Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 34 references

Collimated QED Cascades with Curved Plasma Mirror

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single ultra-intense laser pulse reflected from a curved plasma mirror can refocus to field strength $a_0 > 2000$ and trigger a QED cascade that produces a highly collimated electron-positron beam, with 60 nC of positrons at 100 PW and…

desk verdict A promising curved-mirror route to QED cascades, but the single-pulse claim is undercut by the paper's own self-consistent simulation showing the mirror does not form as prescribed. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00417 v1 pith:GTNG5CGI submitted 2025-08-01 physics.plasm-ph physics.optics

Xuesong Geng , M.A. Serebryakov , E.N. Nerush , A.S. Samsonov , I.Y. Kostyukov , Liangliang Ji This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.optics PACS 52.38.-r52.65.Rr12.20.-m
keywords QEDcascadeelectron-positronpairproductionplasmamirrorultra-intenselaserBreit-Wheelerprocessparticle-in-cellsimulationcollimatedpositronbeamlight-to-matterconversion
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 claims that a single ultra-intense laser pulse, reflected from a curved plasma mirror, can be refocused to normalized field strength $a_0 > 2000$ and there trigger a QED cascade that converts laser light into a highly collimated electron-positron beam. In three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations at 100 PW, the proposed geometry produces 60 nC of positrons, a 2% conversion of the incident laser energy into positrons, and an angular distribution concentrated near the laser axis. The same geometry is claimed to produce a few picocoulombs of positrons at 13 PW through the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler process, putting the scheme within reach of existing 10 PW-class lasers. The key advantage over multi-laser standing-wave schemes is that the pairs are accelerated forward by the propagating reflected pulse rather than trapped in a standing wave, which gives the beam its collimation. A sympathetic reader would take away that light-to-matter conversion with useful beam quality may be simpler than previously thought.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the curved plasma mirror: a fully ionized parabolic surface at electron density $1000\,n_c$ that both reflects the incident pulse and extracts a seed population of electrons into the reflected wave. Because the reflected pulse is a propagating wave rather than a standing wave, electrons and positrons created near the focus continue to be accelerated forward, which is what produces the extreme angular collimation. A secondary mechanism is the distortion of the transverse wave vector $k_y = E_z B_x - E_x B_z$ of the refocused pulse: the asymmetric light pressure scatters positrons and electrons in opposite directions, producing the observed dual-spike angular structure of the positron beam.

What would settle it

Reflect a 100 PW-class (or 13 PW) pulse from a curved plasma mirror with focal length near $5\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ and measure both the reflected focal intensity and the positron yield: if the reflected field at the focus is measured below $a_0 \approx 2000$ or the positron yield is at background level while the field is above threshold, the central claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a parabolic plasma mirror of focal length $5\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, illuminated by a circularly polarized 100 PW pulse focused to $a_0 \approx 345$ at its surface, re-focuses the reflected light to $a_0 > 2000$. Electrons stripped from the mirror surface are accelerated toward the focus and seed an avalanche cascade: gamma photons radiated by these electrons convert into pairs, which radiate further photons, with more than three generations resolved in the simulation. The resulting positron population reaches 60 nC (2% energy conversion from laser to positrons) and is tightly collimated, in contrast to the diffuse counter-propagating pair plasma obtained with a flat mirror at the same power. Analysis of photon creation and decay near the focus shows that about one quarter of the first-generation pairs are seeded by gamma photons arriving from the mirror, while the rest are driven by the extracted electrons themselves. At 13 PW the same geometry still yields a few pC of positrons, produced by direct Breit-Wheeler conversion rather than by a multi-generation cascade.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that at 100 PW the plasma mirror surface behaves as a fixed, fully ionized parabolic reflector at $1000\,n_c$ that refocuses the pulse to $a_0 > 2000$ without the distortion, roughness, or preplasma effects that would spoil the focus.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 100 PW, a single curved mirror should deliver 60 nC of collimated positrons, enough to serve as a bright matter source for QED studies.
  • At 13 PW, the few pC yield is within the capability of several existing laser systems, so the scheme can be tested before 100 PW lasers come online.
  • Because pairs are accelerated forward by the propagating pulse, the beam's collimation should persist over distance, unlike the trapped plasmas of standing-wave configurations.
  • The positron population can absorb up to about 10% of the laser energy at 137 PW, implying efficient light-to-matter conversion at higher powers.
  • The single-pulse geometry reduces experimental complexity compared with multi-laser collision schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mirror surface is formed by light-pressure denting of a preplasma rather than a pre-shaped solid, the simulation suggests that without a separate weak prepulse the extracted electrons are accelerated away and no cascade forms; a two-pulse variant may be needed, and its timing and contrast could be tuned to recover the yield.
  • The dual-spike angular asymmetry is tied to distortion of the reflected wavefront; measuring the angular distribution of positrons could therefore serve as a diagnostic of plasma-mirror surface quality.
  • The 13 PW result relies on direct Breit-Wheeler conversion without cascade; distinguishing those pairs from cascade pairs by their energy spectrum or angular spread would provide a clean experimental test of the model.
  • Collimation quality should scale with the reflected pulse's propagation distance; if the focal length is increased, the beam may stay collimated longer but the peak $a_0$ drops, suggesting an optimal focal-length trade-off worth scanning.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes and simulates, with the Smilei PIC code including QED processes, a scheme in which a single ultra-intense laser pulse is reflected by a curved plasma mirror, refocuses to a0 > 2000, extracts electrons from the mirror surface, and triggers a QED cascade producing a collimated electron-positron beam. The main 100 PW simulation yields 60 nC of positrons (2% of incident laser energy converted), with a tightly collimated angular distribution, and a 13 PW case is reported to produce a few pC of positrons via the Breit-Wheeler process. The paper also analyzes the photon-pair conversion balance, reports multiple cascade generations, and compares against a flat plasma mirror case.

Significance. If the physical realization of the curved plasma mirror is established, the scheme would be significant: it would reduce the experimental complexity of QED cascade generation to a single laser pulse, produce pair beams with high collimation, and offer a path to testing at 10 PW-class facilities. Strengths include the use of a well-established open-source PIC code with QED modules, a clear schematic of the proposed geometry, and a generation-resolved analysis of the avalanche cascade. The reported yields and angular distributions are concrete, falsifiable predictions. However, the central quantitative results rest on an imposed parabolic mirror surface that the paper does not show can be produced by a single laser pulse, and the 'unprecedented efficiency' claim is not benchmarked against multi-laser schemes. The significance is therefore conditional on resolving these points.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II and Sec. IV] The central 100 PW quantitative results (60 nC positrons, 2% conversion, high collimation) are obtained with a prescribed parabolic plasma mirror surface: Sec. II states 'The surface of curved PM is a parabola of focal length of f = 5 µm,' with density 1000n_c, fully ionized. The paper does not show that a single laser pulse can create such a surface. The only self-consistent run without an imposed parabola, Sec. IV and Fig. 10, shows that a 100 PW pulse interacting with a flat PM with preplasma forms a curved surface and refocuses the laser, but 'no pairs are generated near the focus, since no electrons are extracted to the focus.' The proposed remedy, 'another weaker pulse before the main pulse,' is not simulated. As written, the abstract's claim that 'a single ultra-intense laser pulse... can generate highly collimated electron-positron pairs' is not supported by a physically realizable single-pulse configuration; the headline results are for an imposed boundary condition.
  2. [Sec. III A and Fig. 9] The claim of 'unprecedented efficiency' is not established by the evidence presented. The only quantitative comparison is against a flat PM with the same laser power (Fig. 3c, Fig. 4a, Fig. 9b). No comparison is made to the multi-laser schemes cited in the introduction (e.g., Refs. [7, 9, 13, 28, 29]) that generate pairs in standing waves, even though the abstract explicitly contrasts the present scheme with 'conventional multi-laser setups.' The conversion efficiency of those schemes is not quoted, so 'unprecedented' overstates what the paper demonstrates. A quantitative benchmark against at least one representative multi-laser simulation or published result is needed to support the efficiency claim.
  3. [Sec. II and Sec. III] No convergence or resolution study is presented for the QED-PIC parameters stated in Sec. II (cell size 0.01λ × 0.02λ × 0.02λ, 2 macroelectrons per cell, time step 0.95 of the Courant limit) in the extreme a0 > 2000 regime. The absolute yields and the cascade generation analysis in Fig. 8 depend on resolving a focal region of order λ^3 and on the accuracy of the QED emission rates at χ values corresponding to a0 > 2000. Without a resolution study or a comparison with higher-resolution/more-particles runs, the quoted 60 nC and 2% conversion efficiency are not robustly established.
  4. [Sec. III B and Fig. 7] The inference used to separate photon-driven from electron-driven pair production is not logically airtight. The paper states that the difference between 'photons decayed in the box' and 'photons created and decayed in the box' 'can be seen as the number of pairs driven by the gamma photons from the mirror.' However, a photon created outside the focal box by an extracted electron en route to the focus is not necessarily 'from the mirror'; it is part of the same electron's radiation. The subtraction therefore does not uniquely identify the seeding mechanism, and the conclusion that the cascade is 'triggered and driven by mainly the extracted electrons' needs a more direct diagnostic or a clearer definition of what 'from the mirror' means.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. III] In the sentence 'This configuration uniquely enables a seeded cascade with signle laser pulse,' 'signle' should be 'single.'
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption contains 'balck arrows'; this should be 'black arrows.'
  3. [Sec. II] The statement 'the interaction is not sensitive to slight surface distortion as long as the PM is able to focus' is an assertion without supporting evidence; please provide a test with a perturbed surface or a reference.
  4. [Fig. 9] The y-axis label in Fig. 9(b) reads 'conversion rate' while the text and other captions use 'conversion efficiency'; please unify the terminology.
  5. [Reference [15]] Reference [15] contains LaTeX artifacts in the title ('eˆ-eˆ+'); please correct the typesetting.
  6. [Sec. III] The simulation parameters for the 13 PW case (spot size, focal length, plasma density, preplasma profile) are not specified; please state whether and how they are scaled from the 100 PW case.
  7. [Sec. III B] The definition of '>3rd gen' species and the handling of macro-particle merging or splitting in the generation counting are not described; please clarify how the generation labels are maintained in the PIC simulation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the prescribed parabolic mirror is an initial condition, not a fitted output.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a three-dimensional PIC simulation (Smilei) with explicitly stated inputs: a 100 PW circularly polarized laser with a0 ≈ 345, w0 = 5 µm, pulse length 30 fs, and a plasma mirror of density 1000n_c shaped as a parabola with focal length f = 5 µm. The outputs — focused field a0 > 2000, 60 nC positrons, 2% conversion efficiency, angular distributions — are computed by the code's Maxwell-Lorentz and QED Monte Carlo dynamics. None of these outputs is used as a fit parameter or fed back into the model, and no target quantity is defined in terms of itself. The parabolic surface is an imposed boundary condition, not a quantity the paper claims to predict; the text explicitly says 'using parabola surface is convenient for modeling.' This is a conditional simulation result, not a circular derivation. The 13 PW few-pC result inherits the same imposed-mirror premise but is again a simulated consequence, not a renamed input. Section IV is the only place the paper attempts to generate the curvature self-consistently from laser interaction with a flat preplasma; there the curved surface forms and refocuses, but 'no pairs are generated near the focus, since no electrons are extracted to the focus,' and the proposed prepulse remedy is not simulated. That is a feasibility and missing-support weakness, appropriately weighed as correctness risk rather than circularity. The only self-citation ([34], Y. Wu, L. Ji, R. Li) appears in a supporting remark about standing-wave pair plasmas absorbing laser energy; the main claim does not depend on it, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. No equation in the paper reduces a prediction to an input by construction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity analysis.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are the mirror geometry and laser parameters, which are chosen by the authors, not fitted. The key implicit assumptions are the validity of the plasma mirror as a fixed parabola and the QED cascade model at extreme intensities; neither is independently verified in the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Plasma mirror focal length (f) = 5 um
    The parabola focal length is chosen to save computational cost, and the paper says larger spot size could be better. This choice directly determines the focused field strength a0 > 2000.
  • Laser spot size on mirror (w0) = 5 um
    Chosen for computational cost; affects the focusing and the extracted electron number.
  • Plasma mirror density = 1000 nc
    Set to reflect the 100 PW laser without distortion, but this is an assumption that may not hold for real plasma mirrors.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The plasma mirror acts as a perfect parabolic reflector with a fixed shape and is fully ionized.
    Sec. II: 'the PM electron density is set to 1000nc' and 'is fully ionized in the simulation'. Real plasma mirrors have dynamics and finite reflectivity, which could alter the focusing.
  • domain assumption The QED cascade model (photon emission and pair production) in Smilei accurately describes strong-field QED in the parameter regime a0>2000.
    The simulation relies on the standard implementation of QED in PIC codes; this is a widely used but non-trivial approximation (locally constant field approximation, etc.).
  • domain assumption The simulation box and resolution are sufficient to capture the cascade physics without significant numerical artifacts.
    The grid resolution (0.01λ x 0.02λ x 0.02λ) is high, but no convergence study is presented. The paper does not show that the results are converged with respect to cell size or macro-particle number.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collimated QED Cascades with Curved Plasma Mirror." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GTNG5CGI

@misc{pith2026250800417,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collimated QED Cascades with Curved Plasma Mirror},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GTNG5CGI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00417}
}
abstract

Converting light into matter has been a longstanding goal in physics, particularly the creation of electron-positron pairs through quantum electrodynamic (QED) processes. While current approaches using multiple colliding laser pulses can achieve this conversion, they struggle to produce well-collimated particle beams - a crucial requirement for practical applications. Here we demonstrate that a single ultra-intense laser pulse, when reflected from a curved plasma mirror, can generate highly collimated electron-positron pairs with unprecedented efficiency. By focusing the laser to field strengths exceeding $a_0 > 2000$, our method triggers QED cascades that produce tightly focused particle beams, distinctly different from the diffuse plasmas created by conventional multi-laser setups. The technique works even at relatively modest laser powers of 13PW, making it immediately testable at existing facilities. This breakthrough opens new possibilities for studying fundamental QED processes and generating controlled matter-antimatter plasmas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00417 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematics of the proposed geometry. The laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of the re-focusing and the generation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Evolution of the distribution of the laser wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The energy spectrums and (b) the angular distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) The positron yields and (b) the conversion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Evolution of the number of the positrons for 1st [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Interaction of 100PW laser with flat PM with pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Breit and J

    G. Breit and J. A. Wheeler, Collision of Two Light Quanta, Phys. Rev. 46, 1087 (1934)

    work page 1934

  2. [2]

    B. Shao, Y. Li, Y. Peng, P. Wang, J. Qian, Y. Leng, and R. Li, Broad-bandwidth high-temporal-contrast carrier- envelope-phase-stabilized laser seed for 100 PW lasers, Opt. Lett., OL 45, 2215 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Schwinger, On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polar- ization, Phys

    J. Schwinger, On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polar- ization, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    work page 1951

  4. [4]

    V. I. Ritus, Quantum effects of the interaction of ele- mentary particles with an intense electromagnetic field, J Russ Laser Res 6, 497 (1985)

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    Bula, Observation of Nonlinear Effects in Compton Scattering, Phys

    C. Bula, Observation of Nonlinear Effects in Compton Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3116 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    H. R. Reiss, Absorption of Light by Light, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 59 (1962)

    work page 1962

  7. [7]

    A. R. Bell and J. G. Kirk, Possibility of Prolific Pair Pro- duction with High-Power Lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200403 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    A. M. Fedotov, N. B. Narozhny, G. Mourou, and G. Korn, Limitations on the Attainable Intensity of High Power Lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 080402 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    N. V. Elkina, A. M. Fedotov, I. Yu. Kostyukov, M. V. Legkov, N. B. Narozhny, E. N. Nerush, and H. Ruhl, QED cascades induced by circularly polarized laser fields, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 14, 054401 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    E. N. Nerush, I. Y. Kostyukov, A. M. Fedotov, N. B. Narozhny, N. V. Elkina, and H. Ruhl, Laser Field Absorption in Self-Generated Electron-Positron Pair Plasma, Physical Review Letters 106, 035001 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    C. P. Ridgers, C. S. Brady, R. Duclous, J. G. Kirk, K. Bennett, T. D. Arber, A. P. L. Robinson, and A. R. Bell, Dense Electron-Positron Plasmas and Ul- traintense $\ensuremath{\gamma}$ rays from Laser- Irradiated Solids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 165006 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Grismayer, M

    T. Grismayer, M. Vranic, J. L. Martins, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Laser absorption via quantum electro- dynamics cascades in counter propagating laser pulses, Physics of Plasmas 23, 056706 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Zhu, T.-P

    X.-L. Zhu, T.-P. Yu, Z.-M. Sheng, Y. Yin, I. C. E. Turcu, and A. Pukhov, Dense GeV electron–positron pairs gen- erated by lasers in near-critical-density plasmas, Nature Communications 7, 13686 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Song, W.-M

    H.-H. Song, W.-M. Wang, and Y.-T. Li, Dense Polarized Positrons from Laser-Irradiated Foil Targets in the QED Regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 035001 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Samsonov and A

    A. Samsonov and A. Pukhov, Production and magnetic self-confinement of $eˆ-eˆ+$ plasma by an extremely in- tense laser pulse incident on a structured solid target (2024), arXiv:2409.09131 [physics]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

    Zhang, S

    P. Zhang, S. S. Bulanov, D. Seipt, A. V. Arefiev, and A. G. R. Thomas, Relativistic plasma physics in super- critical fields, Physics of Plasmas 27, 050601 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Thaury, F

    C. Thaury, F. Qu´ er´ e, J.-P. Geindre, A. Levy, T. Ceccotti, P. Monot, M. Bougeard, F. R´ eau, P. d’Oliveira, P. Au- debert, R. Marjoribanks, and P. Martin, Plasma mirrors for ultrahigh-intensity optics, Nature Phys 3, 424 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    Vincenti, S

    H. Vincenti, S. Monchoc´ e, S. Kahaly, G. Bonnaud, P. Martin, and F. Qu´ er´ e, Optical properties of relativistic plasma mirrors, Nat Commun 5, 3403 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Vincenti, Achieving Extreme Light Intensities using Optically Curved Relativistic Plasma Mirrors, Phys

    H. Vincenti, Achieving Extreme Light Intensities using Optically Curved Relativistic Plasma Mirrors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 105001 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Nakatsutsumi, A

    M. Nakatsutsumi, A. Kon, S. Buffechoux, P. Audebert, J. Fuchs, and R. Kodama, Fast focusing of short-pulse lasers by innovative plasma optics toward extreme inten- sity, Opt. Lett. 35, 2314 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Arikawa, S

    Y. Arikawa, S. Kojima, A. Morace, S. Sakata, T. Gawa, Y. Taguchi, Y. Abe, Z. Zhang, X. Vaisseau, S. H. Lee, K. Matsuo, S. Tosaki, M. Hata, K. Kawa- bata, Y. Kawakami, M. Ishida, K. Tsuji, S. Matsuo, N. Morio, T. Kawasaki, S. Tokita, Y. Nakata, T. Jit- suno, N. Miyanaga, J. Kaw...

    2016

  16. [24]

    Wilson, M

    R. Wilson, M. King, R. J. Gray, D. C. Carroll, R. J. Dance, C. Armstrong, S. J. Hawkes, R. J. Clarke, D. J. Robertson, D. Neely, and P. McKenna, Ellipsoidal 6 plasma mirror focusing of high power laser pulses to ultra-high intensities, Physics of Plasmas 23, 033106 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Nakatsutsumi, Y

    M. Nakatsutsumi, Y. Sentoku, A. Korzhimanov, S. N. Chen, S. Buffechoux, A. Kon, B. Atherton, P. Au- debert, M. Geissel, L. Hurd, M. Kimmel, P. Rambo, M. Schollmeier, J. Schwarz, M. Starodubtsev, L. Gremil- let, R. Kodama, and J. Fuchs, Self-generated surface magnetic fields in...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Qu´ er´ e and H

    F. Qu´ er´ e and H. Vincenti, Reflecting petawatt lasers off relativistic plasma mirrors: A realistic path to the Schwinger limit, High Power Laser Science and Engineer- ing 9, 10.1017/hpl.2020.46 (2021/ed)

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Th´ evenet, A

    M. Th´ evenet, A. Leblanc, S. Kahaly, H. Vincenti, A. Vernier, F. Qu´ er´ e, and J. Faure, Vacuum laser ac- celeration of relativistic electrons using plasma mirror injectors, Nature Phys 12, 355 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    E. S. Efimenko, A. V. Bashinov, S. I. Bastrakov, A. A. Gonoskov, A. A. Muraviev, I. B. Meyerov, A. V. Kim, and A. M. Sergeev, Extreme plasma states in laser- governed vacuum breakdown, Sci Rep 8, 2329 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Y. He, T. G. Blackburn, T. Toncian, and A. Arefiev, Achieving pair creation via linear and nonlinear Breit– Wheeler processes in dense plasmas irradiated by high- intensity laser pulses, Physics of Plasmas 29, 053105 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Y. I. Salamin and C. H. Keitel, Electron Acceleration by a Tightly Focused Laser Beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 095005 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Derouillat, A

    J. Derouillat, A. Beck, F. P´ erez, T. Vinci, M. Chiaramello, A. Grassi, M. Fl´ e, G. Bouchard, I. Plotnikov, N. Aunai, J. Dargent, C. Riconda, and M. Grech, Smilei : A collaborative, open-source, multi- purpose particle-in-cell code for plasma simulation, Comput. Phys. Comm. ...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Too many kinds of species will induce per- formance issue

    We use different species ele gen1, ele gen2, ele gen3 and ele gt3 to denote the generations, same to the positrons and photons. Too many kinds of species will induce per- formance issue. Therefore we only show the first 3 gen- erations

  25. [33]

    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. ...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Y. Wu, L. Ji, and R. Li, On the upper limit of laser intensity attainable in nonideal vacuum, Photon. Res., PRJ 9, 541 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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