Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 129 references

Dynamical Sauter-Schwinger pair creation process from Feynman perspective: Comparison of boundary- and initial-value approaches

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Boundary-value Feynman approach to pair creation matches S-matrix theory while initial-value method differs on spin distributions

desk verdict The paper derives the initial-value Dirac approach from the Feynman propagator series by swapping to retarded propagators and shows that helicity-resolved pair distributions differ even when spin-summed ones agree closely for a homogeneous pulse. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.00236 v1 pith:K6XTUZMH submitted 2026-05-29 hep-th

J. Z. Kamiński , A. Bechler , M. M. Majczak , K. Krajewska This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords Sauter-SchwingerpaircreationdynamicalproductionFeynmanboundaryconditionsinitial-valueapproachDiracequationhelicitydistributionsBornseriesstrong-fieldQED
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 compares two ways to calculate dynamical Sauter-Schwinger pair creation by a strong electromagnetic field. One solves the Dirac equation with Feynman or anti-Feynman boundary conditions, exactly summing the Born series to match scattering matrix theory and the worldline formalism. The other replaces Feynman propagators with retarded or advanced ones to obtain an initial-value problem based on the Dirac sea picture. For a homogeneous electric field pulse both methods give nearly identical spin-summed distributions, yet the spin- or helicity-resolved distributions differ substantially.

What carries the argument

Reduction of the infinite Born series summation for pair creation amplitudes to solving the Dirac equation with uniquely defined Feynman or anti-Feynman boundary conditions

What would settle it

A numerical computation for the same homogeneous electric field pulse parameters that finds identical spin- or helicity-resolved distributions under both approaches would falsify the reported significant differences

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The boundary-value approach with Feynman or anti-Feynman boundary conditions yields results equivalent to scattering matrix theory and consistent with the worldline formalism, while the initial-value approach follows from replacing Feynman propagators by retarded (advanced) ones. For a homogeneous electric field pulse the spin-summed distributions are nearly identical but the spin- or helicity-resolved distributions exhibit significant differences.

Load-bearing premise

The specific field-pulse parameters chosen allow a direct numerical comparison in which any observed differences arise from the boundary versus initial conditions rather than from truncation of the Born series or other numerical details

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Boundary-value results with Feynman conditions are equivalent to scattering matrix theory
  • Initial-value approach follows directly from replacing Feynman propagators with retarded or advanced ones
  • Spin-summed distributions for a homogeneous electric field pulse are nearly identical in both methods
  • Spin- or helicity-resolved distributions exhibit significant differences between the approaches
  • Helicity-entangled momentum distributions can be obtained in both frameworks

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Dirac sea interpretation in the initial-value method leads to different predictions for polarized particles than the space-time Feynman picture
  • Experiments that resolve created particle spin or helicity could distinguish the two formalisms
  • Consistency with the worldline formalism favors the boundary-value approach when polarization details matter
  • The comparison could be repeated for inhomogeneous fields to test whether discrepancies grow
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates dynamical Sauter-Schwinger pair creation in a strong electromagnetic background using two formulations. The boundary-value approach replaces the infinite Born series with the Dirac equation solved under Feynman or anti-Feynman boundary conditions, asserted to be equivalent to S-matrix theory and consistent with the worldline formalism. The initial-value approach follows by replacing Feynman propagators with retarded or advanced ones, corresponding to an excitation picture from the Dirac sea. For a homogeneous electric-field pulse with parameters chosen so that spin-summed distributions nearly agree, the manuscript reports that helicity-resolved (or spin-resolved) momentum distributions nevertheless differ significantly between the two methods.

Significance. If the reported differences in helicity-resolved distributions are shown to arise cleanly from the choice of boundary versus initial conditions rather than numerical truncation or discretization effects, the work would usefully illustrate the sensitivity of strong-field pair-production observables to propagator boundary conditions. The technical reduction of the Born series to a Dirac solver with uniquely specified boundary conditions is a clear strength that could be reused in other backgrounds.

