Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Ponderomotive-expulsion: toward creating an electron-free volume

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A moderate-intensity leading pulse can temporarily sweep free electrons out of the focal volume ahead of a petawatt pulse, according to experiment and simulation.

desk verdict A first two-pulse attempt at ponderomotive clearing of a petawatt focus, but the reference case is ambiguous and the evidence base is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04582 v1 pith:W3WP2ZQK submitted 2025-05-07 physics.ins-det physics.app-phphysics.plasm-ph

Smrithan Ravichandran , Teresa Cebriano , José Luis Henares , Cruz Mendez , José Antonio Pérez-Hernández , Luis Roso , Robert Fedosejevs , Wendell T. Hill III This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detphysics.app-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords ponderomotiveexpulsionfocalvolumeclearingpump-probeexperimentpetawattlaserelectronangulardistributionimageplatedetectionquantumvacuumbackgroundLaguerre-Gaussmodes
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

This paper reports an experiment and accompanying simulations meant to show that a short, moderately intense laser pulse can sweep free electrons out of the focal volume before a petawatt-class main pulse arrives. Using two copropagating pulses split from one beam, the authors measure the angular distribution of electrons ejected from helium gas onto an image plate. When the weaker clearing pulse leads the stronger pulse by 300 fs, the number of electrons ejected at small angles drops, which they interpret as the clearing pulse having expelled the electrons the strong pulse would otherwise have accelerated. The claim matters because residual electrons in the focal volume are a background source for proposed quantum-vacuum measurements, and a practical way to create a temporary electron-free region would remove that background. The paper also reports the opposite effect at a 150 fs delay: ring-like structure in the clearing pulse pushes electrons inward, temporarily increasing the density the strong pulse sees.

What carries the argument

The central object is the azimuthally averaged radial electron profile $N_e(\Delta t,\rho)$ measured on an image plate 30 mm past the focus. It is read through the minimum-ejection-angle rule $\tan\theta_c\propto 1/a_0$: the weaker clearing pulse, with smaller $a_0$, ejects electrons to larger angles, so the trailing strong pulse should find fewer electrons in the small-angle band it would otherwise populate. The argument is carried by single-electron Lorentz-trajectory simulations in two time-separated Maxwell-Gaussian fields, with a Laguerre-Gauss $p=1$ mode used to mimic the ring-like feature of the weak pulse and barrier-suppression ionization seeding the electrons.

What would settle it

Run the Δt = 300 fs measurement while recording the relative focal-spot position shot by shot; if the yield suppression disappears even on shots where the two spots are measured to coincide, the clearing interpretation is wrong. A complementary check is to vary the clearing-pulse intensity and test whether the angular onset of suppression moves as $\tan\theta_c \propto 1/\sqrt{I_0}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ponderomotive expulsion works: a pulse with peak intensity around $7\times10^{18}$ W/$cm^{2}$, arriving 300 fs before a $6.6\times10^{19}$ W/$cm^{2}$ pulse in helium at roughly $2.75\times10^{-4}$ mbar, measurably clears free electrons from the shared focal volume. The observable is the azimuthally averaged number of ejected electrons per pixel on an image plate 30 mm downstream, which falls at angles below about 63 degrees when the weak pulse leads. Simulations reproduce this suppression when the focal volumes overlap perfectly. The same comparison at a 150 fs delay shows an enhanced yield, which the simulations attribute to electrons born in the ring-like secondary maximum of the weak pulse drifting inward toward the axis before the strong pulse arrives. The paper concludes that clearing is real but incomplete, limited by spatial overlap fluctuations and by the strong pulse ionizing gas outside the volume the weak pulse cleared.

Load-bearing premise

The two pulses keep their focal volumes overlapped on each shot, so the weak leading pulse actually clears the gas that the strong pulse later ionizes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A clearing pulse timed about 300 fs before the main pulse can measurably reduce the electron population available to a petawatt-class focus, supporting the idea of laser-cleaned interaction volumes for precision experiments.
  • The observed 150 fs yield enhancement implies that clearing-pulse timing and spatial profile must be tuned together; a ringed profile can inject electrons inward and undo the clearing.
  • Azimuthally averaged electron radial profiles offer a practical, campaign-level check of focal-volume electron density without adding a separate probe beam.
  • Improving shot-to-shot focal-spot overlap, or enlarging the clearing beam's focal waist, should make the suppression deeper and more reproducible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the suppression follows the paper's angle rule, then scanning the clearing-pulse intensity should move the angular onset of the yield deficit according to $\tan\theta_c \propto 1/\sqrt{I_0}$; that scan is not reported here and would isolate the clearing mechanism from intensity artifacts.
  • A natural next test is to compare a spatially filtered Gaussian clearing beam with a ringed beam at the same 150 fs delay; the paper's mechanism predicts the enhancement disappears with the ring removed.
  • For quantum-vacuum experiments, the 300 fs clearing window means the main interaction must be timed within roughly that window, or a pulse train would be needed to keep the volume empty; the paper does not propose such a train.
  • Because the diagnostic measures electrons that were ejected, not the in-situ density, a separate probe of the volume, such as optical interferometry, would quantify the residual electron density directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a two-pulse (strong/weak) pump-probe experiment at the VEGA-3 petawatt beamline in which the two beams are copropagating and separated by ±150 fs or ±300 fs. The azimuthally averaged radial distribution of electrons ejected onto an image plate, Ne(Δt, ρ), is used to infer whether a weaker leading pulse clears the focal volume before a stronger trailing pulse arrives. The authors report a suppressed yield for Δt=+300 fs (weak leading) relative to Δt=-300 fs, an enhanced yield for Δt=+150 fs, and reproduce both trends in single-particle Lorentz simulations, including a Laguerre-Gauss p=1 proxy for a ring-like feature in the weak pulse focal profile. They conclude that ponderomotive expulsion can temporarily reduce the electron density in the focal volume, while explicitly acknowledging that spatial overlap fluctuations and ionization by the stronger probe outside the cleared volume limit the effect.

Significance. If the central attribution is correct, this is a useful proof-of-principle for a technique directly relevant to vacuum-QED and other high-intensity experiments that require an electron-free focal volume. The measurement design is self-contained: both pulse orders are compared within a single vacuum cycle using the same detection and conversion chain, and the clearing signal is differential. Strengths include the detailed simulation appendix (Appendix A), the explicit modeling of random relative focal-volume jitter (Fig. 4), the use of experimental estimates rather than fitted parameters for the simulation inputs, and the candid discussion of limitations imposed by overlap fluctuations and probe ionization. The main weaknesses are the absence of a single-pulse control, the lack of shot-to-shot or cycle-to-cycle error bars, and the post-hoc character of the p=1 explanation; these prevent the paper from supporting the strong claim that the measurement 'proves' ponderomotive expulsion works.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 3c] The central comparison Ne(300 fs) < Ne(-300 fs) does not by itself isolate clearing, because in the Δt=-300 reference the late weak pulse (a0w=1.8) is intense enough to ionize and eject electrons from outer focal regions (ρ ≳ 3w0, |z| ≳ 500zR, as stated in Sec. I) after the strong pulse has passed. Those late-ejected electrons add yield to the reference, so the observed suppression could reflect the ordering of the two ionization sources rather than the absence of free electrons in the strong-pulse focal volume at its peak. A strong-only (weak-blocked) control, and ideally a weak-only control, is needed to calibrate the baseline; the Appendix A simulations, which always include both pulses, cannot independently establish this balance.
  2. [Sec. II, Figs. 3c and 5c] Each line profile is derived from a single 50-shot sequence in one vacuum cycle, and no shot-to-shot variance, repeated-cycle statistics, or error bars are reported. The headline suppression at Δt=+300 fs and the enhancement at Δt=+150 fs therefore have no quantified statistical significance, which is essential for a differential claim whose magnitude appears to be a modest fraction of the total yield. The authors should provide at least the variance across shots or across repeated vacuum cycles, or a bootstrap estimate over the 50-shot sequence.
  3. [Sec. III, Figs. 5 and 6] The explanation of the 150 fs enhancement rests on replacing the measured weak pulse with an l=0, p=1 Laguerre-Gauss mode of the same w0 and a0w, a proxy selected after the enhancement was observed. The agreement is qualitative (higher small-angle yield in Fig. 6d than in Fig. 6c) with no quantitative metric such as a yield ratio or a comparison over the measured radial range. This does not exclude other mechanisms, and a quantitative comparison against the measured weak-pulse focal image, or a sensitivity scan over the p=1 parameters, is needed to make the claim load-bearing.
  4. [Sec. II and Fig. 4] The overlap of the two focal volumes is verified only at low power before each measurement sequence, while the clearing signal is accumulated over 50 high-power shots. The simulations in Fig. 4 show that random relative separations up to 2w0 substantially weaken the clearing signal, yet no high-power beam-pointing or focal-spot correlation data are provided. Without a bound on the actual jitter, the observed suppression cannot be quantitatively separated from the effect of the strong pulse interrogating uncleared gas on poorly overlapping shots.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The word 'proving' in the abstract and conclusion overstates the evidence; 'demonstrating' would be more appropriate given the missing single-pulse control and the acknowledged role of spatial overlap fluctuations.
  2. [Appendix A] The symbol δ is used both for the random ionization-threshold factor and for the spatial shifts δx and δy in the following paragraph; these two uses should be distinguished to avoid confusion.
  3. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A3) and (A4)] The definition L1 = (zR/Z_i*)/(1 - 2ρ^2/w(z)^2) uses the notation Z_i*, which is not defined in the text; this should be clarified or corrected against the referenced source.
  4. [Sec. II] The phrase '/greaterorapproxeql90% He' contains a typesetting artifact that should be rendered as a proper symbol, and the same issue appears elsewhere in the manuscript, making the text difficult to read in places.
  5. [Appendix A] The statement that 500 iterations at 10^-8 mbar are equivalent to a single shot at 5×10^-6 mbar should be justified, since the linear scaling of electron yield with density could be affected by depletion or by the threshold model near the focal edges.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the clearing claim rests on a differential measurement and independently estimated simulation inputs.

full rationale

The central result is a differential comparison of the azimuthally averaged electron yield between weak-leading and strong-leading pulse orders, Ne(Δ t=+300) < Ne(Δ t=−300), measured with the same image-plate detection and the same PSL-to-electron conversion chain; the two arms share all systematic calibration factors, so the reduction is not built into the definition of the observable. The simulation inputs (I0s, I0w, w0, τ) are inferred from focal-spot images, pulse energy, and autocorrelation measurements rather than fitted to the measured yield curves, and the LG p=1 ring model is motivated by the measured weak-pulse focal image rather than tuned to reproduce the 150-fs yield enhancement. The self-citations (refs. 36, 37, 39, 43) supply auxiliary relations—angular ejection scaling, in-situ intensity inference, and paraxial field models—that are parameter-free characterizations external to the clearing claim and do not presuppose the conclusion. The experiment’s lack of a strong-pulse-only control leaves an alternative interpretation (late-arriving weak pulse adding yield in the strong-leading reference), but that is a correctness/experimental-design concern, not a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained and no step reduces by construction to a fit or to a self-citation of the target result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The modeling additions are numerical parameters, standard electrodynamics, ionization models, and a beam-mode approximation, all grounded in measured or cited quantities. The central claim relies on standard physics plus an ad hoc beam-profile proxy for the secondary result.

free parameters (3)
  • Simulation peak intensities I0s and I0w = I0s = 5e19 W/cm2, I0w = 1.25e19 W/cm2
    Chosen to approximate the experimental estimates from focal-spot imaging; they are inputs, not fitted to the observed yield curves, but they are hand-set in the simulations.
  • Simulation beam waist and pulse duration = w0 = 10 um, tau = 40 fs
    Taken from experimental conditions and used for both beams for simplicity; not fitted to the target result.
  • Random ionization threshold factor delta = uniform random in [0.5, 2.0]
    Ad hoc smoothing of the barrier-suppression ionization onset; not a fit to data and not central to the main result.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Single-particle relativistic Lorentz force equation with no collective effects.
    Gas density is low enough (about 1e13 cm^-3) that collective plasma effects are neglected; stated in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Paraxial Maxwell-Gaussian field model of Erikson and Singh.
    Used for the f/10 focus and cited as a good fit for paraxial beams; Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Barrier-suppression ionization with smoothed onset.
    Used for He ionization; accuracy near threshold is not critical because peak intensity far exceeds the threshold; Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Neglect of radiation reaction.
    Stated as valid for the intensity range in question; Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Electron energy-angle relation gamma - 1 = 2 / tan^2(theta).
    Used to convert image-plate positions to electron energies; taken from Moore et al. 1995; Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Image plate PSL-to-electron-number calibration.
    Uses the Boutoux et al. calibration for BAS-MS response to electrons; Appendix B.
  • ad hoc to paper Laguerre-Gauss p=1 mode as a proxy for the ring-like focal structure.
    Introduced after observing the 150 fs enhancement and motivated by the focal image in Fig. 2c, but not independently validated as an accurate representation of the actual weak pulse profile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ponderomotive-expulsion: toward creating an electron-free volume." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W3WP2ZQK

@misc{pith2026250504582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ponderomotive-expulsion: toward creating an electron-free volume},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W3WP2ZQK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04582}
}
read the original abstract

We describe a demonstration of a prototype approach to clear the laser focal volume of free electrons and disable their atomic and molecular sources. Employing two temporally separated, copropagating pulses, we exploited a pump-probe setup in our experiment. The pump ionized a low-density gas and expelled free and nascent electrons from its focal volume. The probe, traversing the same focal volume, expelled any remaining free and probe-induced nascent electrons. We gauged the effectiveness of the approach by capturing the spatial distribution of ejected electrons with image plates while we varied the relative intensity and time delay between the pump and probe. When we injected the pump 300 fs before the probe, we found the electron spatial distribution significantly altered and the yield suppressed, proving ponderomotive expulsion works. However, the yield was enhanced when we set the temporal spacing between the pump and probe to 150 fs. Simulations show the enhancement is due to Airy rings of the focused pump expelling electrons inward toward the propagation axis. Our results show that the complete removal of focal-volume electrons was inhibited by spatial overlap fluctuations and the stronger probe generating ionization outside the cleared-volume of the pump. We discuss ways to mitigate these impediments and propose alternate two-beam arrangements to achieve more efficient focal-volume clearing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04582 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A cartoon representing the minimum angle of ejection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic of the experimental setup (a) and typical i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spatial distribution of ejected electrons measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spatial distribution of ejected electrons simulate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Spatial distribution of ejected electrons measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Spatial distribution of ejected electrons simulate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Overview and Status of Station of Extreme Light toward 100 PW

    Yujie Peng, Yi Xu, Lianghong Yu, Xinliang Wang, Yanyan Li, Xiaoming Lu, Cheng Wang, Jun Liu, Chengqiang Zhao, Yanqi Liu, Cheng Wang, Xiaoyan Liang, Yuxin Leng, and Ruxin Li. Overview and Status of Station of Extreme Light toward 100 PW . The Review of Laser Engineering, 49 0 (2): 0 93, 2021. doi:10.2184/lsj.49.2_93

    work page doi:10.2184/lsj.49.2_93 2021

  2. [2]

    Hernandez-Gomez, S

    C. Hernandez-Gomez, S. P. Blake, O. Chekhlov, R. J. Clarke, A. M. Dunne, M. Galimberti, S. Hancock, R. Heathcote, P. Holligan, A. Lyachev, P. Matousek, I. O. Musgrave, D. Neely, P. A. Norreys, I. Ross, Y. Tang, T. B. Winstone, B. E. Wyborn, and J. Collier. The Vulcan 10 PW project. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 244 0 (3): 0 032006, August 2010. I...

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/244/3/032006 2010

  3. [3]

    D. N. Papadopoulos, Y. Ayoul, A. Beluze, F. Gobert, D. Mataja, A. Fréneaux, N. Lebas, M. Chabanis, M. Dumergue, P. Audebert, and F. Mathieu. The Apollon laser facility upgrade to the multi- PW level. In High- Brightness Sources and Light - Driven Interactions Congress (2024), paper HTu2B .2 , page HTu2B.2. Optica Publishing Group, March 2024. doi:10.1364/...

    work page doi:10.1364/hilas.2024.htu2b.2 2024

  4. [4]

    The LCLS - II : A High Power Upgrade to the LCLS

    John Galayda. The LCLS - II : A High Power Upgrade to the LCLS . Proceedings of the 9th Int. Particle Accelerator Conf., IPAC2018: 0 6 pages, 3.180 MB, 2018. doi:10.18429/JACOW-IPAC2018-MOYGB2. Artwork Size: 6 pages, 3.180 MB ISBN: 9783954501847 Medium: PDF Publisher: JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland

    work page doi:10.18429/jacow-ipac2018-moygb2 2018

  5. [5]

    The LCLS - II - HE , A High Energy Upgrade of the LCLS - II

    Tor Raubenheimer. The LCLS - II - HE , A High Energy Upgrade of the LCLS - II . Proceedings of the 60th ICFA Advanced Beam Dynamics Workshop on Future Light Sources, FLS2018: 0 6 pages, 1.626 MB, 2018. doi:10.18429/JACOW-FLS2018-MOP1WA02. Artwork Size: 6 pages, 1.626 MB ISBN: 9783954502066 Medium: PDF Publisher: JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland

    work page doi:10.18429/jacow-fls2018-mop1wa02 2018

  6. [6]

    Commissioning of the European XFEL Accelerator

    W Decking and H Weise. Commissioning of the European XFEL Accelerator . Free Electron Lasers, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Commissioning of the European XFEL

    Dirk Nölle. Commissioning of the European XFEL . Proceedings of the 29th Linear Accelerator Conf., LINAC2018: 0 6 pages, 1.181 MB, 2018. doi:10.18429/JACOW-LINAC2018-FR2A02. Artwork Size: 6 pages, 1.181 MB ISBN: 9783954501946 Medium: PDF Publisher: JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland

    work page doi:10.18429/jacow-linac2018-fr2a02 2018

  8. [8]

    On the observation of vacuum birefringence

    Thomas Heinzl, Ben Liesfeld, Kay-Uwe Amthor, Heinrich Schwoerer, Roland Sauerbrey, and Andreas Wipf. On the observation of vacuum birefringence. Optics Communications, 267 0 (2): 0 318--321, November 2006. ISSN 0030-4018. doi:10.1016/j.optcom.2006.06.053

    work page doi:10.1016/j.optcom.2006.06.053 2006

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Lundström, G

    E. Lundström, G. Brodin, J. Lundin, M. Marklund, R. Bingham, J. Collier, J. T. Mendonça, and P. Norreys. Using High - Power Lasers for Detection of Elastic Photon - Photon Scattering . Physical Review Letters, 96 0 (8): 0 083602, March 2006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.083602. ...

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    A. R. Bell and John G. Kirk. Possibility of Prolific Pair Production with High - Power Lasers . Physical Review Letters, 101 0 (20): 0 200403, November 2008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.200403. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    Precision tests of QED and non-standard models by searching photon-photon scattering in vacuum with high power lasers

    Daniele Tommasini, Albert Ferrando, Humberto Michinel, and Marcos Seco. Precision tests of QED and non-standard models by searching photon-photon scattering in vacuum with high power lasers. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2009 0 (11): 0 043, November 2009. ISSN 1126-6708. doi...

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Light by light diffraction in vacuum

    Daniele Tommasini and Humberto Michinel. Light by light diffraction in vacuum. Physical Review A, 82 0 (1): 0 011803, July 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.011803. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Krajewska, C

    K. Krajewska, C. Müller, and J. Z. Kamiński. Bethe- Heitler pair production in ultrastrong short laser pulses. Physical Review A, 87 0 (6): 0 062107, June 2013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.062107. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Dense GeV electron–positron pairs generated by lasers in near-critical-density plasmas

    Xing-Long Zhu, Tong-Pu Yu, Zheng-Ming Sheng, Yan Yin, Ion Cristian Edmond Turcu, and Alexander Pukhov. Dense GeV electron–positron pairs generated by lasers in near-critical-density plasmas. Nature Communications, 7 0 (1): 0 13686, December 2016. ISSN 2041-1723. doi:10.1038/nc...

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    King and T

    B. King and T. Heinzl. Measuring vacuum polarization with high-power lasers. High Power Laser Science and Engineering, 4: 0 e5, January 2016. ISSN 2095-4719, 2052-3289. doi:10.1017/hpl.2016.1

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Photon-photon scattering at the high-intensity frontier

    Holger Gies, Felix Karbstein, Christian Kohlfürst, and Nico Seegert. Photon-photon scattering at the high-intensity frontier. Physical Review D, 97 0 (7): 0 076002, April 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.076002. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    B. King, H. Hu, and B. Shen. Three-pulse photon-photon scattering. Physical Review A, 98 0 (2): 0 023817, August 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.023817. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Mosman and Felix Karbstein

    Elena A. Mosman and Felix Karbstein. Vacuum birefringence and diffraction at an x-ray free-electron laser: From analytical estimates to optimal parameters. Physical Review D, 104 0 (1): 0 013006, July 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.013006. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    All-optical quantum vacuum signals in two-beam collisions

    Holger Gies, Felix Karbstein, and Leonhard Klar. All-optical quantum vacuum signals in two-beam collisions. Physical Review D, 106 0 (11): 0 116005, December 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.116005. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    He, José Antonio Pérez-Hernández, Jon I

    Luis Roso, Roberto Lera, Smrithan Ravichandran, Andrew Longman, Calvin Z. He, José Antonio Pérez-Hernández, Jon I. Apiñaniz, Lucas D. Smith, Robert Fedosejevs, and Wendell T. Hill. Towards a direct measurement of the quantum-vacuum Lagrangian coupling coefficients using two co...

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Ahmadiniaz, T

    N. Ahmadiniaz, T. E. Cowan, J. Grenzer, S. Franchino-Viñas, A. Laso Garcia, M. Šmíd, T. Toncian, M. A. Trejo, and R. Schützhold. Detection schemes for quantum vacuum diffraction and birefringence. Physical Review D, 108 0 (7): 0 076005, October 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.0...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    A. V. Berezin and A. M. Fedotov. Calculation and Analysis of the Vacuum Polarization Signal in a Three - Beam Setup . Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute, 50 0 (6): 0 S641--S651, October 2023. ISSN 1934-838X. doi:10.3103/S1068335623180033

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    A. V. Berezin and A. M. Fedotov. Analytical formula for signal optimization in stimulated photon-photon scattering setup with three laser pulses. Physical Review D, 110 0 (1): 0 016009, July 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.016009. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Palastro, Dillon Ramsey, Stefan Weber, and Antonino Di Piazza

    Martin Formanek, John P. Palastro, Dillon Ramsey, Stefan Weber, and Antonino Di Piazza. Signatures of vacuum birefringence in low-power flying focus pulses. Physical Review D, 109 0 (5): 0 056009, March 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.056009. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    In Bulletin of the American Physical Society

    APS -66th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics - Event - Stimulated Photon – Photon Scattering : Experimental Designs and Predicted Results for Multipetawatt Facilities . In Bulletin of the American Physical Society . American Physical Society, a . URL https://...

  18. [26]

    In Bulletin of the American Physical Society

    APS -66th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics - Event - Testing strong-field QED with the avalanche precursor. In Bulletin of the American Physical Society . American Physical Society, b . URL https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP24/Session/TM10.2

  19. [27]

    Ahmadiniaz, C

    N. Ahmadiniaz, C. Bähtz, A. Benediktovitch, C. Bömer, L. Bocklage, T. E. Cowan, J. Edwards, S. Evans, S. Franchino Viñas, H. Gies, S. Göde, J. Görs, J. Grenzer, U. Hernandez Acosta, T. Heinzl, P. Hilz, W. Hippler, L. G. Huang, O. Humphries, F. Karbstein, P. Khademi, B. King, T...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Grismayer, M

    T. Grismayer, M. Vranic, J. L. Martins, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva. Seeded QED cascades in counterpropagating laser pulses. Physical Review E, 95 0 (2): 0 023210, February 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.95.023210. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Towards realistic simulations of QED cascades: Non -ideal laser and electron seeding effects

    Archana Sampath and Matteo Tamburini. Towards realistic simulations of QED cascades: Non -ideal laser and electron seeding effects. Physics of Plasmas, 25 0 (8): 0 083104, August 2018. ISSN 1070-664X. doi:10.1063/1.5022640

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    A. A. Mironov, E. G. Gelfer, and A. M. Fedotov. Onset of electron-seeded cascades in generic electromagnetic fields. Physical Review A, 104 0 (1): 0 012221, July 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104.012221. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Gonoskov, T.G

    A. Gonoskov, T.G. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S.S. Bulanov. Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields. Reviews of Modern Physics, 94 0 (4): 0 045001, October 2022. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.94.045001. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Obtention of pressures in the 10 \ -14\ torr range by means of a Zr - V - Fe non evaporable getter

    C Benvenuti and P Chiggiato. Obtention of pressures in the 10 \ -14\ torr range by means of a Zr - V - Fe non evaporable getter. Vacuum, 44 0 (5): 0 511--513, May 1993. ISSN 0042-207X. doi:10.1016/0042-207X(93)90084-N

    1993 doi

  25. [33]

    Cowan, Roland Sauerbrey, and Hans-Peter Schlenvoigt

    Qiqi Yu, Baifei Shen, Stefan Bock, Ulrich Schramm, Thomas E. Cowan, Roland Sauerbrey, and Hans-Peter Schlenvoigt. Definite vacuum for strong-field QED experiments. High Power Laser Science and Engineering, pages 1--14, April 2025. ISSN 2095-4719, 2052-3289. doi:10.1017/hpl.2025.35

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    P. A. Redhead. Hydrogen in Vacuum Systems : An Overview . AIP Conference Proceedings, 671 0 (1): 0 243--254, July 2003. ISSN 0094-243X. doi:10.1063/1.1597372

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    C. I. Moore, J. P. Knauer, and D. D. Meyerhofer. Observation of the Transition from Thomson to Compton Scattering in Multiphoton Interactions with Low - Energy Electrons . Physical Review Letters, 74 0 (13): 0 2439--2442, March 1995. ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114. doi:10.1103/Phys...

    1995 doi

  28. [36]

    He, Andrew Longman, Robert Fedosejevs, Luis Roso, and Wendell T

    Smrithan Ravichandran, Marine Huault, Roberto Lera, Calvin Z. He, Andrew Longman, Robert Fedosejevs, Luis Roso, and Wendell T. Hill. Imaging electron angular distributions to assess a full-power petawatt-class laser focus. Physical Review A, 108 0 (5): 0 053101, November 2023....

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Longman, S

    A. Longman, S. Ravichandran, L. Manzo, C. Z. He, R. Lera, N. McLane, M. Huault, G. Tiscareno, D. Hanggi, P. Spingola, N. Czapla, R. L. Daskalova, L. Roso, R. Fedosejevs, and W. T. Hill, III. Toward direct spatial and intensity characterization of ultra-high-intensity laser pul...

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Centro de Láseres Pulsados , c

    CLPU . Centro de Láseres Pulsados , c . URL https://www.clpu.es/en/

  31. [39]

    C. Z. He, A. Longman, J. A. Pérez-Hernández, M. de Marco, C. Salgado, G. Zeraouli, G. Gatti, L. Roso, R. Fedosejevs, and W. T. Hill. Towards an in situ, full-power gauge of the focal-volume intensity of petawatt-class lasers. Optics Express, 27 0 (21): 0 30020, October 2019. I...

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Jackson Williams, Brian R

    G. Jackson Williams, Brian R. Maddox, Hui Chen, Sadaoki Kojima, and Matthew Millecchia. Calibration and equivalency analysis of image plate scanners. Review of Scientific Instruments, 85 0 (11): 0 11E604, November 2014. ISSN 0034-6748. doi:10.1063/1.4886390. Publisher: America...

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    W. L. Erikson and Surendra Singh. Polarization properties of Maxwell - Gaussian laser beams. Physical Review E, 49 0 (6): 0 5778--5786, June 1994. ISSN 1063-651X, 1095-3787. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.49.5778

    1994 doi

  34. [42]

    Vector fields in a tight laser focus: comparison of models

    Justin Peatross, Manuel Berrondo, Dallas Smith, and Michael Ware. Vector fields in a tight laser focus: comparison of models. Optics Express, 25 0 (13): 0 13990--14007, June 2017. ISSN 1094-4087. doi:10.1364/OE.25.013990. Publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Longman and R

    A. Longman and R. Fedosejevs. Modeling of high intensity orbital angular momentum beams for laser–plasma interactions. Physics of Plasmas, 29 0 (6): 0 063109, June 2022. ISSN 1070-664X. doi:10.1063/5.0093067. Publisher: American Institute of Physics

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Augst, D

    S. Augst, D. D. Meyerhofer, D. Strickland, and S. L. Chin. Laser ionization of noble gases by Coulomb -barrier suppression. JOSA B, 8 0 (4): 0 858--867, April 1991. ISSN 1520-8540. doi:10.1364/JOSAB.8.000858. Publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    1991 doi

  37. [45]

    URL https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/levels_form.html

    NIST : Atomic Spectra Database - Energy Levels Form , d . URL https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/levels_form.html

  38. [46]

    Ammosov, Nikolai B

    Maxim V. Ammosov, Nikolai B. Delone, and Vladimir P. Krainov. Tunnel Ionization Of Complex Atoms And Atomic Ions In Electromagnetic Field . In High Intensity Laser Processes , volume 0664, pages 138--141. SPIE, October 1986. doi:10.1117/12.938695

    1986 doi

  39. [47]

    URL https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Star/e_table.pl

    Stopping Power and Range Tables for Electrons , e . URL https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Star/e_table.pl

  40. [48]

    URL https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/appendix.html

    NIST : Appendix for ESTAR , PSTAR , and ASTAR , f . URL https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/appendix.html

  41. [49]

    Boutoux, N

    G. Boutoux, N. Rabhi, D. Batani, A. Binet, J.-E. Ducret, K. Jakubowska, J.-P. Nègre, C. Reverdin, and I. Thfoin. Study of imaging plate detector sensitivity to 5-18 MeV electrons. Review of Scientific Instruments, 86 0 (11): 0 113304, November 2015. ISSN 0034-6748. doi:10.1063...

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.