Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Entering the overcritical regime of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in collisions of bremsstrahlung $\gamma$-rays and superintense, tightly focused laser pulses

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Colliding a tightly focused, $10^{23}$ W/cm² laser pulse with bremsstrahlung gamma-rays from a 10 GeV electron beam is predicted to produce about 1.7 electron-positron pairs per shot.

desk verdict A careful, honest extension of the authors' κ≈1 work into the overcritical regime; the headline yields are plausible but the second-generation contribution needs a benchmark before I'd trust the 30% number. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08790 v2 pith:PNYHQWJ6 submitted 2025-01-15 hep-ph physics.atom-ph

I. Elsner , A. Golub , S. Villalba-Chávez , C. Müller This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords nonlinearBreit-Wheelerpairproductionstrong-fieldQEDovercriticalregimebremsstrahlunggamma-raystightlyfocusedlaserpulsequantumnonlinearityparametercascadeswakefieldacceleration
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

Nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production, in which a high-energy photon decays into an electron-positron pair by absorbing many laser photons, has never been observed in the overcritical regime where the quantum nonlinearity parameter $\kappa$, measuring the photon energy multiplied by the laser field in units of the Schwinger field, greatly exceeds unity. This paper claims that the regime is reachable by colliding a tightly focused laser pulse of about $10^{23}$ W/cm² with bremsstrahlung gamma-rays from a few-GeV electron beam. To predict the yield, the authors go beyond their earlier stable-beam model and introduce a decaying gamma-beam model that lets the gamma-ray beam attenuate as it converts into pairs, and they add an approximate second-generation contribution from pair-shower cascades. For a 10 GeV electron beam and a 20 fs pulse they find roughly 1.7 pairs per shot, or about 600 per hour at 0.1 Hz repetition. The calculation also predicts that in this regime the spectral yield peaks far below the bremsstrahlung endpoint, and that a wider focus increases the yield, so maximum focusing is not optimal.

What carries the argument

The central object is the decaying gamma-beam model (D-model), which computes the pair-creation probability of a single gamma-photon of energy $\omega'$ passing the focus at impact parameter $b$ as $P(b,\omega') = 1 - \exp[-\int R(\kappa(t))\,dt]$, with $R$ the locally constant crossed-field pair-production rate and $\kappa$ the space-time-dependent quantum nonlinearity parameter, $\kappa(t,\rho,z) = 2|e|\omega'|E_x(t,\rho,z)|/m^3$. The exponential form enforces that a photon that has decayed cannot produce further first-generation pairs, which is the key correction over the earlier stable-beam (S-model) rate integral. A complementary ingredient is the approximate treatment of the second generation: the plane-wave, $\sin^2$-pulse cascade code of Ref. [51] is run separately for each photon energy $f$ and impact parameter $b$ to obtain enhancement factors $(N_1+N_2)/N_1$, which are then inserted into the focused-pulse averaging over the bremsstrahlung spectrum. These two pieces, the saturating single-photon probability and the second-generation enhancement factors, carry the paper's quantitative predictions.

What would settle it

A full three-dimensional QED cascade simulation for the headline parameters, 10 GeV electrons, 20 fs, $10^{23}$ W/cm², $w_0 = 2$ μm, would directly test the predicted 1.7 pairs per shot and the $\approx 30\%$ second-generation share; an experiment scanning the focal waist at fixed pulse energy should reveal the predicted non-monotonic focusing optimum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the overcritical regime of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production, with $1 < \kappa \lesssim 30$, is not only theoretically distinct but experimentally accessible with near-future lasers, and that its observable signatures differ qualitatively from the intermediate $\kappa \approx 1$ regime. Concretely, the authors establish that a bremsstrahlung gamma-ray beam from a 10 GeV, 10 pC electron bunch colliding with a 20 fs Ti:sapphire pulse at about $10^{23}$ W/cm² should produce about 1.7 pairs per shot, with the second generation contributing roughly 30%. They further show that the spectrally resolved first-generation yield develops a maximum at intermediate gamma energies, for 10 GeV electrons and $\xi = 250$ it sits near $f \approx 0.1$, far below the spectral endpoint, because the steep exponential rise of the rate with $\kappa$ flattens while the bremsstrahlung spectrum falls with increasing $f$. At fixed laser energy, the total yield is maximized at an intermediate focal spot size, beyond which tighter focusing reduces the yield.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation relies on transferring second-generation enhancement factors from a plane-wave, $\sin^2$-shaped pulse into a tightly focused pulse by evaluating them separately at each photon energy and impact parameter, without a full focused-pulse benchmark.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a 0.1 Hz repetition rate the predicted 1.7 pairs per shot translates to roughly 600 pairs per hour, moving from single-event discovery to precision measurement of the strong-field pair-production rate.
  • Because the spectrally resolved yield peaks at $f \approx 0.1$ for 10 GeV electrons at $\xi = 250$, a single shot probes $\kappa$ values from around 1 up to roughly 30 simultaneously.
  • At fixed laser pulse energy, the pair yield is maximized for an intermediate focal spot size, about $x \approx 1.3$, $2.2$, and $3.3$ times $w_0 = 2$ μm for 2.5, 5, and 10 GeV electrons, so tighter focusing beyond that point reduces the yield.
  • The D-model predicts a distinctly sublinear scaling of the pair yield with laser pulse duration and a 20 to 50 percent suppression relative to the stable-beam model at $\kappa \gtrsim 4$, giving measurable discriminators between the two theoretical descriptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental test of the focusing optimum would be distinctive: if the rate kept growing exponentially with peak intensity, narrowing the focus would always increase the yield, whereas the overcritical D-model predicts a non-monotonic curve at fixed pulse energy.
  • The same decaying-beam treatment could be applied to photon sources other than bremsstrahlung, such as Compton backscattered gamma-rays, to see whether the optimum focusing and the sub-endpoint spectral peak persist.
  • The plane-wave-to-focused transfer of second-generation enhancement factors is the least benchmarked step; running a single full focused-pulse cascade simulation for the quoted 10 GeV, $10^{23}$ W/cm² setup would show whether the 1.7-pairs-per-shot figure changes by more than the quoted 30 percent.
  • Since the yield depends on interaction volume as much as on peak intensity, comparing different proposals by peak intensity alone can be misleading; the relevant quantity is the integrated decaying-beam probability over the focal volume.
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. The manuscript extends the authors' earlier study of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production from the collision of bremsstrahlung gamma-rays with a focused laser pulse. Two models are compared: the stable-gamma-beam (S-) model, which integrates the LCFA rate over the pulse volume, and the decaying-gamma-beam (D-) model, which treats each gamma-photon as following a ballistic trajectory and decaying with probability 1 - exp(-integral R dt). The D-model is then used to compute first-generation pair yields for electron energies 2.5, 5, and 10 GeV and intensities up to xi ~ 300, with an approximate second-generation contribution obtained by multiplying the focused-pulse first-generation yield by enhancement factors taken from a plane-wave shower code. The main quantitative results are that attenuation becomes important for kappa >~ 2, that the second generation contributes roughly 30% at the highest energies and intensities, that the spectrally resolved yield develops a maximum far below the bremsstrahlung endpoint, and that an optimal focal spot size exists for fixed laser energy. The headline estimate is about 1.7 pairs per shot for a 10 GeV bunch, 20 fs pulse at 10^23 W/cm^2, or about 600 pairs per hour at 0.1 Hz repetition.

Significance. Should these predictions hold, the paper gives a concrete route to observe pair production at kappa >> 1 in a laser-laboratory setting and identifies a nontrivial design principle: once the rate saturates, a wider focus can beat tighter focusing. It is a theory paper grounded in standard LCFA and bremsstrahlung results, and no fitted constants enter the central predictions. The D-model is a clear improvement over the S-model and correctly captures the exponential attenuation of the gamma beam. The internal consistency check at kappa ~ 2, where the S- and D-models agree, gives some confidence in the numerical implementation, and the use of a publicly available shower code is a reproducibility asset. The principal weakness is the unbenchmarked transfer of plane-wave cascade enhancement factors to a tightly focused pulse, which directly affects the headline yield and its extrapolation.

major comments (3)
  1. [II D] The second-generation enhancement factors G(f,b) = (N1+N2)/N1 are taken from a plane-wave, sin^2-pulse kinetic code and mapped onto each trajectory by the peak value xi(b) = xi exp(-(b/w0)^2). This is the only ingredient in the calculation that is not derived for a focused pulse, and it is load-bearing: at f ~ 1 the enhancement factors reach 1.49 at xi = 300 (Fig. 5) and 2.39 at E0 = 10 GeV (Fig. 6), and the second generation contributes about 30% of the headline 1.7 pairs/shot. In a tightly focused pulse with w0 = 2 micrometers, a created pair can leave the focal volume transversely, and the field seen by the shower is neither uniform nor equal to the peak field along the parent photon trajectory; the plane-wave cascade cannot capture this. The authors explicitly label the procedure approximate, but they do not benchmark it against a focused-pulse cascade simulation or provide a bracketing sensitivity estimate. I request either a focused-pulse QED-PIC or kinetic simulation for the headline parameters, or a documented bracketing study (for example, varying the effective xi used in the code by the ratio of average-to-peak field along the trajectory) to show that the 30% contribution and the 600/hour extrapolation are not dominated by this approximation.
  2. [II D] The description of the code runs omits the pulse duration and pulse-shape parameters used in the plane-wave sin^2 pulses, and how these are matched to the Gaussian FWHM tau = 20 fs (or 30 fs) used in the focused-pulse calculation. Shower development depends strongly on the number of laser cycles, so the enhancement factors could correspond to a duration different from the pulse duration in the D-model. Please state the code inputs (pulse shape, duration, number of cycles, energy resolution, convergence checks) and, if the code was rerun for each tau, show that the results are stable.
  3. [II A / Fig. 10] The focusing scan uses the paraxial Gaussian field model down to w0 = 2 micrometers, which is only about 2.5 laser wavelengths, where non-paraxial corrections (longitudinal field components and wavefront curvature corrections) are not obviously negligible. Since the paper draws a design conclusion from the location of the focusing optimum and from the statement that tighter focusing reduces the yield, please provide an estimate of the paraxial error at the smallest waist, for example by comparing Eq. (2) with a higher-order focused-beam model or by quoting the magnitude of the neglected longitudinal field component.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II C] There are several typographical errors: 'refered' should be 'referred', 'depencency' should be 'dependence', 'naivly' should be 'naively', 'adviced' should be 'advised', and 'prononunced' should be 'pronounced'.
  2. [II D] The text 'for values kappa /greaterorsimilar4-5' contains a broken LaTeX symbol; it should be rendered as kappa \gtrsim 4-5.
  3. [III B] The conversion from laser intensity I to the parameter xi is not explicitly given; please state the formula used so the reader can identify which xi corresponds to the quoted 10^23 W/cm^2.
  4. [Eq. (16)] Equation (16) writes the constant laser energy as (250/x)^2 (2x micrometers)^2, which is dimensionally unconventional; please define the pulse energy with the appropriate units or state explicitly that only the proportionality is shown.
  5. [Conclusions] The headline 'about 1.7 pairs per shot' should be tied to the precise intensity or xi value used in Fig. 8; because Fig. 8 gives 2.18 pairs at xi = 250 and 2.81 at xi = 300, the reader needs the exact value of xi and intensity for the 1.7-pair statement to be reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the yield estimates are computed from standard LCFA rates, a standard bremsstrahlung spectrum, and an independent public cascade code; self-citations are methodological only.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The pair-production rate in Eq. (1) is the standard locally-constant-field rate from Ritus and Nikishov [8], and the bremsstrahlung spectrum in Eq. (5) is the standard thin-target Tsai/PDG formula [45,46]; neither quantity is fitted within this paper. The S-model in Sec. II B is a direct spacetime integral of that standard rate over the Gaussian pulse profile. The D-model in Sec. II C replaces the linear rate integral with the exponential survival probability P = 1 - exp(-∫R dt), which is a distinct physical expression that reduces to the S-model when the exponent is small; the paper explicitly demonstrates this limiting agreement in Sec. III A, which is a consistency check rather than a circular reduction. The second-generation enhancement factors are not derived from the paper's own focused-pulse integral; they are taken from the independent, publicly available plane-wave cascade code of Pouyez et al. [51,52]. The transfer of those factors to the focused pulse via ξ(b) = ξ exp(-(b/w0)^2) is clearly stated to be approximate, and it could be inaccurate, but approximation is not circularity: the enhancement factor is not defined in terms of the total yield being predicted. The self-citations, mainly to Ref. [33], provide the previous S-model methodology and parameter choices, but the new claims about the overcritical regime, the spectral maximum, and the focusing optimum are obtained from the model equations and standard external inputs rather than from the authority of the self-citations. No fitted constants enter the central predictions, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force the chosen model.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The first-generation predictions use the standard LCFA QED rate with no fitted constants. Quantitative yields also depend on several experimentally chosen beam parameters and two structural assumptions: the paraxial field model and the plane-wave-to-focused-pulse transfer of second-generation enhancement factors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • bremsstrahlung conversion fraction δ = 1%
    Assumed fraction of electrons emitting bremsstrahlung for a 50 μm tungsten target; scales all pair yields linearly.
  • electron bunch charge Qe = 10 pC
    Multiplied by δ/|e| to get about 6×10^5 radiating electrons; linear scale for pairs per shot.
  • electron beam divergence θe− and distance L = 0.5 mrad, 0.5 m
    Sets the gamma-beam area Aγ via Eq (6); controls what fraction of photons overlaps the laser focus.
  • impact-parameter cutoff bmax = 3 w0
    Truncates the trajectory average in Eq (14); neglects photons passing outside this radius.
  • laser pulse duration τ and waist w0 = 20 fs, 2 μm
    Baseline experimental parameters from planned facilities; Figs 4 and 10 scan these choices.
  • second-generation enhancement factors G(f,b) = (N1+N2)/N1 = not provided in paper
    Obtained by running the external kinetic code [52] per (f,b); values are not tabulated, so the manuscript alone cannot reproduce the solid curves in Figs 5, 6, 8, and 10.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The locally constant field approximation is valid for the focused pulse
    Sec. II, opening paragraph: formation length l≈λ/(ξπ) much smaller than λ for ξ≫1, so the crossed-field rate Eq (1) is used pointwise.
  • domain assumption The paraxial Gaussian pulse model, Eq (2), adequately represents the tightly focused laser field
    Sec. II A: Ex=By Gaussian beam with waist w0=2 μm; non-paraxial longitudinal components are neglected, marginal at w0≈2.5λ.
  • domain assumption The thin-target bremsstrahlung spectrum of Eq (5) applies
    Sec. II A: complete-screening high-Z formula for tungsten with ℓ=0.015; endpoint behavior is approximate.
  • domain assumption Gamma photons travel on undeflected lightlike trajectories, Eq (11)
    Sec. II C: trajectory r(t) = -t ez + b eρ; longitudinal offset z̃=0 is assumed and its influence tested in Sec. III B.
  • ad hoc to paper Second-generation enhancement factors from a plane-wave kinetic code transfer to focused pulses
    Sec. II D: code [52] run for each f,b with effective ξ(b), then inserted into the focused-pulse integral; no focused-pulse benchmark.
  • domain assumption Higher-order radiative corrections are negligible because κ ≪ α^{-3/2} ≈ 1.6×10^3
    Footnote 1: perturbation theory in the quantized radiation field remains valid in the parameter range considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entering the overcritical regime of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in collisions of bremsstrahlung $\gamma$-rays and superintense, tightly focused laser pulses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PNYHQWJ6

@misc{pith2026250108790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entering the overcritical regime of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in collisions of bremsstrahlung $\gamma$-rays and superintense, tightly focused laser pulses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PNYHQWJ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08790}
}
abstract

Near-future high-intensity lasers offer prospects for the observation of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in an overcritical field regime, where the quantum nonlinearity parameter substantially exceeds unity. This experimentally yet unexplored scenario is envisaged here to be reached via the collision of a tightly focused laser pulse with high-energy bremsstrahlung photons. We calculate the achievable number of pairs in a range of laser intensities around 10$^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ and GeV-energies of the incident bremsstrahlung-generating electron beam. We investigate under which conditions the attenuation of the $\gamma$-beam due to the production process must be taken into account and how much the second generation of created pairs contributes to the total yield. In the considered interaction regime, where the local production rate grows rather moderately with higher field intensities, it is shown that the range of mostly contributing bremsstrahlung frequencies is generally very broad. For sufficiently large values of the quantum nonlinearity parameter, an optimum domain of frequencies emerges which is located far below the spectral endpoint. Furthermore, we show that it is beneficial for achieving the optimum pair yield to increase the interaction volume by a wider laser focus at the expense of decreased field intensity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08790 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Scheme of the experimental setup for entering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Bremsstrahlung spectrum as a function of the nor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison between the D-model (solid) and S [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dependence of the number of created pairs on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Differential number of created pairs from different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Contributions to the number of created pairs from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Dependence of the number of created pairs on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Time and space dependent quantum nonlinearity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Number of created pairs per laser shot as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Number of pairs as a function of the degree of laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    These contributions are depicted in Fig

    Spectrally resolved pair yields By utilizing the D-model we can analyse the contri- bution to the number of created pairs from different γ-photon energies within the bremsstrahlung spectrum. These contributions are depicted in Fig. 5 for different values of ξ between 100 and 300 at a fixed incident elec- tron energy of E0 = 2 .5 GeV. The dashed lines refer t...

    work page

  2. [2]

    is responsible for the emer- gence of the maximum in Fig. 6. Lastly, the quantum nonlinearity parameter for f = 0.2 is shown in the lower panel of Fig. 7. Here, κ ≈ 6 is reached leading to a high rate of the particle creation. However, as the number of bremsstrahlung γ’s is much lower than for f = 0 .1 (see 9 FIG. 7. Time and space dependent quantum nonli...

    work page

  3. [3]

    decaying γ-beam model

    into N (ω′) ≈ 2π Vγ ∫ ∞ −∞ dt ∫ ρmax 0 ρdρ ∫ zR −zR d˜z R (κ) (10) with κ = κ(t, ρ, −t − ˜z). In the transformed expression, the ˜z-integration boundaries are decoupled from the time variable, in contrast to Eq. ( 8). The performed setting z = z(t) = −t − ˜z, which now links the longitudinal com- ponent with the time, offers a physical interpretation in se...

    work page

  4. [4]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 52, 1707 (1967) [JETP Lett. 25, 1135 (1967)]

    work page 1967

  5. [5]

    stable γ-beam model

    for the chosen target thickness as a function of f . We shall assume throughout that the in- cident electron bunch contains a total (absolute) charge of Qe = 10 pC and that δ = 1% of the electrons will emit bremsstrahlung, which represents a reasonable frac- tion for the chosen target thickness [13]. Accordingly, the total number of radiating electrons is...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Our corresponding results will be shown in Sec

    and ( 15)], in order to obtain the pair yield including the contribution from the second generation. Our corresponding results will be shown in Sec. III B where pair creation in collisions of bremsstrahlung with laser pulses at κ ≫ 1 is considered. III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Based on the S- and D-models described above, our goal in this section is to ana...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The relevance of and scaling with the interaction time 7 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 10-7 FIG

    and ( 12). The relevance of and scaling with the interaction time 7 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 10-7 FIG. 4. Dependence of the number of created pairs on the laser duration predicted by the S-model (dashed lines) and t he D-model (solid lines) for incident electron energy E0 = 5 GeV at ξ = 70 (blue curves), E0 = 2.5 GeV at ξ = 1...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Thus, the number of created Breit-Wheeler pairs per radiating electron in our S-model is given by NS ≈ ∫ 1 0 d fN (ω′) Iγ(f, ℓ)

    over the spectrum ( 5) must be taken. Thus, the number of created Breit-Wheeler pairs per radiating electron in our S-model is given by NS ≈ ∫ 1 0 d fN (ω′) Iγ(f, ℓ) . (9) Before moving on to the next section we note that the substitution z = −t − ˜z transforms Eq. (

    work page

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Di Piazza, C

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

    2012

  2. [10]

    In contrast, for higher values of ξ, a maximum emerges, indicating a peak contribution at specific γ-photon en- ergies

    For ξ = 100, we observe as before a strictly mono- tonic increase in the number of created pairs as f grows. In contrast, for higher values of ξ, a maximum emerges, indicating a peak contribution at specific γ-photon en- ergies. For ξ = 150, the curve already shows a slight ben...

  3. [11]

    A similar observation can be made when we compare the impact of the energy of bremsstrahlung photons for different values of the incident electron energy

    provides a good ap- proximation to the differential pair yield dN/d f up to quantum nonlinearity parameters of κ ≈ 6, where the additional contributions from the second pair generation remain below ≈ 20%. A similar observation can be made when we compare the impact of the energ...

  4. [12]

    ( 13), the transition from the process rate to the process probability adopts a nonperturbative form

    cannot be reduced to Eq. ( 13), the transition from the process rate to the process probability adopts a nonperturbative form. The pair production probability P (b, ω′) holds for a γ- photon of energy ω′ passing the central point of the laser focus at distance b. In order to o...

  5. [13]

    8 the total number of pairs produced by a sin- gle radiating electron is considered in the intensity range ξ ∈ [50, 300]

    Total pair yields In Fig. 8 the total number of pairs produced by a sin- gle radiating electron is considered in the intensity range ξ ∈ [50, 300]. Moreover, three different values of the in- cident electron energy E0 ∈ { 2.5, 5, 10} GeV are studied and depicted as red, blue an...

  6. [14]

    Then we distribute the associated portion of Amax/Aγ bremsstrahlung γ-photons uniformly over the area Amax and calculate the contribution of each trajectory to the pair yield

    at a sufficiently large upper boundary bmax = 3 w0, that corresponds to a cross sectional area of Amax = π(3w0)2. Then we distribute the associated portion of Amax/Aγ bremsstrahlung γ-photons uniformly over the area Amax and calculate the contribution of each trajectory to the p...

  7. [15]

    Also the contributions from the second generation of created pairs will be considered

    to obtain several important insights into the Breit-Wheeler pair creation process in the overcritical regime with 1 < κ ≲ 30. Also the contributions from the second generation of created pairs will be considered. In contrast to the previous Sec. III A, here the attention is pu...

  8. [16]

    It means that the considered γ-photons reach the center of the laser focus at time t = 0, where the laser field strength is maximum

    where the longitudinal off- set in the γ-photon trajectory was set to zero, ˜ z = 0. It means that the considered γ-photons reach the center of the laser focus at time t = 0, where the laser field strength is maximum. When the trajectory is taken more gener- ally as ⃗ r(t) = −tˆ...

  9. [17]

    works well in the considered range of parame- ters. The largest relative differences arise for E0 = 2 .5 GeV and ξ = 100, where the pair yield is reduced by about 2.5% (10%) when ˜z = zR/2 (˜z = zR); for E0 = 10 GeV and ξ = 250 the pair yield is instead increased by about 3% (1...

  10. [18]

    Accordingly, 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 10-6 FIG

    To that end, the energy of the laser pulse EL ∝ ξ2w2 0 = ( 250 x ) 2 (2x µm)2 = constant (16) is kept constant and the scaling parameter x is varied be- tween 1 and 6.5, leading to higher intensity accompanied by narrower beam waist and visa versa. Accordingly, 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...

  11. [19]

    Sauter, Z

    F. Sauter, Z. Phys. 69, 742 (1931)

    1931

  12. [20]

    H. R. Reiss, J. Math. Phys. 3, 59 (1962)

    1962

  13. [21]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 46, 776 (1963) [JETP Lett. 19, 529 (1964)]

    1963

  14. [22]

    H. R. Reiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1072 (1971)

    1971

  15. [23]

    V. S. Popov, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 13, 261 (1971) [JETP Lett. 13, 185 (1971)]; Yad. Fiz. 19, 1140 (1974) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 19, 584 (1974)]

    1971

  16. [24]

    A. A. Grib, V. M. Mostepanenko, and V. M. Frolov, Theor. Math. Phys. 13, 1207 (1972); V. M. Mostepa- nenko and V. M. Frolov, Yad. Fiz. 19, 885 (1974) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 19, 451 (1974)]

    1972

  17. [25]

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

    1985

  18. [26]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rep. 1010, 1 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    D. L. Burke et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1626 (1997)

    1997

  20. [28]

    Meuren, Probing strong-field QED at F ACET-II (SLAC E-320), https://conferences.slac.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/2023-08/Wed_01_sfqed_2019.pdf

    S. Meuren, Probing strong-field QED at F ACET-II (SLAC E-320), https://conferences.slac.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/2023-08/Wed_01_sfqed_2019.pdf

    2023

  21. [29]

    F. C. Salgado et al. , New J. Phys. 23 105002 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Abramowicz et al

    H. Abramowicz et al. , Conceptual design report for the LUXE experiment, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 230, 2445 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    I. C. E. Turcu et al. , Rom. Rep. Phys. 68, S145 (2016); http://www.eli-np.ro/e6.php

    2016

  24. [32]

    Heinzl, A

    T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, and M. Marklund, Phys. Lett. B 692, 250 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052104 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    A. I. Titov, H. Takabe, B. K¨ ampfer, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 240406 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Villalba-Chavez and C

    S. Villalba-Chavez and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Lett. B718, 992 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Meuren, K

    S. Meuren, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. H. Keitel, and A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev. D 91, 013009 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    M. J. A. Jansen, J. Z. Kami´ nski, K. Krajewska, and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D 94, 013010 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Q. Z. Lv, S. Dong, Y. T. Li, Z. M. Sheng, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022515 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    A. I. Titov and B. K¨ ampfer, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 218 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Y. Lu, N. Christensen, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Phys. Rev. A 101, 022503 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Seipt and B

    D. Seipt and B. King, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052805 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Heinzl, B

    T. Heinzl, B. King, and A. J. MacLeod, Phys. Rev. A 102, 063110 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    F. Wan, Y. Wang, R. T. Guo, R. R. Chen, R. Shaisul- tanov, Z. F. Xu, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. H. Keitel, and J. X. Li, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 032049(R) (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Podszus, V

    T. Podszus, V. Dinu, and A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev. D 106, 056014 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Chen and L

    P. Chen and L. Labun, Phys. Plasmas 30, 083302 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Mahlin, S

    N. Mahlin, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D 108, 096023 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Di Piazza, Phys

    A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 213201 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Mercuri-Baron et al

    A. Mercuri-Baron et al. , New J. Phys. 23, 085006 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Golub, S

    A. Golub, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D 105, 116016 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Eckey, A

    A. Eckey, A. Golub, F. C. Salgado, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, A. B. Voitkiv, M. Zepf, and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. A 110, 043113 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    T. G. Blackburn and M. Marklund, Plasma Phys. Con- trolled Fusion 60, 054009 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Hartin, A

    A. Hartin, A. Ringwald, and N. Tapia, Phys. Rev. D 99, 036008 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Eckey, A

    A. Eckey, A. B. Voitkiv, and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. A 105, 013105 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    A slightly different mechanism for efficient generation of γ-rays has been considered in A. J. MacLeod, P. Had- jisolomou, T. M. Jeong, and S. V. Bulanov, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012215 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    King and S

    B. King and S. Tang, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032823 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    J. W. Yoon et al., Optica 8, 630 (2021); see also https://corels.ibs.re.kr

    2021

  49. [57]

    V. I. Ritus, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 69, 555 (1972); N. B. Narozhny, Phys. Rev. D 21, 1176 (1980)

    1972

  50. [58]

    Blackburn, A

    T. Blackburn, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, and C. Ridgers, New J. Physics 21, 053040 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Baumann, E

    C. Baumann, E. N. Nerush, A. Pukhov, and I. Yu. Kostyukov, Sci. Rep. 9, 9407 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Y. I. Salamin, Appl. Phys. B 86, 319 (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    Tsai, Rev

    Y.-S. Tsai, Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 815 (1974)

    1974

  54. [62]

    P. A. Zyla et al. , (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020). 13

    2020

  55. [63]

    A. R. Bell and J. G. Kirk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200403 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    N. V. Elkina, A. Fedotov, I. Y. Kostyukov, M. V. Legkov, N. B. Narozhny, E. N. Nerush, and H. Ruhl, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 14, 054401 (2011)

    2011

  57. [65]

    A. A. Mironov, N. B. Narozhny, and A. Fedotov, Phys. Lett. A 378, 3254 (2014)

    2014

  58. [66]

    T. G. Blackburn, A. Ilderton, C. D. Murphy, and M. Marklund, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022128 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Pouyez, A

    M. Pouyez, A. A. Mironov, T. Grismayer, A. Mercuri- Baron, F. Perez, M. Vranic, C. Riconda, and M. Grech, Phys. Rev. E 110, 065208 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Pouyez, Shower multiplic- ity first and second generations, https://github.com/Syttam/Shower-multiplicity (2024)

    M. Pouyez, Shower multiplic- ity first and second generations, https://github.com/Syttam/Shower-multiplicity (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    H. T. Kim et al. , Appl. Sci. 11(13), 5831 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.