Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Anomalous pinch in electron-electron beam collision

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Electron-positron pairs created in a beam collision can reverse the repulsive force and pinch two identical-charge beams together.

desk verdict A real collective effect with substantial PIC support, but the printed theory behind the headline claim does not check out; needs a corrected derivation before the quantitative claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09398 v3 pith:67R6TNQR submitted 2024-12-12 physics.plasm-ph hep-exphysics.acc-phphysics.comp-ph

W. Zhang , T. Grismayer , L. O. Silva This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phhep-exphysics.acc-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords anomalouspinchbeam-beamcollisionstrong-fieldQEDelectron-positronpairproductionbeamdisruptionluminosityparticle-in-cellsimulationnonperturbative
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

Ultra-relativistic electron-electron or positron-positron collisions are normally expected to repel the two beams apart through their self-fields. This paper argues that when the beams are dense and thin enough, the strong-field quantum electrodynamic shower they trigger creates electron-positron pairs whose space charge can screen and then invert the repulsive Lorentz force, so the beams pinch toward each other. The paper derives a quantitative pinch condition from a two-timescale model and verifies it with first-principles three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations. If the claim holds, the effect matters for future lepton colliders because it compresses the beams, raises the collision luminosity, and pushes a fraction of particles toward the non-perturbative strong-field QED regime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the balance between two radial forces at the beam edge: the disruption-driven repulsive force $F = 4\pi e^2 n_e(t) r$ from the diluted beam density $n_e(t) = n_0 [1 + D(t/\tau_{\rm col})^2/2]^{-2}$, and the focusing force $F_p$ from the accumulated positron charge, $F_p \simeq -(3\pi/2) e^2 n_0 \sigma_0 R_2(\sigma_0) t^2$. Equating $F + F_p = 0$ gives the pinch-onset time $t_F$; the model assumes charge separation of newly created pairs is nearly instantaneous, so the positron density builds up as a static focusing column. The supporting rates are the strong-field QED photon emission and pair production rates, whose product $R_2(\chi_e)$ enters the criterion, and the disruption time $\tau_D = \sqrt{\gamma}/\omega_b$ sets the beam dilution time. The final practical tool is the profile transform mapping realistic Gaussian beams to equivalent uniform cylinder beams, so the pinch condition (Eq. (13)) applies to collider parameters.

What would settle it

A collision with parameters satisfying the criterion $(E_0[\mathrm{GeV}])^{11/12} (\sigma_0[0.1\,\mu\mathrm{m}])^{5/6} / ((\sigma_z[\mu\mathrm{m}])^{11/12} (N_0[10^{10}])^{7/12}) \le 7$, run in a full 3D QED particle-in-cell simulation or at a future lepton collider, should show the total transverse force on the beam electrons changing sign before $\tau_{\rm col}/2$ and a measurable luminosity enhancement; observing instead only continued beam dilution, with no force inversion or density compression, would falsify the pinch mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an anomalous pinch: in the collision of two identical-charge lepton beams with disruption parameter $D \gg 1$ and quantum parameter $\chi_e \gg 1$, the electron-positron pairs created by nonlinear Breit-Wheeler processes screen the self-fields before disruption dilutes the beams, and the positrons (in an $e^-e^-$ collision) remain near the axis while the new electrons are expelled. The resulting space-charge field from the excess positrons overcomes the mutual repulsion of the beam electrons, inverts the radial Lorentz force, and compresses the beams. The paper's model predicts the pinch onset time $t_{\rm AP}$, bounded by $t_F < t_{\rm AP} \le t_F + \tau_D$, with $t_F \sim \sqrt{\tau_D \tau_{\rm QED}}$ in the strong-disruption limit, and translates this into a convenient parameter criterion (Eq. (13)) for when the pinch can develop before the collision ends. Full 3D particle-in-cell simulations confirm the force inversion and show density compression, luminosity enhancement, and amplification of the local magnetic field and quantum parameter.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the electron-positron pairs separate almost instantly, with the new positrons staying near the beam axis as a static focusing column while the new electrons are expelled; if charge separation is slower than the disruption time or the positrons are also blown outward, the force inversion would not build up.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In $e^-e^-$ or $e^+e^+$ collisions with $D \gg 1$ and $\chi_e \gg 1$, the beams can compress instead of dilute, reversing the usual luminosity degradation.
  • The pinch amplifies the local magnetic field and raises the quantum parameter of undamped electrons, with the simulation showing peak field enhancement by more than a factor of 70 and $\chi_e$ values above 500.
  • The effect provides a route to probe the non-perturbative strong-field QED regime ($\alpha \chi_e^{2/3} \sim 1$) in beam-beam collisions.
  • Collider designs for TeV-class machines need to include this effect when estimating luminosity and backgrounds.
  • The pinch is eventually limited by hosing and kink-like instabilities on the $\tau_D$ scale, so the luminosity gain saturates rather than growing indefinitely.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension is that a similar inverted-force pinch should occur in positron-positron collisions with the roles of electrons and positrons swapped, since the screening argument is charge-symmetric.
  • The density-compression mechanism might also operate in single-beam or laser-driven pair cascades wherever a seed pair population accumulates in a focusing region, suggesting a common back-reaction pathway across QED cascade systems.
  • A testable extension is to scan the parameter criterion Eq. (13) across different beam lengths and densities in particle-in-cell simulations: the boundary between pinching and non-pinching collisions should track the predicted scaling with $E_0$, $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_z$, and $N_0$.
  • If the pinch is confirmed experimentally through luminosity enhancement or energy-spread broadening, the effect could be exploited to boost luminosity in future electron-only colliders, where positron production is a bottleneck.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that in ultrarelativistic electron-electron (or positron-positron) beam collisions, the electron-positron pairs generated by strong-field QED can screen the beams' self-fields and invert the Lorentz force, leading to an 'anomalous pinch' that compresses the beams and enhances luminosity. A theoretical model is developed for the onset time t_F of the force inversion (Eqs. (8)-(9)), leading to a pinch condition (Eq. (13)). The model is compared with 3D OSIRIS QED-PIC simulations and with GUINEA-PIG, reporting agreement and luminosity enhancement. The paper argues that this effect is relevant for future lepton colliders and can amplify local fields and quantum parameters by orders of magnitude.

Significance. The proposed phenomenon is potentially important for future linear colliders: if real, it couples disruption and SF-QED in a way not captured by the standard independent treatment of these processes, and it could affect luminosity and provide access to the non-perturbative QED regime. The paper's strengths include full-scale 3D QED-PIC simulations with a well-established code (OSIRIS), a cross-code benchmark with GUINEA-PIG, a profile transform between Gaussian and uniform beams, and a compact design criterion for collider parameters. However, the central theoretical derivation is not sound as written, and the 'prediction' of the pinch condition is partly calibrated by the simulations; the claimed confirmation therefore does not follow from the material presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II C, Eqs. (8)-(9)] Equation (9) does not solve Eq. (8). With X ≡ t_F/τ_col, A ≡ R2(σ0) τ_col^2, and Z ≡ D X^2/2, Eq. (8) becomes (3A/(4D)) Z(1+Z)^2 = 1. Equation (9), by contrast, is equivalent to (3A/(4D)) Z(1+2Z) = 1, because it reduces to (3/8) A X^2 (1 + D X^2) = 1; the Z^2 term in (1+Z)^2 has been dropped. In the regime of Eq. (11), where D/A = (τ_QED/τ_D)^2 ≫ 1, the solution of Eq. (8) has Z ∼ (4D/(3A))^{1/3} ≫ 1, so the dropped term is of the same order as the retained terms rather than negligible. Consequently, the scaling t_F ∼ √(τ_D τ_QED) in Eq. (12), the density estimate Eq. (10), and the pinch criterion Eq. (13) do not follow from the stated model, and the theoretical curves in Fig. 3 are not supported by the derivation.
  2. [Sec. II C, pinch criterion Eq. (13)] The pinch criterion is calibrated rather than predicted. The text states: 'Our numerical study shows that notable pinching is observed when tAP ≲ τcol/2 which implies tF + τD ≤ τcol/2.' This threshold is read off from the same PIC simulations that are later used for validation, and the inequality is then converted into the design criterion Eq. (13). Therefore Eq. (13) is an empirical fit to the simulations used for the claimed confirmation, not an independent theoretical prediction. The circularity weakens the central claim that the model predicts the pinch condition.
  3. [Sec. II C, instantaneous charge separation] The model assumes that newly created electrons are expelled while positrons remain confined, so that the positron space charge builds up as a static focusing field. This is stated explicitly in Sec. II C: 'The charge separation of new electrons and positrons is first assumed here to occur almost instantaneously.' The paper does not derive the charge-separation dynamics or provide a timescale for it; the bound tF < tAP ≲ tF + τD does not guarantee that the positron density near the axis accumulates as assumed if the pair plasma expands on a comparable timescale. Since this assumption is the mechanism for the force inversion, the theory's predictive content for the onset of the pinch is limited without additional justification.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The symbol R2 is introduced as a function defined by an integral, not as the square of R; please use a distinct symbol (e.g., a calligraphic R) to avoid confusion with R^2.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption would be clearer if it stated the fixed value of χe_max used for the scans; the reader currently has to search the main text to find that χe_max = 13.
  3. [Sec. II C, Ref. [48]] The sentence about the CAIN simulation reporting the pinch effect is brief; a short quantitative description of what was observed there would help the reader place the novelty of the present study.
  4. [Eq. (14) and Appendix B 1] The profile transform coefficients are stated abruptly in the main text; a one-sentence note that the transform is approximate and derived by matching particle flux, quantum parameter, and geometric luminosity would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The pinch condition Eq. (13) injects an empirical threshold from the PIC simulations that are then used to 'verify' it, so the central prediction is partly calibrated to the data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II C (after Eq. 12, leading to Eq. 13) and Sec. III (Fig. 3 verification)]
    "Our numerical study shows that notable pinching is observed when tAP ≲ τcol/2 which implies tF + τD ≤ τcol/2. ... The theoretical criterion for the AP formation [Eqs. (9) and (13)] has been verified by PIC simulations where we have measured the times tAP when the total transverse force vanishes in the different simulations."

    Equation (13) is presented as a theoretical pinch condition and later 'verified' by the same PIC simulations that supplied the threshold. The derivation inserts the numerical observation 'notable pinching is observed when tAP ≲ τcol/2' directly into the criterion. The model only predicts the force-inversion time tF; it does not independently predict that a notable pinch requires onset by τcol/2. That requirement is a fit to the simulation data, so the confirmation of Eq. (13) is partly circular: the condition was calibrated to the outcome it is then used to validate. The underlying effect may still be physical, but the claimed first-principles prediction of the pinch condition is not fully independent of the simulations.

full rationale

The paper's main circular element is the pinch condition Eq. (13), which is advertised as a theoretical prediction and then confirmed by PIC runs, yet its derivation explicitly uses the empirical threshold 'notable pinching is observed when tAP ≲ τcol/2' from those same simulations. This is a fitted input presented as a predicted criterion, warranting a 6 rather than a lower score. Other ingredients are not circular: the SF-QED pair density (Eq. 5) and the disruption dilution formula (Eq. 4) come from standard rates and explicit expansions, and the OSIRIS results are benchmarked against the independent GUINEA-PIG code, which supports the existence of the effect externally. The self-citations to Refs. [19] and [46] are not load-bearing in a disqualifying way, since the pair-production physics is standard and the profile transform is derived in the appendix. A separate correctness concern, not counted as circularity: Eq. (9) does not solve Eq. (8) as printed; it corresponds to dropping the Z^2 term in (1+Z)^2, so the predicted tF and the scaling in Eq. (12) are not mathematically justified by the stated model. That issue weakens the theory-simulation comparison but is an algebraic inconsistency rather than a reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on standard SF-QED rates under the locally constant field approximation, a cold uniform-beam model, first-generation pair production, and an instantaneous-charge-separation assumption for the created pairs. The final pinch condition also uses a hand-chosen threshold from simulations. No new particles, fields, or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Notable pinching onset threshold t_AP/tau_col = 0.5
    Chosen from the numerical study in Sec. II C ('notable pinching is observed when t_AP <= tau_col/2') and used to convert the onset-time model into the final pinch condition Eq. (13), setting the constant 7.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Locally constant field approximation (LCFA) for nonlinear Compton scattering and nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production.
    Used in the QED rates of Sec. II B and in the OSIRIS QED module (Appendix A). The paper states LCFA holds for the studied collisions, citing Ref. [19] without a derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Beams are cold, cylindrical, uniform-density with sharp boundaries; Gaussian beams are mapped to equivalent uniform beams via the transform of Eq. (14).
    The theoretical model in Sec. II A assumes uniform cylindrical beams; the extension to realistic Gaussian beams relies on the profile transform taken from the authors' earlier work [19].
  • domain assumption Only the first generation of pairs is relevant for the pinch onset (chi_e max up to a few tens), and radiation cooling of the beam electrons is discarded.
    Stated in Sec. II B: 'only the first generation of pairs is relevant' and 'If the radiation cooling of the electron beam is discarded'; this underlies the pair density formula Eq. (6).
  • ad hoc to paper Instantaneous charge separation of the created pairs, with positrons remaining confined and electrons expelled, so the positron space charge acts as a stationary focusing field.
    Stated in Sec. II C: 'The charge separation of new electrons and positrons is first assumed here to occur almost instantaneously.' The model's force inversion depends on this separation; the paper acknowledges the realistic separation takes ~ tau_D and only bounds tAP between tF and tF + tau_D.
  • domain assumption The disruption trajectory r_j = r_0,j cosh(Delta t_j / tau_D) and the density dilution Eq. (4) are valid for t < tau_D.
    Used in Sec. II A to compute beam dilution; the expansion to Eq. (4) is restricted to t < tau_D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous pinch in electron-electron beam collision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/67R6TNQR

@misc{pith2026241209398,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous pinch in electron-electron beam collision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/67R6TNQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09398}
}
read the original abstract

We show that an anomalous pinch can occur in ultrarelativistic electron-electron or positron-positron beam interaction, caused by the combined interplay of collective beam motion (disruption) and strong-field quantum electrodynamics (SF-QED). The locally created electron-positron pairs, from SF-QED effects, screen the self-fields of the beams and can invert the polarity of the Lorentz force resulting in a pinch of the beams. A theoretical model predicts the pinch condition and is confirmed by first-principles 3-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations. This anomalous pinch enhances density compression, increases the collision luminosity, and amplifies the local magnetic fields and the quantum parameter of the beam particles by several orders of magnitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09398 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online). Schematic of the collision. The collid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online). Anomalous pinch in a 3D PIC sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online). Onset time of AP ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online). (a) Luminosity reduction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online). Simulations for a collision between Gaussian-profile electron beams, using codes of OSIRIS (upper row) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    Physics consider- ations for laser-plasma linear colliders,

    C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, C. G. R. Geddes, C. Benedetti, and W. P. Leemans, “Physics consider- ations for laser-plasma linear colliders,” Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 13, 101301 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [1]

    The beam parameters are: E0 = 70 GeV, σz = 12 µm, σ0 = 4.9 nm, and N0 = 1.3 × 109, corresponding to D = 54 and χe max = 13

    and purple ( n/n0 = 10) regions show the core layers of the pinched beams. The beam parameters are: E0 = 70 GeV, σz = 12 µm, σ0 = 4.9 nm, and N0 = 1.3 × 109, corresponding to D = 54 and χe max = 13. the AP effect, which is demonstrated by the core layers (green and purple regions in Fig. 2). The simulation box ( x, y, z) is 125 nm × 125 nm × 24 µm resolve...

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    The standard loop of the PIC method can be summarized as follows

    PIC and SF-QED Particle-in-cell (PIC) codes are one of the most important research tools in plasma physics [54, 55] as they describe the self-consistent microscopic interaction between a collection of charged particles. The standard loop of the PIC method can be summarized as follows. The simulation domain is repre- sented by a discrete spatial grid, in w...

    work page

  4. [3]

    These two phenomena are the leading and most relevant QED processes [44, 45] in strong fields

    SF-QED processes in OSIRIS OSIRIS [49] has been extended to incorporate several SF-QED processes, including nonlinear Compton scattering (NCS) also known as the quantum-corrected synchrotron ra- diation, and nonlinear Breit-Wheeler (NBW) for e−e+ pair production. These two phenomena are the leading and most relevant QED processes [44, 45] in strong fields...

    work page

  5. [4]

    G” represents the Gaussian beam, and “U

    Profile transform between Gaussian beams and uniform, cylinder-shaped beams A collision between Gaussian beams can be well ap- proximated by an equivalent collision between uniform and cylinder-shaped beams [19]. The profile transform requires a stretch of beam length ( σz), the conservation of SF-QED strength (χe max), and the peak particle flux (or curr...

    work page

  6. [5]

    We have performed GUINEA-PIG simulations to benchmark our OSIRIS results

    Comparison with GUINEA-PIG GUINEA-PIG is a widely used code which is specialized for studying beam-beam collisions [50]. We have performed GUINEA-PIG simulations to benchmark our OSIRIS results. Here, we present a case study for a Gaussian-profile beam collision. The beams are cold with E0 = 70 GeV, N0 = 4.05 × 109, σ0 = 5.1 nm, and σz = 6.5 µm. In the OS...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Impact of finite beam emittance The simulation results shown in the main text are obtained with perfectly collimated beams corresponding to zero emit- tance, to compare directly with our theory. We have also con- ducted the same QED-PIC simulations with finite-emittance beams (momentum divergence angle θ ∼ mrad or normal- ized emittance ϵn ∼ mm mrad) with...

    work page

  8. [7]

    These colliders are either already scheduled or under extensive re- search and development (R&D) in global collaborations [2, 6– 9, 12, 15, 16, 31, 57, 58]

    Near-future linear colliders suited for observing the anomalous pinch The physical regime of AP discovered here can be reached by major next-generation TeV-class lepton colliders. These colliders are either already scheduled or under extensive re- search and development (R&D) in global collaborations [2, 6– 9, 12, 15, 16, 31, 57, 58]. We summarize in Tabl...

    work page

Show all 76 references
  1. [8]

    Traditional radio-frequency (RF) based acceleration

  2. [9]

    Novel two-beam acceleration scheme

  3. [10]

    High accelerating field: 70 ∼ 100 MV/m

  4. [11]

    Conceptual Design Report delivered [57]

  5. [12]

    Mature design and test study; Project approval ∼ 2028; Tunnel construction ∼ 2030 [58] ∼ 2040 TeV-class advanced colliders [7, 8, 16] √s = 1 ∼ 3 TeV σx = 10 ∼ 60 nm σy ∼ 1 nm σz = 5 ∼ 40 µm N0 = (1 ∼ 5) × 109 D = 0.2 ∼ 100 χe = 1 ∼ 600

  6. [13]

    (Staging) Plasma/dielectric-based wakefield acceleration

  7. [14]

    Ultra-high accelerating field: > GV/m

  8. [15]

    End-to-end design report ∼ 2028 2050 ∼ 2070 10′s TeV-class advanced colliders [7, 8, 16, 31] √s = 10 ∼ 30 TeV σx = σy ∼ 1 nm σz = 2 ∼ 40 µm N0 = (3 ∼ 8) × 109 D = 0.6 ∼ 100 χe = 800 ∼ 100000 Round-beam scheme increases the luminosity-per-beam-power [6, 7, 16]

  9. [16]

    P5 report

    Recommended by the “P5 report” [12]

  10. [17]

    Pre-project R&D [31]

  11. [18]

    End-to-end design report ∼ 2028 2050 ∼ 2070 future linear colliders where AP in e−e− collisions will be present and must be carefully considered for the collider de- signs

  12. [19]

    The future of high-energy collider physics,

    John Ellis, “The future of high-energy collider physics,” (2018), arXiv:1810.11263 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Modern and future colliders,

    V. Shiltsev and F. Zimmermann, “Modern and future colliders,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015006 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    Future colliders for the high-energy frontier,

    Heather M. Gray, “Future colliders for the high-energy frontier,” Reviews in Physics 6, 100053 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Mounet, ed., European Strategy for Particle Physics - Accelerator R &D Roadmap , CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs (CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 2022)

    N. Mounet, ed., European Strategy for Particle Physics - Accelerator R &D Roadmap , CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs (CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    Beam- strahlung considerations in laser-plasma-accelerator- based linear colliders,

    C.B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, and W.P. Leemans, “Beam- strahlung considerations in laser-plasma-accelerator- based linear colliders,” Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 15, 051301 (2012)

    2012

  17. [24]

    Report of snowmass 21 accelerator frontier topical group 6 on advanced accelerators,

    C. Geddes, M. Hogan, P. Musumeci, and R. Assmann, “Report of snowmass 21 accelerator frontier topical group 6 on advanced accelerators,” (2022), arXiv:2208.13279 [physics.acc-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [25]

    On the feasibility of future colliders: report of the snowmass’21 implementation task force,

    Thomas Roser, Reinhard Brinkmann, Sarah Cousineau, Dmitri Denisov, Spencer Gessner, Steve Gourlay, Philippe Lebrun, Meenakshi Narain, Katsunobu Oide, Tor Raubenheimer, John Seeman, Vladimir Shiltsev, Jim Strait, Marlene Turner, and Lian-Tao Wang, “On the feasibility of future ...

    2023

  19. [26]

    Linear colliders based on laser-plasma accelerators,

    C.B. Schroeder, F. Albert, C. Benedetti, J. Bromage, D. Bruhwiler, S.S. Bulanov, E.M. Campbell, N.M. Cook, B. Cros, M.C. Downer, E. Esarey, D.H. Froula, M. Fuchs, C.G.R. Geddes, S.J. Gessner, A.J. Gonsalves, M.J. Hogan, S.M. Hooker, A. Huebl, C. Jing, C. Joshi, K. Krushelnick,...

    2023

  20. [27]

    Particle colliders: options for the US and internationally,

    Vladimir Shiltsev, “Particle colliders: options for the US and internationally,” JACoW IP AC2024, FRYD3 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Report on the advanced linear collider study group (alegro) workshop 2024,

    J. Vieira, B. Cros, P. Muggli, I. A. Andriyash, O. Ap- simon, M. Backhouse, C. Benedetti, S. S. Bulanov, A. Caldwell, Min Chen, V. Cilento, S. Corde, R. D’Arcy, S. Diederichs, E. Ericson, E. Esarey, J. Farmer, L. Fedeli, A. Formenti, B. Foster, M. Garten, C. G. R. Geddes, T. G...

    2024

  22. [29]

    Proceedings of the erice workshop: A new baseline for the hybrid, asymmetric, linear higgs factory halhf,

    Brian Foster, Erik Adli, Timothy L. Barklow, Mikael Berggren, Stewart Boogert, Jian Bin Ben Chen, Richard D’Arcy, Pierre Drobniak, Sinead Farrington, Spencer Gessner, Mark J. Hogan, Daniel Kalvik, Antoine Laudrain, Carl A. Lindstrøm, Benno List, Jenny List, Xueying Lu, Gudrid ...

    2025

  23. [30]

    Hitoshi Murayama, Shoji Asai, Karsten Heeger, Amalia Ballarino, Tulika Bose, Kyle Cranmer, Francis-Yan Cyr- Racine, Sarah Demers, Cameron Geddes, Yuri Ger- shtein, Beate Heinemann, JoAnne Hewett, Patrick Hu- ber, Kendall Mahn, Rachel Mandelbaum, Jelena Maricic, Petra Merkel, C...

    2023

  24. [31]

    The international linear collider: Report to snow- mass 2021,

    Alexander Aryshev, Ties Behnke, Mikael Berggren, and et al., “The international linear collider: Report to snow- mass 2021,” (2023), arXiv:2203.07622 [physics.acc-ph]

    2023

  25. [32]

    The compact linear e +e− collider (clic): Physics poten- tial,

    P. Roloff, R. Franceschini, U. Schnoor, and A. Wulzer, “The compact linear e +e− collider (clic): Physics poten- tial,” (2018), arXiv:1812.07986 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Beam-Beam Effects in Linear Colliders,

    D. Schulte, “Beam-Beam Effects in Linear Colliders,” CERN Yellow Reports: School Proceedings 3, 431–445 (2017)

    2017

  27. [34]

    Beam delivery and beamstrahlung considera- tions for ultra-high energy linear colliders,

    Tim Barklow, Spencer Gessner, Mark Hogan, Cho- Kuen Ng, Michael Peskin, Tor Raubenheimer, Glen White, Erik Adli, Gevy Jiawei Cao, Carl A. Lind- strøm, Kyrre Sjobak, Sam Barber, Cameron Geddes, Arianna Formenti, Remi Lehe, Carl Schroeder, Davide Terzani, Jeroen van Tilborg, Jea...

    2023

  28. [35]

    Bright γ rays source and nonlinear breit-wheeler pairs in the collision of high density particle beams,

    F. Del Gaudio, T. Grismayer, R. A. Fonseca, W. B. Mori, and L. O. Silva, “Bright γ rays source and nonlinear breit-wheeler pairs in the collision of high density particle beams,” Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22, 023402 (2019)

    2019

  29. [36]

    Prospect of studying nonperturbative qed with beam-beam col- lisions,

    V. Yakimenko, S. Meuren, F. Del Gaudio, C. Bau- mann, A. Fedotov, F. Fiuza, T. Grismayer, M. J. Hogan, A. Pukhov, L. O. Silva, and G. White, “Prospect of studying nonperturbative qed with beam-beam col- lisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 190404 (2019)

    2019

  30. [37]

    Signa- tures for strong-field qed in the quantum limit of beam- strahlung,

    W. L. Zhang, T. Grismayer, and L. O. Silva, “Signa- tures for strong-field qed in the quantum limit of beam- strahlung,” Phys. Rev. A 108, 042816 (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    Efficient high-energy photon production in the supercritical qed regime,

    Matteo Tamburini and Sebastian Meuren, “Efficient high-energy photon production in the supercritical qed regime,” Phys. Rev. D 104, L091903 (2021)

    2021

  32. [39]

    Disruption effects from the interaction of round e+e− beams,

    Pisin Chen and Kaoru Yokoya, “Disruption effects from the interaction of round e+e− beams,” Phys. Rev. D 38, 987 (1988)

    1988

  33. [40]

    Plasma physics at the final focus of high-energy colliders,

    T. Katsouleas, J. J. Su, W. B. Mori, and J. M. Daw- son, “Plasma physics at the final focus of high-energy colliders,” Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics 2, 1384 (1990)

    1990

  34. [41]

    Differential luminosity under multiphoton beamstrahlung,

    Pisin Chen, “Differential luminosity under multiphoton beamstrahlung,” Phys. Rev. D 46, 1186 (1992)

    1992

  35. [42]

    Coherent pair creation in linear colliders,

    Pisin Chen and Valery I. Telnov, “Coherent pair creation in linear colliders,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1796 (1989)

    1989

  36. [43]

    Beamstrahlung from colliding electron- positron beams with negligible disruption,

    Robert J. Noble, “Beamstrahlung from colliding electron- positron beams with negligible disruption,” Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 256, 427 (1987)

    1987

  37. [44]

    Disruption effects on the beam size measurement,

    P. Raimondi, F.-J. Decker, and P. Chen, “Disruption effects on the beam size measurement,” in Proceedings Particle Accelerator Conference, Vol. 5 (1995) pp. 2919– 2921 vol.5

    1995

  38. [45]

    Experimental evidence for beam- beam disruption at the SLC,

    T. Barklow and et al., “Experimental evidence for beam- beam disruption at the SLC,” in IEEE Particle Acceler- ator Conference (PAC 99) (1999) pp. 307–309

    1999

  39. [46]

    The international linear collider technical design report - volume 1: Executive summary,

    Ties Behnke, James E. Brau, Brian Foster, Juan Fuster, Mike Harrison, James McEwan Paterson, Michael Pe- skin, Marcel Stanitzki, Nicholas Walker, and Hitoshi Yamamoto, “The international linear collider technical design report - volume 1: Executive summary,” (2013), arXiv:1306...

    2013 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Study of beamstrahlung effects at cepc,

    Qing-Lei Xiu, Hong-Bo Zhu, Teng Yue, and Xin-Chou Lou, “Study of beamstrahlung effects at cepc,” Chin. Phys. C 40, 053001 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Design initiative for a 10 tev pcm wakefield col- lider,

    Spencer Gessner, Jens Osterhoff, Carl A. Lindstrøm, and et al., “Design initiative for a 10 tev pcm wakefield col- lider,” (2025), arXiv:2503.20214 [physics.acc-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Disruption-induced kink instability in the leptonic beam collision driven by qed effects,

    W. Zhang, T. Grismayer, R. Fonseca, and L. Silva, “Disruption-induced kink instability in the leptonic beam collision driven by qed effects,” (2021), poster contribu- tion presented at the 47th EPS Conference on Plasma Physics

    2021

  43. [51]

    Beamstrahlung- enhanced disruption in beam–beam interaction,

    A.S. Samsonov, E.N. Nerush, I. Yu Kostyukov, M. Fil- ipovic, C. Baumann, and A. Pukhov, “Beamstrahlung- enhanced disruption in beam–beam interaction,” New J. Phys. 23, 103040 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    High-order harmonic generation in an electron-positron-ion plasma,

    W. L. Zhang, T. Grismayer, K. M. Schoeffler, R. A. Fon- seca, and L. O. Silva, “High-order harmonic generation in an electron-positron-ion plasma,” Phys. Rev. E 103, 013206 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Signature of collective plasma effects in beam-driven qed cascades,

    Kenan Qu, Sebastian Meuren, and Nathaniel J. Fisch, “Signature of collective plasma effects in beam-driven qed cascades,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 095001 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Laser absorption via quantum electro- dynamics cascades in counter propagating laser pulses,

    T. Grismayer, M. Vranic, J. L. Martins, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, “Laser absorption via quantum electro- dynamics cascades in counter propagating laser pulses,” Phys. Plasmas 23, 056706 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Laser field ab- sorption in self-generated electron-positron pair plasma,

    E. N. Nerush, I. Yu. Kostyukov, A. M. Fedotov, N. B. Narozhny, N. V. Elkina, and H. Ruhl, “Laser field ab- sorption in self-generated electron-positron pair plasma,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 035001 (2011). 11

    2011

  48. [56]

    Origin of pulsar radio emission,

    Alexander Philippov, Andrey Timokhin, and Anatoly Spitkovsky, “Origin of pulsar radio emission,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 245101 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Time-dependent pair cascades in mag- netospheres of neutron stars – i. dynamics of the polar cap cascade with no particle supply from the neutron star surface,

    A. N. Timokhin, “Time-dependent pair cascades in mag- netospheres of neutron stars – i. dynamics of the polar cap cascade with no particle supply from the neutron star surface,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 408, 2092 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    Coherent emis- sion from qed cascades in pulsar polar caps,

    F´ abio Cruz, Thomas Grismayer, Alexander Y. Chen, Anatoly Spitkovsky, and Luis O. Silva, “Coherent emis- sion from qed cascades in pulsar polar caps,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 919, L4 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    On the mechanism of hard x- ray emission from magnetars,

    Andrei M. Beloborodov, “On the mechanism of hard x- ray emission from magnetars,” Astrophys. J. 762, 13 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    Quantum effects of the interaction of elemen- tary particles with an intense electromagnetic field,

    V.I. Ritus, “Quantum effects of the interaction of elemen- tary particles with an intense electromagnetic field,” J. Russ. Laser Res. 6, 497 (1985)

    1985

  53. [61]

    Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems,

    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

  54. [62]

    Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields,

    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

  55. [63]

    Advances in qed with intense background fields,

    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

  56. [64]

    Kinetic structure of strong-field qed showers in crossed electromagnetic fields,

    M. Pouyez, T. Grismayer, M. Grech, and C. Riconda, “Kinetic structure of strong-field qed showers in crossed electromagnetic fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 135001 (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    Multiplicity of electron- and photon-seeded electromag- netic showers at multipetawatt laser facilities,

    M. Pouyez, A. A. Mironov, T. Grismayer, A. Mercuri- Baron, F. Perez, M. Vranic, C. Riconda, and M. Grech, “Multiplicity of electron- and photon-seeded electromag- netic showers at multipetawatt laser facilities,” Phys. Rev. E 110, 065208 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Xcc: An x-ray fel-based γγ collider higgs fac- tory,

    Tim Barklow, Su Dong, Claudio Emma, Joseph Duris, Zhirong Huang, Adham Naji, Emilio Nanni, James Rosenzweig, Anne Sakdinawat, Sami Tantawi, and Glen White, “Xcc: An x-ray fel-based γγ collider higgs fac- tory,” (2022), arXiv:2203.08484 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Osiris: A three-dimensional, fully relativistic particle in cell code for modeling plasma based accelerators,

    R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, W. Lu, C. Ren, W. B. Mori, S. Deng, S. Lee, T. Kat- souleas, and J. C. Adam, “Osiris: A three-dimensional, fully relativistic particle in cell code for modeling plasma based accelerators,” in Computational Science — ICCS 20...

    2002

  60. [68]

    thesis, University of Hamburg (1996)

    Daniel Schulte, Study of Electromagnetic and Hadronic Background in the Interaction Region of the TESLA Col- lider, Ph.D. thesis, University of Hamburg (1996)

    1996

  61. [69]

    (Springer Cham, 2015)

    Helmut Wiedemann, Particle Accelerator Physics , 4th ed. (Springer Cham, 2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    Beam-beam phenom- ena in linear colliders,

    Kaoru Yokoya and Pisin Chen, “Beam-beam phenom- ena in linear colliders,” in Frontiers of Particle Beams: Intensity Limitations , edited by M. Dienes, M. Month, and S. Turner (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 1992) pp. 415–445

    1992

  63. [71]

    Electron-positron qed cascades in the collision of tightly focused lepton beams,

    D. Del Sorbo, F. Del Gaudio, E.P. Alves, H.G. Chu, T. Grismayer, W. Zhang, L.O. Silva, W. Mori, and F. Fi- uza, “Electron-positron qed cascades in the collision of tightly focused lepton beams,” (2019), oral contribution presented at 61st Annual Meeting of the APS Division of ...

    2019

  64. [72]

    Particle simulation of plasmas,

    John M. Dawson, “Particle simulation of plasmas,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 403 (1983)

    1983

  65. [73]

    Birdsall and A.B

    C.K. Birdsall and A.B. Langdon, Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation , 1st ed. (CRC Press, 1991)

    1991

  66. [74]

    Full inverse compton scattering: Total transfer of energy and mo- mentum from electrons to photons,

    L. Serafini, V. Petrillo, and S. Samsam, “Full inverse compton scattering: Total transfer of energy and mo- mentum from electrons to photons,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 106...

    2024

  67. [75]

    The clic programme: Towards a staged e+e− linear col- lider exploring the terascale : Clic conceptual design re- port,

    P. Lebrun, L. Linssen, A. Lucaci-Timoce, D. Schulte, F. Simon, S. Stapnes, N. Toge, H. Weerts, and J. Wells, “The clic programme: Towards a staged e+e− linear col- lider exploring the terascale : Clic conceptual design re- port,” (2012), arXiv:1209.2543 [physics.ins-det]

    2012 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Clic status,

    Steinar Stapnes, “Clic status,” (2021), 109th Plenary ECF A meeting, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

    2021

Pith tools

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