text:
# Some exact analytical results and a semi-empirical formula for single electron ionization induced by ultrarelativistic heavy ions

## I Introduction

In a recent work ionization cross sections were calculalated for a number of representative cases of collisions involving ultrarelativistic Pb, Zr, Ca, Ne and H ions. The method of calculation (on a computer) involved an exact semiclassical solution of the Dirac equation in the ultrarelativistic limit. A single electron was taken to be bound to one nucleus with the other nucleus completely stripped. The probability that the electron would be ionized in the collision was calculated as a function of impact parameter, and cross sections were then constructed by the usual integration of the probabilities over the impact parameter. The results of the probability calculations were used to construct cross sections for various ion-ion collision combinations in the form

$$\sigma =A\mathrm{ln}\gamma +B$$
(1)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants for a given ion-ion pair and $`\gamma (=1/\sqrt{1v^2})`$ is the relativistic factor one of the ions seen from the rest frame of the other.

In Section II of this paper analytic results are derived for the probability that a single ground state electron will be excited in an ultrarelativistic heavy ion reaction. Exact semiclassical formulas are presented for the limits of zero impact parameter and perturbational impact parameters. In Section III the perturbational impact parameter analytical form is used as a basis to construct semi-empirical formulas for $`A`$ and $`B`$. These formulas reproduce the previous numerical results for single particle ionization, and they illuminate the systematic behavior of $`A`$ and $`B`$ with changing target and projectile ion species. Ionization cross sections calculated with Eq.(1) are then compared with data.

## II Impact parameter dependent probabilities

If one works in the appropriate gauge , then the Coulomb potential produced by an ultrarelativistic particle (such as a heavy ion) in uniform motion can be expressed in the following form

$$V(𝝆,z,t)=\alpha Z_1(1\alpha _z)\delta (zt)\mathrm{ln}\frac{(𝐛𝝆)^2}{b^2}.$$
(2)
$`𝐛`$ is the impact parameter, perpendicular to the $`z`$–axis along which the ion travels, $`𝝆`$, $`z`$, and $`t`$ are the coordinates of the potential relative to a fixed target (or ion), $`\alpha _z`$ is the Dirac matrix, $`\alpha `$ the fine structure constant, and $`Z_1`$ and $`v`$ the charge and velocity of the moving ion. This is the physically relevant ultrarelativistic potential since it was obtained by ignoring terms in $`(𝐛𝝆)/\gamma ^2`$. Its multipole expansion is

$`V(𝝆,z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha Z_1(1\alpha _z)\delta (zt)`$ (7)
$`\{\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{b^2}}\rho >b`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}m\varphi }{m}}`$
$`\times [\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{b}}\right)^m\rho <b`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{b}{\rho }}\right)^m]\}.\rho >b`$
For $`b>>\rho `$

$$V(𝝆,z,t)=\delta (zt)\alpha Z_1(1\alpha _z)2\frac{\rho }{b}\mathrm{cos}\varphi .$$
(8)
As will be shown in Section III, when $`𝐛`$ becomes large enough that expression Eq.(4) is inaccurate for use in calculating a probability, we match onto a Weizsacker-Williams expression which is valid for large $`b`$. Note that the $`b^2`$ in the denominator of the logarithm in Eq.(2) is removable by a gauge transformation, and we retain the option of keeping or removing it as convenient.

It was shown in Ref.  that the $`\delta `$ function allows the Dirac equation to be solved exactly at the point of interaction, $`z=t`$. Exact amplitudes then take the form

$`a_f^j(t=\mathrm{})`$ $`=\delta _{fj}`$ $`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i(E_fE_j)t}\varphi _f|\delta (zt)(1\alpha _z)`$ (10)
$`\times (e^{i\alpha Z_1\mathrm{ln}(𝐛𝝆)^2}1)|\varphi _j`$
where $`j`$ is the initial state and $`f`$ the final state. This amplitude is in the same form as the perturbation theory amplitude, but with an effective potential to represent all the higher order effects exactly,

$$V(𝝆,z,t)=i\delta (zt)(1\alpha _z)(e^{i\alpha Z_1\mathrm{ln}(𝐛𝝆)^2}1),$$
(11)
in place of the potential of Eq.(2).

