1: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
2: \begin{document}
3: \title[Hyperspherical partial wave calculation for double photoionization of helium]
4: {Hyperspherical partial wave calculation for double
5: photoionization of the helium atom at 20 eV excess energy}
6:
7:
8: \author{J. N. Das\dag,\ K. Chakrabarti\ddag\ and S.
9: Paul\dag}
10:
11: \address{\dag\ Department of Applied Mathematics, University
12: College of Science, 92 Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Calcutta -
13: 700 009, India}
14: \address{\ddag\ Department of Mathematics, Scottish Church College,
15: 1 \& 3 Urquhart Square, Calcutta - 700 006, India}
16:
17: \ead{jndas@cucc.ernet.in}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: Hyperspherical partial wave approach has been applied here in
21: the study of double photoionization of the helium atom for equal
22: energy sharing geometry at 20 eV excess energy. Calculations have
23: been done both in length and velocity gauges and are found to
24: agree with each other, with the CCC results and with experiments
25: and exhibit some advantages of the corresponding three particle
26: wave function over other wave functions in use.
27: \end{abstract} \submitto{JPB}
28:
29: \section{Introduction}
30:
31: There has been a significant development in the last one decade
32: in the theoretical study of double photoionization (DPI) of the
33: helium atom. This was possible because of rapid developments in
34: the experimental side by several groups, extending over several
35: countries. Double photoionization of the helium atom is one of the
36: most basic atomic processes. Even then, this problem merits
37: further detailed studies as it involves complex three body effects
38: and electron correlations that are not yet fully understood. Total
39: DPI cross section for helium has been measured by several groups
40: \cite{BW95,DR98,WR97,SAR98} and also calculated theoretically by
41: many others \cite{PS95,KB98a,CP01,MS00}. In general there is good
42: agreement between the observed and the calculated cross sections.
43: However, there are also some discrepancies. For example
44: experimental results of Samson \etal and of Bizau and Wuilleumier,
45: although agree within 15 percent of each other, there are
46: systematic differences at energies above 1 Rydberg. So also is
47: the case regarding the theories. Results of hyperspherical
48: $\mathcal{R}$-matrix with semi-classical outgoing waves
49: (H$\mathcal{R}$M-SOW) of Selles \etal \cite{SM02} agree favourably
50: with the results of Bizau and Wuilleumier \cite{BW95} while the
51: 2SC calculation of Pont and Shakeshaft \cite{PS95} favours the
52: measurements of Samson \emph{et al} \cite{SAR98} (see ref.
53: \cite{SM02}). As regards the differential cross-sections,
54: understanding of the results has much improved with the
55: availability of results of some elaborate calculations like the
56: time-dependent close coupling (TDCC) calculation of Colgan
57: \emph{et al} \cite{CP01}, the H$\mathcal{R}$M-SOW calculation of
58: Malegat \etal and Selles \emph{et al} \cite{MS00,SM02} in addition
59: to the earlier results (\cite{BD98,KB98b,KB98c,KB00}) and the
60: recent results (\cite{CV00,BP01,DC01} of CCC theory, the most
61: extensively applied theory to the problem to date. For the status
62: of the CCC and some other methods the review article by Briggs and
63: Schimdt \cite{BS00} may be seen. Even then there remains the task
64: of improving the theoretical estimates, particularly at low
65: energies and for unequal-energy-sharing geometries (for which the
66: results appear comparatively less satisfactory) as well as for
67: better understanding of the physics of the DPI problem of helium
68:
69: In the time-independent frame work the solution of the
70: problem depends basically on the accurate computation of the
71: T-matrix element given by
72: \begin{equation}
73: T_{fi} = \langle \Psi_f^{(-)}|V|\Phi_i \rangle,
74: \end{equation}
75: where $\Phi_{i}(\vec r_1, \vec r_2)$ is the helium ground state
76: wave function, V is the interaction term given by
77: \begin{equation}
78: V = \vec{\epsilon} \cdot \vec{D}.
79: \end{equation}
80: $\vec D$ is the dipole operator and is given $\vec D = \vec
81: \nabla_1 + \vec \nabla_2$ (velocity form) or \linebreak $\omega_i
82: (\vec{r}_1 + \vec{r}_2 )$ (length form) and
83: $\Psi_f^{(-)}(\vec{r}_1, \vec {r}_2)$ is the final channel
84: continuum wave function with incoming wave boundary condition for
85: the two outgoing electrons and $\omega_i$ is the incident photon
86: energy. Here $\vec\epsilon$ is the photon polarization direction
87: and $\vec{r}_1$, $\vec{r}_2$ are the co-ordinates of the two
88: outgoing electrons, the nucleus being at the origin.
