Suppression of Penning ionization by orbital angular momentum conservation

Frank Stienkemeier; Jiwen Guan; Jonas Grzesiak; Katrin Dulitz; Markus Debatin; Tobias Sixt

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Suppression of Penning ionization by orbital angular momentum conservation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Penning ionization in helium-lithium collisions is suppressed by conservation of the orbital angular momentum projection Lambda, with only Sigma-symmetry molecular states autoionizing.

desk verdict First direct state-resolved evidence for Lambda conservation suppressing Penning ionization; the clean data support the qualitative claim, while the quantitative match still rests on an assumed zero-width rule for non-Sigma channels. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01694 v2 pith:HR4C3JRR submitted 2019-09-04 physics.chem-ph physics.atom-ph

Katrin Dulitz , Tobias Sixt , Jiwen Guan , Jonas Grzesiak , Markus Debatin , Frank Stienkemeier This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.chem-phphysics.atom-ph

keywords PenningionizationmetastableheliumlithiumautoionizationsuppressionorbitalangularmomentumprojectionLambdaconservationratecoefficientratioscoldcollisions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Penning ionization, in which a metastable excited atom transfers its energy to ionize a collision partner, is a major loss channel for ultracold gas experiments. This paper reports that in collisions between metastable helium and lithium atoms, exciting the lithium to a $P$ state markedly lowers the ionization rate, and that the drop is explained by a symmetry rule: during the collision both the total electron spin and $\Lambda$, the projection of the molecular orbital angular momentum along the internuclear axis, are conserved. That conservation means only collision complexes of $\Sigma$ symmetry can autoionize, while $\Pi$ and quartet states are inert. Counting the active $\Sigma$ states predicts rate coefficient ratios such as $k_3/k_1 = 1/2$ and $k_6/k_1 = 1/6$ that match the measured values within error. If the rule is general, it offers a way to suppress autoionizing losses in other ultracold mixtures of metastable atoms with light alkalis.

What carries the argument

The counting rule for autoionizing molecular states. For each asymptotic state combination the paper forms the ratio of the number of $2\Sigma^+$ quasimolecular states to the total number of molecular states, after applying the electron-spin conservation rule, using the correlation diagram in Fig. 5. This ratio is the predicted rate coefficient ratio $k_{i,S,\Lambda}/k_{1,S,\Lambda}$. A classical capture calculation with dispersion coefficients from the literature is used as a check: the long-range potentials alone do not reproduce the data, and only after including the same spin and $\Lambda$ weights do the capture ratios come close to the measured values.

What would settle it

A measurement that resolves a nonzero autoionization rate for the pure $\Pi$ channels He($2\,^1S_0$)+Li($2\,^2P_{1/2}$) or He($2\,^3S_1$)+Li($2\,^2P_{1/2}$) above the present upper limits would contradict the central claim, as would an ab initio calculation giving a non-negligible ionization width for any $2\Pi$, $4\Pi$, or $4\Sigma$ state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that $\Lambda$ conservation, not electron-spin statistics alone, controls Penning ionization in He$^*$-Li collisions. The authors build a correlation diagram connecting the asymptotic He($2\,^1S_0$ or $2\,^3S_1$) + Li($2\,^2S_{1/2}$, $2\,^2P_{1/2}$, or $2\,^2P_{3/2}$) states to quasimolecular symmetries, then assume that only states of $2\Sigma^+$ symmetry autoionize. This gives $k_2/k_1 = 0$ and $k_5/k_1 = 0$ for the pure $\Pi$ channels, and $k_3/k_1 = 1/2$, $k_6/k_1 = 1/6$ for the $P_{3/2}$ channels, all consistent with the measured rate coefficient ratios within their uncertainties. The physical rationale is that autoionization proceeds by electron exchange, which requires good orbital overlap between the helium 1s core and the lithium valence orbital, and that the tiny spin-orbit splitting in lithium ($0.34$ cm$^{-1}$, versus a collision time near $250$ fs) keeps $\Lambda$ locked during the collision.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that every quasimolecular state that is not $2\Sigma^+$—including all $2\Pi$, $4\Pi$, and $4\Sigma$ states—has exactly zero autoionization probability, and that the correlation diagram assigns each asymptotic He-Li state to the correct molecular symmetry; if either assumption fails, the predicted ratios no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the pure $\Pi$ channel He($2\,^1S_0$)+Li($2\,^2P_{1/2}$), $\Lambda$ conservation predicts zero autoionization; the measured upper limit ($\leq 0.41$ relative to the ground-state channel) is consistent with that.
For the $P_{3/2}$ channels the symmetry count predicts $k_3/k_1 = 1/2$ and $k_6/k_1 = 1/6$, matching the measured $0.51^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ and $0.21^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$; the agreement is quantitative, not just qualitative.
The same double-conservation argument should apply to other autoionizing systems with small spin-orbit coupling, including metastable helium or other metastable atoms colliding with light alkali atoms in $P$ states.
For ultracold experiments, the result suggests that trap loss from autoionization can be reduced by choosing laser-cooling transitions that avoid $\Sigma$ entrance channels, for example cooling Li on the D$_1$ line in a gray molasses scheme.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, the small measured deviations from the symmetry counts (e.g., $k_4/k_1 \approx 0.38$ versus $1/3$) could be used to quantify residual spin-orbit mixing, since the paper does not attribute them to a specific mechanism.
Beyond the paper, an ab initio calculation of ionization widths for the $\Pi$ and quartet channels would show whether their zero widths are exact or merely small; the paper itself asks for such calculations.
Beyond the paper, testing the same counting on sodium or potassium partners would probe the limits of $\Lambda$ conservation, because their larger spin-orbit splittings should weaken the suppression; potassium also has core-excited resonances.
Beyond the paper, the mechanism suggests that dual-species trap loss can be engineered by choosing laser-cooling transitions that avoid $\Sigma$ molecular states, without requiring full spin polarization.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First off: this is a solid experimental paper and the core result is real. The authors report the first state-resolved rate coefficient ratios for He(2 1S, 2 3S) + Li(2 2S, 2 2P1/2, 2 2P3/2) Penning ionization, and the data clearly show that exciting Li to the 2P state suppresses autoionization well beyond what electron-spin statistics alone predicts. The measured ratios k3/k1 = 0.51 and k6/k1 = 0.21 match the symmetry-counting values 1/2 and 1/6 within uncertainties, and the experiment is careful: two independent methods, checks over different Li(2P) populations, and honest reporting of statistical and systematic errors. The credit to Morgner and co-workers is appropriate; this is the first direct experimental demonstration of a mechanism that was previously only inferred. The soft spot is the one the authors concede at the end: the quantitative model assumes a binary rule that only 2Sigma+ molecular states autoionize, with 2Pi, 4Pi, and 4Sigma states having exactly zero width. That rule is not a strict consequence of Lambda conservation. A Pi state can autoionize to the X1Sigma+ ion plus a pi continuum electron while conserving total Lambda; the actual suppression comes from the orbital-overlap condition, which the paper argues physically but does not compute. The small deviation of k4/k1 (0.38 vs. the spin-statistical 1/3) shows