1: % LANL 2/12/01
2: %
3: % High-precision calculations of van der Waals coefficients
4: % for heteronuclear alkali-metal dimers
5: % A. Derevianko, J.F. Babb, and A. Dalgarno
6: % 29 Nov. 2000
7: %
8: %
9: %---------------------------------------------------------------
10: %\documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
11: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps]{revtex}
12: %\documentstyle[twocolumn,aps,graphicx]{revtex}
13: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,graphicx]{revtex}
14: %\usepackage{graphicx}
15:
16: \newcommand{\sss}{\scriptscriptstyle}
17: \tightenlines
18: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}
19:
20: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
21: \begin{document}
22: \draft
23: %
24: \title{
25: High-precision calculations of van der Waals coefficients
26: for heteronuclear alkali-metal dimers
27: }
28:
29: \author{A. Derevianko\thanks{Permanent Address: Department of Physics, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557}, J. F. Babb, and A. Dalgarno}
30: \address{
31: Institute for Theoretical Atomic and Molecular Physics\\
32: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
33: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138}
34:
35: \date{\today}
36: \maketitle
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: Van der Waals coefficients for the heteronuclear alkali-metal dimers
40: of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, and Fr are calculated using relativistic
41: {\em ab initio} methods augmented by high-precision experimental data.
42: We argue that the uncertainties
43: in the coefficients are unlikely to exceed
44: about 1\%.
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: % jb 7/05/00
48: \pacs{PACS: 34.20.Cf, 32.10.Dk, 31.15.Ar}
49: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
50: %\section{Introduction}
51:
52: Considerable attention has been given to the determination of the
53: coefficients of the leading term of the van der Waals attractions of
54: two alkali metal atoms because of their importance in the simulation,
55: prediction, and interpretation of experiments on cold atom collisions,
56: photoassociation and fluorescence
57: spectroscopy~\cite{BoeTsaGar97,RobClaBur98,WilTieJul99,Boh00,AmiVer00,LeoWilJul00}.
58: There is strong interest in heteronuclear molecules formed by pairs of
59: different alkali metal atoms. Experiments have been carried out on
60: trap loss in mixtures of Na with K~\cite{SanNusMar95,SanNusAnt99},
61: Rb~\cite{TelMarMun99,YouEjnSha00}, and Cs~\cite{ShaChaBig99} and on
62: optical collisions ~\cite{ShaChaBig99b} in a Na-Cs mixture and on
63: molecular formation~\cite{ShaChaBig99a}. The mixtures of
64: magnetically-trapped alkali metal atoms Na-Cs and Na-K have been
65: proposed~\cite{EjnRudBig97} as a means to search for evidence of an
66: electric dipole moment to test for violation of parity and time
67: reversal symmetry. We extend here previous studies~\cite{DerJohSaf99}
68: of the van der Waals coefficient between pairs of identical ground
69: state alkali metal atoms to unlike ground state atoms.
70:
71:
72: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
73: %{\em Formulation ---}
74: The leading team of the van der Waals interaction is given at an atom
75: separation $R$ by~\cite{Goo73,Dal67},
76: \begin{equation}
77: \label{Eqn_disp}
78: V^{AB} (R) = -\frac{C^{AB}_6}{R^6},
79: \end{equation}
80: where
81: $C_6^{AB}$ is
82: the van der Waals coefficient. We use atomic units throughout.
83:
84:
85: The van der Waals coefficient
86: may be expressed as
87: \begin{equation}
88: C_6^{AB} = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{st}
89: \frac{ |\langle v_A |D_A | s_A\rangle|^2 |\langle v_B |D_B | t_B\rangle|^2 }
90: {(E_s^A -E_v^A) +(E_t^B -E_v^B) } \, , \label{Eqn_C6_direct}
91: \end{equation}
92: where $|v_{A}\rangle$ is the ground state atomic wave function of atom
93: A with energy $E_v^{A}$, and similarly for atom B, and $| s_A \rangle$
94: and $|t_B\rangle$ represent complete sets of intermediate atomic
95: states with, respectively, energies $E_s^A$ and $E_t^B$. The
96: electric dipole operators are
97: $D_{A}=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{A}} {\mathbf r}_i^A$, where ${\mathbf r}_i^A$
98: is the position vector of electron $i$ measured
99: from nucleus A, $N_{A}$ is
100: the total number of atomic electrons for atom A,
101: and similarly for atom B.
102:
103: At this point the two-center molecular-structure problem is
104: reduced to the determination of {\em atomic} matrix elements and energies.
105: The dependence on one-center atomic
106: properties becomes explicit when Eq.~(\ref{Eqn_C6_direct})
107: is cast into the Casimir-Polder form
108: \begin{equation}
109: C^{AB}_6 = \frac{3}{\pi} \int_0^\infty \alpha_A(i\omega) \alpha_B(i\omega)
110: d \omega \, , \label{Eqn_C6_polariz}
111: \end{equation}
112: where $\alpha_{A}(i \omega )$ is the dynamic polarizability of
113: imaginary argument for atom A given by
114: \begin{equation}
115: \alpha_A ( i \omega ) = \frac{2}{3} \sum_s
116: \frac{\left( E^A_s-E^A_v \right) |\langle v^A | {\mathbf D}_A | s^A\rangle|^2}
117: { \left( E^A_s-E^A_v \right)^2 +\omega^2 } \, , \label{Eqn_alpha}
118: \end{equation}
119: and $\alpha(\omega=0)$ is the ground-state static dipole
120: polarizability. In the limit of infinite
121: frequency the function $\alpha_A (i\omega )$ satisfies
122: \begin{equation}
123: \alpha_A ( i \omega ) \rightarrow \frac{N_A}{\omega^2} \, , \label{Eqn_TRK}
124: \end{equation}
125: as a consequence of the nonrelativistic Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn sum rule.
126:
127: Modern all-order many-body methods are capable of predicting
128: electric-dipole matrix elements for principal transitions and energies
129: in alkali-metals to within errors approaching 0.1\%~\cite{SafJohDer99}.
130: Many-body methods augmented by high-precision experimental
131: data for principal transitions, similar to those employed in PNC
132: calculations~\cite{BluJohSap90}, have led to a high-precision evaluation of dynamic
133: dipole polarizabilities for alkali-metal atoms~\cite{DerJohSaf99}.
134: The values of $C_6$ previously calculated for
135: {\em homonuclear} dimers~\cite{DerJohSaf99} are in excellent agreement with
136: analyses of cold-atom scattering of Na~\cite{vanAbeVer99},
137: Rb~\cite{RobClaBur98}, and Cs~\cite{LeoWilJul00,ChiVulKer00}.
138: Here we employ the same methods
139: to compute the van der Waals coefficients for heteronuclear alkali-metal
140: dimers.
141: %{\em Calculations of dynamic polarizability for lithium --- }
142:
143: Precise nonrelativistic variational calculations of $C_6$ for Li${}_2$
144: have been carried out~\cite{YanBabDal96}. They provide a critical
145: test of our procedures. We separate the dynamic polarizability into
146: valence and core contributions, which correspond respectively to
147: valence-electron and core-electron excited intermediate states in the
148: sum, Eq.~(\ref{Eqn_alpha}). In our calculations for Li we employ
149: high-precision experimental values for the principal transition
150: $2s-2p_J$, all-order many-body data and experimental energies for
151: $3p_{J}$ and $4p_{J}$ intermediate states, and Dirac-Hartree-Fock
152: values for higher valence-electron excitations. The high-precision
153: all-order calculations were performed using the relativistic
154: linearized coupled-cluster method truncated at single and double
155: excitations from a reference
156: determinant~\cite{SafJohDer99,BluJohLiu89}. Contributions of
157: valence-excited states above $4p_J$ were obtained by a direct
158: summation over a relativistic B-spline basis set~\cite{JohBluSap88}
159: obtained in the ``frozen-core'' ($V^{N-1}$) Dirac-Hartree-Fock
160: potential. Core excitations were treated with a highly-accurate
161: relativistic configuration-interaction method applied to the
162: two-electron Li$^{+}$ ion. For the heavier
163: alkali-metals~\cite{DerJohSaf99} the random-phase
164: approximation~\cite{AmuChe75} was used to calculate this contribution.
165:
166: The principal transition $2s-2p_{J}$
167: accounts for 99\% of the static polarizability and 96\% of the
168: Li$_2$ dispersion coefficient. In accurate experiments
169: McAlexander {\em et al.}~\cite{McAAbrHul96} reported a
170: lifetime of the $2p$ state of 27.102(9) ns (an accuracy of 0.03\%)
171: and Martin
172: {\em et al.}~\cite{MarAubBac97} reported 27.13(2) ns. In our
173: calculations we employ the more precise value from
174: Ref.~\cite{McAAbrHul96}; in the subsequent error
175: analysis we arbitrarily assigned an error bar of twice the
176: quoted value of
177: Ref.~\cite{McAAbrHul96}, so that the two experiments are
178: consistent.