89:
90: For accurate cross section results one needs accurate wave
91: functions $\Phi_i$ and $\Psi_f^{(-)}$. Accurate bound state helium
92: wave functions are easily available. There exists a number of such
93: wave functions for the ground state (and low-lying excited states)
94: in analytic form of different accuracies, such as simple Hartree
95: Fock type wave function used by Maulbetsch and Briggs \cite{MB93}
96: or a Hylleraas type wave function given by Chandrashekhar and
97: Herzberg \cite{CH55} or by Hart and Herzberg \cite{HH57}. If
98: needed, one may also readily generate an arbitrarily accurate
99: bound state wave function along the line developed by Pekeris
100: \cite{PEK58}. But for $\Psi_f^{(-)}$ there are no such simple
101: accurate wavefunctions in analytical form. Most wave functions
102: used in the literature are either incorrect at finite distances or
103: in the asymptotic domain, as 3C \cite{BBK89} or 2SC \cite{PS95b}
104: wave functions. There are now many calculations of varied
105: accuracies depending mainly on the use of different final channel
106: wave functions.
107:
108: Without caring for the explicit form of the wave functions,
109: Huetz and co-workers \cite{HS91} established dependence of cross
110: sections on various angular variables of the outgoing electrons
111: and on energy. For the equal energy sharing geometry case it turns
112: out to be rather simple in form. On least squares fitting this
113: gives good representation of the triple differential cross
114: section(TDCS) results (some authors prefer the name five fold
115: differential cross sections (FDCS)which is more appropriate and
116: relevant in view of some recent experimental results \cite{AM01}.
117: However, we will continue to call it TDCS).
118:
119: For the study of TDCS close to threshold there are the
120: Wannier calculations by Faegin \cite{FJ95, FJ96}. These give good
121: representation of the shape of TDCS results at 6 eV excess energy
122: but miserably fail at higher energies.
123:
124: There are also a number of detailed calculations by Maulbetsch
125: and Briggs \cite{MB93, MBS95} which used for the final state wave
126: function, the 3C wave function of BBK theory \cite{BBK89} and
127: produced moderately accurate cross section results. It is well
128: known that the 3C wave function is correct in the asymptotic
129: domain (when all of $r_1$, $r_2$ and $r_{12}$ are large) but it is
130: not accurate enough at finite distances. Similar calculations are
131: reported by Pont and Shakeshaft \cite{PS95, PS95b, PS96}. They
132: used screened coulomb (2SC) wave functions (for the outgoing
133: electrons) which is supposed to be a better wave function (but not
134: asymptotically exact). The results are much better.
135:
136: Later Lucey \textit{et al} \cite{LR98} tried various initial state and
137: final state wave functions, including the 3C wave function (none
138: accurate enough), tested gauge dependence and found much
139: discrepancies in the results.
140:
141: In this work, we consider yet another high level computational
142: scheme which is capable of yielding reliable cross sections. This
143: is the Hyperspherical partial wave approach of one of the authors
144: (Das \cite{JND94,JND98,JND01,JND02}, Das \textit{et al}
145: \cite{DPC03}) which is very successful in representing the
146: three-particle continuum wave function in the final channel very
147: accurately.
148:
149: Here we use a 20-term correlated Hylleraas type wave function of
150: the form
151:
152: \begin{equation}
153: \Phi_i(r_1, r_2) = \aleph \,e^{-\frac{k}{2}(r_1+r_2)}
154: \sum_{n_1,n_2,n_3} C_{n_1 n_2 n_3}{(r_1+r_2)}^{n_1}
155: {(r_1-r_2)}^{n_2}\,r_{12}^{n_3}
156: \end{equation}
157:
158: \noindent given by Hart and Herzberg \cite{HH57} for the helium
159: ground state and use the final channel wave function calculated
160: in the hyperspherical partial wave approach as indicated below.
