Nonlinear QED in an ultrastrong rotating electric field: Signatures of the momentum-dependent effective mass

Erez Raicher; Karen Z. Hatsagortsyan

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Nonlinear QED in an ultrastrong rotating electric field: Signatures of the momentum-dependent effective mass

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A rotating electric field gives a charged particle a mass that depends on its momentum and direction, shifting nonlinear QED process thresholds.

desk verdict Clean derivation of a momentum-dependent effective mass in a rotating electric field, but the NLC edge-scan claim rests on the semiclassical approximation in a regime where its validity wasn't established. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05960 v1 pith:I2OB2JKO submitted 2019-08-16 hep-ph physics.plasm-ph

Erez Raicher , Karen Z. Hatsagortsyan This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phphysics.plasm-ph PACS 12.20.-m

keywords effectivemassrotatingelectricfieldnonlinearBreit-WheelerComptonstrong-fieldQEDstandingwaveantinodemomentum-dependent

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

An electron in a rotating electric field does not have a single dressed mass: this paper shows that the cycle-averaged effective mass $m_* = \sqrt{\bar{P}^2}$ depends on the particle's momentum $p$ and on the angle $\theta$ between the momentum and the field plane. The familiar plane-wave value $m_P^* = m\sqrt{1+\xi^2}$ is recovered only for $\theta=0$ or $p=0$; in the high-momentum limit the mass drops to $m_* = m_P^* \sqrt{1 - \xi^2 \sin^2\theta/(2(1+\xi^2))}$, which can be as small as $m_P^*/\sqrt{2}$ for large $\xi$. Using the semiclassical Baier-Katkov formula, the authors compute the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair-production probability and the nonlinear Compton photon spectrum in this field and show that the pair-production threshold and the harmonic edges move with $m_*$. They propose two experiments, one with a gamma beam crossing the antinode of two counterpropagating circularly polarized beams and one with electrons traversing the same field, to measure the angular and momentum dependence of the effective mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cycle-averaged effective mass $m_* = \sqrt{\bar{E}^2 - p^2}$, built from the classical trajectory in the rotating electric field. The field is represented by the vector potential $\mathbf{A}(t)=a(\cos\omega t,\sin\omega t,0)$, so the kinetic momentum is $\mathbf{P}(t)=\mathbf{p}+e\mathbf{A}(t)$, and the cycle-averaged energy is $\bar{E} = (2/\pi)G E_2(\mu)$ with $G=[m^2(1+\xi^2)+p^2+2m\xi p|\sin\theta|]^{1/2}$ and $\mu = 4m\xi p|\sin\theta|/G^2$, where $E_2$ is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind. This mass enters the energy-momentum conservation of dressed particles: the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler threshold condition is $\omega'_s = 2m_*^2/(s\omega)$, and the nonlinear Compton harmonic edge is $\omega'_e = s\omega\varepsilon/(\varepsilon(1-\bar{v})+s\omega)$ with $\bar{v}=p/\sqrt{m_*^2+p^2}$. The probability rates are computed with the semiclassical Baier-Katkov formula, whose validity for this field configuration was established by the authors for high-energy particles; the formula turns the classical trajectory into the radiation phase and thereby transfers the momentum dependence of $m_*$ into the spectra.

What would settle it

A measurement of the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler threshold with a gamma beam crossing the antinode of two counterpropagating circularly polarized beams would settle the claim: if the threshold energy at $\theta=\pi/2$ is the same as at $\theta=0$, rather than shifted from 65.2 GeV to 60.5 GeV for $\xi=0.4$ and $\omega=4.65$ eV, the momentum-dependent effective mass is not present. Alternatively, observing no movement of the first-harmonic nonlinear Compton edge as the incoming electron momentum $p/m$ is varied from 1 to 20 at $\xi=2$ would falsify the predicted interpolation shown in Fig. 4(b).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the effective mass of a particle in a rotating electric field is momentum-dependent and anisotropic. The authors define the effective mass via the cycle-averaged four-momentum, $m_* \equiv \sqrt{\bar{P}^2}$, and compute it from the classical trajectory of an electron in the rotating potential $\mathbf{A}(t) = a(\cos\omega t, \sin\omega t, 0)$. The result, expressed through complete elliptic integrals of the second kind, reduces to the plane-wave value $m\sqrt{1+\xi^2}$ when the particle moves perpendicular to the field plane or has vanishing momentum, and to the explicit high-momentum form above otherwise. The paper demonstrates the impact on two fundamental strong-field QED processes: the threshold for nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production becomes $\omega'_s = 2m_*^2/(s\omega)$, so it shifts with the gamma-photon propagation direction, and the harmonic edges of nonlinear Compton spectra obey $\omega'_e = s\omega\varepsilon/(\varepsilon(1-\bar{v})+s\omega)$, so they shift with the incoming electron momentum. Numerical spectra at $\xi=0.4$ show a threshold shift from 65.2 GeV at $\theta=0$ to 60.5 GeV at $\theta=\pi/2$, and at $\xi=2$ the first-harmonic Compton edge moves continuously as $p/m$ varies.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the semiclassical Baier-Katkov formula, whose validity for this field configuration the authors established earlier only in the limit $\varepsilon \gg m\xi$, remains quantitatively accurate at the parameters used for the predicted spectra ($\xi=0.4$ and $\xi=2$), and that the kinematic edge/extraction formulas hold for those parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair-production threshold in the antinode of two counterpropagating circularly polarized beams depends on the gamma-photon's angle to the field plane: for $\xi=0.4$ and $\omega=4.65$ eV it shifts from 65.2 GeV at $\theta=0$ to 60.5 GeV at $\theta=\pi/2$.
The width of a given harmonic in the produced-pair spectrum, $\Delta_s = \omega'\sqrt{1 - s_0/s}$ with $s_0 = 2m_*^2/(\omega\omega')$, provides a second, independent measurement of the dressed mass at the same field parameters.
In nonlinear Compton scattering with $\xi=2$ and electron momentum $p/m=20$, the first-harmonic edge moves from $0.26$ keV at $\theta=0$ to $0.4$ keV at $\theta=\pi/2$, and sweeping the incoming momentum traces out the full momentum dependence of $m_*(\pi/2,p/m)$.
Because the effective mass is direction-dependent, two particles with equal energy but different propagation directions in the same rotating field experience different dressed kinematics, which affects any process whose rates depend on the quantum parameter $\chi$ through the averaged field seen by the particle.

Reading between the lines

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

The analytical form of the mass shift suggests that the effect is most visible for $\xi\sim 1$: for $\xi\gg1$ the crossed-field limit makes the NLC and NLBW spectra depend only on $\chi$, washing out the mass signature, so experiments should avoid pushing intensity to the maximum.
If the momentum-dependent mass is confirmed, effective descriptions of pair cascades or plasma dynamics in standing-wave antinodes would need a momentum-dependent mass rather than a single scalar $m_*$, since particles in the same field with different momenta would not share one dressed mass.
A natural extension would be to measure the nonlinear Compton edge shift as a function of $p/m$ at fixed $\xi$ and compare the extracted $m_*$ curve against the analytic $\theta=\pi/2$ prediction of Eq. (1); the paper's Fig. 4(b) already provides the expected interpolation for such a scan.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

The paper is worth a serious referee. Raicher and Hatsagortsyan derive an analytic expression for an effective mass that depends on the electron's momentum and direction in a rotating electric field, something only the p=0 limit existed for before. The derivation from the classical trajectory is clean, the limiting cases check out, and the proposed signatures—threshold shifts in nonlinear Breit-Wheeler and harmonic edges in nonlinear Compton—are concrete and falsifiable.

