Chemical Bonding in Hydrogen Molecular Ion and Competition between Laser‐induced Ionization and Dissociation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Just as a helium atom is a prototype for atoms, a hydrogen molecular ion is a prototype for chemical bonding in molecules. In the presence of an external field, the latter also serves as a prototype for which field‐induced ionization and dissociation compete with each other. Pauli was the first to examine the nature of chemical bonding in terms of the old quantum theory. In view of the recent developments of nonlinear dynamics and quantum chaos, we re‐examine the negative conclusion that he reached in his thesis. In particular, we are interested in finding out whether the classical three‐body system is stable and whether any part of the chemical bonding can be attributed to its classical stability. Our result shows that indeed classical phase space structures exist which contribute to chemical bonding, when quantized semiclassically. Thus chemical bonding is not a purely quantum phenomenon, as generally believed. We also examine the classical dynamical behavior of this three‐body system in the presence of an external field beyond the Born‐Oppenheimer approximation. Interesting competition exists between ionization, dissociation, and Coulomb explosion. Although ionization dominates over dissociation at high laser fields, there exists a range of laser intensity below 150 TW/cm2 for which we can concentrate on dissociation alone without significant interference from the ionization process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".