Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Predominant Nuclear Excitation by Electron Capture Driven by Beam-Induced Return Currents

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

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

Pith's one-line read Beam-induced surface return currents would make nuclear excitation by electron capture the dominant channel in solid 229Th.

desk verdict A genuinely new NEEC mechanism worth refereeing, but the headline yield and 97.68% fraction rest on a collisionless-drift assumption that real-metal resistivity may break. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02998 v1 pith:LNINXMSF submitted 2026-08-04 nucl-th

Y. Y. Xu , J. T. Qi , H. Peng , K. Jiang , R. Li , Q. Xiao , T. P. Yu , T. W. Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords NEECnuclearexcitationbyelectroncapturereturncurrent229ThisomerdriftedFermidistributionPauliblockingNEIESrelativisticbeam
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 that the return current a relativistic electron beam induces along the inner wall of a hollow thorium target can serve as a self-organized electron source for nuclear excitation by electron capture (NEEC), the long-predicted inverse of internal conversion that has never been cleanly observed. In solid-density 229Th, the beam's magnetic field drives a thin surface current whose conduction electrons both knock out bound 6p electrons, creating the capture vacancies NEEC needs, and, through the rigid drift of the Fermi sea, supply electrons at the 8.36-eV resonance energies. Because the same drifted distribution leaves low-energy scattered-electron final states occupied, Pauli blocking suppresses the main competitor, nuclear excitation by inelastic electron scattering (NEIES). For experimentally available parameters the model predicts $2.40\times10^5$ NEEC events per bunch with a NEEC fraction of 97.68%, and this dominance survives scans over beam density, channel radius, bunch length, target length, electron temperature, drift relaxation, and binding-energy shifts. If the prediction holds, it provides a concrete, controllable route toward the first unambiguous NEEC observation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the rigidly displaced Fermi sphere of the return-current electrons. In the collisionless limit, the beam's magnetic field displaces the occupied Fermi sphere by momentum $m_e u_d$ without changing its radius $p_F$; projecting this displaced occupation onto kinetic-energy shells gives a spectrum with fully occupied states below $E_-=(\sqrt{E_F}-\sqrt{E_d})^2$ and partially occupied states up to $E_+=(\sqrt{E_F}+\sqrt{E_d})^2$. This single distribution does double duty: it supplies electrons at the NEEC resonance energies $E_{q\alpha}=E_{\mathrm{nuc}}-B_{q\alpha}$, making the NEEC rate density $R_{\mathrm{NEEC}}=n_i n_e \sum_q P_q \sum_\alpha S_{q\alpha} f_E(E_{q\alpha}) v(E_{q\alpha})$, and it Pauli-blocks the final states of inelastic scattering through the factor $1-\bar{f}_d(E_i-E_{\mathrm{nuc}})$ in $R_{\mathrm{NEIES}}=n_i n_e \sum_q P_q \int_{E_{\mathrm{nuc}}}^\infty dE\, f_E(E)\,\sigma_q^{\mathrm{NEIES}}(E)\,v(E)\,[1-\bar{f}_d(E-E_{\mathrm{nuc}})]$. Spacetime integration of these two rate densities gives the predicted yields and the NEEC fraction.

What would settle it

Measure the electron kinetic-energy distribution at the channel wall during a single bunch transit: if the distribution shows a thermalized, broad high-energy tail rather than the sharp Pauli-blocked edge predicted by the displaced Fermi sphere, or if a time-gated delayed internal-conversion-electron count from a 1-mm 229Th-lined channel comes in far below the predicted $\sim 2.4\times10^5$ isomer excitations, the claimed NEEC dominance would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that beam-induced surface return currents turn the NEEC problem around: instead of preparing resonant electrons and capture vacancies separately, the same relativistic bunch that would excite the nucleus creates its own NEEC-ready environment in a solid 229Th layer. A Gaussian electron beam with rms length 3 µm, rms radius 2 µm, peak density $2.23\times10^{19}\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, and Lorentz factor 500 passing through a 7-µm-radius channel lined with solid-density thorium induces an axial return current confined to a collisionless skin-depth layer. The return-current electrons form a zero-temperature Fermi sphere displaced by a drift momentum; at the bunch center and inner wall the local Fermi energy is 16.18 eV and the drift energy 4.98 eV, so the projected energy distribution has partially occupied states from $E_-=(\sqrt{E_F}-\sqrt{E_d})^2$ to $E_+=(\sqrt{E_F}+\sqrt{E_d})^2$, overlapping the NEEC resonances of the 6p capture channels. The same rigidly displaced Fermi sea blocks the final states of inelastic electron scattering, reducing NEIES to $5.71\times10^3$ events while NEEC reaches $2.40\times10^5$, a 97.68% fraction. The authors conclude that NEEC dominance is an intrinsic property of this beam-induced return-current source rather than a result of parameter optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The entire quantitative prediction depends on the roughly 10-fs electron-bunch passage leaving the conduction electrons of solid thorium as a nearly collisionless, rigidly displaced zero-temperature Fermi sea, so that one local drift momentum describes the whole electron population and Pauli blocking stays strong; if collisions or resistive heating thermalize the distribution faster than that, the predicted 97.68% NEEC fraction weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the representative parameters, a single electron bunch through a 1-mm 229Th-lined channel should produce $2.40\times10^5$ excited nuclei, orders of magnitude above the $0.3$–$0.35$ events predicted for the earlier laser-heated-cluster scheme.
  • The NEEC fraction stays between 90.9% and 99.1% over the full parameter scan, so the dominance does not require delicate beam or target tuning.
  • The predicted dominance remains above 95.86% when the electron distribution is heated to $k_B T_e=2$ eV and the drift energy is reduced to 30% of its nominal value, indicating robustness against moderate collisional relaxation.
  • The mechanism should transfer to other geometries and isotopes, including planar or multichannel targets and the 76.7-eV isomeric transition in 235U.
  • The isomer population could be detected through time-gated delayed internal-conversion electrons, a measurement already demonstrated for solid-state 229ThO2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mechanism suggests a broader design principle: any intense charged-particle beam passing near a solid containing a low-lying nuclear isomer may self-organize its own NEEC source, so other isomers with accessible capture resonances deserve re-examination in beam-channel geometry.
  • Because the yield scales linearly with bunch length and target length, longer bunches or multiple passes could turn the predicted $2.4\times10^5$ events into a routine laboratory signal, provided the collisionless-drift assumption is rechecked on those timescales.
  • The paper's sensitivity scan stops at drift-energy retention of 30% and $k_B T_e=2$ eV; the decisive next calculation is a fully self-consistent collisional-transport simulation of the return-current layer during the 10-fs bunch passage.
  • If the drifted-Fermi picture is validated empirically, NEEC experiments would no longer require dedicated resonant-electron sources, potentially shortening the path to nuclear-clock and isomer-control applications based on 229Th.
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 manuscript proposes that a relativistic electron beam passing through a hollow channel coated with solid-density 229Th induces a surface return current whose conduction electrons form a rigidly drifted, degenerate Fermi distribution. Those same electrons both create inner-shell vacancies by impact ionization and supply electrons at the NEEC resonance energies, while Pauli blocking suppresses the competing NEIES channel. The authors derive an analytic return-current profile, benchmark it against FBPIC simulations, combine it with atoMEC average-atom electronic structure and MBEB ionization cross sections, and obtain a headline prediction of 2.40x10^5 NEEC events per bunch with a NEEC fraction of 97.68%. Parameter scans over channel radius, beam density, bunch length, target length, electron temperature, drift retention, and binding-energy shifts are used to argue that NEEC dominance is robust.

