Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 103 references

Coherent enhancement of QED cross-sections in electromagnetic backgrounds

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Classical background fields can coherently enhance QED cross sections and change their energy scaling, potentially by up to ten orders of magnitude.

desk verdict The form-factor framework is a genuinely useful organizing tool and the low-energy scaling results are robust, but the headline ten-order 1→1 enhancement is convention-dependent and should be re-presented as a per-pulse comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10574 v1 pith:KTH2BXRQ submitted 2024-12-13 hep-ph

T. Heinzl , B. King , D. Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords coherentenhancementphoton-photonscatteringbackgroundfieldsformfactorsHeisenberg-Eulereffectivetheoryvacuumbirefringencepairannihilationx-rayfreeelectronlaser
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

The paper argues that when one or more external photon legs of a QED process are replaced by a classical electromagnetic background, the resulting cross section typically receives a coherent enhancement factor proportional to powers of the background's Fourier amplitude. For low-energy photon-photon scattering this changes the centre-of-mass energy scaling: the helicity-flip $1\to 1$ channel scales as $(\omega/m)^4$ while the vacuum $2\to 2$ channel scales as $(\omega/m)^6$. The authors show that at parameters planned for a vacuum-birefringence experiment with an optical laser, this enhancement makes the $1\to 1$ helicity-flip cross section exceed the vacuum one by about ten orders of magnitude. They also apply the form-factor method to pair annihilation to a single photon, finding coherent enhancement that competes with kinematic suppression, and argue that an x-ray free electron laser can minimise the suppression.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intensity form factor $\chi^{(2)}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(q) = \int d^4x\, e^{iq\cdot x} F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\rho\sigma}(x)$, the Fourier transform of the product of two background field strengths, which acts as a momentum filter controlling the momentum transfer $q$ available to the scattered photon; for a weakly-focussed Gaussian pulse it takes the closed form of Eq. (87), and in the monochromatic limit it reduces to $\chi^{(2)}_{\mathrm{mono}}(q) = (2\pi F_0)^2 \delta^{(4)}(q)$. The cross sections are built from flux-normalised probabilities using $J = \int \frac{d^3\kappa}{(2\pi)^3 2\omega_\kappa} 2|\bar A(\kappa)|^2$, with the identification $2|\bar A(\kappa)|^2 = |z_\kappa|^2$ linking the classical Fourier amplitude to the coherent-state photon number. The coherence factor $\xi^2\Phi/\alpha\eta$ then quantifies the enhancement, playing the role that the nuclear charge $Z^2$ plays in Delbr\"uck scattering.

What would settle it

Measure the helicity-flip rate of a probe photon crossing a high-intensity laser pulse at fixed $\xi$ while scanning centre-of-mass energy $\omega$; the paper predicts $\sigma_{1\to1}^{+−}\propto\omega^4$ and a specific absolute value of about $0.9\times 10^{-43}$ m$^2$ at the planned-experiment parameters, so a measured slope differing from $\omega^4$ or a rate far outside the predicted band would falsify the coherent-enhancement mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a form-factor prescription that turns any vacuum QED amplitude into its background-field counterpart: replace some external photon momenta and polarisations by the momentum and polarisation of a Fourier mode of a classical background field, and multiply by the field's Fourier amplitude (or, for two replacements, by a convolution of field amplitudes called the intensity form factor). This produces the replacement rule $T_{fi} \sim \chi(q)\, M_{2\to 2}\big|_{1\to 1}$ for the $1\to 1$ channel, and analogous rules for the $1\to 2$ and $0\to 1$ channels. Applied to low-energy photon-photon scattering, the prescription yields $\sigma_{1\to 1} \sim \xi^2 \Phi (\omega/m)^4$ and $\sigma_{2\to 2} \sim (\omega/m)^6$, so the ratio $\sigma_{1\to1}/\sigma_{2\to2} \sim \xi^2\Phi/\alpha\eta$ acts as a coherence factor. The paper's headline numerical result is that with the beam parameters of a planned vacuum-birefringence experiment ($\xi\approx 30$, $\Phi\approx 40$, $\omega=116$ eV) the $1\to 1$ helicity-flip cross section is $\approx 0.9\times 10^{-43}\,\mathrm{m}^2$, about ten orders above the vacuum $2\to 2$ value $\approx 1.8\times 10^{-53}\,\mathrm{m}^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The reported enhancement factors, including the ten-order gain, rest on the convention that the classical background acts as a photon flux with distribution $2|\bar A(\kappa)|^2$; if an experiment is better described by the total probability or by a different photon distribution of a focused pulse, the enhancement numbers change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $1\to 1$ helicity-flip photon scattering cross section scales as $(\omega/m)^4 \sim \eta^2$ rather than the vacuum's $(\omega/m)^6 \sim \eta^3$, so at low centre-of-mass energies the field-assisted channel overtakes the vacuum process.
  • At the parameters of a planned vacuum-birefringence experiment, the helicity-flip $1\to 1$ cross section is about $10^{10}$ times the vacuum light-by-light cross section, making vacuum-birefringence-type experiments currently more feasible than real-photon-scattering experiments.
  • The $1\to 2$ channel in a plane-wave background equals the $2\to 2$ vacuum cross section with one photon replaced, and retains the same energy scaling, whereas the $1\to 1$ channel breaks universality because beam parameters remain in the cross section.
  • Leading-order pair annihilation into one photon in a classical background is coherently enhanced relative to the $2\to 2$ vacuum annihilation, with $\sigma_{2\to1}/\sigma_{2\to2}\sim \xi^2\Phi/\alpha\eta_\ell$, but only when the kinematic matching condition $r_* = 2\bar s/\eta_\ell \approx 1$ is satisfied; for x-ray free-electron-laser parameters the stimulated process is about three times the vac
  • The $0\to 1$ emission channel from three colliding laser pulses gives polarisation-dependent cross sections with a frequency-doubling geometry, and is kinematically supported only when the three beams satisfy the condition of Eq. (142).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the flux-normalised cross-section convention of Eq. (73) is replaced by a total-probability measure, the enhancement factors, including the ten-order claim, change; comparisons between channels should therefore be made under a single stated flux convention.
  • The same form-factor logic could be applied beyond the low-energy Heisenberg-Euler effective theory to estimate coherent enhancement of multi-photon channels at next order in the quantum fluctuation, though the paper only sketches this extension.
  • A direct experimental test of the claimed $\omega^4$ scaling could be performed by scanning probe photon energy at a fixed background intensity and measuring the helicity-flip rate; observing $\sigma_{1\to1}\propto\omega^4$ would confirm the mechanism independently of the absolute normalisation.
  • The kinematic-matching condition for $2\to 1$ annihilation suggests a practical recipe: tune the electron and positron energies and collision angle so that $r_*=1$; the paper estimates this is achievable at x-ray free-electron-laser photon energies, a constraint that could guide future accelerator-laser setups.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a form-factor framework for QED processes in classical electromagnetic backgrounds. External photon lines of a vacuum amplitude are replaced by background-field lines; the Fourier transforms of the background (linear in the field for the 1→2 channel, quadratic for 1→1, cubic for 0→1) act as form factors, and a coherent-state argument identifies 2|Ā(κ)|² with the background photon-number distribution, producing a coherence factor |z|². The framework is applied to low-energy photon-photon scattering channels (1→2, 1→1, 0→1) and to leading-order pair annihilation (2→2 versus 2→1). The central claims are that background-assisted cross-sections undergo coherent enhancement (factors such as ξ²Φ/α), that the CM-energy scalings differ (σ_{1→1} ∼ (ω/m)⁴ versus σ_{2→2} ∼ (ω/m)⁶), that the 2→1 annihilation enhancement competes with kinematic suppression that can be minimized with XFEL backgrounds, and, numerically (Sec. IX), that the 1→1 helicity-flip cross-section at BIREF@HIBEF parameters exceeds the vacuum 2→2 cross-section by about ten orders of magnitude, with implications for experimental feasibility.

Significance. The framework is attractive and, where it can be checked against the literature, largely correct: Eq. (63) reproduces the standard low-energy photon-photon cross-section; Eq. (104) matches the published probability benchmarks in the zero-focussing limit; Eq. (121) recovers the known vacuum-birefringence refractive-index difference; Eqs. (122)–(123) agree with the recent circular-polarization result; and the Delbrück analogies in Eqs. (112)–(113) are illuminating. The scaling statements in Eq. (111) are clean, parameter-free predictions that distinguish the channels and are insensitive to the normalization issues discussed below. The 2→1 analysis of Sec. VIII is the strongest part: the kinematic-suppression mechanism (the r* matching in Eq. (174), the angle condition of Eqs. (178)–(179), and the consistently normalized factor-three enhancement of Eq. (180)) is concrete and falsifiable. However, the quantitative headline of Sec. IX is built on numbers that are internally inconsistent and on a cross-section normalization that is not comparable to the vacuum one.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IX, Eqs. (181)–(182)] The quoted σ_{2→2} is inconsistent with the paper's own Eq. (63). With ω = 116 eV one has ω/m = 2.27×10⁻⁴ and (ω/m)⁶ = 1.37×10⁻²²; the coefficient of Eq. (63) is 973α²r_e²/(10125π) = 1.29×10⁻³⁵ m², which gives σ_{2→2} = 1.8×10⁻⁵⁷ m², i.e., 1.8×10⁻⁵³ cm². The value printed in Eq. (181) is the cm² value with an m² unit. Consequently, the ratio quoted as 'about 10 orders of magnitude' (0.9×10⁻⁴³/1.8×10⁻⁵³ = 5×10⁹) is obtained by mixing m² for σ_{1→1} with cm² for σ_{2→2}; in consistent units the ratio is 0.9×10⁻⁴³/1.8×10⁻⁵⁷ = 5×10¹³, i.e., about 14 orders of magnitude. This is consistent with the coherence factor ξ²Φ/αη ≈ 5×10¹³ stated in the same paragraph and with Eq. (110), which gives σ_{1→1}/σ_{2→2} ≈ 3.3ξ²Φ/αη ≈ 1.6×10¹⁴ for the flip channel. The magnitude claim and the exponent must be corrected, and all quoted values must be given in a single unit system.
  2. [Secs. V–VI and Sec. IX, Eqs. (72)–(73), (107)–(110)] The comparison σ_{1→1}/σ_{2→2} is a ratio of differently normalized quantities. σ_{2→2} follows the standard definition of Eq. (59) with one particle per unit volume and v_rel = 2, whereas σ_{1→1} is obtained by dividing the probe-photon probability by J, the background's own photon-number flux defined in Eq. (73). Since J and the 1→1 probability depend differently on pulse duration, focal area, and pulse shape, this ratio is not an observable event-rate ratio. The manuscript acknowledges the non-universality of σ_{1→1} in Sec. VI B 1 and in footnote 4, but this caveat does not accompany the Sec. IX inference that vacuum-birefringence experiments 'are currently more feasible' than real photon-photon scattering experiments, nor does it qualify the abstract's 'coherent enhancement' as a convention-dependent statement. A feasibility claim requires a comparison of per-pulse probabilities or rates at the same beam parameters (e.g., N_flip = N_probe × P_{1→1} from Eq. (104) against σ_{2→2} times a real two-beam luminosity), which Eqs. (181)–(182) do not provide. I therefore ask that either such a comparison be added or the conclusion be reformulated with the explicit statement that σ_{1→1} is a flux-normalized, beam-dependent quantity rather than a rate cross-section. The scaling claims of Eq. (111) and the 2→1 comparison of Sec. VIII are unaffected, since they do not rely on division by the background flux.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eqs. (104)–(105), (109), (114), (182)] The printed formulas do not form a reproducible numerical chain. Eq. (105) is dimensionally inconsistent as written: (αηξ²Φ/90πm)² has dimension m⁻² in natural units, so the right-hand side carries units of area, while a probability must be dimensionless; Eq. (104) is dimensionless and appears consistent with the cited benchmarks, so (105) appears to be a transcription error. In addition, the value σ_{1→1}^{(+-)} = 0.9×10⁻⁴³ m² quoted in Eq. (182) is not reproducible from Eq. (109) (which gives ≈ 2.8×10⁻⁴³ m² with ξ = 30, Φ = 40) or from Eq. (114) (≈ 5.0×10⁻⁴³ m²); footnote 4 explains the (109)/(114) prefactor mismatch but does not specify which convention underlies the Sec. IX number. Please correct the dimensional error in (105) and provide the full parameter set and prefactor conventions (waist, pulse duration, incidence angle, Φ definition, and the choice A = πw₀²/2) so that Eqs. (104), (109), and (182) form a single consistent chain.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (50)] The coefficients C₂ and C₋₂ in the intensity form factor χ(q) ∼ C₂δ(2κ+q) + 2C₀δ(q) + C₋₂δ(−2κ+q) are not defined; defining them (they should carry the phase sums ∑exp(±2iϕ_j)) would make the incoherent-limit scaling N, rather than N², transparent also for the non-zero momentum-transfer terms.
  2. [Sec. V, after Eq. (66)] There is a typo in 'we have used thatk′ = (k′0∗, k′∗)'; the missing space makes the sentence hard to read, and the distinction between the on-shell vector k′ and the star-marked components k′_∗, k′⁰_∗ should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Sec. VI B 2] The text 'using Eq. (90, but now for a photon helicity flip' is missing a closing parenthesis, and the equation numbers referenced in the comparison between Eqs. (117), (119), and (120) should be double-checked for consistency.
  4. [Fig. 3 and Sec. IX] Figure 3 compares the flux-normalized σ_{1→1} of Eq. (114) with the standard σ_{2→2} of Eq. (63); please state in the caption or text which normalization is plotted and the value of Φ (pulse-shape parameter N) used, so the figure can be read in the same convention as the corrected Sec. IX numbers.
  5. [Sec. VII, opening] The sentence 'in order to have something measurable in experiment' begins with a lowercase 'i' after a period; this is a simple typographical error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coherent-enhancement factor is derived from coherent-state amplitudes and flux normalization, not assumed; the Sec. IX 10-order comparison is a defined cross-section ratio with a normalization caveat that the paper itself flags.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The form factors χ(1), χ(2), χ(3) are defined directly as Fourier transforms or convolutions of the background field strength (Eqs. (18), (25), (30)), and the background-field amplitudes are obtained by replacing photon legs with classical-field lines (Eqs. (22), (27), (128)). The coherent-enhancement factor ξ²Φ/α is not inserted as an input; it follows from the coherent-state eigenvalue zκ, the identification 2|Ā(κ)|² = |zκ|², and the flux normalization J in Eq. (73), after dividing the probability by J to define σ1→1 in Eqs. (107)–(109). The scaling claims σ1→1 ∼ (ω/m)⁴ and σ2→2 ∼ (ω/m)⁶ are derived from the Mandelstam invariants and do not depend on the flux convention. Reproductions of known results, such as Eq. (105) agreeing with [74,75] and Eq. (121) recovering [88], are external benchmark checks, not load-bearing inputs. Cited prior works by the same authors are used for numerical methods, beam parameters, or known low-energy limits, but the central premise does not reduce to those citations. The only caveat is that the Sec. IX statement that σ1→1 exceeds σ2→2 by about ten orders compares two differently normalized quantities: σ1→1 is divided by the background photon flux J, while σ2→2 uses vrel = 2. The paper explicitly acknowledges this non-universality, stating that when the laser field is scattered into, 'the cross-section is no longer universal and instead depends on parameters of the beam.' This is a presentation and normalization caveat, not a circular step, and it does not affect the derived energy-scaling result.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the paper uses standard QED low-energy constants and external beam parameters. The central claim rests on the coherent-state description of the background, the weak-field Heisenberg-Euler truncation, factorable background profiles, and the flux normalization used to define cross-sections. The last is the most convention-dependent.

free parameters (2)
  • BIREF-type beam parameters for the 1->1 numerical estimate = xi=30, Phi=40, omega=116 eV, eta=1.0e-7
    External experimental inputs taken from [26,31]; not fitted, but they set the quoted enhancement ratio sigma_1->1 / sigma_2->2 of about 10^10.
  • EU.XFEL SASE1 parameters for the 2->1 pair-annihilation estimate = omega_kappa=12.4 keV, 30 fs pulses, 5 micron focus, xi=6e-5, Phi=3.5e5, psi=1.4 degrees
    Assumed beam configuration chosen to satisfy r*=1; controls the numerical result sigma_2->1 = 0.43 r_e^2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The laser background is a source-free, classical c-number field obeying kappa^2 bar A = 0 and can be represented by coherent-state amplitudes z_kappa.
    Central to the form-factor replacement rules; introduced in Sec. III and used in Eqs. (67)-(71).
  • domain assumption The low-energy process is described by the truncated Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian L_eff = c1 S^2 + c2 P^2 + c3 SP with standard QED constants, and only low-order interactions with the background are kept.
    Used to define the effective four-photon vertex and all cross-sections in Secs. IV-VIII; valid for chi = xi eta << 1.
  • domain assumption The background tensor structure factors as F^{mu nu} = F0 g(x) epsilon^{mu nu} with epsilon^2 = 0, including plane-wave or weakly-focussed paraxial Gaussian profiles.
    Allows the scalar intensity form factors in Eqs. (87), (130), etc.; breaks down for tightly focused fields or some circular-polarization cases.
  • ad hoc to paper A cross-section for a background-assisted process is defined by dividing the probability by the flux J from Eq. (73), treating the background Fourier amplitude as a photon number distribution.
    This is the paper's convention; it is not forced by the S-matrix and directly produces the coherence factor reported as enhancement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coherent enhancement of QED cross-sections in electromagnetic backgrounds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTH2BXRQ

@misc{pith2026241210574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coherent enhancement of QED cross-sections in electromagnetic backgrounds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTH2BXRQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10574}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce form factors that relate the amplitude of a QED process in vacuum to its corresponding background-field process. The latter is characterised by a reduced S-matrix element where one or more photon field operators are replaced by classical background fields. In the associated Feynman diagram, external photon lines are supplanted with lines representing the c-number field. This modifies the cross section by factors proportional to powers of the Fourier amplitude of the classical field (and its complex conjugate). We demonstrate this explicitly by comparing different reaction channels of low-energy photon-photon scattering in a classical background. We find that background field cross sections typically undergo coherent enhancement and for some reaction channels display a more favourable scaling with centre-of-mass energy compared to the vacuum process. Similar coherent enhancement may be found for leading-order pair annihilation to one photon, but this competes with kinematic suppression. This suppression can be minimised by using an x-ray free electron laser as the classical background.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10574 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Channels for low-energy photon-photon scattering in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of the total cross-section for the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Pair-annihilation diagrams for the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We assume the incoming photon 12 has helicity corresponding to vectors ε± = (ε1 ± iε2)/ √ 2 with momentum dependent basis, εj = ϵj − ℓ · ϵj κ · ℓ κ , ℓ · εj = 0

    Linearly polarised background To compare our findings for the 1 → 1 probability to literature values, we consider the background to be linearly polarised in the 1-direction, i.e., ϵ = ϵ1 with x · ϵj = −xj for j = 1, 2. We assume the incoming photon 12 has helicity corresponding to vectors ε± = (ε1 ± iε2)/ √ 2 with momentum dependent basis, εj = ϵj − ℓ · ϵ...

  2. [2]

    Let us suppose that a photon in helicity state |ε±⟩ = [ |ε1⟩ ±i|ε2⟩]/ √ 2 probes a plane wave classical field that is polarised in e.g

    Vacuum birefringence Given the probability P1→1 we can link the intensity form factor to vacuum birefringence. Let us suppose that a photon in helicity state |ε±⟩ = [ |ε1⟩ ±i|ε2⟩]/ √ 2 probes a plane wave classical field that is polarised in e.g. the ε1 direction. Since the vacuum refractive indices in ε1 and ε2 directions differ (i.e. the vacuum is biref...

    2010

  3. [3]

    Circularly-polarised monochromatic background A final application of the 1 → 1 probability is pro- vided by a monochromatic classical field with circular rather than linear polarisation. This example is inter- esting for two reasons: (i) It cannot be calculated using the Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian (which was derived for constant fields) since the instant...

  4. [4]

    Heinzl and A

    T. Heinzl and A. Ilderton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 113202 (2017), 1701.09166

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Ilderton, P

    A. Ilderton, P. Johansson, and M. Marklund, Physical Review A 84, 32119 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    A. K. Harding and D. Lai, Rep. Prog. Phys. 69, 2631 (2006)

    2006

  7. [7]

    Blankenbecler and S

    R. Blankenbecler and S. D. Drell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2324 (1988), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 62, 116 (1989)]

    1988

  8. [8]

    T. N. Wistisen, A. Di Piazza, H. V. Knudsen, and U. I. Uggerhøj, Nature Commun. 9, 795 (2018), 1704.01080

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Yabuuchi, A

    T. Yabuuchi, A. Kon, Y. Inubushi, T. Togahi, K. Sueda, T. Itoga, K. Nakajima, H. Habara, R. Kodama, H. Tomizawa, et al., Journal of synchrotron radiation 26, 585 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Inoue, T

    I. Inoue, T. Osaka, T. Hara, T. Tanaka, T. Inagaki, T. Fukui, S. Goto, Y. Inubushi, H. Kimura, R. Kinjo, et al., Nature photonics 13, 319 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    S. Tang, A. Ilderton, and B. King, Phys. Rev. A 100, 062119 (2019), 1909.01141

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Stohr, Linac coherent light source ii (lcls-ii) concep- tual design report, URL https://www.osti.gov/biblio/ 1029479

    J. Stohr, Linac coherent light source ii (lcls-ii) concep- tual design report, URL https://www.osti.gov/biblio/ 1029479

  5. [13]

    Abela et al., XFEL: The European X-Ray Free- Electron Laser - Technical Design Report (DESY, Ham- burg, 2006), ISBN 978-3-935702-17-1, URL https:// bib-pubdb1.desy.de/record/77248

    R. Abela et al., XFEL: The European X-Ray Free- Electron Laser - Technical Design Report (DESY, Ham- burg, 2006), ISBN 978-3-935702-17-1, URL https:// bib-pubdb1.desy.de/record/77248

    2006

  6. [14]

    Dunning et al., JACoW FLS2023, TU4P13 (2024)

    D. Dunning et al., JACoW FLS2023, TU4P13 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Zhao and H

    Z. Zhao and H. Ding, JACoW IP AC2024, TUZN1 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Aschikhin, C

    A. Aschikhin, C. Behrens, S. Bohlen, J. Dale, N. Delbos, L. di Lucchio, E. Elsen, J.-H. Erbe, M. Felber, B. Foster, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 806, 175 (2016), ISSN 01...

    2016

  9. [17]

    Ganter, Swissfel - conceptual design report (2010)

    R. Ganter, Swissfel - conceptual design report (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Schietinger, JACoW FLS2023, MO3A2 (2024)

    T. Schietinger, JACoW FLS2023, MO3A2 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Di Piazza, K

    A. Di Piazza, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 083603 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    B. King, A. Di Piazza, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. A 82, 032114 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Seipt and B

    D. Seipt and B. K¨ ampfer, Phys. Rev. A 89, 023433 (2014), 1309.2092

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Seipt, A

    D. Seipt, A. Surzhykov, S. Fritzsche, and B. Kampfer, New J. Phys. 18, 023044 (2016), 1507.08868. 21

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ahmadiniaz, T

    N. Ahmadiniaz, T. E. Cowan, M. Ding, M. A. L. Lopez, R. Sauerbrey, R. Shaisultanov, and R. Sch¨ utzhold (2022), 2212.03350

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Karbstein, D

    F. Karbstein, D. Ullmann, E. A. Mosman, and M. Zepf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 061802 (2022), 2207.09866

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ahmadiniaz, T

    N. Ahmadiniaz, T. E. Cowan, J. Grenzer, S. Franchino- Vi˜ nas, A. L. Garcia, M.ˇSm ´ ıd, T. Toncian, M. A. Trejo, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Phys. Rev. D 108, 076005 (2023), 2208.14215

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Karbstein, H

    F. Karbstein, H. Gies, M. Reuter, and M. Zepf, Phys. Rev. D 92, 071301 (2015), 1507.01084

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Schlenvoigt, T

    H.-P. Schlenvoigt, T. Heinzl, U. Schramm, T. E. Cowan, and R. Sauerbrey, Phys. Scripta 91, 023010 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    B. King, H. Hu, and B. Shen, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023817 (2018), 1805.03688

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Yamaji et al., Phys

    T. Yamaji et al., Phys. Lett. B 763, 454 (2016), 1608.06369

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Watt et al

    R. Watt et al. (2024), 2407.12915

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. J. Macleod and B. King (2024), 2406.10342

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Moulin and D

    F. Moulin and D. Bernard, Opt. Commun. 164, 137 (1999), physics/0203069

    1999 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Inada et al., Phys

    T. Inada et al., Phys. Lett. B 732, 356 (2014), 1403.2547

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jarlskog, L

    G. Jarlskog, L. Joensson, S. Pruenster, H. D. Schulz, H. J. Willutzki, and G. G. Winter, Phys. Rev. D 8, 3813 (1973)

    1973

  27. [35]

    S. Z. Akhmadaliev et al., Phys. Rev. C 58, 2844 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    Ahmadiniaz et al

    N. Ahmadiniaz et al. (2024), 2405.18063

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ejlli, F

    A. Ejlli, F. Della Valle, U. Gastaldi, G. Messineo, R. Pengo, G. Ruoso, and G. Zavattini, Phys. Rept. 871, 1 (2020), 2005.12913

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. Agil, R. Battesti, and C. Rizzo, Eur. Phys. J. D 75, 90 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Ilderton and H

    A. Ilderton and H. Kingham, Phys. Rev. D 110, 105022 (2024), 2409.01372

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, Quantum Electrodynamics (second edition) (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1982)

    1982

  33. [41]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Nature Phys. 13, 852 (2017), 1702.01625

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 797, 134826 (2019), 1810.04602

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 052001 (2019), 1904.03536

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Euler and B

    H. Euler and B. Kockel, Naturwissenschaften 23, 246 (1935)

    1935

  37. [45]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Z. Phys. 98, 714 (1936)

    1936

  38. [46]

    Halzen and A

    F. Halzen and A. D. Martin, Quarks and Leptons: An Introductory Course in Modern Particle Physics (Wiley and Sons, New York, 1984)

    1984

  39. [47]

    Hofstadter, Rev

    R. Hofstadter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 214 (1956)

    1956

  40. [48]

    Aoyama, T

    T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Atoms 7, 28 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Karplus and M

    R. Karplus and M. Neuman, Phys. Rev. 83, 776 (1951)

    1951

  42. [50]

    Itzykson and J.-B

    C. Itzykson and J.-B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)

    1980

  43. [51]

    Akhieser, L

    A. Akhieser, L. Landau, and I. Pomeranchook, Nature 138, 206 (1936)

    1936

  44. [52]

    Achieser, Phys

    A. Achieser, Phys. Z. Sov. 11, 264 (1937)

    1937

  45. [53]

    Karplus and M

    R. Karplus and M. Neuman, Phys. Rev. 80, 380 (1950)

    1950

  46. [54]

    Akhiezer and V

    A. Akhiezer and V. Berestetskii, Quantum Electrodynam- ics (Interscience, New York, 1965)

    1965

  47. [55]

    De Tollis, Il Nuovo Cimento 35, 1182 (1965)

    B. De Tollis, Il Nuovo Cimento 35, 1182 (1965)

    1965

  48. [56]

    J. M. Davila, C. Schubert, and M. A. Trejo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1450174 (2014), 1310.8410

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Fouch´ e, R

    M. Fouch´ e, R. Battesti, and C. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 93, 093020 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 099902 (2017)], 1605.04102

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ahlers, H

    M. Ahlers, H. Gies, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ring- wald, Phys. Rev. D 77, 095001 (2008), 0711.4991

    2008 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Karbstein, JHEP 10, 075 (2017), 1709.03819

    F. Karbstein, JHEP 10, 075 (2017), 1709.03819

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    E. J. Post, Formal Structure of Electromagnetics (North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1962)

    1962

  53. [61]

    Constantini, B

    V. Constantini, B. De Tollis, and G. Pistoni, Il Nuovo Cimento 2A, 733 (1971)

    1971

  54. [62]

    Halter, Phys

    J. Halter, Phys. Lett. B 316, 155 (1993)

    1993

  55. [63]

    Gies and F

    H. Gies and F. Karbstein (2016), [Addendum: JHEP 03, 108 (2017)], 1612.07251

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Gelfer, A

    E. Gelfer, A. Fedotov, O. Klimo, and S. Weber, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L032013 (2024), 2306.16945

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    L. D. Landau, The classical theory of fields. (1987)

    1987

  58. [66]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. 138, B740 (1965)

    1965

  59. [67]

    Copinger, J

    P. Copinger, J. P. Edwards, A. Ilderton, and K. Rajeev (2024), 2411.06203

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Gottfried and T.-M

    K. Gottfried and T.-M. Yan, Quantum Mechanics: Fun- damentals (Springer, New York, 2004)

    2004

  61. [69]

    J. S. Toll, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton U. (1952)

    1952

  62. [70]

    (75) This corresponds to a dimensionless flux J = F 2 0 AT /2ωκ, where A is a cross-sectional area that arises from δ(κκκ⊥)2 = δ(κκκ⊥)A/(2π)2

    with Fourier amplitude ¯A(κ) = −i(2π)3F0θ(κ3)δ κκκ⊥ × δ(ωκ − κ0) + δ(ωκ + κ0) . (75) This corresponds to a dimensionless flux J = F 2 0 AT /2ωκ, where A is a cross-sectional area that arises from δ(κκκ⊥)2 = δ(κκκ⊥)A/(2π)2. Inserting (75) into (70), the flux factor exactly canc...

  63. [71]

    Cannoni, International Journal of Modern Physics A 32, 1730002 (2017), ISSN 1793-656X, URL http://dx

    M. Cannoni, International Journal of Modern Physics A 32, 1730002 (2017), ISSN 1793-656X, URL http://dx. doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X17300022

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    Coleman, Lectures of Sidney Coleman on Quantum Field Theory (WSP, Hackensack, 2018), ISBN 978-981- 4632-53-9, 978-981-4635-50-9

    S. Coleman, Lectures of Sidney Coleman on Quantum Field Theory (WSP, Hackensack, 2018), ISBN 978-981- 4632-53-9, 978-981-4635-50-9

    2018

  65. [73]

    Rebhan and G

    A. Rebhan and G. Turk, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1750053 (2017), 1701.07375

    2017 arXiv

  66. [74]

    V. Dinu, T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rev. D 89, 125003 (2014), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 89.125003

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    W. J. Waters and B. King, Laser Phys. 28, 015003 (2018), 1705.08554

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    King and C

    B. King and C. H. Keitel, New J. Phys. 14, 103002 (2012), 1202.3339

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Karbstein, C

    F. Karbstein, C. Sundqvist, K. S. Schulze, I. Uschmann, H. Gies, and G. G. Paulus, New J. Phys. 23, 095001 (2021), 2105.13869

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    A. V. Berezin and A. M. Fedotov, Phys. Rev. D 110, 016009 (2024), 2405.00151

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. Muller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012), 1111.3886

    2012 arXiv

  72. [80]

    King and N

    B. King and N. Elkina, Phys. Rev. A 94, 062102 (2016), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 94.062102

    2016 doi

  73. [81]

    A. I. Milstein and M. Schumacher, Phys. Rept. 243, 183 (1994)

    1994

  74. [82]

    from state 1 to state 2 in a circularly polarised background is P1→1 1 2 = 2α 315π η2 Z ξ2(φ)dφ 2

    that the low-energy limit of the probability P1→1 1 2 for flipping the linear polarisation of the photon e.g. from state 1 to state 2 in a circularly polarised background is P1→1 1 2 = 2α 315π η2 Z ξ2(φ)dφ 2 . (122) For a monochromatic background, this corresponds to the cross...

    2023

  75. [83]

    Ahmadiniaz, M

    N. Ahmadiniaz, M. Bussmann, T. E. Cowan, A. Debus, T. Kluge, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Phys. Rev. D104, L011902 (2021), 2012.04484

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    V. I. Ritus, J. Russ. Laser Res. 6, 497 (1985)

    1985

  77. [85]

    N. B. Narozhny and A. M. Fedotov, Contemp. Phys. 56, 249 (2015)

    2015

  78. [86]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson (2022), 2203.00019. 22

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    B. King, T. Heinzl, and T. G. Blackburn, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 901 (2023), 2307.14417

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Heinzl and O

    T. Heinzl and O. Schroeder, J. Phys. A 39, 11623 (2006), hep-th/0605130

    2006 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Sangal, C

    M. Sangal, C. H. Keitel, and M. Tamburini, Phys. Rev. D 104, L111101 (2021), 2101.02671

    2021 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Bragin, S

    S. Bragin, S. Meuren, C. H. Keitel, and A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 250403 (2017), 1704.05234

    2017 arXiv

  83. [91]

    A. J. Macleod, J. P. Edwards, T. Heinzl, B. King, and S. V. Bulanov, New J. Phys. 25, 093002 (2023), 2304.02114

    2023 arXiv

  84. [92]

    De Tollis, Il Nuovo Cimento 32, 757 (1964)

    B. De Tollis, Il Nuovo Cimento 32, 757 (1964)

    1964

  85. [93]

    King and T

    B. King and T. Heinzl, High Power Laser Science and Engineering 4, e5 (2016), hep-ph/1510.08456

    2016 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Karbstein, Particles 3, 39 (2020), 1912.11698

    F. Karbstein, Particles 3, 39 (2020), 1912.11698

    2020 arXiv

  87. [95]

    H. Gies, F. Karbstein, C. Kohlf¨ urst, and N. Seegert, Phys. Rev. D 97, 076002 (2018), 1712.06450

    2018 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Aboushelbaya et al., Phys

    R. Aboushelbaya et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 113604 (2019), 1902.05928

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Lundin, M

    J. Lundin, M. Marklund, E. Lundstr¨ om, G. Brodin, J. Collier, R. Bingham, J. T. Mendon¸ ca, and P. Nor- reys, Physical Review A74 (2006), ISSN 1094-1622, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.043821

    2006 doi

  90. [98]

    Lundstr¨ om et al., Phys

    E. Lundstr¨ om et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 083602 (2006)

    2006

  91. [99]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP 19, 529 (1964)

    1964

  92. [100]

    Ilderton, P

    A. Ilderton, P. Johansson, and M. Marklund, Phys. Rev. A 84, 032119 (2011), 1105.3475

    2011 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Bragin and A

    S. Bragin and A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev. D 102, 116012 (2020), 2003.02231

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Greiner and J

    W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt, Quantum Electro- dynamics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013), ISBN 9783662052464, URL https://books.google.co.uk/ books?id=6y3rCAAAQBAJ

    2013

  95. [103]

    Altarelli et al., XFEL: The European X-Ray Free- Electron Laser

    M. Altarelli et al., XFEL: The European X-Ray Free- Electron Laser. Technical design report (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

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