67: $p$ states
68: and hyperfine structure intervals of these states) with the latest very
69: accurate measurements which resolved
70: major discrepancies between theory and experiment in favor of theory.
71:
72: The most precise value of $\beta, \beta = 27.024(43)(67)a_0^3$,
73: was obtained in Ref. \cite{Bennett}
74: from the measurements of the ratio $M1_{hfs}/\beta$ where $M1_{hfs}$
75: is the $M1$ transition amplitude between the states $6S$ and $7S$ induced by
76: the hyperfine structure (hfs) interaction.
77: Semiempirical formula for the $M1_{hfs}$ amplitude derived in Refs.
78: \cite{Guena84,Piketty,Guena88} was used in the analysis:
79: \begin{equation}
80: M1_{hfs} = - \left|\frac{\mu_B}{c}\right|
81: \frac{\sqrt{A_{6s}A_{7s}}}{E_{7s}-E_{6s}}
82: \frac{1}{2}(g_S - g_I) 1.0024
83: \label{m1hfs}
84: \end{equation}
85: Here $A_{6s}$ and $A_{7s}$ are the hfs constants of the $6s$ and $7s$ states
86: of Cs, $g_S = 2.0025, g_I = -0.0004$,
87: the coefficient 1.0024 was introduced to account for the many-body
88: effects.
89: This gives $M1_{hfs} = |\frac{\mu_B}{c}| 0.8094(20) \times 10^{-5}$
90: \cite{Piketty,Guena88}.
91:
92: Values $\beta = 27.024(43)(67)a_0^3$ and $k_{PNC} = 0.9065(36) iea_0$
93: and measurements of (\ref{PNC}) \cite{Wood} lead to the value of the
94: weak charge of $^{133}$Cs $Q_W = -72.06(28)(34)$ which differs
95: from the prediction of the Standard Model $Q_W = -73.20(13)$ \cite{Marciano}
96: by $2.5\sigma$.
97:
98: From the point of view of accurate atomic calculations, there are two
99: major questions in the analysis above which should be considered.
100: The first is whether the actual accuracy of the PNC calculations is really
101: 0.4\%. The second is whether the semi-empirical formula (\ref{m1hfs}) is
102: accurate.
103: In the present paper we address the second question, leaving the first
104: one for later work.
105:
106: \section{Preliminary Analysis}
107:
108: $M1_{hfs}$ amplitude appears due to mixing of the $6s$ and $7s$ states
109: by the hfs interaction,
110: \begin{eqnarray}
111: M1_{hfs} &=& \frac{\langle 6s,F |H_{hfs}| 7s,F \rangle}
112: {E_{6s} - E_{7s}}\langle 7s,F |M1| 7s,F' \rangle \nonumber \\
113: &+& \langle 6s,F |M1| 6s,F' \rangle
114: \frac{\langle 6s,F' |H_{hfs}| 7s,F' \rangle}{E_{7s} - E_{6s}}.
115: \label{m1}
116: \end{eqnarray}
117: Two major assumptions have been made to arrive at (\ref{m1hfs})
118: from (\ref{m1}).
119: First, the non-relativistic expression for the operator of the $M1$
120: transition was used:
121: \begin{equation}
122: M1 = -|\mu_B|g ({\mathbf L +2 S}).
123: \label{m1o}
124: \end{equation}
125: Second, the square root formula is assumed to be valid
126: \begin{equation}
127: \langle 6s |H_{hfs}| 7s \rangle =
128: \sqrt{\langle 6s|H_{hfs}|6s \rangle \langle 7s|H_{hfs}|7s \rangle}.
129: \label{AA}
130: \end{equation}
131: The accuracy of both of these assumptions needs to be examined. The situation
132: is clear with the relativistic corrections to the $M1$ operator
133: (\ref{m1o}). According to the estimations of Bouchiat
134: and Piketty \cite{Piketty} the relativistic effects modify the
135: amplitudes $\langle 6s |M1| 6s \rangle$ and
136: $\langle 7s |M1| 7s \rangle$ at only the $10^{-4}$ level. This is in line
137: with the many-body calculations
138: of the relativistic effects in $g$-factors and $M1$-transition amplitudes for
139: Cs and other alkaline atoms in our early works \cite{Flambaum,Dzuba85}.
140:
141: The situation with the square root formula (\ref{AA}) is less clear.
142: In their pioneering work Bouchiat and Piketty \cite{Piketty} estimated
143: the first order core
144: polarization corrections to it and introduced the correction factor 1.0017.
145: In a later paper by Bouchiat and Gu\'{e}na \cite{Guena88} this factor
146: was assumed to be 1.0024 (see also formula (\ref{m1hfs})).
