Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production using polarized photons from inverse Compton scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Simulations show the polarization dependence of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production can be measured with a two-stage inverse-Compton and laser setup at LUXE.

desk verdict Credible simulation study with a real feasibility gap: the observability claim for the 1.7 yield ratio needs statistical and background quantification. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08559 v1 pith:4QJKY3LK submitted 2024-11-13 hep-ph physics.plasm-ph

Daniel Seipt , Mathias Samuelsson , Tom Blackburn This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords nonlinearBreit-Wheelerstrong-fieldQEDinverseComptonscatteringgamma-raypolarizationpairproductionLUXEexperimentharmonicstructureMonteCarlosimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production is the creation of electron-positron pairs when a high-energy gamma ray absorbs many photons from an intense laser field, and its rate is predicted to depend on the relative polarization of the gamma ray and the laser. This paper argues that this polarization dependence can now be measured, using a 100-TW-class laser and electron beams that already exist. The proposed two-stage scheme first produces a bright, highly polarized, quasi-monoenergetic gamma-ray beam by inverse Compton scattering, then sends those gamma rays into a second, more intense laser after the primary electrons have been deflected away. The simulations predict, for a LUXE-like configuration, that rotating the laser polarization by 90 degrees increases the positron yield by about 70 percent across the intensity range considered, a difference the authors say would be observable with the planned run. At higher electron-beam energies the same setup also resolves harmonic structure and would map the transition from perturbative multiphoton pair creation to the nonperturbative regime.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-stage experimental geometry: a moderately intense laser (normalized amplitude $a_{\mathrm{ICS}}=0.1$) scatters off a multi-GeV electron beam to produce gamma rays whose linear polarization is tied to the laser's polarization axis, and a baseline of several meters lets the primary electrons be swept away before those gamma rays reach a second, more intense laser focus. The central observable is the yield ratio $W_\perp/W_\parallel$, equivalently the ratio of positron yields at pitch angles $\theta=\pi/2$ and $\theta=0$; the underlying theory predicts this ratio lies between $3/2$ and $2$, with the exact value depending on the quantum nonlinearity parameter $\chi$ and the energy parameter $\eta=\chi/a_0$. The pair-production simulations use the locally monochromatic approximation, which retains wavelength-scale interference and resolves harmonic order $n_* = 2(1+a_0^2/2)/\eta$, making the harmonic structure and the intensity-dependent mass shift visible in the output positron spectra. The polarization state of the gamma-ray beam is tracked via Stokes parameters, and its spatial pattern matters: the polarization degree stays high only over the central focal spot.

What would settle it

A LUXE ICS-laser run that measures positron yields at pitch angles $\theta=0$ and $\theta=\pi/2$ and finds the ratio significantly below the predicted ~1.7, or consistent with 1, across the range $a_0=0.5$ to 10 would falsify the claim. A direct check of the enabling assumption would be a background measurement with the pair-production laser fired but the gamma-beam generation stage blocked; if the residual count approaches the signal level, the predicted ratio would not be observable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a quantitative feasibility statement for precision strong-field QED experiments: a two-stage collision in which inverse Compton scattering generates the gamma rays, rather than bremsstrahlung or nonlinear Compton scattering in the same pulse, yields a gamma-ray beam that is sufficiently bright, monoenergetic, and polarized to expose the polarization dependence of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production. For the LUXE-like case, with a 16.5 GeV electron beam, a 40 TW laser at the pair-production focus, and a 7.5 m baseline, the simulated gamma-ray beam has about 8 GeV mean photon energy, roughly 0.5 GeV rms bandwidth, and about 77 percent linear polarization in the central spot. The total positron yield ranges from about 0.2 to 5.8 per bunch crossing as $a_0$ rises from 0.5 to 10, and the ratio of yields for perpendicular versus parallel relative polarization is about 1.7 across this range; the paper states this would be observable at LUXE given the expected precision, statistics, and sustained operation. In the 50 GeV and 200 GeV scenarios, the yield is larger, harmonic peaks appear in the positron spectrum, and channel closings driven by the intensity-dependent electron mass become visible.

Load-bearing premise

The feasibility conclusion rests on the assumption that, in the planned LUXE run, backgrounds and shot-to-shot fluctuations are small enough that a yield ratio of about 1.7 between perpendicular and parallel polarization can be resolved when the per-bunch signal is only 0.2 to 5.8 positrons.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At LUXE, the ICS-laser mode can deliver per-bunch positron yields comparable to the planned gamma-laser mode (0.2-5.8 versus 0.91-5.1 at $a_0=5$ and 10), with the added advantage of a polarization-dependent signal.
  • The predicted yield ratio of about 1.7 between perpendicular and parallel polarization is roughly constant from $a_0=0.5$ to 10, so a single intensity scan can test the polarization dependence across the multiphoton regime.
  • With a 50 GeV beam, the positron energy spectrum shows resolved harmonic peaks whose positions match the bounds for harmonic order $n=8$, providing another handle on the number of laser photons absorbed.
  • With a 200 GeV beam at a future linear collider, the yield scales approximately as $a_0^2$ at low intensity, and channel closings near $a_0\approx 1.4$ mark the transition from multiphoton to nonperturbative pair production.
  • Since the polarization degree of the gamma beam drops with focal spot size, measurements at smaller $a_0$ (larger spots) will see a reduced effective polarization signal, an effect the simulations quantify.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the measured yield ratio tracks the predicted ~1.7 with $a_0$, the same two-stage setup could double as a multi-GeV gamma-ray polarimeter, since the positron yield encodes the gamma-ray polarization degree.
  • The sensitivity of the ratio to the gamma-beam polarization pattern suggests that a larger, dedicated ICS source could extend precision polarization-dependent strong-field QED measurements beyond the current LUXE phase-0 parameters.
  • One testable extension not explored here: inserting a thin converter or mirror in the baseline to measure the gamma polarization in situ would directly verify the assumed ~77 percent polarization and strengthen the feasibility conclusion.
  • If background levels in the planned run exceed the sub-positron-per-bunch signal, the polarization signal could be recovered by bunch-to-bunch polarization modulation, alternating $\theta=0$ and $\theta=\pi/2$, which the paper does not discuss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a two-stage scheme to measure the polarization dependence of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production: a multi-GeV electron beam first Compton-scatters off a moderately intense laser to produce a bright, quasi-monoenergetic, linearly polarized gamma-ray beam; after the primary electrons are deflected over a baseline, the gamma rays collide with a second, more intense laser, and the positron yield is simulated for relative polarization angles 0 and π/2. Three scenarios are treated: LUXE-like (16.5 GeV electrons, 40 TW drive laser), E144-like (50 GeV), and ILC-like (200 GeV). The simulations use the authors' PICA code for inverse Compton scattering and the Ptarmigan code in locally monochromatic approximation for strong-field QED pair production. For the LUXE-like case they find a positron-yield ratio of about 1.7 between perpendicular and parallel polarizations, and they state that this difference would be observable at LUXE; at higher beam energies they predict harmonic structure and, at ILC-like parameters, a transition from perturbative to nonperturbative scaling and channel closings.

Significance. If the observability claim is supported, the paper would make an important contribution: it demonstrates a realistic path to measuring the polarization dependence of multiphoton pair creation with existing accelerator and laser technology, and it provides quantitative predictions for harmonic structure and yield ratios that can be compared with future data. The simulation methodology is a strength: PICA and Ptarmigan are archived, the locally monochromatic approximation is appropriate for the parameters explored, and the harmonic boundaries and yield magnitudes are cross-checked against the analytic expressions in Eqs. (5) and (6). I find no circularity in the parameter choices or in the comparison to analytic limits, and the simulation parameters are taken from planned experiments rather than tuned to produce the reported ratio. The results are therefore credible at the level of the simulation model. The missing piece is the translation from simulated yields to an experimental observation, which is currently asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.A] The central feasibility claim—'This difference would be observable at LUXE, given the expected precision, statistics, and sustained operation that are planned'—is not supported by quantitative evidence in this manuscript. The per-bunch yields in Fig. 3(f) range from 0.2–0.3 positrons at a0=0.5 to 3.8–5.8 at a0=10; at these rates, resolving a 1.7 ratio requires a large, specified number of bunch crossings, a known detection efficiency, and a modeled background subtraction. None of these are provided; the paper only points to Refs. [15,16]. The Summary repeats this unsupported assertion. Please either reproduce the relevant LUXE numbers (runtime, bunch crossings, detection efficiency, background rate, expected significance) or revise the claim to state that observability remains to be established.
  2. [III.A, Figs. 3–5] The yield and ratio plots are shown as deterministic values, with no statistical uncertainties. Given that the per-bunch yields are as low as 0.2, Poisson fluctuations alone would make the ratio between the two pitch angles consistent with unity for a small number of bunch crossings. The authors should state the number of macro-particles used in the PICA/Ptarmigan runs, include Monte Carlo error bars in Figs. 3(g), 4(g), and 5(g), and demonstrate that the 1.7 ratio is statistically distinguishable from unity under the planned statistics. This is a necessary part of the observability argument, not merely a presentation detail.
  3. [Abstract vs. III.A] The abstract and Summary state that the scheme uses a '100-TW class laser,' but the LUXE-like simulations in Section III.A use the LUXE 'phase 0' configuration with peak power 40 TW, and the same laser parameters are kept for the E144-like case in Section III.B. Please clarify which power is being assumed: if the observability claim is for 40 TW, the abstract should say so; if it is for 100 TW, the yield estimates in Section III.A should be recomputed or the scaling with laser power should be justified. The difference matters because at fixed a0 the spot size, and hence the number of gamma rays in the focus, depends on the laser energy according to Eq. (3).
minor comments (5)
  1. [III.B] In Section III.B, 'In Fig. 3(f)' and 'In Fig. 3(g)' should be 'Fig. 4(f)' and 'Fig. 4(g)'.
  2. [III.B] The first sentence of Section III.B contains a duplicated word: 'Here we consider consider a similar setup'.
  3. [III.C] In the last paragraph of Section III.C, 'phtons' should be 'photons'.
  4. [III.B] The phrase 'such that the ratio L/γ=102 µm compared to L/γ=232 µm' should include spaces and explicitly say that these values are for case 2 and case 1, respectively; as written the comparison is hard to parse.
  5. [Refs. [15,16]] When citing Refs. [15,16] for LUXE running conditions, it would help readers if the relevant table or section number in the CDR/TDR were identified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1.7 yield ratio is an un-fitted Monte Carlo output, cross-checked against independent theory, and the observability claim rests on an external TDR.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical result, the ~1.7 ratio of positron yields for perpendicular vs parallel polarization, is generated by Monte Carlo simulation (PICA for ICS gamma-ray generation, Ptarmigan for NBW pair production) using parameters from planned experiments (Table I). No parameter is fitted to the claimed prediction: the yields at theta=0 and theta=pi/2 are direct simulation outputs for each a0, and the ratio is then averaged over the simulated range. The underlying pair-production rates are taken from published strong-field QED theory (Refs. 38-42), not from this paper, and the simulation results are cross-checked against independent analytic expectations, e.g., the harmonic boundaries in Eqs. (5)-(6) and the known large-a0 limits W_perp = 2 W_parallel. The self-citations to PICA [34] and Ptarmigan [40] are citations to archived, reproducible codes, not to an unverified uniqueness or ansatz claim. The observability statement in Sec. III.A ('This difference would be observable at LUXE, given the expected precision, statistics, and sustained operation that are planned') is not quantitatively derived in the paper, but it is delegated to the LUXE TDR [16], an external experimental design document with overlapping but not identical authorship; it is a feasibility judgment, not a result that the paper's own equations force. The absence of a detailed statistical/background analysis is a correctness/completeness concern, not a circularity. Thus no step in the claimed derivation chain reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to achieve the reported results; all input parameters are taken from planned or existing experiments. The paper relies on established approximations in strong-field QED and on the correctness of the two referenced simulation codes PICA and Ptarmigan, both developed by the authors or their collaborators. No new particles, fields, or forces are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The locally monochromatic approximation (LMA) accurately describes nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in the transition and quasistatic regimes for the simulated laser parameters.
    Section II.B: Ptarmigan is run in LMA mode, which includes interference effects at the laser wavelength scale and is claimed accurate for a0 around 1 and for a0 much greater than 1, per Refs. 41 and 42.
  • domain assumption The infinite Rayleigh approximation for the inverse Compton scattering laser pulse is valid for the chosen parameters.
    Section II.A states the approximation is good when the product of the ICS laser frequency and spot size is much greater than 1; this affects the gamma-ray spectral and angular distribution.
  • domain assumption The primary electron beam is removed by the magnetic field so that only gamma rays reach the pair production interaction point.
    Assumed throughout the two-stage configuration (Abstract and Section II); the removal efficiency and any residual beam contribution are not simulated.
  • domain assumption Assigning Stokes parameters to ICS gamma rays without resolving the final-state photon polarization adequately represents the polarization state for the pair production simulation.
    Section II.A: the event generator uses the Compton cross section for polarized incident photons but the final-state polarization is unresolved; Stokes parameters are assigned using the standard approach.
  • domain assumption The pair-production laser pulse is a focused Gaussian pulse whose spot size for a given a0 is given by Eq. (3).
    Equation (3) relates spot size to laser energy, wavelength, and duration; the pulse shape and focal volume are modeled accordingly in Ptarmigan.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production using polarized photons from inverse Compton scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4QJKY3LK

@misc{pith2026241108559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production using polarized photons from inverse Compton scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4QJKY3LK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08559}
}
abstract

Observing multiphoton electron-positron pair production (the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler process) requires high-energy $\gamma$ rays to interact with strong electromagnetic fields. In order for these observations to be as precise as possible, the $\gamma$ rays would ideally be both mono-energetic and highly polarized. Here we perform Monte Carlo simulations of an experimental configuration that accomplishes this in two stages. First, a multi-GeV electron beam interacts with a moderately intense laser pulse to produce a bright, highly polarized beam of $\gamma$ rays by inverse Compton scattering. Second, after removing the primary electrons, these $\gamma$ rays collide with another, more intense, laser pulse in order to produce pairs. We show that it is possible to measure the $\gamma$-ray polarization dependence of the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler process in near-term experiments, using a 100-TW class laser and currently available electron beams. Furthermore, it would also be possible to observe harmonic structure and the perturbative-to-nonperturbative transition if such a laser were colocated with a future linear collider.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08559 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The baseline needs to be long enough that the primary electron beam, which creates the ICS-𝛾 rays, can be deflected away from the beam axis, while not so long that the flux of 𝛾 rays at the second interaction point is too low for pair production to be observed. An ultrarelativistic electron (Lorentz factor 𝛾 ≫ 1) that travels a length Δ𝐵 through a magnetic field of strength 𝐵 is deflected by an angle 𝜓𝐵 ≃ 𝑒𝐵Δ𝐵/(𝛾𝑚).… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The ratio between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Properties of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (e) we show the energy spectrum of the positrons for 𝑎0 = 0.5. The yield is much higher than in case 1 because of the higher photon energy. There is now clearly visible harmonic structure, which is calculated to be of order 𝑛 = 8. The energy interval spanned by this ha…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Properties of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The positron spectrum for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Super-LUXE

    This brings the polarization nodes of the forward boosted dipole emission pattern closer to the center of the IP spot, which results in a stronger misalignment of the polarization axes of photons in the periphery of the IP focal plane. In order to simulate the pair production stage, we assume a nominal baseline length of 10 m, but the laser parameters are...

    work page

  2. [2]

    From Fig

    At larger 𝑎0 a turning over of the positron yield can be observed due to nonlinear effects and the shrinking laser spot size. From Fig. 5(g) we see that the ratio between the yields is closer to unity, indicating that the pitch angle plays a smaller role for this case due to the increased𝜂. An additional opportunity in this case, where 𝜂 > 1, is to study ...

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Breit and J

    G. Breit and J. A. Wheeler, Collision of Two Light Quanta, Phys. Rev. 46, 1087 (1934)

    1934

  4. [4]

    P. A. M. Dirac, On the Annihilation of Electrons and Protons, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Soci- ety 26, 361 (1930)

    work page 1930

  5. [5]

    H. R. Reiss, Absorption of Light by Light, Journal of Mathemat- ical Physics 3, 59 (1962). 8 0 100 200 300 r @ IP (µm) 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 (GeV) (a) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 x @ IP (µm) 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 y @ IP (µm) (b) 50 100 150 (GeV) 200 100 0 100 200 x @ IP (µm) 200 100 0 100 200 y @ IP (µm) (c) 1 1S2 200 100 0 100 ...

    work page 1962

  6. [6]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Quantum processes in the field of a plane electromagnetic wave and in a constant field. i, Sov. Phys. J. Exp. Theor. Phys.19, 529 (1964)

    work page 1964

  7. [7]

    N. B. Narozhnyi, A. I. Nikishov, and V. I. Ritus, Quantum processes in the field of a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave, Sov. Phys. J. Exp. Theor. Phys.20, 622 (1965)

    work page 1965

  8. [8]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Pair production by a photon and photon emission by an electron in the field of an intense electromagnetic wave and in a constant field, Sov. Phys. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 25, 1135 (1967)

    work page 1967

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1177 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Gonoskov, T

    A. Gonoskov, T. G. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045001 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Advances in QED with intense background fields, Phys. Rep. 1010, 1 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    D. L. Burke, R. C. Field, G. Horton-Smith, J. E. Spencer, D. Walz, S. C. Berridge, W. M. Bugg, K. Shmakov, A. W. Weidemann, C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, C. Bamber, S. J. Boege, T. Koffas, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Melissinos, D. D. Meyerhofer, D. A. Reis, and W. Ragg, Po...

    1997

  5. [13]

    T. G. Blackburn and M. Marklund, Nonlinear Breit–Wheeler pair creation with bremsstrahlung𝛾 rays, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60, 054009 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Hartin, A

    A. Hartin, A. Ringwald, and N. Tapia, Measuring the boiling point of the vacuum of quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 99, 036008 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Eckey, A

    A. Eckey, A. B. Voitkiv, and C. M¨ uller, Strong-field Breit- Wheeler pair production with bremsstrahlung 𝛾 rays in the perturbative-to-nonperturbative-transition regime, Phys. Rev. A 105, 013105 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Golub, S

    A. Golub, S. Villalba-Ch´avez, and C. M¨ uller, Nonlinear Breit- Wheeler pair production in collisions of bremsstrahlung𝛾 quanta and a tightly focused laser pulse, Phys. Rev. D 105, 116016 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Abramowicz, U

    H. Abramowicz, U. Acosta, M. Altarelli, R. Aßmann, Z. Bai, T. Behnke, Y. Benhammou, T. Blackburn, S. Boogert, O. Borysov, et al. (LUXE collaboration), Conceptual design report for the 9 (a) (b) (c) FIG. 6. The positron spectrum for (a)𝑎0= 0.5, (b)𝑎0= 1.0 and (c) 𝑎0= 1.5 for ca...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Abramowicz, M

    H. Abramowicz, M. A. Soto, M. Altarelli, R. Aßmann, A. Athanassiadis, G. Avoni, T. Behnke, M. Benettoni, Y. Ben- hammou, J. Bhatt, et al. (LUXE collaboration), Technical Design Report for the LUXE Experiment, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.233, 1709–1974 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    F. C. Salgado, K. Grafenstein, A. Golub, A. D ¨opp, A. Eckey, D. Hollatz, C. M¨ uller, A. Seidel, D. Seipt, S. Karsch, and M. Zepf, Towards pair production in the non-perturbative regime, New J. Phys. 23, 105002 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Bula et al., Proposal for a study of QED at critical field strength in intense laser–high energy electron collisions at the stanford linear accelerator (1991)

    C. Bula et al., Proposal for a study of QED at critical field strength in intense laser–high energy electron collisions at the stanford linear accelerator (1991)

    1991

  13. [21]

    O. J. Pike, F. MacKenroth, E. G. Hill, and S. J. Rose, A photon- photon collider in a vacuum hohlraum, Nature Photonics 8, 434 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Ribeyre, E

    X. Ribeyre, E. d’Humi `eres, O. Jansen, S. Jequier, V. T. Tikhonchuk, and M. Lobet, Pair creation in collision of 𝛾-ray beams produced with high-intensity lasers, Phys. Rev. E 93, 013201 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Y. He, T. G. Blackburn, T. Toncian, and A. Arefiev, Dominance of 𝛾-𝛾 electron-positron pair creation in a plasma driven by high-intensity lasers, Commmun. Phys. 4, 139 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Sugimoto, Y

    K. Sugimoto, Y. He, N. Iwata, I.-L. Yeh, K. Tangtartharakul, A. Arefiev, and Y. Sentoku, Positron generation and acceleration in a self-organized photon collider enabled by an ultraintense laser pulse, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 065102 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Kettle, D

    B. Kettle, D. Hollatz, E. Gerstmayr, G. M. Samarin, A. Alejo, S. Astbury, C. Baird, S. Bohlen, M. Campbell, C. Colgan, D. Dannheim, C. Gregory, H. Harsh, P. Hatfield, J. Hinojosa, Y. Katzir, J. Morton, C. D. Murphy, A. Nurnberg, J. Osterhoff, G. P´erez-Callejo, K. P˜oder, P. P...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Hollatz, Detection of positrons from Breit-Wheeler pair for- mation, Ph.D

    D. Hollatz, Detection of positrons from Breit-Wheeler pair for- mation, Ph.D. thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-Universit¨at Jena, Jena (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    R. Watt, B. Kettle, E. Gerstmayr, B. King, A. Alejo, S. Astbury, C. Baird, S. Bohlen, M. Campbell, C. Colgan, D. Dannheim, C. Gregory, H. Harsh, P. Hatfield, J. Hinojosa, D. Hollatz, Y. Katzir, J. Morton, C. D. Murphy, A. Nurnberg, J. Osterhoff, G. P´erez-Callejo, K. P˜oder, P...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. Adam, L. Adamczyk, J. Adams, J. Adkins, G. Agakishiev, M. Aggarwal, Z. Ahammed, I. Alekseev, D. Anderson, A. Aparin, et al. (STAR collaboration), Measurement of𝑒+𝑒− Momentum and Angular Distributions from Linearly Polarized Photon Colli- sions, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 052302 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Gao and S

    Y. Gao and S. Tang, Optimal photon polarization toward the observation of the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production, Phys. Rev. D 106, 056003 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Q. Zhao, L. Tang, F. Wan, B.-C. Liu, R.-Y. Liu, R.-Z. Yang, J.-Q. Yu, X.-G. Ren, Z.-F. Xu, Y.-T. Zhao, Y.-S. Huang, and J.-X. Li, Signatures of linear Breit-Wheeler pair production in polarized 𝛾𝛾 collisions, Phys. Rev. D105, L071902 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Zhao, Y.-X

    Q. Zhao, Y.-X. Wu, M. Ababekri, Z.-P. Li, L. Tang, and J.-X. Li, Angle-dependent pair production in the polarized two-photon Breit-Wheeler process, Phys. Rev. D107, 096013 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    F. Wan, Y. Wang, R.-T. Guo, Y.-Y. Chen, R. Shaisultanov, Z.-F. Xu, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. H. Keitel, and J.-X. Li, High-energy 𝛾-photon polarization in nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production and𝛾 polarimetry, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 032049 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

    2020

  25. [33]

    Q. Qian, D. Seipt, M. Vranic, T. E. Grismayer, T. G. Blackburn, C. P. Ridgers, and A. G. R. Thomas, Parametric study of the polarization dependence of nonlinear Breit–Wheeler pair creation process using two laser pulses, Physics of Plasmas 30, 103107 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Adhikari, C

    S. Adhikari, C. Akondi, H. Al Ghoul, A. Ali, M. Amaryan, E. Anassontzis, A. Austregesilo, F. Barbosa, J. Barlow, A. Barnes, et al., The GlueX beamline and detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 987, 164807 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Borysov, B

    O. Borysov, B. Heinemann, A. Ilderton, B. King, and A. Potylit- syn, Using the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler process to test nonlinear vacuum birefringence, Phys. Rev. D106, 116015 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Seipt, PICA: Version 1.2.9 (2024)

    D. Seipt, PICA: Version 1.2.9 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Corde, K

    S. Corde, K. Ta Phuoc, G. Lambert, R. F. V. Malka, A. Rousse, A. Beck, and E. Lefebvre, Femtosecond x rays from laser-plasma accelerators, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Ranjan, B

    N. Ranjan, B. Terzi´c, G. A. Krafft, V. Petrillo, I. Drebot, and L. Serafini, Simulation of inverse Compton scattering and its implications on the scattered linewidth, Physical Review Accel- erators and Beams 21, 030701 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    L. S. Brown and T. W. B. Kibble, Interaction of intense laser beams with electrons, Phys. Rev.133, A705 (1964)

    1964

  32. [40]

    J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich,The Theory of Photons and Electrons (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1976)

    1976

  33. [41]

    Greiner, Quantum Electrodynamics (Springer, Berlin, Hei- delberg, New York, 2003)

    W. Greiner, Quantum Electrodynamics (Springer, Berlin, Hei- delberg, New York, 2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    T. G. Blackburn, Ptarmigan: Version 1.4.1 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    T. G. Blackburn, B. King, and S. Tang, Simulations of laser-driven strong-field QED with Ptarmigan: Resolving wavelength-scale interference and𝛾-ray polarization, Phys. Plasmas 30, 093903 (2023). 10

    2023

  36. [44]

    Heinzl, B

    T. Heinzl, B. King, and A. J. MacLeod, Locally monochromatic approximation to QED in intense laser fields, Phys. Rev. A102, 063110 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    T. G. Blackburn and B. King, Higher fidelity simulations of nonlinear Breit–Wheeler pair creation in intense laser pulses, Eur. Phys. J. D 82, 44 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Bambade, T

    P. Bambade, T. Barklow, T. Behnke, M. Berggren, J. Brau, P. Bur- rows, D. Denisov, A. Faus-Golfe, B. Foster, K. Fujii, J. Fuster, F. Gaede, P. Grannis, C. Grojean, A. Hutton, B. List, J. List, S. Michizono, A. Miyamoto, O. Napoly, M. Peskin, R. Poeschl, F. Simon, J. Strube, J....

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Nousch, D

    T. Nousch, D. Seipt, B. K¨ampfer, and A. Titov, Pair production in short laser pulses near threshold, Phys. Lett. B 715, 246 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    A. I. Titov and B. K¨ampfer, Non-linear Breit–Wheeler process with linearly polarized beams, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 218 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.