Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
arX
iv:1
512.
0773
6v1
[as
tro-
ph.S
R]
24
Dec
201
5
POLARIZED SCATTERING OF LIGHT FOR ARBITRARY
MAGNETIC FIELDS WITH LEVEL-CROSSINGS FROM THE
COMBINATION OF HYPERFINE AND FINE STRUCTURE
SPLITTINGS
K. SOWMYA1, K. N. NAGENDRA1, M. SAMPOORNA1 AND J. O. STENFLO2,3
1Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Koramangala, Bengaluru, India2Institute of Astronomy, ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland
3Istituto Ricerche Solari Locarno, Via Patocchi, 6605 Locarno-Monti, Switzerland
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Interference between magnetic substates of the hyperfine structure states belonging to differ-ent fine structure states of the same term influences the polarization for some of the diagnosticallyimportant lines of the Sun’s spectrum, like the sodium and lithium doublets. The polarizationsignatures of this combined interference contain information on the properties of the solar mag-netic fields. Motivated by this, in the present paper, we study the problem of polarized scatteringon a two-term atom with hyperfine structure by accounting for the partial redistribution in thephoton frequencies arising due to the Doppler motions of the atoms. We consider the scatteringatoms to be under the influence of a magnetic field of arbitrary strength and develop a formal-ism based on the Kramers–Heisenberg approach to calculate the scattering cross section for thisprocess. We explore the rich polarization effects that arise from various level-crossings in thePaschen–Back regime in a single scattering case using the lithium atomic system as a concreteexample that is relevant to the Sun.
Subject headings: atomic processes – line: formation – polarization – scattering – Sun: magnetic fields
1. INTRODUCTION
In the present paper, we address the problem ofquantum interference between the magnetic sub-states of the hyperfine structure (F ) states per-taining to different fine structure (J) states of agiven term, in the presence of magnetic fields of ar-bitrary strength covering the Hanle, Zeeman, andPaschen–Back (PB) effect regimes. We will referto this as “combined interference” or the “F + Jstate interference”. We develop the necessary the-ory including the effects of partial frequency re-distribution (PRD) in the absence of collisions,assuming the lower levels to be unpolarized andinfinitely sharp. We refer to this theory as the“combined theory” throughout the paper.
We consider a two-term atom with hyperfine
structure under the assumption that the lowerterm is unpolarized. In the absence of a magneticfield, the atomic transitions in a two-term atomtake place between the degenerate magnetic sub-states belonging to the F states. An applied mag-netic field lifts the degeneracies and modifies theenergies of these magnetic substates. The amountof splitting (or the energy change) produced bythe magnetic field defines the regimes in whichZeeman and PB effects act. Depending on therelative magnitudes of the fine structure splitting(FS), the hyperfine structure splitting (HFS), andthe magnetic splitting (MS), we characterize themagnetic field strength into five regimes. Theseregimes are illustrated schematically in Figure 1.In the approach presented in this paper, we ac-count for the interferences between the magnetic
1
substates pertaining to the same F state, the mag-netic substates belonging to different F states ofthe same J state, and the magnetic substates be-longing to different F states pertaining to differentJ states. Although all three types of interferenceare always present, depending on the field strengthone or two of them would dominate as depicted inthe different panels of Figure 1.
Within the framework of non-relativistic quan-tum electrodynamics, Casini & Manso Sainz (2005)formulated a theory for polarized scattering on amulti-term atom with hyperfine structure in thepresence of an arbitrary strength magnetic fieldunder the approximation of complete frequencyredistribution (CRD). In the present paper, werestrict our treatment to a two-term atom withHFS and consider the limit of coherent scatteringin the atomic frame with Doppler frequency re-distribution in the observer’s frame. We base ourformalism on the Kramers–Heisenberg coherencymatrix approach of Stenflo (1994). In our com-bined theory, we do not account for the coherencesamong the states in the lower term. In a recentpaper, Stenflo (2015) indicated how they may beincluded by extending the coherency matrix ap-proach to the multi-level case.
Based on the concept of “metalevels”, Landi Degl’Innocenti et al.(1997) formulated a theory that is able to treatcoherent scattering in the atomic rest frame fora two-term atom with hyperfine structure. Re-cently, Casini et al. (2014) presented a generalizedfrequency redistribution function for the polarizedtwo-term atom in arbitrary fields, based on a newformulation of the quantum scattering theory. Ourapproach is an alternative approach to the sameproblem and is conceptually more transparent, al-though limited to infinitely sharp and unpolarizedlower levels.
Belluzzi et al. (2009) studied the linear polar-ization produced due to scattering on the D lines ofneutral lithium isotopes. They employed the den-sity matrix formalism of Landi Degl’Innocenti & Landolfi(2004, hereafter LL04), together with the approxi-mation of CRD, to treat the quantum interferencebetween the fine and hyperfine structure states.They restricted their study to the non-magneticcase. However, they explored the sensitivity ofthe Stokes profiles to the microturbulent mag-netic fields. For our study in the present paper,we consider the same D lines of lithium isotopes
and present in detail the effects of a determinis-tic magnetic field of arbitrary strength. For thisatomic line system, the PB effect in both the fineand the hyperfine structure states occurs for themagnetic field strengths encountered on the Sun.We restrict our treatment to the single scatteringcase, since our aim here is to explore the basicphysical effects of the combined theory.
2. THE ATOMIC MODEL
In this section, we describe the structure of themodel atom considered for our studies and its in-teraction with an external magnetic field. We con-sider a two-term atom, each state of which is des-ignated by the quantum numbers L (orbital), S(electron spin), J (= L + S), Is (nuclear spin),F (= J + Is), and µ (projection of F onto thequantization axis).
2.1. The Atomic Hamiltonian
Under the L − S coupling scheme, the atomicHamiltonian for a two-term atom with hyperfinestructure is given by
HA = ζ(LS)L · S
+AJIs · J +BJ
2Is(2Is − 1)J(2J − 1)
×{
3(Is · J)2 +3
2(Is · J)− Is(Is + 1)J(J + 1)
}
,
(1)
where ζ(LS) is a constant having the dimensionsof energy, and AJ and BJ are the magnetic dipoleand electric quadrupole hyperfine structure con-stants, respectively. The first term in the aboveequation is a measure of the FS while the secondand the third terms provide a measure of the HFS.The eigenvalues of the atomic Hamiltonian repre-sent the energies of the F states, calculated withrespect to the energy of the corresponding term.
2.2. The Magnetic and the Total Hamilto-nians
An external magnetic field lifts the degenera-cies of the magnetic substates of the F states andchanges their energies by an amount given by theeigenvalues of the magnetic Hamiltonian
HB = µ0(J + S) ·B . (2)
2
J=3/2
J=1/2
2P
F=2
F=1
FS
HFS MS
(a) FS > MS < HFS Linear Zeeman regime for both J and F
10-1
J=3/2
J=1/2
2P
F=2
F=1
FS
HFS MS
(b) FS > MS ≥ HFS Linear Zeeman regime for J and incomplete PB regime for F
1
0
-1
J=3/2
J=1/2
2P
F=2
F=1
FS
HFS
MS
(d) FS ≤ MS≫HFS Incomplete PB regime for J and complete PB regime for F
1
0
-1
J=3/2
J=1/2
2P
F=2
F=1
FS
HFS
MS
(c) FS > MS≫HFS Linear Zeeman regime for J and complete PB regime for F
1
0
-1
Fig. 1.— Illustration of the magnetic fieldstrength regimes in the combined theory. For il-lustration purpose, a 2P term with nuclear spin3/2 is considered. The various splittings indicatedare not to scale. Panels (a)–(d) show the first fourregimes of the field strength. When MS is muchgreater than FS, we have a complete PB regimefor both J and F , which we call the fifth regime(not illustrated in the figure).
Assuming the quantization axis to be along themagnetic field (z-axis of the reference system), thematrix elements of the total Hamiltonian, HT =HA +HB, can be written as
〈LSJIsFµ|HT |LSJ ′IsF′µ〉 = δJJ′δFF ′
×[
1
2ζ(LS){J(J + 1)− L(L+ 1)− S(S + 1)}
+1
2AJK +
BJ
8Is(2Is − 1)J(2J − 1)
×{3K(K+ 1)− 4J(J + 1)Is(Is + 1)}]
+µ0B(−1)L+S+J+J′+Is−µ+1
×√
(2J + 1)(2J ′ + 1)(2F + 1)(2F ′ + 1)
×(
F F ′ 1−µ µ 0
){
J J ′ 1F ′ F Is
}
×[
δJJ′(−1)L+S+J+1
√
J(J + 1)√2J + 1
+(−1)J−J′√
S(S + 1)(2S + 1)
{
J J ′ 1S S L
}]
,
(3)
where K = F (F + 1)− Is(Is + 1)− J(J + 1), andµ0 is the Bohr magneton. The total Hamiltonianmatrix in the combined theory is no longer a sym-metric tridiagonal matrix, unlike the case of thePB effect in fine or hyperfine structure states. In-stead, it is a full symmetric matrix and we diag-onalize it using the Givens–Householder methoddescribed in Ortega (1968). We test the diagonal-ization code written for the problem at hand usingthe principle of spectroscopic stability presented inAppendix B.
2.3. Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors
The diagonalization of the total Hamiltoniangives the energy eigenvectors in terms of the linearZeeman effect regime basis |LSJIsFµ〉 throughthe expansion coefficients Ck
JF as
|LSIs, kµ〉 =∑
JF
CkJF (LSIs, µ) |LSJIsFµ〉 . (4)
The symbol k labels different states correspondingto the given values of (L, S, Is, µ) and its dimen-sion is given by
Nk =
L+S∑
d=|L−S|
1 + d+ Is −max(|µ|, |d− Is|) .(5)
3
We assume the C-coefficients appearing in Equa-tion (4) to be real because the total Hamilto-nian is real. We obtain the C-coefficients andthe corresponding eigenvalues denoted here asEk(LSIs, µ) after diagonalizing the atomic andmagnetic Hamiltonians presented in Sections 2.1and 2.2.
3. THE REDISTRIBUTION MATRIXFOR THE COMBINED J AND FSTATE INTERFERENCES
The methodology followed to derive the PRDmatrix (RM) for the combined case of J and Fstate interferences in the presence of a magneticfield is similar to that presented in Sowmya et al.(2014b) for F state interference alone. For thesake of clarity, we only present the importantequations involved in the derivation.
In a single scattering event, the scattered radi-ation is related to the incident radiation throughthe Mueller matrix given by
M = TWT−1 . (6)
Here, T and T−1 are the purely mathematicaltransformation matrices and W is the coherencymatrix for a transition a → b → f defined by
W =∑
a
∑
f
w ⊗w∗ . (7)
Note that the summations over the initial (a) andfinal (f) states are incoherent, and therefore donot allow the lower levels to interfere. w in theabove equation is the Jones matrix and its ele-ments are given by the Kramers–Heisenberg for-mula, which gives the complex probability ampli-tudes for the scattering a → b → f as
wαβ ∼∑
b
〈f |r · eα|b〉〈b|r · eβ|a〉ωbf − ω − iγ/2
. (8)
Here, ω = 2πξ is the circular frequency of thescattered radiation. ~ωbf is the energy differencebetween the excited and final levels and γ is thedamping constant.
Using Equation (4) in the Kramers–Heisenbergformula, and noting that Lf = La and using theWigner–Eckart theorem (see Equations (2.96) and(2.108) of LL04), we arrive at
wαβ ∼ (2La + 1)∑
kbµb
∑
JaJfJbJb′′FaFfFbFb′′
×∑
qq′′
(−1)q−q′′(−1)Jf+Ja+Jb+Jb′′
×Ckf
JfFf(LaSIs, µf )C
ka
JaFa(LaSIs, µa)
×Ckb
JbFb(LbSIs, µb)C
kb
Jb′′Fb′′(LbSIs, µb)
×√
(2Fa + 1)(2Ff + 1)(2Fb + 1)(2Fb′′ + 1)
×√
(2Ja + 1)(2Jf + 1)(2Jb + 1)(2Jb′′ + 1)
×(
Fb Ff 1−µb µf −q
)(
Fb′′ Fa 1−µb µa −q′′
)
×{
Jf Jb 1Fb Ff Is
}{
Ja Jb′′ 1Fb′′ Fa Is
}
×{
La Lb 1Jb Jf S
}{
La Lb 1Jb′′ Ja S
}
× εα∗
q εβq′′ Φγ(νkbµbkfµf− ξ) . (9)
Here, ε are the spherical vector components ofthe polarization unit vectors (eα and eβ) with αand β referring to the scattered and incident rays,respectively. Φγ(νkbµbkfµf
− ξ) is the frequency-normalized profile function defined as
Φγ(νkbµbkfµf− ξ) =
1/πi
νkbµbkfµf− ξ − iγ/4π
,
(10)where we have used an abbreviation
νkbµbkfµf= νLbSIskbµb,LaSIskfµf
= νLbLa+
Ekb(LbSIs, µb)− Ekf
(LaSIs, µf )
h,
(11)
with h being the Planck constant.
Inserting Equation (9) into Equation (7),and after elaborate algebra (see for exampleSowmya et al. 2014b), we obtain the normalizedRM, RII
ij , for type-II scattering in the laboratoryframe as
RIIij(x,n, x
′,n′;B) =3(2Lb + 1)
(2S + 1)(2Is + 1)
×∑
KK′Q
∑
kaµakfµfkbµbkb′µb′
∑
qq′q′′q′′′
(−1)q−q′′′+Q
×√
(2K + 1)(2K ′ + 1) cosβkb′µb′kbµbeiβk
b′µb′
kbµb
×[(hIIkbµb,kb′µb′
)kaµakfµf+ i(f II
kbµb,kb′µb′)kaµakfµf
]
×∑
JaJa′JfJf′JbJb′Jb′′Jb′′′
∑
FaFa′FfFf′FbFb′Fb′′Fb′′′
4
×Ckf
JfFf(LaSIs, µf )C
ka
JaFa(LaSIs, µa)
×Ckb
JbFb(LbSIs, µb)C
kb
Jb′′Fb′′(LbSIs, µb)
×Ckf
Jf′Ff′(LaSIs, µf )C
ka
Ja′Fa′(LaSIs, µa)
×Ckb′
Jb′Fb′(LbSIs, µb′)C
kb′
Jb′′′Fb′′′(LbSIs, µb′)
×(−1)Ja+Ja′+Jf+Jf′+Jb+Jb′+Jb′′+Jb′′′
×√
(2Ja + 1)(2Jf + 1)(2Ja′ + 1)(2Jf ′ + 1)
×√
(2Jb + 1)(2Jb′ + 1)(2Jb′′ + 1)(2Jb′′′ + 1)
×√
(2Fa + 1)(2Ff + 1)(2Fa′ + 1)(2Ff ′ + 1)
×√
(2Fb + 1)(2Fb′ + 1)(2Fb′′ + 1)(2Fb′′′ + 1)
×(
Fb Ff 1−µb µf −q
)(
Fb′ Ff ′ 1−µb′ µf −q′
)
×(
Fb′′ Fa 1−µb µa −q′′
)(
Fb′′′ Fa′ 1−µb′ µa −q′′′
)
×(
1 1 Kq −q′ −Q
)(
1 1 K ′
q′′′ −q′′ Q
)
×{
Jf Jb 1Fb Ff Is
}{
Jf ′ Jb′ 1Fb′ Ff ′ Is
}
×{
Ja Jb′′ 1Fb′′ Fa Is
}{
Ja′ Jb′′′ 1Fb′′′ Fa′ Is
}
×{
La Lb 1Jb Jf S
}{
La Lb 1Jb′ Jf ′ S
}
×{
La Lb 1Jb′′ Ja S
}{
La Lb 1Jb′′′ Ja′ S
}
×(−1)QT K−Q(i,n)T K′
Q (j,n′) . (12)
Here, T KQ (i,n) are the irreducible spherical ten-
sors for polarimetry (Landi Degl’Innocenti 1984)with i = 0, 1, 2, 3 referring to the Stokes pa-rameters, the multipolar index K = 0, 1, 2, andQ ∈ [−K,K]. n
′ and n represent the directionsof the incident and scattered rays, respectively,and B the vector magnetic field. x′ and x arethe non-dimensional frequencies in Doppler widthunits (see Appendix A). βkb′µb′kbµb
is the Hanleangle given by
tanβkb′µb′kbµb=
νkb′µb′kaµa− νkbµbkaµa
γ/2π. (13)
The explicit forms of the auxiliary functions hII
and f II appearing in Equation (12) are given inAppendix A. When Is = 0, Equation (12) re-duces to the PRD matrix for J state interferencealone (see Equation (11) of Sowmya et al. 2014a).
When FS is neglected, Equation (12) reduces tothe expression of RM for pure F state interfer-ence (see Equation (16) of Sowmya et al. 2014b).When we neglect both FS and HFS, we recoverRM for La → Lb → La transition (analogous to atwo-level atom case) in the presence of a magneticfield.
4. RESULTS
In this section, we present the results obtainedfrom the combined theory for the case of the sin-gle scattering of an unpolarized, spectrally flat in-cident radiation beam by an atom with both non-zero electron and nuclear spins. Considering therelevance to solar applications, we choose the Dline system at 6708 A from neutral 6Li and 7Liisotopes as an example to test the formalism de-veloped. We take the values of the atomic param-eters and isotope abundances for this system fromTable 1 of Belluzzi et al. (2009).
4.1. Level-crossings and Avoided Cross-ings
In Figures 2 and 3, we show the dependence ofthe energies of the levels in the 2P terms of the 6Liand 7Li isotopes on the magnetic field strength.Such figures provide us with the information onthe field strength regimes in which processes likethe Zeeman effect, incomplete PB effect, and com-plete PB effect operate. They help us to choosethe magnetic field strength values for studying theeffects of level-crossing on the Stokes profiles. Wechoose different scales for the x-axes in differentpanels to bring out the level-crossings which oc-cur at different field strengths due to the differencein the magnitudes of FS and HFS. The y-axes inall of the panels in both figures denote the energyshift of the levels from the parent L = 1 level.
In panels (a) and (c) of Figure 2, we plot theenergies of the magnetic substates of the F statesbelonging to the 2P3/2 and 2P1/2 levels of 6Li, re-spectively, as a function of the field strength. Sincethe nuclear spin of 6Li is 1, we have half-integervalues for F . In these panels, we see that the mag-netic substates of the F states of 2P3/2 cross atnine points while those of 2P1/2 do not cross. Wenote a similar behavior in the case of the F statesbelonging to the 2P3/2 and 2P1/2 levels of 7Li (seepanels (b) and (d), respectively). The magnetic
5
Fig. 2.— Energies of the HFS magnetic substates as a function of the magnetic field strength for 6Li (leftcolumn) and 7Li (right column). Panels (a) and (b) correspond, respectively, to the 2P3/2 levels of 6Li and7Li, while panels (c) and (d) correspond to the 2P1/2 levels of 6Li and 7Li, respectively. The nuclear spinsof 6Li and 7Li are 1 and 3/2, respectively.
6
Fig. 3.— Energies of the magnetic substates belonging to the 2P terms as a function of the magnetic fieldstrength for 6Li (a) and 7Li (d). Blow up of the crossing regions c1 (b) and c2 (c) in 6Li and c′1 (e) and c′2(f) in 7Li. In the panels (b), (c), (e), and (f) the levels are identified by their magnetic quantum numbervalues µ.
7
substates of the F states of 2P1/2 do not crosswhile those of 2P3/2 cross at 14 points. In the weakfield regime (e.g., 0 − 60 G), we see PB effect forthe F states, and in the strong field regime (for kGfields) we see PB effect for the J states. In Tables 1and 2, we list the quantum numbers of the levelswhich cross along with their corresponding fieldstrengths for the weak field regime. The numbersindicated in boldface in these tables correspond tothose crossings which satisfy ∆µ = µb′ −µb = ±2.We discuss the effects of these level-crossings onthe polarization in later sections.
In panels (a) and (d) of Figure 3, we plot theenergies of the magnetic substates of the 2P termsof 6Li and 7Li as a function of the magnetic fieldstrength. In these panels, the points where thelevels cross are denoted as c1 and c2 for 6Li andas c′1 and c′2 for 7Li. When we zoom into thesecrossing points, we see other interesting phenom-ena (see panels (b), (c), (e), and (f)). For example,at c1, we see a crossing of the bunch of lowermostthree levels going downward in Figure 2(a) withthe three levels going upward in Figure 2(c). Al-though the magnetic substates of the F states ap-pear to be degenerate in Figure 3(a), they are notfully degenerate, as can be seen in Figure 3(b).Similar behavior can be seen in Figures 3(c), (e),and (f), and the levels correspond to the magneticsubstates of the F states shown in Figure 2.
In addition to the usual level-crossings, we seeseveral avoided crossings in Figures 3(b), (c), (e),and (f). For example, in panel (b), we see oneavoided crossing marked a1, two in panel (c)marked a2 and a3, two in panel (e) marked a′1and a′2, and three in panel (f) marked a′3, a′4,and a′5. As we can see from the figure, theseavoided crossings take place between the mag-netic substates with the same µ values (−1/2 inpanel (b), −3/2 and −1/2 in panel (c), 0 and−1 in panel (e), and −2, −1, and 0 in panel(f)). The levels with the same µ cannot crossowing to the small interaction that takes placebetween them. This interaction is determinedby the off-diagonal elements of the magnetic hy-perfine interaction Hamiltonian which couple thestates with different J values (Brog et al. 1967;Weider & Eck 1967; Arimondo et al. 1977). Arapid transformation in the eigenvector basis takesplace around the region of avoided crossing. Thisis described in Bommier (1980) and in LL04 (see
also Sowmya et al. 2014a,b).
4.2. Line Splitting Diagrams
The line splitting diagram shows the displace-ment of the magnetic components from the linecenter (corresponding to the wavelength of theL = 0 → 1 → 0 transition in the reference iso-tope 7Li) and the strengths of these componentsfor a given field strength. In Figure 4, we show theline splitting diagrams for different B values. Wetake into account the isotope shift and the solarabundances of the two isotopes while computingthe strengths and magnetic shifts. As mentionedearlier, the components arising for B = 0 corre-spond to the transitions between the unperturbedF states. We see that the hyperfine structure com-ponents of the D lines are well separated whenB = 0 due to the relatively large FS. When themagnetic field is applied, the degeneracy of themagnetic substates is lifted. As a result, 70 al-lowed transitions take place in 6Li and 106 in 7Li.This explains why the diagrams become crowdedas the field strength increases. We see that themagnetic displacements increase with an increasein B as expected. In the diagrams shown, we notethat the MS is nonlinear and is a characteristic ofthe incomplete PB regime.
4.3. Single Scattered Stokes Profiles
In this section, we present the Stokes profilesfor various B values computed using the combinedtheory for the single scattering case. We choosea coordinate system (see Figure 5) in which themagnetic field lies in the horizontal (xy) planemaking angles θB = 90° and χB = 45°. Wemake this choice following Stenflo (1998) in or-der to bring out clearly the effects of the mag-netic field. We assume the unpolarized incidentray to be along the vertical (z-axis) and the scat-tered ray (or the line of sight) to lie in the hor-izontal plane along the x-axis. Thus, the anglesfor the incident and the scattered rays becomeµ′ = 1, χ′ = 0°, µ = 0, and χ = 0°. We usethe fact that the lithium lines are optically thinand only single scattering is considered here toadd the Stokes profiles computed for the individ-ual isotopes after weighting them by their respec-tive abundances. In Figures 6 – 9, we compare thesingle scattered Stokes profiles for three cases: thecases of pure F state interference (dotted lines)
8
Fig. 4.— Line splitting diagrams for the two lithium isotopes for the field strengths indicated. The solidlines represent the magnetic components of 7Li while the dashed lines represent those of 6Li. Vertical dottedlines mark the positions of the D lines of the two isotopes. ∆λ = 0 corresponds to the line center wavelengthof L = 0 → 1 → 0 transition in 7Li.
9
Fb�Fb′ 1/2 3/2 3/2 3/2µb�µb′ 1/2 −1/2 1/2 3/2
3/2 −3/2 0.57 ... ... ...5/2 −5/2 1.61 1.26 0.72 0.635/2 −3/2 ... ... 1.3 0.95/2 −1/2 ... ... 2.93 2.25
Table 1: Magnetic field strengths (approximate values in G) for which the magnetic substates of the F statescross in the 6Li isotope. For instance, the crossing between (µb = −3/2, Fb = 3/2) and (µb′ = 1/2, Fb′ = 1/2)occurs at B ∼ 0.57 G. The numbers highlighted in boldface represent the field strength values for which thelevel-crossings corresponding to ∆µ = µb′ − µb = ±2 occur.
Fb�Fb′ 1 1 2 2 2 2µb�µb′ 0 +1 −1 0 +1 +2
2 −2 2.2 2.6 ... ... ... ...3 −3 5.2 5.95 4.15 2.65 2.35 2.13 −2 ... ... ... 3.7 3.25 2.953 −1 ... ... ... 8.8 7.25 6.0
Table 2: Magnetic field strengths (approximate values in G) for which the magnetic substates of the F statescross in the 7Li isotope. For instance, the crossing between (µb = −2, Fb = 2) and (µb′ = 0, Fb′ = 1)occurs at B ∼ 2.2 G. The numbers highlighted in boldface represent the field strength values for which thelevel-crossings corresponding to ∆µ = µb′ − µb = ±2 occur.
n'
n
x
y
z
θ
χB
B
θB
Fig. 5.— Scattering geometry considered for theresults presented in Section 4.3.
represented by a two-level atom with hyperfinestructure, pure J state interference (dashed lines)represented by a two-term atom without hyperfinestructure, and the combined theory (solid lines)represented by a two-term atom with hyperfinestructure. We choose a Doppler width of 60 mAfor all of the components of the multiplet whencomputing the Stokes profiles. For this particularvalue of the Doppler width, the theoretical Q/Iprofile closely resembles the observed Q/I profile(see Belluzzi et al. 2009). We use the Einstein Acoefficient of 3.689× 107 s−1 for all of the compo-nents.
In Figure 6, we show the Stokes profiles com-puted in the absence of magnetic fields for 100%7Li in panel (a), for 100% 6Li in panel (b), andfor both the isotopes combined according to theirpercentage abundance in panel (c). In panels (a)and (b), we see two peaks corresponding to theD lines of the two isotopes in intensity. The in-tensities of the D lines in both the isotopes areof similar magnitude since we have assumed 100%abundance for the two isotopes. We also note thatthe wavelength positions of the D lines of 6Li aredifferent from those of 7Li owing to the isotopeshift. In panel (c), we see two distinct peaks in
10
Fig. 6.— Single scattered Stokes profiles for thelithium D line system in the absence of a magneticfield: (a) 100% 7Li, (b) 100% 6Li, and (c) 7Li and6Li combined according to their percentage abun-dance. The line types are indicated in the intensitypanels. The geometry considered for scattering isµ = 0, µ′ = 1, χ = 0°, and χ′ = 0°. The verticaldotted lines represent the line center wavelengthpositions of the 7Li D2,
7Li D1,6Li D2, and
6LiD1 lines in the absence of magnetic fields.
intensity. The first peak to the left is due to the7Li D2 line. The second peak falls at the line cen-ter positions of 7Li D1 and 6Li D2. However, thedominant contribution comes from the 7Li D1 dueto its relatively larger abundance. A small bumpto the right of the second peak is due to the 6Li D1
line. A small difference in the intensity at the 7LiD2 peak between the dashed lines and the othertwo cases is seen in panels (a) and (c). It is clearfrom the figure that this discrepancy is caused by7Li. Comparing the solid, dotted, and dashed pro-files, we come to the conclusion that the HFS isat the origin of this discrepancy. This is becausethe solid and dotted lines computed by includingHFS perfectly match and only the dashed linescomputed without HFS differ from the other twocases. The discrepancy is very small in the caseof 6Li because of smaller HFS in 6Li comparedto that in 7Li. The reason for this discrepancy isdue to the asymmetric splitting of the HFS com-ponents about the given J state and also due tofinite widths of the components. This differencedecreases (graphically indistinguishable) when amagnetic field is applied (for example, when B = 5G as seen in Figure 7) because of the superposi-tion of a large number of magnetic components.In contrast, this difference is about an order ofmagnitude larger in the non-magnetic case. As weincrease the field strength, the intensity profilesbroaden due to an increased separation betweenthe magnetic components.
When B = 0, the Q/I profiles exhibit a multi-step behavior around the line center positions ofthe D1 and D2 lines of both isotopes. We seethe effects of quantum interference clearly in Q/I.In the 7Li D2 core, significant depolarization iscaused by the HFS compared to the case wherethis splitting is neglected (compare the solid anddashed lines in panels (a) and (c)). A similar de-polarization is also exhibited by the core of the 6LiD2 line (see panels (b) and (c)). However, in thescale adopted, the solid and dashed lines appearto merge around the core of 6Li D2 in panels (c),as the Q/I values of 6Li D2 are an order of magni-tude smaller than those of 7Li D2 because of theirrelative abundances. The D1 lines remain upo-larized. As expected, the solid lines merge withthe dotted line in the cores of lithium lines whilethey coincide with the dashed lines in the wings.When a magnetic field is applied, we see a depo-
11
larization in Q/I and a generation of U/I signalin the cores of the lithium lines due to the Hanleeffect. We note that the combined theory resultsmatch more closely the pure J state interferenceresults for fields of the order of 100 G. This behav-ior continues until the level-crossing field strengthof B = 3238 G for fine structure is reached.
For kG fields, we are by far in the complete PBregime for the F states. In this regime, the J andIs couple strongly to the magnetic field and theinteraction between J and Is becomes negligible.Therefore, one would expect the HFS magneticsubstates to be fully degenerate, and therefore thesolid and dashed lines should match closely forfields of the order of kG. However, for the level-crossing field strengths, we see considerable dif-ferences between the solid and the dashed lines,especially in U/I. In order to understand this,we compare the Stokes profiles for 7Li and 6Liseparately in panel (a) and (b) of Figure 8 withthe combined profiles in panel (c). We do this tocheck whether a particular isotope is giving riseto this difference. We note that this differencebetween the solid and dashed lines prevails in allthree panels (i.e., in both isotopes). We attributethis difference in the shape and amplitude betweenthe solid and the dashed lines to HFS, the level-crossings, and avoided crossings between the HFSmagnetic substates. When we look at Figure 3, wefind that the HFS magnetic substates have finiteenergy differences and are not fully degenerate inthe complete PB regime for the F states. We seeseveral crossings as well as a few avoided cross-ings. These level-crossings and avoided crossingsbetween the non-degenerate HFS magnetic sub-states lead to a modification of the coherence andsignificant Hanle rotation, thereby affecting theshape and amplitude of the U/I profiles. The HFSeffects show more prominently in the polarizationdiagrams which will be discussed in Section 4.5.For the geometry under consideration, this effectis significantly seen for B = 3238 G. For a level-crossing field strength of 4855 G, the Stokes pro-files show somewhat different behavior.
We also note that for fields of the order of kG,differences between the solid and dashed lines re-main only in the far left wing (see Figures 8 and9). From Figure 8 it is clear that this differencein the far blue wings is only due to the 7Li iso-tope (compare panels (a)–(c)). This can be un-
derstood with the help of the line splitting dia-grams for level-crossing fields in Figure 4 in com-parison with the corresponding diagrams in Fig-ure 3 of Sowmya et al. (2014a, a direct compari-son of the displacements can be made as the zeropoints in the two figures are the same). In a two-term atom without HFS, when a magnetic fieldis applied, the various FS magnetic componentsare either blue or redshifted from the line cen-ter depending on their energies. When HFS isincluded, the HFS magnetic components are dis-tributed around the positions of the FS magneticcomponents in the absence of HFS. We find thatthe positions of the HFS magnetic components inFigure 4 correspond well with the wavelength po-sitions of the FS magnetic components in Figure3 of Sowmya et al. (2014a), except for the bunchof magnetic components to the extreme left repre-sented by solid lines. The magnetic field leads toa large blue shift of this bunch, which consists ofthree σb (∆µ = µb − µa = +1), two π (∆µ = 0)and one σr (∆µ = −1) components. These com-ponents (otherwise not present at this wavelengthposition when HFS is neglected) give rise to thesystematic difference in Q/I, U/I, and V/I in thefar blue wing of the D2 line of 7Li. However, theydo not affect the intensity.
The V/I profiles remain somewhat indistin-guishable between the three cases considered, ex-cept for very weak fields like 5 G as in Figure 7.F state interference significantly changes the V/Iprofile at the 7Li D2 wavelength position. This isa signature of the alignment-to-orientation (A-O)conversion mechanism (see Landi Degl’Innocenti1982, and LL04) acting in the incomplete PBregime for the F states. As described in LL04,this occurs because of the double summation overK and K ′ appearing in Equation (12) and be-cause the spherical tensor T K
Q (3,n) is non-zeroonly when K = 1 (see Equation (C6) of Ap-pendix C). This means that circular polarizationcan be generated by resonance scattering even ifthe atom is not exposed to circularly polarizedlight. The alignment present in the radiation fieldis converted to the orientation in the upper term.This orientation in the upper F states gives riseto circularly polarized light. As discussed earlier,small differences appear in the far blue wings forfields equal to or larger than the level-crossing fieldstrengths.
12
Finally, we remark that the discussion pre-sented above concerning the comparison of thesingle scattered Stokes profiles between the threecases (namely, the pure J state, pure F state, andcombined J and F interference) also remains validfor other scattering geometries.
In Figure 10, we show the Stokes profiles ob-tained after including a weakly polarized back-ground continuum. We refer the reader to Section4.3 of Sowmya et al. (2014a) for details on how weadd the continuum contribution and on the pa-rameters used for the continuum. We comparethis figure with Figure 4 of Sowmya et al. (2014a)and find that the HFS does not cause any changein the intensities. When B = 0 the HFS causes adepolarization in the core of Q/I without affectingthe shape of the profile. For other field strengths,there is only a slight difference in the amplitudeof the profiles as compared to the case withoutHFS, although their shapes remain the same. TheU/I profiles differ both in amplitude and shape forB = 3238 G. This difference is due to HFS. WhenHFS is neglected, there is only one level-crossingat this field strength. On the other hand, whenHFS is included, there are several level-crossingsaround this field strength (see Figures 3(b) and(e)). V/I profiles have the same shapes and am-plitudes as compared to the case without hyperfinestructure.
4.4. Net Circular Polarization (NCP)
In this section, we present the plots of NCP de-fined as
∫
V dλ as a function of the magnetic fieldstrength B. Since the PB effect causes nonlinearsplitting of the magnetic components with respectto the line center, the Stokes V profiles becomeasymmetric. As a result of this asymmetry, theintegration of the Stokes V over the full line pro-file yields a non-zero value. In the linear Zeemanand complete PB regimes, the V profiles show per-fect antisymmetry which causes the NCP to be-come zero. The A-O conversion mechanism dis-cussed in Section 4.3 further enhances the asym-metry in Stokes V profiles already caused by non-linear MS, and thereby contributes to the NCP.This mechanism is particularly efficient when thelevel-crossings satisfy ∆µ = µb′ − µb = 1.
In Figure 11, we show the behavior of NCP indifferent field strength ranges for the scatteringgeometry: µ′ = 0, χ′ = 0°, µ = 1, χ = 90°,
θB = 0°, and χB = 0°. This choice of the fieldgeometry is made in order to obtain larger valuesfor Stokes V . In panel (a), we show the weak fieldbehavior of NCP. We attribute the non-zero NCPin this regime to the PB effect in the F statesand the A-O conversion mechanism taking placein the incomplete PB regime for the F states. Wefind that the NCP increases with increasing fieldstrength, peaking around the level-crossing fieldstrength (see Tables 1 and 2), and decreases withfurther increase in B. For fields of the order of kGwe see a second peak in NCP whose magnitude islarger than the first peak by an order. This is dueto the PB effect in the J states and the A-O con-version mechanism occurring in the incomplete PBregime for the J states. With a further increasein the field strength, we enter the complete PBregime for the J states where the NCP becomeszero.
Detailed discussions on the various mechanismsproducing NCP are presented in LL04.
4.5. Polarization Diagrams
In Figure 12, we present the plots of Stokes Q/Iversus Stokes U/I (polarization diagrams) for agiven B and θB and for the full range of χB. Re-fer to the figure caption for the incident and scat-tered ray directions. θB takes values 0°, 70°, 90°,and 110°. We find that the θB = 70° and 110°curves perfectly coincide in all four panels. Theytake same values for Q/I and U/I at χB = 0°and χB = 180°. However, we see that the depen-dence on χB of the θB = 70° curve is somewhatdifferent from that of the θB = 110° curve. Bythis, we mean that for the θB = 70° case, the Q/Ivalue changes in an anti-clockwise direction fromthe χB = 0° point while it changes in a clock-wise direction from the χB = 0° point for theθB = 110° case. The Q/I value increases withincreasing χB, reaches a maximum and then de-creases till χB = 180°. U/I makes a gradual tran-sition from being positive to negative. Q/I againincreases with an increase in χB and at χB = 360°it resumes the same value it had at χB = 0°. U/Inowmakes a transition from being negative to pos-itive. When θB = 0° the magnetic field is along thez-axis and exhibits azimuthal symmetry. Hence,θB = 0° is just a point in the polarization dia-gram. For θB = 90° the diagram is symmetricwith respect to the U/I = 0 line.
13
Fig. 7.— Same as Figure 6 but in the presence of a magnetic field. The left and the right panels correspondto different field strength values. The field orientation (θB = 90°, χB = 45°) is the same in both the panels.Refer to Section 4.3 for the scattering geometry.
14
Fig. 8.— Stokes profiles obtained for B = 3238 G: (a) 100% 7Li, (b) 100% 6Li, and (c) 7Li and 6Li combinedaccording to their percentage abundance. Refer to Section 4.3 for the scattering geometry. When B = 3238G, the U/I values are so small for the dotted line case that they become indistinguishable from the zero line.
In Figure 13, we compare the polarization di-agrams obtained at different wavelength pointsby varying the field strength B for a two-termatom without HFS (dashed curves) and a two-term atom with HFS (solid curves). The geom-etry considered is described in the caption to thefigure. In panel (a), we see a decrease in Q/Iwith increasing field strength due to the Hanle ef-fect. For fields greater than 100 G, we enter theHanle saturation regime. Q/I starts to increaseas we approach the level-crossing field strength(around 3 kG). Loops (i.e., a single circular loopfor the dashed line and multiple small loops for thesolid line) arise due to several level-crossings (seeFigure 3) where the coherence increases and Q/Itends to approach its non-magnetic value. Com-paring the solid and dashed curves in Figure 13,the effects of HFS can be clearly seen. First, dueto the depolarization caused by HFS, the polar-ization diagram shrinks in size. Second, multiplesmall loops are formed (see the solid lines in Fig-ure 13). These multiple loops arise due to severallevel-crossings that occur only when HFS is in-
cluded (see Figure 3(b), (c), (e), and (f)). Forfield strengths larger than the level-crossing fieldstrengths, the Q/I value decreases again and be-comes zero around 10 kG. We see the effects due toRayleigh scattering in strong magnetic fields whenwe increase the field strength beyond 10 kG (sim-ilar to Figure 6(b) of Sowmya et al. 2014a). Inpanel (b), we show the polarization diagram com-puted at the 6Li D2 wavelength position. Sincethe 7Li D1 position nearly coincides with that of6Li D2, we see the combined effect of both lines.However, due to the large abundance of 7Li, thebehavior of the polarization diagram is dominatedby contribution from 7Li D1. Since 7Li D1 is un-polarized, the small arcs seen for weak fields aredue to the 6Li D2 line. After the Hanle satura-tion field strength (30 G), the polarization dia-grams essentially show behavior similar to the cor-responding polarization diagrams in panel (a). Inpanel (c), we show the polarization diagram for6Li D1 position. The D1 line remains unpolar-ized till the level-crossing field strength (around3 kG) is reached. Around the level-crossing field
15
Fig. 9.— Stokes profiles obtained for B = 4855 G and B = 5000 G. Refer to Section 4.3 for the scatteringgeometry.
16
Fig. 10.— Stokes profiles obtained by includingthe contribution from the continuum for differentvalues of B. Refer to Section 4.3 for the scatteringgeometry. The vertical dotted lines represent thepositions of the D lines.
Fig. 11.— Net circular polarization as a functionof the magnetic field strength B. The scatteringgeometry is characterized by: µ′ = 0, χ′ = 0°,µ = 1, χ = 90°, θB = 0°, and χB = 0°.
strength, we see a bigger loop for the case withoutHFS (dashed line) and a smaller loop for the casewith HFS (solid line).
5. CONCLUSIONS
We present a formalism to treat the combinedinterferences between the magnetic substates ofthe hyperfine structure states pertaining to differ-ent fine structure states of the same term includ-ing the effects of PRD in scattering. Using theKramers–Heisenberg approach, we calculate thepolarized scattering cross section (i.e., the redis-tribution matrix) for this process. We also demon-strate the behavior of the redistribution matrix ina single scattering of the incident unpolarized ra-diation by the lithium atoms. In the solar case,the combined theory finds applications in model-ing of spectral lines like lithium 6708 A for whichthe effects of both fine and hyperfine structure aresignificant.
In the absence of magnetic fields, we recover theresults already published by Belluzzi et al. (2009).In the present paper, we illustrate the effects of adeterministic magnetic field on the Stokes profilesof the lithium D line system. We cover the en-tire field strength regime from a weak field Hanleregime to incomplete and complete PB regimes.When the fields are weak, the Stokes profiles ex-
17
Fig. 12.— Polarization diagrams obtained at the D line positions for B = 5 G and different θB as indicatedin the panels. The azimuth χB of the magnetic field is varied from 0° to 360°. The symbols on the curvesmark the χB values: ∗ − 0°, ◦ − 70°, � − 180°, and △ −270°. Since the curves for the θB = 70° and 110°coincide, we use symbols that are bigger in size for the θB = 110° case to distinguish it from the θB = 70°curve. The geometry considered is µ = 0, µ′ = 1, χ = 0°, and χ′ = 0°.
18
Fig. 13.— Polarization diagrams obtained at theD line positions for a given orientation of the mag-netic field. The dashed lines correspond to thepure J state interference case without HFS whilethe solid lines correspond to the combined theorycase (including HFS). The magnetic field strengthvalues are marked along the dashed curves inGauss, with “k” meaning a factor of 1000. Theasterisks on the solid curves represent the samefield strength values as indicated for the dashedcurves. The scattering geometry considered isµ = 1, µ′ = 0, χ = 90°, and χ′ = 0°.
hibit the well-known Hanle signatures at the cen-ters of the lithium D lines, namely, depolarizationofQ/I and rotation of polarization plane. We notethat there are Zeeman-like signatures for strongerfields. We show the signatures of level-crossingsand avoided crossings in Stokes profiles and po-larization diagrams. Unlike the pure J state orF state interferences, when J and F state in-terferences are treated together, a multitude oflevel-crossings and avoided crossings occur whichproduce multiple loops in the polarization dia-grams and interesting signatures in teh U/I pro-files. Non-zero NCP is seen for fields in the in-complete PB regime which arises not only due tonon-linear MS but also due to the A-O conversionmechanism as already described in LL04. How-ever, its diagnostic potential needs to be explored.We perform the calculations including the effectsof PRD. However, its effect manifests itself onlywhen one considers the transfer of the line radia-tion in the solar atmospheric conditions.
We thank the referee for very useful, detailed,constructive comments and suggestions whichhelped us understand the results better and im-prove the paper substantially. We acknowledgethe use of the HYDRA cluster facility at the In-dian Institute of Astrophysics for the numericalcomputations related to the work presented inthis paper.
19
A. THE MAGNETIC REDISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS FOR THE COMBINED J ANDF STATE INTERFERENCES
The magnetic redistribution functions of type-II in the case of combined J and F state interferences havethe same form as those in cases where only the interferences between fine structure or hyperfine structurestates are considered, except for the increase in the dimension of the quantum number space. For our problemof interest, they take the forms given by
RII,Hkbµbkaµakfµf
(xba, x′ba,Θ) =
1
π sinΘexp
{
−[
xba − x′ba + xkaµakfµf
2 sin(Θ/2)
]2}
×H
(
a
cos(Θ/2),xba + x′
ba + xkaµakfµf
2 cos(Θ/2)
)
, (A1)
and
RII,Fkbµbkaµakfµf
(xba, x′ba,Θ) =
1
π sinΘexp
{
−[
xba − x′ba + xkaµakfµf
2 sin(Θ/2)
]2}
×2F
(
a
cos(Θ/2),xba + x′
ba + xkaµakfµf
2 cos(Θ/2)
)
. (A2)
Here, Θ is the scattering angle, and the functions H and F are the Voigt and Faraday-Voigt functions(see Equation (18) of Smitha et al. 2011). The quantities appearing in the expressions for the type-IIredistribution functions have the following definitions:
xba =νkbµbkaµa
− ν
∆νD; x′
ba =νkbµbkaµa
− ν′
∆νD;xkaµakfµf
=νkaµakfµf
∆νD; a =
γ
4π∆νD, (A3)
where xba is the emission frequency, x′ba is the absorption frequency, a is the damping parameter, and ∆νD
is the Doppler width.
The auxiliary functions hII and f II appearing in Equation (12) can be constructed by making use ofEquations (A1) and (A2) as
(hIIkbµb,kb′µb′
)kaµakfµf=
1
2
[
RII,Hkbµbkaµakfµf
+RII,Hkb′µb′kaµakfµf
]
, (A4)
(f IIkbµb,kb′µb′
)kaµakfµf=
1
2
[
RII,Fkb′µb′kaµakfµf
−RII,Fkbµbkaµakfµf
]
. (A5)
These auxiliary functions contain the information regarding the Doppler redistribution of photon frequencies.
B. THE PSS
The PSS is a basic test for checking the correctness of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors obtained from adiagonalization procedure, for a given problem. A detailed description of the PSS is given in LL04 (see pp.321-325). In LL04, the manifestations of PSS are given separately for (a) a two-level atom with hyperfinestructure and (b) a two-term atom exhibiting only FS. In this appendix, we formulate the PSS for the caseof a two-term atom exhibiting both FS and HFS. We basically follow the same procedure as described inLL04 to derive the expression for the centers of gravity in frequency of the magnetic components.
The strengths of the magnetic components are given by
Skaµa,kbµbq = |〈LaSIs, kaµa|rq|LbSIs, kbµb〉|2 , (B1)
20
which are essentially the square of the complex amplitude of the transition between the lower term (quantitieswith subscripts a) and the upper term (quantities with subscripts b). rq are the spherical components of thedipole moment operator. Using the basis expansion defined in Equation (4), the Wigner–Eckart theoremand its corollary, we expand the above equation as
Skaµa,kbµbq = (2La + 1)
∑
JaJa′JbJb′FaFa′FbFb′
(−1)Ja+Ja′+Jb+Jb′
×Cka
JaFa(LaSIs, µa)C
ka
Ja′Fa′(LaSIs, µa)C
kb
JbFb(LbSIs, µb)C
kb
Jb′Fb′(LbSIs, µb)
×√
(2Ja + 1)(2Ja′ + 1)(2Jb + 1)(2Jb′ + 1)(2Fa + 1)(2Fa′ + 1)(2Fb + 1)(2Fb′ + 1)
×{
La Lb 1Jb Ja S
}{
La Lb 1Jb′ Ja′ S
}{
Ja Jb 1Fb Fa Is
}{
Ja′ Jb′ 1Fb′ Fa′ Is
}
×(
Fb Fa 1−µb µa −q
)(
Fb′ Fa′ 1−µb µa −q
)
|〈La||r||Lb〉|2 , (B2)
with, q = 0 for π, +1 for σr, and −1 for the σb components. The transitions connecting the upper and thelower terms obey the selection rules ∆L = 0,±1, ∆S = 0, ∆Is = 0, and ∆µ = µb−µa = 0,±1. Summing theexpression for the unnormalized strengths over all the possible transitions, making use of the orthogonalityproperty of the C-coefficients given in Equation (5a) of Casini & Manso Sainz (2005) and Equations (2.23a)and (2.39) of LL04, we obtain
∑
kakbµaµb
Skaµa,kbµbq =
1
3(2La + 1)(2S + 1)(2Is + 1)|〈La||r||Lb〉|2 . (B3)
Making use of the condition that
∑
kakbµaµb
Skaµa,kbµbq = 1 , (B4)
we write the expression for the normalized strengths as
Skaµa,kbµbq =
3
(2S + 1)(2Is + 1)
∑
JaJa′JbJb′FaFa′FbFb′
(−1)Ja+Ja′+Jb+Jb′
×Cka
JaFa(LaSIs, µa)C
ka
Ja′Fa′(LaSIs, µa)C
kb
JbFb(LbSIs, µb)C
kb
Jb′Fb′(LbSIs, µb)
×√
(2Ja + 1)(2Ja′ + 1)(2Jb + 1)(2Jb′ + 1)(2Fa + 1)(2Fa′ + 1)(2Fb + 1)(2Fb′ + 1)
×{
La Lb 1Jb Ja S
}{
La Lb 1Jb′ Ja′ S
}{
Ja Jb 1Fb Fa Is
}{
Ja′ Jb′ 1Fb′ Fa′ Is
}
×(
Fb Fa 1−µb µa −q
)(
Fb′ Fa′ 1−µb µa −q
)
.
(B5)
The centers of gravity in frequency of the magnetic components are defined as
∆νq =∑
kakbµaµb
Skaµa,kbµbq ∆νkakb
µaµb, (B6)
with
∆νkakbµaµb
=Ekb
(LbSIs, µb)− Eka(LaSIs, µa)
h. (B7)
21
Using Equations (B5) and (B7) in Equation (B6), and performing sums over ka and kb with the help ofEquations (5a) and (7) of Casini & Manso Sainz (2005), we obtain
∆νq =1
h
3
(2S + 1)(2Is + 1)
∑
JaJa′JbJb′FaFa′FbFb′
∑
µaµb
(−1)Ja+Ja′+Jb+Jb′
×√
(2Ja + 1)(2Ja′ + 1)(2Jb + 1)(2Jb′ + 1)(2Fa + 1)(2Fa′ + 1)(2Fb + 1)(2Fb′ + 1)
×{
La Lb 1Jb Ja S
}{
La Lb 1Jb′ Ja′ S
}{
Ja Jb 1Fb Fa Is
}{
Ja′ Jb′ 1Fb′ Fa′ Is
}
×(
Fb Fa 1−µb µa −q
)(
Fb′ Fa′ 1−µb µa −q
)
[δJaJa′δFaFa′
〈LbSJbIsFbµb|HT |LbSJb′IsFb′µb〉
−δJbJb′δFbFb′
〈LaSJaIsFaµa|HT |LaSJa′IsFa′µa〉] . (B8)
We separate the atomic and magnetic Hamiltonians in the above expression. It can be shown that the atomicpart does not contribute to the centers of gravity. Using Equations (2.42), (2.41), (2.36d), (2.26d) and (2.39)of LL04, we simplify the magnetic Hamiltonian part and find that
∆νq = −qνL , (B9)
where νL is the Larmor frequency associated with the applied magnetic field. This result is the sameas Equation (3.66) of LL04 which one would expect for a two-term atom without any fine or hyperfinestructure. This means that the centers of gravity of the magnetic components in the PB regime have thesame frequencies as the individual components due to Zeeman effect that would arise from the transitionsbetween spinless lower and upper terms. In situations where the electron and nuclear spins are negligible,this is expected from the PSS.
We then verify that the eigenvalues and eigenvectors obtained by diagonalizing HT , when used in Equa-tion (B6), give the same value for ∆νq as that calculated from Equation (B9).
C. A-O CONVERSION MECHANISM
The RM presented in Equation (12) can be reduced to the phase matrix by integrating the auxiliaryfunctions over the incoming and outgoing frequencies. The phase matrix will then take the form given by
Pij(n,n′;B) =
∑
KK′Q
WKK′Q(B)(−1)QT KQ (i,n)T K′
−Q(j,n′) , (C1)
where
WKK′Q(B) =3(2Lb + 1)
(2S + 1)(2Is + 1)
{
1 1 KLb Lb La
}{
1 1 K ′
Lb Lb La
}
×∑
JbJb′Jb′′Jb′′′
∑
FbFb′Fb′′Fb′′′
∑
µbµb′
(−1)Jb+Jb′+Jb′′+Jb′′′ (−1)K+K′
×√
(2Jb + 1)(2Jb′ + 1)(2Jb′′ + 1)(2Jb′′′ + 1)(2Fb + 1)(2Fb′ + 1)(2Fb′′ + 1)(2Fb′′′ + 1)
×{
Lb Lb KJb Jb′ S
}{
Lb Lb K ′
Jb′′ Jb′′′ S
}{
Jb′ Jb KFb Fb′ Is
}{
Jb′′′ Jb′′ K ′
Fb′′ Fb′′′ Is
}
×(
Fb Fb′ K−µb µb′ −Q
)(
Fb′′ Fb′′′ K ′
−µb µb′ −Q
)
√
(2K + 1)(2K ′ + 1)
×∑
kbkb′
Ckb
JbFb(LbSIs, µb)C
kb
Jb′′Fb′′(LbSIs, µb)C
kb′
Jb′Fb′(LbSIs, µb′)C
kb′
Jb′′′Fb′′′(LbSIs, µb′)
× 1
1 + 2πiν(kb′µb′ , kbµb)/A(LaSIs → LbSIs). (C2)
22
Here, A is the Einstein coefficient for the La → Lb transition and ν(kb′µb′ , kbµb) = (Ekb′µb′− Ekbµb
)/h.We compute the T K
Q s for the geometry considered in Section 4.3 so that we can obtain an expression forthe frequency integrated fractional circular polarization, pV , similar to the one given in Section 10.20 ofLL04. The explicit expressions for the T K
Q (i,n) in the atmospheric reference frame for a rotation of the formR ≡ (0,−θ,−χ)× (χB, θB, 0) are given by
T 00 (0,n) = 1 ,
T 10 (0,n) = 0 ,
T 11 (0,n) = 0 ,
T 20 (0,n) =
1√2
[
1
4(3cos2θ − 1) (3cos2θB − 1) + 3 sinθ cosθ sinθB cosθB cos(χ− χB)
+3
4sin2θ sin2θB cos2(χ− χB)
]
,
T 21 (0,n) =
1√2
[√3
2√2(3cos2θ − 1) sinθB cosθB
−√3√2sinθ cosθ
[
ei(χ−χB)
(
cosθB − 1
2
)
(cosθB + 1)− e−i(χ−χB)
(
cosθB +1
2
)
(1− cosθB)
]
−√3
2√8sin2θ sinθB
[
e2i(χ−χB)(1 + cosθB)− e−2i(χ−χB)(1− cosθB)]
]
,
T 22 (0,n) =
1√2
[√3
4√2(3cos2θ − 1) sin2θB
−√3
2√2sinθ cosθ sinθB
[
ei(χ−χB)(1 + cosθB)− e−i(χ−χB)(1− cosθB)]
+
√3
8√2sin2θ
[
e2i(χ−χB)(1 + cosθB)2 + e−2i(χ−χB)(1− cosθB)
2]
]
, (C3)
T 00 (1,n) = 0 ,
T 10 (1,n) = 0 ,
T 11 (1,n) = 0 ,
T 20 (1,n) = −
√3
2
[√3√8sin2θ (3cos2θB − 1)− 2
√3√2
sinθ cosθ sinθB cosθB cos(χ− χB)
+
√3√8(1 + cos2θ) sin2θB cos2(χ− χB)
]
,
T 21 (1,n) = −
√3
2
[
3
2sin2θ sinθB cosθB
+sinθ cosθ
[
ei(χ−χB)
(
cosθB − 1
2
)
(cosθB + 1)− e−i(χ−χB)
(
cosθB +1
2
)
(1− cosθB)
]
−1
4(1 + cos2θ) sinθB
[
e2i(χ−χB)(1 + cosθB)− e−2i(χ−χB)(1− cosθB)]
]
,
T 22 (1,n) = −
√3
2
[
3
4sin2θ sin2θB
+1
2sinθ cosθ sinθB
[
ei(χ−χB)(1 + cosθB)− e−i(χ−χB)(1− cosθB)]
23
+1
8(1 + cos2θ)
[
e2i(χ−χB)(1 + cosθB)2 + e−2i(χ−χB)(1− cosθB)
2]
]
, (C4)
T 00 (2,n) = 0 ,
T 10 (2,n) = 0 ,
T 11 (2,n) = 0 ,
T 20 (2,n) =
√3
2
[
−√6 sinθ sinθB cosθB sin(χ− χB) +
√3√2cosθ sin2θB sin2(χ− χB)
]
,
T 21 (2,n) = −i
√3
2
[
sinθ
[
ei(χ−χB)
(
cosθB − 1
2
)
(cosθB + 1) + e−i(χ−χB)
(
cosθB +1
2
)
(1− cosθB)
]
−1
2cosθ sinθB
[
e2i(χ−χB)(1 + cosθB) + e−2i(χ−χB)(1− cosθB)]
]
,
T 22 (2,n) = −i
√3
2
[
1
2sinθ sinθB
[
ei(χ−χB)(1 + cosθB) + e−i(χ−χB)(1 − cosθB)]
+1
4cosθ
[
e2i(χ−χB)(1 + cosθB)2 − e−2i(χ−χB)(1− cosθB)
2]
]
, (C5)
and
T 00 (3,n) = 0 ,
T 10 (3,n) =
√3√2[cosθ cosθB + sinθ sinθB cos(χ− χB)] ,
T 11 (3,n) =
√3√2
[
1√2cosθ sinθB − 1
2√2sinθ
[
ei(χ−χB)(1 + cosθB)− e−i(χ−χB)(1− cosθB)]
]
,
T 20 (3,n) = 0 ,
T 21 (3,n) = 0 ,
T 22 (3,n) = 0 . (C6)
We then expand the summations over K,K ′, and Q in Equation (C1) and write down the expressions for theP00 and P33 elements. We substitute in the expressions for P00 and P33 the T K
Q s evaluated for the incomingand the outgoing rays by making use of Equations (C3) and (C6) for the geometry considered in Section 4.3.After elaborate algebra, we finally arrive at an expression for the frequency integrated fractional circularpolarization given by
pV =−2
√6W120
16−W220 − 3Re(W222). (C7)
As discussed in Section 4.3 and in Section 10.20 of LL04, due to the double summations over K and K ′
in Equation (C1) and due to the fact that the spherical tensor T KQ (3,n) are non-zero only when K = 1,
orientation can be produced in the upper term even when the circular polarization is not present in theincident radiation. This mechanism is therefore called the A-O conversion mechanism. We identify that theterm with K = 1 in the numerator of Equation (C7) is responsible for the A-O conversion mechanism. Wehave discussed the signatures of this mechanism in the Stokes V parameter in Section 4.
24
REFERENCES
Arimondo, E., Inguscio, M., and Violino P. 1977,RvMP, 49, 31
Belluzzi, L., Landi Degl’Innocenti, E., & TrujilloBueno, J. 2009, ApJ, 705, 218
Bommier, V. 1980, A&A, 87, 109
Brog, K. C., Eck, T. C., &Wieder, H. 1967, PhRv,153, 91
Casini, R., Landi Degl’Innocenti, M., MansoSainz, R., Landi Degl’Innocenti, E., & Landolfi,M. 2014, ApJ, 791, 94
Casini, R., & Manso Sainz, R. 2005, ApJ, 624,1025
Landi Degl’Innocenti, E. 1982, SoPh, 79, 291
Landi Degl’Innocenti, E. 1984, SoPh, 91, 1
Landi Degl’Innocenti, E., Landi Degl’Innocenti,M., & Landolfi, M. 1997, in Proc. ForumTHEMIS, Science with THEMIS, ed. N. Mein &S. Sahal Brechot (Paris: Obs. Paris-Meudon),59
Landi Degl’Innocenti, E., & Landolfi, M. 2004,Polarization in Spectral Lines (Dordrecht:Kluwer)(LL04)
Ortega, J. 1968, in Mathematical Methods for Dig-ital Computers, ed. A. Ralston and H. S. Wilf(New York: Wiley), 94
Smitha, H. N., Sampoorna, M., Nagendra, K. N.,& Stenflo, J. O. 2011, ApJ, 733, 4
Sowmya, K., Nagendra, K. N., Sampoorna, M., &Stenflo, J. O. 2014a, ApJ, 793, 71
Sowmya, K., Nagendra, K. N., Stenflo, J. O., &Sampoorna, M. 2014b, ApJ, 786, 150
Stenflo, J. O. 1994, Solar Magnetic Fields:Polarized Radiation Diagnostics (Dordrecht:Kluwer)
Stenflo, J. O. 1998, A&A, 338, 301
Stenflo, J. O. 2015, ApJ, 801, 70
Wieder, H., & Eck, T. G. 1967, PhRv, 153, 103
This 2-column preprint was prepared with the AAS LATEX
macros v5.2.
25
