Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 40 references

QED with prescribed classical background fields is exactly a coherent-state boundary-condition limit of full QED, not a separate theory, and relaxing the boundary condition gives a quantum description of laser depletion.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:12 UTC pith:FT67NFCQ

load-bearing objection A clear, honest conceptual reformulation of background-field QED as a coherent-state boundary condition; the operator algebra is sound, but the paper overclaims the strength of its 'controlled limit' and the abstract's saddle-point promises are not delivered. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2512.21122 v4 pith:FT67NFCQ submitted 2025-12-24 physics.plasm-ph hep-phphysics.opticsquant-ph

Coherent-field QED transitions based on coherent-state boundary conditions

Keita Seto This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-ph hep-phphysics.opticsquant-ph
keywords coherent statesbackground-field QEDFurry pictureGupta–Bleuler conditionHeisenberg–Euler effective actionlaser depletionbackreactioncoherent-state boundary conditions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the standard practice of quantizing matter and photon fluctuations on top of a prescribed classical laser field—the Furry picture, Volkov solutions, the Heisenberg–Euler effective action—is not a modification of QED but a specific limit of the full quantum theory. In that limit, the electromagnetic field's asymptotic states are fixed as coherent states, and the background is the coherent-state expectation value of the quantized gauge field. The paper shows that the apparent time dependence of a background field is a picture artifact: the Hamiltonian is time-independent in the Schrödinger picture, and time dependence appears only after transforming to the Heisenberg picture. Allowing transitions between distinct coherent states promotes the background to a dynamical variable and gives a unified, non-double-counting treatment of depletion and backreaction. A sympathetic reader will find a clean operator-level reinterpretation, though the promised saddle-point justification for suppressing coherent-field fluctuations is not carried out in the body.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that QED in a prescribed classical background is not a distinct theory: the background A^µ(x) is identified with the expectation value ⟨α_H|Â^µ_H(x)|α_H⟩ of the quantized gauge field in a coherent state that satisfies the Gupta–Bleuler condition (or equivalently BRST cohomology). The fixed-background approximation corresponds to freezing the coherent field to this expectation value and suppressing the functional integral over coherent-field histories; allowing α→α′ transitions turns the background into a dynamical integration variable, yielding depletion and backreaction without double counting. The time dependence of background fields is derived from the choice

What carries the argument

The central object is the coherent-state boundary condition on the quantized EM field, implemented with the displacement operator D_H(α,t), which acts as D†Â D =  + A^µ I and generates the coherent state |α_H⟩ = D_H(α,t)|0_H⟩. The Gupta–Bleuler condition ∂_µ Â^{µ(+)}_H |α_H⟩=0 makes the classical expectation value A^µ automatically satisfy the Lorenz gauge. The operator formalism then translates the time-independent Schrödinger-picture displacement into the time-dependent background of the Furry picture via Heisenberg evolution. The path-integral representation of Eqs. (7.5)–(7.6) expresses the coherent-field transition amplitude, with the fixed-background generating functional Z[A] as the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the functional integral over coherent-field histories can be safely suppressed, freezing the background to its coherent-state expectation value, without any error estimate or small parameter controlling the suppression.