147: The accuracy of the estimation of the many body correction was assumed
148: to be approximately equal to the correction itself ($\sim 0.002$)
149: \cite{Piketty,Guena88}.
150: In these works there were no accurate calculations of other many body
151: contributions to the hfs beyond the first order core polarization
152: corrections. However, it is known that these contributions can be
153: up to 20\% of the hyperfine structure (see below).
154: The applicability of eq. (\ref{m1hfs}) in this situation is not
155: obvious.
156:
157: The accurate relativistic many-body calculations of the off-diagonal
158: hfs matrix element
159: (\ref{AA}) were recently performed by the Notre Dame group \cite{Derevianko}.
160: The accuracy of the calculations was about 1\% and agreement with formula
161: (\ref{AA}) within this accuracy was achieved. Note that the theoretical
162: accuracy for the diagonal hfs matrix elements is also about 1\% (see Refs.
163: \cite{Dzuba89b,Safronova} and this article).
164: This accuracy is not sufficient to find an accurate value
165: of $\beta$ to add anything new to the result of
166: the cesium PNC experiment published in \cite{Wood}.
167:
168: However, we believe that the validity of the square root formula (\ref{AA})
169: can be demonstrated to much higher accuracy than the absolute theoretical
170: accuracy of the hfs calculations
171: (here we agree with \cite{Guena84,Piketty,Guena88}).
172: We suggest that the following combination of matrix elements be calculated
173: \begin{equation}
174: R = \frac{\langle 6s |H_{hfs}| 7s \rangle}
175: {\sqrt{\langle 6s |H_{hfs}| 6s \rangle
176: \langle 7s |H_{hfs}| 7s \rangle}} - 1,
177: \label{main}
178: \end{equation}
179: where all hfs matrix elements are calculated in the same
180: approximation. The value of $R$ can be calculated with very high accuracy
181: because uncertainties in different matrix elements cancel each other
182: almost exactly. We will demonstrate that inclusion of different many body
183: and relativistic effects leave the formula
184: \begin{equation}
185: \langle 6s |H_{hfs}| 7s \rangle =
186: \sqrt{\langle 6s |H_{hfs}| 6s \rangle
187: \langle 7s |H_{hfs}| 7s \rangle}
188: \label{main1}
189: \end{equation}
190: valid to very high accuracy, so that the value of $R$ (\ref{main}) remains
191: very small.
192:
193: Let us start from the analytical estimates of different contributions
194: to $R$ in (\ref{main}).
195: First note that in the single-electron approximation formula (\ref{main1})
196: is exact if the wave functions of the $6s$ and $7s$ states are
197: proportional
198: \begin{equation}
199: \psi_{6s} = B \psi_{7s}
200: \label{pro}
201: \end{equation}
202: ($a_0$ is Bohr radius)
203: on short distances from the nucleus, $r \leq a_0/Z$. Dirac equations for the
204: states $6s$ and $7s$ differ by the energy only. Therefore,
205: their solutions on short
206: distances where the difference in energies is small compared to the potential,
207: differ by normalization only.
208: One can say that (\ref{pro}) is valid if
209: \begin{equation}
210: \Delta E/|V| \ll 1,
211: \label{ll}
212: \end{equation}
213: where $\Delta E = 0.08445$ a.u. is the energy difference
214: between the $6s$ and $7s$ states of Cs, $V$ is the atomic potential.
215: The Hamiltonian of the hfs interaction $H_{hfs}$ is proportional to $1/r^3$
216: and the main contribution to its matrix elements comes from the distances
217: $r \leq a_0/Z$.
218: Substitution of $V = Ze^2/r, r = a_0/Z$ and $Z=55$ into (\ref{ll}) gives
219: \begin{equation}
220: \frac{\Delta E}{V} \approx 3 \times 10^{-5}.
221: \label{DEV}
222: \end{equation}
223: Note that for $s$-waves the correction can be even smaller. Indeed,
224: in the non-relativistic approximation $s$-wave hfs is proportional
225: to $\delta(r)$. Thus, the typical distances
226: $r \sim \hbar/(m_e c) = \alpha a_0$, where $ \alpha = 1/137$.
227:
228: Let us now consider the many-body effects. It is convenient to do this
229: using the many body perturbation theory in the residual Coulomb interaction
230: $U, \ U = H - H_{HF}$.
231: Here $H$ is the exact Hamiltonian of the atom and $H_{HF}$ is the
232: Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian. We generate the complete zero-approximation
233: set of the eigenvalues, wave functions and Green's functions
234: using the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian. The small parameter of this many-body
235: perturbation theory is the ratio of the non-diagonal matrix element
236: of the residual interaction $U$ to the large energy denominator for excitation
237: of the electron from the closed electron shell (electron core),
238: e.g. 5p -electron: $U/E_{5p} \sim10^{-2}$.
