Accurate estimate of $C_5$ dispersion coefficients of the alkali atoms interacting with different material media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By inferring the dynamic permittivity of different material media from the observations and calculating dynamic electric dipole polarizabilties of the Li through Cs alkali atoms, precise values of $C_3$ coefficients were estimated in Phys. Rev. A {\bf 89}, 022511 (2014) and Phys. Lett. A {\bf 380}, 3366 (2016). Since significant contribution towards the long range van der Waals potential is given by the quadrupole polarization effects, we have estimated the $C_5$ coefficients in this work arising from the quadrupole polarization effects of all the alkali atoms interacting with metal (Au), semiconductor (Si) and four dielectric materials (SiO$_2$, SiN$_x$, YAG and sapphire). The required dynamic electric quadrupole (E2) polarizabilities are evaluated by calculating E2 matrix elements of a large number of transitions in the alkali atoms by employing a relativistic coupled-cluster method. Our finding shows that contributions from the $C_5$ coefficients to the atom-wall interaction potentials are pronounced at short distances (1$-$10 nm). The $C_3$ coefficients of Fr atom interacting with the above material media are also reported. These results can be useful in understanding the interactions of alkali atoms trapped in different material bodies during the high-precision measurements.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".