# Experimental Conditions for the Gamma Optical Scattering September 197911footnote 1Typed in 1999 after the original September 1979 manuscript

The interaction of gamma-ray photons with a nucleus, mediated by an electromagnetic field, was investigated in our paper, The Tuning of $`\gamma `$-Ray Processes with High Power Optical Radiation.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Note added in May 1999: the referenced work is S. Olariu et al., Phys. Rev. C 23, 50 (1981); it was submitted for publication on 30 November 1979. In that paper little attention was given to the absolute location of the energy levels of the nuclei: it was rather a discussion of the resonance of the gamma ray energy and of the electromagnetic energy to the nuclear transition energy, where the energy of the gamma ray was considered as a parameter.

In fact, there is a close relationship between the energy of the gamma ray from the nucleus in the source and the transition energy of the nucleus in the absorber. The positions of the energy levels of a free nucleus are affected by the interaction with the electric and magnetic fields in which the nucleus is immersed.<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3We follow in this paragraph G. K. Shenoy and F. E. Wagner, Editors, Mössbauer Isomer Shifts, North-Holland, 1978, The Introduction. These fields can be created by external charge distributions or by atomic electrons. For example, the magnetic dipole interaction arises if an inner unpaired electron polarises the electron configuration, so that there is a difference in the energies corresponding to the various orientations of the nuclear magnetic moment, which is of the order of $`10^5`$ eV. The electric quadrupole interaction appears for ellipsoidal nuclei, which have a dependence of their energy on the orientation in the spatially varying electric fields created by a non-spherical charge distribution. This interaction is again in the order of $`10^5`$ eV. The isomeric monopole interaction arises from the dependence of the interaction energy between the external electronic charge and the nucleus on the nuclear radius, which is different for the ground and the excited state. The isomeric energy of interaction is of about $`10^7`$ eV.

The hyperfine interaction mentioned above produce either splittings, or shifts, of the levels. The binding of the nuclei in a lattice eliminates the Doppler and the recoil effects, but, as the chemical composition of the source and of the absorber is not generally the same, the internal fields will be different, and the emission and absorption lines will not overlap. We proposed in our previous papers to compensate this detuning by an applied electromagnetic field of appropriate energy. Since 1 eV corresponds to $`2.41\times 10^{14}`$ Hz, the magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole spilttings are compensated by fields of frequencies in the range of several GHz, while the isomeric monopole shift is compensated by frequencies in the range of 10 Mz.

As a matter of fact, the magnetic hyperfine interaction can be seen directly by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance techniques, the electric quadrupole interaction can be measured by Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance techniques, and the monopole interaction usually called the isomer shift is specific to the Mössbauer technique. Of course, each of these have their own limits of applicability, and a new technique may be efficient where the existing ones are not. But the main interest in the Gamma-Optical technique is to obtain experimental evidence for the nuclear Raman scatterings which represents a step toward tunable sources of $`\gamma `$ radiation, and a possible way to the Gamma RayLaser.

The results of our paper, The Tuning of the $`\gamma `$-Ray Processes …, was that the ratio $`B`$ of the cross section of the enhanced scattering, $`\sigma ^{(2)}`$, to the single-photon, Breit-Wigner, cross section, $`\sigma ^{(1)}`$, is, for transitions mediated by the magnetic sublevels, proportional to the density of the energy flux, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, of the electromagnetic field, divided by the square of the frequency $`\omega _2`$,

$$B\sigma ^{(2)}/\sigma ^{(1)}=\frac{4\pi e^2\mathrm{\Phi }_2g^2}{m^2c^3\omega _2^2}.$$
(1)   
It was also shown that the ratio, $`Z`$, of the gamma-optical cross section, $`\sigma ^{(2)}`$, to the off-resonance, single-photon cross section, $`\sigma _{\pm \omega _2}^{(1)}`$, is proportional to the energy flux, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, divided by the square of the width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, of the level,

$$Z\sigma ^{(2)}/\sigma _{\pm \omega _2}^{(1)}=\frac{4\pi e^2\mathrm{\Phi }_2g^2}{m^2c^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}.$$
(2)   
The dependence $`1/\omega _2^2`$ of the two-photon cross section is valid with unsplit, Lorentzian profiles of the lines. The preparation of samples which provide such lines is certainly possible, by using lattices of appropriate chemical composition and internal symmetry. On the other hand, the internal fields, or applied external fields, produce splittings of the energy levels, and the $`1/\omega _2^2`$ dependence of the two-photon cross section is valid only for energies $`\mathrm{}\omega _2`$ larger than the splitting. Below that limit, the cross section becomes independent of the frequency $`\omega _2`$ of the electromagnetic field.

The $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ dependence of the gamma-optical cross section is valid if the power broadening of the lines is smaller, or comparable to the effective linewidth. The Zeeman shift of the levels becomes comparable to the width of the lines at intensities of the magnetic field of about 100 Gauss.<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4ibid., p. 567, Fig. 8d.1 At very large powers, we expect to see a saturation of the cross section, together with the modifications predicted in Ref. 15 of our third Gamma-Optical paper.<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5Note added in May 1999: this reference is M. N. Hack and M. Hamermesh, Nuovo Cimento XIX, 546 (1961).

Due to imperfect preparation of the samples, the cross section of the two photon process could be lower than that predicted in Eq. 1 by the ratio of the natural linewith, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, to the effective linewidth, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$. On the other hand, the ratio of the cross sections $`\sigma ^{(2)}`$ and $`\sigma ^{(1)}`$ is determined by the natural linewidth, as written in Eq. 2, because the single-photon, Breit-Wigner cross section, is also reduced by the same ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$.

A low frequency $`\omega _2`$ results in lower power requirement $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ for a given branching ratio $`B`$, as may be seen from Eq. 1, and a narrow linewidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ results in lower power requirement for a given signal to noise ratio $`Z`$, as may be seen from Eq. 2.

We have seen that the types of hyperfine interactions create two ranges of frequencies $`\omega _2`$. Beyond 1 GHz, which corresponds to a wavelength of 30 cm, in the region of the dipole and quadrupole interaction, the high values of the power density $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ are most conveniently obtained by the microwave-cavity technique.

This technique is not appropriate at the lower frequencies in the range of 10 MHz, because the size of the cavity, which is determined by the wavelength of the oscillating field, becomes impracticable. But, going back to the bases of the interaction between the gamma ray photon and the nucleus, mediated by an external applied field, we see that all that is necessary for the interaction mediated by the magnetic sublevels is the presence of a magnetic field $`H_2`$, oscillating with the frequency $`\omega _2`$. Currents oscillating in conductors create such magnetic fields, which are not electromagnetic waves. We have in fact an LC circuit, and, if we assume the volume of the capacitor and of the inductor to be comparable, then the amplitude of the magnetic field in the inductor is comparable (in CGS units) to the amplitude of the electric field in the capacitor. A magnetic field of 100 Gauss corresponds to an electric field of 100 statvolt/cm, or 30 kV/cm. The energy periodically transferred between the inductor and capacitor is $`H^2/8\pi `$ erg/cm<sup>3</sup>. Assuming $`H`$=100 Gauss, a volume of $`10^2`$ cm<sup>3</sup>, and a $`Q`$-factor of the LC circuit of 100, the input power in the circuit is, at a frequency of 100 MHz, of about 1 kW. The equivalent energy flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ corresponding to the field $`H_2`$ of 100 Gauss is of about $`10^6`$ W/cm<sup>2</sup>.

For illustrative purposes we chose here the 6.2 keV, 6.8 $`\mu `$sec line of <sup>181</sup>Ta, which has a single-photon cross section of $`1.73\times 10^{18}`$ cm<sup>2</sup>; <sup>181</sup>Ta has a good natural abundance (99.99 %), the 6.2 keV level is populated by the decay of <sup>181</sup>W, which has a half-life of 140 days and is obtained by neutron irradiation of <sup>180</sup>W. The branching ratio $`B`$ corresponding to a field $`H_2`$ of 100 Gauss and a frequency $`\omega _2`$ of 10 MHz is $`B10^3`$. The cross section of the two-photon process expected under these conditions is $`\sigma ^{(2)}10^{22}`$ cm<sup>2</sup>, because of the broadening of the lines due to imperfect sample preparation and to the power broadening. The ratio $`Z=\sigma ^{(2)}/\sigma _{\pm \omega _2}^{(1)}`$ is under these conditions, $`Z10`$.

The expression for the branching ratio $`B`$ and the signal to noise ratio $`Z`$ were derived by assuming Lorentzian profiles for the two modes of the electromagnetic field. If the sampples are immersed in an oscillating magnetic field, it can be seen from the basic equations for the amplitude of a two-photon process that, if the transition is mediated by the magnetic sublevels, the branching ratio is

$$B=\left(\frac{g\frac{e\mathrm{}}{2mc}H_2}{\mathrm{}\omega _2}\right)^2,$$
(3)   
which is similar to Eq. 1, since the equivalent energy flux is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{c}{8\pi }H_2^2.`$

The relatively high values of the branching ratio $`B`$ and the good values of the signal to noise ratio $`Z`$ obtained with a relatively low imput power which may be tuned by varying the capacitance in the LC circuit suggest that the experimental approach to the gamma-optical absorption be focused on processes compensated by smaller frequencies, like the isomeric shift and the second order Doppler shift, and involving narrow lines.

We have to obtain first the resonance when the frequency of the oscillating magnetic field corresponds to the isomeric shift between the source and absorber. Then, if a static uniform magnetic field is superposed to the oscillating magnetic field, we expect to see a plateau of the two photon cross section at lower values of $`H_2`$, and a decrease of the cross section as $`1/H^2`$ as the intensity of the static field is increased, corresponding to the fact that the Zeeman splitting becomes larger than the value of the frequency $`\omega _2`$ determined by the isomeric shift. Finally, without the static field, increasing the intensity of the oscillating field, we expect to obtain the saturation of the cross section and to see the changes in the shape of the line described in Ref. 15 of the third Gamma-Optical paper.

There is, of course, complete symmetry between compensating the detuning in source or absorber. Yet we suggest that the source be immersed in the oscillating field, in order to obtain the experimental confirmation of the nuclear Raman scattering, which is more close to a tunable gamma ray source, and is somewhat related to a gamma-ray laser.

Due to the relatively large values of the branching ratio, $`B`$, - a $`B=10^4`$ is probably not difficult to obtain -, apparently there is no problem with the counting rate, so that weak radioactive source, say 1 mCi, can be used (1 Ci=$`3\times 10^{10}`$ disintegrations/sec). The absolute value of the two photon cross section is in the range of $`10^{23}`$ cm<sup>2</sup>, and is comparable to other scattering processes, like the Compton scattering and the photoelectric effect. But we may take the advantage of the fact the fluorescence radiation has a definite energy, while the Compton scattered radiation has a continuous spectrum, and to discriminate energetically between the signal and the noise. The resolution of the gamma-ray detectors in the region of interest in Mössbauer spectroscopy is good, it seems to be $`100`$ eV. For the single-photon off-resonance scattering, the ratio $`Z`$ is higher than 1 at larger magnetic intensities.<sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6The intensity is limited by the condition that the power broadening be comparable to the natural width. At lower intensities where $`Z<1`$ other discrimination techniques are available, such as the comparing of the signals when the magnetic power is off, and on.

Since the frequency $`\omega _2`$ is in the range 10 MHz the width of the line has to be in the range 1 $`\mu `$sec. There are three narrow lines in Mössbauer spectroscopy, namely   
<sup>67</sup>Zn, 93.3 keV, 9.2 $`\mu `$sec, $`4.93\times 10^{20}`$ cm<sup>2</sup>,   
<sup>73</sup>Ge, 13.3 keV, 3.9 $`\mu `$sec, $`0.76\times 10^{20}`$ cm<sup>2</sup>,   
<sup>181</sup>Ta, 6.2 keV, 6.8 $`\mu `$sec, $`1.73\times 10^{18}`$cm<sup>2</sup>.   
The best candidate seems to be <sup>181</sup>Ta. In this case, an isomeric shift of 1 mm/sec is equivalent to $`2.07\times 10^8`$ eV, or 5.0 MHz. Many useful informations on the spectroscopy of the 6.2 keV gamma ray of <sup>181</sup>Ta and related isomeric shifts can be found in the cited reference.<sup>7</sup><sup>7</sup>7ibid, pp. 563-591, p. 873, p. 879, p. 886

In conclusion, the gamma-optical experiment requires an LC circuit operating in the range of 10 MHz, with an inductor providing magnetic fields of the order of 10 Gauss, the circuit being tunable by the variation of the capacitance C; the narrow-line sources and absorbers; and conventional gamma-ray equipment. Since the frequency of 10 MHz is in the radio frequency range, difficulties could arise only from the magnitude of the field. Seemingly, a magnetic field of 1 Gauss, which is equivalent to 300 V/cm, is sufficient for the experiment.