that the zero-width assumption is already not exact at the few-percent level. So the quantitative agreement is genuinely suggestive but not fully demonstrative without ab initio ionization widths. That said, the qualitative finding does not depend on the binary rule being exactly right, and the paper is admirably clear about its limitations, including the upper limits from method 2 and the modeled Li(2P) population in method 1. The citation pattern is fair and the context is properly drawn. This paper deserves serious peer review; a good referee would ask for the widths or at least a more explicit separation of Lambda conservation from the overlap argument. I'd cite it and would bring it to a group discussion of control mechanisms in cold collisions.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports experimental studies of Penning ionization (PI) in collisions between metastable He atoms (2^1S0 and 2^3S1) and Li atoms in the 2S1/2 ground state or in the 2P1/2 and 2P3/2 excited states. Two experimental schemes are used: method 1, where the Li(2P) population is controlled by the MOT laser detuning and modeled by a rate equation, and method 2, where D1/D2 laser pulses excite the Li atoms and only upper limits on the excited-state rate coefficients are obtained. The main claim is that the suppression of PI upon Li(2S -> 2P) excitation exceeds the prediction of electron-spin conservation alone, and that this suppression is explained by conservation of the projection of the total molecular orbital angular momentum, Lambda, along the internuclear axis. In the proposed model, only quasi-molecular states of 2Sigma+ symmetry autoionize, leading to predicted ratios k3/k1=1/2 and k6/k1=1/6 for the 2P3/2 channels. These predictions are compared with measured values of 0.51+0.07/-0.07 and 0.21+0.04/-0.03 from method 1. The paper also presents classical capture calculations using long-range dispersion coefficients, which show qualitative but not quantitative agreement. The authors conclude that Lambda conservation can be used as a general reaction-control mechanism, e.g., for simultaneous laser cooling and trapping of metastable He and alkali atoms.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, this would be the first direct experimental evidence that orbital-angular-momentum projection (Lambda) conservation can suppress Penning ionization, extending earlier work by Morgner and co-workers and offering a new route to control autoionizing collisions in ultracold mixtures. The experimental data set is valuable: it measures state-to-state rate-coefficient ratios for six He*-Li channels, reports statistical and systematic uncertainties, and includes two independent methods. The symmetry-counting model is parameter-free in the sense that no rate coefficient is fitted; the predictions are fixed by the assumed state assignment. However, the quantitative validation rests on a binary assumption that only 2Sigma+ states autoionize, and the manuscript itself acknowledges that ab initio ionization widths are required for a full description. The conclusion that the data provide a direct test of Lambda conservation is therefore stronger than what the present analysis supports.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Table I, Fig. 5] The central predictions k3/k1=1/2 and k6/k1=1/6 are obtained by counting only the spin multiplicity of each quasi-molecular term and assigning probability 1 to all 2Sigma+ states and 0 to all 2Pi, 4Pi, and 4Sigma+ states. This binary rule is not a strict consequence of Lambda conservation: a 2Pi state can autoionize to the X^1Sigma+ ion plus a pi continuum electron while conserving the total projection of orbital angular momentum (Lambda_initial = +/-1 = Lambda_ion + lambda_e). The operative suppression is an orbital-overlap condition, not a symmetry selection rule. Furthermore, the counting omits the two-fold orbital degeneracy of Pi terms and the Lambda composition of the asymptotic Li(2P_J) states. For an unpolarized Li sample, the probability of the Sigma component of a 2P_J state along the internuclear axis is 1/3 for both J=1/2 and J=3/2, so the same only-Sigma-autoionization hypothesis would give k3/k1=1/3 and k6/k1=1/9, which do not match the measured values. The authors should justify the state-counting rule, state the assumed M_J population distribution (e.g., isotropic vs optically pumped), and provide a sensitivity analysis in which the non-Sigma channels have small but nonzero autoionization widths.
[Section III, method 1, Fig. 3] The absolute Li(2P) populations used in method 1 are obtained from a rate model of the optical excitation process, not from a direct measurement. The consistency check in Fig. 3 demonstrates that the extracted ratios are independent of the modeled population over the range of detunings, but it does not validate the absolute scale. A systematic overestimate of the excited-state fraction by 20% would shift the extracted k3/k1 from about 0.5 to about 0.37, which is comparable to the deviation that distinguishes the model from the spin-only prediction. Please include a quantitative uncertainty estimate for the population model and show explicitly how the reported ratios depend on that parameter.
