Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

The effect of the electron's spin magnetic moment on quantum radiation in strong electromagnetic fields

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin-light, the radiation caused by an electron's intrinsic magnetic moment, should dominate the hardest photons emitted when χe ≫ 1, and a 60 GeV electron bunch colliding with a 10^23 W/cm^2 laser could reveal it.

desk verdict Solid simulation study of spin-light signatures in strong-field QED, with believable numbers for an idealized geometry and a clear gap to real experimental conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10270 v2 pith:YB45QI5B submitted 2025-02-14 physics.plasm-ph

Louis A. Ingle , Christopher D. Arran , Matthew Oxley , Tom G. Blackburn , Sergey V. Bulanov , Chris D. Murphy , Christopher P. Ridgers This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords spin-lightstrong-fieldQEDradiationreactionnonlinearComptonscatteringpositronpairproductionlaser-electroncollisionquantumparametergamma-rayspectrum
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

Spin-light is radiation emitted because the electron carries a magnetic moment, not just a charge. The paper argues that in the strongly quantum regime, where the rest-frame field exceeds the Schwinger field by a factor χe ≫ 1, this spin term should dominate the high-energy tail of the photon spectrum. In one-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of a 60 GeV electron bunch colliding with a $10^{23}$ W/$cm^{2}$, 10 fs laser pulse, the authors find 33% more photons above 25 GeV, 14% more positrons above 25 GeV, and a 46% larger radiation-reaction energy loss when spin-light is included than when it is omitted. These signatures offer an experimental route to seeing spin-light in a regime never probed in the laboratory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin correction to the synchrotron function, F_S = $f^{2}$ y K_{2/3}(y), added to the recoil-corrected function F_R to form the fully quantum function F_Q = F_R + F_S. Here f = χγ/χe is the photon-to-electron energy transfer fraction, y = 2χγ/($3χ_e^{2}$(1−f)), and K_{2/3} is a modified Bessel function. This term isolates radiation from the acceleration of the electron's intrinsic magnetic moment; the paper uses the difference between spectra sampled from F_Q and F_R to expose spin-light's contribution.

What would settle it

Measure, in a head-on collision of a 60 GeV electron bunch with a $10^{23}$ W/$cm^{2}$, 10 fs laser pulse, the spectrum of photons above 25 GeV and the electron energy loss after the interaction; if the high-energy photon yield is not roughly 33% higher than a spinless (recoil-only) QED prediction and the recoil loss does not show the expected enhancement, the spin-light dominance claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the fully quantum synchrotron function separates additively into a recoil-corrected 'spinless' part and a spin part F_S = $f^{2}$ y K_{2/3}(y), where f is the fraction of electron energy transferred to the photon and y = 2χγ/($3χ_e^{2}$(1−f)). Because this term grows relative to the recoil term as χ_e increases and is largest for the most energetic photons, spin-light—not spin-flip dynamics—should dominate the hard tail of nonlinear Compton spectra for χ_e ≫ 1. The simulations show the resulting measurable jumps in hard-photon yield, high-energy positron yield, and electron recoil.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a 60 GeV electron bunch can be made to meet a $10^{23}$ W/$cm^{2}$ laser pulse that is effectively 10 fs long, with every electron experiencing the peak field; the paper's own discussion says longer pulses and real beam sizes shrink the spin-light signals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At χ_e ≫ 1, hard γ-ray photon spectra from electron–laser collisions should show a spin-light excess of about 33% above 25 GeV, turning the photon spectrum into a spin-light diagnostic.
  • High-energy positron yields should rise by roughly 14% above 25 GeV because spin-light hardens the photon spectrum before Breit–Wheeler pair production.
  • Radiation reaction on the electrons should be 46% stronger when spin-light is included, so electron energy loss becomes a second observable signature.
  • Strong-field QED simulations of astrophysical environments with χ_e ≫ 1, such as pulsar and magnetar magnetospheres, should include the spin term or they will underproduce hard photons and pairs.
  • If a 10 fs pulse is unavailable, an angled or 90-degree collision geometry, which shortens the effective interaction time, may preserve the spin-light signature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If spin-light dominates at high energy transfer, the energy partition in laser-driven QED cascades will shift toward harder photons, which could change cascade thresholds and pair multiplicities beyond the paper's one-dimensional geometry.
  • The separation F_Q = F_R + F_S invites a direct analytic cross-check in a full plane-wave calculation; a disagreement there would locate where the locally-constant crossed-field approximation starts to fail.
  • A natural next simulation is to vary electron energy and pulse duration to map where the 33%, 14%, and 46% signatures shrink; the paper already indicates that 20 and 40 fs pulses 'much reduce' them.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the spin-dependent contribution to nonlinear Compton scattering in the strong-field QED regime (χe ≫ 1), isolating what it calls 'spin-light' by comparing a full QED radiation model with a 'spinless' model in which the spin correction FS is subtracted. Using 1D EPOCH simulations of a 60 GeV electron bunch colliding with a 10^23 W/cm^2 laser pulse, the authors report that spin-light produces 33% more photons above 25 GeV, 14% more positrons above 25 GeV, and a 46% change in radiation reaction. They argue that these signatures offer an experimental route to observing spin-light for the first time in the strongly quantum regime.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a concrete, parameter-free proposal for isolating the spin contribution to strong-field radiation in laser-electron collisions, a topic of active interest for upcoming high-intensity laser facilities and strong-field QED experiments. The work benefits from using established LCFA rates (Ritus, Baier et al.), an analytical check of the electron energy loss (Fig. 3 vs Eq. 24), and a data availability statement. The main quantitative signatures, however, are computed for an idealized 1D plane-wave geometry, and the paper's own discussion indicates that the signatures degrade substantially for more realistic pulse durations and beam profiles; this weakens the central observability claim as it currently stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (9)-(10)] There is an algebraic error in the derivation of the spin correction. Equation (9) states that (2 - 2f + f^2)/(1 - f) = (2 + f^2)/(1 - f), which is false unless f = 0; the correct relation is (2 - 2f + f^2)/(1 - f) = 2 + f^2/(1 - f). Consequently, Eq. (10) as printed does not follow from Eq. (7). The split in Eq. (11) and the final expression for FS in Eq. (13) correspond to the correct coefficient, so the final simulation input appears to be right, but the derivation must be corrected for the manuscript to be internally consistent.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 4] The headline signatures (33% more >25 GeV photons, 14% more >25 GeV positrons, 46% change in radiation reaction) are computed for a 1D plane-wave collision in which every electron experiences the peak laser intensity for a 10 fs Gaussian pulse. The Discussion concedes that 20 fs and 40 fs pulses give 'much reduced' signatures and that conventional electron beams are larger than the laser focus, so only a small fraction of electrons sees peak intensity. The proposed 90-degree collision geometry is not simulated and would reduce the peak χe by a factor of two relative to head-on. These idealized assumptions are load-bearing for the claim that the signatures can be observed, and the manuscript does not provide a quantitative test of their survival in a realizable collision geometry. I recommend adding simulations or analytic scaling that address finite pulse duration, focal-spot size, and beam size.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3.3/4] The abstract states that spin-light results in a '46% increase in the electron recoil radiation reaction', but the results reported in Sections 3.3 and 4 are that 'the average Lorentz factor of the electrons' is 46% less after the interaction when spin is included. A percentage decrease in final Lorentz factor is not the same as a percentage increase in radiation reaction (energy loss), and the two percentages coincide only under specific assumptions about the initial and final energies. Please report the radiation-reaction energy loss explicitly, or rephrase the abstract to match the quantity actually computed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'The simulations presented here were completed using the of a version of the PIC code EPOCH' contains a grammatical error ('the of a version') and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.1] The total charge is given as 7.08×10^14 C, which is almost certainly a typographical error for 7.08×10^-14 C; please check the sign of the exponent.
  3. [Section 3.1] The statement that the numerical implementation replaces FQ by FQ - FS 'in Equations (2) and (12)' is unclear, because Eq. (2) does not contain FQ; please clarify how the Monte Carlo emission rate is modified in the spinless case.
  4. [Section 4] The discussion of 20 fs and 40 fs pulse durations says only that the signatures are 'much reduced' without giving quantitative values; reporting these numbers would strengthen the experimental feasibility assessment.
  5. [Section 4] In the phrase 'the collision at angle θ , 0', the inequality symbol appears to be missing; it should read θ ≠ 0, and the same notation should be used consistently in the text.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'su fficiently' in the Introduction and 'it’s contribution' for 'its contribution' in Section 1; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-light term is imported from standard QED and the 33%/14%/46% signatures are simulated consequences, not fitted or definitionally forced.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation separates the standard strong-field QED synchrotron function FQ into a recoil-corrected part FR and a spin correction FS via Eq. (12), with FS = f^2 y K_{2/3}(y). This decomposition follows from well-established external results (Ritus, Baier et al., Erber), not from a fit to the paper's own data. The 'spinless' case is then defined as FQ - FS, so the comparison between spin and spinless simulations is an explicit isolation of the known spin term. The reported 33% photon excess, 14% positron excess, and 46% radiation-reaction difference are integrated outcomes of Monte Carlo simulations using these formulas; they are not parameters fitted to make the signatures appear. The analytic fits for the Gaunt factors (Eqs. 18-19) are fits to QED integrals and are used only as a cross-check (44% vs 46%), not as simulation inputs. The one self-citation, Ref. [36] (Del Sorbo et al.), is used to justify that spin-flip contributions are small; that is an independent, published QED calculation by overlapping authors and does not import the paper's own conclusions as evidence. The acknowledged limitations about pulse duration and focal-spot geometry concern experimental feasibility, not circularity of the derivation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to standard QED inputs and does not reduce to its own outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard strong-field QED inputs, including LCFA and the spinor QED emission rate, and on hand-chosen experimental parameters such as 10^23 W/cm^2, 60 GeV, and 10 fs. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main interpretive risk is the identification of F_S as spin-light rather than a more standard spin-flip attribution.

free parameters (4)
  • Laser peak intensity = 10^23 W/cm^2
    Chosen as the maximum intensity reported at current facilities such as CoReLs and ELI; the claimed signatures require this value.
  • Electron beam mean energy = 60 GeV
    Chosen as a next-generation beam energy, above the current maximum of about 50 GeV at SLAC, to maximize chi_e.
  • Laser pulse duration (Gaussian case) = 10 fs FWHM
    Shorter than currently available high-intensity laser pulses; the authors state signatures are much reduced for 20 and 40 fs pulses.
  • Gamma-ray energy cutoff = 1 GeV
    Photons below 1 GeV contribute to radiation reaction but are not simulated as macro-particles; this affects pair production source rates below the threshold but not the >25 GeV analysis directly.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Locally constant crossed field approximation (LCFA) is valid for these parameters
    Invoked after Eq. (13): 'we have assumed that the photon formation length is small and so we may make the locally-constant crossed field approximation'.
  • domain assumption The spin correction term f^2/(1-f) K_{2/3}(y) represents spin-light rather than spin-flip radiation
    The paper asserts in Section 4 that spin-flip radiation is much smaller than spin-light based on Ref. [36], but the isolated term F_S in Eq. (13) is the standard difference between spinor and scalar QED, sometimes attributed to spin-flip transitions in Baier-Katkov theory.
  • domain assumption Electron motion is classical between emission events
    Standard for PIC-QED implementations, stated in the Introduction: 'each electron undergoes many NLCS emission events within the laser-pulse and electron motion is treated as classical between these emission events'.
  • domain assumption The electron bunch is initially unpolarized and neglect of spin precession and polarization does not affect the spectrum
    Section 4: EPOCH assumes zero net polarization and the beam remains unpolarized; spin-flip effects on the population are assumed small.
  • domain assumption The 1D plane-wave collision is representative of the experimental geometry
    Simulations are 1D with a perfectly overlapping electron beam and laser focus; the Discussion acknowledges real beams are larger than the focus and only a fraction sees peak intensity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The effect of the electron's spin magnetic moment on quantum radiation in strong electromagnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YB45QI5B

@misc{pith2026250210270,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The effect of the electron's spin magnetic moment on quantum radiation in strong electromagnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YB45QI5B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10270}
}
abstract

Ultra-intense laser pulses can create sufficiently strong fields to probe quantum electrodynamics effects in a novel regime. By colliding a 60 GeV electron bunch with a laser pulse focussed to the maximum achievable intensity of $10^{23}$ Wcm$^{-2}$, we can reach fields much stronger than the critical Schwinger field in the electron rest frame. When the ratio of these fields $\chi_e\gg1$ we find that the hard ($>25$ \thinspace GeV) radiation from the electron has a substantial contribution from spin-light. 33% more photons are produced above this energy due to spin-light, the radiation resulting from the acceleration of the electron's intrinsic magnetic moment. This increase in high-energy photons results in 14% more positrons produced with energy above $25$ GeV. Furthermore, the enhanced photon production due to spin-light results in a 46% increase in the electron recoil radiation reaction. These observable signatures provide a potential route to observing spin-light in the strongly quantum regime ($\chi_e\gg1$) for the first time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10270 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The radiated power with respect to the transfer fraction. Three di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Gaunt factor with spin (Green) and without spin (Orange). Both the Gaunt factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The average Lorentz factor of the electrons with respect to time for the collision of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The photon spectrum at 180 fs when spin radiation is included (Green) and when it is ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The photon spectrum at 180 fs with spin (Green) and the spinless case (Orange) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The number of positrons produced with respect to time with spin (Green) and without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The average Lorentz factor of the electrons with respect to time with spin (Green) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experimental schematic diagram for a laser pulse-electron beam collision. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Ridgers, C. P. et al. Dense Electron-Positron Plasmas and Ultraintense γ rays from Laser- Irradiated Solids. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 165006. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.108.165006 (16 Apr. 2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [3]

    G., Ridgers, C

    Blackburn, T. G., Ridgers, C. P., Kirk, J. G. & Bell, A. R. Quantum Radiation Reaction in Laser–Electron-Beam Collisions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 015001. https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.015001 (1 Jan. 2014)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.015001 2014

  3. [4]

    Cole, J. M. et al. Experimental Evidence of Radiation Reaction in the Collision of a High- Intensity Laser Pulse with a Laser-Wakefield Accelerated Electron Beam. Phys. Rev. X 8, 011020. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011020 (1 Feb. 2018)

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.011020

  4. [5]

    Poder, K. et al. Experimental Signatures of the Quantum Nature of Radiation Reaction in the Field of an Ultraintense Laser. Phys. Rev. X 8, 031004. https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.8.031004 (3 July 2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [6]

    Di Piazza, A., M ¨uller, C., Hatsagortsyan, K. Z. & Keitel, C. H. Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177–1228. https : //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1177 (3 Aug. 2012)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.84.1177

  6. [7]

    G., Marklund, M

    Gonoskov, A., Blackburn, T. G., Marklund, M. & Bulanov, S. S. Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields.Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045001. https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.94.045001 (4 Oct. 2022)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.045001

  7. [8]

    Fedotov, A. et al. Advances in QED with intense background fields. Physics Reports 1010. Advances in QED with intense background fields, 1–138. issn: 0370-1573. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157323000352 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [9]

    Nakamura, T. et al. High-Power γ-Ray Flash Generation in Ultraintense Laser-Plasma In- teractions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 195001. https : / / link . aps . org / doi / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.108.195001 (19 May 2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 60 references
  1. [10]

    Ridgers, C. P. et al. Dense electron-positron plasmas and bursts of gamma-rays from laser- generated quantum electrodynamic plasmasa). Physics of Plasmas 20, 056701. issn: 1070- 664X. eprint: https : / / pubs . aip . org / aip / pop / article - pdf / doi / 10 . 1063 / 1 . 4801...

    2013

  2. [11]

    S., Ridgers, C

    Brady, C. S., Ridgers, C. P., Arber, T. D., Bell, A. R. & Kirk, J. G. Laser Absorption in Relativistically Underdense Plasmas by Synchrotron Radiation.Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 245006. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.245006 (24 Dec. 2012)

    doi

  3. [12]

    Ji, L. L. et al. Energy partition, γ-ray emission, and radiation reaction in the near-quantum electrodynamical regime of laser-plasma interaction. Physics of Plasmas 21, 023109. issn: 1070-664X. eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/ 1.4866014/15865659/...

    doi

  4. [13]

    Hadjisolomou, P. et al. Gamma-flash generation in multi-petawatt laser–matter interactions. Physics of Plasmas 30, 093103. issn: 1070-664X. eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/ pop/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0158264/18138753/093103\_1\_5.0158264. pdf. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.01...

    doi

  5. [14]

    Bula, C. et al. Observation of Nonlinear Effects in Compton Scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3116–3119. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.3116 (17 Apr. 1996)

    1996 doi

  6. [15]

    G., Bell, A

    Kirk, J. G., Bell, A. R. & Arka, I. Pair production in counter-propagating laser beams. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 51, 085008. https : / / dx . doi . org / 10 . 1088 / 0741 - 3335/51/8/085008 (July 2009)

    2009

  7. [17]

    G., Ilderton, A., Marklund, M

    Blackburn, T. G., Ilderton, A., Marklund, M. & Ridgers, C. P. Reaching supercritical field strengths with intense lasers. New Journal of Physics 21, 053040. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1367-2630/ab1e0d (May 2019)

    2019 doi

  8. [19]

    & Pukhov, A

    Baumann, C. & Pukhov, A. Laser-solid interaction and its potential for probing radiative corrections in strong-field quantum electrodynamics. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61, 074010. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ab1d2b (June 2019)

    doi

  9. [20]

    Marklund, M. et al. Towards critical and supercritical electromagnetic fields. High Power Laser Science and Engineering 11, e19 (2023)

    2023

  10. [21]

    Quantum e ffects of the interaction of elementary particles with an intense electro- magnetic field

    Ritus, V . Quantum e ffects of the interaction of elementary particles with an intense electro- magnetic field. Journal of Soviet Laser Research 6. Cited by: 572, 497–617. https://www. scopus . com / inward / record . uri ? eid = 2 - s2 . 0 - 0022116661 & doi = 10 . 1007 % 2fB...

    1985

  11. [22]

    On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polarization

    Schwinger, J. On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polarization. Phys. Rev.82, 664–679. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.82.664 (5 June 1951)

    1951 doi

  12. [23]

    M., Narozhny, N

    Fedotov, A. M., Narozhny, N. B., Mourou, G. & Korn, G. Limitations on the Attainable Intensity of High Power Lasers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 080402. https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.080402 (8 Aug. 2010)

    2010 doi

  13. [24]

    Uggerhøj, U. I. The interaction of relativistic particles with strong crystalline fields. Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1131–1171. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1131 (4 Oct. 2005)

    2005 doi

  14. [25]

    Ridgers, C. P. et al. Signatures of quantum effects on radiation reaction in laser–electron-beam collisions. Journal of Plasma Physics 83, 715830502 (2017). 18

    2017

  15. [26]

    & Grech, M

    Niel, F., Riconda, C., Amirano ff, F., Duclous, R. & Grech, M. From quantum to classical modeling of radiation reaction: A focus on stochasticity e ffects. Phys. Rev. E 97, 043209. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.043209 (4 Apr. 2018)

    doi

  16. [27]

    Timokhin, A. N. Time-dependent pair cascades in magnetospheres of neutron stars – I. Dy- namics of the polar cap cascade with no particle supply from the neutron star surface.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 408, 2092–2114. issn: 0035-8711. eprint: https: / / ...

  17. [28]

    Tanaka, K. A. et al. Current status and highlights of the ELI-NP research program.Matter and Radiation at Extremes 5, 024402. issn: 2468-2047. eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/ mre/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5093535/15750185/024402\_1\_online.pdf . https://doi.org/10.1063/1.509...

    doi

  18. [29]

    Yoon, J. W. et al. Realization of laser intensity over 10 23 W/cm2. Optica 8, 630–635. http: //opg.optica.org/optica/abstract.cfm?URI=optica-8-5-630 (May 2021)

    2021

  19. [30]

    N., Piazza, A

    Wistisen, T. N., Piazza, A. D., Knudsen, H. V . & Uggerhøj, U. I. Experimental evidence of quantum radiation reaction in aligned crystals. Nature Communications 9, 795. https : //doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03165-4 (Feb. 2018)

    2018 doi

  20. [31]

    Los, E. E. et al. Observation of quantum e ffects on radiation reaction in strong fields 2024. arXiv: 2407.12071 [hep-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12071

    2024

  21. [32]

    A., Ternov, I

    Bordovitsyn, V . A., Ternov, I. M. & Bagrov, V . G. Spin light.Physics-Uspekhi 38, 1037–1047. https://doi.org/10.1070/pu1995v038n09abeh000107 (Sept. 1995)

    1995 doi

  22. [33]

    Ternov, I. M. Synchrotron radiation. Physics-Uspekhi 38, 409. https://dx.doi.org/10. 1070/PU1995v038n04ABEH000082 (Apr. 1995)

    1995

  23. [34]

    Seipt, D., Del Sorbo, D., Ridgers, C. P. & Thomas, A. G. R. Theory of radiative electron polarization in strong laser fields. Phys. Rev. A 98, 023417. https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.023417 (2 Aug. 2018)

    2018 doi

  24. [35]

    & Tang, S

    King, B. & Tang, S. Nonlinear Compton scattering of polarized photons in plane-wave back- grounds. Phys. Rev. A 102, 022809. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 102.022809 (2 Aug. 2020)

    2020 doi

  25. [36]

    Del Sorbo, D. et al. Spin polarization of electrons by ultraintense lasers. Phys. Rev. A 96, 043407. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.043407 (4 Oct. 2017)

    2017 doi

  26. [37]

    Ternov, I. M. Synchrotron radiation. Physics-Uspekhi 38, 409–434. https://doi.org/10. 1070/pu1995v038n04abeh000082 (Apr. 1995)

    1995

  27. [38]

    Del Sorbo, D., Seipt, D., Thomas, A. G. R. & Ridgers, C. P. Electron spin polarization in re- alistic trajectories around the magnetic node of two counter-propagating, circularly polarized, ultra-intense lasers. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 60, 064003. https://dx.doi. ...

    doi

  28. [39]

    Seipt, D., Del Sorbo, D., Ridgers, C. P. & Thomas, A. G. R. Ultrafast polarization of an electron beam in an intense bichromatic laser field. Phys. Rev. A 100, 061402. https : / / link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.061402 (6 Dec. 2019). 19

    doi

  29. [40]

    Li, Y .-F. et al. Ultrarelativistic Electron-Beam Polarization in Single-Shot Interaction with an Ultraintense Laser Pulse. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 154801. https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.122.154801 (15 Apr. 2019)

    2019

  30. [41]

    Chen, Y .-Y ., He, P.-L., Shaisultanov, R., Hatsagortsyan, K. Z. & Keitel, C. H. Polarized Positron Beams via Intense Two-Color Laser Pulses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 174801. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.174801 (17 Oct. 2019)

    doi

  31. [42]

    Wan, F. et al. Ultrarelativistic polarized positron jets via collision of electron and ultraintense laser beams. Physics Letters B800, 135120. issn: 0370-2693. https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0370269319308421 (2020)

    2020

  32. [43]

    Kirsebom, K. et al. First Measurements of the Unique Influence of Spin on the Energy Loss of Ultrarelativistic Electrons in Strong Electromagnetic Fields. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 054801. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.054801 (5 July 2001)

    doi

  33. [44]

    Andersen, K. K. et al. Experimental investigations of synchrotron radiation at the onset of the quantum regime. Phys. Rev. D 86, 072001. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.86.072001 (7 Oct. 2012)

    2012

  34. [45]

    Qian, Q. et al. Parametric study of the polarization dependence of nonlinear Breit–Wheeler pair creation process using two laser pulses.Physics of Plasmas 30, 103107. issn: 1070-664X. eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0165788/ 18185329/103107\_1\_5...

    doi

  35. [46]

    Gong, Z., Hatsagortsyan, K. Z. & Keitel, C. H. Retrieving Transient Magnetic Fields of Ul- trarelativistic Laser Plasma via Ejected Electron Polarization. Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 165002. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.165002 (16 Oct. 2021)

    doi

  36. [47]

    Gong, Z., Hatsagortsyan, K. Z. & Keitel, C. H. Electron Polarization in Ultrarelativistic Plasma Current Filamentation Instabilities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 015101. https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.015101 (1 Jan. 2023)

    doi

  37. [48]

    Arber, T. D. et al. Contemporary particle-in-cell approach to laser-plasma modelling. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 57, 113001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/57/ 11/113001 (Sept. 2015)

    2015 doi

  38. [49]

    Quantum-radiation spectra of relativistic particles derived by the correspon- dence principle

    Lindhard, J. Quantum-radiation spectra of relativistic particles derived by the correspon- dence principle. Phys. Rev. A 43, 6032–6037. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.43.6032 (11 June 1991)

    1991

  39. [50]

    High-Energy Electromagnetic Conversion Processes in Intense Magnetic Fields

    Erber, T. High-Energy Electromagnetic Conversion Processes in Intense Magnetic Fields. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 626–659. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.38. 626 (4 Oct. 1966)

    1966 doi

  40. [51]

    N., Katkov, V

    Baier, V . N., Katkov, V . M. & Strakhovenko, V . M. Electromagnetic Processes at High En- ergies in Oriented Single Crystals eprint: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/ pdf/10.1142/2216 . https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/2216 (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 1998). 20

    doi

  41. [52]

    V . N. Baier, V . M. K. & Strakhovenko, V . M. Quasiclassical theory of radiation and pair creation in crystals at high energy.Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids122-123, 527–556. eprint: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1080 / 10420159108211491. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1...

    1991

  42. [53]

    Ridgers, C. et al. Modelling gamma-ray photon emission and pair production in high-intensity laser–matter interactions. Journal of Computational Physics 260, 273–285. issn: 0021-9991. https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S0021999113008061 (2014)

    2014

  43. [54]

    Nerush, E. N. et al. Laser Field Absorption in Self-Generated Electron-Positron Pair Plasma. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 035001. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 106.035001 (3 Jan. 2011)

    2011 doi

  44. [55]

    Gonoskov, A. et al. Extended particle-in-cell schemes for physics in ultrastrong laser fields: Review and developments. Phys. Rev. E 92, 023305. https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevE.92.023305 (2 Aug. 2015)

    2015

  45. [56]

    Yakimenko, V . et al. FACET-II facility for advanced accelerator experimental tests.Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22, 101301. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams. 22.101301 (10 Oct. 2019)

    2019 doi

  46. [57]

    Bamber, C. et al. Studies of nonlinear QED in collisions of 46.6 GeV electrons with intense laser pulses. Phys. Rev. D60, 092004. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 60.092004 (9 Oct. 1999)

    1999 doi

  47. [58]

    L., Fonseca, R

    Grismayer, T., Vranic, M., Martins, J. L., Fonseca, R. A. & Silva, L. O. Seeded QED cascades in counterpropagating laser pulses.Phys. Rev. E95, 023210. https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.023210 (2 Feb. 2017)

    2017 doi

  48. [59]

    Decking, W. et al. A MHz-repetition-rate hard X-ray free-electron laser driven by a supercon- ducting linear accelerator. Nature Photonics 14, 391–397 (2020)

    2020

  49. [60]

    Abramowicz, H. et al. Conceptual design report for the LUXE experiment. The European Physical Journal Special Topics230, 2445–2560. issn: 0370-1573. https://link.springer. com/article/10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00249-z (2021)

    2021 doi

  50. [61]

    & Dawson, J

    Tajima, T. & Dawson, J. M. Laser Electron Accelerator. Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 267–270. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.267 (4 July 1979)

    1979 doi

  51. [62]

    Magnusson, J. et al. Effect of electron-beam energy chirp on signatures of radiation reaction in laser-based experiments. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 26, 104002. https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.26.104002 (10 Oct. 2023)

    doi

  52. [63]

    Behm, K. T. et al. A spectrometer for ultrashort gamma-ray pulses with photon energies greater than 10 MeV. Review of Scientific Instruments 89, 113303. issn: 0034-6748. eprint: https : / / pubs . aip . org / aip / rsi / article - pdf / doi / 10 . 1063 / 1 . 5056248 / 14703752...

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.