161:
162: It may be noted here that our present approach and the
163: H$\mathcal{R}$M-SOW approach are similar in some respects,
164: although ours is a fully quantal approach whereas the
165: H$\mathcal{R}$M-SOW approach is partly semi classical. From the
166: recent calculations of Selles \emph{et al} on H$\mathcal{R}$M-SOW
167: approach, it is clear that for unequal energy sharing kinematics
168: one needs to consider the asymptotic range parameter $R_{\infty}$
169: (considered below) to have values of several thousands a.u. for
170: converged results, whereas for equal energy sharing cases only few
171: hundreds suffice. So we restrict our present study to equal
172: energy sharing cases only, which is much easier.\\
173:
174: \section{Hyperspherical Partial Wave Approach}
175:
176: In this section we outline the most salient features
177: of this method. For the final state $\Psi_f^{(-)}$, which needs
178: more accurate treatment, we use hyperspherical co-coordinates
179: $R=\sqrt{{r_1}^2 + {r_2}^2}$, $\alpha = atan(r_2/r_1), \;
180: \hat{r_1}=(\theta_{1}, \phi_{1}), \; \hat{r_2}=(\theta_{2},
181: \phi_{2})$ and $\omega=(\alpha, \hat{r_1}, \hat{r_2})$ and put
182: $P=\sqrt{{p_1}^2 + {p_2}^2}$, $\alpha_0 = atan(p_2/p_1), \;
183: \hat{p_1}=(\theta_{p_1}, \phi_{p_1}), \; \hat{p_2}= (\theta_{p_2},
184: \phi_{p_2})$ and $\omega_0=(\alpha_0, \hat{p_1}, \hat{p_2})$,
185: $\vec{p_1}, \; \vec{p_2}$ being momenta of the two outgoing
186: electrons of energies $E_1$ and $E_2$ and coordinates $\vec{r_1},
187: \; \vec{r_2}$ . We expand $\Psi_f^{(-)}$ in hyperspherical
188: harmonics (Das \cite{JND98}, Lin \cite{LIN74}) which are functions
189: of the above five angular variables and depend on the variables
190: $\ell_1,\, \ell_2, n, L, M$ (collectively called $\lambda$) which
191: are respectively the angular momenta of the two electrons, the
192: order of the Jacobi polynomial and the total angular momentum and
193: its projection, in addition to the dependence on S, the total
194: spin. It may be noted that $L, S, \pi$ (the parity) are conserved
195: here.
196:
197: Thus we decompose the symmetrized wave function $\Psi_{fs}^{(-)}$ as
198:
199: \begin{equation}
200: \Psi_{fs}^{(-)}(R, \omega)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sum_{\lambda}
201: \frac{F_{\lambda}^s(\rho)}{{\rho}^{\frac{5}{2}}}\;
202: \phi_{\lambda}^s(\omega),
203: \end{equation}
204: following the expansion of the symmetrized plane wave [20]
205: \begin{eqnarray}
206: [exp(i\vec{p_1}\cdot\vec{r_1}+i\vec{p_2}\cdot\vec{r_2}) & + & (-1)^s
207: exp(i\vec{p_2} \cdot\vec{r_1}+i\vec{p_1} \cdot
208: \vec{r_2})]/(2\pi)^3\nonumber \\
209: & & {} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sum_{\lambda}i^{\lambda}
210: \frac{j_{\lambda}^s(\rho)}{{\rho}^{\frac{3}{2}}}\;
211: \phi_{\lambda}^{s*}(\omega_0)\;\phi_{\lambda}^{s}(\omega).
212: \end{eqnarray}
213:
214: \noindent
215: Here $\lambda = \ell_1 + \ell_2 +2\,n$ and $\rho = PR$.
216:
217: The $F_{\lambda}^s$ satisfy an infinite coupled set of equations
218: \begin{equation}
219: \Big[ \frac{d^2}{d\rho^2} +1 -
220: \frac{\nu_{\lambda}\,(\nu_{\lambda}+1)} {\rho^2}\Big]
221: F_{\lambda}^s (\rho) + \sum_{\lambda'} \frac{2\;\alpha_{\lambda
222: \lambda'}^s}{P\rho} \ F_{\lambda'}^s(\rho) = 0
223: \end{equation}
224:
225: \noindent
226: where
227: \begin{equation}
228: \alpha_{\lambda \lambda'}^s = -\langle \phi_{\lambda}^s |C|
229: \phi_{\lambda'}^s \rangle,
230: \end{equation}
231: \begin{equation}
232: C=-
233: \frac{1}{cos\alpha}-\frac{1}{sin\alpha}+\frac{1}{|\hat{r_1}cos\alpha
234: -\hat{r_2}sin\alpha|}
235: \end{equation}
236:
237: \noindent and $\nu_{\lambda}=\lambda +\frac{3}{2}$ (note that we
238: use $\lambda$ with two different meanings depending on the
239: context). Here the radial waves with L=1, S=0 and $\pi = -1$ are
240: relevant for the T-matrix calculations.
241:
242: So here we fix $\mu = (L,S,\pi)$ with L=1, S=0 and $\pi= -1$,
243: call it $\mu_0$ and consider different $N=(\ell_1, \ell_2, n)$ and
244: set $F_{\lambda}^s \equiv f_N^{\mu_0}$ in equation (6). Further we
245: omit $\mu_0$ from $f_N^{\mu_0}$ and write the relevant coupled set
246: of equations (6) as
247: \begin{equation}
248: \Big[ \frac{d^2}{d\rho^2} +1 - \frac{\nu_N\,(\nu_N+1)}
249: {\rho^2}\Big]f_N^s + \sum_{N'} \frac{2\; \alpha_{NN'}^s} {P\rho}
250: \, f_{N'}^s = 0.