What would settle it

Compute the α→α′ transition amplitude of Eq. (5.3) for a finite plane-wave pulse with photon occupation number N and compare the depletion probability to the known perturbative backreaction result: if the coherent-state amplitude does not reproduce the leading 1/N correction, the boundary-condition identification fails. Alternatively, the ratio of the path integral (7.5) to the fixed-background generating functional (7.6) in the α′=α limit must be exactly unity; any deviation would invalidate the claimed recovery of the conventional generating functional.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Every background-field QED computation—Furry picture, Volkov solutions, Heisenberg–Euler effective action—becomes a special case of full QED with coherent-state boundary conditions, requiring no new quantization prescription.
  • Laser depletion and backreaction are described by coherent-state transitions α→α′ within the same operator framework, avoiding double counting of photon degrees of freedom.
  • The time dependence of a background field is a picture artifact; any physical observable computed in the Furry picture must agree with the coherent-state expectation-value computation.
  • The path-integral with coherent-field histories yields an effective action whose saddle point is an effective Maxwell equation including vacuum polarization, photon fluctuations, and coherent-field fluctuations; in the fixed-background limit it reduces to the Heisenberg–Euler description.
  • Gauge constraints are enforced before the functional integral, so the background automatically satisfies the Lorenz gauge and convenient gauge choices remain available throughout.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves unquantified the step that suppresses the functional integral over coherent-field histories (Eq. 7.5 → 7.6); a natural extension is to compute the first correction to Z[A] for a plane-wave pulse with finite photon number, which would give an explicit depletion rate.
  • If the time-dependence of the background is purely a picture artifact, then any background-field calculation should be reproducible from Schrödinger evolution of a coherent state; this is testable in exactly solvable limits such as constant crossed fields.
  • The BRST-preservation condition on the displacement operator is asserted without proof; verifying it for realistic laser pulses with finite transverse profile would establish whether the constructed coherent states are admissible physical states.
  • The abstract's promised saddle-point effective Maxwell equation is not derived in the body; deriving it from Eq. (7.5) would connect the formalism to classical electrodynamics and could be compared with known radiation-reaction results.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that QED with prescribed classical background fields is not a distinct or modified theory, but a controlled boundary-condition limit of full QED, obtained by imposing asymptotic coherent-state boundary conditions on the quantized electromagnetic field. The operator-level part constructs a displaced QED Hamiltonian H_QED[ψ, ψ̄, Â + A] from a coherent-sector state D_S(α)|Ψ_S⟩, argues that the apparent time dependence of the background is a picture artifact (Schrödinger versus Heisenberg), and recasts the Furry picture, Volkov solutions, Heisenberg–Euler vacuum amplitudes, and depletion transitions α→α′ in this language. A formal path integral is then written for coherent-state transition amplitudes, and the fixed-background generating functional Z[A] is claimed to follow by suppressing the functional integration over the coherent field.

Significance. If the central path-integral and saddle-point claims were established, this would be a useful conceptual unification: background fields would emerge as coherent-state expectation values, depletion as coherent-state transitions, and the Heisenberg–Euler effective action would acquire a transparent boundary-condition interpretation. The displacement-operator algebra in Secs. 2–3 (Eqs. (3.9), (3.23)) is standard and correctly executed, and the paper rightly emphasizes that the Lorenz condition for A follows from the Gupta–Bleuler condition. However, the advertised new results—the controlled limit, the effective action, and the effective Maxwell equation—are not actually derived. Earlier work (Refs. [12,20,21,31]) already exploits coherent-state/background-field equivalences, and the paper explicitly disclaims any new properties of coherent states. The significance is therefore conditional on supplying the missing analysis.

major comments (5)
  1. [§7, Eqs. (7.5)–(7.6)] The reduction from the coherent-state transition amplitude to the fixed-background generating functional is asserted, not derived. The text says that when α′=α the functional integration over A is “suppressed,” but no small parameter, scaling, or error estimate is given. This is not a formal detail: in the free-field single-mode limit the exact coherent-state amplitude has modulus exp[-|α|²(1-cos ωT)] < 1 for generic T, whereas the fixed-background expression (7.6) has modulus 1. The two objects coincide only in a limit the paper never identifies. Consequently the “controlled limit” advertised in the Introduction and Abstract is unsupported.
  2. [Abstract; §7] The Abstract promises a saddle-point effective action and an effective Maxwell equation containing vacuum-polarization, photon-fluctuation, and coherent-field-fluctuation contributions, but no stationary-phase computation appears in the body. There is no definition of the coherent-field fluctuations, no effective-action formula, and no saddle-point condition. This is the advertised central new result, and it cannot be checked from the manuscript as it stands.
  3. [§6, after Eq. (6.1)] The assertion that coherent states qualify as BRST-physical states “as long as the displacement operator preserves the BRST cohomology” is unproved. This preservation condition is load-bearing: it is what permits the coherent-state expectation value A_μ(x) to be identified with a physical background field satisfying the Lorenz gauge. A proof, or at least a precise condition on the displacement parameters (including longitudinal and scalar photon components), is required.
  4. [§5.1, Eq. (5.2)] The α-α vacuum amplitude is factored as e^{-iC[A]}⟨0_F|V(∞,−∞)|0_F⟩, with C[A] asserted to be an overall c-number phase that drops out of all observables. No derivation of this factorization is given, and the assertion is not innocent: any field-dependent part of C[A] contributes to the Heisenberg–Euler effective action W[A]. The interpretation of the HE vacuum as a coherent-state transition rests on this step.
  5. [§4.1, Eqs. (4.4)–(4.6)] The definition of the Furry picture is circular as written. Eq. (4.6) defines H^int_F in terms of V, while Eq. (4.4) defines V as the evolution generated by H^int_F. In the standard construction the unitary V is generated by the free Hamiltonian H^0, and the interaction Hamiltonian is then mapped by V. Without a closed, non-self-referential definition, the subsequent derivation of the Volkov equation (4.13) from this construction is not well defined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2–§3] Notation for the displacement operator alternates between D_S(α), D_H(α,t), and D(t,α). Please fix a single convention and state the time arguments consistently in Eqs. (2.6)–(2.7) and (3.1).
  2. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.21)–(3.23)] It is not immediately clear how the time-dependent c-number A(t,x) in Eq. (3.22) is compatible with the assertion dH^(A)_H/dt = 0 in Eq. (3.23). Please spell out the cancellation or clarify that A(t,x) is a derived expectation value rather than an external parameter of the Hamiltonian.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (5.2)] The notation ⟨0_S(t0)|U(t,t0)|0_S(t0)⟩ is ambiguous and appears to be missing a bracket. Also, the time at which α_S(t0) is defined should be specified explicitly.
  4. [References] There are several typographical errors: Ref. [1] has a garbled author string (“Z. Keitel”), Ref. [14] has title “furry picure,” Refs. [3,8,10] use inconsistent “Phy.” abbreviations, and Ref. [36] mixes “Wolkov (Volkov in English spelling).” A careful proofread of the reference list is needed.
  5. [§5.1, Eq. (5.1); §7, Eq. (7.6)] Eq. (5.1) defines Z[A] = e^{iW[A]/ℏ} as the vacuum-transition amplitude, while Eq. (7.6) defines Z[A] as a path integral. The normalization and the relation between the two objects should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The central 'equivalence' between fixed-background QED and coherent-state boundary conditions is built in by construction: the background field is defined as the coherent-state expectation value (2.3), and the displacement identity (3.9) then reproduces H_QED[Â + A]. The claimed 'controlled limit' (7.5)→(7.6) is likewise imposed by setting α′=α and suppressing the coherent-field integral, with no

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.3); Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.9)–(3.11)]
    "Hence, the expectation value of the EM field in a coherent state is Aµ(x) =⟨α H| ˆAµ H(x)|αH⟩ ... Using the formula (2.7) in the present picture, ˆD† S(α) ˆAS(t0,x) ˆDS(α) = ˆAS(t0,x) +A(t 0,x) ˆI ... we conclude iℏ∂t|ΨS(t)⟩=H QED[ ˆψS, ˆ¯ψS, ˆAS +A ˆI]|ΨS(t)⟩."

    The background field A is defined, in Eq. (2.3), as the coherent-state expectation value of the quantized gauge field. Equation (3.9) is the standard displacement-operator identity. Substituting this identity into a unitary conjugation gives the fixed-background Hamiltonian H_QED[Â + A] exactly. Thus the 'derived limit' is a rewriting of the input definitions, not an emergent result. The paper itself concedes it does 'not introduce new properties of coherent states,' but the central claim of a first-principles derivation rests on this definitional identity.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 7, Eqs. (7.5)–(7.6)]
    "If the laser field is treated as fixed and undepleted, so thatα′ =αand the functional integration overAis suppressed, the above expression reduces to Z[A] = ˆ DA ˆ Dψ ˆ D ¯ψexp( i ℏc ˆ d4xLQED(ψ(x), ¯ψ(x), A(x) +A(x)) )"

    The purported 'controlled limit' is defined by imposing the desired outcome: no integration over the coherent field A and α′ = α. No small parameter, scaling, or error estimate is provided for the suppression of the ∫DA integration. Consequently, the recovery of the conventional generating functional Z[A] is a direct specialization—indeed, the very definition of the fixed-background approximation—rather than a derived limit. The Abstract's promise of a saddle-point effective Maxwell equation is also absent from the body, so the 'controlled boundary-condition limit' claim is unsupported rather than demonstrated.

full rationale

There are no fitted parameters and no self-citations, so the fitted-input and self-citation patterns do not apply. The circularity is definitional: the classical background field is defined as the coherent-state expectation value (2.3), and the displacement identity (3.9) then exactly reproduces the fixed-background Hamiltonian H_QED[Â + A]. The path-integral 'limit' (7.5)→(7.6) similarly reduces to assuming α′=α and suppressing the coherent-field integral, which is the fixed-background approximation by construction. The paper has independent organizational content—the picture-dependence argument, the Gupta–Bleuler/BRST consistency discussion, and a coherent-state path integral for depletion—and it explicitly frames itself as conceptual rather than computational. Nevertheless, the headline claim that background-field QED is a controlled first-principles limit of full QED is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The score 6 reflects partial circularity: the central equivalence is definitional, but the paper does not rely on self-citation, fitted parameters, or a uniqueness theorem, and it acknowledges that no new properties of coherent states are introduced.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper explicitly introduces no new entities, and the conclusion states it introduces no new coherent-state properties. Its honest contribution is conceptual plumbing: standard coherent-state facts plus the free input α, resting on three asserted bridges — BRST preservation of the displacement construction (Sec. 6), the controlled limit of Eq. (7.6), and the C[A] phase of Eq. (5.2) — none of which are proven.

free parameters (1)
  • coherent amplitude α, equivalently the background field A(x) = ⟨α|Â|α⟩ = not specified (input laser configuration)
    The displacement operator D(α) and hence the classical background are chosen by hand to represent the laser; the derivation's output — background-field QED — inherits this free data. No fitting to data, but it is the unconstrained input of the whole construction.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Displacement operators preserve the Gupta–Bleuler/BRST physical-state condition, so coherent states qualify as physical states and the background satisfies the Lorenz gauge.
    Section 6 states compatibility 'as long as the displacement operator preserves the BRST cohomology' without proof; Eqs. (2.1)–(2.5) depend on this to guarantee ∂_μ A^μ = 0.
  • domain assumption The fixed-background limit (α′ = α, functional integration over coherent-field histories A suppressed) is a controlled approximation.
    Section 7, Eqs. (7.5)–(7.6): no small parameter, occupation-number scaling, or error estimate is given for freezing the coherent field to its expectation value.
  • ad hoc to paper The α–α vacuum amplitude factorizes as e^{-iC[A]} ⟨0F|V(∞,−∞)|0F⟩ with an overall c-number phase C[A] that drops out of all observables.
    Eq. (5.2) in Sec. 5.1: asserted without derivation; C[A] is never computed and no prescription is given for isolating it.
  • domain assumption Asymptotic in/out coherent states of the free field provide a well-defined S-matrix in renormalized interacting QED.
    Used throughout Secs. 3–5 and 7; no discussion of renormalization, infrared divergences, or the interacting-vs-free splitting of the coherent eigenvalue problem.
  • standard math The Gupta–Bleuler condition on the coherent state implies the Lorenz-gauge condition on the classical background.
    Sec. 2, Eqs. (2.1)–(2.5): follows from the eigenvalue equation (2.2) given the free-field positive/negative-frequency splitting; standard but stated rather than proven.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12577 in / 21994 out tokens · 212735 ms · 2026-08-03T14:12:14.394177+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop a coherent-field formulation of quantum electrodynamics (QED) based on coherent-state boundary conditions, in which laser fields are represented by asymptotic coherent states rather than by prescribed classical background fields. Starting from coherent-state boundary conditions and the displacement-operator formalism, we construct operator and path-integral descriptions of transitions between distinct electromagnetic coherent states. This formulation provides a coherent-field extension of conventional background-field QED and incorporates the quantum dynamics of the coherent field itself. The corresponding path-integral representation contains a functional integral over coherent-field histories in addition to the usual functional integral over quantum fluctuations, thereby extending the conventional background-field description. The resulting path-integral representation naturally leads to an effective action for the stationary coherent-field configuration. The corresponding saddle-point condition yields an effective Maxwell equation containing contributions from vacuum polarization, photon fluctuations, and coherent-field fluctuations. In the limit where the latter two contributions vanish, the formalism reduces to the conventional Heisenberg-Euler description.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Saiamin, S.X

    Y.I. Saiamin, S.X. Hu and C.H. Hatsagortsyan, Z. Keitel,Relativistic high-power laser-matter interactions,Phys. Rep.427(2006) 41

    2006

  2. [2]

    Joachain, N.J

    C.J. Joachain, N.J. Kylstra and R.M. Potvliege,Atoms in Intense Laser Fields, Cambridge University Press (2011), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511993459

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511993459 2011

  3. [3]

    Raicher, S

    E. Raicher, S. Eliezer and A. Zigler,The lagrangian formulation of strong-field quantum electrodynamics in a plasma,Phy. Plasmas21(2014) 053103 [1312.3088]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Greiner, B

    W. Greiner, B. Müller and J. Rafelski,Quantum electrodynamics of strong fields, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (1985), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-82272-8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-82272-8 1985

  5. [5]

    Ritus,Quantum effects of the interaction of elementary particles with an intense electromagnetic field,J

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

    1985

  6. [6]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. Müller, K.Z. Hatsagortsyan and C.H. Keitel,Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems,Rev. Mod. Phys.84(2012) 1177 [1111.3886]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya et al.,Advances in qed with intense background fields,Phys. Rep.1010(2023) 1 [2203.00019]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Brown and T.W.B

    L.S. Brown and T.W.B. Kibble,Interaction of intense laser beams with electrons,Phy. Rev. 133(1964) A705

    1964

  9. [9]

    Nikishov and V.I

    A.I. Nikishov and V.I. Ritus,Quantum processes in the field of a plane electromagnetic wave and in a constant field i,JETP19(1964) 529

    1964

  10. [10]

    Nikishov and V.I

    A.I. Nikishov and V.I. Ritus,Quantum processes in the field of a plane electromagnetic wave and in a constant field ii,JETP25(1967) 1135

    1967

  11. [11]

    Reiss,Absorption of light by light,J

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

    1962

  12. [12]

    Fradkin, D.M

    E.S. Fradkin, D.M. Gitman and S.M. Shvartsman,Quantum Electrodynamics: With Unstable Vacuum, Springer Series in Nuclear and Particle Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991)

    1991

  13. [13]

    Furry,On bound states and scattering in positron theory,Phys

    W.H. Furry,On bound states and scattering in positron theory,Phys. Rev.81(1951) 115

    1951

  14. [14]

    Moortgat-Pick,The furry picure,J

    G. Moortgat-Pick,The furry picure,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.198(2009) 012002

    2009

  15. [15]

    Glauber,The quantum theory of optical coherence,Phys

    R.J. Glauber,The quantum theory of optical coherence,Phys. Rev.130(1963) 2529

    1963

  16. [16]

    Glauber,Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field,Phys

    R.J. Glauber,Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field,Phys. Rev.131(1963) 2766

    1963

  17. [17]

    Sudarshan,Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams,Phys

    E.C.G. Sudarshan,Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams,Phys. Rev. Lett.10(1963) 277

    1963

  18. [18]

    Sargent III, M.O

    M. Sargent III, M.O. Scully and W.E. Lamb, Jr.,Laser Physics, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1st ed. ed. (1974). – 16 –

    1974

  19. [19]

    Loudon,The Quantum Theory of Light, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 3rd ed

    R. Loudon,The Quantum Theory of Light, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 3rd ed. (2000), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198501770.001.0001

    arXiv 2000

  20. [20]

    Frantz,Compton scattering of an intense photon beam,Phys

    L.M. Frantz,Compton scattering of an intense photon beam,Phys. Rev.139(1965) B1326

    1965

  21. [21]

    Ilderton and D

    A. Ilderton and D. Seipt,Backreaction on background fields: A coherent state approach, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 016007 [1709.10085]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Itzykson and J.-B

    C. Itzykson and J.-B. Zuber,Quantum Field Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)

    1980

  23. [23]

    Sakurai,Advanced Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Boston (1967)

    J.J. Sakurai,Advanced Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Boston (1967)

    1967

  24. [24]

    Gupta,Theory of longitudinal photons in quantum electrodynamics,Proc

    S.N. Gupta,Theory of longitudinal photons in quantum electrodynamics,Proc. Phys. Soc. A 63(1950) 681

    1950

  25. [25]

    Bleuler,Eine neue methode zur behandlung der longitudinalen und skalaren photonen, Helv

    K. Bleuler,Eine neue methode zur behandlung der longitudinalen und skalaren photonen, Helv. Phys. Acta23(1950) 567

    1950

  26. [26]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet and R. Stora,Renormalization of gauge theories,Ann. Phys.98(1976) 287

    1976

  27. [27]

    Tyutin,Gauge invariance in field theory and statistical physics in operator formalism, arXiv(1975) [0812.0580]

    I.V. Tyutin,Gauge invariance in field theory and statistical physics in operator formalism, arXiv(1975) [0812.0580]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1975

  28. [28]

    Kugo and I

    T. Kugo and I. Ojima,Local covariant operator formalism of non-abelian gauge theories and quark confinement problem,Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.66(1979) 1

    1979

  29. [29]

    Schwinger,On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization,Phys

    J. Schwinger,On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization,Phys. Rev.82(1951) 664

    1951

  30. [30]

    Ilderton and W

    A. Ilderton and W. Lindved,Coherent states, background fields, and double copy,JHEP 2025(2025) 156 [2505.16852]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Gavrilov and D.M

    S.P. Gavrilov and D.M. Gitman,Interpretation of an external field and external current in quantum electrodynamics,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys51(1990) 1040

    1990

  32. [32]

    Gales, K.A

    S. Gales, K.A. Tanaka, D.L. Balabanski, F. Negoita, D. Stutman, O. Tesileanu et al.,The extreme light infrastructure—nuclear physics (eli-np) facility: new horizons in physics with 10 pw ultra-intense lasers and 20 mev brilliant gamma beams,Rep. Prog. Phys.81(2018) 094301

    2018

  33. [33]

    Mirzaie, C.I

    M. Mirzaie, C.I. Hojbota, D.Y. Kim, V.B. Pathak, T.G. Pak, C.M. Kim et al.,All-optical nonlinear compton scattering performed with a multi-petawatt laser,Nat. Photon(2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Sarri, B

    G. Sarri, B. King, T. Blackburn, A. Ilderton, S. Boogert, S.S. Bulanov et al.,Input to the european strategy for particle physics: strong-field quantum electrodynamics,Eur. Phys. J. Plus140(2025) [2504.02608]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Hartin,Strong field qed in lepton colliders and electron/laser interactions,Int

    A. Hartin,Strong field qed in lepton colliders and electron/laser interactions,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33(2018) 1830011 [1804.02934]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Wolkov (Volkov in English spelling),Über eine klasse von lösungen der diracschen gleichung (on a class of solutions to dirac’s equation),Z

    D.M. Wolkov (Volkov in English spelling),Über eine klasse von lösungen der diracschen gleichung (on a class of solutions to dirac’s equation),Z. Physzik94(1935) 250

    1935

  37. [37]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler,Folgerungen aus der diracschen theorie des positrons,Z. Phys 98(1936) 714

    1936

  38. [38]

    Weisskopf,The electrodynamics of the vacuum based on the quantum theory of the electron,Kong

    V. Weisskopf,The electrodynamics of the vacuum based on the quantum theory of the electron,Kong. Dan. Vid. Sel. Mat. Fys. Med.14(1936) 1

    1936

  39. [39]

    Dunne,Heisenberg–Euler Effective Lagrangians: Basics and Extensions, World Scientific (2005), https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812775344_0014

    G.V. Dunne,Heisenberg–Euler Effective Lagrangians: Basics and Extensions, World Scientific (2005), https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812775344_0014. – 17 –

    work page doi:10.1142/9789812775344_0014 2005

  40. [40]

    Nakanishi and I

    N. Nakanishi and I. Ojima,Covariant Operator Formalism of Gauge Theories and Quantum Gravity, World Scientific (1990), https://doi.org/10.1142/0362. – 18 –

    work page doi:10.1142/0362 1990