239:
240: The perturbative (correlation) corrections to the hfs matrix element
241: can be divided into two classes:
242: the self-energy corrections and the vertex
243: corrections. The former can be included into eq. (\ref{main}) through the
244: redefinition of the single electron wave functions while the latter
245: are included through the redefinition of the $H_{hfs}$ operator.
246:
247: Self-energy corrections dominate in the hfs of alkaline atoms
248: (see, e.g. \cite{Dzuba84}). The major contribution is due to
249: the correlations between an external electron and core electrons.
250: We include them by using so called Brueckner orbitals instead of the
251: Hartree-Fock orbitals as the single-electron wave functions in eq.
252: (\ref{main}).
253: The Brueckner orbitals are obtained by introducing an additional operator
254: $\hat \Sigma$ into the Hartree-Fock equations for the external electron
255: and solving the Dyson-type equation $(H_{HF} + \hat \Sigma(E) - E)\psi = 0$.
256: The $\hat \Sigma$ is an energy-dependent non-local
257: operator which is also called the ``correlation potential''
258: \cite{Dzuba89b,Dzuba87}. For the calculation of $\hat \Sigma$ see the next
259: section.
260: % Single-electron orbitals for the states of external electron which
261: %are obtained by solving Dyson-type equation with $\hat \Sigma$ are
262: %called Brueckner orbitals.
263: The Brueckner type correlation correction constitutes 20\% of the hfs of
264: $6s$ and $7s$ states of Cs. However, if we neglect the dependence of
265: $\hat \Sigma$ on energy, the estimation (\ref{DEV})
266: is still valid. It follows from the calculations that
267: $\partial \hat \Sigma/\partial E \sim 1\%$ for $E \sim E_{6s},E_{7s}$
268: (it is suppressed by the parameter $ \Delta E/E_{5p}$). This
269: leaves condition (\ref{DEV}) practically unchanged.
270:
271: Dominating vertex corrections to the hfs matrix element are due to the
272: effect of core polarization by the nuclear dipole magnetic field.
273: Since the core states change in the magnetic field,
274: the Hartree-Fock potential $V$ created by the core electrons as well as
275: the correlation potential $\hat \Sigma$ also change. The effect of this
276: change on the hfs can be accounted for by redefining the operator of the
277: hfs interaction
278: \cite{Dzuba89b}:
279: \begin{equation}
280: H'_{hfs} = H_{hfs} + \delta V + \delta \hat \Sigma.
281: \label{Hhfs}
282: \end{equation}
283: The correction to the hfs caused by $\delta V$ is often called the
284: RPA-type \cite{RPA}
285: correction, while another correction associated with $\delta \hat \Sigma$
286: is the non-Brueckner correlation correction or structural radiation
287: \cite{Dzuba87}.
288: These corrections are more likely to cause deviation from the square root
289: formula since they are localized on larger distances up to the core radius.
290: Note, however, that in the case of the hfs interaction $\delta V$ is completely
291: due to the Hartree-Fock exchange potential. There is no change to the
292: Hartree-Fock direct potential since magnetic field does not
293: change electron density in the first order of perturbation theory.
294: This means that $\delta V$ vanishes exponentially outside the core.
295: Inside the core, at $r \sim a_0$ , $\Delta E/V \sim 0.01$ and the
296: $6s$ and $7s$ orbitals are still proportional. Note that the potential $V$
297: at these distances may be estimated as $V \sim - Z_{eff} e^2/r$, where
298: $Z_{eff} \sim 5$. Since the contribution of $\delta V$ is about
299: 10\% we come to the estimate $10^{-3}$ for the error of the square
300: root formula.
301:
302: There is one more reason why the square root formula is accurate.
303: The expression for $R$ (\ref{main})
304: is symmetric with respect to the energies $E_{6s}$ and $E_{7s}$. Therefore,
305: its decomposition over $\Delta E$ ($\Delta E = E_{6s} - E_{7s}$) starts
306: from $\Delta E^2$:
307: \begin{equation}
308: R = a(\Delta E)^2 + b(\Delta E)^4 + \ldots.
309: \label{R}
310: \end{equation}
311: Since all linear in $\Delta E$ terms are canceled out one can say that
312: the error should be smaller than in the estimates above.
313: The dimensionless parameter for (\ref{R}) is
314: \[
315: (\Delta E/E_{5p})^2 \sim 10^{-2},
316: \]
317: where $E_{5p} \approx 0.84$ a.u. is the core excitation energy.
