Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Probing Strong-Field QED via Angle-Discriminated Emissions from Electrons Traversing Colliding Laser Pulses

T0 review · 4 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 Four perpendicularly propagating, circularly polarized laser pulses create a rotating field that lets the electron emission angle flag high-$\chi$ photons, enabling quantitative strong-field QED studies in the $\chi\approx10$–100 range at…

desk verdict A genuinely new multi-beam geometry with a clean analytic core, but the central signal-to-noise advantage rests on an untested angular-filter choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08741 v1 pith:BHISIFLU submitted 2025-06-10 physics.optics physics.plasm-ph

C. Olofsson , A. Gonoskov This is my paper
classification physics.opticsphysics.plasm-ph
keywords strong-fieldQEDlaser-electroncolliderangle-discriminatedemissionmultiplecollidinglaserpulsescascadescircularpolarizationquantumparameterchiBayesianinference
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 laser-electron collider layout in which electrons pass straight through the waist of two or four laser pulses arriving from the sides rather than head-on. The authors argue that this geometry suppresses the QED cascades that would otherwise bury the signal, and that with four circularly polarized pulses properly phased, the electromagnetic field in the focus rotates so that an electron's deflection angle is a faithful indicator of the quantum parameter $\chi$ at the moment of photon emission. Simulations with a strong-field QED particle-in-cell code show a signal-to-noise ratio of about one percent at $\chi_{\max}$ around 100 for 20 GeV electrons, which the authors argue is sufficient for Bayesian statistical inference. If correct, this makes multi-petawatt laser facilities plausible platforms for quantitative strong-field QED studies in the $\chi\approx10$–100 regime.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective transverse accelerating field experienced by an electron, $\mathbf{E} + \hat{\mathbf{z}}\times\mathbf{B}$ for electrons propagating along $z$. The paper measures the quality of the field rotation with the ellipticity $\epsilon = 1 - \rho$, where $\rho = (F_{\max} - F_{\min})/(F_{\max} + F_{\min})$ is built from the maximum and minimum of the squared field strength over one optical cycle; $\epsilon=1$ means pure circular rotation and $\epsilon=0$ means a standing wave. For the $n=4$ circularly polarized configuration the transverse part of $\mathbf{E} + \hat{\mathbf{z}}\times\mathbf{B}$ is proportional to $(\cos(kx)+\cos(ky))\cdot(\hat{\mathbf{x}}\sin \omega_0 t + \hat{\mathbf{y}}\cos \omega_0 t)$, a vector whose direction rotates circularly in time at every point where its magnitude is nonzero, even though the magnitude varies in space. That uniformity of rotation is what makes the emission angle $\alpha$ a faithful proxy for the local field strength and allows the spatial filter $c_\alpha$ to separate high-$\chi$ photons from low-$\chi$ background.

What would settle it

A simulation that includes a realistic angular resolution for the photon detector, for example Gaussian smearing of $\alpha$ with a width comparable to $a_{\max}/\gamma$, would settle the claim: if the recomputed $\eta$ for the $n=4$ circularly polarized geometry at $\chi_{\max} \approx 100$ drops below roughly 0.1 percent, the near-perfect angle-discrimination advantage is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a configuration of four perpendicularly propagating, counter-paired circularly polarized pulses, with a $\pi/2$ phase difference between the pairs, produces at the focus an effective transverse force field whose vector rotates circularly at every point where the field is nonzero, vanishing only on a lattice of lines $y=\pm x+m\lambda/2$. Because the photon emission angle $\alpha$ scales with the local field strength through $\alpha \sim a_{\max}/\gamma$ while $\chi$ also grows with that field, this uniform circular rotation makes the $\alpha$–$\chi$ correlation nearly perfect across the focal volume. Simulations with a QED-enabled particle-in-cell code show that this geometry gives a signal-to-noise ratio $\eta = N_{\mathrm{signal}}/N_{\mathrm{total}}$ of about 1\% at $\chi_{\max} \approx 100$ for 20 GeV electrons, the highest among the compared configurations, which include direct head-on collision, two linearly polarized pulses, and four linearly polarized pulses. The same geometry reaches the $\chi_{\max}$ of a head-on collision at equal laser power while keeping the interaction time short, so QED cascades do not have time to develop and contaminate the signal.

