Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Electron Orbital Angular Momentum Polarization in Neutral Atoms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining a static magnetic field with attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy creates a tunable population imbalance between the two orbital orientations of the 2p electron in neutral helium, with simulated absorption asymmetry…

desk verdict A standard density-matrix ATAS model with a Zeeman term yields a new, tunable m=+1/-1 absorption asymmetry prediction in He—but the quantitative range rests on an unshown five-state truncation and field strengths above current records. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02499 v1 pith:CCBNQOJV submitted 2025-07-03 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Hongtao Hu , Sebastian Mai , Peng Peng , Andrius Baltuška , Xinhua Xie This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords orbitalangularmomentumZeemaneffectattosecondtransientabsorptionspectroscopydensitymatrixsimulationheliumasymmetryfactorcoherentcontroltransversedipoleresponse
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

The paper sets out to establish that electron orbital angular momentum in a neutral atom can be polarized and steered by merging the Zeeman effect with attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy. Its density-matrix simulations of helium show that a static magnetic field splits the $1s2p$ state into $m_j=-1,0,+1$ sub-levels, and that an infrared dressing pulse then makes the atom absorb XUV light unequally for the two orbital orientations. The central quantity is the absorption asymmetry $(I_{m_j=-1}-I_{m_j=+1})/(I_{m_j=-1}+I_{m_j=+1})$, which the paper reports can be tuned across roughly $-80\%$ to $+40\%$ by choosing the IR-XUV time delay, the field strength, and the angle between laser polarization and magnetic field. A reader would care because orbital angular momentum, unlike spin, has few existing handles in neutral atoms, and a controlled chiral population of 2p states would give new ways to steer chemistry, magnetism, and possibly circularly polarized emission.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the five-state singlet density matrix of helium with Hamiltonian $H=H_0+V_e+V_m$, where $V_e$ is the electric-dipole interaction with the $x$-polarized XUV and IR fields and $V_m$ is the Zeeman term. In the Cartesian basis the Zeeman term is purely off-diagonal, with matrix elements $\pm i \mu B_0$ coupling $1s2p_x$ and $1s2p_y$; this is what turns the linearly polarized excitation into a superposition with circular character and makes the $m_j=-1$ and $m_j=+1$ absorption lines unequal. The diagnostic that carries the argument is the frequency-integrated asymmetry factor, computed by integrating the ATAS signal over the two Zeeman-split lines, and the paper maps it over delay, field strength, and polarization angle.

