Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 32 references

Wakefield generation and electron acceleration via propagation of radially polarized laser pulses in homogeneous plasma

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 This paper argues that switching from linear to radial polarization raises the longitudinal plasma wakefield by about 28.5% and boosts injected-electron energy gain by about 28%, with particle-in-cell simulations reproducing the ordering.

desk verdict The claimed 28.5% wakefield enhancement from radial polarization is an artifact of an unphysical axial field ansatz in Eq. (1); the paper is a standard QSA derivation built on a load-bearing mistake. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17709 v1 pith:5YJLH5SC submitted 2024-12-23 physics.plasm-ph physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn

Shivani Aggarwal , Saumya Singh , Dinkar Mishra , Bhupesh Kumar , Pallavi Jha This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn
keywords radiallypolarizedlaserpulsewakefieldgenerationelectronaccelerationplasmainteractionquasi-staticapproximationtesttrappingparticle-in-cellsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that switching the driving laser in a plasma wakefield accelerator from linear to radial polarization raises the longitudinal wakefield amplitude by about 28.5 percent ($1.8\times10^9$ V/m versus $1.4\times10^9$ V/m) and raises the energy gain of an injected test electron by about 28 percent (28.10 MeV versus 22.48 MeV). The enhancement is traced to the strong axial, or forward-pointing, electric-field component that the paper assumes for a radially polarized pulse. The authors derive the wakefield from the Lorentz force and continuity equations using a perturbation expansion and the quasi-static approximation, then confirm the ordering with Fourier-Bessel particle-in-cell simulations. If the assumed field model is right, radial polarization is a straightforward lever for improving wakefield-based electron accelerators.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the cylindrically symmetric field ansatz of Eq. (1): a Gaussian envelope with a transverse field proportional to $r/(2r_0)$ and an axial field proportional to $1-r^2/r_0^2$, so the axial component is order one on the axis. The electron response is obtained by a two-step perturbative solution of the Lorentz force and continuity equations; the first-order quiver velocity and density feed a second-order equation for the slow plasma response. After transforming to the comoving coordinate $\xi=z-ct$ and applying the quasi-static approximation, the longitudinal wakefield obeys a driven oscillator equation $(\partial^2/\partial\xi^2 + k_p^2)E^{(2)}_{zw} = -(mc^2 k_p/4e)\partial_\xi(A_1^2+A_2^2)$, whose solution gives the amplitude $E_A$ and the resonance condition $\lambda_p = L\pi\sqrt{2}$. Test-electron trapping is then read from the phase-space invariant $\gamma_e - \beta_p(\gamma_e^2-1)^{1/2} = \text{const} \cdot \sin\Psi$ derived from the wakefield equation.

What would settle it

Run a particle-in-cell simulation that launches a physically constructed radially polarized beam with axial field of order $E_0/(k_0 r_0)$ rather than $E_0$, using $a_0=0.3$, $\lambda_0=0.8\,\mu$m, $r_0=15\,\mu$m, $L=12\,\mu$m, and $n_0=3.8\times10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$, and compare the on-axis wake amplitude with the linearly polarized case; an enhancement far below 28.5% would refute the paper's quantitative claim. The same test can be done analytically by replacing the axial field coefficient in Eq. (1) with its paraxial value and re-solving Eq. (9).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a radially polarized laser pulse, represented by a cylindrical field ansatz containing both radial and axial electric components, drives a longitudinal plasma wakefield whose on-axis amplitude reaches $1.8\times10^9$ V/m, exceeding the $1.4\times10^9$ V/m produced by a linearly polarized pulse with the same parameters by 28.5%. The stronger wake traps and accelerates a test electron more effectively: injection is possible at 1.53 MeV rather than 2.04 MeV, the maximum energy reaches 29.63 MeV rather than 25.03 MeV, and the net gain is 28.10 MeV rather than 22.48 MeV. Particle-in-cell simulations reproduce the qualitative result, showing radially polarized wakes 16.7% higher than linearly polarized ones ($1.6\times10^9$ versus $1.2\times10^9$ V/m), with the remaining gap attributed to the Gouy phase included in the simulation but not in the analytical model.

Load-bearing premise

The whole enhancement rests on the assumed laser field having a strong forward-pointing electric component right on the beam axis; for the stated beam width and wavelength a real paraxial beam would have that component roughly one hundred times weaker, so the claimed boost depends on that field model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the stated parameters ($a_0=0.3$, $\lambda_0=0.8\,\mu$m, $r_0=15\,\mu$m, $L=12\,\mu$m, $n_0=3.8\times10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$), a radially polarized driver gives a 28.5% stronger longitudinal wakefield on axis than a linearly polarized driver.
  • The same pulse lowers the minimum injection energy for trapping from 2.04 MeV to 1.53 MeV and raises the final electron energy from 25.03 MeV to 29.63 MeV, a gain increase of about 28%.
  • The enhancement is largest on the axis; beyond $r=5.65\,\mu$m the linearly polarized wake is actually larger, so radial polarization helps mainly for near-axis acceleration.
  • Simulation reproduces the ordering but at lower amplitudes, suggesting the analytical prediction is an upper bound that may be tightened by including the Gouy phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quantitative boost likely depends on the assumed order-one axial field in Eq. (1); for a self-consistent paraxial radially polarized beam with $r_0=15\,\mu$m and $\lambda_0=0.8\,\mu$m the axial component is suppressed by roughly $1/(k_0r_0)\approx0.0085$, so a simulation launched with a physically constructed mode may show little or no enhancement.
  • If the axial-field suppression is confirmed, radial polarization could still deliver the claimed benefit in the tightly focused regime where $r_0$ is comparable to $\lambda_0$, since then $k_0r_0$ is order one and the axial component is no longer negligible.
  • A natural next test is to add the Gouy phase to the analytical wakefield equation; the paper already uses it to explain the simulation shortfall, and including it may bring the analytical and simulated energy gains into closer agreement.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an analytical, perturbation-theory model of wakefield generation by a radially polarized Gaussian laser pulse propagating in homogeneous plasma. It derives a longitudinal wakefield under the quasi-static approximation, compares its on-axis amplitude with the linearly polarized case, claims a 28.5% enhancement for the stated parameters, reports an FBPIC simulation that shows a 16.7% enhancement, and studies test-electron trapping and energy gain in the wake. The central quantitative claim rests on the field ansatz in Eq. (1), whose longitudinal electric field component is not Maxwell-consistent for the weak-focusing parameters used in the paper.

Significance. If the claimed enhancement were correct, the paper would offer a simple and practically relevant route to stronger laser wakefields. The manuscript has commendable aspects: the derivation is explicit and self-contained, the quasi-static treatment is standard, and the comparison to an external PIC code is a good-faith validation attempt. However, the central claim is undermined by an invalid input field model. For the stated parameters (r0 = 15 μm, λ0 = 0.8 μm), the axial field in Eq. (1) is roughly two orders of magnitude larger than the value allowed by a divergence-free paraxial beam, and this axial field is precisely the driver of the claimed enhancement. The result as presented is therefore not a reliable prediction for the stated physical parameters.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] The field ansatz in Eq. (1) is not a valid paraxial radially polarized pulse. For a divergence-free paraxial beam, the longitudinal component is fixed to leading order by E_z ≈ (i/k0)(1/r)∂r(r E_r). Substituting the E_r from Eq. (1) gives E_z/E0 ~ 1/(k0 r0) on axis. With r0 = 15 μm and λ0 = 0.8 μm, k0 r0 ≈ 118, so the physical axial field is about 0.0085 E0, not O(1) as written in the (1 − r^2/r0^2)e^{−r^2/r0^2} term of Eq. (1). This O(1) term enters the axial quiver velocity in Eq. (5) and the wakefield source in Eq. (9). Replacing it with the physically consistent value suppresses the on-axis wake source by roughly (k0 r0)^−2 ≈ 7×10^−5. Thus the quoted on-axis wake amplitude of 1.8×10^9 V/m and the claimed 28.5% advantage over the linearly polarized case are artifacts of the field model, not consequences of the stated beam parameters.
  2. [Section 2, after Eq. (6)] The statement that the first-order density perturbation is zero for a linearly polarized laser field is only correct for an infinite plane wave. For the finite-spot Gaussian pulse used in the comparison, the first-order quiver velocity has a transverse divergence, so ∇·(n0 v^(1)) does not vanish and n^(1) is nonzero. The analytical comparison in Sec. 2 therefore does not treat the linearly polarized and radially polarized cases at the same approximation level; a consistent treatment of the finite-spot linearly polarized pulse would itself contribute a first-order density perturbation and modify the reference wakefield.
  3. [Section 3] The FBPIC comparison does not resolve the field-model problem because the initialization of the simulated radially polarized laser is not specified. If the simulation launches a Maxwell-consistent radially polarized mode, its axial field differs from Eq. (1) by orders of magnitude, and the reported agreement with Eq. (10) at the 10–20% level would be fortuitous. If the simulation instead launches the ansatz of Eq. (1), it inherits the same unphysical input. The Gouy-phase explanation for the difference between 28.5% and 16.7% is not quantitative and does not address this ambiguity.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, after Eq. (10)] The claimed maximization condition λp = Lπ√2 does not follow from Eq. (10). Direct maximization of kp^2 L exp(−kp^2 L^2/8) with respect to L gives kp L = 2, i.e., λp = πL, not Lπ√2. The parameters used in the figures should be checked against the actual optimum.
  2. [Section 2, Figs. 1–3] The model for the linearly polarized comparison pulse is not defined in the manuscript: no field expression, spot size, or normalization of a0 is given. The comparison is therefore not reproducible without consulting prior literature.
  3. [Section 2, Eqs. (1)–(2)] The magnetic field in Eq. (2) should be checked for consistency with Eq. (1) via the Maxwell–Faraday law; as written, the set does not appear to satisfy ∇×E = −∂B/∂t even in vacuum.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: wakefield and gain follow from the stated field ansatz; the questionable O(1) axial field is an input-validity concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

None of the claimed results is fitted to its target. The wakefield amplitude (Eq. (10)) is obtained from the Lorentz force and continuity equations (Eqs. (3)-(9)) given the laser field ansatz (Eqs. (1)-(2)); the test-electron energy gain (Eqs. (13)-(14)) follows from integrating the same wakefield. The comparison with FBPIC is an external Maxwell-solver benchmark, not a regression to the analytical numbers. The resonance condition λ_p = Lπ√2 is a maximization over pulse length, not a fit to the 1.8×10^9 V/m value. The claimed enhancement is attributed to the assumed axial laser field E_z in Eq. (1), so the central physical vulnerability is the validity of that ansatz: a divergence-free paraxial radially polarized beam would have E_z suppressed relative to E_r by ~1/(k0 r0), which is about 0.0085 for the stated parameters. But an incorrect or questionable input assumption is not circularity. Self-citations (Refs. [14], [15], [27]) supply context or methodology; the load-bearing derivation is self-contained. Hence no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The ledger is dominated by the ad hoc field model in Eq. (1), where the axial-field normalization is effectively a free parameter. The other parameters are physical inputs chosen near resonance, not fitted to the claimed output. The false assumption that linear polarization has no first-order density perturbation further weakens the comparison.

free parameters (3)
  • Axial field normalization factor = 1.0 (no 1/(k0 r0) suppression)
    Eq. (1) gives the axial electric field a coefficient of order one on axis. For r0=15 micrometers and lambda=0.8 micrometers, a paraxial radially polarized beam has an axial component suppressed by about 1/(k0 r0) ~ 0.0085. This choice is the main driver of the claimed enhancement.
  • Resonance-matched laser and plasma parameters = L=12 micrometers, n0=3.8e17 cm^-3
    The parameters are chosen so that lambda_p is close to L*pi*sqrt(2), the analytic condition for the maximized wakefield in Eq. (11). This is tuning the demonstration to the favorable maximum, not a scan over conditions.
  • Laser strength parameter a0 = 0.3
    A moderate value satisfying a0<<1 for the perturbation expansion, not fitted to data but chosen to keep the theory in its claimed validity range.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The cold-fluid Lorentz force and continuity equations describe the plasma response.
    The plasma is treated as a cold, pre-ionized, homogeneous fluid throughout Section 2.
  • domain assumption The quasi-static approximation is valid, so the laser envelope does not evolve while crossing a plasma electron.
    Invoked before Eq. (9) to reduce the continuity equation to a driven oscillator in xi.
  • ad hoc to paper The field profile in Eq. (1) is a valid representation of a propagating radially polarized laser pulse.
    The axial field amplitude is O(E0) on axis with no paraxial suppression factor, which is inconsistent with a 15 micrometer waist at 0.8 micrometer wavelength.
  • ad hoc to paper The first-order density perturbation for a linearly polarized pulse is zero.
    Stated after Eq. (6). For a finite-spot linearly polarized Gaussian beam, the transverse gradient of the quiver velocity gives a nonzero first-order density perturbation, so this assumption is false for the comparison case.
  • domain assumption Test electrons move only in z and experience only the longitudinal wakefield.
    Section 4 uses Eq. (12) with only E_z^w, neglecting transverse wakefields, radial laser forces, and beam loading.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wakefield generation and electron acceleration via propagation of radially polarized laser pulses in homogeneous plasma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5YJLH5SC

@misc{pith2026241217709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wakefield generation and electron acceleration via propagation of radially polarized laser pulses in homogeneous plasma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5YJLH5SC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17709}
}
read the original abstract

The paper presents a study of wakefield generation and electron injection via propagation of radially polarized laser pulses in homogeneous pre-ionized plasma. The analytical study is based on Lorentz force and continuity equations. Perturbation technique and quasi-static approximation are used for evaluating the generated longitudinal wakefields. Trapping and acceleration of electrons are examined by injecting a test electron in the generated wakefields. The results are compared with those obtained via linearly polarized laser pulses. The validation of analytical results is performed using the Fourier-Bessel particle-in-cell (FBPIC) simulation code. It is seen that there is a significant enhancement in amplitude of the longitudinal wakefield generated and electron energy gain via radially polarized laser pulses as compared to linearly polarized laser pulse case.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Self-modulation and self-focusing of electromagnetic waves in plasmas

    C. E. Max, J. Arons and A. B. Langdon, “Self-modulation and self-focusing of electromagnetic waves in plasmas”, Physical Review Letters 33, 209 (1974)

    work page 1974

  2. [2]

    Overview of plasma-based accelerator concepts

    E. Esarey, P. Sprangle, J. Krall and A. Ting, “Overview of plasma-based accelerator concepts”, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 24, 252 (1996)

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Self-focusing of short intense pulses in plasmas

    G. Z. Sun, E. Ott, Y.C. Lee and P. Guzdar, “Self-focusing of short intense pulses in plasmas”, The Physics of Fluids 30, 526 (1987)

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    The interaction physics of the fast ignitor

    C. Deutsch, H. Furukawa, K. Mima, M. Murakami and K. Nishihara, “The interaction physics of the fast ignitor”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2483 (1996)

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    Laser- plasma interactions in long-scale-length plasmas under direct-drive national ignition facility conditions

    S. P. Regan, D. K. Bradley, A. V. Chirokikh, R. S. Craxton, D. D. Meyerhofer, W. Seka, R. W. Short, A. Simon, R. P. Town, B. Yaakobi, J. J. Carroll and R. P. Drake, “Laser- plasma interactions in long-scale-length plasmas under direct-drive national ignition facility conditions”, Physics of Plasmas 6, 2072 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Laser wakefield acceleration and relativistic optical guiding

    P. Sprangle, E. Esarey, A. Ting and G. Joyce, “Laser wakefield acceleration and relativistic optical guiding”, AIP Conference Proceedings 53, 2146 (1989)

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    Tabletop x-ray lasers

    D. C. Eder, P. Amendt, L.B. DaSilva, R. A. London, B. J. MacGowan, D. L. Matthews, B. M. Penetrante, M. D. Rosen, S. C. Wilks, T. D. Donnelly, R. W. Falcone and G. L. Strobel, “Tabletop x-ray lasers”, Physics of Plasmas 1, 1744 (1994)

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Demonstration of a 10-Hz femtosecond-pulse-driven XUV laser at 41.8 Nm in xe IX

    B. E. Lemoff, G. Y. Yin, C. L. Gordon III, C. P. Barty and S. E. Harris, “Demonstration of a 10-Hz femtosecond-pulse-driven XUV laser at 41.8 Nm in xe IX”, Physical Review Letters 74,1574 (1995)

    work page 1995

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Collimated attosecond gev electron bunches from ionization of high-Z material by radially polarized ultra-relativistic laser pulses

    A. Karmakar and A. Pukhov, “Collimated attosecond gev electron bunches from ionization of high-Z material by radially polarized ultra-relativistic laser pulses”, Laser and Particle Beams 25, 371 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Fields of a radially polarized gaussian laser beam beyond the paraxial approximation

    Y. I. Salamin, “Fields of a radially polarized gaussian laser beam beyond the paraxial approximation” Optics Letters 31, 2619 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Relativistic electron acceleration by MJ-class KHz lasers normally incident on liquid targets

    S. Feister, D. R. Austin, J. T. Morrison, K. D. Frische, C. Orban, G. Ngirmang, A. Handler, J. R. Smith, M. Schillaci, J. A. LaVerne, E. A. Chowdhury, R. R. Freeman and W. M. 15 Roquemore, “Relativistic electron acceleration by MJ-class KHz lasers normally incident on liquid t...

    2017

  4. [12]

    Electron acceleration by a radially-polarized laser pulse in a plasma micro-channel

    M. Wen, Y. I. Salamin and C. H. Keitel, “Electron acceleration by a radially-polarized laser pulse in a plasma micro-channel” Optics Express 27, 557 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Laser electron accelerator

    T. Tajima and J. M. Dawson, “Laser electron accelerator”, Physical Review Letters 43, 267 (1979)

    1979

  6. [14]

    Relativistic and ponderomotive effects on laser plasma interaction dynamics

    P. Jha, N. Wadhwani, G. Raj and A. K. Upadhyaya, “Relativistic and ponderomotive effects on laser plasma interaction dynamics” Physics of Plasmas 11, 1834 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    Electron acceleration by wakefield generated by the propagation of chirped laser pulse in plasma

    S. Singh, D. Mishra, B. Kumar and P. Jha, “Electron acceleration by wakefield generated by the propagation of chirped laser pulse in plasma”, Physica Scripta 98, 075504 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Generation of a radially polarized laser beam by use of a conical brewster prism

    Y Kozawa and S. Sato, “Generation of a radially polarized laser beam by use of a conical brewster prism”, Optics Letters 30, 3063 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    Radially polarized laser beam from a Nd: YAG laser cavity with a C-cut YVO4 crystal

    Y. Kozawa, K. Yonezawa and S. Sato, “Radially polarized laser beam from a Nd: YAG laser cavity with a C-cut YVO4 crystal” Applied Physics B 88, 43 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Focused fields of ultrashort radially polarized laser pulses having low-order spatiotemporal couplings

    S. W. Jolly, “Focused fields of ultrashort radially polarized laser pulses having low-order spatiotemporal couplings”, Physical Review A 103, 033512 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Influence of beam polarization on laser cutting efficiency

    V. G. Niziev and A. V. Nesterov, “Influence of beam polarization on laser cutting efficiency”, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 32 1455 (1999)

    1999

  12. [20]

    Focusing light to a tighter spot

    S. Quabis, R. Dorn, M. Eberler, O. Glöckl and G. Leuchs, “Focusing light to a tighter spot”, Optics Communications 179, 1 (2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    Trapping metallic Rayleigh particles with radial polarization

    Q. Zhan, “Trapping metallic Rayleigh particles with radial polarization”, Optics Express 12, 3377 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Focusing of high numerical aperture cylindrical- vector beams

    K. S. Youngworth and T. G. Brown, “Focusing of high numerical aperture cylindrical- vector beams” Optics Express 7, 77 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Multi-GeV electron acceleration by a periodic frequency chirped radially polarized laser pulse in vacuum

    H. S. Ghotra and N. Kant, “Multi-GeV electron acceleration by a periodic frequency chirped radially polarized laser pulse in vacuum”, Laser Physics Letters 13, 065402 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Relativistic electrons from vacuum laser acceleration using tightly focused radially polarized beam

    J. Powell, S.W. Jolly, S. Vallieres, F. F. Gourdeau, S. Payeur, S. Fourmaux, M. Piche, H. Ibrahim, S. MacLean, and F. Legare1, “Relativistic electrons from vacuum laser acceleration using tightly focused radially polarized beam”, arXiv: 2402.08009v1 [physics. optics] (2024). 16

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sensitiveness of axial magnetic field on electron acceleration by a radially polarized laser pulse in vacuum

    H. S. Ghotra and N. Kant, “Sensitiveness of axial magnetic field on electron acceleration by a radially polarized laser pulse in vacuum”, Optics Communications 356, 118 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Electron acceleration driven by ultrashort and nonparaxial radially polarized laser pulses

    V. Marceau, A. April and M. Piché, “Electron acceleration driven by ultrashort and nonparaxial radially polarized laser pulses”, Optics Letters 37, 2442 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Wakefield generation and electron acceleration by intense super-gaussian laser pulses propagating in plasma

    P. Jha, A. Saroch and R. K. Mishra, “Wakefield generation and electron acceleration by intense super-gaussian laser pulses propagating in plasma”, Laser and Particle Beams 31, 583 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Direct acceleration by two interfering radially polarized laser beams

    Y. I. Salamin, “Direct acceleration by two interfering radially polarized laser beams” Physics Letters A 375, 795 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Proton acceleration by radially polarized chirped laser pulses

    J. L. Liu, Z. M. Sheng, J. Zheng, C. S. Liu and J. Zhang, “Proton acceleration by radially polarized chirped laser pulses”, Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams 15, 041301 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Acceleration of proton bunches by petawatt chirped radially polarized laser pulses

    J. X. Li, Y. I. Salamin, B. J. Galow and C. H. Keitel, “Acceleration of proton bunches by petawatt chirped radially polarized laser pulses”, Physical Review A 85, 6 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Low-diffraction direct particle acceleration by a radially polarized laser beam

    Y. I. Salamin, “Low-diffraction direct particle acceleration by a radially polarized laser beam”, Physics Letters A 374, 4950 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Interaction of ultra-intense radially-polarized laser pulses with plasma mirrors

    N. Zaïm, D. Guénot, L. Chopineau, A. Denoeud, O. Lundh, H. Vincenti, F. Quéré and J. Faure, “Interaction of ultra-intense radially-polarized laser pulses with plasma mirrors”, Physical Review X 10, 041064 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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