179:
180:
181: The dynamic core polarizability of Li was obtained in the framework of
182: the relativistic configuration-interaction (CI) method for helium-like
183: systems. This CI setup is described by Johnson and
184: Cheng~\cite{JohChe96}, who used it to calculate precise
185: relativistic static dipole polarizabilities. We extended their method
186: to calculate the {\em dynamic} polarizability $\alpha(i \omega)$ for
187: two-electron systems. The numerical accuracy was monitored by
188: comparison with results of Ref.~\cite{JohChe96} for the static
189: polarizability of Li$^+$ and with the sum rule, Eq.~(\ref{Eqn_TRK}),
190: in the limit of large frequencies. Core-excited states contribute only
191: 0.5\% to $C_6$ and 0.1\% to $\alpha(0)$ for Li. Their contribution
192: becomes much larger for heavier alkali metals.
193:
194:
195:
196: We calculated static and dynamic polarizabilities and used quadrature,
197: Eq.~(\ref{Eqn_C6_polariz}), to obtain the dispersion coefficient. The
198: results are $C_6=1390$ and $\alpha(0) = 164.0$. There are two
199: major sources of uncertainties in the final value of $C_6$ ---
200: experimental error in the dipole matrix elements of the principal
201: transition, and theoretical error related to higher
202: valence-electron excitations. The former results in a uncertainty
203: of 0.12\%,
204: and the latter much less.
205: The result $C_6 = 1390(2)$ is in good agreement with the
206: {\em nonrelativistic} variational result of Yan {\em et
207: al.}~\cite{YanBabDal96}, $C_6=1393.39$.
208: The slight discrepancy between the two values may arise
209: because
210: in our formulation, the correlations
211: of core-excited states with the valence electron were disregarded
212: as were intermediate states containing
213: simultaneous excitation of the valence electron with one or both
214: core electrons.
215: On the other hand,
216: Ref.~\cite{YanBabDal96} did not account for relativistic corrections.
217: Relativistic contractions lead to a smaller value of $C_6$ and
218: to better agreement between the present result and
219: that of Ref.~\cite{YanBabDal96}.
220: Similar error analysis for the static polarizability of Li leads to
221: $\alpha(0) = 164.0(1)$, which agrees with the numerically precise
222: nonrelativistic result of 164.111~\cite{YanBabDal96}.
223: An extensive comparison with other published data for the values of
224: $\alpha(0)$ and $C_6$ for lithium is given in Ref.~\cite{YanBabDal96}.
225: For the heavier alkali metal atoms we followed the
226: procedures of Ref.~\cite{DerJohSaf99} to calculate
227: $\alpha (i\omega)$. The results for Cs are illustrated in
228: Fig.~\ref{Fig_alpha}. They indicate that while most of
229: the contribution to $C_6$ comes from the resonant transition
230: at $\omega \sim 0.05$ a.u.
231: the core excitations are significant.
232:
233: %
234: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
235: %
236:
237: {\em Results and Conclusions\/}---We evaluated the dispersion
238: coefficients for various heteronuclear alkali-metal dimers with the
239: quadrature Eq.~(\ref{Eqn_C6_polariz}). The calculated values are
240: presented in Table~\ref{Tab_crossC6}. Most of the contributions to
241: $C_6^{AB}$ come from the principal transitions of each atom. An
242: analysis of the dispersion coefficient of unlike atoms yields the
243: approximate formula
244: \begin{equation}
245: \label{c6-approx}
246: C_6^{AB} \approx \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{ C_6^{AA} C_6^{BB} }
247: \frac{\Delta E_A + \Delta E_B}{\sqrt{\Delta E_A \Delta E_B }} ,
248: \end{equation}
249: where the energy separations of the principal transitions
250: are designated as
251: $\Delta E_{A}$ and $\Delta E_{B}$.
252: Eq.~(\ref{c6-approx}) combined with the high-accuracy values of $C_6$
253: for homonuclear dimers~\cite{DerJohSaf99} gives accurate
254: approximations to our results based on Eq.~(\ref{Eqn_C6_polariz}).