Load-bearing premise

The whole signal-selection scheme depends on measuring, for each detected photon, an emission angle $\alpha$ with enough precision to apply the filter $\alpha \ge c_\alpha a_{\max}/\gamma$, and on that angle staying tightly correlated with $\chi$; if detector resolution or electron-beam emittance blurs this correlation, the claimed signal-to-noise advantage disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At multi-petawatt facilities with 20 GeV electron beams, the $n=4$ circularly polarized geometry brings $\chi_{\max} \approx 100$ into reach while keeping a signal fraction of about 1 percent, which the authors argue is enough for Bayesian parameter estimation from accumulated shots.
  • The same layout reaches the $\chi_{\max}$ of a head-on collision at equal laser power, so cascade suppression is bought without sacrificing the field strength seen by the electrons.
  • Because the $\alpha$–$\chi$ correlation holds across the entire focal region, the electron beam can be allowed to de-focus into a stream that fills the strong-field region, reducing sensitivity to spatial misalignment between shots.
  • Extrapolating the reported scaling to 10 PW lasers and 100 GeV electron accelerators gives $\chi_{\max}$ in the hundreds, and a plasma-based frequency upshift could raise $\chi_{\max}$ toward $10^4$ for the same geometries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not quantify the detector angular resolution needed to apply the $c_\alpha$ filter; we infer that the practical signal-to-noise advantage depends on resolving photon angles to at most a fraction of $a_{\max}/\gamma$, and this requirement should be checked against planned photon detectors before committing to the geometry.
  • The uniform-rotation design principle suggests that other multi-pulse symmetries, such as six or eight pulses, might preserve space-independent rotation while raising the field strength further; testing whether such configurations beat the $n=4$ circularly polarized case is a natural next step.
  • The same rotating-field geometry could be adapted to separate electron-positron pair-production events from background by selecting on pair emission angles rather than photon emission angles, generalizing the paper's signal definition from photon counts to pair counts.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a laser-electron collider geometry in which electrons traverse the waist of two or four perpendicularly propagating, tightly focused laser pulses. The authors argue that this geometry suppresses QED cascade development by shortening the effective interaction length, while a suitably chosen polarization/phase configuration creates a rotating electromagnetic field that correlates the electron emission angle with the local quantum parameter chi. They derive analytic scalings for the peak chi value (Eqs. 6, 11, 14), introduce an ellipticity measure epsilon for the transverse field rotation, and show analytically that only the n=4 circularly polarized configuration achieves epsilon=1 everywhere in the focal region. They then use particle-in-cell simulations with QED processes to compute the signal-to-noise ratio eta=N_signal/N_total, reporting eta approximately 1% at chi_max around 100 for 20 GeV electrons, which they claim is the best among the compared geometries and sufficient for Bayesian statistical inference in the chi=10-100 range at multi-petawatt facilities.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the proposed geometry provides a practical route to quantitative strong-field QED studies at chi=10-100 using transverse collisions, avoiding the cascade and instrumentation-damage problems of head-on geometry. The paper's analytic treatment is a genuine strength: the chi scaling relations follow transparently from the plane-wave model and are consistent with Table I and the simulations, and the argument that n=4 CP gives circular field rotation everywhere is derived rather than fitted. The simulations use an energy-conserving PIC code extended with QED processes, and the paper explicitly compares several geometries. However, the central quantitative comparison rests on an angular filter parameter c_alpha that is set differently for the n=4 CP case without a scan or experimental model, and on an unquantified assumption that the required angular resolution is experimentally available. These gaps preclude acceptance in the present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, definition of eta] The angular filter parameter c_alpha is set to 0.6 for all geometries except n=4 CP, where it is set to 1.0, with no scan over c_alpha and no physical model for the filter. Since eta is defined with this filter, the comparison in Fig. 3 is potentially biased in favor of n=4 CP. The claim of near-perfect angle discrimination requires showing that the other geometries do not reach comparable eta for other c_alpha values, and that c_alpha=1.0 corresponds to a realizable experimental angular selection.
  2. [Sec. IV, angular resolution] The paper never quantifies the angular separation between signal photons (chi>=chi_max/2 from electrons retaining >=99% energy) and background photons, nor the detector angular resolution needed to resolve it. With alpha~a_max/gamma of order 10^-3 rad for chi~100 and 20 GeV electrons, beam divergence, detector granularity, and scattering can easily mix the two populations. The authors should state the required resolution and test robustness by convolving the simulated p(alpha,chi) distribution with a realistic angular response function.
  3. [Sec. IV, signal definition] The definition of N_signal (photons emitted at chi>=chi_max/2 by particles retaining at least 99% of their initial energy) and N_total (photons with delta>=0.5 and alpha>=c_alpha a_max/gamma) uses thresholds that are chosen without a sensitivity analysis. Because eta is the main quantitative output of the paper, the authors should show how eta varies as these thresholds are changed, to demonstrate that the reported ~1% value is not an artifact of the particular threshold choices.
  4. [Sec. IV, statistical power] The statement that eta~1% is 'sufficient for Bayesian inference' is not supported by the presented analysis, because only the ratio eta is reported and no absolute photon counts are given. The authors should provide the expected N_total per shot or per accumulation time, together with detection efficiencies, to show that the resulting data volume actually enables the proposed Bayesian tests.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (2)] The definition of a_max as 'the peak electric field in units of 2*pi*m_e*c^2/(e*lambda)' is not fully aligned with the earlier use of a in the expression alpha~a_max/gamma; please clarify the normalization and define a_max precisely at first use.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3] The figure shows markers and lines for eta and chi_max, but no statistical uncertainties or convergence checks are reported; a brief statement on the statistical error of eta from the finite macroparticle number would be helpful.
  3. [Sec. IV, Heisenberg-Euler digression] The paragraph discussing n=4 (LP) with a purely magnetic rotating field as a basis for studying Heisenberg-Euler nonlinearities is a brief digression that is not connected to the main results; it should either be removed or expanded into a self-contained statement with supporting references.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, such as inconsistent spacing in '2×10 5 macroparticles' and 'defocus' vs. 'de-focus'; a careful proofread would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed angle-discrimination advantage follows from analytic field superpositions and PIC simulations, not from fitting or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing results are derived in-text rather than imported. Equation (4) gives the kappa scalings for n=2 and n=4 from the plane-wave superposition ansatz, and Eq. (15) shows that the transverse component of E+z x B for four circularly polarized pulses is circularly rotating everywhere, giving epsilon=1 except at field nulls; this is an analytic result, not a restatement of the conclusion. The alpha-chi correlation is a standard consequence of alpha ~ a_max/gamma and is independently verified by computing the joint density p(alpha,chi) from simulated trajectories. The figure of merit eta is a simulation diagnostic; the spatial-filter parameter c_alpha is a fixed threshold (0.6 for most geometries, 1.0 for n=4 CP) and is not fit to the simulated eta values, so the eta comparison is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to Refs. [48,49] provide the baseline definition of eta and prior bidipole results, but the new geometry is assessed against those baselines and its scalings are re-derived, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The choice of c_alpha without a scan is a robustness concern about experimental feasibility, not circularity.

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

The central claim does not introduce new physical entities; it relies on standard QED assumptions and a plane-wave model for focused fields. The main free parameters are the signal definition thresholds and the angular filter size, which are chosen post hoc and could influence the reported signal-to-noise ratio.

free parameters (3)
  • Angular filter coefficient c_alpha = 0.6 for most cases, 1.0 for n=4 CP
    Chosen per geometry to maximize the reported signal-to-noise ratio; no principled basis is given for the different values.
  • Signal thresholds for N_signal (chi >= chi_max/2, energy retention >=99%) = chi_max/2, 99%
    Arbitrary cutoffs that define which photons count as signal; no sensitivity scan is shown.
  • Electron beam parameters (density 10^19 cm^-3, radius 0.9 lambda, length 1.5 lambda) = n_e=1e19 cm^-3, r_e=0.9 lambda, l_e=1.5 lambda
    Fixed simulation inputs; the paper notes a defocused uniform stream is the intended mode but does not simulate this mode or its effect on event rate.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The focal field is approximated by a superposition of plane waves (Eq. 3) with polarization vectors and phases as specified.
    The analytic derivation of the rotating field and epsilon=1 for n=4 CP relies on this plane-wave model; at f-number 1 non-paraxial corrections may alter the field structure.
  • domain assumption Strong-field QED processes (NCS, NBW, cascades) are simulated within the local constant field approximation (LCFA).
    The PIC code implements QED via LCFA; this is standard but an approximation whose accuracy at chi around 100 is not examined in the paper.
  • domain assumption The electron beam is sufficiently dilute that it does not perturb the laser fields (test-particle limit).
    The simulations use a low-density beam; collective effects are neglected.
  • domain assumption The tightly focused pulses are modeled as spherical sectors in the far field following Ref. [59].
    The realism of the simulated focal fields depends on this model; no comparison to full-wave solvers is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Strong-Field QED via Angle-Discriminated Emissions from Electrons Traversing Colliding Laser Pulses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BHISIFLU

@misc{pith2026250608741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Strong-Field QED via Angle-Discriminated Emissions from Electrons Traversing Colliding Laser Pulses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BHISIFLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08741}
}
abstract

Future laser-electron colliders will reach quantum parameters $\chi$ well in excess of unity, enabling studies of strong-field QED in extreme regimes. However, statistical inference in such experiments requires mitigating premature radiative losses of electrons to enable high-$\chi$ QED events, as well as separating the detectable signal of these events from that of lower-$\chi$ particles and photons produced by QED cascades. We propose a collider geometry in which electrons traverse the waist of two or four perpendicularly propagating, tightly focused laser pulses. This configuration suppresses both outlined difficulties by leveraging the short interaction length of the waist, rather than relying on the more technically demanding reduction of pulse duration. Moreover, altering the phase and polarization of each pulse causes the electrons to undergo helical motion where the deflection angle is correlated with the field strength, permitting an angle-based discrimination of the signal from high-$\chi$ events. Analysis and simulations show that the case of four circularly polarized pulses uniquely permits achieving helical motion throughout the entire focal region, leading to near-perfect high-$\chi$ angle-discrimination and thereby high signal-to-noise ratio. These findings support the consideration of the proposed concept as a viable layout for future experiments at PW laser facilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08741 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Four laser pulses focusing in a plane perpendicular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Correlation strength between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Signal-to-noise ratio (markers) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. N. Danson, C. Haefner, J. Bromage, T. Butcher, J. C. F. Chanteloup, E. A. Chowdhury, A. Galvanauskas, L. A. Gizzi, J. Hein, D. I. Hillier, N. W. Hopps, Y. Kato, E. A. Khazanov, R. Kodama, G. Korn, R. Li, Y. Li, J. Limpert, J. Ma, C. H. Nam, D. Neely, D. Papadopou- los, R. R. Penman, L. Qian, J. J. Rocca, A. A. Shaykin, C. W. Siders, C. Spindloe, S. Sza...

    2019

  2. [2]

    C. N. Danson, P. A. Brummitt, R. J. Clarke, J. L. Col- lier, B. Fell, A. J. Frackiewicz, S. Hancock, S. Hawkes, C. Hernandez-Gomez, P. Holligan, M. H. Hutchinson, A. Kidd, W. J. Lester, I. O. Musgrave, D. Neely, D. R. Neville, P. A. Norreys, D. A. Pepler, C. J. Rea- son, W. Shaikh, T. B. Winstone, R. W. Wyatt, and B. E. Wyborn, Vulcan petawatt - an ultra-...

    doi:10.1088/0029- 2004

  3. [3]

    Nakamura, H

    K. Nakamura, H. S. Mao, A. J. Gonsalves, H. Vincenti, D. E. Mittelberger, J. Daniels, A. Magana, C. Toth, and W. P. Leemans, Diagnostics, control and performance parameters for the bella high repetition rate petawatt class laser, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics53, 10.1109/JQE.2017.2708601 (2017)

    work page arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Burdonov, A

    K. Burdonov, A. Fazzini, V. Lelasseux, J. Albrecht, P. Antici, Y. Ayoul, A. Beluze, D. Cavanna, T. Ceccotti, M. Chabanis, A. Chaleil, S. N. Chen, Z. Chen, F. Consoli, M. Cuciuc, X. Davoine, J. P. Delaneau, E. D’Humi` eres, J. L. Dubois, C. Evrard, E. Filippov, A. Freneaux, P. Forestier-Colleoni, L. Gremillet, V. Horny, L. Lan- cia, L. Lecherbourg, N. Leba...

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Zhang, F

    Z. Zhang, F. Wu, J. Hu, X. Yang, J. Gui, P. Ji, X. Liu, C. Wang, Y. Liu, X. Lu, Y. Xu, Y. Leng, R. Li, and Z. Xu, The 1 pw/0.1 hz laser beamline in sulf facility, High Power Laser Science and Engineering8, 10.1017/hpl.2020.3 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1017/hpl.2020.3 2020

  6. [6]

    Gales, K

    S. Gales, K. A. Tanaka, D. L. Balabanski, F. Ne- goita, D. Stutman, O. Tesileanu, C. A. Ur, D. Ursescu, I. Andrei, 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. Zamfir, The extreme light infrastructure - nu- clear physics (eli-np) facility: New...

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aacf 2018

  7. [7]

    J. W. Yoon, Y. G. Kim, I. W. Choi, J. H. Sung, H. W. Lee, S. K. Lee, and C. H. Nam, Realization of laser in- tensity over 10 23 w/cm 2, Optica8, 630 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Azechi, K

    H. Azechi, K. Mima, Y. Fujimoto, S. Fujioka, H. Homma, M. Isobe, A. Iwamoto, T. Jitsuno, T. Johzaki, R. Ko- dama, M. Koga, K. Kondo, J. Kawanaka, T. Mito, N. Miyanaga, O. Motojima, M. Murakami, H. Nagatomo, K. Nagai, M. Nakai, H. Nakamura, T. Nakamura, T. Nakazato, Y. Nakao, K. Nishihara, H. Nishimura, T. Norimatsu, T. Ozaki, H. Sakagami, Y. Sakawa, N. Sa...

    work page 2009

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    J. P. Zou, C. L. Blanc, D. N. Papadopoulos, G. Ch´ eriaux, P. Georges, G. Mennerat, F. Druon, L. Lecherbourg, A. Pellegrina, P. Ramirez, F. Giambruno, A. Fr´ eneaux, F. Leconte, D. Badarau, J. M. Boudenne, D. Four- net, T. Valloton, J. L. Paillard, J. L. Veray, M. Pina, P. Mon...

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    W. Li, Z. Gan, L. Yu, C. Wang, Y. Liu, Z. Guo, L. Xu, M. Xu, Y. Hang, Y. Xu, J. Wang, P. Huang, H. Cao, B. Yao, X. Zhang, L. Chen, Y. Tang, S. Li, X. Liu, S. Li, M. He, D. Yin, X. Liang, Y. Leng, R. Li, and Z. Xu, 339 j high-energy ti:sapphire chirped-pulse amplifier for 10 pw...

    2018

  3. [11]

    Hernandez-Gomez, S

    C. Hernandez-Gomez, S. P. Blake, O. Chekhlov, R. J. Clarke, A. M. Dunne, M. Galimberti, S. Hancock, R. Heathcote, P. Holligan, A. Lyachev, P. Matousek, I. O. Musgrave, D. Neely, P. A. Norreys, I. Ross, Y. Tang, T. B. Winstone, B. E. Wyborn, and J. Collier, The vul- can 10 pw p...

    2010

  4. [12]

    B. Shen, Z. Bu, J. Xu, T. Xu, L. Ji, R. Li, and Z. Xu, Ex- ploring vacuum birefringence based on a 100 pw laser and an x-ray free electron laser beam, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion60, 10.1088/1361-6587/aaa7fb (2018)

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    G. Qiu, X. Wu, Q. Ma, and X. Yan, Hybrid proton acceleration with an ultra-intense laser of low contrast, Physics of Plasmas32, 10.1063/5.0244822 (2025)

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    Ziegler, I

    T. Ziegler, I. G¨ othel, S. Assenbaum, C. Bernert, F. E. Brack, T. E. Cowan, N. P. Dover, L. Gaus, T. Kluge, S. Kraft, F. Kroll, J. Metzkes-Ng, M. Nishiuchi, I. Prencipe, T. P¨ uschel, M. Rehwald, M. Reimold, H. P. Schlenvoigt, M. E. Umlandt, M. Vescovi, U. Schramm, and K. Zei...

    2024

  7. [15]

    D’Hum ` ıres, E

    E. D’Hum ` ıres, E. Lefebvre, L. Gremillet, and V. Malka, Proton acceleration mechanisms in high-intensity laser interaction with thin foils, Physics of Plasmas12, 1 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Borghesi, J

    M. Borghesi, J. Fuchs, S. V. Bulanov, A. J. Mackinnon, P. K. Patel, and M. Roth, Fast ion generation by high- intensity laser irradiation of solid targets and applica- tions, Fusion Science and Technology49, 412 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    M. Zepf, E. L. Clark, F. N. Beg, R. J. Clarke, A. E. Dangor, A. Gopal, K. Krushelnick, P. A. Norreys, M. Tatarakis, U. Wagner, and M. S. Wei, Proton acceler- ation from high-intensity laser interactions with thin foil targets, Physical Review Letters90, 4 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Albert and A

    F. Albert and A. G. Thomas, Applications of laser wake- field accelerator-based light sources (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    E. N. Nerush, I. Y. Kostyukov, L. Ji, and A. Pukhov, Gamma-ray generation in ultrahigh-intensity laser-foil interactions, Physics of Plasmas21, 10.1063/1.4863423 (2014)

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    R. D. Edwards, M. A. Sinclair, T. J. Goldsack, K. Krushelnick, F. N. Beg, E. L. Clark, A. E. Dangor, Z. Najmudin, M. Tatarakis, B. Walton, M. Zepf, K. W. Ledingham, I. Spencer, P. A. Norreys, R. J. Clarke, R. Kodama, Y. Toyama, and M. Tampo, Characteriza- tion of a gamma-ray s...

    2002

  13. [21]

    M. D. Perry, J. A. Sefcik, T. Cowan, S. Hatchett, A. Hunt, M. Moran, D. Pennington, R. Snavely, and S. C. Wilks, Hard x-ray production from high intensity laser solid interactions (invited), Review of Scientific Instru- ments70, 265 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    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, 10.1017/hpl.2022.46 (2023)

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    S. V. Bulanov, T. Esirkepov, and T. Tajima, Light in- tensification towards the schwinger limit, Physical review letters91, 085001 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Lichters, J

    R. Lichters, J. Meyer-ter Vehn, and A. Pukhov, Short- pulse laser harmonics from oscillating plasma surfaces driven at relativistic intensity, Physics of Plasmas3, 3425 (1996)

    1996

  17. [25]

    Baumann, E

    C. Baumann, E. Nerush, A. Pukhov, and I. Y. Kostyukov, Probing non-perturbative qed with electron- laser collisions, Scientific reports9, 9407 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Vincenti, Achieving extreme light intensities using op- tically curved relativistic plasma mirrors, Physical review letters123, 105001 (2019)

    H. Vincenti, Achieving extreme light intensities using op- tically curved relativistic plasma mirrors, Physical review letters123, 105001 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Bragin, S

    S. Bragin, S. Meuren, C. H. Keitel, and A. D. Pi- azza, High-energy vacuum birefringence and dichroism in an ultrastrong laser field, Physical Review Letters119, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.250403 (2017)

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    I. C. Turcu, B. Shen, D. Neely, G. Sarri, K. A. Tanaka, P. McKenna, S. P. Mangles, T. P. Yu, W. Luo, X. L. Zhu, and Y. Yin, Quantum electrodynamics experiments with colliding petawatt laser pulses, High Power Laser Science and Engineering7, 10.1017/hpl.2018.66 (2019)

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Macleod, J

    A. Macleod, J. Edwards, T. Heinzl, B. King, and S. Bu- lanov, Strong-field vacuum polarisation with high energy lasers, New Journal of Physics25, 093002 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Dinu and G

    V. Dinu and G. Torgrimsson, Trident process in laser pulses, Physical Review D101, 056017 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Kettle, D

    B. Kettle, D. Hollatz, E. Gerstmayr, G. Samarin, A. Alejo, S. Astbury, C. Baird, S. Bohlen, M. Campbell, C. Colgan,et al., A laser–plasma platform for photon– photon physics: the two photon breit–wheeler process, New Journal of Physics23, 115006 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    A. I. Titov and B. K¨ ampfer, Non-linear breit–wheeler process with linearly polarized beams, The European Physical Journal D74, 218 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    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

  27. [35]

    Poder, M

    K. Poder, M. Tamburini, G. Sarri, A. D. Piazza, S. Kuschel, C. D. Baird, K. Behm, S. Bohlen, J. M. 8 Cole, D. J. Corvan, M. Duff, E. Gerstmayr, C. H. Kei- tel, K. Krushelnick, S. P. Mangles, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, C. P. Ridgers, G. M. Samarin, D. R. Symes, A. G...

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    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. Thomas,...

    2018

  29. [37]

    E. Los, E. Gerstmayr, C. Arran, M. Streeter, C. Col- gan, C. Cobo, B. Kettle, T. Blackburn, N. Bour- geois, L. Calvin,et al., Observation of quantum effects on radiation reaction in strong fields, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12071 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    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, ´Oscar Amaro, K. Y. Kim, J. H. Sung, and C. H. Nam, All-optical nonlinear comp- ton scattering performed with a multi-petawatt laser, Na- ture Pho...

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Matheron, P

    A. Matheron, P. S. M. Claveria, R. Ariniello, H. Ekerfelt, F. Fiuza, S. Gessner, M. F. Gilljohann, M. Hogan, C. Kei- tel, A. Knetsch, M. Litos, Y. Mankovska, S. Montefiori, Z. Nie, B. O’Shea, J. Peterson, D. Storey, Y. Wu, X. Xu, V. Zakharova, X. Davoine, L. Gremillet, M. Tamb...

    2023 doi

  32. [42]

    A. D. Piazza, T. N. Wistisen, M. Tamburini, and U. I. Uggerhøj, Testing strong field qed close to the fully nonperturbative regime using aligned crystals, Physical Review Letters124, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.044801 (2020)

    2020 doi

  33. [43]

    J. C. Kimball and N. Cue, Quantum electrodynamics and channeling in crystals (1985)

    1985

  34. [44]

    Jirka, O

    M. Jirka, O. Klimo, M. Vranic, S. Weber, and G. Korn, Qed cascade with 10 pw-class lasers, Scientific Reports 7, 10.1038/s41598-017-15747-1 (2017)

    2017 doi

  35. [45]

    Gonoskov, T

    A. Gonoskov, T. G. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 10.1103/RevModPhys.94.045001 (2022)

    2022 doi

  36. [46]

    Ritus, Radiative corrections in quantum electrody- namics with intense field and their analytical properties, Annals of Physics69, 555 (1972)

    V. Ritus, Radiative corrections in quantum electrody- namics with intense field and their analytical properties, Annals of Physics69, 555 (1972)

    1972

  37. [47]

    Narozhny, Expansion parameter of perturbation the- ory in intense-field quantum electrodynamics, Physical Review D21, 1176 (1980)

    N. Narozhny, Expansion parameter of perturbation the- ory in intense-field quantum electrodynamics, Physical Review D21, 1176 (1980)

    1980

  38. [48]

    Olofsson and A

    C. Olofsson and A. Gonoskov, Prospects for statistical tests of strong-field quantum electrodynamics with high- intensity lasers, High Power Laser Science and Engineer- ing11, e67 (2023)

    2023

  39. [50]

    Gonoskov, A

    A. Gonoskov, A. Bashinov, S. Bastrakov, E. Efimenko, A. Ilderton, A. Kim, M. Marklund, I. Meyerov, A. Mu- raviev, and A. Sergeev, Ultrabright gev photon source via controlled electromagnetic cascades in laser-dipole waves, Physical Review X7, 10.1103/physrevx.7.041003 (2017)

    2017 doi

  40. [51]

    Bulanov, V

    S. Bulanov, V. Mur, N. Narozhny, J. Nees, and V. Popov, Multiple colliding electromagnetic pulses: A way to lower the threshold ofe +e−-pair production from vacuum, Physical review letters104, 220404 (2010)

    2010

  41. [53]

    E. G. Gelfer, A. A. Mironov, A. M. Fedotov, V. F. Bashmakov, E. N. Nerush, I. Y. Kostyukov, and N. B. Narozhny, Optimized multibeam configuration for ob- servation of qed cascades, Physical Review A92, 10.1103/physreva.92.022113 (2015)

    2015 doi

  42. [54]

    E. G. Gelfer, Generation of quantum electrodynamic cas- cades by colliding laser pulses, Quantum Electronics46, 310 (2016)

    2016

  43. [55]

    Bassett, Limit to concentration by focusing, Op- tica Acta: International Journal of Optics33, 279–286 (1986)

    I. Bassett, Limit to concentration by focusing, Op- tica Acta: International Journal of Optics33, 279–286 (1986)

    1986

  44. [56]

    Gonoskov, A

    I. Gonoskov, A. Aiello, S. Heugel, and G. Leuchs, Dipole pulse theory: Maximizing the field amplitude from 4πfo- cused laser pulses, Physical Review A86, 10.1103/phys- reva.86.053836 (2012)

    2012 doi

  45. [57]

    Gonoskov, Explicit energy-conserving modification of relativistic pic method, Journal of Computational Physics502, 10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112820 (2024)

    A. Gonoskov, Explicit energy-conserving modification of relativistic pic method, Journal of Computational Physics502, 10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112820 (2024)

    2024

  46. [58]

    Gonoskov, S

    A. Gonoskov, S. Bastrakov, E. Efimenko, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, I. Meyerov, A. Muraviev, A. Sergeev, and I. Surmin, Extended particle-in-cell schemes for physics in ultrastrong laser fields: Review and developments, Physical review E92, 023305 (2015)

    2015

  47. [59]

    Panova, V

    E. Panova, V. Volokitin, E. Efimenko, J. Ferri, T. Black- burn, M. Marklund, A. Muschet, A. De Andres Gonza- lez, P. Fischer, L. Veisz,et al., Optimized computation of tight focusing of short pulses using mapping to periodic space, Applied Sciences11, 956 (2021)

    2021

  48. [60]

    H. T. Kim, V. B. Pathak, C. I. Hojbota, M. Mirzaie, K. H. Pae, C. M. Kim, J. W. Yoon, J. H. Sung, and S. K. Lee, Multi-gev laser wakefield electron acceleration with pw lasers, Applied Sciences11, 5831 (2021)

    2021

  49. [61]

    Yabashi, H

    M. Yabashi, H. Tanaka, and T. Ishikawa, Overview of the sacla facility, Synchrotron Radiation22, 477 (2015)

    2015

  50. [62]

    Tschentscher, C

    T. Tschentscher, C. Bressler, J. Gr¨ unert, A. Madsen, A. P. Mancuso, M. Meyer, A. Scherz, H. Sinn, and U. Za- strau, Photon beam transport and scientific instruments at the european xfel, Applied Sciences7, 592 (2017)

    2017

  51. [63]

    P. Emma, R. Akre, J. Arthur, R. Bionta, C. Bostedt, J. Bozek, A. Brachmann, P. Bucksbaum, R. Coffee, F.-J. 9 Decker,et al., First lasing and operation of an ˚ angstrom- wavelength free-electron laser, nature photonics4, 641 (2010)

    2010

  52. [64]

    Karbstein, All-loop result for the strong magnetic field limit of the heisenberg-euler effective lagrangian, Physical review letters122, 211602 (2019)

    F. Karbstein, All-loop result for the strong magnetic field limit of the heisenberg-euler effective lagrangian, Physical review letters122, 211602 (2019)

    2019

  53. [65]

    Nakajima, Laser electron acceleration beyond 100 gev, The European Physical Journal Special Topics223, 999–1016 (2014)

    K. Nakajima, Laser electron acceleration beyond 100 gev, The European Physical Journal Special Topics223, 999–1016 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

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