Cited by 26Atomic and Molecular PhysicsMuon and positron interactions and applicationsX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis

Production or annihilation of positrons with bound electrons

Bergstrom, P. M., Kissel, Lynn, Pratt, R. H.·1996·Physical Review A

Abstract

We have investigated the recently reported discrepancy between theory and a new experiment [Palathingal et al., Phys. Rev. A 51, 2122 (1995)] for single-quantum annihilation of positrons with bound electrons. Fully relativistic calculations of total cross sections for the production and the annihilation of positrons involving an electron bound in the K or L shells of atoms have been performed in screened atomic potentials, for a number of elements ranging from germanium (Z=32) to thorium (Z=90) and for positron kinetic energies up to 4 MeV above threshold. Very good agreement with earlier calculations, that had been performed over a more restricted range of elements and energies, is obtained, also confirming that the Z and shell dependence previously seen continues at higher energies. The results presented here extend theory to energies where recent experiments have been performed, at forward angle, which were assumed to characterize the Z and shell dependence of the corresponding total cross sections. Our new theoretical predictions are not consistent with the strong dependence of the K- and L-shell bound-pair-annihilation cross sections on the nuclear charge of the target reported in those experiments. An explanation of these discrepancies is proposed, namely, that it is not correct to assume the same ratios for total cross sections as for forward distributions. This is demonstrated using existing data for the related photoeffect process, and it is seen that such forward data are indeed consistent with the pair-annihilation experiments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreva.53.2865

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The calculus on generalized connections modulo gauge transformations for compact gauge groups provides a rigorous kinematic framework for regularizing constraint operators unambiguously.

    “This calculus provides a rigorous kinematic framework by means of which constraint operators can be regularized in a well defined and unambiguous manner.”

    From Quantum spin dynamics (QSD) (1998) · cites this paper as [9]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bergstrom, P. M., Kissel, L., & Pratt, R. H.
Affiliations
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (US)
Venue
Physical Review A
Published
1996-04-01
Volume
53
Issue
4
Pages
2865-2868
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1050-2947
  • 1094-1622
OpenAlex
W1971028787
Cited by
26
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Atomic and Molecular Physics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Muon and positron interactions and applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › X-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis
Keywords
positron annihilation, positron production, bound electrons, K-shell, L-shell, total cross section, nuclear charge dependence, photoelectric effect, positron-atom collisions, relativistic calculations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review