Since an exact solution must be unitary, the ionization probability (the sum of probabilities of excitation from the single bound electron to particular continuum states) is equal to the deficit of the final bound state electron population

$$\underset{ion}{}P(b)=1\underset{bound}{}P(b)$$
(12)
The sum of bound state probabilities includes the probability that the electron remains in the ground state plus the sum of probabilities that it ends up in an excited bound state. From Eq.(5) one may obtain in simple form the exact survival probability of an initial state

$$P_j(b)=|\varphi _j|(1\alpha _z)e^{i\alpha Z_1\mathrm{ln}(𝐛𝝆)^2}|\varphi _j|^2.$$
(13)
By symmetry the $`\alpha _z`$ term falls out and we are left with

$$P_j(b)=|\varphi _j|e^{i\alpha Z_1\mathrm{ln}(𝐛𝝆)^2}|\varphi _j|^2.$$
(14)
The ground state wave function $`\varphi _j`$ is the usual K shell Dirac spinor

$$\varphi _j=\left(\begin{array}{c}g(r)\chi _\kappa ^\mu \\ if(r)\chi _\kappa ^\mu \end{array}\right)$$
(15)
with upper and lower components wave functions $`g`$ and $`f`$

$`g(r)`$ $`=`$ $`N\sqrt{1+\gamma _2}r^{\gamma _21}e^{\alpha Z_2r}`$ (16)
$`f(r)`$ $`=`$ $`N\sqrt{1\gamma _2}r^{\gamma _21}e^{\alpha Z_2r}`$ (17)
where $`Z_2`$, is the charge of the nucleus that the electron is bound to, $`\gamma _2=\sqrt{1\alpha ^2Z_2^2}`$, and

$$N^2=\frac{(2\alpha Z_2)^{2\gamma _2+1}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma _2+1)}.$$
(18)
Let us first consider $`b=0`$. We have

$$P_j(b=0)=|\varphi _j|e^{2i\alpha Z_1\mathrm{ln}\rho }|\varphi _j|^2=|\varphi _j|e^{2i\alpha Z_1(\mathrm{ln}r+\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{sin}\theta ))}|\varphi _j|^2.$$
(19)
Putting in the explicit form of the upper and lower components for the K shell lowest bound state Dirac wave function and carrying out the integration we have

$$P_j(b=0)=\frac{\pi }{4}\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\gamma _2+12i\alpha Z_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1i\alpha Z_1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\gamma _2+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}i\alpha Z_1)}\right|^2,$$
(20)
or

$$P_j(b=0)=\frac{\pi \alpha Z_1\mathrm{ctnh}(\pi \alpha Z_1)}{(1+4\alpha ^2Z_1^2)}\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\gamma _2+12i\alpha Z_1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\gamma _2+1)}\right|^2.$$
(21)
It is interesting to compare this result with a previous calculation of the probability of ionization in “close collisions” by Bertulani and Baur. For a one electron atom they find

$$P_{ion}(b<\lambda _c/\alpha Z_2)=1.8\alpha ^2Z_1^2,$$
(22)
where $`\lambda _c=\mathrm{}/m_ec`$ is the electron Compton wavelength. If we take the low $`Z_1`$ limit of our expression Eq.(15) and then subtract it from one we obtain

$$P_{ion}(b=0)=(\frac{\pi ^2}{3}1)\alpha ^2Z_1^2=2.29\alpha ^2Z_1^2$$
(23)
However our expression Eq.(15) only gives the flux lost from the initial state; some of that flux goes into excited bound states and is not ionized. From our previous numerical calculations we find that the actual ionization probabilities obtained either by summing up final continuum states or else by subtracting all the final bound states from unity were 76% – 80% respectively of the flux lost from the initial state. Thus if we multiply the constant in Eq.(17) by such a percentage we are in remarkable agreement with Bertulani and Baur for the perturbative limit.

Now let us consider the case of $`b>>\rho `$. From Eq.(4) and Eq.(9) we have

$$P_j(b)=|\varphi _j|e^{2i\alpha Z_1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )(\rho /b)}|\varphi _j|^2.$$
(24)
Expanding the exponential up to $`\rho ^2/b^2`$ we have

$$P_j(b)=|\varphi _j|12i\alpha Z_1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )\frac{\rho }{b}2\alpha ^2Z_1^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi )\frac{\rho ^2}{b^2}|\varphi _j|^2$$
(25)
The term in $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ vanishes by symmetry, and integrating, we obtain

$$P_j(b)=12\frac{Z_1^2}{Z_2^2}\frac{(1+3\gamma _2+2\gamma _2^2)}{3}\frac{\lambda _c^2}{b^2}$$
(26)
by ignoring the term in $`1/b^4`$.

Both limits, Eq.(15) for $`b=0`$ and Eq.(20) for $`b>>\rho `$, are relativistically correct and thus correct for all $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ since exact Dirac wave functions were used.

## III A semi-empirical formula for single electron ionization

It is well known that the cross section for ionization of any pair of projectile and target species can be expressed as a sum of a constant term and a term going as the log of the relativistic $`\gamma `$ of the beam as seen in the target rest frame

$$\sigma _{ion}=A\mathrm{ln}\gamma +B.$$
(27)
The cross section of this form is constructed from an impact parameter integral

$$\sigma _{ion}=2\pi P(b)_{ion}b𝑑b$$
(28)
where $`P(b)`$ is the probability of ionization at a given impact parameter. If all the flux lost from the initial state went into the continuum then Eq.(20) would provide the ionization probability at moderately large $`b`$

$$P_{ion}(b)=2\frac{Z_1^2}{Z_2^2}\frac{(1+3\gamma _2+2\gamma _2^2)}{3}\frac{\lambda _c^2}{b^2}.$$
(29)
We will take this form as a physical basis to build a semi-empirical formula for ionization. In any case we need to integrate the probability up to a natural energy cutoff. In order to do this we match the delta function solution Eq.(23) at some moderately large $`b`$ onto the known Weizsacker-Williams probability for larger $`b`$ by noting that if $`b\omega <<\gamma `$ then

$$K_1^2(\frac{\omega b}{\gamma })=\frac{\gamma ^2}{\omega ^2b^2},$$
(30)
and we can rewrite Eq.(24) in the Weizsacker-Williams form for large $`b`$

$$P_{ion}(b)=2\frac{Z_1^2}{Z_2^2}\frac{(1+3\gamma _2+2\gamma _2^2)}{3}\frac{\lambda _c^2\omega ^2}{\gamma ^2}K_1^2(\frac{\omega b}{\gamma }).$$
(31)
To perform the large $`b`$ cutoff recall that to high degree of accuracy

$$\frac{\omega ^2}{\gamma ^2}_{b_0}^{\mathrm{}}K_1^2(\frac{\omega b}{\gamma })b𝑑b=\mathrm{ln}(\frac{0.681\gamma }{\omega b_0})=\mathrm{ln}\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(\frac{0.681}{\omega b_0}).$$
(32)
We immediately obtain the following expression for $`A`$

$$A=\frac{4\pi \lambda _c^2}{3}\frac{Z_1^2}{Z_2^2}(1+3\gamma _2+2\gamma _2^2),$$
(33)
where $`\lambda _c^2`$, the square of the electron Compton wave length, is 1491 barns. However, as it turns out, uniformly for all species of heavy ion reactions, at perturbational impact parameters a little over $`70\%`$ of the flux lost from the initial state goes into excited bound states and does not contribute to ionization. But since the ratio of flux going into continuum states to the total flux lost is so uniform we can use a fit to previously published numerical results to obtain a semi-analytical form for $`A`$:

$$A=(0.2869)\frac{4\pi \lambda _c^2}{3}\frac{Z_1^2}{Z_2^2}(1+3\gamma _2+2\gamma _2^2),$$
(34)
or in barns

$$A=1792\frac{Z_1^2}{Z_2^2}(1+3\gamma _2+2\gamma _2^2).$$
(35)
Now one can use the second term in Eq.(26) to obtain a provisional expression for $`B`$

$$B=A\mathrm{ln}(\frac{0.681}{\omega b_0}).$$
(36)
Obviously we need to evaluate $`\omega `$ and to discuss $`b_0`$. $`\omega `$ can be taken as the minimum ionization energy, $`1\gamma _2`$, times a constant a little larger than one. One next observes that if $`P_{ion}(b)`$ varies as $`1/b^2`$ the impact parameter integral has to be cut off on the low side at some value $`b_0`$ to avoid divergence. In fact the $`1/b^2`$ dependence continues down to the surface of the atom where other terms evident in Eq.(3) begin to contribute. The atomic size is just the electron Compton wave length divided by $`\alpha Z_2`$. In this region $`P_{ion}(b)`$ first rises faster than $`1/b^2`$ and then levels off to approach a constant change with $`b`$ at $`b=0`$. One could try to add a low impact paramenter contribution to $`A`$ based on Eq.(15) to our provisional form Eq.(30), but that turns out to unduly complicate things without improving the phenomenology. Our approach will be to set $`b_0`$ to an empirical constant divided by $`\alpha Z_2`$

