Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Bound-free electron-positron pair production in combined Coulomb and constant crossed electromagnetic fields: a Schwinger-like process with intrinsic assistance

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that bound-free electron-positron pair production in a constant crossed electromagnetic field plus a Coulomb field has a Schwinger-like rate whose exponent is softened by the binding energy of the created electron's 1s stat

desk verdict First quasistatic bound-free pair rate in a CCF; two methods agree, but the factorization of the trajectory leaves the exponent less solid than it looks. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.10662 v2 pith:EJ4RYIGM submitted 2025-12-11 physics.atom-ph hep-ph

S. Remme , A. Eckey , S. Villalba-Chávez , A. B. Voitkiv , C. Müller This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phhep-ph
keywords bound-freepairproductionSchwingermechanismconstantcrossedfieldstrong-fieldQEDWKBtunnelingapproximationCoulombcorrectionintrinsicassistance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Strong fields can pull electron-positron pairs from the vacuum, but the rate is exponentially suppressed far below the Schwinger critical field. This paper studies the channel where the electron is captured into the bound 1s state of a highly charged bare ion while the positron escapes, with the external field modeled as a constant crossed electromagnetic field. Two independent methods—WKB tunneling and a strong-field approximation in Göppert-Mayer gauge, each with Coulomb corrections—yield the same exponential dependence: R ~ exp(−(2√3 ξ³/(1+ξ²)) Fc/F), where ξ encodes the 1s binding energy. The binding energy enters the exponent and softens the exponential suppression, an 'intrinsic assistance' analogous to dynamically assisted Schwinger pair production. If correct, the rate depends nonperturbatively on both the applied field strength and the nuclear charge, and the two methods agree within about an order of magnitude over a wide parameter range.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exponential factor exp(−2√3 ξ³/(1+ξ²) Fc/F), where ξ is a dimensionless parameter set by the Dirac bound-state energy: ξ = √(λ²−1) with λ = (ε+√(ε²+8))/2 and ε = √(1−(Z/c)²). It emerges from the classical sub-barrier trajectory of an electron tunneling from the negative-energy continuum into the 1s state in a constant crossed field, and from the saddle-point evaluation of the Göppert-Mayer strong-field amplitude. The Coulomb field of the nucleus enters through the bound-state wave function and through correction factors: a full Coulomb correction in the WKB treatment and a truncated perturbative one in the strong-field approximation. The matching between the short-r

