Generation of high-power attosecond x-ray FEL pulses carrying orbital angular momentum

Chenzhi Xu; Christoph Lechner; Gianluca Geloni; Haixiao Deng; Jiawei Yan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Generation of high-power attosecond x-ray FEL pulses carrying orbital angular momentum

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A proposed XFEL scheme produces attosecond x-ray pulses carrying orbital angular momentum with over 100 GW peak power.

desk verdict A clean, clearly written simulation study that credibly shows ESASE+SSOAM can produce attosecond x-ray OAM pulses in principle, but the headline 102 GW and 62% l=1 fraction depend on an unquantified lossless-SPP assumption, so the numbers are an upper envelope rather than a machine prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06908 v1 pith:3KQPO63B submitted 2025-06-07 physics.acc-ph

Chenzhi Xu , Jiawei Yan , Gianluca Geloni , Christoph Lechner , Haixiao Deng This is my paper

classification physics.acc-ph

keywords orbitalangularmomentumattosecondx-raypulsesfree-electronlaserESASEself-seededFELspiralphaseplatechirp-tapermatchingOAMpurity

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 proposes a concrete way to make hard-x-ray pulses that are both extremely short---about 164 attoseconds---and extremely bright---over 100 gigawatts in the desired mode---while carrying orbital angular momentum, a helical twist of the wavefront. It combines two existing accelerator techniques: ESASE, which creates high-current slices in the electron beam to emit a short pulse, and SSOAM, which uses a spiral phase plate to imprint a helical phase and then amplifies that mode in a second undulator. The central numerical result is that at 6 keV, with parameters matching a next-generation hard-x-ray FEL, the exit pulse has 41.6 μJ of energy, a 102 GW peak power in the $\ell=1$ mode, and a 164 as duration, with 62% of the pulse power in the $\ell=1$ vortex. If the scheme works in practice, it would give experimenters a bright attosecond OAM source in the hard x-ray range, which neither synchrotron nor high-harmonic-generation sources currently provide.

What carries the argument

The mechanism has two load-bearing parts. First, the chirp-taper matching condition $\frac{dK}{dz} = \frac{\lambda_r^2}{\lambda_u^2 K} \frac{d\gamma^2}{ds}$ makes lasing happen only where the electron-beam energy chirp matches the taper, so the first undulator emits a pulse of about 122 as. Second, after a spiral phase plate imparts the helical phase $\exp(i l \phi)$, the second-stage undulator amplifies the $\ell=1$ mode faster than competing modes early on; Eq. (2) expresses the field as a sum over FEL eigenmodes, and the design stops amplification at six segments because by seven segments the $\ell=1$ share would fall below 50%.

What would settle it

Rerun the second-stage simulation with a measured transmission and phase map of a real 6 keV spiral phase plate or zone plate, including alignment and thickness errors; if the $\ell=1$ power fraction drops below 50% or the 102 GW peak power falls by a large factor, the feasibility claim at these numbers is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that combining ESASE with the SSOAM scheme produces hard-x-ray pulses that are simultaneously attosecond-scale and carry orbital angular momentum with high peak power. In the simulated example at 6 keV, the first stage yields a 122 as pulse whose $\ell=0$ content is 94.4%; the spiral phase plate converts this into an $\ell=1$ seed; and the second stage amplifies it to a 164 as, 102 GW pulse carrying 41.6 μJ, with the $\ell=1$ mode holding 62% of the total power. The claim is that this combination closes the gap left by synchrotron and HHG sources, which cannot deliver both hard-x-ray wavelengths and attosecond OAM pulses.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation assumes the spiral phase plate multiplies the pulse by exactly $\exp(i l \phi)$ and leaves its intensity unchanged, so the quoted peak power and OAM purity are only as good as that ideal-plate assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At the stated simulation parameters, a source could deliver 6 keV OAM pulses of 164 as and 102 GW peak power, with the $\ell=1$ mode carrying 62% of the power.
The second undulator must be limited to six segments; running a seventh reduces the $\ell=1$ fraction below 50%, so the design has a built-in optimization constraint.
Because the phase plate operates in the linear regime before saturation, the optical element receives a far lower thermal load than it would after full amplification.
The same architecture is not restricted to $\ell=1$: the topological charge is set by the plate, so other low-order charges could be produced with the same two-stage layout.