318: Since the term $a (\Delta E)^2$ arises due to $\delta V$ and
319: $\delta \hat \Sigma$ which contribute about 10\% and 1\%, respectively,
320: into the hfs, the total deviation from the
321: square root formula caused by the RPA and non-Brueckner corrections
322: should be smaller than $10^{-1} \times 10^{-2} = 10^{-3}$.
323: We may add that the contribution of $\delta \hat \Sigma$ to the hfs is
324: much smaller than the contribution of $\hat \Sigma$ since
325: $\delta \hat \Sigma$ has an additional
326: suppression by the parameter $(\Delta E/E_{5p})$ \cite{Dzuba87}.
327:
328: There are also contributions to the self-energy and vertex due to the radiative
329: corrections. We have not considered these contributions in our calculations.
330: However, they come from the very short distances
331: $r \leq \hbar/m_ec = \alpha a_0$ and should not cause any significant
332: deviation from the square root formula.
333:
334: Finally, let us estimate contributions to $M1_{hfs}$ which cannot be
335: presented in the form of eq. (\ref{m1}). Let us use the basis of the exact
336: atomic eigenstates and treat $H_{hfs}$ as a perturbation in this basis.
337: The result can be presented in the form
338: \begin{eqnarray}
339: M1_{hfs}& = & \sum_{\alpha}\frac{\langle \widetilde{6s},F|H_{hfs}
340: |\alpha,F \rangle}{E_{6s} - E_{\alpha}}
341: \langle \alpha,F|M1|\widetilde{7s},F' \rangle \nonumber \\
342: &+& \sum_{\beta}\langle \widetilde{6s},F|M1|\beta,F' \rangle
343: \frac{\langle \beta,F' |H_{hfs}|\widetilde{7s},F' \rangle}
344: {E_{\beta} - E_{7s}}.
345: \label{nd}
346: \end{eqnarray}
347: Here $|\widetilde{6s} \rangle, |\widetilde{7s} \rangle, |\alpha \rangle,
348: |\beta \rangle$ are the eigenstates which include all possible configuration
349: mixing, $|\alpha \rangle$ and $|\beta \rangle$ may contain
350: an arbitrary number of pairs of excited electrons and holes in the electron
351: core. All non-diagonal
352: matrix elements of the $M1$ operator vanish in the non-relativistic limit.
353: Moreover, it was demonstrated in our work \cite{Flambaum} that
354: the dominant contribution appears only in the second order in the
355: spin-orbit interaction and in the first order in configuration mixing, i.e.
356: non-diagonal $M1$ matrix elements are of the order
357: $M1 \sim (Z\alpha)^4 Q_{in}/E \sim 10^{-4}-10^{-5} |\mu_B|$, where $Q_{in}$
358: is the non-diagonal matrix element of the Coulomb interaction corresponding
359: to an excitation of a core electron and $E$ is the energy of this excitation.
360: Indeed, the operator of the magnetic moment is
361: $M1 = \mu_B ({\mathbf L+2S}) =\mu_B ({\mathbf 2J-L})$
362: (relativistic correction to this expression $\sim 10^{-5}$).
363: Electron wave functions are the eigenfunctions of the total electron
364: angular momentum ${\mathbf J}$. Therefore, ${\mathbf J}$ does not give
365: any non-diagonal matrix elements. On the other hand, the matrix element
366: $\langle \alpha,J=1/2|{\mathbf L}|\beta,J=1/2 \rangle$ requires
367: spin-orbit interaction both in the bra $\langle \alpha,J=1/2|$ and
368: ket $|\beta,J=1/2 \rangle$ vectors, since in the non-relativistic limit
369: they correspond to the total orbital angular momentum $L=0$,
370: i.e. ${\mathbf L}|\alpha \rangle = {\mathbf L}|\beta \rangle = 0$.
371: Thus, we need the second order in spin-orbit interaction.
372: Note that the non-diagonal in angular momentum $L$ matrix elements of the
373: hyperfine interaction like
374: $\langle \tilde s_{1/2}|H_{hfs}|\tilde d_{3/2} \rangle$ do not help
375: since in this case both the hfs matrix element and $M1$ matrix element
376: $\langle \tilde s_{1/2}|M1|\tilde d_{3/2} \rangle$ are very small.
377:
378: Non-diagonal matrix elements of $M1$ were calculated in Refs.
379: \cite{Flambaum,Dzuba85}; the value
380: $\langle 6s|M1|7s \rangle \approx 0.4 \times 10^{-4} |\mu_B|$ was
381: measured in Refs. \cite{Hoffnagle,Guena84,Gilbert}.
