Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Quantum beating and cyclic structures in the phase-space dynamics of the Kramers-Henneberger atom

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For the time-averaged Kramers-Henneberger potential, coherent superpositions of eigenstates trace a cyclic orbit in phase space confined to low momenta, with a frequency set by the eigenstate energy gap; the full dynamics keep this cycle…

desk verdict Competent phase-space study of KH-atom coherent dynamics whose central beat is textbook and whose main new claim (momentum-side confinement) rests on one model potential; Eq. (28) is wrong as written but fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06408 v2 pith:ZOAKQW6Q submitted 2024-12-09 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

A. Tasnim Aynul , L. Cruz Rodriguez , C. Figueira de Morisson Faria This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 32.80.Rm03.65.Sq
keywords Kramers-HennebergeratomWignerquasiprobabilitydistributionquantumbeatingstabilizationphase-spacedynamicscoherentsuperpositionmomentumconfinementstrong-fieldionization
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

By solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for a one-dimensional short-range model atom and computing Wigner quasiprobability distributions in the Kramers-Henneberger (KH) frame, this paper establishes that a coherent superposition of the two KH eigenstates executes a cyclic motion between the wells of the time-averaged dichotomous potential. For the time-averaged potential this motion is strictly periodic, with frequency $\omega_{10}=E^{KH}_1-E^{KH}_0$, and the Wigner flow remains confined to small momenta even though it spills across the classical separatrix in position. The full time-dependent dynamics retain the same cyclic behavior, but the cycle is delayed and high-momentum fringes appear that the authors identify as ionization signatures. The comparison with classical equienergy curves leads to the paper's central contrast: for the KH atom the quasiprobability flow is momentum-bounded, whereas for a molecule it is position-confined. The paper also finds that preparing the system in the KH ground state gives the most stable propagation, with the weakest ionization tails.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Wigner quasiprobability distribution in the KH frame, computed from Eq. (17), together with the time-averaged KH potential $V_0(x;\alpha_0)$ (Eq. (7)) and its two eigenstates. The identity in Eq. (28)--$W^{KH}_{\rm coh}=\frac{1}{2}(W_0+W_1)+\operatorname{Re}[W_{10}]\cos(\omega_{10}t)$--turns the two-level energy gap into a directly visible rotating pattern in phase space. Classical equienergy curves and the separatrix from the time-averaged Hamiltonian act as the constraints against which the quantum flow is compared, revealing that the momentum range, not the position range, is what stays bounded.

What would settle it

Compute the Wigner function for a soft-core potential with more KH eigenstates under the same parameters: if the quasiprobability flow spreads beyond the momentum bound while the trapped population remains stable, the momentum-confinement claim fails. Alternatively, integrate the Wigner density outside the equienergy curve over time and compare it with the total ionization probability; a mismatch would disprove the tail-ionization identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that in the stabilization regime the KH atom exhibits quantum beating whose phase-space fingerprint is a rotating Wigner quasiprobability distribution. For the time-averaged KH Hamiltonian, an equally weighted superposition $\psi_{\rm coh}=(\phi_0^{KH}+\phi_1^{KH})/\sqrt{2}$ evolves as $W^{KH}_{\rm coh}(x,p,t)=\frac{1}{2}(W^{KH}_0+W^{KH}_1)+\operatorname{Re}[W^{KH}_{10}]\cos(\omega_{10}t)$, with $\omega_{10}=E_1^{KH}-E_0^{KH}$, so the flow oscillates between the two wells with a period of about 770 atomic units, almost eight field cycles. With the full time-dependent potential the same cycle survives, but the turning points are delayed relative to the time-averaged case and the Wigner function develops negative-valued fringes that spill toward higher momenta; the paper reads these tails as ionization and their fading over time as the onset of stabilization. A direct comparison with classical equienergy curves shows the flow is not confined in position, but is confined by a maximum momentum, unlike the molecular case where nested separatrices confine the flow in space.

Load-bearing premise

The central claims depend on the assumption that a single one-dimensional short-range potential with only two KH eigenstates, at one intensity and frequency, is representative of the KH atom, and that the high-momentum Wigner tails are indeed ionization rather than another quantum feature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the KH regime, a coherent superposition's oscillation frequency is set by $\omega_{10}=E_1^{KH}-E_0^{KH}$, so field parameters that shift the KH eigenenergies will tune the beating period.
  • Stabilization can be read in phase space as confinement of the Wigner flow to small momenta; high-momentum fringes are a diagnostic of ionization even when the trapped population appears stable.
  • The molecule-KH analogy is limited: cyclic population transfer occurs in both, but the KH atom confines momentum rather than position, so the underlying mechanism is over-the-barrier motion, not tunneling between centers.
  • Preparing the system in the KH ground state suppresses the ionization tails and makes the full dynamics match the time-averaged picture more closely than starting from an equal superposition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence not developed in the paper: if the high-momentum tails really are ionization, the integrated weight of the Wigner distribution outside the equienergy boundary should track the one-minus-trapped-population curve quantitatively, not merely fade visually.
  • Because the cyclic motion is a two-level beat, a potential supporting more than two KH eigenstates should show multiple incommensurate beating frequencies and a richer, possibly non-periodic Wigner flow; checking this would delimit how much of the clean cosine in Eq. (28) is model-specific.
  • The paper notes without showing that a soft-core potential yields a larger momentum spread, so the upper bound on momentum may hold only for this short-range model; computing the same Wigner snapshots for a soft-core potential would test whether the claim generalizes.
  • The delay between full and time-averaged dynamics is attributed to the turn-on ramp; a systematic scan of ramp durations predicting a monotonic delay would make the mechanism quantitative and could guide pulse shaping for stable superpositions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the phase-space dynamics of a one-dimensional Kramers-Henneberger (KH) atom using Wigner quasiprobability distributions. For the time-averaged KH potential, the authors find that a coherent superposition of the two KH eigenstates undergoes a cyclic motion whose frequency equals the energy difference between the eigenstates, and they write an explicit formula, Eq. (28), for the time-dependent Wigner function. When the full time-dependent Hamiltonian is used, the cyclic motion survives but shows time delays and high-momentum tails, which the authors interpret as ionization signatures. They compare the Wigner flow with classical equienergy curves and claim that, for the KH atom, the momentum is bounded from above, in contrast to the spatial confinement seen in molecules. They also compare different initial conditions and conclude that preparing the system in the KH ground state is the most stable scenario.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper usefully extends phase-space analysis to the KH stabilization regime and connects it to the molecular cyclic-motion literature, providing a diagnostic tool based on Wigner functions. The paper's strengths include an explicit analytic decomposition of the time-averaged dynamics, the exact identification of the cyclic frequency with the KH eigenenergy difference, and the use of standard split-operator TDSE propagation with absorbing boundaries. The full-dynamics claims are, however, largely qualitative, and one of the central analytic formulas, Eq. (28), is incorrect as written. The universal momentum-bound claim for 'the KH atom' is also broader than the evidence provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.A, Eq. (28)] Equation (28) omits the imaginary part of the complex cross-Wigner term. For the coherent superposition ψ_coh(t) = (φ0 e^{-iE0t} + φ1 e^{-iE1t})/√2 with real φ0, φ1, the exact Wigner function is W_coh(t) = 1/2(W_0 + W_1) + Re[W_10 e^{-iω10 t}], which expands to 1/2(W_0+W_1) + Re(W_10) cos(ω10 t) + Im(W_10) sin(ω10 t) (up to a sign depending on the convention for W_10). Since the KH eigenstates are real and have opposite parity, W_10(0,p) is purely imaginary, so the sine term is nonzero at x=0 and the cross term does not vanish there as Eq. (28) predicts. The probability-density formula, Eq. (27), is correct, but the Wigner-function formula must include the sine term; as written, Eq. (28) is incorrect and needs to be corrected.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. V] The statement that 'for the KH atom, the momentum must be bounded from above' is presented as a general property, but the evidence is a single short-range potential (Eq. 20) with only two KH eigenstates and one intensity and frequency. The authors themselves state in Sec. V that a soft-core potential with the parameters of Ref. [42] gives a larger momentum spread (not shown). The claim should either be explicitly restricted to the studied model potential or the soft-core analysis should be presented; otherwise the abstract's general statement is not supported by the manuscript's evidence.
  3. [IV.B, Figs. 7-10] The identification of the Wigner tails and fringes with ionization is based on visual inspection of leakage beyond the equienergy curves and alternating-sign fringes; no quantitative correlation with the ionization probability or with the loss of KH-eigenstate population from Eq. (12) is provided. Since the conclusion that 'tails are signatures of ionization' is central to the stabilization discussion, a quantitative measure, such as the norm of the wave function outside the trapping region versus the tail amplitude in the Wigner function, should be reported.
  4. [II.C and Fig. 6] The full-dynamics simulations are not accompanied by convergence tests or error estimates. The quantitative claims about the period shift and time delays in Fig. 6(b), which are key evidence for the full-dynamics cyclic motion, depend on the numerical grid, time step, and absorber parameters; a convergence check (e.g., varying grid spacing and time step) should be included to support these quantitative statements.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] There is a typo in the Fig. 1 caption: 'respctively' should be 'respectively'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption and Sec. III text] The Fig. 2 caption says panels (c) and (d) use 'the first eigenstate of the KH time-averaged potential' as the initial condition, but the text in Sec. III says the ground state φ0 is used; this inconsistency should be resolved.
  3. [Sec. III, cross references] The text near Fig. 3 refers to 'Fig. 2(d)' and 'Fig. 2(c)' when discussing panels of Fig. 3; these cross references should be corrected to Fig. 3.
  4. [Sec. II.C and Eq. (28)] There are several typos: 'satisfiy' should be 'satisfy', 'H(0) KH s the time-averaged' is missing 'i', and Eq. (28) contains stray formatting artifacts ('|2' and an extra absolute value) that should be cleaned up.
  5. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (24)] The definition of ⟨x(t)⟩ in Eq. (24) uses a spatial filter and renormalization of the trapped part; it would be helpful to state explicitly that this is not the full expectation value of the position operator, to avoid confusion.
  6. [References] Reference [37] is missing the journal name; the citation should be completed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central beating formula is a direct spectral-decomposition consequence, and the full-dynamics results are independent numerical comparisons.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The coherent-superposition Wigner cross term oscillating at omega10 = E1 - E0 follows from applying the evolution operator U_KH^(0)(t,t0) = exp[-i H_KH^(0)(t-t0)] to the two eigenstates of the time-averaged KH Hamiltonian; the frequency is an eigen-decomposition identity, not a parameter fitted to the plotted Wigner functions. The KH eigenstates and V0 are obtained by numerical integration and solution of the stationary Schrodinger equation, Eqs. (7) and (9), while the full-dynamics Wigner functions come from propagating the lab-frame TDSE, Eq. (1), and transforming with Eq. (10), so they do not presuppose the time-averaged conclusion. Classical equienergy curves from Eq. (23) are external constraints compared with the quantum flow. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [25,30,47,48]) are contextual descriptions of previously used phase-space diagnostics or molecular analogues; they are not the justification for the KH-atom beating claim. The skeptic's objection that Eq. (28) omits Im[W10] sin(omega10 t) is a mathematical-accuracy issue with the displayed formula, not a circularity: even if Eq. (28) is inexact for these opposite-parity states, the beating period and the qualitative cyclic motion are not produced by feeding the conclusion back into the calculation. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work.

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

The model contains no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its inputs are standard model parameters from the cited literature plus several hand-chosen numerical protocol values. The main interpretive assumption is the association of Wigner tails with ionization.

free parameters (4)
  • E_green = 0.0125 a.u.
    Equienergy curve used in Wigner plots to illustrate momentum confinement; chosen by hand, not derived from the dynamics.
  • t_switch_coh = 1900 a.u.
    Time at which the full-dynamics wave packet is taken as initial condition for the time-averaged propagation; chosen by visual inspection of the onset of stabilization.
  • t_switch_gs = 1200 a.u.
    Similar switching time for the ground-state comparison; chosen by inspection.
  • spatial_filter = [-40, 40] a.u.
    Region used to define the trapped wave packet, its width, and the expectation value of position; chosen by hand and affects the reported observables.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TDSE in the dipole approximation and length gauge, Eq. (2)
    Standard non-relativistic model for a single active electron in a strong laser field; used throughout the paper.
  • domain assumption KH unitary transformation and the KH approximation retaining only the zeroth Fourier term V0, Eq. (7)
    The time-averaged KH potential is the basis for the eigenstates and the classical phase-space constraints; validity is checked via the Gavrila-Kaminsky condition and population observables.
  • domain assumption Short-range model potential with one field-free bound state (Eq. 20), parameters from Refs. [20, 53]
    The central claim about momentum confinement is established for this specific potential; the authors note soft-core potentials give larger momentum spread.
  • domain assumption Classical equienergy curves and separatrices provide constraints on the quantum Wigner flow
    Used in Sec. IV to argue momentum boundedness; assumes the time-averaged potential is a valid classical Hamiltonian for this purpose.
  • ad hoc to paper Wigner-function fringes and high-momentum tails are interpreted as signatures of ionization
    This interpretive leap is central to the stabilization argument and is supported by prior work [24, 25, 41] but is not proven in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum beating and cyclic structures in the phase-space dynamics of the Kramers-Henneberger atom." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZOAKQW6Q

@misc{pith2026241206408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum beating and cyclic structures in the phase-space dynamics of the Kramers-Henneberger atom},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZOAKQW6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06408}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the phase-space dynamics of the Kramers Henneberger (KH) atom solving the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation for reduced-dimensionality models and using Wigner quasiprobability distributions. We find that, for the time-averaged KH potential, coherent superpositions of eigenstates perform a cyclic motion confined in momentum space, whose frequency is proportional to the energy difference between the two KH eigenstates. This cyclic motion is also present if the full time dependent dynamics are taken into consideration. However, there are time delays regarding the time-averaged potential, and some tail-shaped spilling of the quasiprobability flow towards higher momentum regions. These tails are signatures of ionization, indicating that, for the potential studied in this work, a small momentum spread is associated with stabilization. A comparison of the quasiprobability flow with classical phase-space constraints shows that, for the KH atom, the momentum must be bounded from above. This is a major difference from a molecule, for which the quasiprobability flow is confined in position space for small internuclear separation. Furthermore, we assess the stability of different propagation strategies and find that the most stable scenario for the full dynamics is obtained if the system is initially prepared in the KH ground state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06408 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Probability densities associated with the KH eigen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time-dependent observables calculated solving the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Wigner quasiprobability distributions using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Wigner quasiprobability distributions for the KH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Absolute value of the autocorrelation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Wigner quasiprobability distribution at different times corresponding to the points indicated in Fig. 6 using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Wigner function at different times using the coherent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Wigner function at different times using a coherent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Wigner function at different times computed using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Bestle, V

    J. Bestle, V. M. Akulin, and W. P. Schleich, Classical and quantum stabilization of atoms in intense laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 48, 746 (1993)

    work page 1993

  2. [1]

    The Wigner function is real and normalized, and its marginals correspond to physical probability distributions for each conjugate variable, respectively

    Wigner quasiprobability distribution The Wigner quasiprobability distribution for a pure state |ψG⟩ [51] reads WG(x, p, t) = Z ∞ −∞ dξ ⟨ψG|x + ξ/2⟩ ⟨x + ξ/2|p⟩ ⟨p|x − ξ/2⟩ ⟨x − ξ/2|ψG⟩ , (14) where the subscript G = L or KH indicates the gauge of the space-state vector and the Wigner function. The Wigner function is real and normalized, and its marginals ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    They are used in the framework of classical dynamical systems

    Phase portraits Phase portraits are useful to identify different phase- space behaviors, for instance, bound or continuum dy- namics, or confinement. They are used in the framework of classical dynamical systems. They are defined by solv- ing Hamilton’s equations ˙x = p ˙p = −dV /dx. (18) A fixed point is obtained for ˙ x = ˙p = 0 and, for Hamil- tonian s...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Grynberg and C

    G. Grynberg and C. Robilliard, Cold atoms in dissipative optical lattices, Physics Reports 355, 335 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [4]

    Greiner and S

    M. Greiner and S. F¨ olling, Optical lattices, Nature 453, 736 (2008). 13

    work page 2008

  6. [5]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ul- tracold atoms in optical lattices, Science 357, 995 (2017), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aal3837

    doi:10.1126/science.aal3837 2017

  7. [6]

    K¨ ubel, M

    M. K¨ ubel, M. Spanner, Z. Dube, A. Y. Naumov, S. Chelkowski, A. D. Bandrauk, M. J. J. Vrakking, P. B. Corkum, D. M. Villeneuve, and A. Staudte, Probing multiphoton light-induced molecular potentials, Nature Communications 11, 2596 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    Oka and S

    T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Floquet engineering of quantum materials, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 387 (2019)

    2019

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Lucchini, F

    M. Lucchini, F. Medeghini, Y. Wu, F. Vismarra, R. Borrego-Varillas, A. Crego, F. Frassetto, L. Poletto, S. A. Sato, H. H¨ obener, U. De Giovannini, A. Rubio, and M. Nisoli, Controlling floquet states on ultrashort time scales, Nature Communications 13, 7103 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Becker, S

    W. Becker, S. P. Goreslavski, D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, and G. G. Paulus, The plateau in above-threshold ionization: the keystone of rescattering physics, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 162002 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Becker, F

    W. Becker, F. Grasbon, R. Kopold, D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, G. G. Paulus, and H. Walther, Above-threshold ioniza- tion: From classical features to quantum effects, Ad- vances in Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics 48, 35 (2002)

    2002

  4. [11]

    D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, G. G. Paulus, D. Bauer, and W. Becker, Above-threshold ionization by few-cycle pulses, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 39, R203 (2006)

    2006

  5. [12]

    Lewenstein, P

    M. Lewenstein, P. Balcou, M. Y. Ivanov, A. L’Huillier, and P. B. Corkum, Theory of high-harmonic generation by low-frequency laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2117 (1994)

    1994

  6. [13]

    C. F. de Morisson Faria and X. Liu, Electron–electron correlation in strong laser fields, Journal of Modern Op- tics 58, 1076 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    Becker, X

    W. Becker, X. Liu, P. J. Ho, and J. H. Eberly, Theories of photoelectron correlation in laser-driven multiple atomic ionization, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1011 (2012)

    2012

  8. [15]

    W. C. Henneberger, Perturbation method for atoms in intense light beams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 838 (1968)

    1968

  9. [16]

    Gavrila, Atomic stabilization in superintense laser fields, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics 35, R147 (2002)

    M. Gavrila, Atomic stabilization in superintense laser fields, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics 35, R147 (2002)

    2002

  10. [17]

    I. A. Ivanov, A. S. Kheifets, and K. T. Kim, Interference patterns in ionization of kramersˆ a€“henneberger atom, Scientific Reports 12, 17048 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Morales, M

    F. Morales, M. Richter, S. Patchkovskii, and O. Smirnova, Imaging the kramers–henneberger atom, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 16906 (2011), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1105916108

    2011 doi

  12. [19]

    Eichmann, T

    U. Eichmann, T. Nubbemeyer, H. Rottke, and W. Sand- ner, Acceleration of neutral atoms in strong short-pulse laser fields, Nature 461, 1261 (2009)

    2009

  13. [20]

    He, Z.-H

    P.-L. He, Z.-H. Zhang, and F. He, Young’s double-slit interference in a hydrogen atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 163201 (2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    Gavrila and J

    M. Gavrila and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Free-free transitions in intense high-frequency laser fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 613 (1984)

    1984

  15. [22]

    Popov, O

    A. Popov, O. Tikhonova, and E. Volkova, Applicability of the kramers-henneberger approximation in the theory of strong-field ionization, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 32, 3331 (1999)

    1999

  16. [23]

    scarring

    B. Sundaram and R. V. Jensen, “scarring” and suppres- sion of ionization in very intense radiation fields, Phys. Rev. A 47, 1415 (1993)

    1993

  17. [24]

    J. B. Watson, C. H. Keitel, P. L. Knight, and K. Burnett, Entropic measure of wave-packet spreading and ioniza- tion in laser-driven atoms, Phys. Rev. A 54, 729 (1996)

    1996

  18. [25]

    and Figueira de Morisson Faria, C., Atto- science in phase space, Eur

    Chomet, H. and Figueira de Morisson Faria, C., Atto- science in phase space, Eur. Phys. J. D 75, 201 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    Czirj´ ak, R

    A. Czirj´ ak, R. Kopold, W. Becker, M. Kleber, and W. Schleich, The Wigner function for tunneling in a uni- form static electric field, Optics Communications 179, 29 (2000)

    2000

  20. [27]

    Zagoya, J

    C. Zagoya, J. Wu, M. Ronto, D. V. Shalashilin, and C. F. de Morisson Faria, Quantum and semiclassical phase- space dynamics of a wave packet in strong fields using initial-value representations, New Journal of Physics 16, 103040 (2014)

    2014

  21. [28]

    Dubois, S

    J. Dubois, S. A. Berman, C. Chandre, and T. Uzer, Cap- turing photoelectron motion with guiding centers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 113202 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    F. He, A. Becker, and U. Thumm, Strong-field modu- lated diffraction effects in the correlated electron-nuclear motion in dissociating h + 2 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 213002 (2008)

    2008

  23. [30]

    Takemoto and A

    N. Takemoto and A. Becker, Multiple ionization bursts in laser-driven hydrogen molecular ion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 203004 (2010)

    2010

  24. [31]

    Takemoto and A

    N. Takemoto and A. Becker, Time-resolved view on charge-resonance-enhanced ionization, Phys. Rev. A 84, 023401 (2011)

    2011

  25. [32]

    Chomet, D

    H. Chomet, D. Sarkar, and C. F. de Morisson Faria, Quantum bridges in phase space: interference and non- classicality in strong-field enhanced ionisation, New Jour- nal of Physics 21, 123004 (2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    P.-L. He, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Nondipole time delay and double-slit interference in tun- neling ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 183201 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    Zagoya, M

    C. Zagoya, M. Bonner, H. Chomet, E. Slade, and C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, Different time scales in plasmonically enhanced high-order-harmonic generation, Phys. Rev. A 93, 053419 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    Kull, Position–momentum correlations in elec- tron–ion scattering in strong laser fields, New Journal of Physics 14, 055013 (2012)

    H.-J. Kull, Position–momentum correlations in elec- tron–ion scattering in strong laser fields, New Journal of Physics 14, 055013 (2012)

    2012

  29. [36]

    Czirj´ ak, S

    A. Czirj´ ak, S. Majorosi, J. Kov´ acs, and M. G. Benedict, Emergence of oscillations in quantum entanglement dur- ing rescattering, Physica Scripta T153, 014013 (2013)

    2013

  30. [37]

    Baumann, H.-J

    C. Baumann, H.-J. Kull, and G. M. Fraiman, Wigner representation of ionization and scattering in strong laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 92, 063420 (2015)

    2015

  31. [38]

    Lewenstein, M

    M. Lewenstein, M. F. Ciappina, E. Pisanty, J. Rivera- Dean, P. Stammer, T. Lamprou, and P. Tzallas, Gener- ation of optical schr¨ odinger cat states in intense laser– matter interactions, Nature Physics 17, 1104 (2021)

    2021

  32. [39]

    Mediˇ sauskas, F

    L. Mediˇ sauskas, F. Morales, A. Palacios, A. Gonz´ alez- Castrillo, L. Plimak, O. Smirnova, F. Mart ´ ın, and M. Y. Ivanov, 17, 053011 (2015)

    2015

  33. [40]

    Busto, L

    D. Busto, L. Barreau, M. Isinger, M. Turconi, C. Alexan- dridi, A. Harth, S. Zhong, R. J. Squibb, D. Kroon, S. Plogmaker, M. Miranda, ´A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, L. Ar- genti, C. L. Arnold, R. Feifel, F. Mart ´ ın, M. Gisselbrecht, A. L’Huillier, and P. Sali` eres, Time–frequency r...

    2018

  34. [41]

    Busto, David, Laurell, Hugo, Finkelstein-Shapiro, Daniel, Alexandridi, Christiana, Isinger, Marcus, Nandi, Saikat, Squibb, Richard J., Turconi, Margherita, Zhong, Shiyang, Arnold, Cord L., Feifel, Raimund, Gisselbrecht, Mathieu, Sali` eres, Pascal, Pullerits, T¨ onu, Mart ´ ın...

    2022

  35. [43]

    J. B. Watson, C. H. Keitel, P. L. Knight, and K. Burnett, Quantum signatures in the stabilization dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 52, 4023 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    M. J. Norman, C. Chandre, T. Uzer, and P. Wang, Non- linear dynamics of ionization stabilization of atoms in intense laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 91, 023406 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Floriani, J

    E. Floriani, J. Dubois, and C. Chandre, Scars of kramers- henneberger atoms (2024), arXiv:2407.18575 [nlin.CD]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Fring, V

    A. Fring, V. Kostrykin, and R. Schrader, On the absence of bound-state stabilization through short ultra-intense fields, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics 29, 5651 (1996)

    1996

  39. [47]

    C. F. de Morisson Faria, A. Fring, and R. Schrader, On the influence of pulse shapes on ionization probability, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 31, 449 (1998)

    1998

  40. [48]

    C. F. de Morisson Faria, A. Fring, and R. Schrader, Analytical treatment of stabilization (1998), arXiv:physics/9808047 [physics.atom-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kufel, H

    D. Kufel, H. Chomet, and C. F. de Morisson Faria, Alter- native quantisation condition for wavepacket dynamics in a hyperbolic double well, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical 54, 035304 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Chomet, S

    H. Chomet, S. Plesnik, D. C. Nicolae, J. Dunham, L. Gover, T. Weaving, and C. F. de Morisson Faria, Con- trolling quantum effects in enhanced strong-field ionisa- tion with machine-learning techniques, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 55, 245501 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Figueira de Morisson Faria, M

    C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, M. D¨ orr, W. Becker, and W. Sandner, Time-frequency analysis of two-color high- harmonic generation, Phys. Rev. A 60, 1377 (1999)

    1999

  44. [52]

    Richter, Imaging and Controlling Electronic and NU- clear Dynamics in Strong Lasr Fields , Phd thesis, Tech- nische Universit”at Berlin, Berlin, Germany (2016)

    M. Richter, Imaging and Controlling Electronic and NU- clear Dynamics in Strong Lasr Fields , Phd thesis, Tech- nische Universit”at Berlin, Berlin, Germany (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space (Wiley, 2011)

    W. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space (Wiley, 2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    Arrowsmith and C

    D. Arrowsmith and C. Place, Dynamical Systems: Differ- ential Equations, Maps, and Chaotic Behaviour (Rout- ledge, New York, 1992)

    1992

  47. [55]

    Grobe and M

    R. Grobe and M. Fedorov, Wavepacket spreading and electron localization in strong-field ionization, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 26, 1181 (1993)

    1993

  48. [56]

    Javanainen, J

    J. Javanainen, J. H. Eberly, and Q. Su, Numerical sim- ulations of multiphoton ionization and above-threshold electron spectra, Physical Review A 38, 3430 (1988)

    1988

  49. [57]

    Vivirito and P

    R. Vivirito and P. Knight, Adiabatic excitation and sta- bilization in short-range potentials, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 28, 4357 (1995). 15 b) c) d) b’’) c’’) b’) c’) d’) d’’) x (a.u.) -25 -20 -15-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30-30 x (a.u.) -25 -20 ...

    1995

Pith tools

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