Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Applicability of semi-classical theories in the strong field plasma regime

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Classical plasma dynamics fails at fields of only 5–10% of the Schwinger critical field in low-density plasmas, because Schwinger pair creation becomes dynamically significant.

desk verdict Useful and mostly sound paper that establishes a qualitative point—Schwinger pair production can matter at ~0.1 Ecr in low-density plasmas—but the quantitative breakdown curve in Fig. 8 rests on a hybrid model whose back-reaction assumption is violated exactly at the breakdown threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14099 v1 pith:PUTSAVVO submitted 2024-12-18 physics.plasm-ph hep-th

Haidar Al-Naseri , Gert Brodin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phhep-th
keywords SchwingerpairproductionVlasovequationbreakdownplasmaoscillationsDirac-Heisenberg-Wignerformalismquantumdynamicsstrong-fieldQEDinplasmasrelativistic
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

The paper asks when a classical description of plasma oscillations—the relativistic Vlasov equation—fails in the presence of strong electric fields. Using the Dirac-Heisenberg-Wigner (DHW) quantum kinetic formalism as a benchmark, the authors show that radiation reaction and Breit-Wheeler pair creation are suppressed in this 1D electrostatic geometry, and that the spin-polarization current is negligible compared with the free current below the Compton frequency. The remaining quantum effect that matters is Schwinger pair creation, and it matters at surprisingly modest field strengths: for plasmas with initial densities around $10^{19}$ to $10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$, the classical theory breaks down at electric fields of about $0.05$ to $0.1$ of the critical field $E_{\rm cr}$. The practical consequence is that standard particle-in-cell and Vlasov simulations may be invalid for plasma oscillations at field strengths an order of magnitude below the Schwinger limit if the plasma density is low. A rough numerical guideline for where the classical theory can be trusted is provided.

What carries the argument

The central objects are three levels of description. The full quantum reference is the Dirac-Heisenberg-Wigner (DHW) formalism: a gauge-invariant Wigner transform of the Dirac spinor density matrix that reduces, in the homogeneous 1D electrostatic case, to four coupled scalar phase-space equations plus Ampère's law. The classical comparison is the relativistic Vlasov equation in the same geometry, solved by a canonical-momentum shift. The third object carries the low-density extrapolation: the Vlasov–Pair-Production (VPP) hybrid, which evolves the field with the classical Vlasov equation and adds the standard Schwinger pair-creation rate $dn/dt = E^2 e^{-\pi/E}$ without back-reaction. The key identity that makes the comparison work is the energy-conservation law for each system, which is used to validate the numerics. The VPP model is the machinery that produces the breakdown curve, because the full DHW equations become numerically intractable when the plasma density is low enough that the oscillation becomes strongly relativistic.

What would settle it

Run a full DHW simulation (or a VPP simulation with pair back-reaction included) for a plasma with $n = 10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $E_0 = 0.07\,E_{\rm cr}$, and check whether the number of pairs created in a quarter of an oscillation period reaches 20% of the initial density; if it does not, the claimed breakdown boundary is not correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dominant quantum breakdown of classical Vlasov dynamics for 1D electrostatic plasma oscillations is set not by the field strength approaching the Schwinger critical field $E_{\rm cr}$, but by the ratio of the Schwinger pair-creation rate to the initial plasma density. Even though pair production is exponentially suppressed for $E_0 \ll E_{\rm cr}$, the production rate at $0.05$–$0.1\,E_{\rm cr}$ is still large compared with typical plasma densities in a low-density plasma, so the number of created pairs can grow by a substantial fraction of the initial density within a single oscillation period. The paper demonstrates this by comparing full DHW simulations with classical Vlasov simulations at high densities, and then extending to low densities with a hybrid Vlasov-plus-pair-production model (VPP) based on the standard Schwinger rate $dn/dt = E^2 e^{-\pi/E}$. The result is a breakdown boundary in the (density, field-amplitude) plane: at $n \sim 10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ the classical theory fails already near $0.07\,E_{\rm cr}$, and at $0.1\,E_{\rm cr}$ it fails for $n \sim 10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$ or lower. Before reaching that boundary, the paper also establishes that spin-polarization currents are negligible and that the Vlasov free-current description is accurate.

Load-bearing premise

The breakdown curve for low-density plasmas is computed with a hybrid model that ignores the back-reaction of created pairs, and that model is validated only at densities 7–10 orders of magnitude higher than where the boundary is drawn.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Plasma oscillations in low-density plasmas ($n \sim 10^{19}$–$10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$) driven at field amplitudes above roughly $0.05$–$0.1\,E_{\rm cr}$ cannot be trusted to classical Vlasov or particle-in-cell codes; the oscillation period will be shortened by the added pair density.
  • Pair production acts as an effective density source: the plasma frequency increases over time as pairs accumulate, so the deviation from classical predictions grows with each oscillation period.
  • Vlasov-based codes remain applicable at these fields only when the initial density is high enough that the created pairs are a negligible fraction of the total density; the paper's Fig. 8 gives the boundary.
  • In the studied electrostatic geometry, radiation reaction and Breit-Wheeler pair production do not need to be added to the quantum model; the relevant quantum correction is purely the Schwinger mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The breakdown criterion (20% pair increase per quarter period) is a modeling choice; a stricter criterion would push the boundary to somewhat higher densities or lower fields, so the exact curve is a guideline rather than a sharp threshold.
  • The VPP model neglects back-reaction of the created pairs, an approximation the authors justify at high densities; at the breakdown boundary itself the approximation is strained, so the boundary should be tested against a full DHW or a back-reacting pair-production model before being used for design.
  • The same ratio-of-rates logic should apply to other field geometries, suggesting that classical simulations of laser–plasma interactions at sub-critical fields may be unreliable in underdense plasmas even when the local field is far below $E_{\rm cr}$.
  • If the breakdown boundary is correct, future high-intensity laser experiments with gas targets at densities below $10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$ should show a density-dependent plasma-frequency shift well before the laser field approaches the Schwinger limit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The paper examines when classical Vlasov theory can be used to describe relativistic plasma oscillations in strong electric fields, using the Dirac-Heisenberg-Wigner (DHW) formalism as a quantum reference. For the electrostatic, spatially homogeneous geometry studied, the authors show that the particle spin-polarization current is small compared to the free current for frequencies below the Compton frequency, and that the free current is well described by the classical Vlasov model. They then demonstrate, through DHW-Vlasov comparisons and a Vlasov-Pair-Production (VPP) hybrid model, that Schwinger pair production can lead to a breakdown of the classical theory for field amplitudes as low as 0.05-0.1 E_cr when the initial plasma density is in the range 1e19-1e21 cm^-3. The main evidence for this low-density boundary, Fig. 8, is obtained by integrating the standard Schwinger rate (Eq. 29) along the classical Vlasov electric field, without allowing the created pairs to act back on the field.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim is correct, the paper provides an important and non-obvious caution: plasma oscillations at field strengths an order of magnitude below the Schwinger limit can be outside the domain of classical Vlasov or PIC treatments when the plasma density is modest. The DHW simulations are carefully benchmarked, with energy conservation checked to relative errors below 1e-4, and the comparison of polarization and free currents is a useful concrete result. The paper also gives a clear, falsifiable prediction in the form of the breakdown diagram of Fig. 8. However, the low-density extrapolation that underlies this diagram relies on a hybrid model whose assumptions are not validated in the target regime, which weakens the paper in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [III C, Fig. 8 and Eq. (29)] The VPP model used to produce the breakdown boundary neglects the back-reaction of created pairs on the electric field. At the threshold defining Fig. 8, a 20% increase in pair number per quarter plasma period, the neglected effect is not small: the DHW simulations in Fig. 3 show that pair creation reduces the field amplitude and increases the plasma frequency. Therefore the E(t) used in Eq. (29) is not the self-consistent field, and the VPP rate is expected to overestimate the number of pairs, likely shifting the breakdown boundary to higher fields or densities than drawn. The manuscript does not quantify the magnitude of this bias. I request either a self-consistent estimate (e.g., a simple model that lets the pair density increase the plasma frequency and drain field energy) or a clear argument that the boundary is conservative despite this neglect.
  2. [III C, Fig. 7] The VPP model is validated against full DHW only at n=5.8e29 cm^-3 and n=8e28 cm^-3, with E=0.82E_cr and E=0.38E_cr, while the breakdown boundary in Fig. 8 lies at n=1e18-1e21 cm^-3, seven to ten orders of magnitude lower. The high-density validation regime is qualitatively different: Pauli blocking from the initial plasma is important at high densities, but negligible at the low densities of Fig. 8, while the back-reaction of created pairs is more important at low densities. Thus the validation does not directly support the extrapolation. Adding intermediate-density DHW runs (where numerically feasible) or a controlled scaling argument would substantially strengthen the claim.
  3. [III C, breakdown definition] The definition of 'breakdown' as a 20% pair increase per quarter plasma period is arbitrary, and the paper does not report how the boundary in Fig. 8 changes with the chosen threshold. Since the central quantitative claim (0.05-0.1E_cr for n~1e19-1e21 cm^-3) depends on this definition, the authors should either show the sensitivity of the boundary to the threshold or state the resulting uncertainty in the quantitative conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III C, Fig. 7 caption] The caption states that the left panel uses E=0.38E_cr and the right panel uses E=0.8E_cr, but the text in Section III C says the left panel corresponds to E=0.82E_cr (same case as the upper panel of Fig. 3) and the right panel to E=0.38E_cr. Please correct the caption to match the text.
  2. [III C, Eq. (29)] The normalization of the number density n in Eq. (29) is not specified. It would be helpful to state the units in which n is measured and how this relates to the normalization used in the DHW and Vlasov equations.
  3. [II A] The sentence 'This turns out to be a negligible effect when ruining a numerical simulation with a cutoff in the momentum-space' contains a typo; 'ruining' should likely be 'running'.
  4. [III C, Fig. 7 description] The text says that the number of pairs is 'evaluated a half-period apart, at the times where E = 0 for the respective calculation' but does not specify how the pair number is extracted from the DHW simulation (e.g., from which of the chi variables). This should be stated for reproducibility.
  5. [III A, Figs. 5-6] The definitions of delta_T and delta_gamma are based on the first two peaks and the second peak, respectively, but the sensitivity of these quantities to the choice of which peaks are used is not discussed. A brief comment would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central pair-production estimate is a transparent evaluation of the standard Schwinger rate; the VPP extrapolation is a stated limitation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim—that Schwinger pair production can undermine classical Vlasov dynamics at 0.05–0.1 Ecr for n ~ 1e19–1e21 cm^-3—is computed directly from the standard rate dn/dt = E^2 exp(-pi/E) (Eq. 29), with E(t) taken from the classical Vlasov equation, and is displayed as a defined contour (20% pair increase per quarter period) in Fig. 8. No parameter is fitted to the target result, and no equation is reconstituted from the conclusion; the breakdown criterion is explicitly labeled a definition ('The definition of breakdown is somewhat arbitrary... we label this as a breakdown'), so the Fig. 8 boundary is a transparent model output rather than a hidden self-definition. The DHW-vs-VPP comparison (Fig. 7) is a genuine validation at high densities and does not fit the low-density prediction. The main caveat—that the hybrid VPP model neglects back-reaction and is strictly valid only when created pairs are a small perturbation, whereas the 20%-per-quarter criterion is not in that regime—is acknowledged in the text ('By necessity, however, this effect is a minor perturbation as long as the number of newly created pairs is small compared to those present initially'). This is an extrapolation/accuracy limitation, not circularity. The only notable self-dependence is the citation of the authors' prior work [32] for the suppression of radiation reaction and Breit-Wheeler pair production in the 1D electrostatic geometry; that cited calculation is not used to define the Schwinger rate or the breakdown contour, so it does not make the central derivation circular. Overall, the derivation is self-contained modulo standard external input (Schwinger formula, DHW formalism), and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no constants to data. The main ledger entries are domain assumptions inherited from the DHW formalism, the suppression of other QED channels via self-cited prior work, and the hand-chosen breakdown threshold.

free parameters (1)
  • Breakdown threshold (fractional pair increase per quarter period) = 20%
    Chosen by hand in Section III C to define breakdown of the Vlasov theory. The boundary in Fig. 8 shifts if this threshold is changed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hartree-Fock (mean-field) approximation for the electromagnetic field in the DHW formalism
    Stated in Section II A as the main assumption of the DHW formalism; excludes few-particle processes.
  • domain assumption Radiation reaction and Breit-Wheeler pair production are suppressed in the 1D electrostatic plasma oscillation geometry
    Invoked in Sections I and II A, justified by reference to the authors' prior paper [32].
  • domain assumption Spatially homogeneous limit with the nonlocal field E~ reducing to E
    Used in Section II A to reduce the DHW system to four coupled scalars in the homogeneous limit.
  • domain assumption Vacuum polarization current is negligible compared to the free current for E much less than Ecr and frequencies below the Compton frequency
    Assumed in Section III B based on the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian order of magnitude.
  • domain assumption The instantaneous Schwinger rate formula dn/dt = E^2 exp(-pi/E) (Eq. 29) governs pair creation in the VPP model
    Standard result from Nikishov, applied in the low-density regime without full dynamical self-consistency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Applicability of semi-classical theories in the strong field plasma regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUTSAVVO

@misc{pith2026241214099,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Applicability of semi-classical theories in the strong field plasma regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUTSAVVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14099}
}
read the original abstract

For many purposes, classical plasma dynamics models can work surprisingly well even for strong electromagnetic fields, approaching the Schwinger critical fields, and high frequencies, approaching the Compton frequency. However, the applicability of classical models tends to depend rather sensitively on the details of the problem. In the present paper, we study the specific case of plasma oscillations to draw a line between the classical and quantum relativistic regimes. Due to the field geometry of study, mechanisms like radiation reaction and Breit-Wheeler pair production, which tend to be important for electromagnetic fields, are rather effectively suppressed. Moreover, we find that the polarization current due to the electron spin is generally negligible for frequencies below the Compton frequency, compared to the free current, whose magnitude is well-approximated by the classical Vlasov theory. However, we show that pair creation due to the Schwinger mechanism can sometimes be important for surprisingly modest field strengths, of the order of 10 % of the critical field or even smaller. A rough guideline for when the classical Vlasov theory can be applied is given

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14099 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The free- and polarization- currents are plotted versus time. We have used plasma densities corresponding to plasma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The electric field E/Ecr is plotted over time for the DHW and Vlasov models, using an initial field amplitude E0 = 0.1Ecr and plasma frequencies ω = 0.028ωc and ω = 0.079ωc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The electric field E/Ecr is plotted over time from DHW and Vlasov. In the upper panel we have used E0 = 0.82Ecr and n = 5.8 × 1029/cm3 while in the lower panel we used E0 = 0.38Ecr and n = 8 × 1028/cm3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relative errors in period time δT and average gamma factor δγ is plotted versus the electric field E/Ecr for an initial plasma with the temperature T = 2.5 and the plasma density n = 2 × 1029/cm3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relative errors in period time δT and average gamma factor δγ is plotted versus plasma density n for an initial plasma with the temperature T = 2.5 and a field ampli￾tude E0 = 0.5Ecr. dictions. Potentially, these deviations might be under￾estimated when using PIC c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: , corresponding to the same electric fields evolution as shown in the upper panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A demonstration of the breakdown of the Vlasov [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Electron-positron pair annihilation in kinetic plasma

    physics.plasm-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In dense, cold electron-positron plasmas, pair annihilation can outpace pair creation and release energy that amplifies the electric field; high-frequency waves can resonantly annihilate pairs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    = 0.82Ecr and a plasma density n = 5.8 × 1029/cm3 while in the lower panel we had E = 0 .38Ecr and a plasma density n = 8 × 1028/cm3. For the upper panel, it is clear that the quantum model gives a gradually increasing frequency compared to the classical model, due to the electron-positron pairs being created as expected from the Schwinger mechanism. The ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Physics Reports 1010, 1 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1626 (1997)

    1997

  5. [5]

    J. M. Cole, K. T. Behm, E. Gerstmayr, T. G. Black- burn, J. C. Wood, C. D. Baird, M. J. Duff, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. S. Joglekar, K. Krushelnick, S. Kuschel, M. Marklund, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, K. Poder, C. P. Ridgers, G. M. Samarin, G. Sarri, D. R. Symes, A. G. R. 10 Thomas, J. Warwick, M. Zepf, Z. Najmudin, and S. P. D. Mangles, Phys. Rev. X 8, 0...

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Claveria, D

    P. Claveria, D. Storey, G. Cao, A. Di Piazza, H. Eker- felt, S. Gessner, E. Gerstmayr, T. Grismayer, M. Hogan, C. Joshi, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05535 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Abramowicz, U

    H. Abramowicz, U. Acosta, M. Altarelli, R. Assmann, Z. Bai, T. Behnke, Y. Benhammou, T. Blackburn, S. Boogert, O. Borysov, et al. , The European Physical Journal Special Topics 230, 2445 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    1951

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Qu´ er´ e and H

    F. Qu´ er´ e and H. Vincenti, High Power Laser Science and Engineering 9, e6 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Za ¨ ım, A

    N. Za ¨ ım, A. Sainte-Marie, L. Fedeli, P. Bartoli, A. Huebl, A. Leblanc, J.-L. Vay, and H. Vincenti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 175002 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Katsouleas et al

    T. Katsouleas et al. , in Computational Science—ICCS 2002: International Conference Amsterdam, The Nether- lands, April 21–24, 2002 Proceedings, Part III 2 (Springer,

    2002

  4. [12]

    Gonoskov, S

    A. Gonoskov, S. Bastrakov, E. Efimenko, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, I. Meyerov, A. Muraviev, A. Sergeev, I. Sur- min, and E. Wallin, Physical review E 92, 023305 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Ridgers, C

    C. Ridgers, C. S. Brady, R. Duclous, J. Kirk, K. Bennett, T. Arber, A. Robinson, and A. Bell, Physical review letters 108, 165006 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    K. Qu, S. Meuren, and N. J. Fisch, Physical review letters 127, 095001 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Nerush, I

    E. Nerush, I. Y. Kostyukov, A. Fedotov, N. Narozhny, N. Elkina, and H. Ruhl, Physical review letters 106, 035001 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Grismayer, M

    T. Grismayer, M. Vranic, J. L. Martins, R. Fonseca, and L. Silva, Physics of Plasmas 23 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    E. S. Efimenko, A. V. Bashinov, A. A. Gonoskov, S. I. Bastrakov, A. A. Muraviev, I. B. Meyerov, A. V. Kim, and A. M. Sergeev, Phys. Rev. E 99, 031201 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Blackburn, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics 4, 5 (2020)

    T. Blackburn, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics 4, 5 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    D. A. Burton and A. Noble, Contemporary Physics 55, 110 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    V. Dinu, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, and G. Torgrimsson, Physical review letters 116, 044801 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Di Piazza, Physical Review Letters 117, 213201 (2016)

    A. Di Piazza, Physical Review Letters 117, 213201 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Seipt and B

    D. Seipt and B. King, Physical Review A 102, 052805 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Bialynicki-Birula, P

    I. Bialynicki-Birula, P. G´ ornicki, and J. Rafelski, Phys. Rev. D 44, 1825 (1991)

    1991

  16. [24]

    Al-Naseri, J

    H. Al-Naseri, J. Zamanian, and G. Brodin, Phys. Rev. E 104, 015207 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Sch¨ utzhold, H

    R. Sch¨ utzhold, H. Gies, and G. Dunne, Physical review letters 101, 130404 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    King and T

    B. King and T. Heinzl, High Power Laser Science and Engineering 4, e5 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Brodin, L

    G. Brodin, L. Stenflo, D. Anderson, M. Lisak, M. Mark- lund, and P. Johannisson, Physics Letters A 306, 206 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    Crouseilles, P.-A

    N. Crouseilles, P.-A. Hervieux, X. Hong, and G. Manfredi, Journal of Plasma Physics 89, 905890215 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Hussain, M

    A. Hussain, M. Stefan, and G. Brodin, Physics of Plasmas 21 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Hebenstreit, R

    F. Hebenstreit, R. Alkofer, and H. Gies, Phys. Rev. D 82, 105026 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Sheng, R.-h

    X.-l. Sheng, R.-h. Fang, Q. Wang, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 99, 056004 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Brodin and J

    G. Brodin and J. Zamanian, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics 6, 4 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Brodin, H

    G. Brodin, H. Al-Naseri, J. Zamanian, G. Torgrimsson, and B. Eliasson, Phys. Rev. E 107, 035204 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Al-Naseri and G

    H. Al-Naseri and G. Brodin, Physics of Plasmas 29 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    W. H. Press, Numerical recipes 3rd edition: The art of scientific computing (Cambridge university press, 2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    Marklund and P

    M. Marklund and P. K. Shukla, Reviews of modern physics 78, 591 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Nikishov, Sov

    A. Nikishov, Sov. Phys. JETP 30, 660 (1970)

    1970

  30. [38]

    Del Sorbo, D

    D. Del Sorbo, D. Seipt, T. G. Blackburn, A. G. Thomas, C. D. Murphy, J. G. Kirk, and C. Ridgers, Physical Review A 96, 043407 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.