382: Thus, each term with the non-diagonal $M1$ matrix element in eq. (\ref{nd})
383: is suppressed by a factor of $10^{-4} - 10^{-5}$. Therefore, we may
384: safely assume that the correction to the diagonal $M1$ contribution
385: (\ref{m1}) does not exceed $10^{-3}$.
386:
387: We should note that it may not be easy to come to this conclusion using
388: perturbation theory in the Dirac basis of electron orbitals ($jj$ scheme)
389: (Dirac basis was used in Ref. \cite{Piketty}). In this basis the small result
390: must appear due to strong cancellations between different terms in the sum
391: over intermediate states.
392:
393: \section{Many-Body Calculations}
394:
395: To test the validity of the square root formula (\ref{main1}) we performed
396: accurate many-body
397: relativistic calculations of the off-diagonal and diagonal hfs matrix elements.
398: Detailed discussion of the accurate hfs calculations can be found elsewhere
399: \cite{Dzuba89b}. Here we repeat the main points emphasizing the role of
400: different many-body effects.
401:
402: We start calculations from the relativistic Hartree-Fock (RHF) method
403: in the $V^{N-1}$ approximation (calculations for the external electron
404: are carried out in the frozen self-consistent field of the core ).
405: The core polarization is calculated using the Hartree-Fock equations
406: in an external field \cite{Dzuba84}. It is equivalent to the well-known
407: random-phase approximation with exchange method (see, e.g. \cite{RPA}).
408: The many-body effects such as the Brueckner-type correlations,
409: and the structural radiation are included by means of the
410: correlation potential method \cite{Dzuba87}.
411: As it was pointed out in the previous section, the Brueckner-type correlation
412: corrections are included by solving the Dyson-type equation for the states
413: of the external electron
414: \begin{equation}
415: (H_{HF} + \hat \Sigma - E) \psi = 0.
416: \label{Bru}
417: \end{equation}
418: Correlation potential $\hat \Sigma$
419: accounts for the correlation between an external electron and core
420: electrons. We use many body perturbation theory and the Feynman diagram
421: technique to calculate $\hat \Sigma$ \cite{Dzuba89b,Dzuba89c}.
422: The perturbation expansion of $\hat \Sigma$
423: in the residual Coulomb interaction starts from the second order.
424: The corresponding diagrams are presented on Fig. \ref{sigma}.
425: We include both the second order diagrams and three dominating classes of
426: higher order correlations:
427: \begin{enumerate}
428: \item Screening of the Coulomb interaction between an external electron
429: and core electrons by other core electrons. This is a collective
430: phenomenon and the corresponding chain of diagrams is enhanced by a
431: factor approximately equal to the number of electrons in the external
432: closed subshell (the $5p$ electrons on Cs). We stress that our approach
433: takes into account screening diagrams with double, triple and higher core
434: electron excitations in contrast to the popular coupled cluster method
435: where only double and selected triple excitations are considered
436: (see, e.g. \cite{Safronova}). The effect of screening is taken into
437: account in all orders by summation of the corresponding
438: chain of diagrams which in the Feynman digram technique form a matrix
439: geometrical progression.
440: \item Hole-particle interaction in the core polarization operator.
441: This effect is enhanced by the large zero-multipolarity diagonal
442: matrix elements of the Coulomb interaction.
443: We take it into account by amending the direct Hartree-Fock potential
444: in which the polarization operator is calculated.
445: \item Iterations of the self-energy operator ($\hat \Sigma$).
446: This chain of diagrams describes the nonlinear effects of the
447: correlation potential and is enhanced by the small denominator,
448: which is the excitation energy of an external electron (in comparison
449: with the excitation energy of a core electron). The iterations of $\hat \Sigma$
450: are included by solving equation (\ref{Bru}).
451: \end{enumerate}
452:
453: Substituting the Brueckner orbitals into
454: eq. (\ref{main}) accounts for the dominating correlation corrections
455: to the hfs. Corresponding diagrams are presented on Fig. \ref{bru}.
456: These corrections constitutes 23\%
457: of the hfs of the $6s$ state of Cs and 12\% of the hfs of the $7s$ state
458: of Cs.
459:
460: To take into account the core polarization effect we self-consistently solve
461: the Hartree-Fock equation for the core states in the nuclear magnetic field.
462: The details are presented in Ref. \cite{Dzuba84}.
463: When all corrections $\delta \psi_n$ to core states caused by the
464: magnetic field are found, they are
465: used to calculate the correction $\delta V$ to the Hartree-Fock
466: potential. Then core polarization is included into the single-electron
467: matrix element $\langle a|H_{hfs}|b \rangle$ between valence states
468: $|a \rangle$ and $|b \rangle$ by redefining the operator of the hfs
469: interaction $ H'_{hfs} = H_{hfs} + \delta V$.