[Table I, method 2] Method 2 yields only upper limits for k2, k3, k5, and k6; in particular, k2/k1 <= 0.41 and k5/k1 <= 0.22 are far too loose to test the predicted zeros for the Pi channels. The direct experimental evidence that 2Pi states do not autoionize is therefore weak, and the central case rests on method 1. The manuscript should state this limitation explicitly and should not present the method-2 upper limits as strong confirmation of the model.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] The notation '2 2P1/2,3/2' is nonstandard; please use 2^2P_J with J=1/2, 3/2 consistently in the text and tables.
[Section III, after Table I] The sentence 'This implies that all (only 1/3) of the He atoms in the 2 1S0 state (2 3S1 state) can autoionize' is confusing; please rephrase to state clearly which atomic state the 'all' and the '1/3' refer to.
[Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'striking agreement' overstates the level of support given the method-2 upper limits, the modeled Li populations, and the state-counting assumptions; consider replacing it with 'consistent with' or a similarly measured wording.
[Figure 5 caption] The red tentative correlations are mentioned in the text but not explained in the caption; please add a sentence describing what the red lines represent and why they are tentative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the state-counting ratios are an independent model output, not a fit to the data.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative ratios (k3/k1 = 1/2 and k6/k1 = 1/6) are obtained by counting 2Σ+ quasi-molecular states among the total spin–Λ state manifold, under an explicit assumption that electron spin and Λ are conserved and that only 2Σ+ states autoionize. That assumption is an independent physical hypothesis motivated by prior work by Morgner and co-workers and by orbital-overlap arguments; it is not adjusted to match the measured ratios. No parameter is fitted to the rate data, and the measured ratios (0.51±0.07 and 0.21±0.04) are compared with the model outputs rather than used to define them. The sentence 'The assignment of the absolute value of the total angular momentum quantum number |Ω| is based on energy considerations and on our experimental observations' concerns fine-structure labels in Fig. 5, not the Σ/Π symmetry counts in Table I that produce the central ratios, so it does not make the test circular. The paper's own caveat that 'an accurate quantum-chemical treatment of the He*-Li system, including a calculation of the interaction potentials and the ionization widths for all channels, is required' identifies a validity limitation of the zero-width rule for non-Σ states, but that is an approximation concern, not a circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained: symmetry counting plus an externally motivated selection rule is tested against, not constructed from, the experimental ratios.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to the central ratios. The model inputs are angular momentum symmetry counting, the binary rule that only 2Sigma+ states autoionize, and dispersion coefficients from prior literature. The key unproven input is the zero-ionization-width rule for all non-2Sigma+ states.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Wigner's electron-spin conservation rule governs autoionization so that only total electron spin S = 1/2 channels can ionize.
Invoked in Section III to explain why triplet He channels have lower reactivity; a standard rule in atomic collision physics.
domain assumption Lambda, the projection of the total molecular orbital angular momentum on the internuclear axis, is conserved during the collision, so only 2Sigma+ states autoionize.
This is the paper's central explanatory hypothesis. It is motivated by the small Li spin-orbit splitting and by orbital overlap, and it was previously suggested by Morgner's group, but it is not derived from computed ionization widths in this paper.
domain assumption Classical capture model: reaction probability is unity above the centrifugal barrier and zero below, with only long-range Cn dispersion interactions contributing.
Used in Section III A with Eq. 3; the paper acknowledges that classical capture provides only upper bounds, and the dispersion coefficients are taken from Zhang et al.
domain assumption Spin-orbit interaction time in Li is much longer than the collision time, so Lambda is a good quantum number during the collision.
Based on the 0.34 cm-1 spin-orbit splitting in Li and an estimated collision time of about 250 fs, as stated in Section III.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Suppression of Penning ionization by orbital angular momentum conservation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HR4C3JRR

@misc{pith2026190901694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Suppression of Penning ionization by orbital angular momentum conservation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HR4C3JRR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01694}
}

abstract

The efficient suppression of Penning-ionizing collisions is a stringent requirement to achieve quantum degeneracy in metastable rare gases. Thus far, such loss processes have been avoided by electron-spin polarizing the collision partners. Here, we report on the efficient suppression of Penning ionization in collisions between metastable He and laser-excited Li atoms. The results illustrate that not only the electron spin, but also $\Lambda$ - the projection of the total molecular orbital angular momentum along the internuclear axis - is conserved during the ionization process. Our findings suggest that $\Lambda$ conservation can be used as a more general means of reaction control, for example, to improve schemes for the simultaneous laser cooling and trapping of metastable He and alkali atoms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01694 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Measured ion yields for electronic-state-selected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Experimentally measured rate coefficient ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measured ion yields for state-selected He [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Effective long-range potentials (solid lines with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

P. E. Siska, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 337 (1993)

work page 1993
[2]

Vassen, C

W. Vassen, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, M. Leduc, D. Bo- iron, C. I. Westbrook, A. Truscott, K. Bald- win, G. Birkl, P. Cancio, and M. Trippenbach, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 175 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

Onellion, M

M. Onellion, M. W. Hart, F. B. Dunning, and G. K. Walters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 380 (1984)

work page 1984
[4]

Harada, S

Y. Harada, S. Masuda, and H. Ozaki, Chem. Rev. 97, 1897 (1997)

work page 1997
[5]

S. D. S. Gordon, J. Zou, S. Tanteri, J. Jankunas, and A. Osterwalder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 053001 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

J. Zou, S. D. S. Gordon, S. Tanteri, and A. Osterwalder, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 164310 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

S. D. S. Gordon, J. J. Omiste, J. Zou, S. Tanteri, P. Brumer, and A. Osterwalder, Nat. Chem. 10, 1190 (2018)

work page 2018
[8]

C. A. Arango, M. Shapiro, and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 193202 (2006)

work page 2006

Show all 42 references

[9]

J. J. Omiste, J. Floß, and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 163405 (2018)

2018
[10]

A. B. Henson, S. Gersten, Y. Shagam, J. Narevicius, and E. Narevicius, Science 338, 234 (2012)

2012
[11]

Jankunas, K

J. Jankunas, K. Jachymski, M. Hapka, and A. Oster- walder, J. Chem. Phys. 142, 164305 (2015)

2015
[12]

E. P. Wigner, in Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G¨ o ttingen aus dem Jahre 1927. Mathematisch Physikalische Kla sse (Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1928)

1927
[13]

Herschbach, P

N. Herschbach, P. J. J. Tol, W. Hogervorst, and W. Vassen, Phys. Rev. A 61, 050702(R) (2000)

2000
[14]

G. V. Shlyapnikov, J. T. M. Walraven, U. M. Rahmanov, and M. W. Reynolds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3247 (1994)

1994
[15]

L. J. Byron, R. G. Dall, W. Rugway, and A. G. Truscott, New J. Phys. 12, 013004 (2010)

2010
[16]

A. S. Flores, W. Vassen, and S. Knoop, Phys. Rev. A 94, 050701(R) (2016)

2016
[17]

Weiner, V

J. Weiner, V. S. Bagnato, S. Zilio, and P. S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1 (1999)

1999
[18]

H. C. Mastwijk, J. W. Thomsen, P. van der Straten, and A. Niehaus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5516 (1998)

1998
[19]

Mastwijk, M

H. Mastwijk, M. van Rijnbach, J. Thomsen, P. van der Straten, and A. Niehaus, Eur. Phys. J. D 4, 131 (1998)

1998
[20]

Walhout, U

M. Walhout, U. Sterr, C. Orzel, M. Hoogerland, and S. L. Rolston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 506 (1995)

1995
[21]

S. C. Zilio, L. Marcassa, S. Muniz, R. Horowicz, V. Bag- nato, R. Napolitano, J. Weiner, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2033 (1996)

1996
[22]

Hoﬀmann and H

V. Hoﬀmann and H. Morgner, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 12, 2857 (1979)

1979
[23]

Lorenzen, H

J. Lorenzen, H. Morgner, W. Bußert, M.-W. Ruf, and H. Hotop, Z. Phys. A - Hadron Nucl. 310, 141 (1983)

1983
[24]

Grzesiak, T

J. Grzesiak, T. Momose, F. Stienkemeier, M. Mudrich, and K. Dulitz, J. Chem. Phys. 150, 034201 (2019)

2019
[25]

J. Guan, V. Behrendt, P. Shen, S. Hofs¨ ass, T. Muthu- Arachchige, J. Grzesiak, F. Stienkemeier, and K. Dulitz, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 054073 (2019)

2019
[26]

Nist atomic spectra database (version 5.7.1),

A. Kramida, Y. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and NIST ASD Team, “Nist atomic spectra database (version 5.7.1),” (2019), http://physics.nist.gov/asd

2019
[27]

M. R. Woodard, R. C. Sharp, M. Seely, and E. E. Muschlitz, J. Chem. Phys. 69, 2978 (1978)

1978
[28]

H. Orth, H. Ackermann, and E. W. Otten, Z. Phys. A - Hadron Nucl. 273, 221 (1975)

1975
[29]

W. I. McAlexander, E. R. I. Abraham, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. A 54, R5 (1996)

1996
[30]

M. W. Ruf, A. J. Yencha, and H. Hotop, Z. Phys. D - Atom. Mol. Cl. 5, 9 (1987)

1987
[31]

Kimura and N

M. Kimura and N. F. Lane, Phys. Rev. A 41, 5938 (1990)

1990
[32]

Movre, L

M. Movre, L. Thiel, and W. Meyer, 8 J. Chem. Phys. 113, 1484 (2000)

2000
[33]

C. J. Sansonetti, B. Richou, R. Engleman, and L. J. Radziemski, Phys. Rev. A 52, 2682 (1995)

1995
[34]

A collision temperature of 530 K is as- sumed which corresponds to the conditions used in the experiment

The collision time is estimated from a classical trajec - tory calculation along the He(2 1S0)-Li(22S1/ 2) potential energy curve [32] from large distance until the classical turning point. A collision temperature of 530 K is as- sumed which corresponds to the conditions used ...
[35]

Hiyama, S

M. Hiyama, S. Nanbu, and S. Iwata, Chem. Phys. Lett. 192, 443 (1992)

1992
[36]

Zhang, L.-Y

J.-Y. Zhang, L.-Y. Tang, T.-Y. Shi, Z.-C. Yan, and U. Schwingenschl¨ ogl, Phys. Rev. A 86, 064701 (2012)

2012
[37]

G. G. Chernyi, S. A. Losev, S. O. Macheret, and B. V. Potapkin, Physical and Chemical Processes in Gas Dynamics, Vol. I: Cross Sections and Rate Constants , edited by P. Zarchan, Vol. 196 (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, 2002)

2002
[38]

Rate constants and cross sections,

M. Henchman, “Rate constants and cross sections,” in Ion-Molecule Reactions: Volume 1 , edited by J. L. Franklin (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1972) pp. 101–259

1972
[39]

In He ∗ -K collisions, the autoionization rates are also in- ﬂuenced by resonances with core-excited states in K [42]
[40]

S. S. O. de Beek, J. P. J. Driessen, H. C. W. Beijerinck, and B. J. Verhaar, J. Chem. Phys. 106, 182 (1997)

1997
[41]

A. T. Grier, I. Ferrier-Barbut, B. S. Rem, M. Dele- haye, L. Khaykovich, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. A 87, 063411 (2013)

2013
[42]

C. E. Johnson, C. A. Tipton, and H. G. Robinson, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 11, 927 (1978)

1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. E. Siska, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 337 (1993)

work page 1993

[2] [2]

Vassen, C

W. Vassen, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, M. Leduc, D. Bo- iron, C. I. Westbrook, A. Truscott, K. Bald- win, G. Birkl, P. Cancio, and M. Trippenbach, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 175 (2012)

work page 2012

[3] [3]

Onellion, M

M. Onellion, M. W. Hart, F. B. Dunning, and G. K. Walters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 380 (1984)

work page 1984

[4] [4]

Harada, S

Y. Harada, S. Masuda, and H. Ozaki, Chem. Rev. 97, 1897 (1997)

work page 1997

[5] [5]

S. D. S. Gordon, J. Zou, S. Tanteri, J. Jankunas, and A. Osterwalder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 053001 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

J. Zou, S. D. S. Gordon, S. Tanteri, and A. Osterwalder, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 164310 (2018)

work page 2018

[7] [7]

S. D. S. Gordon, J. J. Omiste, J. Zou, S. Tanteri, P. Brumer, and A. Osterwalder, Nat. Chem. 10, 1190 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [8]

C. A. Arango, M. Shapiro, and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 193202 (2006)

work page 2006