What would settle it

A version of the same parameter scan that includes $1s3s$, $1s3d$, and continuum states would settle the truncation question: if the asymmetry map or the resonance fields at 0.05 and 0.09 a.u. shift noticeably, the five-state model is the weak link. On the experimental side, the sharpest signature is the predicted transverse $y$-dipole oscillation with period 18 fs at $B=0.0085$ a.u.; a polarization-sensitive ATAS measurement that sees it would support the mechanism, and one that does not would count against the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a simulated demonstration: in a five-state singlet model of helium ($1s^2$, $1s2s$, $1s2p_x$, $1s2p_y$, $1s2p_z$) evolved under the Liouville-von Neumann equation, adding a static magnetic field along $z$ produces Zeeman splitting of the $1s2p$ state, while a linearly polarized 2000 nm IR field dressing the XUV-excited atom creates an absorption-probability asymmetry between the $m_j=-1$ and $m_j=+1$ sub-states. The asymmetry factor is quoted as controllable within $-80\%$ and $+40\%$ under the scanned parameters. The mechanism is interference among the coupling pathways $1s^2 \to 1s2p_{m_j=-1} \to 1s2s$ and $1s^2 \to 1s2p_{m_j=+1} \to 1s2s$; the interference is strongest below $B=0.05$ a.u., where the Zeeman splitting is smaller than two IR photon energies, and when the polarization is rotated to the magic angle 54.7 degrees, a third pathway through $m_j=0$ adds new oscillatory structure near $B=0.09$ a.u. A transverse $y$-dipole response appears even though the laser is $x$-polarized, oscillating at the $m_j=\pm1$ splitting frequency (18 fs at $B=0.0085$ a.u.).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the five helium states used in the simulation are the only ones that matter; the paper asserts that adding higher excited states changes nothing but does not show that calculation, even though the 2000 nm laser could reach those states with several photons.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A helium target prepared this way should show an $x$-polarized ATAS spectrum whose two Zeeman branches have unequal integrated absorption, with the imbalance flipping sign as delay or field is scanned.
  • At fields below $B=0.05$ a.u. the asymmetry oscillates with a period equal to half the IR cycle (3.3 fs for 2000 nm), meaning the effect tracks IR intensity rather than its instantaneous field direction.
  • Including the $m_j=0$ pathway by setting the laser polarization at the magic angle 54.7 degrees opens a second resonance near $B=0.09$ a.u., adding an extra control knob beyond the two-state case.
  • Because the mechanism needs only Zeeman-split sub-levels and dipole transitions, the authors argue the same scheme should transfer to spin angular momentum and to molecular systems.
  • The transverse dipole oscillation at the Zeeman splitting frequency provides an all-optical readout of the field-induced $m_j=\pm1$ coherence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the authors leave implicit is that the predicted 18 fs transverse-dipole beat is effectively a time-domain magnetometer for kilo-tesla fields, since its frequency reads the local field strength.
  • The full claimed range of about $-80\%$ to $+40\%$ is reached with fields of 0.01 to 0.1 a.u. (2,350 to 23,500 T), while the strongest demonstrated quasi-static field the paper cites is 1,200 T, so a direct experimental test of the full range still needs a field-strength breakthrough or a lower-field variant.
  • A direct test of the truncation assumption would be the same simulation with $1s3s$, $1s3d$, and continuum channels included; if the resonances at 0.05 and 0.09 a.u. move, the five-state model is the limiting factor.
  • The magic-angle result suggests a general recipe: any three-level Zeeman manifold driven at two-photon resonance should show enhanced pathway interference, so the scheme may transfer to other atoms with $p$ or $d$ excited states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents density-matrix simulations of helium under a combined 58.4 nm/0.2 fs XUV pulse, a 2000 nm/20 fs IR pulse, and a static magnetic field along z. The model retains five singlet states (1s2, 1s2s, 1s2p_x, 1s2p_y, 1s2p_z), uses NIST dipole moments, propagates the Liouville-von Neumann equation, and computes transient absorption as in Ref. 32. The central claim is that the absorption probability asymmetry between the m_j = -1 and m_j = +1 Zeeman sub-states of 1s2p can be controlled by the XUV-IR delay, the magnetic field strength, and the angle between laser polarization and the field, with the asymmetry factor tunable in roughly the range -80% to +40%. The paper also discusses experimental feasibility and a broad set of prospective applications.

Significance. The proposal is conceptually interesting: using Zeeman splitting to break the degeneracy of orbital sub-states and ATAS to read out the resulting population imbalance is a plausible new control scheme, and the model is transparent enough to reproduce. The zero-field spectrum is checked against a published TDSE simulation, internal consistency checks (the 18 fs dipole oscillation matching the 0.23 eV Zeeman splitting) support the numerical implementation, and the parameter set is specified in the text. The main value would be as a proof-of-principle prediction, but the quantitative asymmetry range depends on assumptions that are not yet tested: the five-state truncation, the choice of integration window, and the sign convention of the Zeeman term. These issues do not necessarily invalidate the concept, but they currently prevent the numerical claims from being accepted at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II (Method), basis truncation] The statement "It has been confirmed that incorporating higher states, such as 1s3s or 1s3d, has a negligible effect on the results" is not accompanied by any convergence data. The 0.2 fs FWHM XUV pulse centered at 21.22 eV has a bandwidth of roughly 9 eV, so the 1s3p state at 23.09 eV falls within the excitation spectrum, and the 2000 nm IR field opens multiphoton channels to higher singlet and triplet states, all of which are omitted. Because the claimed -80% to +40% asymmetry range and the structures at B = 0.05 a.u. and B = 0.09 a.u. are interference effects among the five retained states, the quantitative predictions may be basis-dependent. Please add explicit convergence tests, for example by augmenting the basis with 1s3s, 1s3p, 1s3d and a few triplet states, or by comparing with a full TDSE calculation for representative (B, delay) points, and report the resulting changes in the asymmetry factor.
  2. [Section III.B (asymmetry factor definition and Fig. 4(a))] The asymmetry factor (I_{m=-1} - I_{m=+1})/(I_{m=-1} + I_{m=+1}) is obtained by integrating S(omega) over intervals (a,b), but the manuscript does not give a and b explicitly; it only states that their center is set by the Zeeman splitting. With a 9 eV XUV bandwidth and partial overlap of the two branches at low B, the asymmetry values can depend on the chosen window. Please provide the explicit rule for a(B,tau) and b(B,tau), and include a sensitivity test (e.g., varying the window width by +/-10% or by +/-0.1 eV) to confirm that the -80% to +40% range and the boundary fields at 0.05 and 0.09 a.u. are stable.
  3. [Section III.D (experimental feasibility)] The paper describes the parameters as "realistic", but the lowest magnetic field used in the main analysis is 0.01 a.u. = 2,350 T, which exceeds the 1,200 T record cited as Ref. 41, and the upper field 0.1 a.u. = 23,500 T is far beyond demonstrated quasi-static fields. Uniformity over the interaction volume and compatibility with 20 fs IR and 0.2 fs XUV pulses are also not discussed. Please either show that the asymmetry is already significant at fields below 1,200 T (while handling the AC-Stark false asymmetry that motivated the 0.01 a.u. cutoff), or explicitly revise the feasibility statements to say that the predicted fields are beyond current laboratory capabilities.
  4. [Supplementary Material, Eq. (2), Zeeman term] The Zeeman term in the Cartesian-basis Hamiltonian has off-diagonal entries +i mu B0 and -i mu B0. With the standard matrix of L_z in the (p_x, p_y, p_z) basis ([[0,-i,0],[i,0,0],[0,0,0]]), the orbital Zeeman term is -i mu_B B0 and +i mu_B B0 in those positions. As written, the sign is reversed, which would interchange the energies of m_j = -1 and m_j = +1 and flip the sign of the asymmetry factor. Please verify the sign convention and, if a nonstandard phase convention is used, state it explicitly; otherwise the assignment of the two absorption branches to m_j = +/-1 should be revisited.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary Material, dipole transformation] The text gives two different normalization factors for the same transformation (1/2 and 1/sqrt(2)); please use one consistent convention.
  2. [Supplementary Material, Eq. (2), electric-field block] The lower-left entries d1_x epsilon_y and d1_x epsilon_z should be d1_y epsilon_y and d1_z epsilon_z; as written the matrix is not the general Cartesian-basis Hamiltonian.
  3. [References, Ref. [34]] The cited report "Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules" is not the source of the helium dipole matrix elements; please cite the NIST Atomic Spectra Database entry used.
  4. [Figure 4] The panel labels are confusing because several panels are captioned with repeated "(a)" or include extra "(a) B=0.06 a.u." labels; please assign unique panel labels (a)-(h).
  5. [Abstract and Section I] The phrase "manipulating chemical reactions control" should be rewritten (e.g., "controlling chemical reactions").

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the asymmetry factor is a computed output of a forward density-matrix simulation, not a fitted or self-cited input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained as a forward simulation. The Hamiltonian is assembled from field-free energies, fixed dipole matrix elements taken from NIST (Refs. 34–35), the Zeeman term, and specified laser pulses; the Liouville-von Neumann equation is then integrated and the absorption spectrum and asymmetry factor are computed outputs. No parameter is fitted to reproduce the claimed −80% to +40% asymmetry range, and the zero-field validation against Ref. 32 is an external TDSE simulation, so it provides independent support rather than circular self-confirmation. The self-citations (Refs. 22, 23, 42) appear only in background statements about ATAS and in the feasibility discussion of strong magnetic fields; they do not supply the equations or values used to compute the central result. The only unsupported claim is the assertion that 'incorporating higher states, such as 1s3s or 1s3d, has a negligible effect on the results,' which is a basis-set convergence/correctness concern rather than a circular reduction: nothing in the paper shows that the five-state truncation is defined in terms of, or fitted to, the predicted asymmetry. Likewise, the choice of integration regions for the asymmetry factor is described as being centered on Zeeman-split peaks, which is an analysis convention, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. There is no equation that reduces to its own input, no load-bearing self-citation, and no imported uniqueness theorem; the paper's quantitative claim is conditional on model completeness but not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The prediction rests on a five-state closed-system model with two fixed NIST dipole moments, a uniform quasi-static magnetic field, and an ad hoc restriction of the scan to B >= 0.01 a.u. No parameters are fitted to produce the asymmetry, but the integration window width and the truncation error are unquantified.

free parameters (3)
  • Minimum magnetic-field threshold B0 = 0.01 a.u. = 0.01 a.u. = 2.35 x 10^3 T
    Chosen post hoc in Section III.B to exclude regions where the authors judge the absorption asymmetry to be dominated by the AC Stark effect rather than Zeeman sublevel asymmetry; this threshold defines the operating range of the central claim.
  • Integration window limits (a, b) for the absorption probability I_mj = Central position (a+b)/2 follows the Zeeman splitting; window width not stated numerically
    The asymmetry factor values in the -80% to +40% range depend on the frequency integration limits, which appear only as shaded rectangles in Figure 4(a).
  • XUV and IR peak field amplitudes = approximately 0.006 a.u. (XUV) and 0.003 a.u. (IR), read from Figure 1(b) axes
    Field amplitudes set the Rabi frequencies and hence the pathway-interference strength; they are shown graphically but never listed as parameters in the text, which impedes exact reproduction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Closed-system (purely unitary) Liouville-von Neumann dynamics without relaxation, dephasing, collisions, or ionization channels
    Equation (1) evolves the density matrix unitarily; the paper justifies the ground-state-only initial condition thermally but does not model decay or ionization during the interaction.
  • domain assumption The five-state singlet manifold 1s2, 1s2s, 1s2px, 1s2py, 1s2pz is sufficient for the helium dynamics
    Section II states that higher states such as 1s3s or 1s3d have a negligible effect, but no convergence data are shown.
  • domain assumption Electric-dipole approximation with fixed transition dipoles d(1s2 to 1s2p) = 0.73 a.u. and d(1s2s to 1s2p) = 4.97 a.u. from NIST
    Section II takes these values from Refs. 34-35 and keeps them constant; all coupling strengths in the simulation derive from these two numbers.
  • domain assumption The static magnetic field is spatially uniform and quasi-static over the simulated interaction time
    The Zeeman term mu*B0 in Section II assumes one B0 value throughout; the kilotesla-level fields cited in Section III.D are pulsed and spatially varying.
  • standard math Transient absorption response computed by S(omega,tau) = -2 Im[d(omega,tau) * epsilon*(omega,tau)] in the optically thin, perturbative regime
    Section II adopts this formula from Ref. 32; it neglects propagation and macroscopic phase-matching effects.
  • ad hoc to paper The B-field scan is restricted to [0.01, 0.1] a.u. so that the claimed asymmetry is attributed to Zeeman splitting rather than the AC Stark effect
    Section III.B excludes B < 0.01 a.u. as producing 'false asymmetries', which restricts the regime in which the central claim is evaluated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron Orbital Angular Momentum Polarization in Neutral Atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCBNQOJV

@misc{pith2026250702499,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron Orbital Angular Momentum Polarization in Neutral Atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCBNQOJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02499}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate the polarization of electron orbital angular momentum (OAM) in neutral atoms by integrating the Zeeman effect with attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy (ATAS). Using density matrix simulations, we show that in a helium atom, the absorption probability asymmetry between mj=-1 and mj = 1 in the 1s2p state can be precisely controlled by adjusting the time delay between infrared (IR) and extreme ultraviolet (XUV) fields, the strength of an applied static magnetic field, as well as the angle between laser polarization and magnetic field direction. This approach has significant implications across various fields, including quantum computing, quantum communication, and spintronics. Moreover, it paves the way for advancements in applications such as manipulating chemical reactions control, tailoring the magnetic properties of matter, and enabling novel laser emissions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02499 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of helium energy levels excited by XUV and IR fields. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Attosecond transient absorption spectrum as a function of the time delay between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Absorption spectrum as a function of magnetic field strength for different time delays: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Absorption spectrum highlighting the integration regions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Heisenberg, ¨Uber quantentheoretische umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer beziehungen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik33, 879 (1925)

    W. Heisenberg, ¨Uber quantentheoretische umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer beziehungen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik33, 879 (1925)

    1925

  2. [2]

    Schr¨ odinger, An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules, Physical Review 28, 1049 (1926)

    E. Schr¨ odinger, An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules, Physical Review 28, 1049 (1926)

    work page 1926

  3. [3]

    J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics Revised Edition(Addison-Wesley, Bosten, 1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    Hensen, H

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr´ eau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres, Nature 526...

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Hirohata, K

    A. Hirohata, K. Yamada, Y. Nakatani, I.-L. Prejbeanu, B. Di´ eny, P. Pirro, and B. Hillebrands, Review on spintronics: Principles and device applications, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 509, 166711 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    M. M. Dellweg and C. M¨ uller, Spin-polarizing interferometric beam splitter for free electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 070403 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Eckart, M

    S. Eckart, M. Kunitski, M. Richter, A. Hartung, J. Rist, F. Trinter, K. Fehre, N. Schlott, K. Henrichs, L. P. H. Schmidt, T. Jahnke, M. Sch¨ offler, K. Liu, I. Barth, J. Kaushal, F. Morales, M. Ivanov, O. Smirnova, and R. D¨ orner, Ultrafast preparation and detection 12 of ring currents in single atoms, Nature Physics 14, 701 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Hartung, F

    A. Hartung, F. Morales, M. Kunitski, K. Henrichs, A. Laucke, M. Richter, T. Jahnke, A. Kalinin, M. Sch¨ offler, L. P. H. Schmidt, M. Ivanov, O. Smirnova, and R. D¨ orner, Elec- tron spin polarization in strong-field ionization of xenon atoms, Nature Photonics 10, 526 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    M.-M. Liu, Y. Shao, M. Han, P. Ge, Y. Deng, C. Wu, Q. Gong, and Y. Liu, Energy- and momentum-resolved photoelectron spin polarization in multiphoton ionization of xe by circu- larly polarized fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 043201 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Stammer, J

    P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, A. Maxwell, T. Lamprou, A. Ord´ o˜ nez, M. F. Ciappina, P. Tzallas, and M. Lewenstein, Quantum electrodynamics of intense laser-matter interactions: A tool for quantum state engineering, PRX Quantum 4, 010201 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Demtr¨ oder,Atoms, Molecules and Photons: An Introduction to Atomic-, Molecular- and Quantum Physics (Springer, 2018)

    W. Demtr¨ oder,Atoms, Molecules and Photons: An Introduction to Atomic-, Molecular- and Quantum Physics (Springer, 2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Zeeman, The effect of magnetisation on the nature of light emitted by a substance, Nature 55, 347 (1897)

    P. Zeeman, The effect of magnetisation on the nature of light emitted by a substance, Nature 55, 347 (1897)

  6. [14]

    R. M. Crutcher and A. J. Kemball, Review of zeeman effect observations of regions of star formation, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 6 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Ferray, A

    M. Ferray, A. L’Huillier, X. F. Li, L. A. Lompre, G. Mainfray, and C. Manus, Multiple- harmonic conversion of 1064 nm radiation in rare gases, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molec- ular and Optical Physics 21, L31 (1988)

    1988

  8. [16]

    P. B. Corkum, Plasma perspective on strong field multiphoton ionization, Phys Rev Lett 71, 1994 (1993)

    1993

  9. [17]

    Hentschel, R

    M. Hentschel, R. Kienberger, C. Spielmann, G. A. Reider, N. Milosevic, T. Brabec, P. Corkum, U. Heinzmann, M. Drescher, and F. Krausz, Attosecond metrology, Nature 414, 509 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    Goulielmakis, Z

    E. Goulielmakis, Z. H. Loh, A. Wirth, R. Santra, N. Rohringer, V. S. Yakovlev, S. Zherebtsov, T. Pfeifer, A. M. Azzeer, M. F. Kling, S. R. Leone, and F. Krausz, Real-time observation of valence electron motion, Nature 466, 739 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    S. R. Leone and D. M. Neumark, Attosecond science in atomic, molecular, and condensed matter physics, Faraday Discuss 194, 15 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Borrego-Varillas, M

    R. Borrego-Varillas, M. Lucchini, and M. Nisoli, Attosecond spectroscopy for the investiga- tion of ultrafast dynamics in atomic, molecular and solid-state physics, Rep Prog Phys 85, 13 10.1088/1361-6633/ac5e7f (2022)

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Kaldun, A

    A. Kaldun, A. Bl¨ attermann, V. Stooß, S. Donsa, H. Wei, R. Pazourek, S. Nagele, C. Ott, C. D. Lin, J. Burgd¨ orfer, and T. Pfeifer, Observing the ultrafast buildup of a fano resonance in the time domain, Science 354, 738 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    P. Peng, Y. Mi, M. Lytova, M. Britton, X. Ding, A. Y. Naumov, P. B. Corkum, and D. M. Villeneuve, Coherent control of ultrafast extreme ultraviolet transient absorption, Nature Pho- tonics 16, 45 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    P. Peng, C. Marceau, and D. M. Villeneuve, Attosecond imaging of molecules using high harmonic spectroscopy, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 144 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Santra, V

    R. Santra, V. S. Yakovlev, T. Pfeifer, and Z.-H. Loh, Theory of attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy of strong-field-generated ions, Phys. Rev. A 83, 033405 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Born and P

    M. Born and P. Jordan, Zur quantenmechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 34, 858 (1925)

    1925

  18. [26]

    M. Born, W. Heisenberg, and P. Jordan, Zur quantenmechanik. ii, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 35, 557 (1926)

    1926

  19. [27]

    P. A. M. Dirac, The fundamental equations of quantum mechanics., Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series a-Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 109, 644 (1925)

    1925

  20. [28]

    A. Z. Goldberg, P. de la Hoz, G. Bj¨ ork, A. B. Klimov, M. Grassl, G. Leuchs, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, Quantum concepts in optical polarization, Advances in Optics and Photonics 13, 1 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Blum, Density matrix theory and applications(Springer, 2012)

    K. Blum, Density matrix theory and applications(Springer, 2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    H. Ma, U. Schollw¨ ock, and Z. Shuai, Density Matrix Renormalization Group(Elsevier, Ams- terdam, Netherlands, 2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Haffner, C

    H. Haffner, C. Roos, and R. Blatt, Quantum computing with trapped ions, Physics Reports 469, 155 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    M. Wu, S. Chen, S. Camp, K. J. Schafer, and M. B. Gaarde, Theory of strong-field attosecond transient absorption, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 062003 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, Concepts and methods in the theory of open quantum systems, Vol. 622 (Oxford University Press, 2003). 14

    2003

  26. [34]

    N. I. of Standards and Technology, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules, Tech. Rep. (U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    W. L. Wiese and J. R. Fuhr, Accurate atomic transition probabilities for hydrogen, helium, and lithium, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 38, 565 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Chini, X

    M. Chini, X. Wang, Y. Cheng, Y. Wu, D. Zhao, D. A. Telnov, S.-I. Chu, and Z. Chang, Sub-cycle oscillations in virtual states brought to light, Scientific Reports 3, 1105 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    J. Xue, X. Wang, M. Wang, C. Zhou, and S. Ruan, Attosecond transient absorption below the excited states, Photonics 9, 269 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    S. Chen, M. Wu, M. B. Gaarde, and K. J. Schafer, Quantum interference in attosecond transient absorption of laser-dressed helium atoms, Physical Review A 87, 10.1103/Phys- RevA.87.033408 (2013)

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    Bydder, A

    M. Bydder, A. Rahal, G. D. Fullerton, and G. M. Bydder, The magic angle effect: A source of artifact, determinant of image contrast, and technique for imaging, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 25, 290 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Fujioka, Z

    S. Fujioka, Z. Zhang, K. Ishihara, K. Shigemori, Y. Hironaka, T. Johzaki, A. Sunahara, N. Ya- mamoto, H. Nakashima, T. Watanabe, H. Shiraga, H. Nishimura, and H. Azechi, Kilotesla magnetic field due to a capacitor-coil target driven by high power laser, Sci Rep3, 1170 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Nakamura, A

    D. Nakamura, A. Ikeda, H. Sawabe, Y. H. Matsuda, and S. Takeyama, Record indoor magnetic field of 1200 t generated by electromagnetic flux-compression, Rev Sci Instrum 89, 095106 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Mart ´ ın-Hern´ andez, H

    R. Mart ´ ın-Hern´ andez, H. Hu, A. Baltuska, L. Plaja, and C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, Fourier-limited attosecond pulse from high harmonic generation assisted by ultrafast magnetic fields, Ultrafast Science 3, 0036 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    de las Heras, F

    A. de las Heras, F. P. Bonaf´ e, C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, A. Rubio, and O. Neufeld, Tunable tesla-scale magnetic attosecond pulses through ring-current gating, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 14, 11160 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Sederberg, F

    S. Sederberg, F. Kong, and P. B. Corkum, Tesla-scale terahertz magnetic impulses, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011063 (2020). 15 Supplementary Material A. Cartesian basis and the matrix transformation In this work, Cartesian basis refers to the selection of the 1 s2p sub-states, namely 1s...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.