Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Relative-phase dependence of dynamically assisted electron-positron pair creation in the superposition of strong oscillating electric-field pulses

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The relative phase of a weak high-frequency assisting pulse can tune electron-positron pair yields by 10–30% at fixed pulse energy.

desk verdict Real novelty in total pair-number phase scans with a clean three-ODE cross-check, but the fixed p_max=3m momentum cutoff without a convergence test makes the 10-30% headline numbers indicative rather than final. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24488 v1 pith:RLDOX23A submitted 2025-05-30 physics.atom-ph hep-ph

J. Bra{ss} , D. M. Müller , S. Villalba-Chávez , K. Krajewska , C. Müller This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phhep-ph
keywords electron-positronpairproductiondynamicallyassistedSchwingereffectrelativephasedependencemultiphotoninterferenceoscillatingelectric-fieldpulsesquantumkineticequationsDiracequationvacuumcreation
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

Strong oscillating electric fields can pull electron-positron pairs out of the quantum vacuum, and adding a weak high-frequency 'assisting' pulse sharply raises the yield through the dynamically assisted Schwinger effect. This paper asks whether the relative phase of that assisting pulse can serve as a control knob for the total number of produced pairs. It finds that, for the considered field parameters, varying the relative phase changes total pair numbers by about 10–30%, with the largest effects when the frequencies are commensurate. The result matters because changing a phase is experimentally much easier than changing pulse energy, so this could help bring pair-creation yields closer to observability.

What carries the argument

The calculation uses a spatially homogeneous, linearly polarized electric field in the temporal gauge, described by a vector potential A(t) that superposes K modes, each with its own amplitude, frequency, envelope, and phase. Pair production is computed from coupled ordinary differential equations for the electron occupation amplitudes, either from the Dirac equation or from equivalent quantum kinetic approaches; the three formulations are cross-checked and found to agree. The central output is the momentum-dependent production probability W(px, py), from which the total pair number is obtained by integration over transverse and longitudinal momentum up to a cutoff of 3m. The relative phase enters through the mode phases φj in the vector potential, so scanning φj changes the interference of multiphoton pathway amplitudes and thereby the integrated yield.

What would settle it

Recompute the total pair number for the N1 = 20 trifrequent case and for the long-pulse case with a short assisting pulse, using momentum cutoffs of 6m and 10m instead of 3m. If the resulting N(φ) curves retain the same 9–15% modulation, the claim stands; if the added high-momentum tail changes the yields or the phase contrast by more than a few percent, the quoted enhancements are an artifact of the cutoff.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the field configurations studied—bifrequent and trifrequent oscillating electric-field pulses of equal duration, and a short high-frequency pulse superposed with a time delay on a long strong pulse—the total number of produced electron-positron pairs depends measurably on the relative phase of the high-frequency modes, with enhancements of roughly 10–30% over the phase-minimized yield. The effect is strongest when the frequencies are integer multiples of the fundamental; for practically incommensurate frequencies the phase dependence is only a few percent. Varying the phase of the strong low-frequency mode can nearly double the yield for very short pulses, but that increase is not the paper's central claim, since changing this phase also changes what the strong pulse alone produces. The paper additionally reports that three standard coupled-ODE formulations of pair production give essentially identical momentum-dependent probabilities, a consistency check it identifies as previously missing.

Load-bearing premise

The reported total pair numbers and the 10–30% phase enhancements assume that no significant part of the momentum distribution lies beyond |px|,|py| = 3m; the paper applies that cutoff throughout without a convergence check, and longer pulses may shift weight to higher momenta.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The relative phase of a weak assisting high-frequency pulse is a usable control knob for pair yields without changing the total field energy, offering an experimentally convenient way to boost or suppress the number of produced pairs.
  • In trifrequent setups with commensurate frequencies, optimizing the phases of the assisting modes can add roughly 20% for short pulses and 9–15% for longer pulses, so the effect persists, though weakened, as pulse duration grows.
  • For a short pulse riding on a long strong pulse, the time delay acts like a phase-like control: it shifts the electron momentum distribution and produces regular 10–20% modulations in the total pair number.
  • Because three independent ODE schemes give the same probabilities, the reported phase dependence is not an artifact of choosing one particular computational formulation.
  • If the phase effect holds under more realistic spatially dependent fields, phase control could be combined with dynamical assistance to relax the field-strength requirements for observing vacuum pair creation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: The quoted absolute pair numbers and the 10–30% phase modulations could shift if the momentum cutoff at |px|,|py| = 3m truncates a non-negligible high-momentum tail; the paper provides no convergence check, and longer pulses may move spectral weight outward.
  • Editorial: Since the phase sensitivity is largest for commensurate frequencies, a natural extension is a systematic scan of frequency ratios (2:1, 3:1, 4:1) to locate the configurations where phase control gives the largest relative gain.
  • Editorial: The strong-field phase φ1 produces large yield changes that are entangled with the single-pulse yield; an experimental protocol seeking a clean phase-control demonstration should vary only the assisting-phase(s) while holding the strong pulse fixed.
  • Editorial: The same phase-dependence logic should extend to other dynamically assisted nonlinear QED processes, such as nonlinear Breit-Wheeler or Bethe-Heitler pair creation, where commensurate multiphoton pathways are also known to generate phase-sensitive interference.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies electron-positron pair production in spatially homogeneous, time-dependent electric fields formed by superposing a strong low-frequency pulse with one or two weak high-frequency pulses. It introduces three established ODE formulations (Dirac and quantum-kinetic), verifies their mutual agreement in Fig. 1, and then computes momentum-resolved pair probabilities and total pair numbers via Eq. (10). The central result is that the relative phase between the pulses changes the total pair yield by about 10–30% for the configurations considered, with the largest effects for commensurate frequencies and for a short assisting pulse scanned in time across a long main pulse.

Significance. If the reported effect is robust, the relative phase of an assisting high-frequency mode is a practical, energy-neutral control knob for pair yields, which is of clear interest to ongoing and planned strong-field experiments. The paper has genuine strengths: it presents a direct three-way numerical cross-check of Dirac and quantum-kinetic ODE systems (Fig. 1), reports absolute pair numbers alongside normalized curves, and honestly identifies the homogeneous-field approximation as a modeling limitation. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a momentum-space truncation whose convergence is not demonstrated, so the headline 10–30% range is not yet fully supported.

major comments (1)
  1. [§II C, Eq. (10)] The abstract and conclusion state that relative-phase variation yields enhancements of 'about 10–30%' for the considered field parameters. This range does not represent all configurations shown: in Fig. 2 the relative variation is only a few percent (about 8% for ω2=1.2m and less for ω2=1.24385m), and the top panel of Fig. 3 shows variations of only a few percent. The 10–30% range is really characteristic of the commensurate-frequency cases (Fig. 3 bottom) and the short-pulse superposition (Figs. 4 and 7). The claim should be qualified accordingly, for instance by saying 'up to about 30% in commensurate or short-pulse configurations,' so that the stated range accurately reflects the presented data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] There are several typographical errors: 'fundamentel' in the first paragraph, 'signficantly' in §III A, and 'insure' in §II C should be 'ensure'.
  2. [§III B heading] The section heading 'T rifrequent' contains an unintended space and should read 'Trifrequent'.
  3. [§II C] The sentence 'The following numerical results have been simulated with the help of a custom C++ code' is a bit unclear; presumably it means the results were obtained using a custom C++ code, not that they were simulated in the sense of Monte Carlo. Consider rephrasing.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption is informative, but it would help to state explicitly that panels (a)–(c) also include the background pulse A1(t) while panel (d) is for the short pulse alone, even though this is explained in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase dependence is a computed output of established ODE systems, not an input, fitted quantity, or self-citational assertion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the relative phase between assisting high-frequency modes changes the total pair number by about 10–30%—is a computed output of three independent ODE formulations (Eqs. (3), (6), and (8)) integrated over momentum via Eq. (10). No parameter is fitted to the target observable; the relative phase is an input and the pair yield is the output. The normalization by N_min is explicitly a presentational device and does not construct the phase dependence. Field parameters are taken from prior literature (Refs. [44, 47]), but they are inputs, not evidence for the claim. The paper also performs a genuine internal consistency check among the three ODE schemes in Fig. 1, which independently supports the numerical method. The p_x^(max)=p_y^(max)=3m momentum cutoff is a numerical-convergence assumption rather than a circularity: it does not make the phase dependence equivalent to an input, though it is a validation gap that could affect the quantitative percentages. Self-citations to Mocken et al., Akal et al., and Otto et al. provide established equations and parameter motivation; the load-bearing argument does not reduce to these citations. No circular step of the enumerated kinds is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No observable is fitted to produce the central claim; all field parameters are explicitly chosen inputs from prior literature. The computation relies on established ODE formulations and standard numerical settings. The main unstated numerical assumption is the p_max=3m momentum cutoff, which is not convergence-tested.

free parameters (4)
  • Strong-mode amplitude xi_1 = 1.0 or 1.42
    Chosen input from prior works (Refs. [44,47]) to define the nonperturbative regime; not fitted to pair yields.
  • High-frequency assisting amplitude xi_2 = 0.1, 0.102, or 0.15
    Weak assisting mode amplitude; values taken from prior studies; central phase dependence is explored for these specific choices.
  • Third-mode amplitude xi_3 = 0.0027 or 0.0102
    Weak third mode; chosen for commensurate and incommensurate frequency scenarios.
  • Frequencies and pulse lengths (omega_1, omega_2, omega_3, N_1, delta) = e.g., omega_1=0.3m, omega_2=1.24385m, N_1=4, delta=0.5; plus N_1=8/20 variants
    Selected from resonance and dynamical-assistance conditions in prior literature and for computational feasibility; the commensurate case omega_2=4*omega_1 maximizes phase sensitivity.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The coupled ODE systems from Refs. [17,44,47] correctly describe pair creation in spatially homogeneous time-dependent electric fields.
    The paper uses Eq. (6) throughout after a single consistency check (Fig. 1); it does not re-derive the equations.
  • domain assumption The total field is spatially homogeneous, purely electric, and linearly polarized, so momentum conservation and spin separation apply.
    Introduced in Sec. II; acknowledged as a simplified model of a standing laser wave in Sec. II C.
  • domain assumption The numerical settings (time step 0.01/m, momentum resolution 0.01m, momentum cutoff p_max=3m) give converged total pair numbers.
    Stated in Sec. II C without published convergence tests; the cutoff directly affects all reported totals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relative-phase dependence of dynamically assisted electron-positron pair creation in the superposition of strong oscillating electric-field pulses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RLDOX23A

@misc{pith2026250524488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relative-phase dependence of dynamically assisted electron-positron pair creation in the superposition of strong oscillating electric-field pulses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RLDOX23A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24488}
}
read the original abstract

Production of electron-positron pairs in the superposition of oscillating electric-field pulses with largely different frequencies is studied, focussing on the impact of relative phases between the pulses. Various field configurations are considered: superpositions of either two or three pulses of equal duration as well as combinations of a long low-frequency and a short high-frequency pulse. We show that the relative phase of superimposed high-frequency modes can exert a sizeable effect on the total numbers of produced pairs, enhancing them by about 10-30% for the considered field parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24488 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Transversal momentum distributions of electrons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Total number of created pairs (per Compton volume), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Total number of electron-positron pairs created in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Total number of electron-positron pairs created in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Total vector potential (black solid line), multiplied [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Two-dimensional momentum distribution of electrons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Total number of electron-positron pairs created in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    I. Akal, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D 90, 113004 (2014)

    2014

  2. [47]

    A. Otto, H. Oppitz, and B. K¨ ampfer, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 23 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [51]

    Folkerts, J

    N. Folkerts, J. Putzer, S. Villalba-Chavez, and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. A107, 052210 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [1]

    G. V. Dunne, Eur. Phys. J. D55, 327 (2009); D. B. Blaschke, A. V. Prozorkevich, G. R¨ opke, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, D. S. Shkirmanov and S. A. Smolyansky, Eur. Phys. J. D55, 341 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [2]

    Ehlotzky, K

    F. Ehlotzky, K. Krajewska, and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Rep. Prog. Phys.72, 046401 (2009)

    2009

  6. [3]

    Ruffini, G

    R. Ruffini, G. Vereshchagin, and S.-S. Xue, Phys. Rep. 487, 1 (2010)

    2010

  7. [4]

    Di Piazza, C

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

    2012

  8. [5]

    Fedotov, A

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

    2023

Show all 65 references
  1. [6]

    I. C. E. Turcuet al., Rom. Rep. Phys.68, S145 (2016); see also https://eli-laser.eu

    2016

  2. [7]

    C. H. Keitelet al., arXiv:2103.06059

    arXiv

  3. [8]

    Abramowiczet al., Eur

    H. Abramowiczet al., Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top.230, 2445 (2021); see also http://www.hibef.eu

    2021

  4. [9]

    Meuren, E-320 Collaboration at F ACET-II, https://facet.slac.stanford.edu

    S. Meuren, E-320 Collaboration at F ACET-II, https://facet.slac.stanford.edu

  5. [10]

    See https://corels.ibs.re.kr

  6. [11]

    Br´ ezin, C

    E. Br´ ezin, C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. D2, 1191 (1970)

    1970

  7. [12]

    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

  8. [13]

    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

  9. [14]

    V. G. Bagrov, D. M. Gitman, and Sh. M. Shvartsman, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.68, 392 (1975) [Sov. Phys. JETP 41, 191 (1975)]

    1975

  10. [15]

    Di Piazza, Phys

    A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev. D70, 053013 (2004)

    2004

  11. [16]

    Hebenstreit, R

    F. Hebenstreit, R. Alkofer, G.V. Dunne, H. Gies, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 150404 (2009)

    2009

  12. [17]

    G. R. Mocken, M. Ruf, C. M¨ uller, C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. A81, 022122 (2010)

    2010

  13. [18]

    W. Y. Wu, F. He, R. Grobe, and Q. Su, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B32, 2009 (2015)

    2015

  14. [19]

    Kohlf¨ urst, M

    C. Kohlf¨ urst, M. Mitter, G. von Winckel, F. Hebenstreit, R. Alkofer Phys. Rev. D88, 045028 (2013)

    2013

  15. [20]

    I. A. Aleksandrov, G. Plunien, and V. M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. D95, 056013 (2017)

    2017

  16. [21]

    Unger, S

    J. Unger, S. Dong, R. Flores, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Phys. Rev. A99, 022128 (2019)

    2019

  17. [22]

    Blinne and H

    A. Blinne and H. Gies, Phys. Rev. D89, 085001 (2014)

    2014

  18. [23]

    W¨ ollert, H

    A. W¨ ollert, H. Bauke, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. D 91, 125026 (2015)

    2015

  19. [24]

    Fillion-Gourdeau, F

    F. Fillion-Gourdeau, F. Hebenstreit, D. Gagnon, and S. MacLean, Phys. Rev. D96, 016012 (2017)

    2017

  20. [25]

    Z. L. Li, Y. J. Li, and B. S. Xie, Phys. Rev. D96, 076010 (2017)

    2017

  21. [26]

    Kohlf¨ urst, Phys

    C. Kohlf¨ urst, Phys. Rev. D99, 096017 (2019)

    2019

  22. [27]

    Akkermans and G

    E. Akkermans and G. V. Dunne, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 030401 (2012)

    2012

  23. [28]

    Sitiwaldi and B.-S

    I. Sitiwaldi and B.-S. Xie, Phys. Lett. B768, 174 (2017)

    2017

  24. [29]

    J. Z. Kami´ nski, M. Twardy, and K. Krajewska, Phys. Rev. D98, 056009 (2018)

    2018

  25. [30]

    L. F. Granz, O. Mathiak, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Lett. B793, 85 (2019)

    2019

  26. [31]

    C. K. Dumlu, Phys. Rev. D82, 045007 (2010)

    2010

  27. [32]

    Olugh, Z.-L

    O. Olugh, Z.-L. Li, B.-S. Xie, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D99, 036003 (2019)

    2019

  28. [33]

    C. Gong, Z. L. Li, Y. J. Li, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Phys. Rev. A101, 063405 (2020)

    2020

  29. [34]

    M. Ruf, G. R. Mocken, C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 080402 (2009)

    2009

  30. [35]

    Hebenstreit, R

    F. Hebenstreit, R. Alkofer, and H. Gies, Phys. Rev. D 82, 105026 (2010); C. Kohlf¨ urst and R. Alkofer, Phys. Lett. B756, 371 (2016)

    2010

  31. [36]

    I. A. Aleksandrov, G. Plunien, and V. M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. D94, 065024 (2016); Phys. Rev. D96, 076006 (2017)

    2016

  32. [37]

    Oertel and R

    J. Oertel and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Phys. Rev. D99, 125014 (2019)

    2019

  33. [38]

    Kohlf¨ urst, Phys

    C. Kohlf¨ urst, Phys. Rev. D101, 096003 (2020)

    2020

  34. [39]

    Kohlf¨ urst, N

    C. Kohlf¨ urst, N. Ahmadiniaz, J. Oertel, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 241801 (2022)

    2022

  35. [40]

    Sch¨ utzhold, H

    R. Sch¨ utzhold, H. Gies, and G. Dunne, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 130404 (2008); G. V. Dunne, H. Gies, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Phys. Rev. D80, 111301(R) (2009)

    2008

  36. [41]

    Orthaber, F

    M. Orthaber, F. Hebenstreit, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Lett. B698, 80 (2011)

    2011

  37. [42]

    Jiang, W

    M. Jiang, W. Su, Z.Q. Lv, X. Lu, Y.J. Li, R. Grobe, and Q. Su, Phys. Rev. A85, 033408 (2012)

    2012

  38. [43]

    Z. L. Li, D. Lu, B. S. Xie, L. B. Fu, J. Liu, and B. F. Shen, Phys. Rev. D89, 093011 (2014)

    2014

  39. [45]

    A. Otto, D. Seipt, D. Blaschke, B. K¨ ampfer, and S. A. Smolyansky, Phys. Lett. B740, 335 (2015); A. Otto, D. Seipt, D. Blaschke, S. A. Smolyansky, and B. K¨ ampfer, Phys. Rev. D91, 105018 (2015)

    2015

  40. [46]

    Torgrimsson, C

    G. Torgrimsson, C. Schneider, J. Oertel and R. Sch¨ utzhold, JHEP1706, 043 (2017)

    2017

  41. [48]

    A. D. Panferov, S. A. Smolyansky, A. Otto, B. K¨ ampfer, D. B. Blaschke, and L. Juchnowski, Eur. Phys. J. D70, 56 (2016)

    2016

  42. [49]

    Hebenstreit and F

    F. Hebenstreit and F. Fillion-Gourdeau, Phys. Lett. B 739, 189 (2014)

    2014

  43. [50]

    Villalba-Ch´ avez and C

    S. Villalba-Ch´ avez and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D100, 116018 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Torgrimsson, J

    G. Torgrimsson, J. Oertel, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Phys. Rev. D94, 065035 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Di Piazza, E

    A. Di Piazza, E. L¨ otstedt, A. I. Milstein, and C. H. Kei- tel, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 170403 (2009)

    2009

  46. [54]

    Augustin and C

    S. Augustin and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Lett. B737, 114 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    M. J. A. Jansen and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. A88, 052125 (2013); N. Mahlin, S. Villalba-Chavez, and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D108, 096023 (2023)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Rev. A85, 9 043404 (2012); Phys. Rev. A86, 021402(R) (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Augustin and C

    S. Augustin and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. A88, 022109 (2013); J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.497, 012020 (2014)

    2013

  50. [58]

    S. P. Roshchupkin and A. A. Lebed’, Phys. Rev. A90, 035403 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    N. B. Narozhny and M. S. Fofanov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 90, 415 (2000) [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 117, 476 (2000)]

    2000

  52. [60]

    M. J. A. Jansen and C. M¨ uller, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.594, 012051 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    J. Braß, R. Milbradt, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, G. G. Paulus, and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. A101, 043401 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    C. K. Li, Y. J. Li, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Phys. Rev. A 108, 033112 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    H. K. Avetissian, A. K. Avetissian, G. F. Mkrtchian, and Kh. V. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. E66, 016502 (2002)

    2002

  56. [64]

    S. M. Schmidt, D. Blaschke, G. R¨ opke, S. A. Smolyansky, and A. V. Prozorkevich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E07, 709 (1998)

    1998

  57. [65]

    Schmidt, D

    S. Schmidt, D. B. Blaschke, G. R¨ opke, A. V. Prozorke- vich, S. A. Smolyansky, and V. D. Toneev, Phys. Rev. D 59, 094005 (1999)

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.