251: \end{equation}
252: For our numerical computations we truncate the set to some maximum
253: value $N_{mx}$ of N. These $N_{mx}$ equations in $N_{mx}$
254: variables are needed to be solved from origin to infinity.
255: Actually we need construction of $N_{mx}$ independent solutions
256: which vanish at the origin. Now for convenience we divide the
257: whole solution domain $(0, \infty)$ into three subdomains $(0,
258: \Delta), (\Delta, R_{\infty})$ and $(R_{\infty}, \infty)$, where
259: $\Delta$ has the value of a few atomic units and $R_{\infty}$ is a
260: point in the asymptotic domain. Best choices for these may be made
261: by simple variations. Results do not depend significantly on
262: these. But for converged results in some situations, values of
263: $R_{\infty}$, as in H$\mathcal{R}$M-SOW calculation \cite{SM02},
264: are to be thousands of atomic units. Next we proceed for solutions
265: over subdomains. For $(R_{\infty}, \infty)$ we have simple
266: analytic solutions \cite{JND98}:
267: \begin{equation}
268: f_{snN}^s(\rho) = \sum_{\ell}\; \frac{a_{kN}^{(\ell)}sin\;
269: \theta_k}{\rho^\ell} +\frac{b_{kN}^{(\ell)}cos\;
270: \theta_k}{\rho^\ell}
271: \end{equation}
272: \begin{equation}
273: f_{snN}^s(\rho) = \sum_{\ell}\;
274: \frac{c_{kN}^{(\ell)}sin\; \theta_k}{\rho^\ell}
275: +\frac{d_{kN}^{(\ell)}cos\; \theta_k}{\rho^\ell}
276: \end{equation}
277:
278: \noindent where $f^{(k)}_{snN}$ and $f^{(k)}_{csN}$ are the N-th
279: element of the k-th solution vectors. Obviously these give
280: 2$N_{mx}$ independent solution vectors. The coefficients in these
281: expressions are determined through recurrence relations (see Das
282: \cite{JND98}) in terms of $a^{(0)}_{kN} = a_{kN}$ and
283: $b^{(0)}_{kN} = 0$, $c^{(0)}_{kN} = 0$, $d^{(0)}_{kN} = a_{kN}$,
284: $a_{kN}$ being the N-th element of the k-th eigen vector of the
285: charge matrix $A=(\alpha_{NN'})$. Here we have $\theta_k = \rho +
286: \alpha_k ln\;2\rho$, $\alpha_k$ being the k-th eigen value of A.
287:
288: Solution over $(\Delta, R_{\infty})$ is also very simple.
289: Because of the simple structure of equations (9) a Taylors
290: expansion method works nicely. Earlier for the (e, 2e) problem,
291: Das also adopted this approach \cite{JND01,JND02}. But the main
292: difficulty lies in the construction of the solution vectors over
293: $(0, \Delta)$. In those calculations on (e, 2e) problem Das used
294: an approach as in R-matrix calculations \cite{BR75}. But very
295: often, this invites pseudo resonance type behaviour causing
296: undesirable oscillations in the cross sections. Recently \cite
297: {DPC03} for \linebreak (e, 2e) problem, we applied the finite
298: difference method (a five-point scheme) for solutions in the
299: interval $(0, \Delta$) and thereby get rid of undesirable
300: oscillations. So we adopted here the same approach but with a
301: seven-point scheme in place of the five-point scheme.
302:
303: Thus for the solution in the interval $(0, \Delta)$ we recast
304: equations (9) in terms of R instead of $\rho$, as
305: \begin{equation}
306: \Big[ \frac{d^2}{dR^2} + P^2 - \frac{\nu_N\,(\nu_N+1)}
307: {R^2}\Big]f_N^s + \sum_{N'=1}^{N_{mx}} \frac{2\;\alpha_{NN'}^s}
308: {R} \,f_{N'}^s = 0,
309: \end{equation}
310:
311: \noindent and solve these equations as a two point boundary value
312: problem by difference equation method. At $R = 0$, the solution
313: vectors are set to zero while at $R=\Delta$ we assign to the k-th
314: solution vector the k-th column of the unit matrix. The matrix for
315: the corresponding difference equation is a sparse matrix and for
316: its solution special methods are available. Here we use
317: biconjugate gradient method \cite{FL75}. We find that this method
318: readily works and gives converged solutions.
