text:
# Non-LTE line-formation for CNO

## 1. Introduction

Carbon, nitrogen and oxygen represent the body of the heavy elements in the universe. Knowledge of their abundances is a key ingredient for understanding the evolution of stars, galaxies and the universe. However, reliable and accurate information on CNO abundances is scarce. In the late-type stars it is primarily the convective nature of the atmospheres that introduces systematic uncertainty, such that even the solar CNO abundances are under debate still (e.g. M. Asplund, these proceedings). On the other hand, non-LTE effects prevail in the earlier spectral types. Besides efficient numerical techniques, accurate atomic data are required for solving the non-LTE radiative transfer problem. Vast amounts of radiative and collisional data from quantum-mechanical ab-initio calculations have been provided by the Opacity Project (Seaton et al. 1994) and the IRON Project (Hummer et al. 1993) in the recent years, supplemented by contributions from fusion research and state-of-the-art experiments. Use of the $`R`$-matrix method in the close-coupling approximation allows for a reduction of the typical uncertainties in the data to $``$10% on the mean, in sharp contrast to the order-of-magnitude approximations widely used in astrophysics. In the following we discuss the impact of such data on non-LTE abundance determinations for CNO in early-type stars and report on first applications.

## 2. Non-LTE line-formation for CNO: recent progress

Comprehensive model atoms for C i/ii, N i/ii and O i are implemented (Przybilla, Butler, & Kudritzki 2001; Przybilla & Butler 2001; Przybilla et al. 2000; Przybilla 2002) for the non-LTE line-formation programs Detail and Surface (Giddings 1981, with substantial modifications by K. Butler). For the first time also detailed excitation cross-sections for electron collisions are accounted for in hundreds of transitions, besides accurate radiative data, adopted from sophisticated quantum-mechanical computations.

Testing of the models is performed on high-resolution and high-S/N Echelle spectra of several bright galactic main sequence stars and supergiants of spectral types B and A, using line-blanketed Atlas9 model atmospheres (Kurucz 1993). Similar non-LTE effects are at work in all three elements. Photoionizations depopulate the low-lying energy levels of the neutral species, while recombination cascades provide a significant overpopulation of the (quasi-)metastable states in the line-formation region. Moreover, photon losses – in particular in the tenuous atmospheres of the supergiants – lead to a drop of the line source function below the Planckian value. Both effects promote the non-LTE strengthening of the CNO lines of the neutral atoms at visual and near-IR wavelengths. Non-LTE abundances will therefore be systematically smaller than derived in LTE. Non-LTE strengthening is also found for the lines of the singly-ionized species.

The new results confirm these well-known facts from previous studies. However, for the first time practically all spectroscopic indicators are reproduced in a quantitative manner. Consistent results are obtained from lines of the different spin systems, simultaneously for the neutral and singly-ionized stages (the model atom of Becker & Butler (1988) is adopted for O ii). A comparison of non-LTE and LTE abundances for individual lines in a sub-sample of the test objects is made in Fig. 1. In the main-sequence star Vega departures from LTE hardly affect the weaker C i and O i lines, whereas the strong lines of these species and the N i lines are subject to significant non-LTE effects. These strengthen in the supergiants, giving rise to non-LTE abundance corrections of typically $``$0.3 dex for the weak lines and of more than 1 dex for the strong lines. By accounting for non-LTE effects systematic trends of derived line abundance with equivalent width are removed and the statistical scatter from the weak lines is slightly reduced when compared to LTE analyses. In particular, the new models indicate much higher nitrogen abundances from the analysis of N i lines in BA-type supergiants than derived previously, by a factor of $``$2. The refined collisional excitation data (Frost et al. 1998) allow for a realistic treatment of the processes trying to restore detailed balance. It turns out that the non-LTE departures are drastically dampened in comparison to the case with less elaborate data. These findings have significant consequences for the interpretation of the deduced abundance ratios in terms of chemical mixing in the course of massive star evolution, see below and Venn & Przybilla (VP, these proceedings).

To conclude, the new model calculations reduce the random scatter in the spectral line analyses and largely remove systematic error. They indicate that absolute abundances with 1$`\sigma `$-uncertainties of 0.05 to 0.10 dex (random) and $``$0.10 dex (systematic error) can be derived in main sequence to supergiant stars alike. In addition, the presence of lines from two ionic species of the elements allows to exploit the ionization equilibria for the stellar parameter determination.

A few issues remain to be solved. The comparatively large uncertainty in the carbon abundances is interpreted as an indication for the need of further improvement of the atomic data. Discrepant abundances from the C ii $`\lambda \lambda `$ 6578–82 doublet, formed in the wing of H$`\alpha `$, result from the neglect of sphericity and mass-loss effects on the H$`\alpha `$ feature, leading to inappropriate line-formation depths for the C ii lines in the current modelling. Sphericity and mass-loss are also affecting the oxygen triplet $`\lambda \lambda `$ 7771–5 and O i $`\lambda `$ 8446, which belong to the strongest lines in luminous supergiants, sampling the body of the stellar atmosphere. The N i $`\lambda \lambda `$ 8184–8242 multiplet analysis currently suffers from problems with realistically modelling the line merging and level dissolution of hydrogen near the Paschen series limit, again leading to inappropriate line-formation depths for the N i features. Finally, the strongest line in the doublet spin system, N i $`\lambda `$ 8629, turns out to indicate too low abundances still, despite significant improvement compared to previous studies. This line is extremely sensitive to inaccuracies in the atomic data and the atmospheric structure.

## 3. First applications

Stellar evolution models accounting for the effects of mass-loss and rotation have become available recently (Meynet & Maeder 2000; Heger & Langer 2000). These reproduce many of the observational constraints (e.g. A. Herrero, these proceedings; VP) on massive star evolution at least qualitatively, in particular the surface contamination with CN-cycle products. In addition to convective mixing during the red-supergiant stage (first dredge-up) a second channel opens, rotationally induced mixing. This can account for abundance anomalies of the light elemental species already on the main sequence.

We compare the predictions from the new stellar evolution models with the findings from our test sample and preliminary results on the visually brightest, i.e. the most massive, A-type supergiants in both Magellanic Clouds in Fig. 2. Non-LTE abundances for the fusion product helium have been determined in addition to data on CNO. The objects are assumed to be single stars, as binary evolution will alter the interpretation of the results significantly. To summarise, good agreement is found in terms of helium enrichment and N/C ratios. For the least-massive galactic object a blue-loop scenario with first dredge-up abundances is indicated and the more massive objects have most likely evolved directly from the main sequence, allowing for variations in the initial rotational velocities. Far stronger mixing acts in the SMC supergiant, which is well understood if metallicity effects on stellar evolution are accounted for, that affect mass-loss and angular-momentum transport (Maeder & Meynet 2001). In addition, good agreement between the combined CNO abundances and stellar metallicity (relative to the solar standard, Grevesse & Sauval 1998) is found, as can be expected for the catalysts of the main fusion cycle.

However, the consistent picture is shattered when the N/O ratios are considered. These deviate from the predictions, as oxygen remains practically undepleted. The reason for this has to be investigated. Moreover, a CNO overabundance relative to the heavier metals is indicated, if the solar abundances from 3D hydrodynamical simulations (M. Asplund, these proceedings) are preferred over the results from classical 1D model atmospheres.

How do our conclusions compare with those of previous investigations? Until recently, CNO abundances in galactic and SMC AF-type supergiants in the mass-range $``$5–20 M (Venn 1995, 1999) seemed to indicate a direct evolution from the main sequence, with no necessity to invoke blue-loop scenarios. In view of the improved non-LTE abundance analysis – in particular with respect to nitrogen – the situation has to be reinvestigated, with an important first step taken by VP. Blue-loop evolution can no longer be ruled out, and large efforts will be required to disentangle the different alternatives for explaining the observational findings, see VP for details. An extension of the sample size is mandatory, including many more objects of masses above $``$20 M, where the signatures of rotationally induced mixing are supposed to get more pronounced.

A related field of application is the analysis of unevolved B-type main-sequence stars. Here, Korn et al. (2002) use the new model atoms to derive pristine stellar CNO abundances in the LMC, based on VLT/UVES observations. These compare well with results from H ii region analyses and confirm the extraordinary low present-day nitrogen abundance of this galactic environment.

## 4. Perspective

The future certainly belongs to extensive applications of the new CNO model atoms for quantitative spectroscopy. Efficient multi-object spectrographs like FLAMES on the VLT will provide the plethora of observations needed to systematically investigate massive star evolution throughout the HRD. On the theoretical side, the model atoms will see occasional updates with improved atomic data, whenever it becomes available. Furthermore, an implementation of the model atoms for non-LTE computations of line-blanketed, spherically extended stellar atmospheres accounting for mass-loss is aspired, in order to solve the remaining few problems with the current approach. Finally, an extension of the applications towards later-type stars should also be considered. This will however require major efforts from theoretical atomic physics to generate reliable data on hydrogen collisions, which can presently be treated in a highly approximative manner only.

## References

Becker, S.R., & Butler, K. 1988, A&A, 201, 232

Frost R.M., Awakowicz, P., et al. 1998, Journal of Applied Physics, 84, 2989

Giddings, J.R. 1981, PhD Thesis, University of London

Grevesse N., & Sauval A.J. 1998, Space Sci.Rev., 85, 161

Heger, A., & Langer, N. 2000, ApJ, 544, 1016

Hummer, D.G., Berrington, K.A., Eissner W., et al. 1993, A&A, 279, 298

Korn, A.J., Keller, S.C., Kaufer, A., et al. 2002, A&A, 385, 143

Kurucz, R.L 1993, Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13, SAO, Cambridge, Mass.

Maeder A., & Meynet G. 2001, A&A, 373, 555

Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2000, A&A, 361, 101

Przybilla, N. 2002, PhD Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich

Przybilla, N., & Butler, K. 2001, A&A, 379, 955

Przybilla, N., Butler, K., & Kudritzki, R.P. 2001, A&A, 379, 936

Przybilla, N., Butler, K., Becker, S.R., et al. 2000, A&A, 359, 1085

Seaton, M.J., Yu, Y., Mihalas, D., & Pradhan, A.K. 1994, MNRAS, 266, 805

Venn, K.A. 1995, ApJ, 449, 839

Venn, K.A. 1999, ApJ, 518, 405


format: text

text:
# Core-Collapse Supernovae and Neutron Star Kicks

## 1. Introduction

The subject of supernovae (SNe) has a long history, but the modern era of SN research really began in 1934 when Baade and Zwicky made the prophetic suggestion that the death of massive stars, SN explosions and neutron star (NS) formation are connected events. This suggestion was confirmed by the discovery of the pulsar in the Crab supernova remnant (SNR) in 1968; the SN, as is well known, was actually observed in 1054 by Chinese astronomers.

Today the mechanism of SN explosion remains an unsolved problem. Moreover, observations over the last few years suggest that we may actually know less than we thought about core collapse and explosion of massive stars. Here we discuss a small sample of unsolved problems related to SNe and NS formation, focusing on the problem of NS kicks.

Basic Paradigm for Core-Collapse Supernovae: The current paradigm for core-collapse supernovae is that they are neutrino-driven (see, e.g., Bethe 1990; Janka et al. 2001; Burrows & Thompson 2002 for reviews): As the central core of a massive star collapses to nuclear density, it rebounds and sends off a shock wave, leaving behind a proto-NS. The shock stalls at several 100’s km because of neutrino loss and nuclear dissociation in the shock. A fraction of the neutrinos emitted from the proto-NS get absorbed by nucleons behind the shock, thus reviving the shock, leading to an explosion on the timescale several 100’s ms — This is the so-called “delayed mechanism”. However, 1D simulations with detailed neutrino transport seem to indicate that neutrino heating of the stalled shock, by itself, does not lead to a robust explosion (e.g., Rampp & Janka 2000; Liebendoerfer et al. 2002). It has been argued that neutrino-driven convection in the proto-NS (which tends to increase the neutrino flux) and that in the shocked mantle (which tends to increase the neutrino heating efficiency) are central to the explosion mechanism, although it is not clear how robust of these convections are (see, e.g., Mezzacappa et al. 1998; Fryer & Warren 2002). Clearly, in this “standard model”, the problem of SN explosion is a quantitative one, involving 3D radiation (neutrino) (and possibly relativistic) hydrodynamics.

This basic picture of core-collapse SNe, however, is likely to be incomplete. There are some obvious puzzles as a result of recent observations:

Formation of Magnetars: Observations over the last few years have revealed two new classes of young NSs, the soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs). They have many common characteristics and are mostly likely related to each other (see Kaspi’s contribution in this proceedings). Strong physical arguments suggest that these are young NSs endowed with superstrong magnetic fields $`B>10^{14}`$ G (see Thompson 2001). The existence of these magnetars poses some obvious questions: Under what conditions core-collapse of massive stars will lead to radio pulsars vs. magnetars? What is the branching ratio? What is the origin of the NS magnetic field? Does the B-field (in combination with rotation) play any dynamical role in the explosion? Currently we do not have firm answers to these questions (see, e.g., Thompson & Duncan 1993).

Black Hole Formation and Core-Collapse SNe: BHs are also formed in the core collapse of massive stars. Recent observations showed that BH formation can be accompanied by SN explosion, at least in two cases: The companion of the BH X-ray binary GRO J1655-40 (Nova Sco) and that of SAX J1819.3-2525 (V4641 SGR) have high abundance of $`\alpha `$-elements (Israelian et al. 1999; Orosz et al. 2001); these $`\alpha `$-elements can only be produced in a SN explosion. Apparently, the companion stars have been polluted by material ejected in the SN that accompanied the formation of the BH primary (see Podsiadlowski et al. 2002). These observations pose a host of questions: What are the differences between a SN that made a NS and a SN that made a BH? How is the BH formed? We could have a direct collapse to BH in which the shock wave never successfully makes it to induce an explosion, or we could have a indirect process where a shock wave successfully makes an explosion and a NS forms temporarily followed by fall-back, or loss of angular momentum and thermal energy in the proto-NS which then collapses to a BH. This indirect process may explain the the relatively large space velocity of GRO J1655-40.

On a more speculative side, there is possible connection between SN and the central engine of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). In the last few years a growing list of observations suggests that some GRBs are connected with the death of massive star and SNe. The famous case is GRB 980425, which coincided both in time and in position with a Type Ic SN1998bw. In at least 3 GRBs (980326, 970228, 000911), the rebrightening of the optical afterglows about a month after the initial bursts have been observed and interpreted as the underlying SNe which emerged when the afterglows faded. Possible emission line features (Kα of Fe, O, Mg, Si, etc) in several X-ray afterglows at hours-days may also be an indication of SNe. The obvious question is: under what conditions will the collapse of a massive star lead to GRB, SN with BH, SN with NS, etc.?

## 2. Evidence for Neutron Star Kicks and Supernova Asymmetry

It has long been recognized that NSs have space velocities much greater than their progenitors’. A natural explanation for such high velocities is that SN explosions are asymmetric, and provide kicks to the nascent NSs. In recent years evidence for NS kicks and SN asymmetry has become much stronger, but the origin of the kicks remains mysterious. The observations that support (or even require) NS kicks fall into three categories:

(1) Large NS Velocities ($``$ the progenitors’ velocities $`30`$ km s-1):

$``$ The study of pulsar proper motion give a mean birth velocity $`200500`$ km s-1 (Lorimer et al. 1997; Hansen & Phinney 1997; Arzoumanian et al 2002), with possibly a significant population having $`V>1000`$ km s-1.

$``$ Observations of bow shock from the Guitar nebula pulsar (B2224+65) implies $`V\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}1000`$ km s-1 (Cordes et al. 1993; Chatterjee & Cordes 2002).

$``$ The studies of NS – SNR associations have, in some cases, implied large NS velocities, up to $`10^3`$ km s-1 (e.g., NS in Cas A SNR has $`V>330`$ km s-1; Thorstensen et al. 2001).

(2) Characteristics of NS Binaries: While large space velocities can in principle be accounted for by binary break-up, many observed characteristics of NS binaries can only be explained by intrinsic kicks:

$``$ The detection of geodetic precession in binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 (Kramer 1998; Wex et al. 1999; see contributions by J. Weisberg and by M. Kramer).

$``$ The spin-orbit misalignment in PSR J0045-7319/B-star binary, as manifested by the orbital plane precession (Kaspi et al. 1996; Lai et al. 1995) and fast orbital decay (which indicates retrograde rotation of the B star with respect to the orbit; Lai 1996a; Kumar & Quataert 1997). Similar precession of orbital plane has been observed in PSR J1740-3052 system (see Stair’s contribution).

$``$ High system radial velocity ($`430\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) of X-ray binary Circinus X-1 (Tauris et al. 1999). Also, PSR J1141-6545 has $`V_{\mathrm{sys}}125\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (see contributions by Ord and Bailes).

$``$ High eccentricities of Be/X-ray binaries (Verbunt & van den Heuvel 1995; but see Pfahl et al. 2002).

$``$ Evolutionary studies of NS binary population (in particular the double NS systems) (e.g., Deway & Cordes 1987; Fryer & Kalogera 1997; Fryer et al. 1998).

(3) Observations of SNe and SNRs: There are many direct observations of nearby SNe (e.g., spectropolarimetry: Wang et al. 2000, Leonard et al. 2001; X-ray and gamma-ray observations and emission line profiles of SN1987A) and SNRs (e.g., Aschenbach et al. 1995; Hwang et al. 2002) which support the notion that SN explosions are not spherically symmetric.

## 3. NS Kick Mechanisms

Now we review three different classes of mechanisms for generating NS kicks.

Hydrodynamically Driven Kicks

The first class of kick mechanisms relies on hydrodynamics. Since the collapsed core and its surrounding mantle are susceptible to a variety of hydrodynamical (convective) instabilities, one might expect that the asymmetries in the density, temperature and velocity distributions associated with the instabilities can lead to asymmetric matter ejection and/or asymmetric neutrino emission. Numerical simulations, however, indicate that these local, post-collapse instabilities are not adequate to account for kick velocities $`\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}50`$ km s-1. To produce sufficient kicks, the key is to have global asymmetric perturbations in presupernova cores before collapse.

One possible origin for the pre-SN asymmetry is the overstable oscillations in the pre-SN core (Goldreich et al. 1996). The idea is the following. A few hours prior to core collapse, the central region of the progenitor star consists of a Fe core surrounded by Si-O burning shells and other layers of envelope. This configuration is overstable to nonspherical oscillation modes. It is simplest to see this by considering a $`l=1`$ mode: If we perturb the core to the right, the right-hand-side of the shell will be compressed, resulting in an increase in temperature; since the shell nuclear burning rate depends sensitively on temperature (power-law index $`47`$ for Si burning and $`33`$ for O burning), the nuclear burning is greatly enhanced; this generates a large local pressure, pushing the core back to the left. The result is an oscillating g-mode with increasing amplitude. There are also damping mechanisms for these modes, the most important one being leakage of mode energy: Since acoustic waves whose frequencies lie above the acoustic cutoff can propagate through convective regions, each core g-mode will couple to an outgoing acoustic wave, which drains energy from the core g-modes. In another word, the g-mode is not exactly trapped in the core. Our calculations (based on the $`15M_{}`$ and $`25M_{}`$ presupernova models of Weaver & Woosley) indicate that a large number of g-modes are overstable, although for low-order modes (small $`l`$ and $`n`$) the results depend sensitively on the detailed structure and burning rates of the presupernova models (see Lai 2001). The typical mode periods are $`\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}1`$ s, the growth time $`1050`$ s, and the lifetime of the Si shell burning is $``$ hours. Thus there could be a lot of e-foldings for the nonspherical g-modes to grow. Our preliminary calculations based on the recent models of A. Heger and S. Woosley (Heger et al. 2001) give similar results (work in progress). Our tentative conclusion is that overstable g-modes can potentially grow to large amplitudes prior to core implosion, although several issues remain to be understood better. For example, the O-Si burning shell is highly convective, with convective speed reaching $`1/4`$ of the sound speed, and hydrodynamical simulation may be needed to properly modeled such convection zones (see Bazan & Arnett 1998, Asida & Arnett 2000).

So now we have a way of generating initial asymmetric perturbations before core collapse. During the collapse, the asymmetries are amplified by a factor of 5-10 (Lai & Goldreich 2000). How do we get the kick? The numerical simulations by Burrows & Hayes (1996) illustrate the effect. Suppose the right-hand-side of the collapsing core is denser than the left-hand side. As the shock wave comes out after bounce, it will see different densities in different directions, and it will move preferentially on the direction where the density is lower. So we have an asymmetric shock propagation and mass ejection, a “mass rocket”. The magnitude of kick velocity is proportional to the degree of initial asymmetry in the imploding core.

Neutrino – Magnetic Field Driven Kicks

The second class of kick mechanisms rely on asymmetric neutrino emission induced by strong magnetic fields. The fractional asymmetry $`\alpha `$ in the radiated neutrino energy required to generate a kick velocity $`V_{\mathrm{kick}}`$ is $`\alpha =MV_{\mathrm{kick}}c/E_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ ($`=0.028`$ for $`V_{\mathrm{kick}}=1000`$ km s-1, NS mass $`M=1.4M_{}`$ and total neutrino energy radiated $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}=3\times 10^{53}`$ erg). There are several possible effects:

(1) Parity Violation: Because weak interaction is parity violating, the neutrino opacities and emissivities in a magnetized nuclear medium depend asymmetrically on the directions of neutrino momenta with respect to the magnetic field, and this can give rise to asymmetric neutrino emission from the proto-NS. Calculations indicate that to generate interesting kicks with this effect requires the proto-NS to have a large-scale, ordered magnetic field of at least a few $`\times 10^{15}`$ G (see Arras & Lai 1999 and references therein).

(2) Asymmetric Field Topology: Another effect relies on the asymmetric magnetic field distribution in proto-NSs: Since the cross section for $`\nu _e`$ ($`\overline{\nu }_e`$) absorption on neutrons (protons) depends on the local magnetic field strength, the local neutrino fluxes emerged from different regions of the stellar surface are different. Calculations indicate that to generate a kick velocity of $`300`$ km s-1 using this effect alone would require that the difference in the field strengths at the two opposite poles of the star be at least $`10^{16}`$ G (see Lai & Qian 1998). Note that only the magnitude of the field matters here.

(3) Dynamical Effect of Magnetic Fields: A superstrong magnetic field may also play a dynamical role in the proto-NS. For example, it has been suggested that a locally strong magnetic field can induce “dark spots” (where the neutrino flux is lower than average) on the stellar surface by suppressing neutrino-driven convection (Duncan & Thompson 1992). While it is difficult to quantify the kick velocity resulting from an asymmetric distribution of dark spots, order-of-magnitude estimate indicates that a local magnetic field of at least $`10^{15}`$ G is needed for this effect to be of importance.

Electromagnetically Drievn Kicks

Harrison & Tademaru (1975) show that electromagnetic (EM) radiation from an off-centered rotating magnetic dipole imparts a kick to the pulsar along its spin axis. The kick is attained on the initial spindown timescale of the pulsar (i.e., this really is a gradual acceleration), and comes at the expense of the spin kinetic energy. A reexamination of this effect (Lai et al. 2001) showed that the force on the pulsar due to asymmetric EM radiation is larger than the original Harrison & Tademaru expression by a factor of four. Nevertheless, to generate interesting kicks using this mechanism requires the initial spin of the NS to be less than $`12`$ ms. Gravitational radiation may also affect the net velocity boost.

## 4. Astrophysical Constraints on Kick Mechanisms

The review in §3 clearly shows that NS kick is not only a matter of curiosity, it is intimately connected to the other fundamental parameters of young NSs (initial spin and magnetic field), and is an important ingredient of SN astrophysics.

One of the reasons that it has been difficult to pin down the kick mechanisms is the lack of correlation between NS velocity and the other properties of NSs. The situation may have changed with the recent X-ray observations of the compact X-ray nebulae of the Crab and Vela pulsars, which have a two sided asymmetric jet at a position angle coinciding with the position angle of the pulsar’s proper motion (Pavlov et al. 2000; Helfand et al. 2001). The symmetric morphology of the nebula with respect to the jet direction strongly suggests that the jet is along the pulsar’s spin axis. Analysis of the polarization angle of Vela’s radio emission corroborates this interpretation (Lai et al. 2001). Thus, while statistical analysis of pulsar population neither support nor rule out any spin-kick correlation, at least for the Vela and Crab pulsars, the proper motion and the spin axis appear to be aligned.

The apparent alignment between the spin axis and proper motion raises an interesting question: Under what conditions is the spin-kick alignment expected for different kick mechanisms? Let us look at the three classes of mechanisms discussed before (Lai et al. 2001): (1) For the electromagnetically driven kicks, the spin-kick slignment is naturally produced. (Again, note that $`P_i12`$ ms is required to generate sufficiently large $`V_{\mathrm{kick}}`$). (2) For the neutrino–magnetic field driven kicks: The kick is imparted to the NS near the neutrinosphere (at 10’s of km) on the neutrino diffusion time, $`\tau _{\mathrm{kick}}10`$ seconds. As long as the initial spin period $`P_i`$ is much less than a few seconds, spin-kick alignment is naturally expected. (3) For the hydrodynamically driven kicks: because the kick is imparted at a large radius ($`>100`$ km), to get effective rotational averaging, we require that the rotation period at $`100`$ km to be shorter than the kick timescale ($`100`$ ms). This translates to $`P_{\mathrm{NS}}<1`$ ms, which means that rotation must be dynamically important.

Currently we do not know whether spin-kick alignment is a generic feature of all pulsars; if it is, then it can provide powerful constraint on the kick mechanisms and the SN explosion mechanisms in general.

I thank P. Arras, A. Burrows, D. Chernoff, J. Cordes, P. Goldreich, A. Heger, and Y.-Z. Qian for collaboration/discussion. This work is supported by NASA, NSF and the Sloan foundation.


text:
# The hydrogen atom in electric and magnetic fields : Pauli’s 1926 article

## 1 Introduction

In 1926 there appeared nearly simultaneously two articles by Schrödinger  and Pauli  that solved one and the same central problem of the newly discovered quantum mechanics: the computation of the hydrogen atom spectrum. In most textbooks on quantum mechanics the eigenvalue problem is solved using Schrödinger’s approach with spherical coordinates and simultaneously diagonalizing the set of operators $`H_0,\stackrel{}{L}^2,L_z.`$ The main benefit of this approach is that one can deal, in principle, with any central potential and that the eigenstates have definite parity, which is of practical importance in the study of the selection rules for radiative transitions. However, a simple problem like the Stark effect, is quite cumbersome to deal with perturbatively, except for the low lying states.

An essential aspect of the Coulomb problem is that the Schrödinger equation is also separable in parabolic coordinates . This super-separability is related to the conservation of an additional vector $`\stackrel{}{m},`$ the so-called Runge-Lenz (RL) vector, which is specific to the Coulomb potential. Despite its name, the discovery of this conserved vector in Newtonian mechanics goes back to Hermann in the 18th century, as noted by Goldstein , who mentions also early works by Laplace and Hamilton.

Pauli succeeded in defining a quantum extension $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ of the RL vector which is an observable, that is, an hermitian operator, and commutes with the Hamiltonian $`H_0.`$ This success enabled him to calculate the spectrum of the hydrogen atom by an abstract approach. The quantum extension of the RL vector was used to obtain the dynamical $`so(4)`$ symmetry of the bound states. This symmetry, combined with the general theory of angular momentum allows to express the energies of the hydrogen atom .

The main drawbacks of Pauli’s approach are that it works only for a Coulomb potential and that the eigenstates have, in general, no definite parity. However, in the same article, Pauli gave two non-trivial applications of his ideas: the first order perturbation of the energy levels under a uniform electric field (Stark effect) and in the more complicated case of uniform electric and magnetic fields. Guided by an analogous relation from classical mechanics, Pauli guessed the following crucial relation between quantum expectation values :

$$\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}H_0\stackrel{}{R}=\frac{3}{2}\stackrel{}{M},$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ is the position operator and the expectation value should be taken in any eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $`H_0.`$ It is natural to call Eq. (1) Pauli’s identity and we will later discuss its origin.

Textbooks that discuss more advanced topics related to the quantum RL vector (see Refs. -), do not treat these interesting applications. The main aim of this note is to popularize Pauli’s results. In Sec. II we introduce the quantum RL vector and use it to derive the spectrum of the hydrogen atom . In Sec. III we present a new derivation of the crucial identity

$$2H_0\stackrel{}{R}=\frac{3}{2}\stackrel{}{M}+\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[H_0,\stackrel{}{T}],$$
(2)
which implies Eq. (1). It is interesting to note that Eq. (2) was first derived by a clever calculation of commutators by Becker and Bleuler  fifty years after Pauli’s article. Our derivation will make apparent that it is the natural quantum extension of a classical relation. In Sec. IV we consider the hydrogen atom in the presence of uniform electric and magnetic fields. We then use Pauli’s elegant approach to obtain the first-order perturbed levels. We conclude with a short account of the experimental checks, some of which are quite recent.

## 2 Background material

To set our notation (we stick closely to those of ), let us recall the basic properties of the quantum RL vector. As far as possible, we will use upper case letters for quantum operators. We will write the hamiltonian of the hydrogen atom

$$H_0=\frac{\stackrel{}{P}^2}{2\mu }\frac{\kappa }{R},\kappa =\frac{q^2}{4\pi ϵ_0},$$
(3)
where $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass, $`q`$ is the proton charge and $`\kappa =q^2/4\pi ϵ_0.`$ Although going from the classical angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{l}=\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{p}`$ to the operator $`\stackrel{}{L}=\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{P}`$ is not ambiguous and leads to an hermitian operator $`\stackrel{}{L},`$ the situation is somewhat more complicated for the RL vector. Classically its definition

$$\stackrel{}{m}=\frac{1}{\mu }\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{l}\kappa \frac{\stackrel{}{r}}{r}$$
(4)
shows that there are quantization ambiguities due to the lack of commutativity of the operators $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{L}.`$ There are two possible (but non-hermitian) corresponding operators, $`\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{L}`$ and $`(\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{L})^{}=\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{P}.`$ Pauli observed that the simplest choice for $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ so that it is hermitian is

$$\stackrel{}{M}=\frac{1}{2\mu }(\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{P})\kappa \frac{\stackrel{}{R}}{R}.$$
(5)
From these definitions we can check that both $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ are conserved at the quantum level, that is, that they commute with $`H_0.`$

The classical Poisson brackets involving $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ generalize to commutators of $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{M}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}[L_i,L_j]=i\mathrm{}ϵ_{ijk}L_k,\\ [L_i,M_j]=i\mathrm{}ϵ_{ijk}M_k,\\ [M_i,M_j]=\left(\frac{2H_0}{\mu }\right)i\mathrm{}ϵ_{ijk}L_k,\end{array}$$
(6)
Two further important relations should be noted:

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{M}=\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{L}=0,\\ \stackrel{}{M}^2=\left(\frac{2H_0}{\mu }\right)(\stackrel{}{L}^2+\mathrm{}^2)+\kappa ^2.\end{array}$$
(7)
The checks of the conservation of the RL vector and of Eqs. (6) and (7) are quite involved: a detailed calculation may be found in Ref.  (p. 462) and in Ref.  (p. 265).

Let us restrict ourselves to the subspace of the Hilbert space spanned by the bound states $`|\psi `$ with energy $`E<0`$. $`H_0^1`$ and $`(H_0)^{1/2}`$ can be defined by

$$H_0^1|\psi =E^1|\psi ,(H_0)^{1/2}|\psi =(E)^{1/2}|\psi .$$

We also define

$$\stackrel{}{M}^{}=\left(\frac{\mu }{2H_0}\right)^{1/2}\stackrel{}{M}.$$
(8)
Because $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ commute with $`H_0`$, the algebra in Eq. (6) becomes

$$\begin{array}{c}[L_i,L_j]=i\mathrm{}ϵ_{ijk}L_k,\\ [L_i,M_j^{}]=i\mathrm{}ϵ_{ijk}M_k^{},\\ [M_i^{},M_j^{}]=i\mathrm{}ϵ_{ijk}L_k,\end{array}$$
(9)
which we recognize as an $`so(4)`$ algebra with generators $`\stackrel{}{L},\stackrel{}{M}^{}`$. For further use we define the generators

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{I}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{M}^{}),\\ \stackrel{}{K}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{M}^{}).\end{array}$$
(10)
Their commutation rules are quite instructive :

$$\begin{array}{c}[I_i,I_j]=i\mathrm{}ϵ_{ijk}I_k,\\ [K_i,K_j]=i\mathrm{}ϵ_{ijk}K_k,\\ [I_i,K_j]=0,\end{array}$$
(11)
because they show that the operators $`\stackrel{}{I}`$ generate an $`so(3)_I`$ Lie algebra, while the operators $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ generate an $`so(3)_K`$ Lie algebra. Furthermore these two algebras are completely independent (commuting), and their Casimir operators (i. e. operators commuting with the whole algebra) are $`\stackrel{}{I}^2`$ for $`so(3)_I`$ and $`\stackrel{}{K}^2`$ for $`so(3)_K.`$

The correspondence given in (10) between $`\stackrel{}{L},\stackrel{}{M}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{I},\stackrel{}{K}`$ gives just the change of basis that displays the isomorphism $`so(4)so(3)_Iso(3)_K.`$ From the general theory of quantum angular momentum , we can find a basis common to the operators $`\stackrel{}{I}^2,\stackrel{}{K}^2,I_z,K_z`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{I}^2|i,m_i;k,m_k=i(i+1)\mathrm{}^2|i,m_i;k,m_k\\ I_z|i,m_i;k,m_k=m_i\mathrm{}|i,m_i;k,m_k\\ \stackrel{}{K}^2|i,m_i;k,m_k=k(k+1)\mathrm{}^2|i,m_i;k,m_k\\ K_z|i,m_i;k,m_k=m_k\mathrm{}|i,m_i;k,m_k,\end{array}$$
(12)
with $`i,k=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\mathrm{}m_i[i,\mathrm{},+i],`$ and $`m_k[k,\mathrm{},+k].`$ The first relation in (7) implies that the operators $`\stackrel{}{I}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ are constrained by

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{M}^{}=0\\ \stackrel{}{I}^2=\stackrel{}{K}^2\end{array}$$
(13)
while the second relation can be written as :

$$\frac{1}{2}\mu \kappa ^2(H_0)^1=2(\stackrel{}{I}^2+\stackrel{}{K}^2)+\mathrm{}^2,$$
(14)
showing that the states $`|i,m_i;i,m_k,`$ are also hamiltonian eigenstates. At the level of the eigenvalues, the operator relation in Eq. (14) gives

$$\frac{1}{2}\mu \kappa ^2\frac{1}{E_n^{(0)}}=4i(i+1)\mathrm{}^2+\mathrm{}^2=(2i+1)^2\mathrm{}^2,$$
(15)
so that the inverse energies are given by the eigenvalues of the Casimir operators of $`so(4).`$ Up to the identification of the principal quantum number $`n=2i+1,`$ we obtain for the energy eigenvalues

$$E_n^{(0)}=\frac{\mu \kappa ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2n^2},$$
(16)
where $`n=2i+1=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ The eigenstates $`|i,m_i;i,m_k`$ are such that $`m_i[i,\mathrm{}+i]`$ and $`m_k[i,\mathrm{}+i].`$ The degeneracy is easily seen to be $`(2i+1)^2=n^2.`$

These states are not eigenstates of $`\stackrel{}{L}^2.`$ Indeed the relation $`\stackrel{}{L}=\stackrel{}{I}+\stackrel{}{K}`$ shows that $`l`$ may take any value between 0 and $`2i=n1,`$ in agreement with the Schrödinger approach. Note that the complete set of commuting observables diagonalized here are $`H_0,I_z,`$ and $`K_z`$ while in Schrödinger’s approach one takes $`H_0,\stackrel{}{L}^2,`$ and $`L_z.`$ Note also that the angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ is axial, while $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ is a true vector, so that $`\stackrel{}{I},\stackrel{}{K}`$ have no definite parity, and hence their eigenstates cannot have any definite parity. This absence of a definite parity is also obvious from the fact that the states $`|i,m_i;i,m_k`$ have no definite value for the orbital angular momentum $`l.`$ Let us conclude that even for parity invariant potentials the eigenstates need not be of definite parity as can be seen in the discussion of the simpler case of a particle in a box, given in Ref.  (p.328).

## 3 From classical to quantum Pauli’s identity

Equation (1) has a classical content, because it involves mean values. Indeed, for any classical periodic trajectory, the mean value of a dynamical quantity $`f(\stackrel{}{r})`$, is defined by

$$f=\frac{1}{T}_0^Tf𝑑t=\frac{\mu }{\lambda T}_\pi ^{+\pi }fr^2𝑑\varphi ,$$
(17)
where $`T`$ is the period and $`\lambda =\mu r^2d\varphi /dt`$ is the angular momentum. For the Coulomb case, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{r_0}{r}=1+e\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\\ e=\sqrt{1+2\frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu \kappa ^2}},\\ T=2\pi \frac{\mu r_0^2}{\lambda (1e^2)^{3/2}},\end{array}$$
(18)
where $`r_0=\lambda ^2/\mu \kappa ,`$ $``$ is the total energy and $`e`$ the eccentricity of the orbit. We can show that the classical RL vector, lying in the trajectory plane, is directed from the origin to the perihelion, which lies on the $`x`$-axis. Its components (see Ref.  (p. 460) for the details) are given by

$$m_x=\kappa e,m_y=m_z=0.$$
(19)
TIf we take $`f=\stackrel{}{r},`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}x=\frac{\mu r_0^3}{\lambda T}_\pi ^{+\pi }\frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{(1+e\mathrm{cos}\varphi )^3}𝑑\varphi =\frac{3\pi \mu er_0^3}{\lambda T(1e^2)^{5/2}},\hfill \\ y=\frac{\mu r_0^3}{\lambda T}_\pi ^{+\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{(1+e\mathrm{cos}\varphi )^3}𝑑\varphi =0,z=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
Some algebra leads to

$$2x=\frac{3}{2}\kappa e,y=z=0.$$
(21)
If we compare Eqs. (19) and (21) and identify the total energy with the classical hamiltonian $`h_0,`$ we obtain Pauli’s relation in classical mechanics

$$2h_0\stackrel{}{r}=\frac{3}{2}\stackrel{}{m}.$$
(22)
Equation (22) is an equality between mean values of classical physical quantities, because the RL vector is conserved. It follows that the difference between these two classical physical quantities must be a total derivative (whose mean-value necessarily vanishes). So we need to find some vector $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ such that

$$2h_0\stackrel{}{r}=\frac{3}{2}\stackrel{}{m}\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{}{\tau }.$$
(23)
Since on dimensional grounds the sought vector has dimension of momentum $`\times `$(length)2, it must have the structure

$$\stackrel{}{\tau }=a(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{p})\stackrel{}{r}+b\stackrel{}{r}^2\stackrel{}{p}.$$
(24)
The coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$, fixed by enforcing relation (23), give for $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ the expression

$$\stackrel{}{\tau }=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{p})\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^2\stackrel{}{p},$$
(25)
which can be written more suggestively, using a Poisson bracket as

$$2h_0\stackrel{}{r}=\frac{3}{2}\stackrel{}{m}+\{h_0,\stackrel{}{\tau }\},\{f,g\}=\underset{s}{}\frac{f}{x_s}\frac{g}{p_s}\frac{f}{p_s}\frac{g}{x_s}.$$
(26)
The above relations involve classical (commuting) quantities ; to generalize Eq. (26) to the quantum level, we try the following quantum extension

$$2H_0\stackrel{}{R}=\frac{3}{2}\stackrel{}{M}+\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[H_0,\stackrel{}{T}],$$
(27)
where the quantities involved are now operators and $`\stackrel{}{T}`$ is the unknown quantum extension of the classical quantity $`\stackrel{}{\tau }.`$ We point out that in the left hand side of Eq. (27), the position of the hamiltonian operator with respect to $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ is important. In this case $`\stackrel{}{T}`$ can be written in terms of three vector operators

$$\stackrel{}{T}=a\stackrel{}{R}(\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{P})+b(\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{R})\stackrel{}{P}+i\mathrm{}c\stackrel{}{R}.$$
(28)
If we require Eq. (27) to be satisfied, we obtain the result

$$\stackrel{}{T}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{R}(\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{P})(\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{R})\stackrel{}{P}+i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{R}.$$
(29)
Pauli’s relation (1) follows from Eq. (27) when we take its expectation value between eigenstates of $`H_0.`$ We can write

$$2H_0\stackrel{}{R}=2E_n^{(0)}\stackrel{}{R}=\frac{3}{2}\stackrel{}{M}.$$
(30)
For further use we will write Eq. (30) as

$$\stackrel{}{R}\frac{3}{2}(2E_n^{(0)})^1\stackrel{}{M},$$
(31)
The symbol $``$ indicates that the equality holds only when expectation values between eigenstates (with energy $`E_n^{(0)}`$) of the unperturbed hamiltonian are calculated.

## 4 Electric and magnetic fields

In the approximation of an infinitely heavy nucleus, $`\mu =m`$ the electron mass. If we also neglect the diamagnetic terms, the perturbation due to the uniform electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ writes

$$H_1=q\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{R}+\frac{q}{2m}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{L},$$
(32)
where $`q`$ is the proton charge. For the first order computation we need the matrix elements $`i,m_i^{};i,m_k^{}|H_1|i,m_i;i,m_k`$ for states of definie energy $`E_n^{(0)}`$ where $`i=(n1)/2`$ has some fixed value. Its first piece, using Pauli’s identity, in the form given by Eq. (31), we have

$$\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{R}\frac{3}{2}(2E_n^{(0)})^1\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{M}=(2mE_n^{(0)})^{1/2}\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{M}^{}=\frac{3}{2}n\frac{a_0}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{M}^{},$$
(33)
with $`a_0=\mathrm{}^2/\mu \kappa .`$ It is then sufficient to use

$$\stackrel{}{M}^{}=\stackrel{}{I}\stackrel{}{K},\stackrel{}{L}=\stackrel{}{I}+\stackrel{}{K},$$
(34)
to obtain

$$H_1\left(\frac{3}{2}n\stackrel{}{}+\stackrel{}{}\right)\frac{\stackrel{}{I}}{\mathrm{}}+\left(\frac{3}{2}n\stackrel{}{}+\stackrel{}{}\right)\frac{\stackrel{}{K}}{\mathrm{}},$$
(35)
with $`\stackrel{}{}=qa_0\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{}=\mu _B\stackrel{}{B},`$ and $`\mu _B=q\mathrm{}/2m.`$ Notice that dimensional analysis shows that $`\stackrel{}{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{}`$ have the same dimensions as energy.

Let us now define

$$\stackrel{}{\nu }_\pm =\frac{\pm \frac{3}{2}n\stackrel{}{}+\stackrel{}{}}{\pm \frac{3}{2}n\stackrel{}{}+\stackrel{}{}},E_\pm =\pm \frac{3}{2}n\stackrel{}{}+\stackrel{}{}=\sqrt{\frac{9}{4}n^2\stackrel{}{}^2\pm 3n\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{}+\stackrel{}{}^2},$$
(36)
so that the perturbation can be written as

$$H_1\frac{E_{}}{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{}{\nu }_{}\stackrel{}{I})+\frac{E_+}{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{}{\nu }_+\stackrel{}{K}).$$
(37)
This perturbation is made up of two completely independent (commuting) pieces which can be diagonalized separately. Indeed, one can check the relation

$$\stackrel{}{\nu }\stackrel{}{I}=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\theta \stackrel{}{\mu }\stackrel{}{I}}I_ze^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\theta \stackrel{}{\mu }\stackrel{}{I}},$$
(38)
with

$$\stackrel{}{\nu }=\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mathrm{cos}\varphi \stackrel{}{i}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi \stackrel{}{j})+\mathrm{cos}\theta \stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{\mu }\frac{\stackrel{}{\nu }\stackrel{}{k}}{\stackrel{}{\nu }\stackrel{}{k}}=\mathrm{sin}\varphi \stackrel{}{i}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \stackrel{}{j},$$

which states that a rotation of angle $`\theta `$ around the axis $`\stackrel{}{\mu }`$ transforms the vector $`\stackrel{}{\nu }`$ into the unit vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ along the $`z`$ axis. It can be checked using the well-known identity

$$e^{iA}Be^{iA}=B+i[A,B]+\frac{i^2}{2!}[A,[A,B]]+\mathrm{}$$

and the $`so(3)_I`$ algebra for the generators $`\stackrel{}{I}.`$ It follows that the operator $`\stackrel{}{\nu }\stackrel{}{I}`$ has the same eigenvalues as $`I_z`$, i.e. $`m_i\mathrm{}.`$ Similar results are also valid for $`\stackrel{}{K}.`$ If we adapt this result to the perturbation given by Eq. (37) we can write

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{}{\nu }_{}\stackrel{}{I}=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\theta _{}\stackrel{}{\mu }_{}\stackrel{}{I}}I_ze^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\theta _{}\stackrel{}{\mu }_{}\stackrel{}{I}},\hfill & \mathrm{cos}\theta _{}=\stackrel{}{\nu }_{}\stackrel{}{k},\hfill & \stackrel{}{\mu }_{}=\frac{\stackrel{}{\nu }_{}\stackrel{}{k}}{\stackrel{}{\nu }_{}\stackrel{}{k}},\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{\nu }_+\stackrel{}{K}=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\theta _+\stackrel{}{\mu }_+\stackrel{}{K}}K_ze^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\theta _+\stackrel{}{\mu }_+\stackrel{}{K}},\hfill & \mathrm{cos}\theta _+=\stackrel{}{\nu }_+\stackrel{}{k},\hfill & \stackrel{}{\mu }_+=\frac{\stackrel{}{\nu }_+\stackrel{}{k}}{\stackrel{}{\nu }_+\stackrel{}{k}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
and we obtain the first order correction to the energies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_n^{(1)}=m_iE_{}+m_kE_+.$$
(40)
Recall that the quantum numbers $`m_i`$ and $`m_k`$ take all integer or half-integer values between $`(n1)/2`$ and $`+(n1)/2.`$

### 4.1 The first order Stark effect

For vanishing magnetic field, we can take the electric field along the $`z`$ axis. From Eq. (35) we obtain the first order perturbed energies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_n^{(1)}=\frac{3}{2}qa_0|\stackrel{}{E}|n(m_im_k).$$
(41)
The levels are split into $`2n1`$ sub-levels, each with residual degeneracy $`n|m|.`$ Eq. (41) is the celebrated first-order Stark effect formula, which was obtained in 1926 simultaneously by Waller , Wentzel , and Epstein  by perturbation calculations in parabolic coordinates. A more handy reference is Ref. , where perturbative results up to second order. The reader is urged to compare these extensive calculations (even in first order) with the elegance of Pauli’s.

The experimental results from Ref.  are given in figure 1 for the hydrogen atom. The low lying states exhibit a nearly linear field dependence up to a value of $`10^5`$ au (atomic unit), but this value decreases with increasing $`n.`$ This linear regime accounts also for some crossings of the energy levels corresponding to different values of $`n.`$ The second order corrections are also sizeable in this region for some levels. For higher field values the situation is much more complicated since the states are broadened by tunnelling effects or even ionized, and cannot be accounted for by perturbation computations around the bound states! This complicated region lies to the right of the solid curve.

### 4.2 First order Zeeman effect

For vanishing electric field, we can take the magnetic field along the $`z`$ axis and we are back to the Zeeman energies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_n^{(1)}=\mu _B|\stackrel{}{B}|m,$$
(42)
where $`m=m_i+m_k.`$ As for the Stark effect the energy levels are split up into $`2n1`$ levels, each with residual degeneracy $`n|m|.`$

### 4.3 Parallel versus crossed fields

Pauli’s result simplifies for the special case of crossed electric and magnetic fields, i. e. such that $`\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}=0.`$ The perturbed energies become

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_n^{(1)}=E_{}m,\text{with}E_{}=\sqrt{\frac{9}{4}n^2(qa_0\stackrel{}{E})^2+(\mu _B\stackrel{}{B})^2}.$$
(43)
In some sense the system is still in a Zeeman-like regime, with the same splitting pattern, but with a more complicated mixed field dependence appearing in the factor $`E_{}.`$ Equation (43) has been checked for Rydberg states of rubidium atoms (large principal quantum number $`n=34`$), which are essentially hydrogen-like . The experimental results, taken from Ref. , are reproduced in Fig. 2. The different lines correspond to different values of $`m.`$ Note how small the window is for the electric field (between $`0`$ and $`20`$V/cm) and for the magnetic field (between $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{6\; 10}^2`$T) to observe Pauli’s quantization, but the results are in good agreement with (43) for weak fields.

An experiment dealing with parallel electric and magnetic fields has been described in Ref.  for lithium atoms. These results are quite interesting, since the symmetry breaking is completely different from the crossed case, with no left over degeneracy. A quite large set of references to theoretical as well as experimental work may be found in .

The second order perturbative computation was done quite recently ,. The most interesting aspects cover now the non-perturbative transition to chaos ($`B10T`$) which is quite harder to deal with. The interested reader should consult Ref. .

Acknowledgments : We discovered Pauli’s quantization in the very nice problem given in  (p. 57). For the hydrogen atom, the perturbative computation is worked out for the states with $`n=2`$ in polar coordinates. We are happy to thank A. Laverne and J. Letessier for kind help in dealing with the figures, O. Betbeder for a critical reading of the manuscript, D. Delande for the recent references on the subject and the Referees for useful suggestions.

FIGURE CAPTIONS :

Figure 1

Figure 2