# The hydrogen atom without external fields

Chapter

## Abstract

Schrödinger’s equation
and in Hartree’s atomic units (see Introductory Remarks) is

^{3}in c.g.s. units for an electron in the field of a nucleus of charge*Ze*and of infinite mass is$$\Delta u + \frac{{2m}}{{{\hbar ^2}}}(E + \frac{{Z{e^2}}}{r})u = 0$$

(1.1)

$$\Delta u + 2(E + \frac{Z}{r})u = 0$$

(1.1’)

## Keywords

Wave Function DIRAC Equation Radiative Correction Principal Quantum Number Lamb Shift
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.J. W. DuMoxn and E. R. COHEN: In this volume and private communication.Google Scholar
- 2.Numerical values, found in older theoretical references (including ref. [10] of our bibliography), which are based on the atomic constants, should be treated with great caution: The older values of some atomic constants were in error by much more than the statistical errors in the older experiments (due to systematic errors not expected at the time).Google Scholar
- 3.We shall use throughout the symbol d for the LAPLACE operator (axz -}- ayz -~- ôz2), instead of the symbol V2 which is more commonly used in English and American texts.Google Scholar
- 1.x, and y are measured in atomic units.Google Scholar
- 2.Cf. Theory of the ZEEMAN effect, Sect. 45.Google Scholar
- 1.Compare, for example, ref. 171, A. SOMMERFELD, Wellenmechanischer Ergänzungsband, p. 70 and the original work of E. SCHRÖDINGER, Abhandlungen zur Wellenmechanik, p. 1.Google Scholar
- 1.The alkali atoms which are more closely related to hydrogen than any other atoms do not show this degeneracy. To be sure, the discrete energy levels of the alkali atoms can be calculated to a good approximation by considering only the motion of the valence electron in the field arising from a charge distribution of closed shells, but this field is a non-Coulomb central field and levels of like n and different l have entirely different energies.Google Scholar
- 2.It should be noted that the atomic unit of action is h = h/22r and not h. The frequency of the spectral line may be obtained in c.g.s. units by dividing the energy difference (in c.g.s. units) between the initial and final states by h; or, if the energy difference is expressed in atomic units, by dividing by 27r.Google Scholar
- 1.E. R. COHEN: Phys. Rev.
**88**, 353 (1952).Google Scholar - 2.We shall often use simply the symbol Ry for this quantity although, strictly speaking, we have defined Ry as a frequency, e Roe.Google Scholar
- 3.For a list of observed wave numbers of spectral lines in light atoms and ions see: Atomic Energy Levels, Vol. 1, U.S. National Bureau of Standards, Circular
**467**, 1949.Google Scholar - 4.Cf. W. GORDON: Ann. d. Phys.
**2**, 1031 (1929).Google Scholar - 5.The numerical factor (2 e)1 is included only for the sake of convenience in later calculations.Google Scholar
- 6.For properties of the confluent hypergeometric function see ref. [8], Chap. 16 or the article of J. MEIXNER, Vol. I of this Encyclopedia. We shall in general omit the word “confluent ”. We shall use the more general function F (a, ß, y, x) very rarely and will call it the “general hypergeometric function ”.Google Scholar
- 1.Cf. A. SOMMERFELD: Wellenmechanischer Ergänzungsband, p. 292, ref. [7]; see also our Sect. 36e.Google Scholar
- 1.Cf. JAHNKE-EMDE: Tables of Functions, especially p. 166 (differential equation), p. 98 (asymptotic formula), p. 90 (series expansion).Google Scholar
- 2.See Sect. 53.Google Scholar
- 3.The asymptotic formula for the BESSEL function can thus be looked upon as a special case of the WKB procedure.Google Scholar
- 1.See, for example, E. SCHRSDINGER, Ann. d. Phys.
**80**, 131 (1926).Google Scholar - 2.Cf. Sec. 63 and particularly W. GORDON, Ann. d. Phys. 2, 1031 (1929).Google Scholar
- 1.See also M. STOBBE: Ann. d. Phys.
**7**, 661 (1930).Google Scholar - 1.For details, see the work by MOTT and MASSEY, ref. [7] of the bibliography. For tables of COULOMB wave functions see N.B.S. Appl. Math. Circ. No. 17, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. 1952.Google Scholar
- 1.UREY, BRICEWEDDE and MURPHY: Phys. Rev.
**40**, 1, 464 (1932).Google Scholar - 2.For a detailed analysis see E. R. COHEN, Phys. Rev.
**88**, 353 (1952).Google Scholar - 3.J. W. DuMoND and E. R. COHEN: Rev. Mod. Phys. 25, 691 (1953). — Cf. the preceding article in this volume.Google Scholar
- 1.Cf. J. FISCHER, Ann. d. Phys.
**8**, 821 (1931) paragraph 1; G. WENTZEL, Z. Physik**58**, 348 (1929).Google Scholar - 1.Cf. e. g., G. WENTZEL, Z. Physik
**58**. 348 (1929), Eq. (22). More precisely, u falls off as 0,2—z2)—gGoogle Scholar - 2.W. GORDON: Z. Physik 48, 180 (1928), cf. also G. TEMPLE, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A
**121**, 673 (1928); A. SOMMERFELD, Ann. d. Phys.**11**, 257 (1931), paragraph 6. See also p. 47 of ref. [9]Google Scholar - 3.See also ref. [9], p. 47.Google Scholar
- 1.To make the system uk complete, the eigenfunctions of the discrete spectrum must, of course, be included.Google Scholar
- 2.G. BREIT and H. A. BETHE: Phys. Rev.
**93**, 888 (1954).Google Scholar - 3.W. GORDON: Z. Physik
**48**, 180 (1928).Google Scholar - 1.For a potential falling off more rapidly than r-1 at large distances.Google Scholar
- 2.With 61 replaced by — a1, where a1 is defined in (4.10). With this substitution (7.2) and (6.30) are identical except for a change in sign [see normalization of Rw, Eq. (4.19)]. W. GORDON: Z. Physik
**48**, 180 (1928).Google Scholar - 1.YENNIE, RAVENHALL and WILSON: Phys. Rev.
**95**, 500 (1954).Google Scholar - 1.See Sect. 9 and 70, also ref. [9], pp. 116–119.Google Scholar
- 1.This method has, however, been used to obtain the momentum space wave functions for the discrete spectrum of hydrogen, E. A. HYLLERAAS, Z. Physik
**74**, 216 (1932).Google Scholar - 2.H. WEYL: Z. Physik 46, 1 (1928). — V. Focx: Z. Physik 98, 145 (1935).Google Scholar
- 1.More generally, let f (r) and g(r) be two functions, which are complex conjugates of each other, f* (r) = g (r). If F(p) and G (p) are the FOURIER transforms of f and g, respectively, one finds that F* (p) =G(—p).Google Scholar
- 1.N. SVARTHOLM: Thesis, Lund 1%5. — R. MCWEENY and C. A. CouLSON: Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond. A
**62**, 509 (1949). — M. L:vY: Proc. R.y. Soc. Lond.**204**, 145 (1950). — E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev.**84**, 1226 (1951).Google Scholar - 2.See, for instance, JAHNKE and ENDE, Funktionentafeln, 4th Ed., p. 109. Berlin: Springer 1945.Google Scholar
- 1.B. A. LIPPMANN and J. SCHWINGER: Phys. Rev. 79, 469 (1950). — M. L. GOLDBERGER: Phys. Rev.
**82**, 757;**84**, 929 (1951). — E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev.**84**, 1226 (1951).Google Scholar - 1.Eq. (9.2) has been used recently, however, as the starting point of calculations in meson field theory. See, e.g., G. F. CHEW and F. E. Low, Phys. Rev.
**101**, 1570 (1956).Google Scholar - 2.Actually, the bound states must be included to complete the set.Google Scholar
- 1.For a COULOMB potential, f+ still has a singularity at p =k.Google Scholar
- 2.Bethe and Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics. 4Google Scholar
- 1.See references at the beginning of Sect. 9.Google Scholar
- 2.A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the validity of BORN approximation is tan Si F.s Si s 1.Google Scholar
- 3.See references [1], [2], [3] and [12] of the bibliography.Google Scholar
- 4.A detailed discussion of the properties of the DIRAC operators is given by R. H. GooD, Rev. Mod. Phys.
**27**, 187 (1955).Google Scholar - 1.See ref. [3], [12], and [13] of the bibliography.Google Scholar
- 1.See ref. [1], Ch. VI; ref. [5], Ch. III and G. PARE and E. FEExnERG, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Co. 1953.Google Scholar
- 1.Ref. [1], p. 144 or ref. [5], p. 46.Google Scholar
- 1.In older books and in ref. [9] the large components are labelled 3, 4 and the small components 1, 2. In these references the term in the HAMILTOxian which involves p differs from ours by a change in sign.Google Scholar
- 1.See ref. [2], Sect. 65.Google Scholar
- 2.It should also be remembered that (12.7) only holds for a wave function u, which satisfies the DIRAC equation. Consider, for instance, the expression (al (r) u)A where f (r) is an arbitrary function of position, not involving DIRAC operators. Although a commutes with f, p does not, and a valid approximation for (a f u)A is obtained from (12.7) only if we write f (r) to the left of p.Google Scholar
- 1.W. PAULI: Z. Physik
**43**, 601 (1927).Google Scholar - 1.Regarding this factor of two, see L. H. THOMAS, Nature, Lond.
**107**, 514 (1926).Google Scholar - 1.Unlike the HAMILTONian in the nonrelativistic SCHRÖDINGER theory, H not only involves the spin operator, but also depends explicitly on the eigenvalue. We shall only consider cases where WI «mc2 and shall not encounter any difficulty from the dependence of Hon W.Google Scholar
- 1.The expansion parameter in the PAULI approximation scheme, roughly speaking, is (Vic)2, not Vic.Google Scholar
- 2.Bethe and Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics.Google Scholar
- 1.The statement that j = l f z is merely a specific case of a more general theorem on the eigenvalues j (j +1) of the square of the sum of two commuting angular momentum operators, ka + kb: If the eigenvalues of kâ, kb are la (la I) and lb (lb + 1), then j = I la — lb I • I la — bbl +1,—, la + lb . j is defined as the positive root of j (j + 1) = const.Google Scholar
- 2.We can, of course, find a linear superposition of the two solutions, + and —, for fixed l and m, for which a or b vanishes. Such wave functions are eigenstates of ks and s, but not of the HAMILTOxian (13.2), since the eigenvalues X+ and X_ are different. If a is considered very small, the two eigenvalues of the total HAMILTOxian are approximately the same and such a wave function is “almost a stationary state”.Google Scholar
- 3.Ref. [1], p. 151.Google Scholar
- 4.Ref. [10], p. 310.Google Scholar
- 1.These expressions are taken from W. B. PAYNE, Ph. D. Thesis, Louisiana State University 1955 (unpublished). Payne has also tabulated the radial wave functions for the M and N shells. See also E. H. B.RHOP and H. S. MASSEY, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A
**153**, 661 (1935). Graphs of the DIRAC wave functions are given by H. E. WHITE, Phys. Rev.**38**, 513 (1931). Expressions for the DIRAC wave functions in terms of generalized LAGUERRE polynomials are given by L. DAVIS, Phys. Rev.**56**, 186 (1939).Google Scholar - 1.C. G. DARWIN: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A
**118**, 654 (1928).Google Scholar - 2.L. K. ACHESON: Phys. Rev.
**82**, 488 (1951). — L. R. ELTON: Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond. A**66**, 806 (1953). — YENNIE, RAVENHALL and WILSON: Phys. Rev.**95**, 500 (1954). See also ref. [9], p. 79.Google Scholar - 1.In this section k is linear momentum, not angular momentum. Phys. Rev.
**103**, 1601 (1956).Google Scholar - 2.YENNIE, RAVENHALL and WILSON: Phys. Rev. 95, 500 (1954). Bethe and Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics.Google Scholar
- 1.For a discussion of double scattering and expressions for the “assymetry factor” see ref. [9], p. 78 and 82.Google Scholar
- 2.J. H. BARTLETT and R. E. WATSON: Phys. Rev.
**56**, 612 (1939). — H. FESHBACH: Pbys. Rev. 84, 1206 (1951);**88**, 295 (1953). — G. PARZEN and T. WAINWRIGHT: Phys. Rev.**96**, 188 (1954). — J. DOGGETT and L. SPENCER: Phys. Rev.**103**, 1597 (1956). — N. SHERMAN:Google Scholar - 1.Such an expression was first derived by N. F. MOTT, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A
**124**, 425 (1929) but his term in Za was incorrect. The expression quoted in ref. [9] is also wrong. The correct expression was obtained by W. A. MCKINLEY and H. FESHBACH, Phys. Rev.**74**, 1759 (1948).Google Scholar - 1.R. H. DALITZ: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A
**206**, 509 (1951).Google Scholar - 2.P. A. M. DIRAC: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A
**133**, 80 (1931).Google Scholar - 1.In fact, these corrections can be calculated in a consistent manner only according to hole theory.Google Scholar
- 2.A. Rusi Nowi Tz: Phys. Rev.
**73**, 1330 (1948).Google Scholar - 3.M. LEvv: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A
**204**, 145 (1950).Google Scholar - 1.We shall simply write 6 for 6P.Google Scholar
- 2.H. A. BETHE: Z. Naturforsch. 3a, 470 (1948). — E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev.
**87**, 328 (1952).Google Scholar - 1.Although the operator p • e+e • p is not zero itself, its expectation value with any real and bounded wave function u is — i f dr div (eu2) = 0. It then also follows that the expectation value of 2e • p equals that of e • p — p • e = i div ~.Google Scholar
- 2.In carrying out the FOURIER transforms it is useful to write e= - grad 9 _ — i (p — 9’ p) and = curl A = i (p X A +A x p). Note also that, for time-independent potentials satisfying the LORENTZ gauge condition, div A (r) = kA (k) = o.Google Scholar
- 1.For a historical survey see ref. PO], p. 317, and A. SOMMERFELD, Naturwiss.
**28**, 417 (1940) .Google Scholar - 2.Except that there is no splitting for n 1 (j = z only). Nevertheless the energy shift W1 is larger for n = 1 than for any other level.Google Scholar
- 1.See ref. [10], p. 319 and W. E. LAMB, Rep. Progr. Physics
**14**, 19 (1951).Google Scholar - 2.For details on this voluminous subject see ref. [5] or A. SOMMERFELD, Atombau and Spektrallinien, 5th Ed.; or ref. [4], Ch. 6; or Vol. XXXVI of this Encyclopedia.Google Scholar
- 3.D. R. HARTREE: Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 24, 111 (1928).Google Scholar
- 4.BETHE and SALPETER: Quantum Mechanics of One-and Two-Electron Systems. Sect. 17.Google Scholar
- 1.E. FERMI: Z. Physik
**48**, 73 (1928). — L. H. THOMAS: Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc.**23**, 542 (1927). See also P. GoMSAs, Statistische Theorie des Atoms, Vienna: Springer 1949. and Vol. XXXVI of this Encyclopedia.Google Scholar - 2.L. PAULING: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 114 (1927). — J. C. SLATER: Phys. Rev.
**36**, 57 (1930).Google Scholar - 1.LANDOLT and BÖRNSTEIN: Zahlenwerte und Funktionen, 6. Ed., Vol. I/1 Berlin: Springer 1950.Google Scholar
- 2.R. CHRISTY and J. KELLER: Phys. Rev.
**61**, 147 (1942).Google Scholar - 3.Small remaining discrepancies, due to the finite nuclear size, are discussed by A. SCHAWLOW and C. TOWNES, Science, Lancaster, Pa.
**115**, 284 (1952) and Phys. Rev.**100**, 1273 (1955).Google Scholar - 2.S. BRENNER and G. E. BROWN: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A
**218**, 422 (1953).Google Scholar - 3.For a more detailed comparison of theory with the latest experimental data see D. SAXON Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin and J. E. MACK, Phys. Rev.
**87**, 225 (1952).Google Scholar - 4.S. COHEN: Ph. D. Thesis, Cornell 1955.Google Scholar
- 5.Recent experimental work by D. SAXON indicates a slightly smaller value for the K — LI difference, which would increase the discrepancy by a few Ry.Google Scholar
- 6.For treatments of quantum electrodynamics see, for instance, refs. [3], [6] and [11] to [14] of the bibliography.Google Scholar
- 1.R. P. FEYNMAN: Phys. Rev.
**76**, 749, 769 (1949).Google Scholar - 1.H. A. BETHE: Phys. Rev.
**72**, 339 (1947). See also our Sect. 19ß.Google Scholar - 2.For a list of the classic papers of these authors on quantum electrodynamics see refs. [6], [12], [13] and [14].Google Scholar
- 3.N. KROLL and W. LAMB: Phys. Rev. 75, 388 (1949). — J. FRENCH and V. WEissxoPF: Phys. Rev.
**75**, 1240 (1949). — J. SCHWINGER: Phys. Rev.**76**, 790 (1949). — R. P. FEYNMAN: Phys. Rev.**76**, 769 (1949).Google Scholar - 4.The expression (18.1) holds only for a nonrelativistic change in momentum, q2,’ (In c)2, but expressions have been evaluated which hold for all values of qv.Google Scholar
- 1.R. KARPLUS and N. KROLL: Phys. Rev.
**77**, 536 (1950).Google Scholar - 1.F. BLOCH and A. NORDSIECK: Phys. Rev.
**52**, 54 (1937). — W. PAULI and M. FIERZ: Nuovo Cim.**15**, 167 (1938).Google Scholar - 2.J. JAUCH and F. ROHRLICH: Phys. Rev.
**98**, 181 (1955) and Heiv. phys. Acta**27**, 613 (1954). — E. L. LoMON: Nuclear Physics 1, 101 (1956).Google Scholar - 1.In (18.4), for instance, the term in g2 is proportional to the charge distribution producing the field, which is a point charge Ze â() (r) for a COULOMB potential.Google Scholar
- 1.R. KARPLUS, A. KLEIN and J. SCHWINGER: Phys. Rev. 86, 288 (1952). — M. BARANGER, H. BETHE and R. FEYNMAN: Phys. Rev.
**92**, 482 (1953).Google Scholar - 2.E. WICHMAN and N. M. KROLL: Phys. Rev. 101, 843 (1956).Google Scholar
- 3.H. A. BETHE: Phys. Rev.
**72**, 339 (1947).Google Scholar - 1.This follows from (19.7) as a special case. For a free electron, the momentum changes by k upon emission or absorption of a quantum. If retardation is neglected, this means that k is negligible compared with p, and therefore the energy En after emission of the quantum, is the same as that before, E0. Then the second term in (19.7) vanishes, q.e.d.Google Scholar
- 1.In the covariant evaluation of JET, great care must be taken that the definition of d is equivalent to that in the nonrelativistic calculation of LE.; see footnote 13 of R. P. FEYNMAN, Phys. Rev.
**76**, 769 (1949).Google Scholar - 1.E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev.
**89**, 92 (1953).Google Scholar - 2.For P-states a term in (19.16), connected with the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment, is multiplied by (1 — 2m/M); see W. BARKER and F. GLOVER, Phys. Rev.
**99**, 317 (1955).Google Scholar - 1.E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev.
**87**, 328 (1952). A small term in this paper, called d Ecc should be doubled.Google Scholar - 2.No nuclei are known which have a finite electric dipole moment, see ref. [16], Chap. 2. 2 E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev.
**89**, 92 (1953).Google Scholar - 4.A. SCHAWLOW and C. TOWNES: Science, Lancaster, Pa.
**115**, 284 (1952) and Phys. Rev. 100, 1273 (1955).Google Scholar - 1.L. L. FOLDY: Phys. Rev.
**83**, 688 (1951).Google Scholar - 2.BETRE, BROWN and STERN: Phys. Rev.
**77**, 370 (1950)Google Scholar - 1.W. E. LAMB: Phys. Rev.
**85**, 259 (1952).Google Scholar - 2.E. DAYHOFF, S. TRIEBWASSER and W. LAMB: Phys. Rev. 89, 106 (1953).Google Scholar
- 1.J. DUMOND and E. COHEN: This volume. - J. BEARDEN and J. THOMSEN: Atomic Constants. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University 1955.Google Scholar
- 2.E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 89, 92 (1953). In this paper the notation used in this section is explained more fully.Google Scholar
- 3.J. M. HARRIMAN: Phys. Rev.
**101**, 594 (1956).Google Scholar - 4.M. BARANGER, H. BETHE and R. FEYNMAN: Phys. Rev.
**92**, 482 (1953). - KARPLUS, KLEIN and SCHWINGER: Phys. Rev.**86**, 288 (1952).Google Scholar - 8.R. KARPLUS and N. KROLL: Phys. Rev.
**77**, 536 (1950). - M. BARANGER, F. DYSON and E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev.**88**, 680 (1952). - BERSOHN, WENESER and KROLL: Phys. Rev.**91**, 1257 (1953).Google Scholar - 6.S. TRIEBWASSER, E. DAYHOFF and W. LAMB: Phys. Rev.
**89**, 98 (1953).Google Scholar - 7.R. NOVICE, E. LIPWORTH and P. YERGIN: Phys. Rev.
**100**, 1153 (1955).Google Scholar - 1.See ref. [16), Chap. 4.Google Scholar
- 2.Classically speaking, s and k precess rapidly about the direction of M. In turn, M precesses about the direction of f, but much more slowly, and only the components of s and k parallel to M are important.Google Scholar
- 1.S. ToLANSxl: Fine Structure In Line Spectra. London: Methuen and Co. 1935.Google Scholar
- 2.G. BREIT: Phys. Rev.
**35**, 1447 (1930).Google Scholar - 3.In fact, the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron was first inferred from a discrepancy between (22.14) and experiment. G. BREIT: Phys. Rev.
**72**, 984 (1947).Google Scholar - 4.R. KARPLUS and A. KLEIN: Phys. Rev.
**85**, 972 (1952). — N. M. KROLL and F. POLL0cK: Phys. Rev.**86**, 876 (1952).Google Scholar - 1.G. BREIT and R. MEYEROTT: Phys. Rev.
**72**, 1023 (1947).Google Scholar - 2.R. ARNOWITT: Phys. Rev.
**92**, 1002 (1953). — W. NEWCOMB and E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev.**97**, 1146 (1955).Google Scholar - 1.A. PRODELL and P. KuscH: Phys. Rev.
**88**, 184 (1952) and 100, 1183 (1955). — J. WITKE and R. DICKE: Phys. Rev.**96**, 530 (1954).Google Scholar - 2.S. KOENIG, A. PRODELL and P. KuscH: Phys. Rev.
**88**, 191 (1952). — R. BERINGER and M. HEALD: Phys. Rev.**95**, 1474 (1954).Google Scholar - 3.The internal structure of the proton also contributes (unknown) corrections to the fine structure separation energy of the same absolute order of magnitude as to hyperfine structure. But, since the fine structure itself is very much larger than hyperfine structure, these corrections have a negligible effect on (21.6), but an appreciable one on (22.20). On the other hand, the purely experimental errors are larger in the experiments leading to (21.6) than in those leading to (22.20).Google Scholar
- 1.A. BOHR: Phys. Rev.
**73**, 1109 (1948). — F. E. Low: Phys. Rev. 77, 361 (1950). — F. Low and E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev.**83**, 478 (1951).Google Scholar - 2.C. GREIFINGER: Ph. D. Thesis, Cornell 1954.Google Scholar
- 3.For a more detailed account and a bibliography see a review article by S. DEBENEDETTI and H. C. CORBEN, Ann. Rev. Nuc. Sci.
**4**, 191 (1954). Cf. also L. SIMONS in Vol. XXXIV of this Encyclopedia.Google Scholar - 1.A. ORE and J. POWELL: Phys. Rev.
**75**, 1696, 1963 (1953).Google Scholar - 1.All terms of order as Ry were first calculated by J. PIRENNE, Arch. Sci. phys. nat.
**29**, 121, 207, 265 (1947); V. BERESTETSKI and L. LANDAU, J. exp. theor. Phys. USSR.**19**, 673, 1130 (1949). Some errors in these papers were corrected by R. A. FERRELL, Phys. Rev.**84**, 858 (1951).Google Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1957