319:
320: Now for the difference equations we divide the interval $[0, \Delta]$
321: into \textit{m} subintervals of length h with mesh points $$0=R_0
322: \; < \; R_1 < \; R_2 \; < \; \cdots < \;R_k < \cdots < \; R_{m-1}
323: \; < R_m=\Delta$$ with $R_k = R_0 + kh$ and use the following
324: seven-point difference formula:\pagebreak
325:
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: f_N^{''}(R_k)&=&\frac{1}{\,h^2}\Big[\ \frac{1}{90}f_N(R_{k-3})-
328: \frac{3}{20}16f_N(R_{k-2}) \nonumber\\
329: &+& \frac{3}{2}f_N(R_{k-1})-\frac{49}{18} f_N(R_{k})
330: +\frac{3}{2}f_N(R_{k+1}) - \frac{3}{20}16f_N(R_{k+2}) \nonumber\\
331: &+&\frac{1}{90}f_N(R_{k+3})\Big]
332: +\{\frac{69}{25200}\,h^6f_N^{(viii)}(\xi_1)\}
333: \end{eqnarray}
334: for $k = 3, 4, \cdots , m-4, m-3$, and for $k = 1, 2$ and $m-2,
335: m-1$ the formulae
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: f_N^{''}(R_1) &=&\frac{1}{h^2}\Big[ \frac{3}{8}f_N(R_0)+6f_N(R_1)-
338: \frac{11}{2}\,h^2f_N^{''}(R_2) \nonumber\\
339: &-& \frac{51}{4}f_N(R_3)-\,h^2f_N^{''}(R_3)+6f_N(R_4
340: +\frac{3}{8}f_N(R_4)\Big]\nonumber\\
341: &+& \{-\frac{23}{10080}\,h^6f^{(viii)}(\xi_2)\}.
342: \end{eqnarray}
343: \begin{eqnarray}
344: f_N^{''}(R_2) &=&\frac{1}{h^2}\Big[ \frac{3}{8}f_N(R_1)+6f_N(R_2)-
345: \frac{11}{2}\,h^2f_N^{''}(R_3) -
346: \frac{51}{4}f_N(R_3) \nonumber\\
347: &-&\,h^2f_N^{''}(R_4)+6f_N(R_4)+\frac{3}{8}f_N(R_5)\Big]\nonumber\\
348: &+& \{-\frac{23}{10080}\,h^6f^{(viii)}(\xi_3)\}.
349: \end{eqnarray}
350: \begin{eqnarray}
351: f_N^{''}(R_{m-2}) &=&\frac{1}{h^2}\Big[
352: \frac{3}{8}f_N(R_{m-5})+6f_N(R_{m-4})-\,h^2f_N^{''}(R_{m-4})
353: -\frac{51}{4}f_N(R_{m-3})\nonumber\\
354: &&-\frac{11}{2}\,h^2f_N^{''}(R_{m-3})
355: +6f_N(R_{m-2})+\frac{3}{8}f_N(R_{m-1})\Big]\nonumber\\
356: &&+ \{-\frac{23}{10080}\,h^6f^{(viii)}(\xi_4)\}.
357: \end{eqnarray}
358: and
359: \begin{eqnarray}
360: f_N^{''}(R_{m-1}) &=&\frac{1}{h^2}\Big[
361: \frac{3}{8}f_N(R_{m-4})+6f_N(R_{m-3})-\,h^2f_N^{''}(R_{m-3})-
362: \frac{51}{4}f_N(R_{m-2}) \nonumber\\
363: &&-\frac{11}{2}\,h^2f_N^{''}(R_{m-2})+6f_N(R_{m-1})+\frac{3}{8}f_N(R_{m})\
364: \Big]\nonumber\\
365: &&+ \{-\frac{23}{10080}\,h^6f^{(viii)}(\xi_5)\}.
366: \end{eqnarray}
367:
368: The quantities on the right hand sides within curly brackets
369: represent the error terms. The corresponding difference equations
370: are obtained by substituting these expressions the values of
371: second order derivatives from the differential equation (12). For
372: continuing these solutions in the domain $(\Delta, \; R_\infty)$
373: we need first order derivatives ${f'}_N(R)$ at $\Delta$. These are
374: computed from the difference formula
375:
376: \begin{eqnarray}
377: f_N^{'}(R_m) & = & \frac{1}{84h}[-f_N(R_{m-4} +
378: 24f_N(R_{m-2})-128f_N(R_{m-1})+105f_N(R_m)] \nonumber \\
379: & + & \frac{2h}{7}f_N^{''}(R_n) +
380: \{-\frac{4h^4}{105}f_N^{(v)}(\xi)\}
381: \end{eqnarray}
382:
383: Here too, the quantity within curly brackets represents the
384: error term. The solutions thus obtained in $(0, \Delta)$ are then
385: continued over $(\Delta, R_{\infty})$ by Taylor's expansion
386: method, as stated earlier, with stabilization after suitable steps
387: \cite{CT75}. The $N_{mx}$ independent solution vectors so
388: obtained, are put together to get the solution matrix $f_0$. The
389: solution matrices $f_{sn}$ and $f_{cs}$ are similarly obtained,
390: whose N-kth element are respectively $f^{(k)}_{snN}$ and
391: $f^{(k)}_{csN}$, given by (10) and (11) respectively.
392:
393: Next we introduce the K-matrix through the relation
394: \begin{equation}
395: f_0 \cdot B = f_{sn} +f_{cs} \cdot K
396: \end{equation}
397:
398: \noindent where $B$ is an unknown constant matrix. The K-matrix is
399: determined from matching values and first order derivatives at
400: $R_\infty$, where all of $f_0, \; f_{sn}$ and $f_{cs}$ are valid.
401: (It may be noted here that there is a slight departure in our
402: definition of K-matrix from the usual practice. However, it is
403: symmetric as it should be).
404:
405: Finally the physical scattering state with appropriate boundary
406: conditions is taken as
407:
408: \begin{equation}
409: \mathbf{f_{ph}} = f_0 \cdot \textbf{g}
410: \end{equation}
411:
412: \noindent
413: and also we have
414: \begin{eqnarray}
415: \mathbf{f_{ph}} & = & (f_{sn} + f_{cs} \cdot K) \cdot
416: \mathbf{c} \nonumber\\
417: & = & f_{sn}\cdot \mathbf{c} + f_{cs} \cdot \mathbf{d}
418: \end{eqnarray}
419: with
420: \begin{equation}
421: \mathbf{d} = K \cdot \mathbf{c}.
422: \end{equation}
423:
424: \noindent Thus the physical state is completely determined once
425: the vector $\mathbf{c}$ is determined. Now $\mathbf{c}$ is
426: determined from the consideration that $\Psi_{fs}^{(-)}$ is
427: asymptotically a (distorted) plane wave (representing the two
428: outgoing electrons) plus incoming waves only. So the coefficients
429: of the outgoing wave $exp(i\rho)$ of both $\Psi_{fs}^{(-)}$ and
430: the symmetrized plane wave (equation (5)) must be the same (except
431: for the distorting term $exp(i\alpha_k ln\;2\rho)$). This requires
432:
433: \begin{equation}
434: \mathbf{c} = [I + iK]^{-1}\mathbf{P}
435: \end{equation}
436:
437: \noindent
438: where
439: \begin{equation}
440: \mathbf{P} = -2 e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}} \;
441: X^{-1}\mathbf{{\Phi}^{s*}(\omega_0)},
442: \end{equation}
443: \noindent
444: and X is the matrix comprising of the columns of eigen vectors of the
445: charge matrix A and $\mathbf{{\Phi}^{s*}}$ is given by
446:
447: \begin{equation}
448: \mathbf{ {\Phi}^{s*}(\omega_0)}=
449: \left(\begin{array}{c}
450: \phi_1^{s*}(\omega_0)\\
451: \; \vdots\\ \phi_{N_{mx}}^{s*}(\omega_0)
452: \end{array} \right).
453: \end{equation}
454:
455: Finally the DPI triple differential cross section is given by
456: \begin{equation}
457: \frac{d^3\sigma}{d\Omega_1 d\Omega_2 dE_1} = \frac{2\pi^2\alpha
458: p_1p_2}{\omega_i} |T_{fi}|^2,
459: \end{equation}
460: after the inclusion of $\mu_0$-part of $\Psi_{fs}^{(-)}$ in
461: $T_{fi}$.
462:
463: \section{Results}
464:
465: In our present calculation we have applied the above
466: hyperspherical partial wave approach both in length and velocity
467: gauges. Here we consider equal-energy-sharing case, since then the
468: computational problem becomes little simple. For this calculation
469: we have chosen $\Delta = 5$ a.u., $R_{\infty} = 300$ a.u., $h =
470: 0.05$ a.u. upto $\Delta$ and 0.1 a.u. beyond $\Delta$. We have
471: included 90 coupled channels with $n$ upto 9 and $(l_1, l_2)$
472: combinations nearly as in ECS calculation \cite{BR01} for electron
473: - hydrogen ionization collision. We have chosen the case of
474: ionization at 20 eV excess energy as it has been widely considered
475: and for which there are interesting experimental results
476: \cite{BD98}. For the present calculations with 90 channels and
477: $R_{\infty} = 300$ a.u., our single differential cross section
478: (SDCS) is little above the desired value of about 0.93 Kb/eV at
479: $E/2$ (E being the excess photon energy). So we normalized our
480: TDCS by scaling with a factor 0.8 (which is also the factor we use
481: to scale our SDCS to get the desired value of 0.93 Kb/eV at $E/2$)
482: both in the length and in the velocity gauges. The TDCS results
483: thus obtained are presented in \linebreak figure 1. Here we
484: compare our results with the experimental results of Br\"auning
485: \textit{et al} \cite{BD98} and with the theoretical results of the
486: CCC calculation only \cite{BD98,ASK}, since the overall agreement
487: of the CCC results are known to be somewhat better compared to the
488: results of other calculations like TDCC, H$\mathcal{R}$M-SOW etc.
489: In all the cases the agreement between the velocity and length
490: gauge calculations is excellent everywhere. We also did
491: calculations in the acceleration gauge and these are
492: indistinguishable from those of the velocity gauge. Agreement with
493: the experimental results and with the CCC results are also
494: generally good except for some spurious peaks at $\theta_{p_1} =
495: 0^o$. The CCC results appear a little better compared to ours.
496:
497: For unequal energy sharing our approach also works and we have
498: reasonably good results. But for fully converged results, we have
499: to consider larger values for $R_{\infty}$. So we wish to report
500: such results in future when our study is completed.
501:
502: \section{Conclusions}
503:
504: The present calculation, reported here, has only approximately
505: converged. The results we have obtained, go to show that the
506: hyperspherical three-particle scattering state wave function, used
507: in the present calculation, must be reasonably accurate from
508: small distances to the asymptotic region, since the results in all
509: the three gauges are practically identical. In contrast, the 3C or
510: other similar wave functions, which are not accurate at finite
511: distances, show strong gauge dependence \cite{LR98}. We also
512: mention that the present calculation is free from any genuine
513: difficulty and does not show any weakness worth mentioning. The
514: present approach may easily be applied to DPI with varied types of
515: polarization of the incident photons. With judicial choice of the
516: parameter $R_{\infty}$ and possibly with the availability of
517: better computational facilities, the method may be applied from
518: very low energy to high energy cases. At this point if we recall
519: the capability of the hyperspherical partial wave approach in
520: representing electron-hydrogen-atom ionization collisions
521: \cite{JND01,JND02,DPC03} at low energies (and also consider
522: situations of very low energy cases, with excess energy 1 eV and
523: below for which we had to take $R_{\infty}$ about 4000 - 5000 a.u.
524: and get reliable results for ionization cross sections
525: \cite{DP03}), consider the present success, then we may expect the
526: hyperspherical partial wave theory to have a very good prospect.
527:
528: \ack
529:
530: We are grateful to H. Br\"auning for providing us with the
531: experimental results and to Igor Bray and Anatoly Kheifets for
532: providing us with the CCC results in electronic form. KC
533: acknowledges support from the UGC in the form of a Minor Research
534: Project F.PSW-035/02(ERO). SP is grateful to CSIR for providing a
535: research fellowship. \pagebreak
536:
537: \section*{References}
538: \begin{thebibliography}{50}
539: \bibitem{BW95}
540: Bizau J M and Wuillemier F J 1995 J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat.
541: Phenom. {\bf{71}} 205.
542: \bibitem{DR98}
543: D\"orner R \etal 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf{76}} 2654.
544: \bibitem{WR97}
545: Whelitz R \etal 1997 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. {\bf{30}}
546: L51.
547: \bibitem{SAR98}
548: Samson J A R, Stolte W C, He Z X, Cutler J N, Lu Y, Bartlett R J
549: 1998 Phys. Rev. A {\bf{57}} 1906.
550: \bibitem{PS95}
551: Pont M and Shakeshaft R 1995 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.
552: {\bf{28}} L571.
553: \bibitem{KB98a}
554: Kheifets A K and Bray I 1998 Phys. Rev. A{\bf{58}} 4501.
555: \bibitem{CP01} %7
556: Colgan J, Pindzola M S and Robichaux F 2001 J. Phys. B: At. Mol.
557: Opt. Phys. \textbf{34} L457.
558: \bibitem{MS00}
559: Malegat L, Selles P and Kazansky A K 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett.
560: \textbf{85} 4450. %8
561: \bibitem{SM02}
562: Selles P, Malegat L and Kazansky A K 2002 Phys. Rev. A{\bf{65}}
563: 032711. %9
564: \bibitem{BD98}
565: Br\"auning H, D\"orner R, Cocke C L, Prior M H, Kr\"assig B,
566: Kheifets A S, Bray I, Br\"auning-Demian A, Carnes K, Dreuil S,
567: Mergel V, Richard P, Ulrich J and Schmidt-B\"ocking H 1998 J.
568: Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. \textbf{31} 5149. %10
569: \bibitem{KB98b}
570: Khiefets A S and Bray I 1998 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.
571: \textbf{31} L447. %11
572: \bibitem{KB98c}
573: Khiefets A S and Bray I 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{81} 4588.
574: \bibitem{KB00} %12
575: Khiefets A S and Bray I 2000 Phys. Rev. A \textbf{62} 065402. %13
576: \bibitem{CV00}
577: Cvejanovi\'c S \etal 2000 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.
578: \textbf{33} 265. %14
579: \bibitem{BP01}
580: Bolognesi P \etal 2001 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. \textbf{34}
581: 3195. %15
582: \bibitem{DC01}
583: Dawson C \etal 2001 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. \textbf{34}
584: L525. %16
585: \bibitem{BS00}
586: Briggs J S and Schmidt V 2000 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.