255: For example, Eq.~(\ref{c6-approx}) overestimates our accurate value from
256: Table~\ref{Tab_crossC6} for Li-Na by 0.4\% and for Cs-Li by 2\%.
257: %%
258: We may use Eq.~(\ref{c6-approx}) to estimate the uncertainties
259: ${\delta C_6^{AB}}$
260: in the
261: heteronuclear cases from the uncertainties ${\delta C_6^{AA}}$
262: and ${\delta C_6^{BB}}$ in the homonuclear dispersion
263: coefficients,
264: \[
265: \frac{\delta C_6^{AB}}{C_6^{AB}} \approx \frac{1}{2}
266: \left[ \left( \frac{\delta C_6^{AA}}{C_6^{AA}} \right)^2 +
267: \left( \frac{\delta C_6^{BB}}{C_6^{BB}} \right)^2
268: \right]^{1/2} \,.
269: \]
270: The accuracy of $C_6$ for homonuclear dimers was assessed
271: in Ref.~\cite{DerJohSaf99} and
272: a detailed discussion for the Rb dimer is given in Ref.~\cite{SafJoh00}.
273: Analyzing the error in this manner using the
274: quoted coefficients
275: and their uncertainties from Ref.~\cite{DerJohSaf99} we find that
276: most of the dispersion coefficients reported here have an estimated
277: uncertainty below 1\%. The corresponding values
278: are given in parentheses in Table~\ref{Tab_crossC6}.
279:
280:
281:
282: In Fig.~\ref{Fig_C6CsX} we present for the dispersion coefficients of
283: the dimers involving Cs a comparison between our calculated values and
284: the most recent determinations~\cite{LeoWilJul00,DraTolTja00}. We
285: give the percentage deviation from our calculations. It is apparent
286: that the other calculations that employed one-electron model
287: potentials and accordingly omitted contributions from core-excited
288: states yield values systematically smaller than ours.
289:
290: The discrepancies are most significant for Cs${}_2$ where the
291: number of electrons is greatest.
292: Fig.~\ref{Fig_C6CsX} also compares the values
293: for the Cs$_2$ dimer with values deduced from ultracold-collision
294: data~\cite{LeoWilJul00,DraTolTja00}.
295: The agreement of our prediction 6851(74)~\cite{DerJohSaf99} with their
296: values for $C_6$ in Cs$_2$ is close.
297: Core-excited states contribute 15\%~\cite{DalDav67,DerJohSaf99}
298: to the value of the $C_6$ coefficient
299: for the Cs dimer
300: and
301: are needed to fulfill the oscillator strength
302: sum rule, Eq.~(\ref{Eqn_TRK}). In the present approach the
303: contributions of core-excited states to dynamic polarizabilities
304: are obtained using the random-phase approximation,
305: which nonrelativistically
306: satisfies
307: the oscillator strength sum rule exactly~\cite{AmuChe75}.
308: In the inset of Fig.~\ref{Fig_alpha}, it is illustrated
309: that our calculated $\alpha (i\omega)$ approaches $N/\omega^2$
310: as $\omega$ becomes asymptotically large,
311: where $N=55$ for Cs.
312: While the deviation between
313: the present calculations and the model potential calculations
314: are smaller for dimers involving lighter atoms,
315: an accurate accounting of core-excited states is essential
316: to achieve high accuracy in dispersion coefficient
317: calculations for heavy atoms~\cite{DalDav67,MaeKut79,MarSadDal94}.
318:
319:
320: Few experimental data are available for comparison in the
321: heteronuclear case, except for NaK. The results from investigations
322: of NaK molecular potentials based on spectral
323: analysis~\cite{RusRosAub00} are compared to our value in
324: Table~\ref{Tab_mol}. Our value is smaller than the experimental
325: values. Earlier theoretical calculations of dispersion coefficients
326: for NaK have been tabulated and evaluated by Marinescu
327: and Sadeghpour~\cite{MarSad99} and by Zemke and Stwalley~\cite{ZemStw99}.
328: Those values are generally lower than our value
329: of $2447(6)$ except for that of Maeder and Kultzelnigg~\cite{MaeKut79}
330: who give $2443$.
331:
332:
333: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
334: %\section{Conclusion}
335:
336:
337: The present study extends the application of modern relativistic
338: atomic structure methods to calculations of ground state van der Waals
339: coefficients of Li${}_2$ and of the heteronuclear alkali-metal atoms.
340: We argue that the uncertainty of the coefficients is unlikely
341: to exceed 1\%.
342: Additional experimental data from future cold-collision experiments or
343: spectroscopy would provide further tests of the present calculations.
344:
345:
346: This work was supported by the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and
347: Biosciences Division of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Office of
348: Science, U.S. Department of Energy and by the National Science
349: Foundation under grant PHY97-24713. The Institute for
350: Theoretical Atomic and Molecular Physics is supported
351: by a grant from the NSF to Harvard University
352: and the Smithsonian Institution.
353:
354:
355: %
356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
357: %
358: %\newpage
359: \begin{figure}[h]
360: \begin{center}
361: \includegraphics*[scale=0.5]{Cs.aph_times_w2.eps}
362: \caption{
363: \label{Fig_alpha}
364: The dependence of the dynamic dipole polarizability
365: $\alpha(i \omega)$ with frequency $\omega$ for Cs.
366: The inset illustrates the behavior
367: of the quantity $\omega^2 \alpha(i \omega)$ at asymptotically
368: large $\omega$, where the dashed line represents the contribution
369: of the core-excited states to the total $\omega^2 \alpha(i \omega)$
370: (solid line) and
371: the arrow marks the non-relativistic
372: limit $N=55$ following from the sum rule, Eq.~(\protect\ref{Eqn_TRK}).
373: All quantities are in atomic units.
374: }
375: \end{center}
376: \end{figure}
377: \clearpage
378: %
379: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
380:
381: \begin{figure}[h]
382: \begin{center}
383: \includegraphics*[scale=0.65]{Cs-mix.eps}
384: \caption{
385: \label{Fig_C6CsX}
386: Percentage deviation of results of recent
387: calculations~\protect\cite{MarSad99,PatTan97} from our values for
388: van der Waals coefficients $C_6$ for Cs-Li, Cs-Na, Cs-K,Cs-Rb, and Cs-Cs.
389: The values with error bars
390: placed along the horizontal line at 0
391: correspond to our results with the estimated uncertainties.
392: Circles represent the results of Ref.~\protect\cite{MarSad99} and triangles the
393: results of Ref.~\protect\cite{PatTan97}.
394: For
395: Cs-Cs,
396: to the right of the vertical dotted line,
397: we show the difference between our present prediction,
398: our earlier
399: prediction~\protect\cite{DerJohSaf99}
400: and the values deduced from cold-collision data in
401: Ref.~\protect\cite{LeoWilJul00} (square) and
402: Ref.~\protect\cite{DraTolTja00} (diamond).
403: }
404: \end{center}
405: \end{figure}
406: \clearpage
407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
408: %
409: %
410: \begin{table}
411: \caption{
412: Dispersion coefficients $C_6$
413: and their estimated uncertainties (parentheses)
414: for alkali-metal atom pairs
415: in atomic units.
416: Coefficients for
417: Na$_2$, K$_2$,
418: Rb$_2$, Cs$_2$, and Fr$_2$ are from Ref.~\protect\cite{DerJohSaf99}.
419: \label{Tab_crossC6} }
420: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
421: \multicolumn{1}{c}{}&
422: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Li}&
423: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Na}&
424: \multicolumn{1}{c}{K}&
425: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Rb}&
426: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Cs}&
427: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Fr}\\
428: % & Li & Na & K & Rb & Cs & Fr \\
429: Li &1389(2)&1467(2)&2322(5)& 2545(7) & 3065(16) & 2682(23) \\
430: Na & & 1556(4)& 2447(6) & 2683(7) & 3227(18)& 2842(24) \\
431: K & & & 3897(15)& 4274(13)& 5159(30)& 4500(39) \\
432: Rb & & & & 4691(23)& 5663(34)& 4946(44) \\
433: Cs & & & & & 6851(74)& 5968(60) \\
434: Fr & & & & & & 5256(89) \\
435: %\hline
436: \end{tabular}
437: %\tablenotetext[1]{ Values recommended from the present work.}
438: \end{table}
439: %
440: \clearpage
441: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
442: %
443: \begin{table}
444: \caption{
445: Comparision of present theoretical
446: and experimental values for the dispersion coefficient for NaK.
447: \label{Tab_mol} }
448: \begin{tabular}{ll}
449: \multicolumn{1}{l}{ Reference}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$C_6$}\\
450: \hline
451: This work & 2447(6) \\%[1ex]
452: Russier-Antoine {\em et al.,}~\cite{RusRosAub00}& 2519(10)\tablenotemark[1]\\
453: Ishikawa {\em et al.,}~\cite{IshMukTan94} & 2646(31)\tablenotemark[1]\\
454: Ross {\em et al.,}~\cite{RosEffDin85} & 2669.4(20)\tablenotemark[1]\\
455: % No value Zemke and Stwalley~\cite{ZemStw99} & \\
456: \end{tabular}
457: \tablenotetext[1]{Experiment.}
458: \end{table}
459:
460:
461:
462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
463: \begin{references}
464:
465:
466: %\bibliographystyle{prsty-noetal}
467: %\bibliography{mix}
468:
469: \bibitem{BoeTsaGar97}
470: H.~M. J.~M. Boesten, C.~C. Tsai, J.~R. Gardner, D.~J. Heinzen, and B.~J.
471: Verhaar, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 55}, 636 (1997).
472:
473: \bibitem{RobClaBur98}
474: J.~L. Roberts, N.~R. Claussen, J.~P. Burke~Jr., C.~H. Greene, E.~A. Cornell,
475: and C.~E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 5109 (1998).
476:
477: \bibitem{WilTieJul99}
478: C.~J. Williams, E. Tiesinga, P.~S. Julienne, H. Wang, W.~C. Stwalley, and P.~L.
479: Gould, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 60}, 4427 (1999).
480:
481: \bibitem{Boh00}
482: J.~L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A. {\bf 61}, 053409 (2000).
483:
484: \bibitem{AmiVer00}
485: C. Amiot and J. Verg{\`e}s, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 112}, 7068 (2000).
486:
487: \bibitem{LeoWilJul00}
488: P.~J. Leo, C.~J. Williams, and P.~S. Julienne, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 85},
489: 2721 (2000).
490:
491: \bibitem{SanNusMar95}
492: M.~S. Santos, P. Nussenzveig, L.~G. Marcassa, K. Helmerson, J. Flemming, S.~C.
493: Zilio, and V.~S. Bagnato, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 52}, R4340 (1995).
494:
495: \bibitem{SanNusAnt99}
496: M.~S. Santos, P. Nussenzveig, A. Antunes, P.~S.~P. Cardona, and V.~S. Bagnato,
497: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 60}, 3892 (1999).
498:
499: \bibitem{TelMarMun99}
500: G.~D. Telles, I.~G. Marcassa, S.~R. Muniz, S.~G. Minanda, A. Antunes, C.
501: Westbrook, and V.~S. Bagnato, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 59}, R23 (1999).
502:
503: \bibitem{YouEjnSha00}
504: Y.~E. Young, R. Ejnisman, J.~P. Shaffer, and N.~P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. A {\bf
505: 62}, 055403 (2000).
506:
507: \bibitem{ShaChaBig99}
508: J.~P. Shaffer, W. Chalupczak, and N.~P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 60}, R3365
509: (1999).
510:
511: \bibitem{ShaChaBig99b}
512: J.~P. Shaffer, W. Chalupczak, and N.~P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 61}, 011404
513: (1999).
514:
515: \bibitem{ShaChaBig99a}
516: J.~P. Shaffer, W. Chalupczak, and N.~P. Bigelow, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 82},
517: 1124 (1999).
518:
519: \bibitem{EjnRudBig97}
520: R. Ejnisman, P. Rudy, N.~P. Bigelow, P.~S.~P. Cardona, A.~M. Tuboy, D.~M. B.~P.
521: Milori, V.~S. Bagnato, and I.~D. Goldman, Braz.\ J.\ Phys. {\bf 27}, 247
522: (1997).
523:
524: \bibitem{DerJohSaf99}
525: A. Derevianko, W.~R. Johnson, M.~S. Safronova, and J.~F. Babb, Phys.\ Rev.\
526: Lett. {\bf 82}, 3589 (1999).
527:
528: \bibitem{Goo73}
529: J. Goodisman, {\em Diatomic Interaction Potential Theory} (Academic Press, New
530: York, 1973), Vol.~2.
531:
532: \bibitem{Dal67}
533: A. Dalgarno, in {\em Intermolecular Forces}, Vol.~12 of {\em Advances in
534: Chemical Physics}, edited by J.~O. Hirschfelder (Wiley, New York, 1967), p.\
535: 143.
536:
537: \bibitem{SafJohDer99}
538: M.~S. Safronova, W.~R. Johnson, and A. Derevianko, Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 60},
539: 4476 (1999).
540:
541: \bibitem{BluJohSap90}
542: S.~A. Blundell, W.~R. Johnson, and J. Sapirstein, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 65},
543: 1411 (1990).
544:
545: \bibitem{vanAbeVer99}
546: F.~A. {van Abeelen} and B.~J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 59}, 578 (1999).
547:
548: \bibitem{ChiVulKer00}
549: C. Chin, V. Vuletic, A.~J. Kerman, and S. Chu, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 85},
550: 2117 (2000).
551:
552: \bibitem{YanBabDal96}
553: Z.-C. Yan, J.~F. Babb, A. Dalgarno, and G.~W.~F. Drake, Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf
554: 54}, 2824 (1996).
555:
556: \bibitem{BluJohLiu89}
557: S.~A. Blundell, W.~R. Johnson, Z.~W. Liu, and J. Sapirstein, Phys.\ Rev.\ A
558: {\bf 40}, 2233 (1989).
559:
560: \bibitem{JohBluSap88}
561: W. Johnson, S. Blundell, and J. Sapirstein, Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 37}, 307
562: (1988).
563:
564: \bibitem{AmuChe75}
565: M. Amusia and N. Cherepkov, Case Studies in Atomic Physics {\bf 5}, 47
566: (1975).
567:
568: \bibitem{McAAbrHul96}
569: W.~I. McAlexander, E.~R.~I. Abraham, and R.~G. Hulet, Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 54},
570: R5 (1996).
571:
572: \bibitem{MarAubBac97}
573: F. Martin, M. Aubert-Fr{\'e}con, R. Bacis, P. Crozet, C. Linton, S. Magnier,
574: A.~J. Ross, and I. Russier, Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 55}, 3458 (1997).
575:
576: \bibitem{JohChe96}
577: W.~R. Johnson and K.~T. Cheng, Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 53}, 1375 (1996).
578:
579: \bibitem{SafJoh00}
580: M.~S. Safronova and W.~R. Johnson, available at
581: http://www.nd.edu/\~{}johnson/Publications/C6\_Rb.pdf (unpublished).
582:
583: \bibitem{DraTolTja00}
584: C. Drag, B.~L. Tolra, B. T'Jampens, D. Comparat, M. Allegrini, A. Crubellier,
585: and P. Pillet, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 85}, 1408 (2000).
586:
587: \bibitem{DalDav67}
588: A. Dalgarno and W.~D. Davison, Mol. Phys. {\bf 13}, 479 (1967).
589:
590: \bibitem{MaeKut79}
591: F. Maeder and W. Kutzelnigg, Chem.\ Phys. {\bf 42}, 95 (1979).
592:
593: \bibitem{MarSadDal94}
594: M. Marinescu, H.~R. Sadeghpour, and A. Dalgarno, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 49}, 982
595: (1994).
596:
597: \bibitem{RusRosAub00}
598: I. Russier-Antoine, A. Ross, M. Aubert-Frecon, F. Martin, and P. Crozet, J.
599: Phys.\ B {\bf 33}, 2753 (2000).
600:
601: \bibitem{MarSad99}
602: M. Marinescu and H. Sadeghpour, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 59}, 390 (1999).
603:
604: \bibitem{ZemStw99}
605: W.~T. Zemke and W.~C. Stwalley, J. Chem.\ Phys. {\bf 111}, 4956 (1999).
606:
607: \bibitem{PatTan97}
608: S.~H. Patil and K.~T. Tang, J. Chem.\ Phys. {\bf 106}, 2298 (1997).
609:
610: \bibitem{IshMukTan94}
611: K. Ishikawa, N. Mukai, and W. Tanimura, J. Chem.\ Phys. {\bf 101}, 876
612: (1994).
613:
614: \bibitem{RosEffDin85}
615: A.~J. Ross, C. Effantin, J. {d'}Incan, and R.~F. Barrow, Mol. Phys. {\bf 56},
616: 903 (1985).
617:
618: %\end{thebibliography}
619:
620:
621:
622: \end{references}
623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
624: \end{document}
625:
626: