Interatomic Coulombic decay initiated by electron removal and excitation processes in helium ion and argon dimer collisions

Abstract

The electron removal and excitation channels in argon dimer target and helium ion projectile collision systems that facilitate interatomic Coulombic decay (ICD) are investigated. We implement an independent-atom and independent-electron model of the collision system with the dimer target fixed at its equilibrium bond length and the He$^{2+}$ and He$^+$ ion projectiles travelling parallel to the dimer axis at impact energies ranging from 10 keV/amu to 150 keV/amu. The coupled-channel two-center basis generator method for orbital propagation is used within both a frozen atomic target approximation and a dynamic response framework. Given that ICD is facilitated through electron excitation pathways in argon dimers, a statistical technique called determinantal analysis is employed to investigate these channels. The analysis is further subdivided into models that exclude and include projectile charge changes during the collision. Electron configurations of the form Ar$^{+}$($3p^{-2}nl$) offer a pathway to ICD and are investigated, along with other one- and two-electron removal channels that lead to Ar$^{+}$-Ar$^{+}$ fragmentation. We find that the $3d$ excited state is an overall dominant channel for ICD with other excited states ranging from $4s$-$4f$ also being significant contributors. Our study notes differences between static and dynamical potential models across the projectile impact energy range, though of decreasing significance as the impact energy approaches 150 keV/amu. We also find that a He$^{+}$ projectile offers a strong pathway for ICD as the projectile impact energy decreases.

Figures (5)

• Figure 1: He$^{2+}$-Ar$_{2}$ ion-dimer collisions in parallel orientation at a) 10 keV/amu and b) 150 keV/amu; $3p$ electron removal and $3p$ electron excitation to $3d$ state probability comparing DA.FCM (solid line) vs DA.MCMI (dashed line) and DA.MCMII (dotted-dashed line) in the no-response model.
• Figure 2: He$^{2+}$-Ar$_{2}$ ion-dimer collisions in parallel orientation at a) 10 keV/amu and b) 150 keV/amu; $3p$ electron removal and $3p$ electron excitation to $3d$ state probability comparison of DA.MCMII between no-response (solid line) and response (res) (dashed line) models.
• Figure 3: He$^{2+}$-Ar$_{2}$ ion-dimer collisions in parallel orientation at a) 10 keV/amu and b) 150 keV/amu; $3p$ electron removal and $3p$ electron excitation to $3d,4s,4p,4d,$ and $4f$ state probability comparisons of DA.MCMII between no-response (solid line) and response (res) (dashed line) models.
• Figure 4: He$^{2+}$-Ar$_{2}$ ion-dimer collisions in parallel orientation from 10 keV/amu to 150 keV/amu; a) $3p$ electron removal and $3p$ electron excitation to $nl$ state cross-sections comparison of DA.FCM, DA.MCMI and DA.MCMII between no-response (solid line) and response (res) (dashed line) models b) ICD yield in Ar$^{+}$-Ar$^{+}$ dimer fragmentation comparison of DA.FCM, DA.MCMI and DA.MCMII models between no-response (solid line) and response (res) (dashed line) models
• Figure 5: He$^{+}$-Ar$_{2}$ ion-dimer collisions in parallel orientation from 10 keV/amu to 150 keV/amu; a) $3p$ electron removal and $3p$ electron excitation to $nl$ state cross-sections comparison of DA.FCM, DA.MCMI and DA.MCMII between no-response (solid line) and response (res) (dashed line) models b) ICD yield in Ar$^{+}$-Ar$^{+}$ dimer fragmentation comparison of DA.FCM, DA.MCMI and DA.MCMII models between no-response (solid line) and response (res) (dashed line) models