Significance. If the central prediction holds, the paper would provide a practical, self-organized route to observing NEEC in a solid target, a long-standing goal in the field. The work has several genuine strengths: the return-current model is checked against an independent particle-in-cell code rather than fitted to the target result; the NEEC and NEIES cross sections are taken from established theoretical treatments; and the sensitivity scans address several identifiable uncertainties. The main weakness is that the entire NEEC-dominance claim rests on the assumption that the conduction-electron distribution remains a zero-temperature, rigidly shifted Fermi sphere on the 10-fs bunch timescale, and the robustness scans do not cover the collisional, resistive-heating regime expected in a real metal.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (2), Eq. (4), Discussion (a), Supplemental Fig. S3] The predicted 97.68% NEEC fraction hinges on the Pauli-blocking factor 1 - f_d in Eq. (4), which is evaluated for a zero-temperature, rigidly shifted Fermi sphere. The robustness scan varies electron temperature only up to k_B T_e = 2 eV and retains at least 30% of the drift energy. A crude Drude estimate using solid thorium resistivity (rho ~ 15 microohm cm, tau ~ 2 fs) suggests that Ohmic heating during the ~10-fs bunch may deposit several eV per conduction electron, i.e., above the maximum temperature considered. In that regime the occupation of NEIES final states below E_F is no longer near unity, so Y_NEIES rises relative to Y_NEEC and F_NEEC drops. The manuscript needs either a self-consistent collisional-transport estimate of the electron temperature and drift relaxation, or an explicit demonstration that F_NEEC remains high (for example, above 90%) for k_B T_e = 5-10 eV, or a clear statement that the numerical yields are a collisionless-limit upper bound.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Supplemental Material (Return-current derivation)] The FBPIC benchmark uses a Th4+ plasma slab with no electron-ion collisions and no ionization, so it validates the collisionless collective electromagnetic response (the scalings of J_x,0 and E_d,0) but not the assumption that the conduction-electron distribution in solid thorium remains a rigidly displaced Fermi sea without resistive heating on the bunch timescale. Because that assumption is precisely the load-bearing element for Pauli blocking in Eq. (4), the benchmark does not by itself close the gap identified in the previous comment. The authors should either benchmark against a collisional simulation, add an analytic collisional correction, or explicitly restrict the quantitative claims to the collisionless limit.
  3. [Discussion (a) and Conclusion] The paper acknowledges that 'a fully quantitative description will require a self-consistent treatment of collisional transport coupled to the beam-driven return current,' but the conclusion states that the NEEC-dominant regime 'remains robust against modeled variations in the electron distribution.' That statement is accurate only within the tested range (k_B T_e <= 2 eV, eta_Ed >= 0.3). To avoid overclaiming, the conclusions should be qualified to state that the predictions are for the collisionless, degenerate limit and that collisional heating could alter the NEEC fraction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Discussion (c)] There is a typo in 'F ACET-II' near the end of the paper; it should read 'FACET-II'.
  2. [Fig. 2] The color scale for panels (a) and (b) is not defined; please add a common color bar or explicitly state the units of the return-current density.
  3. [Metallic thorium section, Supplemental Material] The main text describes the conduction electrons as a zero-temperature Fermi gas, while the atoMEC calculation is performed at k_B T_e = 0.1 eV. Please clarify whether the 0.1 eV temperature is used only to obtain the electronic structure and how it is reconciled with the zero-temperature approximation in Eq. (2).
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'tuning over several orders of magnitude with preserving NEEC dominance' contains a grammatical error; it should be 'while preserving NEEC dominance.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NEEC-dominance prediction is computed from independently benchmarked inputs, not fitted to the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the beam-driven return-current model of Eq. (1), which is benchmarked against the independent FBPIC particle-in-cell code. The NEEC and NEIES cross sections are taken from published prior work (e.g., Pálffy, Scheid, and Harman for NEEC; Tkalya for NEIES), the 6p binding energies come from the independent atoMEC average-atom code, and the representative beam and target parameters are fixed before integrating Eqs. (3)-(4). The headline values Y_NEEC = 2.40e5 and F_NEEC = 97.68% are outputs of those integrals rather than quantities used to calibrate any parameter. The only self-citations (e.g., Ref. [23] for NEIES cross sections, Ref. [61] for the 235U suggestion) are not load-bearing: the NEIES rate also relies on the independent Tkalya cross section, and the cited works are specific published calculations rather than uniqueness theorems or unverified premises. The paper's own caveat that a fully quantitative treatment requires self-consistent collisional transport is a physical-validity limitation, not a circular step. No equation is defined in terms of the headline result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The model uses measured or externally calculated inputs (nuclear transition energy, beam parameters, atoMEC binding energies, published cross sections) and does not introduce new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The 'self-organized resonant electron source' is a description of the known return-current response, not a new entity. The main assumptions are the collisionless displaced Fermi gas, the average-atom electronic structure, and the applicability of published cross sections in bulk thorium.

free parameters (6)
  • Peak beam electron density n_b = 2.23e19 cm^-3
    Representative experimental input chosen to match FACET-II or laser-wakefield accelerator beams; it sets the return-current strength, drift energy, and yields.
  • Longitudinal rms bunch length sigma_x = 3 um
    Chosen bunch duration; it sets the interaction time and the temporal profile of the return current.
  • Transverse rms beam radius sigma_r = 2 um
    Together with channel radius, it determines the beam electric and magnetic fields at the inner wall.
  • Channel inner radius a = 7 um
    Geometric input; larger a weakens the beam field and reduces return-current drive, as shown in Fig. 4(a).
  • Target length L_tube = 1 mm
    Scales the interaction volume; the yield grows linearly with it in the model.
  • Electron temperature in atoMEC calculation = 0.1 eV
    Chosen to represent the strongly degenerate metallic state; it affects the finite-density electronic structure and binding energies.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The beam's magnetic field drives an axial return current in the wall described by the collisionless cold-plasma skin depth delta = c/omega_p, with the radial electric field screened by surface charge.
    Used to derive Eq. (1) and the local drift energy. It is benchmarked with FBPIC but assumes a collisionless, locally planar wall response. See 'Return-current electron source' and the Supplemental derivation.
  • domain assumption Conduction electrons in solid thorium form a zero-temperature degenerate Fermi gas that is rigidly displaced in momentum space by the local drift velocity.
    Central to the NEEC resonance population and to Pauli blocking of NEIES. The paper tests thermal and drift-relaxation variations parametrically but does not evolve collisional transport self-consistently. See Eq. (2) and Discussion paragraph (a).
  • domain assumption The atoMEC average-atom calculation at solid density gives four delocalized electrons per thorium atom and localized 6p states with sequential binding energies 5.07 to 8.34 eV that serve as NEEC capture levels and ionization thresholds.
    The finite-density electronic structure is an external calculation, not a measurement. The paper tests robustness to a common binding-energy shift but does not directly verify the 6p localization in the proposed solid environment. See 'Metallic thorium and vacancy production' in the Supplemental Material.
  • domain assumption Sequential impact ionization of 6p electrons follows modified binary-encounter-Bethe (MBEB) cross sections from the literature, and field-assisted ionization is negligible.
    The vacancy-production model relies on MBEB cross sections and on the drift-induced excess electron population above the Fermi sea. The negligible field-ionization estimate is provided in the Supplemental Material.
  • domain assumption The NEEC and NEIES cross sections and integrated resonance strengths from prior theoretical work are correct and applicable in the solid-density thorium environment.
    Rate equations (3) and (4) use published cross sections from Palfy et al., Tkalya, and Xu et al.; the paper does not re-derive or experimentally validate them in bulk thorium. See 'Resonant excitation in solid-density thorium' and the Supplemental Material.
  • domain assumption The nuclear transition energy is E_nuc = 8.35574 eV and the isomer properties of 229Th are as reported in the cited literature.
    All NEEC resonance energies are computed as E_nuc - B_qalpha; no new measurement of the isomer energy is made in this work. See the Supplemental Material.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predominant Nuclear Excitation by Electron Capture Driven by Beam-Induced Return Currents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LNINXMSF

@misc{pith2026260802998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predominant Nuclear Excitation by Electron Capture Driven by Beam-Induced Return Currents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LNINXMSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02998}
}
read the original abstract

Predicted nearly five decades ago, nuclear excitation by electron capture (NEEC) remains experimentally elusive because its weak resonant signal is obscured by competing electron-driven excitation channels. Here we show that beam-induced surface return currents naturally overcome this limitation by creating a self-organized resonant electron source for the 8.36-eV nuclear transition in solid-density 229Th. A relativistic electron beam drives localized return currents along the solid surface, which simultaneously generate capture vacancies through impact ionization and provide resonant electrons for NEEC via a drifted Fermi distribution. Their spatial separation from the driving beam and the Pauli exclusion principle strongly suppress competing nuclear excitation by inelastic electron scattering. For experimentally available parameters, we predict 2.40*10^5 NEEC events with a NEEC fraction of 97.68%, and show that the excitation yield can be tuned over several orders of magnitude while preserving NEEC dominance. These results establish beam-induced return currents as a controllable route to resonant nuclear excitation in solids and open a new avenue for studying electron-driven nuclear processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Concept of NEEC driven by beam-induced sur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Benchmark of the reduced return-current model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Local electron distribution at the inner wall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dependence of the NEEC and NEIES yields on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P´ alffy, Contemp

    A. P´ alffy, Contemp. Phys.51, 471 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Helmrich, K

    S. Helmrich, K. Spenneberg, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. C 90, 015802 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Y. Yang, H. X. Zhang, Y. B. Wu, S. Guo, X. Wang, C. B. Fu, Y. Sun, and Y. G. Ma, Nucl. Sci. Tech.36, 146 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Goldanskii and V

    V. Goldanskii and V. Namiot, Phys. Lett. B62, 393 (1976)

    work page 1976

  5. [6]

    P´ alffy, J

    A. P´ alffy, J. Evers, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 172502 (2007)

    2007

  6. [7]

    Tiedau, M

    J. Tiedau, M. V. Okhapkin, K. Zhang, J. Thielk- ing, G. Zitzer, E. Peik, F. Schaden, T. Pronebner, I. Morawetz, L. T. De Col,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 182501 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [8]

    Zhang, T

    C. Zhang, T. Ooi, J. S. Higgins, J. F. Doyle, L. von der Wense, K. Beeks, A. Leitner, G. A. Kazakov, P. Li, P. G. Thirolf,et al., Nature633, 63 (2024). 6

    work page 2024

  8. [9]

    Zhang and X

    H. Zhang and X. Wang, Front. Phys.11, 1166566 (2023)

    2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [10]

    Y. Y. Xu, Q. Xiao, J. H. Cheng, W. Y. Zhang, and T. P. Yu, Nucl. Sci. Tech.37, 177 (2026)

    2026

  2. [11]

    Peik and C

    E. Peik and C. Tamm, Europhys. Lett.61, 181 (2003)

    2003

  3. [12]

    C. J. Campbell, A. G. Radnaev, A. Kuzmich, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 120802 (2012)

    2012

  4. [13]

    E. Peik, T. Schumm, M. S. Safronova, A. P´ alffy, J. Weit- enberg, and P. G. Thirolf, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 034002 (2021)

    2021

  5. [14]

    V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 092502 (2006)

    2006

  6. [15]

    Hiraki, K

    T. Hiraki, K. Okai, M. Bartokos, K. Beeks, H. Fujimoto, Y. Fukunaga, H. Haba, Y. Kasamatsu, S. Kitao, A. Leit- ner,et al., Nat. Commun.15, 5536 (2024)

    2024

  7. [16]

    C. J. Chiara, J. J. Carroll, M. P. Carpenter, J. P. Greene, D. J. Hartley, R. V. F. Janssens, G. J. Lane, J. C. Marsh, D. A. Matters, M. Polasik,et al., Nature554, 216 (2018)

    2018

  8. [17]

    Y. Wu, C. H. Keitel, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 212501 (2019)

    2019

  9. [18]

    S. Guo, B. Ding, X. H. Zhou, Y. B. Wu, J. G. Wang, S. W. Xu, Y. D. Fang, C. M. Petrache, E. A. Lawrie, Y. H. Qiang,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 242502 (2022)

    2022

  10. [19]

    B. Ding, C. X. Jia, S. Guo, X. H. Zhou, Y. B. Wu, F. F. Zeng, J. G. Wang, Y. H. Qiang, S. W. Xu, Y. D. Fang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 052502 (2026)

    2026

  11. [20]

    Gosselin, N

    G. Gosselin, N. Pillet, V. M´ eot, P. Morel, and A. Y. Dzyublik, Phys. Rev. C79, 014604 (2009)

    2009

  12. [24]

    Gunst, Y

    J. Gunst, Y. A. Litvinov, C. H. Keitel, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 082501 (2014)

    2014

  13. [25]

    Gunst, Y

    J. Gunst, Y. Wu, N. Kumar, C. H. Keitel, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Plasmas22, 112706 (2015)

    2015

  14. [26]

    Polasik, K

    M. Polasik, K. S labkowska, J. J. Carroll, C. J. Chiara, L. Syrocki, E. W¸ eder, and J. Rzadkiewicz, Phys. Rev. C 95, 034312 (2017)

    2017

  15. [27]

    Rzadkiewicz, M

    J. Rzadkiewicz, M. Polasik, K. S labkowska, L. Syrocki, J. J. Carroll, and C. J. Chiara, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 042501 (2021)

    2021

  16. [28]

    Y. Wu, J. Gunst, C. H. Keitel, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 052504 (2018)

    2018

  17. [29]

    Gunst, Y

    J. Gunst, Y. Wu, C. H. Keitel, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. E97, 063205 (2018)

    2018

  18. [30]

    J. Qi, H. Zhang, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 112501 (2023)

    2023

  19. [31]

    Y. Wang, Z. Ma, Y. Yang, C. Fu, W. He, and Y. Ma, Front. Phys.11, 1203401 (2023)

    2023

  20. [32]

    B. Tu, N. Xue, J. Liu, Q. Guo, Y. Wu, Z. Liu, A. P´ alffy, Y. Yang, K. Yao, B. Wei,et al., Phys. Rev. C112, 054307 (2025)

    2025

  21. [33]

    Y. Yang, Y. Wang, Z. Ma, C. Fu, W. He, and Y. Ma, Front. Phys.12, 1410076 (2024)

    2024

  22. [34]

    J. Zhao, A. P´ alffy, C. H. Keitel, and Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. C110, 014330 (2024)

    2024

  23. [35]

    Stupakov and G

    G. Stupakov and G. Penn,Classical Mechanics and Elec- tromagnetism in Accelerator Physics, 1st ed., Graduate Texts in Physics (Springer, Cham, 2018)

    2018

  24. [36]

    Willingale, P

    L. Willingale, P. M. Nilson, A. G. R. Thomas, J. Cobble, R. S. Craxton, A. Maksimchuk, P. A. Norreys, T. C. Sangster, R. H. H. Scott, C. Stoeckl,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 105002 (2011)

    2011

  25. [38]

    M. Si, Y. Huang, M. Ruan, B. Shen, Z. Xu, T. Yu, X. Wang, and Y. Chen, Opt. Express31, 40202 (2023)

    2023

  26. [39]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for theoretical derivations, calculation details, and additional results, which includes Refs. [40–43]

  27. [44]

    R. Lehe, M. Kirchen, I. A. Andriyash, B. B. Godfrey, and J. L. Vay, Comput. Phys. Commun.203, 66 (2016)

    2016

  28. [45]

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin,Solid State Physics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1976)

    1976

  29. [46]

    Zebarjadi, C

    M. Zebarjadi, C. Bulutay, K. Esfarjani, and A. Shakouri, Appl. Phys. Lett.90, 092111 (2007)

    2007

  30. [47]

    Bokes and F

    P. Bokes and F. Horv´ ath, Phys. Rev. B81, 125302 (2010)

    2010

  31. [51]

    G. O. Williams, H. K. Chung, S. K¨ unzel, V. Hilbert, U. Zastrau, H. Scott, S. Daboussi, B. Iwan, A. I. Gonza- lez, W. Boutu,et al., Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033216 (2019)

    2019

  32. [55]

    Yakimenko, L

    V. Yakimenko, L. Alsberg, E. Bong, G. Bouchard, C. Clarke, C. Emma, S. Green, C. Hast, M. J. Hogan, J. Seabury,et al., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams22, 101301 (2019)

    2019

  33. [56]

    J. P. Couperus, R. Pausch, A. K¨ ohler, O. Zarini, J. M. Kr¨ amer, M. Garten, A. Huebl, R. Gebhardt, U. Helbig, S. Bock,et al., Nat. Commun.8, 487 (2017)

    2017

  34. [57]

    Vauzour, J

    B. Vauzour, J. J. Santos, A. Debayle, S. Hulin, H. P. Schlenvoigt, X. Vaisseau, D. Batani, S. D. Baton, J. J. Honrubia, P. Nicola ¨ ı,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 255002 (2012)

    2012

  35. [58]

    Snyder, L

    J. Snyder, L. L. Ji, K. M. George, C. Willis, G. E. Cochran, R. L. Daskalova, A. Handler, T. Rubin, P. L. Poole, D. Nasir,et al., Phys. Plasmas26, 033110 (2019)

    2019

  36. [59]

    C. Qin, H. Zhang, S. Li, A. Li, L. Fan, N. Wang, X. Lu, J. Li, R. Xu, X. Liang,et al., High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 14, e10 (2026)

    2026

  37. [60]

    Elwell, J

    R. Elwell, J. E. S. Terhune, C. Schneider, H. W. T. Mor- gan, H. B. T. Tan, U. C. Perera, D. A. Rehn, M. C. Al- fonso, L. von der Wense, B. Seiferle,et al., Nature648, 300 (2025)

    2025

  38. [61]

    Predominant Nuclear Excitation by Electron Capture Driven by Beam-Induced Return Currents

    J. Qi, B. Liu, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. C110, L051601 (2024). Supplemental Material for “Predominant Nuclear Excitation by Electron Capture Driven by Beam-Induced Return Currents” Y. Y. Xu, 1, 2,∗ J. T. Qi, 2,∗ H. Peng,2 K. Jiang, 2 R. Li, 2 Q. Xiao, 1 T. P. Yu,1,† and T. W. Hu...

    2024

  39. [62]

    Stupakov and G

    G. Stupakov and G. Penn,Classical Mechanics and Electromagnetism in Accelerator Physics, 1st ed., Graduate Texts in Physics (Springer, Cham, 2018). 8

    2018

  40. [63]

    Sentoku, E

    Y. Sentoku, E. d’Humi` eres, L. Romagnani, P. Audebert, and J. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 135005 (2011)

    2011

  41. [64]

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin,Solid State Physics(Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1976)

    1976

  42. [65]

    T. J. Callow, S. B. Hansen, E. Kraisler, and A. Cangi, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023055 (2022)

    2022

  43. [66]

    T. J. Callow, D. Kotik, E. Kraisler, and A. Cangi, SciPy 2022 , 37 (2022)

    2022

  44. [67]

    J. C. Stewart and K. D. Pyatt, Jr., Astrophys. J.144, 1203 (1966)

    1966

  45. [68]

    Guerra, F

    M. Guerra, F. Parente, P. Indelicato, and J. Santos, Int. J. Mass Spectrom.313, 1 (2012)

    2012

  46. [69]

    M. V. Ammosov, N. B. Delone, and V. P. Krainov, Sov. Phys. JETP64, 1191 (1986)

    1986

  47. [70]

    Bauer and P

    D. Bauer and P. Mulser, Phys. Rev. A59, 569 (1999)

    1999

  48. [71]

    I. Y. Kostyukov and A. A. Golovanov, Phys. Rev. A98, 043407 (2018)

    2018

  49. [72]

    P´ alffy, W

    A. P´ alffy, W. Scheid, and Z. Harman, Phys. Rev. A73, 012715 (2006)

    2006

  50. [73]

    E. V. Tkalya, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 242501 (2020)

    2020

  51. [74]

    Zhang, W

    H. Zhang, W. Wang, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. C106, 044604 (2022)

    2022

  52. [75]

    Y. Y. Xu, J. H. Cheng, Y. T. Zou, Q. Xiao, and T. P. Yu, Phys. Rev. C110, 064621 (2024)

    2024

  53. [76]

    G. O. Williams, H. K. Chung, S. K¨ unzel, V. Hilbert, U. Zastrau, H. Scott, S. Daboussi, B. Iwan, A. I. Gonzalez, W. Boutu, et al., Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033216 (2019)

    2019

  54. [77]

    R. F. Benjamin, G. H. McCall, and A. W. Ehler, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 890 (1979)

    1979

  55. [78]

    J. R. Davies, Phys. Rev. E68, 056404 (2003)

    2003

  56. [79]

    A. J. Kemp, Y. Sentoku, V. Sotnikov, and S. C. Wilks, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 235001 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.