Eq.(30) now takes the form

$$B=A\mathrm{ln}(\frac{C\alpha Z_2}{1\gamma _2}).$$
(37)
Putting in two analytical fine tuning factors and fitting the remaining constant to the numerical results of Ref. we obtain a semi-analytical form for $`B`$:

$$B=A\gamma _1^{1/10}(1\alpha ^2Z_1Z_2)^{1/4}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{2.37\alpha Z_2}{1\gamma _2}).$$
(38)
Table I expands a corresponding table from Ref. by adding cross sections of symmetric ion-ion pairs calculated with the formulas for $`A`$ and $`B`$. There is good agreement between the formula values for the cross sections (first rows) and the numerical cross sections calculated by subtracting the bound state probabilities from unity (second rows) or calculated by summing continuum electron final states (third rows). For both $`A`$ and $`B`$ the agreement is also good with the Anholt and Becker calculations in the literature for the lighter ion species. However with increasing mass of the ions the perturbative energy dependent term $`A`$ decreases in the formula calculations and in our previous numerical calculations, whereas it increases in the Anholt and Becker calculations. The greatest discrepancy is for Pb + Pb, with Anholt and Becker being about 60% higher. The reason that the $`A`$ should decrease with increasing mass (actually $`Z`$) of the ions is explained by the

$$(1+3\gamma _2+2\gamma _2^2)=32\alpha ^2Z_2^2+3\sqrt{1\alpha ^2Z_2^2}$$
(39)
factor in the formula for $`A`$ (and thereby $`B`$ also). As we noted before, perhaps the discrepancy between our $`A`$ decreasing with $`Z`$ and the Anholt and Becker $`A`$ increasing with $`Z`$ is due to the fact that Anholt and Becker use approximate relativistic bound state wave functions and the present calculations utilize exact Dirac wave functions for the bound states. For the term $`B`$ (which has the non-perturbative component) the agreement is relatively good between all the calculations.

In the perturbative limit (small $`Z_1,Z_2`$) the cross section formula goes over to

$$\sigma =(0.2869)8\pi \lambda _c^2\frac{Z_1^2}{Z_2^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{2.37\gamma }{\alpha Z_2}=7.21\lambda _c^2\frac{Z_1^2}{Z_2^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{2.37\gamma }{\alpha Z_2}.$$
(40)
By way of comparison, Bertulani and Baur using the equivalent photon method and taking the contribution of $`b\lambda _c/\alpha Z_2`$ found

$$\sigma =4.9\lambda _c^2\frac{Z_1^2}{Z_2^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\gamma }{\alpha Z_2}$$
(41)
for this case of ionization of a single electron.

Table II shows results of the calculation of $`B`$ (multiplied by $`Z_2^2/Z_1^2`$) for a number of representative non-symmetric ion-ion pairs. (Since $`A`$ is perturbative, scaling as $`Z_1^2`$, its value can be taken from Table I for the various pairs here.) Once again there is good agreement between the formula values for the cross sections (first rows) and the numerical cross sections calculated by subtracting the bound state probabilities from unity (second rows) or calculated by summing continuum electron final states (third rows). The only notable disagreement is with Anholt and Becker for Pb targets.

The availabilty of the present semi-empirical formula facilitates a comparison with available CERN SPS data. Calculations with the formula are in considerably better agreement with the data of Krause et al. for a Pb beam on various targets than are the Anholt and Becker numbers with or without screening. Note that in this case the role of target and beam are reversed. It is the single electron Pb ion in the beam that is ionized by the various nuclei in the fixed targets. The formula numbers do not include screening, which should in principle be included for a fixed target case. However, one might infer from the Anholt and Becker calculations that the effect of screening is smaller than the error induced by using an approximate rather than proper relativistic wave function for the electron bound in Pb.

Note that the formula has not been fit to experimental data. It is compared with experimental data. The “empirical” aspect of this formula refers to adjusting the formula to previous numerical calculations of Ref.

At RHIC the relativistic $`\gamma `$ of one ion seen in the rest frame of the other is 23,000, and of course there is no screening, so the present formula should be completely applicable. The present formula predicts a single electron ionization cross section of 101 kilobarns for Au + Au at RHIC. The corresponding cross section from Anholt and Becker is 150 kilobarns.

## IV Acknowledgments

After this work was completed, a paper by Voitkiv, Müller and Grün, which includes screening in ionization of relativistic projectiles, was brought to my attention. I would like to thank Carlos Bertulani for pointing out this paper to me and for reading the present manuscript. This manuscript has been authored under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886 with the U. S. Department of Energy.