587: \textbf{33} R1-R48. %17
588: \bibitem{MB93}
589: Maulbetsch F and Briggs J S 1993 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.
590: \textbf{26} 1679. %18
591: \bibitem{CH55}
592: Chandrashekhar S and Herzburg G 1955 Phys. Rev. \textbf{98} 1050. %19
593: \bibitem{HH57}
594: Hart J F and Herzberg G 1957 Phys. Rev. \textbf{106} 79. %20
595: \bibitem{PEK58}
596: Pekeris C L 1958 Phys. Rev. \textbf{112} 1649. %21
597: \bibitem{BBK89}
598: Brauner M, Briggs J S and Klar H 1989 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt.
599: Phys. \textbf{22} 2265. %22
600: \bibitem{PS95b}
601: Pont M and Shakeshaft R 1995 Phys. Rev. A \textbf{51} R2676. %23
602: \bibitem{HS91}
603: Huetz A, Selles P, Waymel P and Mageau J 1991 J. Phys. B: At. Mol.
604: Opt. Phys. \textbf{24} 1917. %24
605: \bibitem{AM01}
606: Achler M, Mergel V, Spielberger L, D\"orner R, Azuma Y and
607: Schmidt-B\"ocking H 2001 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.
608: \textbf{34} 965. %25
609: \bibitem{FJ95}
610: Faegin J M 1995 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. \textbf{28} 1495. %26
611: \bibitem{FJ96}
612: Faegin J M 1996 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. \textbf{29} 1551. %27
613: \bibitem{MBS95}
614: Maulbetsch F, Briggs J S and Shakeshaft R 1995 J. Phys. B: At.
615: Mol. Opt. Phys. \textbf{28} L341. %28
616: \bibitem{PS96}
617: Pont M, Shakeshaft R, Maulbetsch F and Briggs J S 1996 Phys. Rev.
618: A \textbf{53} 3671. %29
619: \bibitem{LR98}
620: Lucy S P, Rasch J, Whelan C T and Walters H R H 1998 J. Phys. B:
621: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. \textbf{31} 1237. %30
622: \bibitem{JND94}
623: Das J N 1994 Aust. J. Phys. \textbf{47} 743. %31
624: \bibitem{JND98}
625: Das J N 1998 Pramana-J. Phys. \textbf{50} 53. %32
626: \bibitem{JND01}
627: Das J N 2001 Phys. Rev. A \textbf{64} 054703. %33
628: \bibitem{JND02}
629: Das J N 2002 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. \textbf{35} 1165. %34
630: \bibitem{DPC03}
631: Das J N, Paul S and Chakrabarti K 2003 Phys. Rev. A(to be
632: published). %35
633: \bibitem{LIN74}
634: Lin C D 1974 Phys. Rev. A \textbf{10} 1986. %36
635: \bibitem{BR75}
636: Burke P G and Robb W D 1975 Adv. Atom. Mol. Phys. \textbf{11}
637: 143. %37
638: \bibitem{FL75}
639: Fletcher R 1975 \textit{Numerical Analysis Dundee}, Lecture notes
640: in Mathematics, Vol. 506, eds. A. Dold and B. Eckmann, Springer
641: Verlag, Berlin, pp 73-89. %38
642: \bibitem{CT75}
643: Choi B H and Tang K T 1975 J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{63} 1775. %439
644: \bibitem{BR01}
645: Baertschy M, Rescigno T N, Isaacs W A, Li X and McCurdy C W 2001
646: Phys. Rev. A \textbf{63} 022712. %40
647: \bibitem{ASK}
648: Kheifets A S 2003 Private communication. %41.
649: \bibitem{DP03}
650: Das J N, Paul S and Chakrabarti K 2003 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt.
651: Phys. (submitted)
652:
653: \end{thebibliography}
654: %\end{flushleft}
655:
656: \pagebreak
657:
658: \begin{center}
659: \Large{\underline{Figure Captions}}
660: \end{center}
661:
662: \noindent \textbf{Figure 1.} Triple differential cross sections
663: for photo double ionization of the helium atom for equal energy
664: sharing geometry for 20 eV excess energy and for a) $\theta_{p_1}
665: = 0^o$, b) $\theta_{p_1} = 30^o$, c) $\theta_{p_1} = 60^o$, d)
666: $\theta_{p_1} = 90^o$, $\theta_{p_1}$ being measured from the
667: photon polarization direction. Theory : continuous curve, present
668: calculation in velocity gauge; dashed curve present calculation in
669: length gauge; dotted curve, CCC calculation \cite{BD98};
670: Experiment : absolute measured values of Br\"auning \textit{et
671: al}\cite{BD98}.
672:
673: \end{document}
674: