Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Reaching extreme fields in laser-electron beam collisions with XUV laser light

T0 review · 3 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 XUV-shifted laser pulses could bring the extreme QED regime into the laboratory.

desk verdict A useful SFQED proposal with a sound scaling argument, but the headline 10% probability rests on LCFA rates at the edge of their validity. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01727 v1 pith:6YGPW7ZT submitted 2025-06-02 physics.plasm-ph physics.optics

Brandon K. Russell , Christopher P. Ridgers , Stepan S. Bulanov , Kyle G. Miller , Christopher Arran , Thomas G. Blackburn , Sergei V. Bulanov , Gabriele M. Grittani
show 3 more authors
John P. Palastro Qian Qian Alexander G. R. Thomas
This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.optics
keywords strong-fieldQEDphotonaccelerationextremeultravioletquantumelectrodynamicslaser-plasmaradiationreactionBreit-Wheelerpaircreationnonlinearityparameter
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 proposes a route to strong-field quantum electrodynamics experiments that does not require ever-larger lasers or accelerators. It argues that converting an optical pulse into the extreme ultraviolet by plasma-wakefield 'photon acceleration' raises the quantum nonlinearity parameter $\chi_e$ of a colliding electron beam by roughly the frequency upshift factor, because the same field strength now appears shorter in wavelength. For a 50-GeV electron beam colliding with an XUV pulse of amplitude $a_0=8$ and frequency upshift $\Omega=22$, the paper predicts $\chi_e > 100$ and a total probability of about 10% that an electron reaches the peak field, emits a photon there, and that photon reaches a detector without producing a pair. The result would make the conjectured breakdown of perturbative strong-field QED experimentally testable with multi-GeV rather than 100-GeV-class beams.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quantum nonlinearity parameter $\chi_e$, the electric field seen by an electron in its rest frame divided by the QED critical field, together with the photon-acceleration relation $\chi_X^e = \Omega \xi \chi_O^e$. The argument couples this to a product of three probabilities: that an electron does not radiate before the pulse peak, that it emits a photon near the peak, and that the photon escapes the pulse without nonlinear Breit–Wheeler pair creation. Each probability is computed from the emission and pair-creation rates in the locally constant crossed-field approximation, and the frequency dependence is what makes XUV favorable: $\tau_X/\tau_O = \xi^{2/3} \Omega^{-1/3} N_X/N_O$ lowers the pre-peak emission probability, and the pair-creation loss also drops with frequency.

What would settle it

Collide a 50-GeV electron beam with an XUV pulse characterized in situ to have $\Omega=22$ and $a_0=8$, and count the fraction of electrons that reach $\chi_e>100$ and emit a detectable photon without pair creation; if that fraction comes nowhere near the predicted about 10% (for example, below 1%), the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that frequency upshifting the probe laser lowers the radiative-loss penalty that prevents electrons from reaching the peak of an intense optical pulse. Because $\chi_e = 2 a_0 \gamma \hbar \omega_0 / mc^2$ grows linearly with laser frequency, an optical pulse converted to XUV with frequency ratio $\Omega$ gives $\chi_X^e = \Omega \xi \chi_O^e$, while the probability of emitting before the peak scales as $\exp(-\tau)$ with $\tau \propto a_0^{2/3} N \gamma^{-1/3} \omega_0^{-1/3}$; the net effect is that a larger fraction of the electron beam survives to the high-$\chi$ region. The paper's quantitative case is a collision of 50-GeV electrons with an XUV pulse of $a_0=8$, $\Omega=22$, and 11.6 cycles, giving $\chi_e > 100$ with total detection probability near 10%, supported by analytic rate calculations and one-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme rests on the assumption that a plasma wakefield can upshift an 800-nm pulse by a factor of 22 into the XUV while keeping its normalized amplitude, and that a plasma lens can focus it to $a_0=8$, which has so far been demonstrated only in simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-$\chi_e$ (above 100) electron–photon interactions could be studied with 50-GeV-class electron beams and few-hundred-joule drive lasers, rather than 100-GeV beams and multi-kilojoule systems.
  • A measurable fraction of colliding electrons, about 10%, can reach $\chi_e>100$ and emit photons that arrive at a detector, making the experiments count-based rather than background-limited.
  • The same collision probes both proposed breakdown scalings of strong-field QED, $\alpha \chi_e^{2/3}$ at high intensity and $\alpha a_0^2 \log(\chi_e)/\chi_e$ at high energy, which respond oppositely to photon acceleration.
  • Photon spectra from the high-$\chi_e$ region can serve as a diagnostic for radiative corrections to nonlinear Compton scattering.
  • The scheme requires only two plasma-based elements, a photon accelerator and a plasma lens, alongside the electron accelerator, all of which are in active development.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If photon acceleration preserves polarization and cycle count as simulated, the same upshift technique could be applied to other wavelengths or structured beams, extending reachable $\chi_e$ without new laser hardware.
  • A direct experimental test could use a lower-energy electron beam with higher $\Omega$ to check the predicted scaling $\tau_X/\tau_O = \Omega^{-1/3}$ before committing to a 50-GeV beam.
  • The probability framework implies a design trade-off: increasing pulse duration raises emission probability near the peak but also raises pre-peak emission and pair-creation losses, so optimal pulse lengths exist for given $a_0$ and $\gamma$.
  • Because pair creation by the emitted photons also drops with XUV frequency, the detector signal may be cleaner than at optical wavelengths, where most high-energy photons are lost to cascades.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scheme to reach extreme strong-field QED parameters by using plasma-wakefield photon acceleration to upshift an optical laser pulse to XUV frequencies before colliding it with a multi-GeV electron beam. The authors argue that the frequency upshift increases the quantum nonlinearity parameter χe and reduces radiative losses, allowing a significant fraction of electrons to reach χe > 100 and emit detectable high-energy photons that survive pair creation. The central quantitative claim is a total probability of about 10% for a 50-GeV electron beam colliding with an XUV pulse with Ω=22 and a0=8. This is supported by analytic rate-equation calculations, a quasi-3D OSIRIS simulation of the photon-acceleration stage, and 1D EPOCH PIC simulations of the collision.

Significance. If the result holds, the proposed scheme would markedly lower the laser and beam-energy requirements for studying strong-field QED in the regime where the Ritus-Narozhny conjecture and the locally constant crossed-field approximation may break down. The paper gives a transparent dimensional argument for why frequency upshift helps, and Eqs. (3)-(13) provide explicit, parameter-free probability formulas. The use of two different PIC codes (OSIRIS for photon acceleration, EPOCH for the collision) is a strength, and the paper is candid about several limitations. However, the headline quantitative claim, P_total ~ 10%, is computed with lowest-order LCFA rates at a point where the paper's own validity criterion for LCFA is only marginally satisfied, and the EPOCH validation uses the same rates. The concept is promising, but the central number is not yet on solid ground.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 'Breakdown of SFQED'; Methods A; Fig. 4] The manuscript's own criterion for LCFA validity is a0^3/χe ≫ 1. At the headline point (Ω=22, a0=8, γ0=10^5), Eq. (1) gives χe ≈ 106, so a0^3/χe ≈ 4.8, which is not deep in the LCFA regime. Yet Eqs. (3)-(13) and the EPOCH simulations both use LCFA and lowest-order rates, and the Discussion states that 'it is not correct to expect Fig. 4 at high χe to be accurate, because it was calculated using only the lowest-order approximation.' The 10% total probability, the χe > 100 fractions, and the pair-survival estimates in Figs. 4-6 are therefore extrapolations beyond the regime where the employed rates are reliable. The paper should either provide a non-LCFA or beyond-lowest-order estimate, give a quantitative bound on the expected corrections, or explicitly reframe the headline claim as an order-of-magnitude proof of principle rather than a quantitative prediction.
  2. [Methods C; Fig. 5; Fig. 6] The EPOCH simulations do not provide an independent validation of the analytic probability model: EPOCH implements the same LCFA and lowest-order Compton and Breit-Wheeler rates that are used in Eqs. (3)-(13), so agreement between Fig. 5 and Eq. (6) is largely a self-consistency check rather than a test of the physics. To support the quantitative claim, the paper should compare against an independent calculation that goes beyond LCFA (for example, an exact plane-wave QED calculation or a code with a different approximation), or should restrict the validated claims to a parameter region where LCFA is known to be well controlled.
  3. [Methods B; Fig. 2; Fig. 3] The feasibility of the scheme rests on the OSIRIS photon-acceleration demonstration, which assumes a 50-GeV, 5.8-nC drive beam with 1.2 mm-mrad normalized emittance and a 1.2-J witness pulse, followed by an ideal plasma-lens focusing step. These beam parameters are beyond current laser-plasma accelerator demonstrations, and no sensitivity study is presented for the effects of reduced beam quality, imperfect focusing, or transverse phase distortions. Since the entire concept requires Ω≈22 with ξ≈1 and a subsequent focus to a0≈8, the paper should include a discussion of how robust these parameters are and what happens if the photon-acceleration or focusing stage delivers less ideal pulses.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions refer to the 'fully non-perturbative regime,' but the simulated parameters only reach χe > 100, well below the conjectured αχe^{2/3} ~ 1 threshold (χe ≈ 1600). The text should clarify that the proposal is a step toward that regime, not a demonstration of it.
  2. [Methods A, Eq. (5)] The phrase 'adoes not vary with the laser cycle' is missing a space between 'a' and 'does'; it should read 'a does not vary'.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says the total probability is shown for 'a frequency upshift factor of (a-b) 1 and (c-d) 22,' which is clear but would benefit from stating the fixed parameters (γ0, N) in the caption itself rather than only in the main text.
  4. [Conclusions] The statement that 'approximately the same number of photons as the number of initial electrons in the colliding beam is able to reach the detector' is stronger than what Fig. 6 directly shows; please add a quantitative reference to the relevant curve or figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central scalings follow from standard SFQED rates and a new PIC simulation, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The improvement in chi_e from frequency upshift is obtained directly from the definition chi_e = 2 a0 gamma hbar omega / mc^2, giving chi_X = Omega xi chi_O (Eqs. 1-2), an identity rather than a fitted result. The probability scalings are derived by integrating the standard LCFA photon-emission rate (Eqs. 3-6), from which tau_X/tau_O = xi^{2/3} Omega^{-1/3} N_X/N_O (Eq. 7) follows algebraically; no parameter is tuned to reproduce a target probability. The OSIRIS simulation supplies the input parameters Omega=22 and a0=8 from a first-principles PIC description of photon acceleration and plasma-lens focusing, not from the SFQED prediction. The EPOCH comparison does use the same LCFA rates as the analytic formulas, so it is a consistency check rather than an independent experimental validation; however, the paper explicitly acknowledges this in the Discussion ('PIC codes are able to capture only the alpha chi^{2/3} behavior due to the use of the LCFA'). This is a limitation of the validation, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its input. The cited prior work on photon acceleration (Ref. 44) involves a co-author, but the present manuscript also contains its own OSIRIS demonstration, so the premise does not rest solely on a self-citation chain. The Discussion's caveat that Fig. 4 is not accurate at high chi_e because it uses the lowest-order approximation is a correctness/regime concern, not a circularity. No fitted input is called a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely renamed.

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

The proposal relies on no newly postulated particles or forces. It does depend on several domain assumptions, especially the viability of photon acceleration to XUV with preserved a0 and the performance of a plasma lens at XUV wavelengths. The free parameters are scenario choices from a single simulation, not fits to experimental data.

free parameters (4)
  • frequency upshift factor Ω = 22
    Taken from the OSIRIS simulation result, not fitted to data; the central probability predictions use this specific value.
  • focused normalized amplitude a0 = 8
    Result of plasma-lens focusing model in the simulation; central to the high χe values.
  • electron beam energy γ0 = 10^5 (50 GeV)
    Chosen as a multi-GeV beam example; not currently available from laser-plasma accelerators.
  • pulse duration/cycle number N = 11.625
    Chosen to match the OSIRIS witness pulse; affects the calculated probabilities.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The locally constant crossed-field approximation (LCFA) gives accurate rates for nonlinear Compton scattering and Breit-Wheeler pair creation up to χ ~ 100-1000.
    Used in Eqs. (4), (9), (12) and in both PIC codes; the paper itself notes LCFA breaks down when a0^3/χe ≫ 1, and one goal is to probe that breakdown.
  • domain assumption Photon acceleration in a plasma wakefield preserves the pulse's normalized amplitude a0 and number of cycles while shifting the frequency.
    Based on prior work [44] and the new OSIRIS simulation; the entire scheme depends on a0 not dropping significantly during the frequency upshift.
  • domain assumption A plasma lens can focus an XUV pulse to a0=8 without significant distortion.
    The plasma-lens focusing is modeled with Fresnel propagation; no experimental demonstration at XUV wavelengths is cited.
  • ad hoc to paper Radiative corrections beyond lowest order can be neglected when computing the detection probability, even though the experiment aims to detect those corrections.
    The probability estimates use lowest-order rates; the paper acknowledges that at χe around 100 these corrections are already ~10%, which could alter Fig. 4 at high χe.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reaching extreme fields in laser-electron beam collisions with XUV laser light." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6YGPW7ZT

@misc{pith2026250601727,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reaching extreme fields in laser-electron beam collisions with XUV laser light},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6YGPW7ZT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01727}
}
abstract

Plasma-based particle accelerators promise to extend the revolutionary work performed with conventional particle accelerators to studies with smaller footprints, lower costs, and higher energies. Here, we propose a new approach to access an unexplored regime of strong-field quantum electrodynamics by plasma wakefield acceleration of both charged particles and photons. Instead of using increasingly powerful accelerators and lasers, we show that photon acceleration of optical pulses into the extreme ultraviolet allows multi-GeV electrons to reach quantum nonlinearity parameters $\chi_e \gg 10$ with a high probability due to the reduced radiative losses. A significant fraction of photons produced in high-$\chi_e$ regions will propagate to detectors without generating pairs because of the reduction in the quantum rates. The photon spectra obtained may be used to characterize the predicted breakdown of strong-field quantum electrodynamics theory as it enters the fully non-perturbative regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01727 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

  1. Brilliant multi-GeV Compton gamma-ray source seeded by a photon accelerator

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.5 of 10

    Photon acceleration of an optical pulse to XUV in a beam-driven plasma wake, followed by plasma-mirror reflection and Compton scattering, yields multi-GeV gamma rays with 10^25 brilliance and high polarization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In the limitχ e ≫ 1, the emission rate is given by [4], λγ(χe) = 1.46αcχ2/3 e λcγ ,(4) 7 FIG

    Probability of non-emission The fraction of the distribution that does not emit be- fore the peak of the laser pulse is given by, Pχ(χe) =e −τ τ= Z λγ(χe)dt.(3) whereλ γ is the photon emission rate. In the limitχ e ≫ 1, the emission rate is given by [4], λγ(χe) = 1.46αcχ2/3 e λcγ ,(4) 7 FIG. 6.The energy of photons emitted by high-χ e electrons and the ph...

    work page

  2. [2]

    For these effects to be measurable, the electrons that make it to highχe must radiate near the peak, and these photons must make it to the detector without creating pairs

    Probability of emission near the peak of the pulse Perturbative SFQED predicts that the highest-energy photons will be generated in the regions of highestχ e, and therefore the signatures of high-χ e effects should be encoded in the high-energy photons. For these effects to be measurable, the electrons that make it to highχe must radiate near the peak, an...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Conveniently, in the limit ofχ γ ≫1 the pair creation rate only differs from the photon emission rate by a fac- tor of approximately 4 [4]

    Probability of photons propagating out of the pulse To measure the scattered photons they must make it through the remaining part of the pulse without creat- ing a pair through the nonlinear Breit–Wheeler process. Conveniently, in the limit ofχ γ ≫1 the pair creation rate only differs from the photon emission rate by a fac- tor of approximately 4 [4]. How...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    V. I. Ritus, Quantum effects of the interaction of ele- mentary particles with an intense electromagnetic field, Journal of Soviet Laser Research6, 497 (1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. Muller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 1177 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Gonoskov, T

    A. Gonoskov, T. G. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045001 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Advances in qed with in- tense background fields, Physics Reports1010, 1 (2023), advances in QED with intense background fields

    work page 2023

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    N. B. Narozhny, Expansion parameter of perturbation theory in intense-field quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D21, 1176 (1980)

    1980

  2. [11]

    Zhang, L

    F. Zhang, L. Deng, Y. Ge, J. Wen, B. Cui, K. Feng, H. Wang, C. Wu, Z. Pan, H. Liu, Z. Deng, Z. Zhang, L. Chen, D. Yan, L. Shan, Z. Yuan, C. Tian, J. Qian, J. Zhu, Y. Xu, Y. Yu, X. Zhang, L. Yang, W. Zhou, Y. Gu, W. Wang, Y. Leng, Z. Sun, and R. Li, Proof- of-principle demonstr...

    2025

  3. [12]

    Winkler, M

    P. Winkler, M. Trunk, L. H¨ ubner, A. Martinez de la Ossa, S. Jalas, M. Kirchen, I. Agapov, S. A. An- tipov, R. Brinkmann, T. Eichner, A. Ferran Pousa, T. H¨ ulsenbusch, G. Palmer, M. Schnepp, K. Schubert, M. Th´ evenet, P. A. Walker, C. Werle, W. P. Leemans, and A. R. Maier, ...

    2025

  4. [13]

    D. L. Burke, R. C. Field, G. Horton-Smith, J. E. Spencer, D. Walz, S. C. Berridge, W. M. Bugg, K. Shmakov, A. W. Weidemann, C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, C. Bamber, S. J. Boege, T. Koffas, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Melissinos, D. D. Meyerhofer, D. A. Reis, and W. Ragg, Po...

    1997

  5. [14]

    C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, C. Bamber, S. Boege, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Melissinos, D. D. Mey- erhofer, W. Ragg, D. L. Burke, R. C. Field, G. Horton- Smith, A. C. Odian, J. E. Spencer, D. Walz, S. C. Berridge, W. M. Bugg, K. Shmakov, and A. W. Weide- mann, Observatio...

    1996

  6. [15]

    C. N. Danson, C. Haefner, J. Bromage, T. Butcher, J.- C. F. Chanteloup, E. A. Chowdhury, A. Galvanauskas, L. A. Gizzi, H. J., D. I. Hillier, N. W. Hopps, Y. Kato, E. A. Khazanov, R. Kodama, K. G., R. Li, Y. Li, J. Limpert, J. Ma, C. H. Nam, D. Neely, D. Papadopou- los, R. R. P...

    2019

  7. [16]

    Zhang, S

    P. Zhang, S. S. Bulanov, D. Seipt, A. V. Arefiev, and A. G. R. Thomas, Relativistic plasma physics in su- percritical fields, Physics of Plasmas27, 050601 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5144449

    2020 doi

  8. [17]

    A. D. Piazza, L. Willingale, and J. D. Zuegel, Multi- petawatt physics prioritization (mp3) workshop report (2022), arXiv:2211.13187 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [18]

    J. Nees, A. Maksimchuk, G. Kalinchenko, B. Hou, Y. Ma, P. Campbell, A. McKelvey, L. Willingale, I. Jovanovic, C. Kuranz, A. Thomas, and K. Krushelnick, Zeus: A 10 national science foundation mid-scale facility for laser- driven science in the qed regime, in2020 Conference on L...

    2020

  10. [19]

    D. N. Papadopoulos, J. P. Zou, C. Le Blanc, G. Ch´ eriaux, P. Georges, F. Druon, G. Mennerat, P. Ramirez, L. Mar- tin, A. Fr´ eneaux, A. Beluze, N. Lebas, P. Monot, F. Mathieu, and P. Audebert, The Apollon 10 PW laser: Experimental and theoretical investigation of the tempo- r...

    2016

  11. [20]

    J. W. Yoon, Y. G. Kim, I. Choi, J. H. Sung, H. W. Lee, S. K. Lee, and C. H. Nam, Realization of laser intensity over 10²³W/cm², Optica8, 630 (2021)

    2021

  12. [21]

    Gales, K

    S. Gales, K. A. Tanaka, D. L. Balabanski, F. Negoita, D. Stutman, O. Tesileanu, C. A. Ur, D. Ursescu, I. An- drei, S. Ataman, M. O. Cernaianu, L. D’Alessi, I. Dancus, B. Diaconescu, N. Djourelov, D. Filipescu, P. Ghenuche, D. G. Ghita, C. Matei, K. Seto, M. Zeng, and N. V. Zam...

    2018

  13. [22]

    Weber, S

    S. Weber, S. Bechet, S. Borneis, L. Brabec, M. Buˇ cka, E. Chacon-Golcher, M. Ciappina, M. DeMarco, A. Fa- jstavr, K. Falk, E.-R. Garcia, J. Grosz, Y.-J. Gu, J.-C. Hernandez, M. Holec, P. Janeˇ cka, M. Jantaˇ c, M. Jirka, H. Kadlecova, D. Khikhlukha, O. Klimo, G. Korn, D. Kram...

    2017

  14. [23]

    Bromage, S.-W

    J. Bromage, S.-W. Bahk, I. A. Begishev, C. Dorrer, M. J. Guardalben, B. N. Hoffman, J. Oliver, R. G. Roides, E. M. Schiesser, M. J. Shoup III, and et al., Technol- ogy development for ultraintense all-opcpa systems, High Power Laser Science and Engineering7, e4 (2019)

    2019

  15. [24]

    Geddes, M

    C. Geddes, M. Hogan, P. Musumeci, and R. Ass- mann, Report of snowmass 21 accelerator fron- tier topical group 6 on advanced accelerators, https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.13279 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Pathways to Innovation and Discovery in Particle Physics, Report of the 2023 Par- ticle Physics Project Prioritization Panel, https://www.usparticlephysics.org/2023-p5-report/

    2023

  17. [26]

    J. M. Cole, K. T. Behm, E. Gerstmayr, T. G. Black- burn, J. C. Wood, C. D. Baird, M. J. Duff, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. S. Joglekar, K. Krushelnick, S. Kuschel, M. Marklund, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, K. Poder, C. P. Ridgers, G. M. Samarin, G. Sarri, D. R. Symes, A. G. R. Thom...

    2018

  18. [27]

    Poder, M

    K. Poder, M. Tamburini, G. Sarri, A. Di Piazza, S. Kuschel, C. D. Baird, K. Behm, S. Bohlen, J. M. Cole, D. J. Corvan, M. Duff, E. Gerstmayr, C. H. Keitel, K. Krushelnick, S. P. Mangles, P. McKenna, C. D. Mur- phy, Z. Najmudin, C. P. Ridgers, G. M. Samarin, D. R. Symes, A. G. ...

    2018

  19. [28]

    Mirzaie, C

    M. Mirzaie, C. I. Hojbota, D. Y. Kim, V. B. Pathak, T. G. Pak, C. M. Kim, H. W. Lee, J. W. Yoon, S. K. Lee, Y. J. Rhee, M. Vranic, ´O. Amaro, K. Y. Kim, J. H. Sung, and C. H. Nam, All-optical nonlinear compton scattering performed with a multi-petawatt laser, Nature Photonics ...

    2024

  20. [29]

    E. E. Los, E. Gerstmayr, C. Arran, M. J. V. Streeter, C. Colgan, C. C. Cobo, B. Kettle, T. G. Blackburn, N. Bourgeois, L. Calvin, J. Carderelli, N. Cavanagh, S. J. D. D. A. D. Piazza, R. Fitzgarrald, A. Ilderton, C. H. Keitel, M. Marklund, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, Z. Na- jmud...

    2024

  21. [30]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Quantum processes in the field of a plane electromagnetic wave and in a constant field. I, Soviet Physics JETP19, 529 (1964)

    1964

  22. [31]

    H. R. Reiss, Absorption of light by light, Journal of Math- ematical Physics3, 59 (1962)

    1962

  23. [32]

    Podszus and A

    T. Podszus and A. Di Piazza, High-energy behavior of strong-field QED in an intense plane wave, Physical Re- view D99, 76004 (2019)

    2019

  24. [33]

    Ilderton, Note on the conjectured breakdown of QED perturbation theory in strong fields, Physical Review D 99, 085002 (2019)

    A. Ilderton, Note on the conjectured breakdown of QED perturbation theory in strong fields, Physical Review D 99, 085002 (2019)

    2019

  25. [34]

    S. C. Wilks, J. M. Dawson, W. B. Mori, T. Katsouleas, and M. E. Jones, Photon accelerator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2600 (1989)

    1989

  26. [35]

    C. D. Murphy, R. Trines, J. Vieira, A. J. W. Reitsma, R. Bingham, J. L. Collier, E. J. Divall, P. S. Foster, C. J. Hooker, A. J. Langley, P. A. Norreys, R. A. Fon- seca, F. Fiuza, L. O. Silva, J. T. Mendon¸ ca, W. B. Mori, J. G. Gallacher, R. Viskup, D. A. Jaroszynski, S. P. D...

    2006

  27. [36]

    J. P. Palastro, D. Gordon, B. Hafizi, L. A. Johnson, J. Pe˜ nano, R. F. Hubbard, M. Helle, and D. Kaganovich, Plasma lenses for ultrashort multi-petawatt laser pulses, Physics of Plasmas22, 123101 (2015)

    2015

  28. [37]

    D. Li, K. G. Miller, J. R. Pierce, W. B. Mori, A. G. R. Thomas, and J. P. Palastro, Spatiotemporal control of high-intensity laser pulses with a plasma lens, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013272 (2024)

    2024

  29. [38]

    This regime may also be reached in the collision of 100 GeV electron beams [57], though a very challenging fo- cusing of the beams is assumed

  30. [39]

    T. G. Blackburn, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, and C. P. Ridgers, Reaching supercritical field strengths with in- tense lasers, New Journal of Physics21, 053040 (2019)

    2019

  31. [40]

    Jirka, P

    M. Jirka, P. Sasorov, S. S. Bulanov, G. Korn, B. Rus, and S. V. Bulanov, Reaching high laser intensity by a radiating electron, Phys. Rev. A103, 053114 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    T. G. Blackburn, C. P. Ridgers, J. G. Kirk, and A. R. Bell, Quantum radiation reaction in laser-electron-beam collisions, Physical Review Letters112, 015001 (2014)

    2014

  33. [42]

    C. N. Harvey, A. Gonoskov, A. Ilderton, and M. Mark- lund, Quantum Quenching of Radiation Losses in Short Laser Pulses, Physical Review Letters118, 105004 11 (2017)

    2017

  34. [43]

    Baumann, E

    C. Baumann, E. N. Nerush, A. Pukhov, and I. Y. Kostyukov, Probing non-perturbative qed with electron- laser collisions, Scientific Reports9, 9407 (2019)

    2019

  35. [44]

    Za ¨ ım, A

    N. Za ¨ ım, A. Sainte-Marie, L. Fedeli, P. Bartoli, A. Huebl, A. Leblanc, J.-L. Vay, and H. Vincenti, Light-matter in- teraction near the schwinger limit using tightly focused doppler-boosted lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 175002 (2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    S. V. Bulanov, T. Z. Esirkepov, M. Kando, A. S. Pirozhkov, and N. N. Rosanov, Relativistic mirrors in plasmas — novel results and perspectives, Physics Us- pekhi56, 429 (2013)

    2013

  37. [46]

    Marklund, T

    M. Marklund, T. G. Blackburn, A. Gonoskov, J. Mag- nusson, S. S. Bulanov, and A. Ilderton, Towards criti- cal and supercritical electromagnetic fields, High Power Laser Science and Engineering11, e19 (2023)

    2023

  38. [47]

    R. T. Sandberg and A. G. R. Thomas, Photon acceler- ation from optical to xuv, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 085001 (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    Esarey, C

    E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1229 (2009)

    2009

  40. [49]

    S., Benedetti, C., Gonsalves, A

    Turner, M., Bulanov, S. S., Benedetti, C., Gonsalves, A. J., Leemans, W. P., Nakamura, K., van Tilborg, J., Schroeder, C. B., Geddes, C. G. R., and Esarey, E., Strong-field qed experiments using the bella pw laser dual beamlines, Eur. Phys. J. D76, 205 (2022)

    2022

  41. [50]

    S. S. Bulanov, C. Benedetti, D. Terzani, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, T. Blackburn, and M. Mark- lund, A high-intensity laser-based positron source (2023), arXiv:2311.10836 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Seipt, T

    D. Seipt, T. Heinzl, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, Depletion of intense fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 154803 (2017)

    2017

  43. [52]

    R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, W. Lu, C. Ren, W. B. Mori, S. Deng, S. Lee, T. Kat- souleas, and J. C. Adam, Osiris: A three-dimensional, fully relativistic particle in cell code for modeling plasma based accelerators, inComputational Science — ICCS 2002,...

    2002

  44. [53]

    Davidson, A

    A. Davidson, A. Tableman, W. An, F. Tsung, W. Lu, J. Vieira, R. Fonseca, L. Silva, and W. Mori, Implemen- tation of a hybrid particle code with a pic description in r–z and a gridless description inϕinto osiris, Journal of Computational Physics281, 1063 (2015)

    2015

  45. [54]

    P. Yu, X. Xu, A. Davidson, A. Tableman, T. Dalichaouch, F. Li, M. D. Meyers, W. An, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, F. Fiuza, J. Vieira, R. A. Fon- seca, W. Lu, L. O. Silva, and W. B. Mori, Enabling lorentz boosted frame particle-in-cell simulations of laser wakefield acceleration i...

    2016

  46. [55]

    K. G. Miller, J. R. Pierce, F. Li, B. K. Russell, W. B. Mori, A. G. R. Thomas, and J. P. Palastro, Photon ac- celeration of high-intensity vector vortex beams into the extreme ultraviolet, under review (2024)

    2024

  47. [56]

    Kolesik, J

    M. Kolesik, J. V. Moloney, and M. Mlejnek, Unidirec- tional optical pulse propagation equation, Physical Re- view Letters89, 283902 (2002)

    2002

  48. [57]

    F. Li, K. G. Miller, X. Xu, F. S. Tsung, V. K. De- cyk, W. An, R. A. Fonseca, and W. B. Mori, A new field solver for modeling of relativistic particle-laser in- teractions using the particle-in-cell algorithm, Computer Physics Communications258, 107580 (2021)

    2021

  49. [58]

    T. D. Arber, K. Bennett, C. S. Brady, A. Lawrence- Douglas, M. G. Ramsay, N. J. Sircombe, P. Gillies, R. G. Evans, H. Schmitz, A. R. Bell, and C. P. Ridgers, Con- temporary particle-in-cell approach to laser-plasma mod- elling, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion57, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  50. [59]

    V. N. Baier, V. M. Katkov, and V. M. Strakhovenko, Electromagnetic Processes at High Energies in Oriented Single Crystals(World Scientific, 1998)

    1998

  51. [60]

    Yakimenko, S

    V. Yakimenko, S. Meuren, F. Del Gaudio, C. Bau- mann, A. Fedotov, F. Fiuza, T. Grismayer, M. J. Hogan, A. Pukhov, L. O. Silva, and G. White, Prospect of studying nonperturbative qed with beam-beam collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 190404 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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