470: This corresponds to the summation of the infinite series of the RPA-type
471: of diagrams presented on Fig. \ref{rpae}.
472: The RPA-type core polarization contribution to the hfs of the $6s$ and $7s$
473: states of Cs is about 15\%.
474:
475:
476: Core polarization also leads to the change of $\hat \Sigma$. Corresponding
477: contributions to the hfs matrix element
478: $\langle a|\delta \hat \Sigma|b \rangle$
479: are often called structural radiation.
480: Second order diagrams for structure radiation are presented
481: on Fig. \ref{str}.
482: We use direct summation over the complete set of single-electron
483: states to calculate these diagrams.
484:
485: There is also a contribution to the hfs due to the change of normalization
486: of the wave function caused by $\hat \Sigma$. This contribution can be
487: written in a form
488: \begin{equation}
489: A_{norm} = \frac{1}{2}\langle a|H_{hfs}|b \rangle
490: (\langle a |\partial \hat \Sigma/\partial E|a \rangle +
491: \langle b |\partial \hat \Sigma/\partial E|b \rangle).
492: \label{norm}
493: \end{equation}
494: The combined contribution of the structural radiation and renormalization
495: into the hfs of the $6s$ and $7s$ states of Cs are 1.5\% and 0.6\%
496: respectively.
497:
498: When all dominating higher-order correlations are included into the
499: calculation of the Brueckner orbitals for the $6s$ and $7s$ states of cesium,
500: the accuracy for the calculated energies of these states is very high and
501: constitutes about 0.1\%. However, we introduced fitting parameters to re-scale
502: $\hat \Sigma$ to fit the energies exactly. This procedure allows us to
503: effectively include some omitted higher order correlations and to test
504: the sensitivity of the hfs matrix elements on the value of $\hat \Sigma$.
505:
506: The results for the hfs are presented in Table \ref{tab}.
507: In this table $h \equiv H_{hfs}$, the matrix elements of $\delta V$
508: are RPA-type corrections, the matrix elements
509: of $\delta \hat \Sigma$ are structural radiation (including renormalization
510: (\ref{norm})), matrix elements with $\psi_{Br}$ include Brueckner-type
511: correlation corrections.
512: One can see that the correction to the square root formula
513: due to the considered many-body effects does not exceed $4.4 \times 10^{-4}$.
514: When all dominating many-body effects are taken into account the accuracy
515: of the calculated hfs constants compared to experiment is about 1\%.
516: However the square root formula is still valid to the accuracy of about
517: $10^{-4}$. The most likely cause of the remaining discrepancy with
518: experiment is higher-order correlation corrections not included in
519: our calculations. These corrections are localized
520: on the radius of the core and due to the fact that these corrections are
521: very small ($\sim$ 1\% of the
522: experimental hfs) it is extremely unlikely that they can break the
523: square root formula. The same may be said about the very small radiative
524: and Breit corrections.
525: Note that our final results for the diagonal hfs matrix elements for
526: the $6s$ and $7s$ states are in very good agreement with the calculations
527: of the Notre-Dame group \cite{Safronova}.
528:
529: It follows from the above that the correction to the square root formula
530: is about an order of magnitude smaller than the estimations of Bouchiat
531: and Gu\'{e}na \cite{Guena88}. However, there is no formal disagreement between
532: the results, since Bouchiat and Gu\'{e}na estimated the uncertainty
533: of their result to be equal to the correction itself.
534: We believe that for the analysis of the PNC experiment it is safer to
535: assume no correction to the square root formula. This slightly changes the
536: numbers. The $M1_{hfs}$ amplitude, tensor polarizability $\beta$ and
537: weak charge of the $^{133}$Cs nucleus become
538: \begin{eqnarray}
539: M1_{hfs}& = & |\frac{\mu_B}{c}| 0.8074(8) \times 10^{-5},\nonumber \\
540: \beta & = & 26.957(43)(27) a_0^3, \label{Mres}\\
541: Q_W & = & -71.88(28)(29). \nonumber
542: \end{eqnarray}
543: To stress the importance of the result here we used an estimate of
544: the theoretical accuracy 0.4\% \cite{Bennett} in the value of $k_{PNC}$.
545: Our result for $M1_{hfs}$ is in very good agreement with the result of
546: Derevianko {\it et al} \cite{Derevianko}
547: \begin{eqnarray}
548: M1_{hfs}& = & |\frac{\mu_B}{c}| 0.8070(73) \times 10^{-5},
549: \label{Derevo}
550: \end{eqnarray}
551: but has the better accuracy.
