Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Direct Laser Ion Acceleration and Above-Threshold Ionization at Intensities from $10^{21}$ W/cm$^{2}$ to $3 \times 10^{23}$ W/cm$^{2}$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At intensities above $10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ in a tight focus, the laser's ponderomotive force expels highly charged ions before they reach peak field, lowering predicted K-shell ionization yields by about a factor of three while leaving the…

desk verdict Credible qualitative case that ponderomotive ion expulsion suppresses K-shell ionization at 10^23 W/cm2, but the headline factor-of-three is not robust to the arbitrary integration boundary or the ADK/PPT model at relativistic intensity. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02158 v2 pith:XZJFNUEH submitted 2019-09-05 physics.atom-ph

Andrew Yandow , Toma Toncian , Todd Ditmire This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords above-thresholdionizationdirectlaserionaccelerationponderomotiveexpulsiontunnelingultra-relativisticfieldsK-shellyieldsnonparaxialfocusingintensitydiagnostics
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 simulates what happens to atoms and their freed electrons in a near-infrared laser focused to intensities up to $3\times10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$, higher than today's roughly $2\times10^{22}$ W/cm$^2$ focused pulses. Its central claim is that in the tight f/1 focus (focal length equal to aperture diameter) needed for such intensity, the laser's ponderomotive force pushes the growing positive ion out of the focal volume on roughly the pulse timescale once intensity exceeds about $10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$, before the peak field can strip the innermost (K-shell) electrons. For krypton at $3\times10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ with 140 fs pulses, including this ion motion lowers the predicted hydrogen-like $\mathrm{Kr}^{35+}$ K-shell ionization yield by about a factor of three compared with stationary-ion calculations. The spectrum of the ultra-relativistic above-threshold-ionization (ATI) electrons, which reach about 1.4 GeV, is essentially unchanged because the fastest electrons come from ions near the back of the focus where the ponderomotive push is weaker. If correct, planned 10-PW-class lasers will need electron-based diagnostics rather than traditional ion-yield measurements to probe ionization at these intensities.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a numerical simulation of ions and electrons moving in a fifth-order nonparaxial Gaussian laser focus. Ionization is treated sequentially: at each time step a tunneling-ionization rate (the standard quantum tunneling model used in strong-field physics) determines whether the charge state increments, and the Lorentz force is integrated for the ion; atomic ionization potentials set the shell thresholds. The central physical mechanism is the ion ponderomotive force $f_p = -\nabla U_p$ with $U_p = q(t)^2 E(x,t)^2/(4m\omega^2)$, which expels multiply charged ions from the focus on a timescale $\tau_{ej}\simeq w_0\sqrt{2m/U_p}$; the crossover from short-pulse to long-pulse behavior near $10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ is what suppresses K-shell ionization. For electrons, the load-bearing fields are the first-order nonparaxial longitudinal component $E_z$ and the superluminal phase velocity of the focused beam, which together define the two acceleration mechanisms, rephasing acceleration and direct injection acceleration; the equations of motion include the leading classical radiation-reaction correction.

What would settle it

Measure the absolute yield of $\mathrm{Kr}^{35+}$ produced by a well-characterized f/1 focus at $3\times10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ with 140 fs pulses; if the yield agrees with a stationary-ion rate-equation prediction instead of showing the predicted factor-of-three suppression, the expulsion mechanism is not operating as claimed. A complementary check is to compare yields at pulse durations far below the ~120 fs ejection time, where the suppression should disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that direct laser ion acceleration—ion energy gained from conservation of canonical momentum at each ionization event plus ponderomotive acceleration in the tightly focused field—dominates ion dynamics above $10^{21}$ W/cm$^2$, and that above $10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ it changes the ionization process itself. In the long-pulse regime where the ion ejection time ($\tau_{ej}\sim120$ fs for hydrogen-like krypton) is comparable to the 140 fs pulse duration, multiply charged ions are expelled from the focus before the peak field arrives, reducing predicted K-shell ionization yields by about a factor of three for $\mathrm{Kr}^{35+}$. The paper also shows that the highest-energy ATI electrons, up to 1.4 GeV, originate from ions concentrated along the laser axis at the back of the confocal region and are accelerated by two mechanisms—rephasing acceleration and direct injection acceleration—that rely on the first-order nonparaxial longitudinal electric field; because those parent ions experience a weaker ponderomotive force, the ATI electron energy spectrum is nearly unaffected by ion motion even though the total number of K-shell ionization events falls.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical predictions rest on the standard tunneling-ionization model with a single active electron staying accurate for K-shell ionization of highly charged ions at $3\times10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ and 140 fs pulse duration, even though relativistic wavefunction-based tunneling rates are predicted to be about one-third lower in this same regime (a correction the paper explicitly sets aside).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ionization-yield calculations and intensity diagnostics that assume stationary ions will overestimate K-shell yields by about a factor of three at $3\times10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ in an f/1 focus with 140 fs pulses.
  • Above $10^{21}$ W/cm$^2$, direct laser ion acceleration produces broad ion energy spectra (up to hundreds of MeV for krypton), so conventional time-of-flight charge-state measurements cannot capture the yields.
  • The most energetic ATI electrons, up to about 1.4 GeV, come from two nonparaxial acceleration mechanisms, rephasing acceleration and direct injection acceleration, and their spectrum is insensitive to ion motion at $3\times10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$.
  • K-shell ionization yields at these intensities will have to be inferred from high-energy ATI electrons rather than ion charge states, and pulse durations shorter than about 25 fs reduce the ion-expulsion effect but complicate intensity calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The factor-of-three yield suppression from ion motion is comparable in size to the one-third reduction in tunneling rate expected from relativistic wavefunction-based corrections, so a single yield measurement cannot separate the two effects without an independent control such as pulse duration or focal geometry.
  • The same expulsion mechanism should shift to different intensity thresholds for other heavy species, since the ejection time depends on charge-to-mass ratio and ionization potentials; comparing species with different K-shell binding energies could extend intensity coverage beyond $3\times10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ before expulsion dominates.
  • Because the fastest ATI electrons originate where the ponderomotive force on ions is weakest, high-energy electron yields may survive as a robust intensity monitor even as total ion yields collapse, provided the detector covers a large solid angle and dynamic range.
  • A testable extension follows from the ejection-time argument: at fixed peak intensity and spot size, the stationary-to-mobile yield ratio should grow as the pulse duration approaches $\tau_{ej}\sim120$ fs, which would confirm the mechanism without requiring absolute intensity calibration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents classical trajectory Monte Carlo simulations of tunneling ionization and subsequent ion and electron motion in tightly focused f/1 near-infrared laser pulses, at peak intensities from 10^21 to 3×10^23 W/cm^2. The authors include nonparaxial field corrections and, for the first time in this context, ion motion. They find that at intensities above about 10^23 W/cm^2 the ponderomotive force expels highly charged ions from the focus on the pulse timescale, reducing the predicted K-shell ionization yield of hydrogen-like krypton by roughly a factor of three, while leaving the simulated ATI electron energy spectrum essentially unchanged. They also identify two electron acceleration mechanisms, rephasing acceleration and direct injection acceleration, and discuss consequences for ionization-rate measurements at 10 PW-class facilities.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions hold, the paper identifies a previously neglected effect that will affect ionization-yield measurements and intensity diagnostics at the 10^23 W/cm^2 frontier, with concrete falsifiable predictions: a roughly threefold suppression of K-shell ionization yields for H-like krypton, ion energies up to about 2 MeV/nucleon, and ATI electron energies up to about 1.4 GeV. The paper is honest: it flags the simulation-boundary artifact in the Kr34+ spectrum (Fig. 2 caption), checks its analytic estimates against simulations rather than fitting parameters, and explicitly discusses the comparability of ion-motion corrections with known relativistic tunneling-rate corrections. No parameters are fitted to data. The main weaknesses are that the central yield suppression is defined through an arbitrary integration cutoff, the ADK/PPT model is extrapolated into a regime where the cited literature predicts relativistic corrections of the same order, and no statistical uncertainties accompany the Monte Carlo results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Figure 4] The reported factor-of-three reduction in K-shell ionization yield for hydrogen-like krypton is computed by integrating over a "fixed focal volume, bounded by the iso-intensity shell where the probability of K-shell ionization is greater than 0.05 for stationary ions." This 0.05 threshold is arbitrary, and because the mobile/immobile yield ratio approaches unity at the low-intensity boundary of that shell, the volume-integrated ratio R is sensitive to the chosen cutoff. The manuscript reports no sensitivity study over this threshold, and the experimental observable from a skimmed atomic beam larger than the 3-micron focus is the full-space yield, not the truncated-shell integral. Please provide a threshold scan (for example, 0.01 to 0.5) and, if possible, an estimate of the full-space integral, to establish that the factor of three is not an artifact of the integration boundary.
  2. [Section II, ionization model] The quantitative predictions are obtained with ADK/PPT rates even at 3×10^23 W/cm^2 and 140 fs pulses, while the manuscript itself cites Dirac-based tunneling calculations (refs. [15,16]) predicting rates about one-third lower above 10^23 W/cm^2. Since the predicted DLIA-induced suppression is also about a factor of three, the two effects are comparable in magnitude, and the claim that "ion motion must be accounted for" would be more convincing if the yield simulations were repeated with relativistic tunneling rates or if a bounding estimate were provided. Please quantify the sensitivity of the mobile/immobile yield ratio to the choice of ionization model.
  3. [Sections II and III] The central numerical results (factor-of-three yield suppression, ATI electron spectra in Fig. 5) are based on 10^4 Monte Carlo trials in the yield integration and 10^4 electron initial conditions, yet no statistical error bars or convergence tests are reported. Given that the headline effect is a factor of three, the sampling uncertainty should be shown to be small compared with this effect; please add error estimates or a convergence test over the number of trajectories.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Figure 6] There are typos in the text and figure captions: "positve z-axis" should be "positive z-axis" in Section III, and "laser puslse" in the Figure 6 caption should be "laser pulse."
  2. [Equation (1)] The summand E(t_q) sin(phi_q) in Eq. (1) appears to be missing the ionic charge factor that would make the expression dimensionally consistent with a drift energy; please clarify the units or the definition of q.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The phrase "the short pulse maximum energies (Eq. 3) or ponderomotive energy" should probably read "and," and it would help to state whether the dashed curve is evaluated at the ions' initial position or at the focus center.
  4. [Sections II and III] The dashed boundary in Fig. 6 is described as containing all atoms in the simulation; please clarify its relation to the 0.05 iso-intensity shell used for the yield integrals in Section II.
  5. [Reproducibility] The manuscript would benefit from stating the integrator tolerances and typical timestep, as well as any energy-conservation checks, to support reproducibility of the trajectory calculations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central ionization-yield and ATI-spectrum predictions are simulation outputs, and the few self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a self-contained numerical simulation study. Its central results (ion expulsion on the pulse timescale, the factor-of-three reduction in hydrogen-like krypton K-shell ionization yield, and the unchanged ultra-relativistic ATI electron spectrum) are outputs of integrating the Lorentz force equations with ADK/PPT ionization rates and a nonparaxial Gaussian field model. No parameter is fitted to the predicted quantities: the analytic estimates in Eqs. (1)-(3) are derived from the assumed ion dynamics and then compared with the simulations, not used to set them. The stationary-versus-mobile yield comparison in Fig. 4 is a direct simulation contrast with identical atomic and laser inputs except for ion motion, so the factor of ~3 is a computed consequence rather than an input. Likewise, the ATI spectra in Fig. 5 are generated from the same electron dynamics and differ only in whether parent-ion motion is included in the initial conditions; the near-identity of the high-energy portion is explained by the simulated parent-ion positions in Fig. 6. The self-citations (ref. [35] Maltsev and Ditmire, ref. [26] Ciappina et al., and ref. [17] ELI-Beamlines) supply background on nonparaxial longitudinal-field dephasing, intensity-diagnostic techniques, and laser-system status; none is the sole support for a central claim, and the present simulations independently embody the relevant field corrections. The paper also openly flags limitations: it notes that the ADK/PPT model and single-electron approximation 'may be less accurate when considering the ionization events in the low-intensity leading edge of the laser pulse,' and the Fig. 2 caption identifies the Kr34+ peak as 'an artifact of the simulation boundaries.' These are honest caveats, not evidence of circularity. One robustness caveat is legitimate but non-circular: the yield-integration boundary described as 'bounded by the iso-intensity shell where the probability of K-shell ionization is greater than 0.05 for stationary ions' is arbitrary, and no convergence test is reported, so the quantitative factor of three could shift with that cutoff. That is a correctness or definitional risk for the numerical prediction, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs, because the boundary is not fitted to the mobile/immobile ratio and the qualitative expulsion mechanism is independent of the exact cutoff.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on standard tunneling ionization theory, a classical trajectory model, and a nonparaxial Gaussian field model. None of these are supplied by the paper itself, and the ADK/PPT model is used at intensities where the cited literature expects relativistic corrections of order a factor of three. The chosen pulse duration, spot size, and integration boundary are hand-selected scenario inputs that directly affect the magnitude of the predicted yield reduction.

free parameters (3)
  • K-shell ionization boundary threshold = 0.05
    Hand-chosen cutoff for the integration volume in the yield calculation; mobile versus immobile yield ratios could shift if this threshold is changed.
  • Laser pulse duration = 140 fs
    The short-pulse to long-pulse transition occurs near this duration; the paper notes shorter pulses below 25 fs mitigate DLIA, so this choice is load-bearing for the factor-of-three result.
  • Focal spot diameter = 3 um (1/e2)
    Sets the f/1 geometry and the ponderomotive expulsion timescale, which scales with spot size; changing to f/10 changes the acceleration mechanism from ponderomotive to residual drift.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ADK/PPT tunneling rates are quantitatively accurate for K-shell ionization at intensities up to 3e23 W/cm2
    Section II uses ADK/PPT at each timestep; the paper itself cites Dirac-based rates one-third lower above 1e23, so the quantitative yields are uncertain.
  • domain assumption Single active electron approximation and sequential ionization
    Section II neglects collective tunneling and recollision; may be less accurate on the low-intensity leading edge, affecting charge-state histories.
  • domain assumption Space charge fields are negligible
    Section II assumes skimmed beams at 1e11 cm^-3 and 1 mm diameter; higher densities would alter ion and electron trajectories.
  • domain assumption Nonparaxial Gaussian focus model up to fifth order is a faithful model of an f/1 focus
    Section III relies on Ez from nonparaxial corrections for the RA and DIA mechanisms; errors in the field model change the electron acceleration.
  • standard math Classical relativistic electron dynamics with Landau-Lifshitz radiation reaction
    Section III integrates Eq. (4) with a 7th-order Dormand-Prince scheme; this is standard for ultra-relativistic electrons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct Laser Ion Acceleration and Above-Threshold Ionization at Intensities from $10^{21}$ W/cm$^{2}$ to $3 \times 10^{23}$ W/cm$^{2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XZJFNUEH

@misc{pith2026190902158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct Laser Ion Acceleration and Above-Threshold Ionization at Intensities from $10^21$ W/cm$^2$ to $3 \times 10^23$ W/cm$^2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XZJFNUEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02158}
}
abstract

Calculations on the dynamics of ions and electrons in near-infrared laser fields at intensities up to $3 \times 10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ are presented. We explore the acceleration of ions in a laser focus by conservation of canonical momentum during ionization events and by the ponderomotive force in the f/1 focal geometry required to reach such intensity. At intensity exceeding 10$^{23}$ W/cm$^2$, highly charged ions are expelled from the laser focus before they can interact with the laser pulse at peak intensity, decreasing the predicted ionization yields of deeply-bound states. We consider the interaction of a tightly-focused, f/1 laser pulse with krypton at an intensity of $3 \times 10^{23}$ W/cm$^{2}$ and a pulse duration of 140 fs. We find that the ions and electrons are accelerated to energies in excess of 2 MeV/nucleon and 1.4 GeV, respectively. Ponderomotive expulsion of the parent ions decreases the total number of ultra-relativistic ATI electrons produced by tunneling ionization from the K-shell states of krypton but does not change their energy spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02158 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy spectra of krypton ions ejected from the laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Energy spectra of argon ions ejected from a laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Average energy of 500 krypton ions originating from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ionization probability for hydrogen-like states of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. ATI electron energy spectra for electrons produced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Initial positions of the 10% highest-energy ATI elec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. a) Test electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agostini, F

    P. Agostini, F. Fabre, G. Mainfray, G. Petite, and N. K Rahman. Free-Free Transitions Following Six-Photon Ionization of Xenon Atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 42(17): 1127–1130, 1979

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    Plasma Perspective on Strong-Field Multiphoton Ionization

    Paul B Corkum. Plasma Perspective on Strong-Field Multiphoton Ionization. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 71(13):1994– 1997, 1993. ISSN 0022-0957. doi:10.1093/jxb/46.11.1693

    work page doi:10.1093/jxb/46.11.1693 1994

  3. [3]

    Krause, Kenneth J

    Jeffrey L. Krause, Kenneth J. Schafer, and Kenneth C. Kulander. High-order harmonic generation from atoms and ions in the high intensity regime. Phys. Rev. Lett., 68(24):3535–3538, 1992. ISSN 00319007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3535

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.68.3535 1992

  4. [4]

    D. N. Fittinghoff, P. R. Bolton, B. Chang, and K. C. Kulander. Observation of nonsequential double ion- ization of helium with optical tunneling. Phys. Rev. Lett., 69(18):2642–2645, 1992. ISSN 00319007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2642

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.69.2642 1992

  5. [5]

    Nonsequential double ionization of he- lium

    J B Watson, A Sanpera, D G Lappas, P L Knight, and K Burnett. Nonsequential double ionization of he- lium. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 78(10):1884–1887, 1997. ISSN 10797114. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.1884

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.1884 1997

  6. [6]

    P. B. Corkum, N. H. Burnett, and F. Brunel. Above- threshold ionization in the long-wavelength limit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 62(11):1259–1262, 1989. ISSN 00319007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.1259

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.62.1259 1989

  7. [7]

    S. J. McNaught, J. P. Knauer, and D. D. Meyerhofer. Photoelectron initial conditions for tunneling ionizatio n in a linearly polarized laser. Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , 58(2):1399–1411, 1998. ISSN 10941622. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.58.1399

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.58.1399 1998

  8. [8]

    Tiwari, E

    G. Tiwari, E. Gaul, M. Martinez, G. Dyer, J. Gordon, M. Spinks, T. Toncian, B. Bowers, X. Jiao, R. Kupfer, L. Lisi, E. McCary, R. Roycroft, A. Yandow, G. D. Glenn, M. Donovan, T. Ditmire, and B. M. Hegelich. Beam dis- tortion effects upon focusing an ultrashort petawatt laser pulse to greater than 10 22 W/cm2 . Opt. Lett. , 44(11): 2764, 2019. ISSN 0146-95...

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.44.002764 2019

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Achieving the laser intensity of 5

    Jin Woo Yoon, Cheonha Jeon, Junghoon Shin, Seong Ku Lee, Hwang Woon Lee, Il Woo Choi, Hyung Taek Kim, Jae Hee Sung, and Chang Hee Nam. Achieving the laser intensity of 5 . 5 × 1022 W/cm2 with a wavefront-corrected multi-PW laser. Opt. Express , 27(15):20412, 2019. doi: 10.1364...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Ob- servation of the Transition from Thomson to Compton Scattering in Multiphoton Interactions with Low-Energy Electrons

    C I Moore, J P Knauer, and D D Meyerhofer. Ob- servation of the Transition from Thomson to Compton Scattering in Multiphoton Interactions with Low-Energy Electrons. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 74(13):2439–2442, 1995

    1995

  3. [11]

    Chowdhury, C

    Enam A. Chowdhury, C. P.J. Barty, and Barry C. Walker. ”Nonrelativistic” ionization of the L-shell state s in argon by a ”relativistic” 10 19 W/cm2 laser field. Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , 63(4):1–6, 2001. ISSN 10502947. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.63.042712

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    Relativistic laser-field-drif t suppression of nonsequential multiple ionization

    Matthias Dammasch, Martin D¨ orr, Ulli Eichmann, Ernst Lenz, and Wolfgang Sandner. Relativistic laser-field-drif t suppression of nonsequential multiple ionization. Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , 64(6):4, 2001. ISSN 10941622. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.061402

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    Hatsagortsyan, and Christoph H

    Enderalp Yakaboylu, Michael Klaiber, Heiko Bauke, Karen Z. Hatsagortsyan, and Christoph H. Keitel. Relativistic features and time delay of laser-induced tunnel ionization. Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 88(6):1–21, 2013. ISSN 10502947. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.063421

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    P. D. Grugan, S. Luo, M. Videtto, C. Mancuso, and B. C. Walker. Classical study of ultrastrong nonperturbative- field interactions with a one-electron atom: Validity of the dipole approximation for the bound-state interac- tion. Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , 85(5):1–8,

  7. [15]

    Semi- classical Dirac Theory of Tunnel Ionization

    N Milosevic, V P Krainov, and T Brabec. Semi- classical Dirac Theory of Tunnel Ionization. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 89(19):193001–1 – 193001–4, 2002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.193001

    2002 doi

  8. [16]

    Milosevic, V

    N. Milosevic, V. P. Krainov, and T. Brabec. Relativisti c 9 theory of tunnel ionization. J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 35(16):3515–3529, 2002. ISSN 09534075. doi: 10.1088/0953-4075/35/16/311

    2002 doi

  9. [17]

    B. Rus, P. Bakule, D. Kramer, J. Naylon, J. Thoma, M. Fibrich, J. T. Green, J. C. Lagron, R. An- tipenkov, J. Barton ´ ıˇ cek, F. Batysta, R. Baˇ se, R. Boge, S. Buck, J. Cupal, M. A. Drouin, M. ur´ ak, B. Himmel, T. Havl ´ ıˇ cek, P. Homer, A. Honsa, M. Hor´ aˇ cek, P. Hr ´ ı...

    2015

  10. [18]

    Salamin, Zolt´ an Harman, and Christoph H

    Yousef I. Salamin, Zolt´ an Harman, and Christoph H. Kei- tel. Direct high-power laser acceleration of ions for med- ical applications. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 100(15):1–4, 2008. ISSN 00319007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.155004

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    M. V. Ammosov, N. B. Delone, and V. P. Krainov. Tunnel ionization of complex atoms and of atomic ions in an alternating electromagnetic field. J. Exp. Theor. Phys., 64(6):1191 – 1194, 1986. ISSN 02635747. doi: 10.1017/S0263574703005605

    1986 doi

  12. [20]

    Perelomov, V

    A. Perelomov, V. Popov, and M. Terent’ev. Ionization of Atoms in an Alternating Electric Field. Sov. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. , 23(5):924, 1966. ISSN 1063-7761

    1966

  13. [21]

    Jr Harrison

    Raymond L Kelly and Don E. Jr Harrison. Ioniza- tion potentials, experimental and theoretical, of the el- ements hydrogen to krypton. At. Data Nucl. Data Ta- bles, 3:177–193, 1971. ISSN 2047-8844. doi:10.1111/2047- 8852.12112

    1971

  14. [22]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and and NIST ASD Team. NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.6.1), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2019, October 2]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD., 2018

    2019

  15. [23]

    Y.I. Salamin. Fields of a Gaussian beam beyond the paraxial approximation. Appl. Phys. B , 86:319–326,

  16. [24]

    Augst, D

    S. Augst, D. D. Meyerhofer, D. Strickland, and S. L. Chin. Laser ionization of noble gases by Coulomb-barrier suppression. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B , 8(4):858–867, 1991. ISSN 0740-3224. doi:10.1364/josab.8.000858

    1991 doi

  17. [25]

    Exact field ionization rates in the barrier-suppression regime from numerical time- dependent Schrodinger-equation calculations

    D Bauer and P Mulser. Exact field ionization rates in the barrier-suppression regime from numerical time- dependent Schrodinger-equation calculations. Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , 59(1):569–577, 1999

    1999

  18. [26]

    to determine peak laser intensity by measuring rel- ative yields of highly-charged ions produced in the focus will lose substantial intensity resolution if the only ex- perimental observable is the relative ATI electron yields from different atomic shells rather than relative y...

  19. [27]

    Yu Kostyukov and A

    I. Yu Kostyukov and A. A. Golovanov. Field ion- ization in short and extremely intense laser pulses. Phys. Rev. A , 98(4), 2018. ISSN 24699934. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.043407

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    P. H. Bucksbaum, R. R. Freeman, M. Bashkansky, and T. J. McIlrath. Role of the ponderomotive potential in above-threshold ionization. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B , 4(5):760– 764, 1987. ISSN 0740-3224. doi:10.1364/josab.4.000760

    1987 doi

  21. [29]

    M. F. Ciappina, S. V. Popruzhenko, S. V. Bulanov, T. Ditmire, G. Korn, and S. Weber. Progress to- ward atomic diagnostics of ultrahigh laser intensities. Phys. Rev. A , 99(4):1–13, 2019. ISSN 24699934. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.043405

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Liang Wen Pi, S. X. Hu, and Anthony F. Starace. Favor- able target positions for intense laser acceleration of ele c- trons in hydrogen-like, highly-charged ions. Phys. Plas- mas, 22(9), 2015. ISSN 10897674. doi:10.1063/1.4930218

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    High order embedded Runge-Kutta formulae

    P J Prince and J R Dormand. High order embedded Runge-Kutta formulae. J. Comput. Appl. Math. , 7(1): 67–75, 1981

    1981

  24. [32]

    D. F. Gordon, J. P. Palastro, and B. Hafizi. Superpon- deromotive regime of tunneling ionization. Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , 95(3):1–5, 2017. ISSN 24699934. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.95.033403

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Tamburini, T

    M. Tamburini, T. V. Liseykina, F. Pegoraro, and A. Mac- Chi. Radiation-pressure-dominant acceleration: Polar- ization and radiation reaction effects and energy increase in three-dimensional simulations. Phys. Rev. E - Stat. Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys. , 85(1):1–5, 2012. ISSN 1...

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    Theory and Simu- lation of the Interaction of Ultraintense Laser Pules with Electrons in Vacuum

    Brice Quesnel and Patrick Mora. Theory and Simu- lation of the Interaction of Ultraintense Laser Pules with Electrons in Vacuum. Phys. Rev. E - Stat. Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys. , 58(3):1–14, 1998. URL papers2://publication/uuid/D507B656-2A24-4BAD-A590- 644268AA54EE

    1998

  27. [35]

    Tamburini, F

    M. Tamburini, F. Pegoraro, A. Di Piazza, C. H. Keitel, and A. Macchi. Radiation reaction effects on radiation pressure acceleration. New J. Phys. , 12(123005), 2010. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/12/123005

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    K. I. Popov, V. Yu Bychenkov, W. Rozmus, and R. D. Sydora. Electron vacuum acceleration by a tightly fo- cused laser pulse. Phys. Plasmas , 15(1), 2008. ISSN 1070664X. doi:10.1063/1.2830651

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    Electron acceleration driven by ultrashort and nonparax- ial radially polarized laser pulses

    Vincent Marceau, Alexandre April, and Michel Pich´ e. Electron acceleration driven by ultrashort and nonparax- ial radially polarized laser pulses. Opt. Lett., 37(13):2442,

  30. [38]

    Maltsev and T

    A. Maltsev and T. Ditmire. Above Threshold Ionization in Tightly Focused, Strongly Relativistic Laser Fields. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 90(5):4, 2003. ISSN 10797114. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.053002

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    Sheldakova, Alexis V

    Yutaka Akahane, Jinglong Ma, Yuji Fukuda, Makoto Aoyoma, Hiromitsu Kiriyama, Julia V. Sheldakova, Alexis V. Kudryashov, and Koichi Yamakawa. Char- acterization of wave-front corrected 100 TW, 10 Hz laser pulses with peak intensities greater than 1020 W/cm2. Rev. Sci. Instrum. ...

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    Chowdhury, John T

    Anthony Link, Enam A. Chowdhury, John T. Morrison, Vladimir M. Ovchinnikov, Dustin Offermann, Linn Van Woerkom, Richard R. Freeman, John Pasley, Erik Ship- ton, Farhat Beg, Patrick Rambo, Jens Schwarz, Matthias Geissel, Aaron Edens, and John L. Porter. Develop- 10 ment of an in...

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    doi:10.1364/ol.37.002442

    ISSN 0146-9592. doi:10.1364/ol.37.002442

    doi

  34. [42]

    Augst, D

    S. Augst, D. Strickland, D. D. Meyerhofer, S. L. Chin, and J. H. Eberly. Tunneling ionization of no- ble gases in a high-intensity laser field. Phys. Rev. Lett., 63(20):2212–2215, 1989. ISSN 00319007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.2212

    1989 doi

  35. [45]

    A. D. Dichiara, I. Ghebregziabher, R. Sauer, J. Waesche , S. Palaniyappan, B. L. Wen, and B. C. Walker. Rel- ativistic MeV photoelectrons from the single atom re- sponse of argon to a 10 19 W/cm2 laser field. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 101(17):1–4, 2008. ISSN 00319007. doi: 10.1103/Phy...

    2008 doi

  36. [46]

    Electron Shell Ionization of Atoms with Classical , Relativistic Scattering

    N Ekanayake, S Luo, P D Grugan, W B Crosby, A D Camilo, C V Mccowan, R Scalzi, A Tramontozzi, L E Howard, S J Wells, C Mancuso, T Stanev, M F Decamp, and B C Walker. Electron Shell Ionization of Atoms with Classical , Relativistic Scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 110 (13):1–5, 2...

    2013 doi

  37. [2007]

    doi:10.1007/s00340-006-2442-4

    doi

  38. [2012]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.85.053407

    ISSN 10502947. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.85.053407

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.