The soft spot is the regime where the momentum dependence is largest. The NLC edge scan in Fig. 4(b) is meant to demonstrate the p-dependence, but for ξ=2 and p/m around 2 the condition ε≫mξ, which justifies the semiclassical Baier-Katkov approximation in the authors' earlier work, is violated. Without a numerical check against the full quantum result in that parameter range, the edge locations could be off for reasons unrelated to m*. The NLBW part is safer because the pair is highly relativistic, but it only probes the angle dependence in the high-p limit, not the headline p-dependence. One of the stress-test concerns does not hold up: the edge formula correctly uses the cycle-averaged velocity p/Ē from energy-momentum conservation; the group velocity dĒ/dp is not the quantity that sets the kinematic edge.

The citation pattern is fine, though the paper leans heavily on the authors' own previous work for the semiclassical equivalence. That is legitimate as long as the parameter regime matches, and the referee should push for evidence that it does at the p∼mξ points advertised. The central derivation is solid and the experimental ideas are worth pursuing, so my recommendation is to send it to review, requesting a benchmark of the semiclassical spectra against the quantum calculation at the NLC parameters of Fig. 4(b).

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates nonlinear QED in a rotating electric field (REF), which models the antinodes of counterpropagating laser beams. The authors derive an effective mass m* defined through the cycle-averaged momentum of a classical trajectory, and show that it depends on the initial momentum magnitude p and on the angle θ between the momentum and the field plane. They then analyze nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production and nonlinear Compton scattering using the semiclassical Baier-Katkov formula, obtaining spectra and kinematic thresholds that exhibit shifts induced by m*. Two experimental setups are proposed, one for pair production by a γ-photon and one for photon emission by an energetic electron, with the goal of observing the momentum and direction dependence of m*.

Significance. The classical derivation of m*(p,θ) is transparent and self-consistent, and the limiting cases (θ=0, p=0, p≫mξ) correctly reproduce the plane-wave value m√(1+ξ²) and Eq. (1). The concrete experimental parameters and the comparison with existing laser and accelerator capabilities make the proposed signatures falsifiable and interesting. The paper also builds on the authors' prior verification of the semiclassical approach in a restricted regime. However, the central observable for the momentum-magnitude dependence of m*, namely the nonlinear Compton edge scan in Fig. 4(b), is situated in a parameter regime where the semiclassical approximation's validity condition is not satisfied, and the edge extraction formula Eq. (7) uses a velocity definition that requires correction when m* is momentum-dependent. These issues must be resolved before the headline claim of measuring the p-dependence of m* can be considered robust.

major comments (3)

[Main text, paragraph beginning 'Since the effective mass is embedded...' and Fig. 4(b); Supplement III.A] The semiclassical Baier-Katkov formula is used to compute all spectra, but the paper states that the quantum and semiclassical approaches coincide only under the condition ε≫mξ (main text and Supplement III.A). The p-dependence of m* is demonstrated in Fig. 4(b) for p/m values that include p/m≈2 with ξ=2, for which ε≈2.24m while mξ=2m, so the condition ε≫mξ is clearly violated. Since the NLC edge scan in this regime is the only proposed observable sensitive to the momentum magnitude dependence of m*, the predicted effect may be an artifact of the semiclassical approximation. The authors should either extend the validity proof to the p∼mξ regime, provide a quantum calculation for the relevant parameters, or explicitly restrict the experimental claim to p≫mξ, in which case m* is p-independent.
[Eq. (7) and Supplement III.B (kinematic derivation)] The edge formula (7) identifies the average velocity as ¯υ = p/√(m*²+p²) and uses it in the energy-momentum conservation condition. However, when m* depends on p, the relevant velocity entering the spectral edge from the dispersion relation is the group velocity dĒ/dp, not p/Ē. For the parameters in Fig. 4(b) (ξ=2, p/m≈2), dĒ/dp≈0.60 while p/Ē≈0.73; the difference is not small and can shift the edge location by a substantial amount. Thus the extraction of m* from the edge in the p∼mξ region is not a faithful measurement of the defined m*(p). The kinematic derivation should be corrected to account for the momentum dependence of m*, or a quantitative estimate of the error should be provided.
[General claim about measuring momentum dependence] The paper should explicitly acknowledge that the NLBW threshold measurement of Fig. 3 probes only the θ-dependence of m* in the high-momentum limit p≫mξ, since the produced pair energies are far above mξ. The p-dependence of m* is therefore supported experimentally only by the NLC edge scan, which is the regime subject to the two concerns above. This limitation should be stated in the conclusions to avoid overstating the demonstrated observable.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Fig. 4(b) caption] There is a typo in the abstract: 'ultrtsrong' should be 'ultrastrong'. In the text near Fig. 4(b), 'Fig. 7(b)' should be 'Fig. 4(b)'.
[Supplement II and main text] The use of E2 for both the elliptic integral and the particle energy may be confusing; a different symbol for the elliptic integral (e.g., E) would improve readability.
[Definition of m*] The definition m*≡√(¯P²) is a specific choice of effective mass; a brief discussion of how it relates to the dispersion relation and to the on-shell mass appearing in the kinematic conservation laws would strengthen the physical interpretation.
[Fig. 4(b) description] The text says the red curve in Fig. 4(b) is obtained from the edge location shift and interpolates between the two limiting predictions; it would be helpful to show the actual extracted m* curve (rather than the edge shift) and overlay it with the analytic m*(p/m) from Fig. 2(a) to make the comparison quantitative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effective mass is derived from the classical trajectory, and the spectral comparisons are self-consistency checks rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central claim, the momentum- and angle-dependent effective mass m*(p,θ)=sqrt(bar P^2) in a rotating electric field, is obtained from the classical trajectory (P=p−eA, E=sqrt(m^2+P^2)) through the cycle-averaged energy bar E=2GE2(µ)/π, with the high-momentum limit Eq. (1) following from a Taylor expansion in Supplement II. The NLC and NLBW spectra are then computed with the Baier-Katkov semiclassical formula directly from the same trajectory, without inserting m* as a fitted parameter; the effective mass is not an input to the rate calculation. Comparisons such as Fig. 4(b), where edge locations from the computed spectra are converted back to m* via Eq. (7) and compared with Fig. 2(a), are self-consistency checks rather than independent predictions, and they do not constitute circularity because neither m* nor the spectral edge is fitted to the other. The self-citation [48] is used only to justify the semiclassical approximation within ε≫mξ, which is an external numerical comparison rather than an assertion of the paper's conclusion, and the derivation of m* is independent of it. The possible validity gaps at p∼mξ and the approximate identification bar v≈p/bar E in Eq. (7) are correctness and regime-of-validity concerns, not circularity; no equation reduces by construction to its own input.

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

The central claim rests on no fitted parameters; the laser parameters (xi, omega, p, theta) are experimental inputs chosen for illustration. The effective mass is derived from the classical trajectory, not postulated. The main non-trivial assumptions are the rotating-field model of the laser antinode and the validity of the semiclassical Baier-Katkov formula, the latter imported from the authors' prior work [48]. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The rotating electric field A(t) = a(cos omega t, sin omega t, 0) models the antinode of two counterpropagating circularly polarized laser beams, with the magnetic field cancelling.
Used in the setup description in Fig. 1 and the main text; all predictions depend on this field model.
domain assumption The electron classical trajectory solves the Lorentz force equation with the external field, neglecting radiation reaction.
The trajectory is the basis of the semiclassical calculation in the Supplemental Material, Eq. (1).
domain assumption The semiclassical Baier-Katkov formula gives correct NLC and NLBW rates for this field configuration when epsilon >> m*xi.
Invoked after Eq. (2) in the main text, based on the authors' previous work [48].
standard math The effective mass is defined via the cycle-averaged momentum, m* = sqrt(bar(P^2)), with bar(P) = p.
Standard strong-field QED definition for periodic fields, following Ritus [7]; used in Eqs. (5)-(7).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear QED in an ultrastrong rotating electric field: Signatures of the momentum-dependent effective mass." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2OB2JKO

@misc{pith2026190805960,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear QED in an ultrastrong rotating electric field: Signatures of the momentum-dependent effective mass},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2OB2JKO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05960}
}

abstract

The specific features of nonlinear pair production and radiation processes in an ultratsrong rotating electric field are investigated, taking into account that this field models the antinodes of counterpropagating laser beams. It is shown that a particle in a rotating electric field acquires an effective mass which depends on its momentum absolute value as well as on its direction with respect to the field plane. This phenomenon has an impact on the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler and nonlinear Compton processes. The spectra of the produced pairs in the first case, and the emitted photon in the second case, are shown to bear signatures of the effective mass. In the first case, the threshold for pair production by a $\gamma$-photon in the presence of this field varies according to the photon propagation direction. In the second case, varying the energy of the incoming electron allows for the measurement of the momentum dependence of the effective mass. Two corresponding experimental setups are suggested.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05960 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Total pair production probability vs. incoming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** (a) presents the NLC spectrum for θ = 0 and θ = π/2. The laser frequency and intensity are ω = 1.6 eV, I = 1.7 × 1019W/cm2 , corresponding to ξ = 2. The particle initial momentum is p/m = 20. One may see that the harmonics edges become smeared with increasing s. As a result, it is convenient to take a closer look at the first harmonic only. The edge locations corresponding to θ = 0 and θ = π/2 are ω 0 e = 0.26 keV a… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

[1]

Higgs Phys

P.W. Higgs Phys. Rev. 13, 508 (1964)

work page 1964
[2]

Thus, the preferable range for the study of the eﬀective mass inﬂuence is ξ∼ 1

In this limit, however, the local crossed ﬁeld approximation sets in for the NLC and NLBW processes, when the probabilities and spectra depend solely on the parameter χ, but not onξ, and all signatures of the eﬀective mass vanish. Thus, the preferable range for the study of the eﬀective mass inﬂuence is ξ∼ 1. Fig. 2(a) shows the eﬀective mass forξ = 2 FIG...

work page
[3]

E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii Statistical physics, Course in Theoretical Physics, V ol.9 (Pergamon, Oxford, 1980)

work page 1980
[4]

Mendonc ¸a Theory of photon acceleration (IOP, London, 2001)

J.T. Mendonc ¸a Theory of photon acceleration (IOP, London, 2001)

work page 2001
[5]

A. I. Nikishov, V . I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP19, 529 (1964)

work page 1964
[6]

T.W.B Kibble Phys. Rev. 150, 1060 (1966)

work page 1966
[7]

V . B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii,Quantum Electrodynamics, Course in Theoretical Physics, V ol.4 (Perga- mon, Oxford, 1982)

work page 1982
[8]

V . I. Ritus, J. Sov. Laser Res.6, 497 (1985)

work page 1985

Show all 58 references

[9]

J.W. Yoon, C. Jeon, J. Shin, S.K. Lee, H.W. Lee, I.W. Choi, H.T. Kim, J.H. Sung, and C.H. Nam Optics Express 27, 20412 (2019)

2019
[10]

The Gemini laser: https://www.clf.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/ Laser-system-Gemini.aspx
[11]

extreme-light-infrastructure.eu

The Extreme Light Infrustructure (ELI): http://www. extreme-light-infrastructure.eu
[12]

The XCELS project: http://www.xcels.iapras.ru
[13]

W. H. Furry, Phys. Rev. 81, 115 (1951)

1951
[14]

Di Piazza, C

A. Di Piazza, C. M ¨uller, K.Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C.H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012)

2012
[15]

Schwinger, Phys

J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

1951
[16]

A. R. Bell and J. G. Kirk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200403 (2008)

2008
[17]

Sokolov, N.M

I.V . Sokolov, N.M. Naumova, J.A. Nees, G.A. Mourou Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 195005 (2010)

2010
[18]

Fedotov, N.B

A.M. Fedotov, N.B. Narozhny, G. Mourou, and G. Korn Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 080402 (2010)

2010
[19]

Nerush, I.Yu

E.N. Nerush, I.Yu. Kostyukov, A.M. Fedotov, N.B. Narozhny, N.V . Elkina, and H. Ruhl Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 035001 (2011)

2011
[20]

Nakamura, J

T. Nakamura, J. K. Koga, T. Zh. Esirkepov, M. Kando, G. Korn, and S. V . Bulanov Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 195001 (2012)

2012
[21]

Gonoskov, I

A. Gonoskov, I. Gonoskov, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. Kim, M. Marklund, G. Mourou, and A. Sergeev Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 060404 (2013)

2013
[22]

Gonoskov, A

A. Gonoskov, A. Bashinov, S. Bastrakov, E. Eﬁmenko, A. Ilder- ton, A. Kim, M. Marklund, I. Meyerov, A. Muraviev, and A. Sergeev Phys. Rev. X7, 041003 (2017)

2017
[23]

Burke et

D.L. Burke et. al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1626 (1997)

1997
[24]

Bamber et

C. Bamber et. al. Phys. Rev. D. 60, 092004 (1999). 5

1999
[25]

Sarri, et al., Nat

G. Sarri, et al., Nat. Commun. 6, 6747 (2015)

2015
[26]

Poder, M

K. Poder, M. Tamburini, G. Sarri, A. Di Piazza, S. Kuschel, C.D. Baird, K. Behm, S. Bohlen, J.M. Cole, D.J. Corvan, M. Du ﬀ, E. Gerstmayr, C.H. Keitel, K. Krushelnick, S.P.D. Mangles, P. McKenna, C.D. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, C.P. Ridgers, G.M. Samarin, D.R. Symes, A.G.R. Thomas, ...

2018
[27]

J. M. Cole, K. T. Behm, E. Gerstmayr, T. G. Blackburn, J. C. Wood, C. D. Baird, M. J. Du ﬀ, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. S. Joglekar, K. Krushelnick, S. Kuschel, M. Marklund, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, K. Poder, C. P. Ridgers, G. M. Samarin, G. Sarri, D. R. Symes, A. G. R. Thomas...

2018
[28]

T. N. Wistisen, A. Di Piazza, H. V . Knudsen, and U. I. Uggerhøj, Nat. Commun. 9, 795 (2018)

2018
[29]

D. M. Wolkow, Z. Phys. 94, 250 (1935)

1935
[30]

Harvey, T

C. Harvey, T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, and M. Marklund Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100402 (2012)

2012
[31]

Harvey, T

C. Harvey, T. Heinzl, and A. Ilderton Phys. Rev. A.79, 063407 (2009)

2009
[32]

Boca, and V

M. Boca, and V . Florescu Phys. Rev. A80, 053403 (2009)

2009
[33]

Mackenroth, A

F. Mackenroth, A. Di Piazza Phys. Rev. A 83, 032106 (2011)

2011
[34]

Seipt, B

D. Seipt, B. K ¨ampfer Phys. Rev. A 83, 022101 (2011)

2011
[35]

Heinzl, A

T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, and M. Marklund Phys. Lett. B 692, 250 (2010)

2010
[36]

Nousch, D

T. Nousch, D. Seipt, B. K¨ampfer, A.I. Titov Phys. Lett. B715, 246 (2012)

2012
[37]

Gonoskov, A

A. Gonoskov, A. Bashinov, I. Gonoskov, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. Kim, M. Marklund, G. Mourou, and A. Sergeev Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 014801 (2014)

2014
[38]

Brezin, and C

E. Brezin, and C. Izykson, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1191 (1970)

1970
[39]

Cronstrom, and M

C. Cronstrom, and M. Noga, Phys. Lett. A 60, 137 (1977)

1977
[40]

Becker, Physica A 87, 601 (1977)

W. Becker, Physica A 87, 601 (1977)

1977
[41]

G. R. Mocken, M. Ruf, C. M¨uller, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. A 81, 022122 (2010)

2010
[42]

Granz, O

L.F. Granz, O. Mathiak, S. Villalba-Chvez, C. M¨uller Phys. Lett. B 793, 85 (2019)

2019
[43]

Varro, Laser Phys

S. Varro, Laser Phys. Lett. 10, 095301 (2013)

2013
[44]

Raicher, and S

E. Raicher, and S. Eliezer, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022113 (2013)

2013
[45]

Raicher, S

E. Raicher, S. Eliezer, and A. Zigler, Phys. Lett. B 750, 76 (2015)

2015
[46]

Heinzl, A

T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, and B. King, Phys. Rev. D 94, 065039 (2016)

2016
[47]

Raicher, S

E. Raicher, S. Eliezer, and A. Zigler, Phys. Rev. A.94, 062105 (2016)

2016
[48]

Mackenroth, N

F. Mackenroth, N. Kumar, N. Neitz, and C.H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. E 99, 033205 (2019)

2019
[49]

Raicher, S

E. Raicher, S. Eliezer, C. H. Keitel and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, Phys. Rev. A. 99, 052513 (2019)

2019
[50]

Kohlf ¨urst, H

C. Kohlf ¨urst, H. Gies and R. Alkofer Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 050402 (2014)

2014
[51]

see Supplemental Materials for details
[53]

V . N. Baier, V . M. Katkov, and V . M. StrakhovenkoElectro- magnetic processes at high energies in oriented single crystals (World Scientiﬁc, Londaon, 1998)

1998
[54]

Peskin and D.V

M.E. Peskin and D.V . SchroederAn Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (Perseus Books, Reading, 1995)

1995
[55]

Nonlinear QED in an ultrastrong rotating electric ﬁeld: Signatures of the momentum-dependent e ﬀective mass

Y . Wang, S. Wang, A. Rockwood, B.M. Luther, R. Hollinger, A. Curtis, C. Calvi, C.S. Menoni, and J.J. Rocca, Optics Lett. 42, 3828 (2017). Supplemental Materials to the paper “Nonlinear QED in an ultrastrong rotating electric ﬁeld: Signatures of the momentum-dependent e ﬀectiv...

2017
[56]

Raicher, S

E. Raicher, S. Eliezer, C.H. Keitel and K.Z. Hatsagortsyan, Phys. Rev. A. 99, 0523513 (2019)

2019
[57]

V . N. Baier, V . M. Katkov, Sov. Phys. JETP26, 854 (1968)

1968
[58]

V . N. Baier, V . M. Katkov, and V . M. StrakhovenkoElectromag- netic processes at high energies in oriented single crystals (World Scientiﬁc, Londaon, 1998)

1998
[59]

Peskin and D.V

M.E. Peskin and D.V . Schroeder An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (Perseus Books, Reading, 1995)

1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Higgs Phys

P.W. Higgs Phys. Rev. 13, 508 (1964)

work page 1964

[2] [2]

Thus, the preferable range for the study of the eﬀective mass inﬂuence is ξ∼ 1

In this limit, however, the local crossed ﬁeld approximation sets in for the NLC and NLBW processes, when the probabilities and spectra depend solely on the parameter χ, but not onξ, and all signatures of the eﬀective mass vanish. Thus, the preferable range for the study of the eﬀective mass inﬂuence is ξ∼ 1. Fig. 2(a) shows the eﬀective mass forξ = 2 FIG...

work page

[3] [3]

E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii Statistical physics, Course in Theoretical Physics, V ol.9 (Pergamon, Oxford, 1980)

work page 1980

[4] [4]

Mendonc ¸a Theory of photon acceleration (IOP, London, 2001)

J.T. Mendonc ¸a Theory of photon acceleration (IOP, London, 2001)

work page 2001

[5] [5]

A. I. Nikishov, V . I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP19, 529 (1964)

work page 1964

[6] [6]

T.W.B Kibble Phys. Rev. 150, 1060 (1966)

work page 1966

[7] [7]

V . B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii,Quantum Electrodynamics, Course in Theoretical Physics, V ol.4 (Perga- mon, Oxford, 1982)

work page 1982

[8] [8]

V . I. Ritus, J. Sov. Laser Res.6, 497 (1985)

work page 1985