Optogalvanic spectroscopy of the hyperfine structure of the 5p65d   2D3/2,

Relativistic coupled-cluster calculation of hyperfine-structure constants of La 2+

“…The CCSD result of the hyperfine constants A for the 4 f 5/2 state is larger than the experimental value of about 3) , B LCCSD and B CCSD are obtained using the DF, MBPT(3), LCCSD, and CCSD methods respectively. Obviously there is a considerable discrepancy between CCSD results and the experimental values [16]. One can find that the difference between MBPT(3) and CC results is lager.…”

“…A Expt. denotes the experimental value [16], which is the only available measurement to date as far as we know. Our CCSD results of the HFS constants A for 5d 3/2 and 4 f 7/2 states are in agreement with the experimental values considering their uncertainties.…”

“…Therefore, it is expected that the CCSD method can give more accurate results. Since the limited resolution of the spectra, all experimental HFS constant B have large uncertainties [16]. The uncertainty HFS constant B can be reduced by investigating the hyperfine coefficients using Doppler-free or Doppler-reduced techniques, such as saturated absorption spectroscopy or intermodulated optogalvanic spectroscopy.…”

“…Crawford and Grace measured the HFS of the resonance lines 6s 1/2 − 6p 1/2 and 6s 1/2 − 6p 3/2 state using the grating spectroscopy method [15]. Very recently, Olmschenk et al determined the HFS constants A and B of 5d 3/2,5/2 and 4 f 5/2,7/2 states by measuring the HFS of these states in a hollow-cathode lamp using optogalvanic spectroscopy [16]. The reported HFS B have large uncertainties, due to the limited resolution of the spectra.…”