What would settle it

A direct numerical solution of the time-dependent Dirac equation for a hydrogen-like ion in a constant crossed field at F ≈ 0.1–0.3 Fc and Z ≈ 70–110: the logarithm of the computed rate should be linear in Fc/F with slope −2√3 ξ³/(1+ξ²), and the slope should shift with Z according to the ξ(ε) formula. Alternatively, measuring the Z-dependence of the pair-production yield in a laser–bare-ion collision at fixed F would falsify the predicted exponent if the slope does not follow ξ(ε).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is expressed in Eq. (42): for bound-free pair production in a constant crossed field plus the Coulomb field of a bare ion, the rate behaves as R ~ exp(−(2√3 ξ³/(1+ξ²)) Fc/F), with Fc the critical field, ξ = √(λ²−1), λ = (ε+√(ε²+8))/2, and ε = √(1−(Z/c)²) the Dirac 1s energy in units of c². Both the WKB tunneling derivation and the Göppert-Mayer strong-field approximation, after their respective Coulomb corrections, yield this same exponent. Because ε < 1, the exponent is reduced relative to the ε = 1 (no-binding) limit of the model, so the atomic binding potential plays the role of the assisting high-frequency field in dynamically assisted Schwinger pair production.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the Coulomb field of the nucleus affects the rate only through the bound-state wave function and a multiplicative correction factor, while the electron's tunneling trajectory is taken in the constant crossed field alone; if the Coulomb field materially changes that trajectory, or the matching-point approximations (u1 ≈ u0, r1 from field equality) are uncontrolled, the claimed exponential and prefactor could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The bound-free channel of pair production in combined laser and Coulomb fields acquires a Schwinger-like exponential whose exponent is controlled by the 1s binding energy, making the rate extremely sensitive to both field strength and nuclear charge.
  • Two independent theoretical approaches (WKB tunneling and GM-gauge SFA) give the same exponential dependence and agree within about one order of magnitude for Z = 70–110 and F up to 0.3 Fa.
  • The process can serve as a two-step route to free-free pair production: bound-free creation followed by tunnel ionization of the bound electron.
  • Positron momentum distributions are approximately Gaussian, with widths that grow with nuclear charge and applied field strength.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the exponential form (42) holds, the predicted Z-dependence of the exponent is a direct, testable signature: increasing Z (smaller ε) reduces the exponent and thus enhances the rate at fixed field strength.
  • The 'intrinsic assistance' mechanism suggests that other bound states (2s, 2p, etc.) with different binding energies could be used to tune the exponent, analogous to tuning the assisting field frequency in dynamical assistance.
  • A full numerical solution of the Dirac equation in the combined Coulomb plus crossed field, without factorizing the Coulomb field out of the trajectory, would test whether the exponent's functional form survives beyond the modeling assumptions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies bound-free electron-positron pair production by a highly charged bare ion in a constant crossed electromagnetic field (CCF), i.e., the electron is created in the 1s state of the resulting hydrogen-like ion. Two independent methods are developed and compared: (i) a WKB tunneling theory with a short-range initial bound state plus a Coulomb correction factor, and (ii) a strong-field approximation in the Göppert-Mayer gauge that includes the Coulomb field in the bound-state wave function and adds a truncated Coulomb correction. Both yield the central closed-form exponential (Eq. (42), with ξ a function of the relativistic bound-state parameter ε = sqrt(1-(Z/c)^2)), and the prefactors differ by factors of order 1–3 over rates spanning about 100 orders of magnitude. The paper interprets the binding-energy-induced reduction of the exponent as an 'intrinsic assistance' analogous to the dynamically assisted Schwinger effect, and provides intuitive approximations connecting the exponent to the energy gap and tunnel length.

Significance. If the central exponent (42) is robust, the paper gives a concrete, analytically tractable prediction for a nonperturbative pair-production channel that depends on both the applied field and the nuclear charge, and it generalizes known results for strong-field ionization to pair production. The main strengths are the transparency of the derivations, the closed-form expressions in Eqs. (25) and (38), and the explicit comparison of two methods; the agreement of the two rates over a huge dynamic range is a useful consistency check. However, both derivations share the same core factorization assumption—the Coulomb field is neglected in the sub-barrier trajectory and enters only through the bound-state parameters and multiplicative correction factors—so the agreement does not by itself establish the accuracy of the exponent. The uncontrolled matching-point approximations therefore determine whether the paper's central claim is quantitatively reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A/B and Eq. (42)] The central exponent is derived from a trajectory that explicitly neglects the Coulomb field (statement after Eq. (8)) and from Coulomb corrections that depend on arbitrary matching points. In Eq. (24) the matching-point dependence is removed by setting u1≈u0, and in Eq. (40) r1 is fixed by equating Z/r1^2 with F. For the parameters in Fig. 3 (Z=70, F=0.2F_a) r1≈0.032 a.u. ≈ 2a0 while the tunnel length l≈0.68 a.u., so the region where the Coulomb force is comparable to the CCF is not negligible. A correction to the sub-barrier action would change the exponent, not just the prefactor. Since both derivations share this factorization, their agreement does not validate the exponent. Please estimate the size of this correction or compare with an approach that includes the Coulomb force in the trajectory.
  2. [Sec. III B, Eqs. (23)–(24)] The cancellation of r1 in the wave-function ratio in Eq. (22) is only formal; Eq. (23) still depends on r1 through u1, and the limit u1≈u0 is imposed without derivation. This limit is not obviously regular: Eq. (23) contains factors such as sqrt(1−u1^2/9), which changes character when u0 > 3 (as occurs for finite Z), and the sine terms in Eq. (22) have different behavior as u1→u0. The authors should either derive the limit from Eq. (23) or show numerically that the correction is flat in u1 (or r1) over the admissible range. As written, the removal of the matching-point dependence is an uncontrolled approximation in a quantity that enters the final rate exponentially.
  3. [Sec. IV B, Eqs. (40)–(41)] The SFA Coulomb correction is truncated at r1 defined by the ad hoc criterion Z/r1^2 = F. For the displayed parameters this point lies where the Coulomb field is comparable to the CCF, so the truncation is not a perturbative small-correction procedure. Moreover, the SFA and WKB derivations share the same neglect of the Coulomb force in the trajectory, so the SFA result does not provide an independent check of the exponent (42). The paper should either justify the truncation from a systematic expansion or demonstrate insensitivity of the final rate to the choice of r1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II and Sec. V A, Eqs. (7) and (43)] The preliminary estimate Eq. (7) gives b=4√2/3, but the later comparison uses b=9√2/4 in Eq. (43). The text states that b is adjusted, but this should be flagged explicitly as a fit parameter; otherwise the intuitive exponential could be mistaken for a prediction.
  2. [Sec. III A, around Eq. (9)] For finite Z, ε<1 so u0=√3ξ>3; then the factor sqrt(1−u^2/9) in r(u) becomes imaginary near u=u0. The paper does not comment on the branch choice or the physical significance of this complex geometry, although it underlies the trajectory and the matching-point formulas.
  3. [Sec. III B, Eq. (24)] The normalization constant N of the short-range bound-state wave function is left unspecified, and the plotted quantity in Fig. 2 is Q/N^2. This is stated, but it would help to give the explicit cancelation in the final rate and to note that N drops out of Eq. (25).
  4. [General] There are several typos and minor language issues, e.g., 'theory basd' in Sec. III A and 'G¨oppert' repeatedly missing the umlaut. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central exponential is derived from WKB/SFA action integrals; only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation is present.

full rationale

The central claim, Eq. (42), is not inserted as an input. It is obtained by evaluating tunneling actions along the CCF trajectory (Eqs. (9)-(17)) and by a saddle-point evaluation in the GM-gauge SFA (Eqs. (36)-(38)); the paper states that the SFA exponential 'can be rewritten such that it exactly coincides' with the WKB exponential, and this coincidence is algebraic, not enforced by fitting. The exponent's dependence on Z enters through the Dirac bound-state energy parameter epsilon = sqrt(1-(Z/c)^2) and through the Coulomb-correction factors, but the exponential itself is an output of quadratures. Known limits are checked against external results: the epsilon -> 0 limit is compared with [41], and the free-free CCF exponent with [24]. The only adjusted formula is Eq. (43), whose coefficient b is explicitly 'adjusted' to match Eq. (42); since this is presented as a phenomenological approximation and not as an independent prediction, it is not concealed circularity. The paper's factorization assumption ('the Coulomb field is disregarded in the electron's trajectory') is a physical modeling limitation and a possible correctness risk, but not a circular reduction: the input trajectory does not contain the exponent being predicted. Self-citations [43,44,48] provide the methodological framework, but the current derivation is written out in the manuscript and changes the sign structure for pair production; no uniqueness theorem or unverified ansatz is imported to force the result. Overall the derivation is self-contained against the central claim, with only minor self-citation, hence score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The rates (25) and (38) depend nonperturbatively on F and Z but rely on a sequence of semiclassical assumptions: CCF model, factorization of Coulomb effects, and two hand-chosen truncation/matching-point procedures. No new physical entity is postulated; all constants are standard QED inputs. The only parameter adjusted to the authors' own result is b in the illustrative formula (43).

free parameters (2)
  • b (intuitive exponent coefficient) = 9/(4*sqrt(2)) ≈ 1.59
    Eq. (43): coefficient b chosen so the approximate barrier-lowering exponent matches the exact exponent (42) at Ip=0; the choice makes 9/(4*sqrt(2)) ≈ pi/2, linking to [41]. Not used in final rates (25) and (38).
  • r1 (SFA Coulomb-correction matching point) = implicit via Eq. (40): r1 = (1-u1^2/9)^(1/4) * sqrt(Z/F)
    Hand-chosen truncation where Coulomb and CCF field strengths coincide; sets u1 and the prefactor of the SFA rate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Validity of the constant crossed field as the quasistatic limit of a strong laser (eta >> 1, pair formation length << wavelength)
    Introduced in Sec. II and used throughout Secs. III-V; the paper's conclusions are for this idealized field configuration.
  • domain assumption The external field leaves the 1s bound state intact; calculations are restricted to F/Fa <= 0.3 based on comparing tunneling ionization rate to orbital frequency
    Sec. V before Fig. 3; if the electron is ionized quickly the bound-free description breaks down.
  • domain assumption Coulomb effects factorize: rate in short-range delta-potential multiplied by a Coulomb correction factor; Coulomb field is ignored in the electron trajectory
    Secs. III A-B and IV B; this is the core modeling assumption connecting pair production to ionization rates.
  • ad hoc to paper Matching-point dependence in WKB Coulomb correction is removed by setting u1 ≈ u0
    Eqs. (22)-(24); text admits the residual dependence is 'physically unreasonable' and makes this approximation to cancel r1.
  • ad hoc to paper SFA Coulomb correction is truncated at r1 defined by equating Coulomb and CCF field strengths
    Eq. (40), Sec. IV B; no uniqueness or justification beyond 'intuitive approach'.
  • standard math Standard saddle-point, Gaussian-integral and asymptotic Bessel-function techniques apply to the transition amplitude
    Secs. II and IV A; standard strong-field QED toolkit, not proven in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bound-free electron-positron pair production in combined Coulomb and constant crossed electromagnetic fields: a Schwinger-like process with intrinsic assistance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EJ4RYIGM

@misc{pith2026251210662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bound-free electron-positron pair production in combined Coulomb and constant crossed electromagnetic fields: a Schwinger-like process with intrinsic assistance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EJ4RYIGM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.10662}
}
read the original abstract

The bound-free channel of electron-positron pair production by a highly charged bare ion in the presence of a strong constant crossed electromagnetic field is studied. To calculate the pair production rate, two different methods are applied and compared with each other: (i) a quasiclassical tunneling theory and (ii) a strong-field approximation, both equipped with appropriate Coulomb correction factors. The resulting rate, which depends nonperturbatively on both the Coulomb field of the ion and the constant crossed field, is calculated in a broad range of applied field strengths and nuclear charge numbers. Its functional form resembles the rate for a dynamically assisted Schwinger-like process, with the assistance being provided by the atomic binding energy of the created electron.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.10662 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic illustration of the pair production tunne [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Coulomb correction factor as a function of the field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Total pair production rate as a function of the field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Normalized differential pair-production rates (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    On the other hand, for bound-free pair production the exponential still significantly reduces the pair production rate as exp ( − 2 √ 3ξ3 ξ2+1 Fc F ) → exp ( − 9 2 Fc F ) . B. Coulomb correction in WKB-theory Up to this point, the Coulomb field of the atom was disregarded, both for the bound and the continuum state. To include the effect of the Coulomb field,...

  2. [2]

    J. S. Schwinger, On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Po- larization, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  3. [3]

    Sauter, ¨Uber das Verhalten eines Elektrons im homo- genen elektrischen Feld nach der relativistischen Theorie Diracs, Z

    F. Sauter, ¨Uber das Verhalten eines Elektrons im homo- genen elektrischen Feld nach der relativistischen Theorie Diracs, Z. Phys. 69, 742 (1931)

    1931

  4. [4]

    Ehlotzky, K

    F. Ehlotzky, K. Krajewska, and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Fun- damental processes of quantum electrodynamics in laser fields of relativistic power, Rep. Prog. Phys. 72, 046401 (2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

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

    1985

  6. [6]

    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, 13 1177 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Ruffini, G

    R. Ruffini, G. Vereshchagin, and S.-S. Xue, Elec- tron–positron pairs in physics and astrophysics: From heavy nuclei to black holes, Phys. Rep. 487, 1 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    I. C. E. Turcu et al., High field physics and QED experi- ments at ELI-NP, Rom. Rep. Phys. 68, S145 (2016); see also https://eli-laser.eu

    2016

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Advances in QED with intense background fields, Phys. Rep. 1010, 1 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

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

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

  3. [11]

    J. W. Yoon et al., Realization of laser intensity over 1023 W/cm2, Optica 8, 630 (2021); see also https: //corels.ibs.re.kr

    2021

  4. [12]

    Abramowicz et al., Conceptual design report for the LUXE experiment, Eur

    H. Abramowicz et al., Conceptual design report for the LUXE experiment, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 230, 2445 (2021); see also http://www.hibef.eu

    2021

  5. [13]

    F. C. Salgad et al., Towards pair production in the non- perturbative regime, New J. Phys. 23, 105002 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    H. R. Reiss, Absorption of Light by Light, J. Math. Phys. 3, 59 (1962)

    1962

  7. [15]

    C. H. Keitel et al. , Photo-induced pair production and strong field QED on Gemini, arXiv:2103.06059

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Yakovlev, Electric and magnetic properties of a semi - conductor in the field of a strong electromagnetic wave, Zh

    V. Yakovlev, Electric and magnetic properties of a semi - conductor in the field of a strong electromagnetic wave, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 49, 318 (1965) [Sov. Phys. JETP 22, 223 (1966)]

    1965

  9. [17]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Quantum processes in the field of a plane electromagnetic wave and in a constant field I, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 46, 776 (1963) [Sov. Phys. JETP 19, 529 (1964)]

    1963

  10. [18]

    D. L. Burke et al., Positron Production in Multipho- ton Light-by-Light Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1626 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    V. I. Ritus, Vacuum polarization correction to elastic electron and muon scattering in an intense field and pair electro- and muoproduction, Nucl. Phys. B 44, 236 (1972)

    1972

  12. [20]

    H. K. Avetissian, A. K. Avetissian, G. F. Mkrtchian, and K. V. Sedrakian, X-ray free electron laser for elec- tron–positron pair production on the nuclei, Nucl. In- strum. Methods Phys. Res. A 507, 582 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    M. H. Mittleman, Multiphoton pair creation, Phys. Rev. A 35, 4624 (1987)

    1987

  14. [22]

    Sieczka, K

    P. Sieczka, K. Krajewska, J. Z. Kami´ nski, P. Panek, and F. Ehlotzky, Electron-positron pair creation by powerful laser-ion impact, Phys. Rev. A 73, 053409 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    M¨ uller, A

    C. M¨ uller, A. B. Voitkiv, and N. Gr¨ un, Differential rates for multiphoton pair production by an ultrarelativistic nucleus colliding with an intense laser beam, Phys. Rev. A 67, 063407 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    A. I. Milstein, C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, U. D. Jentschura, and C. H. Keitel, Polarization-operator ap- proach to electron-positron pair production in combined laser and Coulomb fields, Phys. Rev. A 73, 062106 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    J. Z. Kami´ nski, K. Krajewska, and F. Ehlotzky, Monte Carlo analysis of electron-positron pair creation by pow- erful laser-ion impact, Phys. Rev. A 74, 033402 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Di Piazza and A

    A. Di Piazza and A. I. Milstein, Ultrarelativistic quas i- classical wave functions in strong laser and atomic fields, Phys. Lett. B 717, 224 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    M. Y. Kuchiev and D. J. Robinson, Electron-positron pair creation by Coulomb and laser fields in the tunneling regime, Phys. Rev. A 76, 012107 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Krajewska, C

    K. Krajewska, C. M¨ uller, and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Bethe- Heitler pair production in ultrastrong short laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062107 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    A. A. Lebed and S. P. Roshchupkin, Nonresonant pho- tocreation of electron-positron pair on a nucleus in the field of a pulsed light wave, Laser Phys. 21, 1613 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phase effects in laser- induced electron-positron pair creation, Phys. Rev. A 85, 043404 (2012); Symmetries in the nonlinear Bethe- Heitler process, Phys. Rev. A 86, 021402 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Krajewska, J

    K. Krajewska, J. Z. Kaminski, and C. M¨ uller, Pulse shape effects in high-field Bethe-Heitler pair production, New J. Phys. 23, 095012 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    T. O. M¨ uller and C. M¨ uller, Spin correlations in non- perturbative electron-positron pair creation by petawatt laser pulses colliding with a TeV proton beam, Phys. Lett. B 696, 201 (2011); Longitudinal spin polarization in multiphoton Bethe-Heitler pair production, Phys. R...

    2011

  25. [33]

    Augustin and C

    S. Augustin and C. M¨ uller, Interference effects in Beth e- Heitler pair creation in a bichromatic laser field, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022109 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    C. K. Li, D. D. Su, Y. J. Li, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Prob- ing the spatial structure of the Dirac vacuum via phase- controlled colliding laser pulses, Eur. Phys. Lett. 141, 55001 (2023); Phase sensitivity of the pair-creation pro- cess in colliding laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A 108...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Fillion-Gourdeau, E

    F. Fillion-Gourdeau, E. Lorin, and A. D. Bandrauk, Res- onantly Enhanced Pair Production in a Simple Diatomic Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 013002 (2013); Enhanced Schwinger pair production in many-centre systems, J. Phys. B 46, 175002 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    M¨ uller, A

    C. M¨ uller, A. B. Voitkiv, and N. Gr¨ un, Few-photon electron-positron pair creation in the collision of a rel- ativistic nucleus and an intense x-ray laser beam, Phys. Rev. A 70, 023412 (2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    M¨ uller, A

    C. M¨ uller, A. B. Voitkiv, and N. Gr¨ un, Nonlinear Bound- Free Pair Creation in the Strong Electromagnetic Fields of a Heavy Nucleus and an Intense X-Ray Laser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 223601 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Ionization of systems bound by short-range forces by the field of an electro- magnetic wave, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 50, 225 (1966) [Sov. Phys. JETP 23, 168 (1966)]

    1966

  31. [39]

    Deneke and C

    C. Deneke and C. M¨ uller, Bound-free e+e− pair creation with a linearly polarized laser field and a nuclear field, Phys. Rev. A 78, 033431 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    H. R. Reiss, Relativistic strong-field photoionizatio n, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 7, 574 (1990)

    1990

  33. [41]

    (5’) therein)

    since 9 4 √ 2 ≈ π 2 (see Eq. (5’) therein). A similar term can also be obtained by a Taylor ex- pansion around vanishing binding energy Ip = 0 or cor- respondingly ξ = √ 3 of the exponential’s argument in (42). This yields R2 ∼ exp ( − 4 3 Fc F ( 9 4 − Ip c2 ) 3/2) . (44) Equa...

  34. [42]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Ionization of atoms by an electromagnetic-wave field, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 52, 223 (1967) [Sov. Phys. JETP 25, 145 (1967)]

    1967

  35. [43]

    V. D. Mur, B. M. Karnakov, and V. S. Popov, Relativistic version of the imaginary-time formalism, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 87, 433-444 (1998)

    1998

  36. [44]

    V. S. Popov, B. M. Karnakov, and V. D. Mur, Relativistic version of the imaginary-time method, Phys. Lett. A 250, 20 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    Milosevic, V

    N. Milosevic, V. P. Krainov, and T. Brabec, Semiclassic al Dirac Theory of Tunnel Ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 193001 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    Milosevic, V

    N. Milosevic, V. P. Krainov, and T. Brabec, Relativisti c theory of tunnel ionization, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 35, 3515 (2002). 14

    2002

  39. [47]

    V. S. Popov, Imaginary-time method in quantum me- chanics and field theory, Phys. Atom. Nuclei 68, 686-708 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    V. S. Popov, B. M. Karnakov, V. D. Mur, and S. G. Pozdnyakov, Relativistic theory of tunnel and multipho- ton ionization of atoms in a strong laser field, JETP 250, 760 (2006)

    2006

  41. [49]

    Klaiber, E

    M. Klaiber, E. Yakaboylu, and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, Above-threshold ionization with highly charged ions in superstrong laser fields. II. Relativistic Coulomb- corrected strong-field approximation, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023418 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Eckey, M

    A. Eckey, M. Klaiber, A. B. Voitkiv, and C. M¨ uller, Relativistic strong-field ionization of hydrogenlike atom ic systems in constant crossed electromagnetic fields, Phys. Rev. A 107, 033113 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Sch¨ utzhold, H

    R. Sch¨ utzhold, H. Gies, and G. Dunne, Dynamically Assisted Schwinger Mechanism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 130404 (2008); G. Dunne, H. Gies, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Catalysis of Schwinger vacuum pair production, Phys. Rev. D 80, 111301 (2009)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Di Piazza, E

    A. Di Piazza, E. L¨ otstedt, A. I. Milstein, and C. H. Kei- tel, Barrier Control in Tunneling e+−e− Photoproduc- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 170403 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Orthaber, F

    M. Orthaber, F. Hebenstreit, and R. Alkofer, Momentum spectra for dynamically assisted Schwinger pair produc- tion, Phys. Lett. B 698, 80 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    Jiang, W

    M. Jiang, W. Su, Z. Q. Lv, X. Lu, Y. J. Li, R. Grobe, and Q. Su, Pair creation enhancement due to combined external fields, Phys. Rev. A 85, 033408 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Augustin and C

    S. Augustin and C. M¨ uller, Nonperturbative Bethe–Heitler pair creation in combined high- and low-frequency laser fields, Phys. Lett. B 737, 114 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    A. Otto, D. Seipt, D. Blaschke, S.A. Smolyansky, and B. K¨ ampfer, Dynamical Schwinger process in a bifrequent electric field of finite duration: Survey on amplification, Phys. Rev. D 91, 105018 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Taya, Franz-Keldysh effect in strong-field QED, Phys

    H. Taya, Franz-Keldysh effect in strong-field QED, Phys. Rev. D 99, 056006 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Villalba-Ch´ avez and C

    S. Villalba-Ch´ avez and C. M¨ uller, Signatures of the Schwinger mechanism assisted by a fast-oscillating elec- tric field, Phys. Rev. D 100, 116018 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. M¨ uller, and C. H. Keitel; Nonperturbative multiphoton processes and electron- positron pair production. AIP Conf. Proc. 7 April 2006; 827 (1): 442–447

    2006

  52. [60]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. Stegun, Handbook of Mathemat- ical Functions (Dover, New York, 1965)

    1965

  53. [61]

    Bauer, D

    D. Bauer, D. B. Milosevic, and W. Becker, Strong- field approximation for intense-laser atom processes: The choice of gauge, Phys. Rev. A 72, 023415 (2005)

    2005

  54. [62]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields (Pergamon, Oxford, 1965); Sec. 22

    1965

  55. [63]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1971); Sec. 46

    1971

  56. [64]

    G. F. Gribakin and M. Y. Kuchiev, Multiphoton detach- ment of electrons from negative ions, Phys. Rev. A 55, 3760 (1997)

    1997

  57. [65]

    Bauer and P

    D. Bauer and P. Mulser, Exact field ionization rates in the barrier-suppression regime from numerical time- dependent Schr¨ odinger-equation calculations, Phys. Rev. A 59, 569 (1999)

    1999

  58. [66]

    X. M. Tong, and C. D. Lin, Empirical formula for static field ionization rates of atoms and molecules by lasers in the barrier-suppression regime, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 38, 2593 (2005)

    2005

  59. [67]

    Klaiber, K

    M. Klaiber, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Gen- eralized analytical description of relativistic strong-fi eld ionization, Phys. Rev. A 110, 023103 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    G. J. Schulz, Resonances in Electron Impact on Atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 45, 378 (1973)

    1973

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.