Scaling law for transition probabilities in 2<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msup><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math>configuration from<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>coupling to<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>coupling

Han, Xuefeng; Gao, Xiang; Zeng, Delin; Jin, Runsen; Yan, Jun; Li, Jiaming

doi:10.1103/physreva.89.042514

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, by means of the high-density benchmark with the observed line ratios (i.e., from the NGC 7027 planetary nebula), we can discard A-value datasets to reduce the emissivity ratio uncertainty to the 10% level with some degree of assurance. However, we notice that, in spite of accurate R 1 ratios, the absolute A-values in some datasets are somewhat larger, particularly those for [O II] A( 2 D o 5/2 − 4 S o 3/2 ) recently computed with the MCDF method [42][43][44]. This type of discrepancy can only be resolved by measurement, although we remain skeptical in light of the long-standing discord between theory and experiment regarding the Fe XVII 3C/3D f -value ratio [66].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…The overall agreement between the theoretical R 1 ratios is around the 15% level. Interestingly, the more recent calculations (CQL07 [42], HGZJYL14 [43], and HLZSZ18 [44] ε(λ3729)/ε(λ3726). Right panel: [Ne IV] ε(λ2424)/ε(λ2422).…”

Section: A-values For N-and P-like Ionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overall agreement between the theoretical R 1 ratios is around the 15% level. Interestingly, the more recent calculations (CQL07 [42], HGZJYL14 [43], and HLZSZ18 [44]) have focused A( 2 D o J − 4 S o 3/2 ) to constrain R 1 using a fully relativistic multi-configuration Dirac-Fock (MCDF) method with convergent configuration-interaction expansions, which includes the Breit interaction and QED effects. Although the R 1 from these calculations is within the general scatter, the absolute A( 2 D o 5/2 − 4 S o 3/2 ) values from these calculations are somewhat larger than previous estimates.…”

Section: A-values For N-and P-like Ionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Atomic Data Assessment with PyNeb

Morisset

Luridiana

García‐Rojas

et al. 2020

Atoms

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PyNeb is a Python package widely used to model emission lines in gaseous nebulae. We take advantage of its object-oriented architecture, class methods, and historical atomic database to structure a practical environment for atomic data assessment. Our aim is to reduce the uncertainties in the parameter space (line ratio diagnostics, electron density and temperature, and ionic abundances) arising from the underlying atomic data by critically selecting the PyNeb default datasets. We evaluate the questioned radiative-rate accuracy of the collisionally excited forbidden lines of the N- and P-like ions (O ii, Ne iv, S ii, Cl iii, and Ar iv), which are used as density diagnostics. With the aid of observed line ratios in the dense NGC 7027 planetary nebula and careful data analysis, we arrive at emissivity ratio uncertainties from the radiative rates within 10%, a considerable improvement over a previously predicted 50%. We also examine the accuracy of an extensive dataset of electron-impact effective collision strengths for the carbon isoelectronic sequence recently published. By estimating the impact of the new data on the pivotal [N ii] and [O iii] temperature diagnostics and by benchmarking the collision strength with a measured resonance position, we question their usefulness in nebular modeling. We confirm that the effective-collision-strength scatter of selected datasets for these two ions does not lead to uncertainties in the temperature diagnostics larger than 10%.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: A-values For N-and P-like Ionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A-values For N-and P-like Ionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Atomic Data Assessment with PyNeb

Morisset

Luridiana

García‐Rojas

et al. 2020

Atoms

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1s,2p and δ 3 1s,2p (see, e.g., Eq. (59.11) of [10] and more details for complex atoms in [11]). It could also be expressed as the product of the oscillator strength f 1s,2p and δ 2 1s,2p (see, e.g., Eq.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redshift of the Lyman-αemission line of H-like ions in a plasma environment

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a critical assessment of the applicability of the Debye-Hückel (DH) approximation to the redshift of the Lyman-α emission line of the H-like ions under a dense plasma environment. By carefully considering the 2p → 1s transition spatially and temporally, our investigation suggests that the DH approximation may be applied to a limited number of H-like ions, such as the ones with Z between 5 and 18 or with Z greater than 50. Our numerical calculation, in fact, leads to quantitative agreement with the observed redshift of the well-isolated Lyman-α line at plasma density of the order of 1 × 10 22 cm −3 or higher with an electron temperature of several hundred eV of H-like Al 12+. Our study also yields simulated data consistent with those from more elaborate quantum mechanical approaches.

show abstract

“…On the theoretical side, many Kr XXX calculations were performed for the transitions involving the n = 2 states [16][17][18][19][20][21]. Among these calculations, the most accurate and complete one is the multi-configuration DiracFock (MCDF) calculation carried out by Rynkun et al [18] using the GRASP2K code [22], in which a full set of consistent and highly accurate energy levels and transition rates, including electric dipole (E1), magnetic dipole (M1), electric quadrupole (E2), magnetic quadrupole (M2), was presented.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%