552: The weak nuclear charge $Q_W$ in (\ref{Mres}) represents even larger
553: deviation from the Standard Model value $Q_W = -73.20(13)$ \cite{Marciano}
554: than the
555: result presented by Bennett and Wieman \cite{Bennett}.
556: The deviation is $2.9\sigma$ if 0.4\% accuracy of calculations of
557: the $k_{PNC}$ is assumed. Note that even if 1\% accuracy is assumed
558: for the calculated value of $k_{PNC}$ as it was claimed in both
559: theoretical works \cite{Dzuba89a,Blundell} then there is still
560: $1.5\sigma$ deviation from the Standard Model.
561: However, we would like to stress once more that before making any conclusions
562: about agreement or disagreement with the Standard Model the question
563: about the accuracy of the atomic calculations of the PNC electronic
564: matrix element $k_{PNC}$ (see (\ref{PNC})) should be carefully re-analyzed.
565:
566:
567: %**************************************************************************
568: \begin{thebibliography}{25}
569: \bibitem{Bennett}
570: S. C. Bennett and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82},
571: 2484 (1999); {\bf 82}, 4153(E) (1999); {\bf 83}, 889(E) (1999).
572: \bibitem{Wood}
573: C. S. Wood {\it et al.}, Science {\bf 275}, 1759 (1997).
574: \bibitem{Dzuba89a}
575: V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and O. P. Sushkov, Phys. Lett. A
576: {\bf 141}, 147 (1989).
577: \bibitem{Blundell}
578: S. A. Blundell, W. R. Johnson, and J. Sapirstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.
579: {\bf 65}, 1411 (1990).
580: \bibitem{Guena84}
581: M.-A. Bouchiat, J. Gu\'{e}na, and L. Pottier,
582: J. Phys. Lett. (Paris) {\bf 45}, L-61 (1984).
583: \bibitem{Piketty}
584: C. Bouchiat and C. A. Piketty, J. Phys. (Paris) {\bf 49}, 1851 (1988).
585: \bibitem{Guena88}
586: M.-A. Bouchiat and J. Gu\'{e}na, J. Phys. (Paris) {\bf 49},
587: 2037 (1988).
588: \bibitem{Marciano} % Q_w of Cs
589: W. J. Marciano and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65},
590: 2963 (1990); {\bf 68}, 898(E) (1992).
591: \bibitem{Flambaum}
592: V. V. Flambaum, I. B. Khriplovich, and O. P. Sushkov,
593: Phys. Lett. {\bf 67A}, 177 (1978);
594: Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. (Sov. Phys. JETP) {\bf 75}, 75 (1978).
595: \bibitem{Dzuba85}
596: V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum , P.G. Silvestrov, and O. P. Sushkov,
597: Phys. Scr., {\bf 31}, 275 (1985).
598: \bibitem{Derevianko}
599: A. Derevianko, M. S. Safronova, and W. R. Johnson,
600: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 60}, R1741 (1999).
601: \bibitem{Dzuba89b}
602: V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, A. Ya. Kraftmakher, and O. P. Sushkov,
603: Phys. Lett. A {\bf 142}, 373 (1989).
604: \bibitem{Safronova}
605: M. S. Safronova, W. R. Johnson, and A. Derevianko,
606: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 60}, 4476 (1999).
607: \bibitem{Dzuba84}
608: V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and O. P. Sushkov,
609: J. Phys. B {\bf 17}, 1953 (1984).
610: \bibitem{Dzuba87}
611: V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, P. G. Silvestrov, and O. P. Sushkov,
612: J. Phys. B {\bf 20}, 1399 (1987).
613: \bibitem{RPA}
614: Random-phase approximation; see, e.g. M Ya. Amusia and
615: N. A. Cherepkov, Case Studies in Atomic Physics, {\bf 5},
616: 47 (1975).
617: \bibitem{Hoffnagle}
618: J. Hoffnagle, L. Ph. Rvesch, V. L. Telegdi, and A. Weis,
619: VIII ICAP, Abstracts, p. A33, Goteborg, Sweden (1982).
620: \bibitem{Gilbert}
621: S. L. Gilbert, R. N. Watts, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 29},
622: 137 (1984).
623: \bibitem{Dzuba89c}
624: V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and O. P. Sushkov, Phys. Lett. A
625: {\bf 140}, 493 (1989).
626: \bibitem{hfs}
627: E. Arimondo, M. Inguscio, and P. Violino, Rev. Mod. Phys.
628: {\bf 49}, 31 (1977);
629: S. L. Gilbert, R. N. Watts, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. A
630: {\bf 27}, 581 (1983).
631: \end{thebibliography}
632: %**********************************************************************
633: \begin{table}
634: \caption{Hyperfine structure matrix elements for the 6S and 7S states
635: of $^{133}$Cs (MHz).}
636: \label{tab}
637: \begin{tabular}{llccccc}
638: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Approximation} & $A_{6S}$ & $A_{7S}$ &
639: $\sqrt{A_{6S} A_{7S}}$ & $ \langle 6S |h| 7S \rangle $ &
640: $ \frac{\langle 6S |h| 7S \rangle }{\sqrt{A_{6S} A_{7S}}} - 1$ \\
641: \hline
642: $ \psi = \psi_{HF}$ & $ \langle \psi |h| \psi \rangle $
643: & \dec 1424.8 & \dec 391.5 & \dec 746.9 & \dec 746.9 & 0\\
644: & $ \langle \psi |h + \delta V| \psi \rangle $
645: & \dec 1712.5 & \dec 469.7 & \dec 896.9 & \dec 897.1 & $2.2\times 10^{-4}$\\
646: & $ \langle \psi |h + \delta V + \delta \hat \Sigma| \psi \rangle $
647: & \dec 1687.8 & \dec 466.9 & \dec 887.7 & \dec 887.6 & $1.1\times 10^{-4}$\\
648: \hline
649: $ \psi = \psi_{Br}$ &$ \langle \psi |h| \psi \rangle $
650: & \dec 1952.4 & \dec 459.5 & \dec 947.2 & \dec 947.2 & 0\\
651: & $ \langle \psi |h + \delta V| \psi \rangle $
652: & \dec 2302.0 & \dec 541.4 & \dec 1116.3 &\dec 1116.7 & $3.5\times 10^{-4}$\\
653: & $ \langle \psi |h + \delta V + \delta \hat \Sigma| \psi \rangle $
654: & \dec 2267.6 & \dec 537.7 & \dec 1104.3 &\dec 1104.5 & $1.8\times 10^{-4}$\\
655: \hline
656: $ \psi = \psi_{fit}$\tablenotemark[1]
657: & $ \langle \psi |h + \delta V| \psi \rangle $
658: & \dec 2308.3 & \dec 542.5 & \dec 1119.0 &\dec 1119.5 & $4.4\times 10^{-4}$\\
659: & $ \langle \psi |h + \delta V + \delta \hat \Sigma| \psi \rangle $
660: & \dec 2273.8 & \dec 538.8 & \dec 1106.9 &\dec 1107.3 & $3.6\times 10^{-4}$\\
661: \hline
662: \multicolumn{2}{c}{SDpT\tablenotemark[2]}
663: & \dec 2278.5 & \dec 540.6 & \dec 1109.8 & & \\
664: \hline
665: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Experiment\tablenotemark[3]}
666: & \dec 2298.2 & \dec 545.9 & \dec 1120.1 & & \\
667: \end{tabular}
668: \tablenotetext[1]{Brueckner orbitals with $\hat \Sigma$ operator
669: rescaled to fit the energy.}
670: \tablenotetext[2]{Single, double and partly triple excitation approximation;
671: calculations by the Notre-Dame group, reference \cite{Safronova}}
672: \tablenotetext[3]{Reference \cite{hfs}}
673: \end{table}
674:
675: %####################################################################
676: \widetext
677: \newpage
678: \input psfig
679: \psfull
680:
681: \begin{figure}[b]
682: \psfig{file=sigma.eps, clip=}
683: \caption{Second-order diagrams for the self-energy of the valence
684: electron ($\hat \Sigma$ operator). Dashed line is the Coulomb interaction
685: between core and valence electrons. Loop is the polarization of the atomic
686: core which corresponds to the virtual creation of the excited electron and
687: a hole in the core shells.}
688: \label{sigma}
689: \end{figure}
690:
691: \begin{figure}[b]
692: \psfig{file=bru.eps, clip=}
693: \caption{Bruckner-type correlation diagrams for the hfs. Cross denotes
694: the hfs interaction. The $\Sigma$ operator includes second-order diagrams
695: (Fig.1) and higher-order diagrams as described in the text.}
696: \label{bru}
697: \end{figure}
698:
699: \begin{figure}[b]
700: \psfig{file=rpae.eps, clip=}
701: \caption{Core polarization (RPA) diagrams for the hfs in the first and
702: second order in Coulomb interaction.}
703: \label{rpae}
704: \end{figure}
705:
706: \begin{figure}[b]
707: \psfig{file=str.eps, clip=}
708: \caption{Structural radiation}
709: \label{str}
710: \end{figure}
711: \end{document}
712:
713:
714:
715:
716:
717:
718:
719:
720:
721:
722:
723:
724:
725:
726:
727: