Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Vacuum pair production in zeptosecond pulses: Peculiar momentum spectra and striking particle acceleration by bipolar pulses

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that colliding zeptosecond pulses create electron-positron pairs whose momentum distribution is set by pulse unipolarity: unipolar pulses give higher yield, bipolar pulses give ultrarelativistic along-axis pairs.

desk verdict A plausible leading-order prediction for zeptosecond-pulse pair spectra that is worth refereeing, but the quantitative crossover claim rests on parameter points where the paper's own perturbative condition fails. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11565 v1 pith:R3RCOIUO submitted 2024-11-18 hep-ph

I. A. Aleksandrov , N. N. Rosanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords vacuumpairproductionzeptosecondpulsesunipolarandbipolarmomentumspectraBreit-Wheelerprocessquantumelectrodynamicsultrashortperturbationtheory
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

For pulses lasting about the Compton time (a zeptosecond), electron-positron pairs created from the vacuum by two counterpropagating pulses show momentum spectra that are controlled by the unipolarity of the field profile. The paper's central claim is that unipolar pulses, whose electric field has a large net area, produce a relatively high total number of pairs with momenta concentrated below the electron mass, while bipolar pulses, with zero net field area, generate far fewer pairs but accelerate those they do create to ultrarelativistic momenta along the pulse propagation axis. This counterintuitive behavior, opposite to the intuitive picture of unidirectional fields pulling charges apart, is traced to the Fourier structure of the pulse envelope. If correct, the distinct spectral shapes are direct, measurable signatures of quantum electrodynamics in the short-time domain.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the leading-order Breit-Wheeler Feynman diagram evaluated with pulse profiles E^(ζ)(η) = E_0 e^(−(η/σ)^2) sin(η + φ_ζ). The number density f(p) is written as an integral over p'_z of |F^(+)(q_+) F^(−)(q_−)|^2 times a universal kinematic factor G(p, p'_z), where F^(ζ)(q) is the Fourier transform of the pulse profile. The phase φ_ζ controls the balance between a $\cosh$ term and a $\sinh$ term in F^(ζ); the $\cosh$ term localizes the spectrum at small |p_z|, while the $\sinh$ term, which dominates for bipolar pulses, produces the exponential tail at large |p_z|. This Fourier-transform mechanism is what carries the entire argument.

What would settle it

A next-order (two-loop or multi-vertex) calculation of the same counterpropagating pulse configuration at τ = 0.5τ_C: if the bipolar spectrum's ultrarelativistic |p_z| tail is substantially altered (say, more than a factor of two in the number density at |p_z| = 3m) or if the unipolar spectrum's cut-off near m disappears, the leading-order claim collapses. Alternatively, an experiment measuring pair momenta from colliding zeptosecond pulses that shows unipolar and bipolar pulses produce identical spectra would falsify the signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that the momentum distribution f(p) of produced electrons changes qualitatively with the phase parameter that turns a pulse from unipolar to bipolar. For unipolar pulses (φ = π/2), the spectrum rises sharply in the region |p_z| ≲ m and vanishes beyond, whereas for bipolar pulses (φ = 0) the same kinematical factor G is modulated by the hyperbolic-sine term in the Fourier transform of the pulse, creating a long tail in |p_z| up to about 1/τ. Since τ is a fraction of the Compton time, this tail corresponds to ultrarelativistic particles moving along the pulse axis, even though the electric field points perpendicular to that axis. The paper further shows that the total pair yield N favors unipolar pulses for τ ≲ 0.5τ_C but bipolar pulses for longer durations, and that mixing a unipolar and a bipolar pulse breaks the p_z → −p_z symmetry of the spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the leading-order two-photon Feynman diagram, with photon wave functions or classical pulses treated interchangeably, gives the complete pair-production amplitude, so that corrections beyond first order are negligible at the pulse durations where predictions are made; in particular, using perturbation theory at τ ≈ τ_C, where ξ = 1, is not fully justified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For pulse durations below half the Compton time, unipolar pulses outperform bipolar ones in total pair yield by a factor that grows as (τ/τ_C)^{-1}.
  • Bipolar pulses produce pairs with momenta along the collision axis up to about 1/τ, far beyond the electron mass, so they act as an accelerator rather than merely a pair source.
  • The momentum spectrum retains a bell-shaped transverse distribution of width about m in all cases, so the longitudinal momentum is the main discriminating observable.
  • Mixing pulse polarities (one unipolar, one bipolar) breaks the reflection symmetry p_z → −p_z, giving another distinctive signature.
  • The yield peaks near τ ≈ τ_C, with about 0.01 pairs per collision for E_0 = E_cr, which is within reach of future zeptosecond sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Fourier-shape mechanism may generalize to other two-photon vacuum processes such as photon-photon scattering or two-photon annihilation, where ultrashort pulse unipolarity would imprint similar spectral asymmetries.
  • Because the total yield scales as E_0^4, a moderate increase in peak power would push the pair signal into an easily measurable range in a high-repetition-rate setup.
  • The prediction at τ ≈ τ_C is the least robust since ξ = 1 there; higher-order corrections could shift the crossover duration above which bipolar pulses become more productive.
  • One could test the mechanism directly in a heavy-ion collision analogue, where the effective electromagnetic pulse duration is likewise around the Compton time, by looking for the same bipolar/unipolar spectral asymmetry.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies electron-positron pair production from the vacuum in the head-on collision of two zeptosecond (Compton-scale) electromagnetic pulses. Treating the process at leading order in QED perturbation theory via the two-photon Breit-Wheeler diagram, the authors compute the electron momentum distribution f(p) from Eq. (7) for pulses with a Gaussian envelope and a tunable phase parameter phi_zeta, where phi=pi/2 gives a 'unipolar' pulse and phi=0 a 'bipolar' pulse; the amplitudes are chosen so that the unipolar and bipolar configurations have equal energy density W^(zeta) of Eq. (5). The reported results are: unipolar pulses produce a relatively high yield concentrated at |p_z| less than about m; bipolar pulses produce much smaller total yield at short tau but with ultrarelativistic momenta along the pulse axis; the total yield (Fig. 4) shows a crossover around tau ~ 0.5-1 tau_C; and mixed unipolar/bipolar collisions break p_z symmetry. The authors position these momentum spectra as experimental signatures of short-time QED and give order-of-magnitude estimates for future zeptosecond sources.

Significance. If the leading-order calculation is correct and the reported spectra are accurate, the paper identifies a genuinely new short-time QED effect: the sign and electric-field area of the pulse profile control not only the total pair yield but also the momentum support, in particular producing ultrarelativistic pairs along the propagation direction from a transverse electric field. The calculation is parameter-free in the sense that no data are fitted; sigma is fixed and the comparison is made at equal W^(zeta); the Fourier-transform explanation in Eqs. (7)-(8) is transparent and falsifiable. These strengths make the paper potentially valuable. However, the central formula Eq. (7) depends on the function G(p,p'_z) whose explicit form is deferred to a Supplemental Material with a placeholder URL, so the central calculation cannot be verified from the preprint; and several displayed results lie at or beyond the stated boundary xi << 1 of perturbation theory. Both issues must be resolved before the quantitative claims, particularly the Fig. 4 crossover, can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theoretical description, Eq. (7), and Ref. [53]] The core result, Eq. (7), is not checkable from the manuscript: the function G(p,p'_z) is defined only as 'independent of the setup parameters' and its explicit form is deferred to 'Supplemental Material [53]', where Ref. [53] is itself given as 'See Supplemental Material at [URL to be inserted]'. Because the spectra in Figs. 2-4 are obtained by integrating Eq. (7), the entire quantitative content of the paper rests on an omitted derivation. I ask the authors to supply the complete expression for G and the derivation of Eq. (7), including the treatment of external-line normalization and volume factors, either in the main text or in an available supplement.
  2. [Setup and Numerical results, around Eq. (5) and Fig. 4] The perturbation-theory criterion is stated as xi=(E0/Ecr)(tau/tau_C) << 1, and the Numerical results section says 'To obtain accurate predictions, one has to make sure that xi << 1.' Yet the figures include parameter points with xi=1 (unipolar, tau=tau_C, E0=Ecr) and xi=2.02 (bipolar, tau=tau_C, because E0 is rescaled by (tanh sigma^2/4)^(-1/2) to equalize W^(zeta)). At xi ~ 1 the next-order diagrams are not suppressed: the leading amplitude carries (eE0 tau)^2, so corrections enter at relative order xi^2. The quantitative yield ordering and the crossover in Fig. 4 in the region tau >~ 0.5 tau_C are therefore not established by Eq. (7). The text's statement that the validity of PT is 'achieved due to the extremely short pulse duration' is not sufficient, since for fixed E0 approximately Ecr the expansion parameter grows with tau and reaches unity at tau ~ tau_C. I request that the xi << 1 region be separated from the xi >~ 1 region in all figures, and that the conclusions be restricted to the perturbatively controlled domain or supported by an explicit estimate of higher-order corrections.
  3. [Setup, paragraph after Eq. (3)] The equivalence between a classical electromagnetic pulse and a photon wave function with the same profile is asserted rather than proved: 'the actual expression for the Feynman diagram... has a universal form that does not distinguish between a classical background and photons.' This is especially delicate for unipolar pulses, where the zero-frequency component contains formally infinitely many quanta and the manuscript proposes a split into 'high-frequency photons' and a 'low-frequency classical background' without specifying the split scale or demonstrating that the leading-order amplitude is the sum of the two contributions. Since this equivalence is the bridge that lets the authors apply Eq. (7) to unipolar pulses, I ask for a derivation or a precise citation establishing the equivalence at the level of the pair-production amplitude, and for a consistency test such as a regularization of the zero-frequency mode with the limit taken at the end.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Numerical results, paragraph after Fig. 2] The word 'unltrarelativistic' in the sentence about the bipolar setup should be 'ultrarelativistic', and in the later paragraph 'couterpropagating' should be 'counterpropagating'.
  2. [Setup, paragraph after Eq. (3)] The description of the phi=pi/2 profile as 'almost everywhere non-negative' is inaccurate for sigma=1: the function e^(-(eta/sigma)^2) sin(eta+pi/2) is negative wherever |eta|>pi/2. What matters for the argument is the nonzero electric-field area, which should be stated instead.
  3. [Figure 2] Each row of Fig. 2 would be easier to interpret if the corresponding value of xi were printed in the row label, so that the reader can immediately see which panels lie within the stated perturbative regime and which do not.
  4. [Experimental estimates, final paragraphs] The experimental estimates assume a plane-wave setup with normalization area S ~ tau_C^2, but Eq. (2) describes an infinite transverse plane; a focused realization would modify the transverse momentum spectrum. A caveat to this effect should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted momentum spectra are evaluated from the leading-order QED amplitude, Eq. (7), with no parameter fitted to the predicted distributions; the residual concern about ξ ~ 1 is a perturbation-theory validity issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that unipolar and bipolar zeptosecond pulses generate qualitatively different e+e- momentum spectra, is produced by evaluating the two-photon Breit-Wheeler amplitude, Eq. (7), whose inputs are the fixed pulse profiles (2)-(3) and standard QED vertices. No parameter is fitted to the spectra, no target observable is used to define the model, and the unipolar-versus-bipolar comparison is made at equal pulse energy density W^(ζ) from Eq. (5), so the yield ordering and spectral widths are computed consequences rather than input conventions. The Fourier-transform structure of Eq. (8) is used to explain the spectra, but this explanation is an interpretation of the same evaluated amplitude, not a circular derivation. The asserted equivalence between photon wave functions and classical pulses for unipolar fields, whose zero-frequency photon number is formally infinite, is a premise of the calculation; the stated condition ξ ≪ 1 for perturbation theory is explicit, and the fact that some plotted parameter points reach ξ ~ 1, so higher-order diagrams are not obviously negligible, is a legitimate validity/correctness objection rather than circularity. Citations to the authors' prior work [64,66,71,72] are contextual references in the broader pair-production literature and are not load-bearing for the derivation of Eq. (7), which is obtained from the Feynman diagram in Fig. 1(a) as stated. Therefore no reduction-by-construction, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-dependent step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QED perturbation theory, an unproven equivalence between classical pulses and photon wave functions for unipolar fields, the inaccessible definition of G(p,p'_z), and the fixed choice sigma = 1. No data fitting is involved.

free parameters (1)
  • sigma (pulse shape parameter) = 1
    Chosen by hand to set the pulse to a single-cycle regime; the paper fixes sigma = 1 without exploring sensitivity, so quantitative claims are conditional on this choice.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Leading-order perturbation theory with a single two-photon Feynman diagram describes pair production, with higher-order corrections negligible for xi < 1.
    Invoked in the Setup and Numerical results ('To obtain accurate predictions, one has to make sure that xi << 1'), yet results are shown at tau = tau_C where xi = 1.
  • ad hoc to paper A classical electromagnetic pulse and a photon wave function with the same profile yield the same leading-order pair-production amplitude, even for unipolar pulses with infinite zero-energy quanta.
    Stated without proof in the Setup paragraph following Eq. (3); this equivalence is load-bearing for the unipolar results.
  • domain assumption The function G(p,p'_z) in Eq. (7) is finite, Lorentz-invariant, and independent of pulse parameters, with the form given in the Supplemental Material.
    Used in evaluating all spectra; the explicit expression is not included in the paper (Supplemental Material [53] with placeholder URL).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vacuum pair production in zeptosecond pulses: Peculiar momentum spectra and striking particle acceleration by bipolar pulses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R3RCOIUO

@misc{pith2026241111565,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vacuum pair production in zeptosecond pulses: Peculiar momentum spectra and striking particle acceleration by bipolar pulses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R3RCOIUO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11565}
}
abstract

We examine the phenomenon of electron-positron pair production from vacuum in a combination of two counterpropagating electromagnetic pulses having a duration of the order of the Compton time. We show that in this extreme short-time domain, the momentum distributions of the particles produced possess a peculiar structure which strongly depends on whether the electromagnetic pulses have a unipolar or bipolar profile. It is shown that bipolar pulses can predominantly generate particles with ultrarelativistic velocities along the propagation direction of the pulses, while unipolar ones are generally more favorable in terms of the total particle yield in the same regime. The highly nontrivial properties of the $e^+e^-$ spectra revealed in our study provide strong experimental signatures paving the way to probe a complex vacuum response within the short-time domain of quantum electrodynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11565 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Leading-order Feynman diagram describing pair pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Momentum distributions (7) of the electrons produced for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Momentum distributions (7) of the electrons produced with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total number of pairs produced in the case of the unipolar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [53]

    (7) and for the analysis of the limit- ing case τ /τC → 0

    See Supplemental Material at [URL to be inserted] for deriva- tion details concerning Eq. (7) and for the analysis of the limit- ing case τ /τC → 0

    work page

  2. [1]

    Euler and B

    H. Euler and B. Kockel, ¨Uber die Streuung von Licht an Licht nach der Diracschen Theorie, Naturwiss. 23, 246 (1935)

    work page 1935

  3. [2]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Folgerungen aus der Diracschen Theorie des Positrons, Z. Phys. 98, 714 (1936)

    work page 1936

  4. [3]

    Weisskopf, ¨Uber die Elektrodynamik des Vakuums auf Grund der Quantentheorie des Elektrons, Kong

    V . Weisskopf, ¨Uber die Elektrodynamik des Vakuums auf Grund der Quantentheorie des Elektrons, Kong. Dan. Vid. Sel. Mat. Fys. Med. 14N6, 1 (1936)

    work page 1936

  5. [4]

    Karplus and M

    R. Karplus and M. Neuman, Non-linear interactions between electromagnetic fields, Phys. Rev. 80, 380 (1950)

    work page 1950

  6. [5]

    Karplus and M

    R. Karplus and M. Neuman, The scattering of light by light, Phys. Rev. 83, 776 (1951)

    work page 1951

  7. [6]

    Sauter, ¨Uber das Verhalten eines Elektrons im homoge- nen elektrischen Feld nach der relativistischen Theorie Diracs, Z

    F. Sauter, ¨Uber das Verhalten eines Elektrons im homoge- nen elektrischen Feld nach der relativistischen Theorie Diracs, Z. Phys. 69, 742 (1931)

    work page 1931

  8. [7]

    Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization, Phys

    J. Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    work page 1951

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Dittrich and H

    W. Dittrich and H. Gies, Probing the quantum vacuum. Per- turbative effective action approach in quantum electrodynamics and its application, Springer Tracts Mod. Phys. 166, 1 (2000)

    2000

  2. [9]

    G. V . Dunne, Heisenberg-Euler effective Lagrangians: Basics and extensions, in From Fields to Strings: Circumnavigating Theoretical Physics. Ian Kogan Memorial Collection, edited by M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and J. Wheater (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005), V ol. 1, pp. 445-522

    2005

  3. [10]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. M ¨uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Kei- tel, Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamen- tal quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012)

    2012

  4. [11]

    Blaschke, N

    D. Blaschke, N. T. Gevorgyan, A. D. Panferov, and S. A. Smolyansky, Schwinger effect at modern laser facilities, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 672, 012020 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    King and T

    B. King and T. Heinzl, Measuring vacuum polarization with high-power lasers, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 4, e5 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    B. S. Xie, Z. L. Li, and S. Tang, Electron-positron pair produc- tion in ultrastrong laser fields, Matter Radiat. Extremes 2, 225 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    Fedotov, A

    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

  8. [15]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Attosecond physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 163 (2009)

    2009

  9. [16]

    Popmintchev, M.-C

    T. Popmintchev, M.-C. Chen, P. Arpin, M. M. Murnane, and H. C. Kapteyn, The attosecond nonlinear optics of bright co- herent X-ray generation, Nat. Photonics 4, 822 (2010)

    2010

  10. [17]

    A. Ipp, J. Eversa, C. H. Keitel, and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, Streak- ing at high energies with electrons and positrons, Phys. Lett. B 702, 383 (2011)

    2011

  11. [18]

    Midorikawa, High-order harmonic generation and attosec- ond science, Jpn

    K. Midorikawa, High-order harmonic generation and attosec- ond science, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 50, 090001 (2011)

    2011

  12. [19]

    E. J. Takahashi, P. Lan, O. D. M ¨ucke, Y . Nabekawa, and K. Midorikawa, Attosecond nonlinear optics using gigawatt- scale isolated attosecond pulses, Nat Commun 4, 2691 (2013)

    2013

  13. [20]

    J. Li, J. Lu, A. Chew, S. Han, J. Li, Y . Wu, H. Wang, S. Ghimire, and Z. Chang, Attosecond science based on high harmonic gen- eration from gases and solids, Nat. Commun. 11, 2748 (2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    C. H. Shim, K. M. Nam, Y . W. Parc, and D. E. Kim, Isolated terawatt sub-attosecond high-energy x-ray pulse generated by an x-ray free-electron laser, APL Photon. 7, 056105 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    Witting, M

    T. Witting, M. Osolodkov, F. Schell, F. Morales, S. Patchkovskii, P. ˇSuˇsnjar, F. H. M. Cavalcante, C. S. Menoni, C. P. Schulz, F. J. Furch, and M. J. J. Vrakking, Generation and characterization of isolated attosecond pulses at 100 kHz repetition rate, Optica 9, 145 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    Gordienko, A

    S. Gordienko, A. Pukhov, O. Shorokhov, and T. Baeva, Rel- ativistic Doppler effect: Universal spectra and zeptosecond pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 115002 (2004)

    2004

  17. [24]

    Klaiber, K

    M. Klaiber, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Zeptosecond γ-ray pulses, arXiv:0707.2900

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    Mourou and T

    G. Mourou and T. Tajima, More intense, shorter pulses, Science 331, 41 (2011)

    2011

  19. [26]

    A. A. Andreev, A. L. Galkin, M. P. Kalashnikov, V . V . Ko- robkin, M. Y . Romanovsky, and O. B. Shiryaev, Electrons in a relativistic-intensity laser field: generation of zeptosecond elec- tromagnetic pulses and energy spectrum of the accelerated elec- trons, Quantum Electron...

    2011

  20. [27]

    Y . Wang, S. Pandey, C. H. Greene, and N. Shivaram, Attosec- ond entangled photons from two-photon decay of metastable atoms: A source for attosecond experiments and beyond, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L032038 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    R. M. Arkhipov, M. V . Arkhipov, and N. N. Rosanov, Unipolar light: existence, generation, propagation, and impact on mi- croobjects, Quantum Electronics 50, 801 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    N. N. Rosanov, M. V . Arkhipov, R. M. Arkhipov, and A. V . Pakhomov, Half-cycle electromagnetic pulses and pulse electric area, Contemp. Phys. 64, 224 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Dimitrovski, E

    D. Dimitrovski, E. A. Solov’ev, and J. S. Briggs, Ionization and recombination in attosecond electric field pulses, Phys. Rev. A 72, 043411 (2005)

    2005

  24. [31]

    Leblond, Half-cycle optical soliton in quadratic nonlinear media, Phys

    H. Leblond, Half-cycle optical soliton in quadratic nonlinear media, Phys. Rev. A 78, 013807 (2008)

    2008

  25. [32]

    X. Song, W. Yang, Z. Zeng, R. Li, and Z. Xu, Unipolar half- cycle pulse generation in asymmetrical media with a periodic subwavelength structure, Phys. Rev. A 82, 053821 (2010)

    2010

  26. [33]

    V . V . Kozlov, N. N. Rosanov, C. D. Angelis, and S. Wabnitz, Generation of unipolar pulses from nonunipolar optical pulses in a nonlinear medium, Phys. Rev. A 84, 023818 (2011)

    2011

  27. [34]

    Leblond and D

    H. Leblond and D. Mihalache, Models of few optical cycle soli- tons beyond the slowly varying envelope approximation, Phys. Rep. 523, 61 (2013)

    2013

  28. [35]

    M. M. Glazov and N. N. Rosanov, Generation of unipolar elec- tromagnetic pulses in semiconductor nanocrystals, Phys. Rev. A 109, 053523 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    A. S. Moskalenko, Z.-G. Zhu, and J. Berakdar, Charge and spin dynamics driven by ultrashort extreme broadband pulses: A theory perspective, Phys. Rep. 672, 1 (2017)

    2017

  30. [37]

    Arkhipov, A

    R. Arkhipov, A. Pakhomov, M. Arkhipov, A. Demircan, U. Morgner, N. Rosanov, and I. Babushkin, Selective ultrafast control of multi-level quantum systems by subcycle and unipo- lar pulses, Opt. Express 28, 17020 (2020)

    2020

  31. [38]

    Rosanov, D

    N. Rosanov, D. Tumakov, M. Arkhipov, and R. Arkhipov, Cri- terion for the yield of micro-object ionization driven by few- 6 and subcycle radiation pulses with nonzero electric area, Phys. Rev. A 104, 063101 (2021)

    2021

  32. [39]

    Breit and J

    G. Breit and J. A. Wheeler, Collision of two light quanta, Phys. Rev. 46, 1087 (1934)

    1934

  33. [40]

    H. R. Reiss, Absorption of light by light, J. Math. Phys. 3, 59 (1962)

    1962

  34. [41]

    A. I. Nikishov and V . I. Ritus, Quantum processes in the field of a plane electromagnetic wave and in a constant field. I, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 46, 776 (1964) [Sov. Phys. JETP 19, 529 (1964)]

    1964

  35. [42]

    D. Y . Ivanov, G. L. Kotkin, and V . G. Serbo, Complete descrip- tion of polarization effects ine+e− pair production by a photon in the field of a strong laser wave, Eur. Phys. J. C40, 27 (2005)

    2005

  36. [43]

    Heinzl, A

    T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, and M. Marklund, Finite size effects in stimulated laser pair production, Phys. Lett. B 692, 250 (2010)

    2010

  37. [44]

    A. I. Titov, H. Takabe, B. K ¨ampfer, and A. Hosaka, Enhanced subthreshold e+e− production in short laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 240406 (2012)

    2012

  38. [45]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami ´nski, Breit-Wheeler process in in- tense short laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052104 (2012)

    2012

  39. [46]

    A. I. Titov, B. K ¨ampfer, H. Takabe, and A. Hosaka, Breit- Wheeler process in very short electromagnetic pulses, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042106 (2013)

    2013

  40. [47]

    Di Piazza, Nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in a tightly focused laser beam, Phys

    A. Di Piazza, Nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in a tightly focused laser beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 213201 (2016)

    2016

  41. [48]

    Seipt and B

    D. Seipt and B. King, Spin- and polarization-dependent locally- constant-field-approximation rates for nonlinear Compton and Breit-Wheeler processes, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052805 (2020)

    2020

  42. [49]

    Golub, S

    A. Golub, S. Villalba-Ch ´avez, H. Ruhl, and C. M ¨uller, Linear Breit-Wheeler pair production by high-energy bremsstrahlung photons colliding with an intense x-ray laser pulse, Phys. Rev. D 103, 016009 (2021)

    2021

  43. [50]

    Tang and B

    S. Tang and B. King, Pulse envelope effects in nonlinear Breit- Wheeler pair creation, Phys. Rev. D 104, 096019 (2021)

    2021

  44. [51]

    Podszus, V

    T. Podszus, V . Dinu, and A. Di Piazza, Nonlinear Compton scattering and nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production includ- ing the damping of particle states, Phys. Rev. D 106, 056014 (2022)

    2022

  45. [52]

    Brezin and C

    E. Brezin and C. Itzykson, Pair production in vacuum by an alternating field, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1191 (1970)

    1970

  46. [54]

    N. Ren, J. X. Wang, A. K. Li, and P. X. Wang, Pair production in an intense laser pulse: The effect of pulse length, Chin. Phys. Lett. 29, 071201 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Kohlf ¨urst, M

    C. Kohlf ¨urst, M. Mitter, G. von Winckel, F. Hebenstreit, and R. Alkofer, Optimizing the pulse shape for Schwinger pair pro- duction, Phys. Rev. D 88, 045028 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    A. I. Nikishov, Pair production by a constant external field, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 57, 1210 (1969) [Sov. Phys. JETP 30, 660 (1970)]

    1969

  49. [57]

    M. Ruf, G. R. Mocken, C. M ¨uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Pair production in laser fields oscillating in space and time, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 080402 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Hebenstreit, R

    F. Hebenstreit, R. Alkofer, G. V . Dunne, and H. Gies, Mo- mentum signatures for Schwinger pair production in short laser pulses with a subcycle structure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 150404 (2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    S. S. Bulanov, V . D. Mur, N. B. Narozhny, J. Nees, and V . S. Popov, Multiple colliding electromagnetic pulses: A way to lower the threshold of e+e− pair production from vacuum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 220404 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Hebenstreit, R

    F. Hebenstreit, R. Alkofer, and H. Gies, Particle self-bunching in the Schwinger effect in spacetime-dependent electric fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 180403 (2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    C. K. Dumlu and G. V . Dunne, Interference effects in Schwinger vacuum pair production for time-dependent laser pulses, Phys. Rev. D 83, 065028 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    C. K. Dumlu and G. V . Dunne, Complex worldline instantons and quantum interference in vacuum pair production, Phys. Rev. D 84, 125023 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    W ¨ollert, H

    A. W ¨ollert, H. Bauke, and C. H. Keitel, Spin polarized electron- positron pair production via elliptical polarized laser fields, Phys. Rev. D 91, 125026 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    I. A. Aleksandrov, G. Plunien, and V . M. Shabaev, Momentum distribution of particles created in space-time-dependent collid- ing laser pulses, Phys. Rev. D 96, 076006 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Ababekri, B

    M. Ababekri, B. S. Xie, and J. Zhang, Effects of finite spatial extent on Schwinger pair production, Phys. Rev. D100, 016003 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    I. A. Aleksandrov and C. Kohlf ¨urst, Pair production in tempo- rally and spatially oscillating fields, Phys. Rev. D 101, 096009 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Kohlf ¨urst, N

    C. Kohlf ¨urst, N. Ahmadiniaz, J. Oertel, and R. Sch ¨utzhold, Sauter-Schwinger effect for colliding laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 241801 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Kohlf ¨urst, Pair production in circularly polarized waves, arXiv:2212.03180

    C. Kohlf ¨urst, Pair production in circularly polarized waves, arXiv:2212.03180

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    C. K. Li, Y . J. Li, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Phase sensitivity of the pair-creation process in colliding laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A 108, 033112 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    L. N. Hu, O. Amat, L. Wang, A. Sawut, H. H. Fan, and B. S. Xie, Momentum spirals in multiphoton pair production revisited, Phys. Rev. D 107, 116010 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    A. G. Tkachev, I. A. Aleksandrov, and V . M. Shabaev, Schwinger pair production in counterpropagating laser pulses: Identifying volume factors, arXiv:2408.04084

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    I. A. Aleksandrov and A. Kudlis, Pair production in rotating electric fields via quantum kinetic equations: Resolving helicity states, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043009 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    G. Baur, K. Hencken, and D. Trautmann, Electron-positron pair production in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rep. 453, 1 (2007)

    2007

  66. [74]

    Najjari, A

    B. Najjari, A. B. V oitkiv, A. Artemyev, and A. Surzhykov, Si- multaneous electron capture and bound-free pair production in relativistic collisions of heavy nuclei with atoms, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012701 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.