Reading between the lines

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

The headline numbers should be read as upper bounds: the simulation assumes an ideal phase plate that transmits the full pulse, while a real 6 keV spiral phase plate or zone plate will absorb part of the pulse and imprint phase errors, so realistic modelling will lower the quoted 102 GW and 62% figures.
The six-segment cutoff hints at a general design rule: the second-stage length is set by the crossover where the seeded $\ell=1$ mode loses dominance to the fundamental mode, so future designs need a way to push that crossover further, for example by shaping the current spike or the taper.
A softer-x-ray or lower-energy demonstration would be an easier first test of the scheme, because available phase plates have higher efficiency there; success would make the hard-x-ray extension more credible.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a competent, honest simulation study that combines two known ideas—ESASE and SSOAM—and shows, with Genesis2, that a 164-as, >100 GW l=1 x-ray pulse could in principle be produced at 6 keV. The authors explicitly say the theory is the same as SSOAM [22], and they state plainly that they assume the SPP leaves the pulse intensity unchanged. That transparency is good, but it is exactly where the soft spot is.

What is genuinely new: the specific combination and the two-stage optimization, including the taper/chicane choices and the mode decomposition. The numbers are internally consistent: a 4.89 μJ first-stage pulse with 94.4% l=0, conversion to l=1, then amplification to 41.6 μJ total with 62% l=1, giving 102 GW peak in l=1. They also tell you they stop at six undulator segments because the l=1 fraction drops below 50% after seven. That is a defensible stopping criterion, and it makes the result reproducible rather than cherry-picked.

The load-bearing assumption, as the stress test says, is the lossless, ideal SPP. At 6 keV, a real spiral phase plate or SZP will absorb part of the power and introduce spatially varying phase errors. The second stage is a seeded amplifier operating below saturation, so output power scales roughly linearly with seed power. A plausible 50% transmission would bring the l=1 peak power down to the ~50 GW range, and phase errors would reduce the 62% purity. The authors do not quantify this, and there are no tolerance scans on the taper rate, chicane R56, or undulator length. These are not fatal flaws in a feasibility simulation, but they do mean the abstract's "more than one hundred gigawatts" and the "high purity" wording are optimistic. The paper itself does not overclaim beyond that, but the abstract leads with the ideal-case number.

That said, the paper is methodologically sound within its own idealization. The mode-decomposition framework and the use of Genesis2 are standard, and the citation pattern is appropriate—the self-citations to [22] and [23] are to the actual theory and prior simulation setup, not padding. There is no sign of circular reasoning; the numbers come from the simulation, not from the equations.

Who is this for? People working on OAM generation at XFELs and on attosecond pulse schemes. It is a plausible roadmap for a future experiment, not a demonstrated capability. It deserves peer review, but a serious referee should push for a realistic SPP modeling (transmission, phase error, alignment) and at least a sensitivity scan on the chicane and taper. If that is added, the paper becomes much stronger. As it stands, it is a useful feasibility study with clearly stated limits.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, but request the SPP realism be addressed before acceptance. I would not cite it as a demonstrated source of 100 GW attosecond OAM pulses, but I would cite it as a simulation study of a promising scheme.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a scheme that combines enhanced self-amplified spontaneous emission (ESASE) with the previously proposed self-seeded FEL with OAM (SSOAM) to generate high-power attosecond x-ray pulses carrying orbital angular momentum. In the proposed configuration, an electron bunch is energy-modulated by a laser in a wiggler and then passes through a chicane to produce current spikes; a chirped-tapered undulator (first stage) converts these spikes into an attosecond pulse with dominant l=0 content. A spiral phase plate (SPP) imprints a helical phase exp(iφ), converting the l=0 mode to l=1, and the pulse is then amplified in a second-stage tapered undulator. Using Genesis2 simulations with European XFEL parameters, the authors report a first-stage pulse of 4.89 μJ, 122 as duration, and 94.4% l=0 mode fraction; after the ideal SPP, the second-stage amplification yields a 41.6 μJ, 164 as pulse with a peak l=1 power of 102 GW and an l=1 mode fraction of 62% at the exit of six undulator segments. The paper concludes that the method can produce x-ray OAM pulses with peak powers exceeding one hundred gigawatts and attosecond durations.

Significance. If the reported performance can be supported, this would be a notable advance: current x-ray OAM sources are either low-power synchrotron-based or limited to longer pulse durations, and attosecond OAM x-rays from FELs have not been demonstrated at the hundred-gigawatt level. The paper's use of the established Genesis2 code and the internal consistency of the mode decomposition (the 94.4% l=0 fraction at the first-stage exit reappearing as a 94.4% l=1 fraction after the ideal phase imprint) are strengths. The central numerical results, however, rest on an explicit idealization, namely that the SPP is lossless and imprints a perfect helical phase, which makes the quoted peak power and mode purity upper bounds rather than predicted machine performance.

major comments (3)

[Simulation section, statement 'We assumed the intensity of the pulse is unchanged by the SPP'] This assumption is load-bearing for the headline numbers. A real 6-keV spiral phase plate or spiral Fresnel zone plate will have non-unity transmission, spatially varying absorption across the phase step, and fabrication-dependent phase errors. Since the second-stage output scales roughly with the seed power (the energy gain from seed to output is about a factor of 8.5), a plausible transmission of 30-60% would reduce the reported 102 GW l=1 peak power to the 30-60 GW range, no longer supporting the 'more than one hundred gigawatts' claim in the abstract and conclusion. Spatial variations in transmission and phase will also mix OAM modes, lowering the l=1 mode fraction below the simulated 62%. The authors should either include a model of SPP transmission and phase errors (with specific material and thickness assumptions) or explicitly state that the results are idealized upper bounds and adjust the claims accordingly.
[Simulation section, second-stage stopping criterion] The second stage is stopped at six undulator segments because the l=1 mode fraction drops below 50% after seven segments. This means the reported 41.6 μJ, 102 GW, and 62% values are a point selected during optimization rather than a robust endpoint. The authors should present the evolution of peak power and l=1 mode fraction over more than six segments, or at least over a range around the chosen point, to demonstrate that the result is not an artifact of the particular stopping criterion and to give the reader a sense of the trade-off between power and purity.
[Simulation section, first- and second-stage undulator taper optimization] The manuscript states that the first-stage dimensionless undulator parameter K is optimized to increase by 0.0058 per segment and that the second-stage taper is as shown in Figure 1c, but no sensitivity scans are presented for the taper increments, the chicane R56 (-9 μm), or the number of segments. The attosecond pulse generation depends on the chirp-taper matching condition in Eq. (1), and the final amplification depends on these optimized values. Without a tolerance analysis, the 'can be achieved' claim rests on a single set of parameters, so the authors should provide or discuss the sensitivity of the pulse duration, peak power, and OAM purity to reasonable variations in these quantities.

minor comments (5)

[Page 2, first-stage simulation description] 'an pulse' should be 'a pulse'.
[Page 2, paragraph after Figure 2] 'while the the l=-1 mode' contains a duplicated article; it should read 'while the l=-1 mode'.
[References] Reference [23] ('Simulation studies for the aspect project at european xfel') lacks complete publication details such as journal, year, and DOI; it appears to be an unfinished citation.
[References] Reference [8] ('A. Hedse. Applications of orbital angular momentum of light in attosecond science. 2018.') is incomplete; provide the full thesis or journal information.
[Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state 'peak powers of more than one hundred gigawatts', but the only quoted peak power is 102 GW; consider saying 'about one hundred gigawatts' or reporting the range if multiple cases are simulated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline numbers come from external Genesis2 simulations; self-citations to prior SSOAM work are contextual, not load-bearing, and the lossless-SPP assumption is an explicit idealization, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (41.6 μJ pulse energy, 102 GW l=1 peak power, 164 as duration, 62% l=1 mode fraction) are produced by time-dependent Genesis2 simulations, an external code (Ref. [14]), with stated beam parameters, undulator settings, and taper choices. These numbers are simulation outputs rather than consequences of the theoretical mode decomposition in Eq. (2) alone. The main self-citations are Ref. [22] (SSOAM theory by Yan and Geloni) and Ref. [23] (modulation simulation). The paper states 'The theoretical part of this scheme is same as the SSOAM [22]' and 'Our simulation study starts with the modulation simulation in [23].' These are used as context or initial conditions, not fitted to the target prediction, and the cited prior work is externally testable rather than a closed self-referential loop. The explicit assumption 'We assumed the intensity of the pulse is unchanged by the SPP' is an idealization that makes the reported power and purity upper bounds for a real 6 keV spiral phase plate, but it is a device-modeling assumption, not a definitional or fitting circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to a fitted parameter or to the claimed result by construction. The choice to stop after six undulator segments because the l=1 fraction drops below 50% after seven is a design/optimization criterion, not a circular inference. The score of 2 reflects two minor self-citations that are not load-bearing; the central derivation remains independent simulation content.

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

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The free parameters are optimization choices for the two undulator stages and the chicane delay, and the axioms are the standard FEL model assumptions plus an idealized optical element.

free parameters (4)

First-stage K taper increment = 0.0058 per undulator segment
K is 'optimized' to this step size to maximize the l=0 mode content and attosecond pulse energy in the first stage; no tolerance scan is shown.
Second-stage undulator taper = not specified numerically (Fig. 1c)
The second-stage taper is optimized for amplification of the l=1 mode; the K values per segment are not reported in text.
Chicane R56 = -9 µm
Set so the seed pulse overlaps the unmodulated part of the beam; chosen from simulation.
Second-stage undulator length = 6 segments
Stopped at six segments because after seven the l=1 fraction falls below 50%; this is a stopping criterion chosen to preserve the claim.

assumptions (4)

standard math Chirp-taper matching condition Eq. (1) governs the lasing region and yields sub-femtosecond pulses.
Invoked from refs [6,17] to justify that lasing only occurs where chirp and taper match, producing a 122 as pulse.
domain assumption The FEL mode expansion Eq. (2) with eigenfunctions from [16] and the SSOAM mode-competition picture from [22] describes the second-stage amplification.
Borrowed from the authors' prior SSOAM work; used to motivate stopping before the zero-charge fundamental mode dominates.
domain assumption The electron beam modulation (current spikes and energy chirp) behaves as simulated in [23].
The simulation starts from the modulation simulation in [23], which is not included in this paper.
ad hoc to paper The SPP imprints an ideal exp(ilφ) phase with no intensity change.
Explicitly assumed in the text; real x-ray optics would have absorption, phase errors and alignment tolerances.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generation of high-power attosecond x-ray FEL pulses carrying orbital angular momentum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KQPO63B

@misc{pith2026250606908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generation of high-power attosecond x-ray FEL pulses carrying orbital angular momentum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KQPO63B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06908}
}

read the original abstract

X-ray beams carrying orbital angular momentum (OAM), are emerging as a powerful tool to probe matter. Recently, a method called self-seeded FEL with OAM (SSOAM) has been proposed to generate high-power x-ray OAM pulses, which places the traditional optical elements in the linear regime of the FEL amplification process before saturation to reduce the thermal load of the optical element. In this work, we propose to utilize the SSOAM scheme to produce attosecond x-ray vortices with high intensity. Numerical simulations demonstrate the x-ray OAM pulses with peak powers of more than one hundred gigawatts and a pulse duration of the order of hundred attoseconds can be achieved using the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06908 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The current (a) and energy (b) of the modulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Temporal power of the FEL pulse (a) and trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Temporal power of the FEL pulse at (a) the end [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[22]

Yan and G

J. Yan and G. Geloni. Self-seeded free-electron lasers with orbital angular momentum. Advanced Photonics Nexus , 2(3):036001–036001, 2023

work page 2023
[23]

J. Yan, G. Geloni, C. Lechner, S. Serkez, Y. Chen, M. Guetg, C. Heyl, and E. Schneidmiller. Simulation studies for the aspect project at european xfel

work page
[1]

Accelerationandtrappingofparticlesbyradiation pressure

A.Ashkin. Accelerationandtrappingofparticlesbyradiation pressure. Physical Review Letters, 24(4):156, 1970

work page 1970
[2]

Bahrdt, K

J. Bahrdt, K. Holldack, P. Kuske, R. Müller, M. Scheer, and P. Schmid. First observation of photons carrying orbital angular momentum in undulator radiation.Physical Review Letters, 111(3):034801, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Beatingthechannel capacity limit for linear photonic superdense coding.Nature Physics, 4(4):282–286, 2008

J.T.Barreiro,T.-C.Wei,andP.G.Kwiat. Beatingthechannel capacity limit for linear photonic superdense coding.Nature Physics, 4(4):282–286, 2008

work page 2008
[4]

D.-S. Ding, W. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhou, S. Shi, G.-Y. Xiang, X.- S. Wang, Y.-K. Jiang, B.-S. Shi, and G.-C. Guo. Quantum storage of orbital angular momentum entanglement in an atomic ensemble.Physical Review Letters, 114(5):050502, 2015

work page 2015
[5]

K. M. Dorney, L. Rego, N. J. Brooks, J. San Román, C.-T. Liao, J. L. Ellis, D. Zusin, C. Gentry, Q. L. Nguyen, J. M. Shaw, et al. Controlling the polarization and vortex charge of attosecondhigh-harmonicbeamsviasimultaneousspin–orbit momentum conservation. Nature Photonics, 13(2):123–130, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

Superradiant amplification in a chirped-tapered x-ray free- electron laser

J.Duris,Z.Zhang,J.MacArthur,Z.Huang,andA.Marinelli. Superradiant amplification in a chirped-tapered x-ray free- electron laser. Physical Review Accelerators and Beams , 23(2):020702, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 25 references

[7]

Direct observation of transfer of angular momentum to ab- sorptive particles from a laser beam with a phase singularity

H.He,M.Friese,N.Heckenberg,andH.Rubinsztein-Dunlop. Direct observation of transfer of angular momentum to ab- sorptive particles from a laser beam with a phase singularity. Physical Review Letters, 75(5):826, 1995

1995
[8]

Applicationsoforbitalangularmomentumoflight in attosecond science

A.Hedse. Applicationsoforbitalangularmomentumoflight in attosecond science. 2018

2018
[9]

Hemsing, M

E. Hemsing, M. Dunning, C. Hast, T. Raubenheimer, and D. Xiang. First characterization of coherent optical vortices from harmonic undulator radiation.Physical Review Letters, 113(13):134803, 2014

2014
[10]

Hernández-García, J

C. Hernández-García, J. San Román, L. Plaja, and A. Picón. Quantum-path signatures in attosecond helical beams driven by optical vortices.New Journal of Physics, 17(9):093029, 2015

2015
[11]

Productionandcharacter- izationofspiralphaseplatesforopticalwavelengths

S.Oemrawsingh,J.VanHouwelingen,E.Eliel,J.Woerdman, E.Verstegen,J.Kloosterboer,etal. Productionandcharacter- izationofspiralphaseplatesforopticalwavelengths. Applied Optics, 43(3):688–694, 2004

2004
[12]

Orfanos, I

I. Orfanos, I. Makos, I. Liontos, E. Skantzakis, B. Förg, D. Charalambidis, and P. Tzallas. Attosecond pulse metrol- ogy. Apl Photonics, 4(8), 2019

2019
[13]

Pariente and F

G. Pariente and F. Quéré. Spatio-temporal light springs: extendedencodingoforbitalangularmomentuminultrashort pulses. Optics Letters, 40(9):2037–2040, 2015

2015
[14]

S. Reiche. Genesis 1.3: a fully 3d time-dependent fel sim- ulation code.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 429(1-3):243–248, 1999

1999
[15]

J. R. Rouxel, B. Rösner, D. Karpov, C. Bacellar, G. F. Mancini, F. Zinna, D. Kinschel, O. Cannelli, M. Oppermann, C. Svetina, et al. Hard x-ray helical dichroism of disordered molecular media. Nature Photonics, 16(8):570–574, 2022

2022
[16]

Saldin, E

E. Saldin, E. Schneidmiller, and M. Yurkov. Diffraction effects in the self-amplified spontaneous emission fel.Optics Communications, 186(1-3):185–209, 2000

2000
[17]

E. L. Saldin, E. A. Schneidmiller, and M. V. Yurkov. Self- amplified spontaneous emission fel with energy-chirped elec- tron beam and its application for generation of attosecond x-ray pulses. Physical Review Special Topics-Accelerators and Beams, 9(5):050702, 2006

2006
[18]

Y. Shen, X. Wang, Z. Xie, C. Min, X. Fu, Q. Liu, M. Gong, and X. Yuan. Optical vortices 30 years on: Oam manipula- tion from topological charge to multiple singularities.Light: Science & Applications, 8(1):90, 2019

2019
[19]

Vila-Comamala, A

J. Vila-Comamala, A. Sakdinawat, and M. Guizar-Sicairos. Characterization of x-ray phase vortices by ptychographic coherent diffractive imaging.Optics Letters, 39(18):5281– 5284, 2014

2014
[20]

J. Wang, M. Zepf, and S. Rykovanov. Intense attosecond pulsescarryingorbitalangularmomentumusinglaserplasma interactions. Nature Communications, 10(1):5554, 2019

2019
[21]

Z. Xu, B. Shen, L. Zhang, J. Xu, and W. Gong. Isolated intense half-cycle attosecond pulse generation with orbital angular momentum. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 63(3):035013, 2021

2021
[24]

Methodofanenhancedself-amplifiedsponta- neousemissionforx-rayfreeelectronlasers

A.A.Zholents. Methodofanenhancedself-amplifiedsponta- neousemissionforx-rayfreeelectronlasers. Physical Review Special Topics-Accelerators and Beams, 8(4):040701, 2005

2005
[25]

Zhou, Y.-L

Z.-Q. Zhou, Y.-L. Hua, X. Liu, G. Chen, J.-S. Xu, Y.-J. Han, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo. Quantum storage of three- dimensional orbital-angular-momentum entanglement in a crystal. Physical Review Letters, 115(7):070502, 2015

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [22]

Yan and G

J. Yan and G. Geloni. Self-seeded free-electron lasers with orbital angular momentum. Advanced Photonics Nexus , 2(3):036001–036001, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [23]

J. Yan, G. Geloni, C. Lechner, S. Serkez, Y. Chen, M. Guetg, C. Heyl, and E. Schneidmiller. Simulation studies for the aspect project at european xfel

work page

[3] [1]

Accelerationandtrappingofparticlesbyradiation pressure

A.Ashkin. Accelerationandtrappingofparticlesbyradiation pressure. Physical Review Letters, 24(4):156, 1970

work page 1970

[4] [2]

Bahrdt, K

J. Bahrdt, K. Holldack, P. Kuske, R. Müller, M. Scheer, and P. Schmid. First observation of photons carrying orbital angular momentum in undulator radiation.Physical Review Letters, 111(3):034801, 2013

work page 2013

[5] [3]

Beatingthechannel capacity limit for linear photonic superdense coding.Nature Physics, 4(4):282–286, 2008

J.T.Barreiro,T.-C.Wei,andP.G.Kwiat. Beatingthechannel capacity limit for linear photonic superdense coding.Nature Physics, 4(4):282–286, 2008

work page 2008

[6] [4]

D.-S. Ding, W. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhou, S. Shi, G.-Y. Xiang, X.- S. Wang, Y.-K. Jiang, B.-S. Shi, and G.-C. Guo. Quantum storage of orbital angular momentum entanglement in an atomic ensemble.Physical Review Letters, 114(5):050502, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [5]

K. M. Dorney, L. Rego, N. J. Brooks, J. San Román, C.-T. Liao, J. L. Ellis, D. Zusin, C. Gentry, Q. L. Nguyen, J. M. Shaw, et al. Controlling the polarization and vortex charge of attosecondhigh-harmonicbeamsviasimultaneousspin–orbit momentum conservation. Nature Photonics, 13(2):123–130, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [6]

Superradiant amplification in a chirped-tapered x-ray free- electron laser

J.Duris,Z.Zhang,J.MacArthur,Z.Huang,andA.Marinelli. Superradiant amplification in a chirped-tapered x-ray free- electron laser. Physical Review Accelerators and Beams , 23(2):020702, 2020

work page 2020