Transversely pumped laser driven particle accelerator

Alexander G. R. Thomas; Karl Krushelnick; Nicholas Ernst; Tanner Nutting

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Transversely pumped laser driven particle accelerator

T0 review · 4 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 Transversely Pumped Acceleration uses timed counter-propagating laser beamlets to create a plasma wave with tunable phase velocity, producing 1.2 GeV protons in 3.6 mm and electron gradients near 1 TeV/m.

desk verdict Novel timed-beamlet accelerator concept with real simulation proof of principle, but the coherence assumption behind the moving ponderomotive potential is not met at the stated pulse parameters and the abstract overstates the demonstrated gradient. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11825 v1 pith:V5A5MTIR submitted 2025-01-21 physics.plasm-ph

Tanner Nutting , Nicholas Ernst , Alexander G. R. Thomas , Karl Krushelnick This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.38.Kd52.65.Rr41.75.Jv

keywords laser-plasmaaccelerationdephasinglessionelectronponderomotivepotentialparticle-in-cellsimulationtunablephasevelocitycounter-propagatingbeamlets

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

Transversely Pumped Acceleration (TPA) is a proposed accelerator in which many low-energy laser beamlets, fired from opposite sides toward a common line, are timed so that their shared crossing point moves along that line at a chosen speed. The moving intensity maximum pushes plasma electrons aside and leaves a plasma wave whose phase velocity can be matched to the particles being accelerated: the speed of light for electrons, and a gradually increasing speed for ions. The paper derives the timing rule that produces this motion and demonstrates it in particle-in-cell simulations, achieving 1.2 GeV protons over 3.6 mm and an 800 MeV electron beam with 1.9% energy spread, with electron gradients around 0.5–1 TeV/m. The authors' case is that this circumvents the dephasing limit, scales simply by adding more beamlets, and works with many modest, high-repetition-rate pulses rather than one large laser.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tunable-phase-velocity ponderomotive potential formed by the incoherent sum of delayed beamlets. Its central identity is $U_P(\zeta,t)=\int |g(\zeta,t')|^2 \rho(t-t')\,dt'$, the convolution of the single-beamlet axial profile with the pulse-train comb $\rho(t)=\sum_i a_i^2 \delta(t-t_i)$, together with the phase-matching condition $s^{-1}(z)=\int_0^{p_z} (v_z/V)\,dp'_z/(qE_z)$. The amplitude prescription $a_i^2 \propto \Delta z/(N_\theta V_i \tau_0)$ keeps the time-averaged intensity constant as the crossing point speeds up or slows down, and alternating beamlet polarizations make the sum incoherent (Eq. 3). This moving ponderomotive potential is what carves the plasma wave whose phase velocity can be set to $c$ for electrons or matched to a slowly accelerating ion bunch.

What would settle it

A 3D particle-in-cell simulation (or experiment) with realistic adjacent-beamlet polarizations should measure the on-axis intensity contrast between the full field and the incoherent-sum prediction; if the ponderomotive potential shows standing-wave ripple at the beat spatial frequency, or if an ion-acceleration run in three dimensions does not reproduce the 1.2 GeV over 3.6 mm, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an array of counter-propagating, cross-polarized laser beamlets can act as a single ponderomotive driver whose on-axis intensity maximum moves with an arbitrary prescribed velocity, and that this moving driver creates a plasma wake with the same tunable phase velocity. Setting the arrival time of the beamlet focused at position $z_i$ to $t_i = s^{-1}(z_i)$ makes the effective pulse shape travel as $\zeta = z - s(t)$, and under phase matching the arrival-time law becomes $t_i \simeq z_i/c$ for ultrarelativistic electrons and $t_i = (z_i/c)\sqrt{1 + 2mc^2/(qE^* z_i)}$ for protons accelerated from rest in a constant field $E^*$. Cross-polarizing adjacent beamlets reduces the summed vector potential to an incoherent sum, so the time-averaged ponderomotive potential is the convolution of the single-pulse axial profile with the delayed pulse train. In simulations, the accelerating region stays fixed in the frame co-moving with the structure, electron acceleration reaches ~0.5–1 TeV/m without dephasing, and an injected ~95 MeV proton beam is accelerated to 1.2 GeV over 3.6 mm while preserving a quasi-monoenergetic spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of the moving ponderomotive potential assumes adjacent beamlets add incoherently because they are cross-polarized; if residual coherence produces standing-wave intensity ripple along the focal line, the smooth tunable-phase-velocity plasma wave that carries the particles would not form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Electron acceleration can be made dephasingless by setting the structure velocity to $c$; the paper demonstrates an 800 MeV beam with 1.9% energy spread at 0.52 TeV/m and a 3D proof of principle at 0.4 TeV/m.
Ion acceleration in an underdense plasma is possible without solid targets: a 95 MeV injected proton beam reaches 1.2 GeV over 3.6 mm with the energy spread growing only from 20 MeV to 40 MeV FWHM.
Acceleration length scales by adding beamlets rather than by scaling up laser energy or optics, so the same concept could be extended to meter-scale, TeV-class electron energies.
Because the individual beamlets are low energy (7–290 mJ in the examples), the scheme is compatible with high-repetition-rate lasers, which matters for medical and industrial applications.
Arbitrary phase velocities mean the same geometry can be tuned for positive or negative charges, and the paper notes positron acceleration should be possible in similar structures.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not quantify how much polarization impurity or frequency mismatch between adjacent beamlets can be tolerated before the incoherent-sum assumption breaks down; a natural extension is a tolerance scan in 3D simulations.
Because the arrival-time law is prescribed independently of the plasma response, the same formalism could be used to design wakes with non-constant acceleration profiles, for example to hold a bunch's energy spread fixed while it accelerates.
The helical array sketched in the paper suggests a concrete route to three dimensions with more than two beamlet arrays, but its focusing and stability are not simulated; that is an open test of the concept.
If the timing can be modulated dynamically during a pulse train, TPA could in principle act as a phase-velocity chirp that tracks a bunch as it gains energy, something the constant-field formula already approximates for ions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short take: this is a genuinely new accelerator geometry, and the simulations are a legitimate proof of principle, but the central theoretical reduction to an incoherent sum does not hold at the simulated pulse spacings, and the headline gradient is overstated. I'd send it to review, but expect serious revisions.

The TPA idea is real: instead of a single shaped pulse, you use arrays of counter-propagating beamlets, timed so their overlap point moves at a controlled velocity. The amplitude-weighting formula (Eq. 14) and the timing law (Eq. 18) are new and coherently derived. The streak plots in Fig. 3 and Fig. 8 actually show a phase velocity that tracks the design, and the 800 MeV electron beam with 1.9% spread at 0.52 TeV/m is a non-trivial simulation result. The 1.2 GeV proton run, even if 2D, is striking. Credit where due: this is not a rehash of stepped echelons or pulse-front tilt; it's a distinct architecture with a clear scaling story.

Now the soft spots, in order of importance. First, the stress-test concern is correct and it lands. Eq. (3) reduces the multi-pulse average to an incoherent sum by invoking alternating polarizations and 'sufficiently spatiotemporally spaced pulses.' But the simulations violate that spacing condition: adjacent beamlets arrive every ~4 fs (electrons) or ~10 fs (ions), while the pulse duration is 20-25 fs. Many pulses overlap in time. Alternating polarization kills only nearest-neighbor cross terms; pulses i and i+2 share polarization and overlap strongly, so their beat survives. The paper flags laser beating qualitatively but never quantifies the residual standing-wave ripple on axis, and no diagnostic is reported. If that ripple is non-negligible, the smooth moving potential that the timing law is designed to produce may not be the structure actually doing the accelerating. This is a load-bearing gap, not a polish issue.

Second, the E* in Eq. (18) is assumed, not derived. The energy-gain curves in Fig. 5 use that same E* as input, so the qE*L scaling is partly encoded in the assumptions. The authors should show how E* follows from laser and plasma parameters, or justify it from the PIC fields independently.

Third, the abstract says 'gradients on the order of 1 TeV/m'; the runs give 0.52 and 0.4 TeV/m. That's an overstatement, minor but should be fixed. Fourth, the ion result is 2D only, and the 3D electron runs are short; that's fine for a proof of principle, but it should be labeled as such.

Who is this for? People working on dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration and spatiotemporal pulse shaping will want to read it. It deserves a serious peer review. My recommendation: accept for review, but require the authors to address the coherence issue with quantitative diagnostics or parameter changes, and to clarify the status of E*.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Transversely Pumped Acceleration (TPA), a scheme in which arrays of counter-propagating, focused laser beamlets are timed so that their intersection point moves along a central axis at a controllable velocity. The authors derive a pulse-timing law (Eqs. 16-21) intended to produce a plasma wave whose phase velocity matches the accelerated particle bunch, thereby avoiding dephasing for electrons and enabling ion acceleration. They report 2D PIC simulations of proton acceleration to 1.2 GeV over 3.6 mm, 2D electron acceleration to 800 MeV over 1.525 mm (0.52 TeV/m), and a short 3D electron proof-of-principle reaching 20 MeV over 50 micrometres (0.4 TeV/m). The central claim is that the phase velocity of the accelerating structure is precisely tunable via beamlet spacing and injection timing.

Significance. If the central mechanism is sound, TPA would be a genuinely useful addition to spatiotemporally controlled laser-plasma acceleration: it replaces large, specialized optics with arrays of moderate-energy beamlets, offers an electronically controllable phase velocity, and could extend to ions as well as electrons. The paper is also commendably explicit about computational limitations in the 3D runs and about the qualitative concern of laser beating. However, the two load-bearing issues identified below - the unjustified incoherent-sum assumption in the pulse-train model and the use of an assumed constant field E* in the timing law - must be resolved before the scheme's claimed predictive control of phase velocity can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[§II, Eqs. (2)-(3); §III.B and §IV.B simulation parameters] The reduction to the incoherent sum in Eq. (3) is not satisfied by the simulated pulse trains. The text justifies Eq. (3) by alternating orthogonal polarizations and 'sufficiently spatiotemporally spaced pulses,' but the electron case has adjacent beamlets arriving at the focal axis every Δt = 1.3 µm/c ≈ 4.3 fs with τ = 20 fs, and the ion case every Δt = 3 µm/c ≈ 10 fs with τ = 25 fs. Many pulses therefore overlap in time. Alternating polarization eliminates only nearest-neighbor cross terms in Eq. (2); pulses i and i+2 have the same polarization and overlap strongly, so their difference-frequency term with (e_i · e_j*) = 1 survives. Unless a frequency offset or phase randomization is specified (it is not), Eq. (3) does not follow, and the on-axis intensity contains a same-polarization beat/standing-wave ripple superimposed on the intended smooth moving peak of Eq. (15). The paper mentions laser beating qualitatively but does not quantify the residual coherence or report a diagnostic for it. This is load-bearing because the tunable phase-velocity plasma wave that the timing law is designed to produce is the central claim; please either modify the pulse design (e.g., frequency offsets or randomized phases) or provide simulation diagnostics showing the coherent contribution is negligible.
[§II.A, Eq. (18) and Fig. 5] The timing law is not predictive for the acceleration gradient because it takes E* as an assumed constant input, and the theoretical energy-gain curves in Fig. 5 use that same E*. The kinematic derivation from dp_z = (qE/v_z)dz is correct, but E* is never expressed in terms of laser intensity, plasma density, beamlet geometry, or any other simulation parameter. The agreement between the dashed curves and the PIC data therefore shows consistency with the assumed E*, not a first-principles prediction. Please derive E* from the laser/plasma parameters or, at minimum, report the on-axis accelerating field measured in the simulations and show that the timing law reproduces it independently of the energy-gain comparison.
[Abstract and Secs. III.B, IV.B, IV.C] The headline performance claims exceed what the simulations demonstrate. The 1.2 GeV proton result is a two-dimensional simulation (Sec. III.B); the electron runs give 0.52 TeV/m in 2D over 1.525 mm and 0.4 TeV/m in 3D over only 50 µm, not the 'order of 1 TeV/m' stated in the abstract. In addition, the 3D electron run is a short proof of principle and does not demonstrate monoenergetic acceleration or the long-distance phase-velocity control shown in 2D. Please either soften the abstract and conclusions to match the demonstrated values or provide additional simulations that reach the claimed gradient/energy.
[§V, Discussion and conclusions] The statement that 'dephasing, depletion, and defocusing' are 'all of which are bypassed using TPA' is broader than the evidence. The simulations demonstrate phase-velocity matching over 3.6 mm (ions) and 1.525 mm (electrons) in 2D, and over 50 µm in 3D; no simulation tracks laser depletion over the proposed 1.9 m TeV scale. Please restrict the claim to dephasing, which is directly evidenced by the streak plots, and discuss depletion and defocusing limits explicitly rather than asserting they are bypassed.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 2] The four panels in Fig. 2 lack axis labels and color-bar scales, which makes the time-averaging illustration difficult to interpret quantitatively.
[Eq. (18)] The typesetting of Eq. (18) has an unbalanced parenthesis; the argument of the square root should be written as (γ0 + qE*zi/mc^2)^2 - 1, with the closing bracket clearly indicated.
[Sec. III.B and Sec. IV.A] There are minor typographical issues: 'crosing' in the Fig. 4 caption and 'L WF A' in Sec. IV.A.
[Sec. IV.C] The 3D electron beam is described as 'slightly elongated in the x direction'; adding a quantitative emittance or divergence value would strengthen the discussion of tailorable beam shapes.
[Sec. II] The notation s(t) is used for the position of the intensity maximum, and s^{-1}(z) later appears; please define the inverse function explicitly at first use to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The proton energy-gain 'prediction' reuses the same E* used to set the pulse timing, so the gain qE*L is encoded in the input; this is a partial circularity in the theoretical comparison.

fitted input called prediction [Section II A, Eq. (18); Section III B, Fig. 5]
"Under phase matching conditions with V (z) = vz and with the (time averaged) driver being constant such that the electric field is (on time averaged) constant Ez = E∗, then s−1(z) = pz(z) − p0 / qE ∗ ... γ(z)mc2 = γ0mc2 + qE ∗z. ... A plot showing the proton energy gain vs. acceleration length for the simulation parameters described above for various values of E∗ is shown in Fig. 5. The dashed lines on the plot indicate theoretical predictions."

Equation (18) is constructed by assuming a constant accelerating field E* and integrating it to obtain the particle momentum and position. The pulse delays are then set from this s^{-1}(z). The 'theoretical predictions' in Fig. 5 are the energy gain computed from the same assumed E*, namely γ(z)mc² = γ0mc² + qE*z. Therefore the predicted gain qE*L is an input to the design, not an independent outcome. The agreement between the simulation and the dashed lines verifies self-consistency (the structure indeed produces the field assumed in the timing law), but it is not an independent prediction of the energy gain.

full rationale

The core TPA derivation in Section II is a synthesis or design rule: it constructs a pulse train that yields a moving intensity peak of a chosen velocity, and the PIC simulations test whether the nonlinear plasma wave follows that design. Apart from the E* energy-gain comparison, the simulation results (1.2 GeV proton energy, 0.52 TeV/m electron gradient, c-velocity streak plots) are independent numerical outcomes and are not obtained by fitting. The c-phase-velocity electron case is also set by the timing choice (Eq. 19), so the observation of a c-velocity structure is a consistency check rather than a sharp prediction, though the PIC simulation could have failed to produce it. A separate validity concern, not a circularity, is that Eq. (3) drops all cross terms using alternating polarization and 'sufficiently spatiotemporally spaced pulses,' but the simulated parameters (e.g., dx=3 µm, τ=25 fs for ions; dx=1.3 µm, τ=20 fs for electrons) mean non-adjacent pulses with the same polarization can overlap, so residual laser beating may exist; this would undermine the moving-potential model but is a correctness issue rather than circularity. Overall, one load-bearing theoretical comparison reduces by construction, giving partial circularity (score 6).

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the incoherent beamlet sum, the constant-field phase-matching model, external proton injection, and 2D PIC fidelity. The most consequential un-predicted input is E*, the assumed constant accelerating field, which enters both the timing law and the theoretical energy curves.

free parameters (1)

E* (assumed constant accelerating field) = 2.5-3 GV/cm for the ion timing law; not derived from laser and plasma parameters
Eq. 18 uses E* to set the beamlet timing, and Fig. 5 uses the same E* values to draw the theoretical energy-gain curves. No first-principles model is given for E*, so the predicted gain is partly input.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Beamlets add incoherently: cross terms in the time-averaged ponderomotive potential vanish (Eq. 3).
Alternating polarizations are assumed to suppress laser beating. If residual coherence remains, the smooth moving ponderomotive potential would not form.
domain assumption The time-averaged accelerating field E* is constant along the interaction (Eq. 17).
This converts phase matching into the closed-form timing law Eq. 18. The paper does not derive E* from first principles.
standard math Slowly varying envelope and paraxial pulse model (Eq. 1).
Standard envelope approximation for the vector potential of each beamlet.
domain assumption The wake phase velocity equals the velocity of the moving intensity maximum.
Foundation of the dephasingless design; supported by streak plots in Figs. 3 and 8, but assumed in the timing derivation.
domain assumption A 95 MeV, 20 MeV FWHM proton beam from an RPA source can be injected as modeled.
Used as the initial condition for the ion simulations; real injection may differ in divergence, charge, and energy spread.
domain assumption 2D PIC captures the ion acceleration dynamics.
The 1.2 GeV proton result is 2D; only the electron case has a short 3D check with different parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transversely pumped laser driven particle accelerator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5A5MTIR

@misc{pith2026250111825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transversely pumped laser driven particle accelerator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5A5MTIR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11825}
}

read the original abstract

We present a new acceleration scheme capable of accelerating electrons and ions in an underdense plasma. Transversely Pumped Acceleration (TPA) uses multiple arrays of counter-propagating laser beamlets that focus onto a central acceleration axis. Tuning the injection timing and the spacing between the adjacent beamlets allows for precise control over the position and velocity of the intersection point of the counter-propagating beam arrays, resulting in an accelerating structure that propagates orthogonal to the direction of laser propagation. We present the theory that sets the injection timing of the incoming pulses to accelerate electrons and ions with a tunable phase velocity plasma wave. Simulation results are also presented which demonstrate 1.2 GeV proton beams accelerated in 3.6 mm of plasma and electron acceleration gradients on the order of 1 TeV/m in a scheme that circumvents dephasing. This work has potential applications as a compact accelerator for medical physics and high energy physics colliders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11825 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Time averaging of pulse train. The colormap images show an example pulse train or time averaged pulse train as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (Left) Streak plot of the on axis accelerating fields for ions in the speed of light frame. (Right) Streak plot of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Top left) Ion beam in red, shown in accelerating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Ion energy spectrum at different times for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Peak ion energy as a function of acceleration distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Streak plot showing a phase velocity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Top) Electron density of accelerating structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Time evolution of the wake formation and injection dynamics. Earliest time is in the top left, latest time is in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Electron spectrum of monoenergetic beam. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Initial positions of the electrons in the 800 MeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Scatter plot of 3D electron beam. Energy of par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. Cross sections of electron density profile for 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14. Cross sections of electron density profile for 3D sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Laser Wakefield Acceleration Driven by a Discrete Flying Focus
physics.acc-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

A discrete flying focus laser pulse train can drive a wakefield that stays locked to an electron beam, eliminating dephasing and allowing 40 GeV gain in a single 30-cm stage in simulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Tajima and J

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

work page 1979
[2]

Gonsalves, K

A. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, J. Daniels, C. Benedetti, C. Pieronek, T. De Raadt, S. Steinke, J. Bin, S. Bu- lanov, J. Van Tilborg, et al. , Petawatt laser guiding and electron beam acceleration to 8 gev in a laser-heated cap- illary discharge waveguide, Physical Review Letters 122, 084801 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

Aniculaesei, T

C. Aniculaesei, T. Ha, S. Yoffe, L. Labun, S. Milton, E. McCary, M. M. Spinks, H. J. Quevedo, O. Z. Labun, R. Sain, et al., The acceleration of a high-charge electron bunch to 10 gev in a 10-cm nanoparticle-assisted wake- field accelerator, Matter and Radiation at Extremes 9 (2024)

work page 2024
[4]

D. H. Froula, D. Turnbull, A. S. Davies, T. J. Kessler, D. Haberberger, J. P. Palastro, S.-W. Bahk, I. A. Begi- shev, R. Boni, S. Bucht, et al., Spatiotemporal control of laser intensity, Nature Photonics 12, 262 (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

Froula, J

D. Froula, J. Palastro, D. Turnbull, A. Davies, L. Nguyen, A. Howard, D. Ramsey, P. Franke, S.-W. Bahk, I. Begishev, et al. , Flying focus: Spatial and tem- poral control of intensity for laser-based applications, Physics of Plasmas 26 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

K. G. Miller, J. R. Pierce, M. V. Ambat, J. L. Shaw, K. Weichman, W. B. Mori, D. H. Froula, and J. P. Palas- tro, Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration in the bub- ble regime, Scientific Reports 13, 21306 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

J. R. Pierce, J. P. Palastro, F. Li, B. Malaca, D. Ram- sey, J. Vieira, K. Weichman, and W. B. Mori, Arbitrar- ily structured laser pulses, Physical Review Research 5, 013085 (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

Palastro, J

J. Palastro, J. Shaw, P. Franke, D. Ramsey, T. Simpson, and D. Froula, Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration, Physical Review Letters 124, 134802 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 17 references

[9]

Z. Gong, S. Cao, J. P. Palastro, and M. R. Edwards, Laser wakefield acceleration of ions with a transverse fly- ing focus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 265002 (2024)

2024
[10]

Hinchliffe and M

I. Hinchliffe and M. Battaglia, A tev linear collider, Physics Today 57, 49 (2004)

2004
[11]

Debus, R

A. Debus, R. Pausch, A. Huebl, K. Steiniger, R. Widera, T. E. Cowan, U. Schramm, and M. Bussmann, Cir- cumventing the dephasing and depletion limits of laser- wakefield acceleration, Physical Review X 9, 031044 (2019)

2019
[12]

Macchi, S

A. Macchi, S. Veghini, T. V. Liseykina, and F. Pegoraro, Radiation pressure acceleration of ultrathin foils, New Journal of Physics 12, 045013 (2010)

2010
[13]

Robinson, M

A. Robinson, M. Zepf, S. Kar, R. Evans, and C. Bellei, Radiation pressure acceleration of thin foils with circu- larly polarized laser pulses, New Journal of Physics 10, 013021 (2008)

2008
[14]

W. Lu, M. Tzoufras, C. Joshi, F. S. Tsung, W. B. Mori, J. Vieira, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Generating multi-gev electron bunches using single stage laser wake- field acceleration in a 3d nonlinear regime, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 10, 061301 (2007)

2007
[15]

Malkin, V

A. Malkin, V. Y. Zaslavsky, I. Zheleznov, M. Goykhman, A. Gromov, A. Palitsin, A. Sergeev, A. Fedotov, P. Makhalov, and N. Ginzburg, Development of high- power millimeter-wave surface-wave generators based on relativistic ribbon electron beams, Radiophysics and quantum electro...

2020
[16]

Kaluza, J

M. Kaluza, J. Schreiber, M. I. Santala, G. D. Tsakiris, K. Eidmann, J. Meyer-ter Vehn, and K. J. Witte, Influ- ence of the laser prepulse on proton acceleration in thin- foil experiments, Physical Review Letters 93, 045003 (2004)

2004
[17]

T. Zhou, J. Ruppe, P. Stanfield, J. Nees, R. Wilcox, and A. Galvanauskas, Resonant cavity based time-domain multiplexing techniques for coherently combined fiber laser systems, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 224, 2585 (2015)

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Tajima and J

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

work page 1979

[2] [2]

Gonsalves, K

A. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, J. Daniels, C. Benedetti, C. Pieronek, T. De Raadt, S. Steinke, J. Bin, S. Bu- lanov, J. Van Tilborg, et al. , Petawatt laser guiding and electron beam acceleration to 8 gev in a laser-heated cap- illary discharge waveguide, Physical Review Letters 122, 084801 (2019)

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Aniculaesei, T

C. Aniculaesei, T. Ha, S. Yoffe, L. Labun, S. Milton, E. McCary, M. M. Spinks, H. J. Quevedo, O. Z. Labun, R. Sain, et al., The acceleration of a high-charge electron bunch to 10 gev in a 10-cm nanoparticle-assisted wake- field accelerator, Matter and Radiation at Extremes 9 (2024)

work page 2024

[4] [4]

D. H. Froula, D. Turnbull, A. S. Davies, T. J. Kessler, D. Haberberger, J. P. Palastro, S.-W. Bahk, I. A. Begi- shev, R. Boni, S. Bucht, et al., Spatiotemporal control of laser intensity, Nature Photonics 12, 262 (2018)

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Froula, J

D. Froula, J. Palastro, D. Turnbull, A. Davies, L. Nguyen, A. Howard, D. Ramsey, P. Franke, S.-W. Bahk, I. Begishev, et al. , Flying focus: Spatial and tem- poral control of intensity for laser-based applications, Physics of Plasmas 26 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

K. G. Miller, J. R. Pierce, M. V. Ambat, J. L. Shaw, K. Weichman, W. B. Mori, D. H. Froula, and J. P. Palas- tro, Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration in the bub- ble regime, Scientific Reports 13, 21306 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

J. R. Pierce, J. P. Palastro, F. Li, B. Malaca, D. Ram- sey, J. Vieira, K. Weichman, and W. B. Mori, Arbitrar- ily structured laser pulses, Physical Review Research 5, 013085 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Palastro, J

J. Palastro, J. Shaw, P. Franke, D. Ramsey, T. Simpson, and D. Froula, Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration, Physical Review Letters 124, 134802 (2020)

work page 2020