XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Production and Decay of Atomic Inner-Shell Vacancy States Tom Gorczyca Western Michigan University Inner-Shell Photoabsorption: Inner-Shell Photoabsorption: Orbital Relaxation, Spectator Auger Decay Orbital Relaxation, Spectator Auger Decay Inner-Shell Vacancies in Atomic Ions: Fluorescence vs. Auger Decay, Initial Populations, Configuration Interaction

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Auger Decay Fluorescence Inner-Shell Photoionization of Fe XXII Inner-Shell Vacancy Fe XXIII + e -

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 I: Inner-Shell Photoexcitation of O Motivation: Synchrotron Measurements and Observations of (Neutral and Ionized) Oxygen Absorption Features in the Interstellar Medium

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Inner-Shell Vacancy: Orbital Relaxation O I (1s 2 2s 2 2p 4 ) O II * (1s2s 2 2p 4 ) Need Multiple Orbitals and Configurations for an Accurate Atomic Description 2p - O II * 2p - O I

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Inner Shell Photoexcitation of O 1s Vacancy Rydberg State Participator Auger Decay Width:   n -3 → 0 Explicit Channels Included Spectator Auger Decay Width:   n 0 = constant Infinite Number of Channels

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004

Damped Fano Profiles Mirroring Resonances

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Participator Auger Decay Spectator Auger Decay Theory vs. Experiment Standard (solid) vs. Optical Potential (dashed) R-matrix

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Experiment Experiment vs.R-matrix Experiment vs. R-matrix No Relaxation of Orbitals: Poor Energy Positions No Spectator Auger Decay: Unphysically Narrow Resonances Participator:   n -3 Spectator:   n 0 Entered into CHANDRA Database (1998) 1s→2p 1s→3p O 2 (1s→π*)

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Experiment vs. Optical Potential R-matrix Relaxation and Spectator Auger Decay Included O 2 (1s→π*) 1s→2p 1s→3p

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Intensity: I = I 0 e -σN Column Density: N = ∫ n dx N O = cm -2

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004

II: Fluorescence and Auger Decay of Inner-Shell Vacancy Ionic States Motivation: Modeling of Shocked and Photoionized Plasmas with Production of a 1s-Vacancy Active Galactic NucleiActive Galactic Nuclei X-Ray BinariesX-Ray Binaries Supernova RemnantsSupernova Remnants Intracluster Medium of Galaxy ClustersIntracluster Medium of Galaxy Clusters

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Auger Decay Fluorescence Inner-Shell Photoionization of Fe XXII Inner-Shell Vacancy Fe XXIII + e -

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Fe XXIII Fluorescence Yield = Existing Fluorescence/Auger Data Base

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Comparison of Be-Like Fluorescence Results Explicit calculations for neutrals only E. J. McGuire (1969,1970,1971,1972) Single-configuration LS coupling Multiconfiguration Intermediate Coupling Explicit calculations performed for each member of the sequence using AUTOSTRUCTURE H-like Z-scaling for higher members Ratio of Configuration AveragesConfiguration Average of Ratios Gorczyca et al. Ap.J. (2003)Kaastra & Mewe (1993)

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Fluorescence Yield Results

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Fluorescence Yield Results

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004

Fluorescence Yield Results Be-like Problematic - What about Li-Like?

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Kaastra and Mewe (1993) Fe XXIV Fluorescence Yield = 0.0 ! Li-Like Single Configuration: Fe XXIV (1s2s 2 ) → 1s 2 + e - only Li-Like Configuration Interaction: Fe XXIV (c 1 1s2s 2 + c 2 1s2p 2 ) → 1s 2 + e - 84% → 1s2p + hν 16%  c 2  2 ≈ 0.10 Fluorescence Yield = 0.16 ≠ 0.0 !

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 Summary Higher-order description of autoionizing states (and their decay) is required for accurate astrophysics data: Photoabsorption of O and Fluorescence of Ions. Photoabsorption of O and Fluorescence of Ions. Collaborators C. N. Kodituwakku, K. T. Korista, O. Zatsarinny, I. Dumitriu, M. F. Hasoglu Western Michigan University Western Michigan University N. R. Badnell University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK B. M. McLaughlin Queens University, Belfast, UK D. W. Savin Columbia University Columbia University Supported in part by NASA J. Garcia, C. Mendoza, M. A. Bautista, T. R. Kallman, and P. Palmeri E. Behar and M. H. Chen

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004 “Astrophysicists work on `Important’, `Big’ problems and think that the basic physics that they require to solve their problems has already been done, or, if it has not been done, it is easy and can be readily reproduced, as opposed to the hard problems they are working on. They have it backward. Getting the basic data is the hard part. When all the basic physics is known, pushing the `state-of-the-art’ becomes straightforward.’’ Robert L. Kurucz, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Atomic and Molecular Needs for Astrophysics 3 rd International Conference on Atomic and Molecular Data and Their Applications AIP Conf. Proc. 636, 2002.

XDAP 2004 XDAP 2004