major comments (2)
  1. Final paragraph and associated numerical section: the claim that spin-summed distributions are 'nearly the same, although not identical' while helicity-resolved distributions 'exhibit significant differences' is load-bearing for the central comparison. No convergence tests with respect to Born-series truncation order, spatial/temporal grid spacing, or normalization of the Dirac solutions are reported; without these it is impossible to exclude that the observed helicity differences originate from incomplete summation or discretization artifacts rather than the propagator choice itself.
  2. Abstract and the section deriving the boundary-value formulation: equivalence of the Feynman-boundary Dirac solution to the full S-matrix and to the worldline formalism is asserted after reducing the Born series, but the explicit mapping (e.g., how the boundary conditions enforce the same on-shell amplitudes as the S-matrix) is not supplied with intermediate steps or a side-by-side comparison; this equivalence is central to positioning the boundary-value method as the reference result.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the two sets of propagators (Feynman vs. retarded) and the corresponding boundary/initial conditions should be introduced with a single comparative table or equation block to reduce ambiguity when the numerical results are discussed.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of the precise field-pulse parameters (peak field strength, duration, frequency) used in the numerical example, preferably in a dedicated table or equation, so that the comparison can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address the two major comments point by point below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation and numerical validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Final paragraph and associated numerical section: the claim that spin-summed distributions are 'nearly the same, although not identical' while helicity-resolved distributions 'exhibit significant differences' is load-bearing for the central comparison. No convergence tests with respect to Born-series truncation order, spatial/temporal grid spacing, or normalization of the Dirac solutions are reported; without these it is impossible to exclude that the observed helicity differences originate from incomplete summation or discretization artifacts rather than the propagator choice itself.

    Authors: We agree that explicit convergence tests are necessary to rule out numerical artifacts as the source of the reported helicity differences. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection presenting convergence studies with respect to Born-series truncation (where the series is truncated), spatial and temporal grid spacing, and normalization of the Dirac solutions. These tests will be performed for the same homogeneous-field parameters used in the original numerics and will show that the helicity-resolved discrepancies remain stable under refinement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract and the section deriving the boundary-value formulation: equivalence of the Feynman-boundary Dirac solution to the full S-matrix and to the worldline formalism is asserted after reducing the Born series, but the explicit mapping (e.g., how the boundary conditions enforce the same on-shell amplitudes as the S-matrix) is not supplied with intermediate steps or a side-by-side comparison; this equivalence is central to positioning the boundary-value method as the reference result.

    Authors: The manuscript derives the boundary-value formulation by showing that the infinite Born series is resummed by the Dirac equation subject to Feynman (or anti-Feynman) boundary conditions that select the correct positive- and negative-energy asymptotic states. We acknowledge that the intermediate algebraic steps linking these boundary conditions directly to the on-shell S-matrix elements are only sketched. In the revision we will expand the relevant section with the explicit mapping, including the projection onto on-shell modes and a short side-by-side comparison of selected amplitudes with the worldline formalism for the same background. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: propagator replacement and equivalence derived without reduction to inputs or self-citation chains

full rationale

The paper derives the initial-value approach explicitly from the boundary-value Feynman approach by replacing propagators with retarded/advanced ones, and states that Feynman boundary conditions yield results equivalent to S-matrix theory. This is a direct mapping shown via the Born series reduction to the Dirac equation, with no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no self-definitional loops, and no load-bearing self-citations invoked to force uniqueness. The numerical comparison for the homogeneous pulse is presented as an illustration of differences in helicity-resolved distributions, not a forced outcome. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks like S-matrix and worldline formalisms.

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

The work rests on the standard Dirac equation in an external electromagnetic background and the usual Feynman versus retarded propagator distinction in QED; no new free parameters or postulated entities are introduced.

assumptions (2)
  • standard math The Dirac equation with an external electromagnetic background governs the pair-creation dynamics.
    Invoked as the starting point for both boundary- and initial-value formulations.
  • domain assumption Feynman boundary conditions implement the correct time-ordering for the vacuum-to-vacuum amplitude in QED.
    Used to define the propagators that sum the Born series exactly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical Sauter-Schwinger pair creation process from Feynman perspective: Comparison of boundary- and initial-value approaches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6XTUZMH

@misc{pith2026260600236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical Sauter-Schwinger pair creation process from Feynman perspective: Comparison of boundary- and initial-value approaches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6XTUZMH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.00236}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the dynamical Sauter-Schwinger pair creation process from the vacuum by an electromagnetic background field using two alternative approaches. The first one is based on the Feynman interpretation of positrons and the space-time description of Quantum Electrodynamics, which leads to the spin and momentum probability amplitudes expressed as the infinite Born series with respect to the background field. We demonstrate that in order to sum up this series exactly, the problem can be reduced to solving the Dirac equation with uniquely defined Feynman or anti-Feynman boundary conditions. The use of these boundary conditions leads to the results that are equivalent to the scattering matrix theory and consistent with the worldline formalism. Alternative way of investigating the dynamical Sauter-Schwinger process consists in solving the Dirac equation with normalized initial (final) conditions. It is shown that this method follows from the suitably modified Feynman space-time approach, in which the Feynman propagators are replaced by the retarded (advanced) propagators. By doing so it is implicitly assumed that negative energy solutions describe electrons filling the Dirac sea (i.e., representing the Dirac vacuum) and the process of pair creation consists in the excitation of these electrons to the positive energy states. For both the boundary- and initial-value approaches the helicity-entangled momentum distributions are discussed and compared. Predictions of the two approaches are illustrated numerically for the homogeneous electric field pulse and for parameters such that for the spin summed up distributions both methods lead to nearly the same, although not identical, results. It is shown that even in such cases the spin- or helicity-resolved momentum distributions exhibit significant differences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00236 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the Feynman diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Feynman diagrams representing four possible QED [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Components of the electric field pulse (90) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Color mappings of the spin summed up momen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Panels (a) and (c) show the spin-resolved momen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Color mappings of the spin summed up momen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panels (a)-(d) show four spin-resolved distribut [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Momentum asymmetry distributions [cf., Eq. (93)] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as in Fig. 8 but for the shorter electric pulse, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1mec2, Nosc = 11, δ1 = − π/ 4, δ2 = δ3 = π/ 4, χ 1 = χ 3 = 0, χ 2 = π/ 4

    3ES, ω = 0 . 1mec2, Nosc = 11, δ1 = − π/ 4, δ2 = δ3 = π/ 4, χ 1 = χ 3 = 0, χ 2 = π/ 4. (b) Corresponding components of the vector potential, defined by Eqs. (89) and (90). Here, the multi-index [k,ℓ,j ] is a permutation of [1 , 2, 3], whereas E0, ω , and χ j are, respectively, the amplitude, central frequency and carrier envelope phase, and δj de- termines...

  2. [2]

    KF(x2,x 1) has an interpretation consistent with the positron interpretation of negative energy states . Thus when the thing is “ordinary

    In a similar way, we show that A(+) R;S[p|A] = 0. We have also checked these results analytically in the first- and second-order Born approximations. Our numerical analysis shows that the moduli of both scalar amplitudes are smaller than the assumed numerical precision. In Fig. 10, we compare the helicity-entangled momen- tum distributions by applying the ...

  3. [3]

    J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Me- chanics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964)

    1964

  4. [4]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, DIAGRAMMAR, NATO Sci. Ser. B 4, 177 (1974)

    1974

  5. [5]

    Veltman, Diagrammatica - The Path to Feynman Diagrams (Cambridge Univ

    M. Veltman, Diagrammatica - The Path to Feynman Diagrams (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1994)

    1994

  6. [6]

    Itzykson and J.-B

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

    1980

  7. [7]

    ´Alvarez-Gaum´ e and M.´A

    L. ´Alvarez-Gaum´ e and M.´A. V´ azquez-Mozo,An Invita- tion to Quantum Field Theory (Springer, Berlin, 2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    Kleiss, Quantum Field Theory

    R. Kleiss, Quantum Field Theory. A Diagrammatic Ap- proach (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2021)

    2021

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

    D’Auria and M

    R. D’Auria and M. Trigiante, From Special Relativity to Feynman Diagrams (Springer, Cham, 2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Glashow, The renormalizability of vector meson in- teractions, Nucl

    S. Glashow, The renormalizability of vector meson in- teractions, Nucl. Phys. 10, 107 (1959)

    1959

  3. [11]

    Salam and J

    A. Salam and J. Ward, Weak and electromagnetic in- teractions, Nuovo Cim. 11, 568 (1959)

    1959

  4. [12]

    Weinberg, A Model of Leptons, Phys

    S. Weinberg, A Model of Leptons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967)

    1967

  5. [13]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, Regularization and renor- malization of gauge fields, Nucl. Phys. B 44, 189 (1972)

    1972

  6. [14]

    Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature (Vintage Books, 17 New York, 1994)

    S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature (Vintage Books, 17 New York, 1994)

    1994

  7. [15]

    R. P. Feynman, The Theory of Positrons, Phys. Rev. 76, 749 (1949)

    1949

  8. [16]

    R. P. Feynman, Space-Time Approach to Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. 76, 769 (1949)

    1949

  9. [17]

    R. P. Feynman, Quantum Electrodynamics (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1998) (New Edition). Original text was published in 1961

    1998

  10. [18]

    S. S. Schweber, Feynman and the visualization of space- time processes, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 449 (1986)

    1986

  11. [19]

    S. S. Schweber, QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga (Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, 1994)

    1994

  12. [20]

    W¨ uthrich, The Genesis of Feynman Diagrams (Springer, Dordrecht, 2010)

    A. W¨ uthrich, The Genesis of Feynman Diagrams (Springer, Dordrecht, 2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

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

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

    1931

  14. [22]

    Schwinger, On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polar- ization, Phys

    J. