Analysis shows significant transition rates in Lr I and lanthanide homologue Lu I, suggesting improved calculations may enhance accuracy.
Large-scale multiconfigurational calculations are conducted on experimentally significant transitions in Lr I and its lanthanide homologue Lu I, exhibiting good agreement with recent theoretical and experimental results. A single reference calculation is performed, allowing for substitutions from the core within a sufficiently large active set to effectively capture the influence of the core on the valence shells, improving upon previous multiconfigurational calculations. An additional calculation utilizing a multireference set is performed to account for static correlation effects which contribute to the wave function. Reported energies for the two selected transitions are <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <a:mrow> <a:mn>20 716</a:mn> <a:mo>±</a:mo> <a:mspace width="0.16em"/> <a:mn>550</a:mn> <a:mspace width="0.16em"/> <a:mi mathvariant="normal">c</a:mi> <a:msup> <a:mi mathvariant="normal">m</a:mi> <a:mrow> <a:mo>−</a:mo> <a:mn>1</a:mn> </a:mrow> </a:msup> </a:mrow> </a:math> and <f:math xmlns:f="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <f:mrow> <f:mn>28</f:mn> <f:mspace width="0.16em"/> <f:mn>587</f:mn> <f:mo>±</f:mo> <f:mn>650</f:mn> <f:mspace width="0.16em"/> <f:mi mathvariant="normal">c</f:mi> <f:msup> <f:mi mathvariant="normal">m</f:mi> <f:mrow> <f:mo>−</f:mo> <f:mn>1</f:mn> </f:mrow> </f:msup> </f:mrow> </f:math> for <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <k:mrow> <k:mn>7</k:mn> <k:msup> <k:mi>s</k:mi> <k:mn>2</k:mn> </k:msup> <k:mn>8</k:mn> <k:mi>s</k:mi> <k:msup> <k:mspace width="0.16em"/> <k:mn>2</k:mn> </k:msup> <k:msub> <k:mi>S</k:mi> <k:mrow> <k:mn>1</k:mn> <k:mo>/</k:mo> <k:mn>2</k:mn> </k:mrow> </k:msub> <k:mspace width="4pt"/> <k:mo>→</k:mo> <k:mspace width="4pt"/> <k:mn>7</k:mn> <k:msup> <k:mi>s</k:mi> <k:mn>2</k:mn> </k:msup> <k:mn>7</k:mn> <k:mi>p</k:mi> <k:msup> <k:mspace width="0.16em"/> <k:mn>2</k:mn> </k:msup> <k:msubsup> <k:mrow> <k:mi>P</k:mi> </k:mrow> <k:mrow> <k:mn>1</k:mn> <k:mo>/</k:mo> <k:mn>2</k:mn> </k:mrow> <k:mi>o</k:mi> </k:msubsup> </k:mrow> </k:math> and <p:math xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <p:mrow> <p:mn>7</p:mn> <p:msup> <p:mi>s</p:mi> <p:mn>2</p:mn> </p:msup> <p:mn>7</p:mn> <p:mi>d</p:mi> <p:msup> <p:mspace width="0.16em"/> <p:mn>2</p:mn> </p:msup> <p:msub> <p:mi>D</p:mi> <p:mrow> <p:mn>3</p:mn> <p:mo>/</p:mo> <p:mn>2</p:mn> </p:mrow> </p:msub> <p:mspace width="4pt"/> <p:mo>→</p:mo> <p:mspace width="4pt"/> <p:mn>7</p:mn> <p:msup> <p:mi>s</p:mi> <p:mn>2</p:mn> </p:msup> <p:mn>7</p:mn> <p:mi>p</p:mi> <p:msup> <p:mspace width="0.16em"/> <p:mn>2</p:mn> </p:msup> <p:msubsup> <p:mrow> <p:mi>P</p:mi> </p:mrow> <p:mrow> <p:mn>1</p:mn> <p:mo>/</p:mo> <p:mn>2</p:mn> </p:mrow> <p:mi>o</p:mi> </p:msubsup> </p:mrow> </p:math> , respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrews et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: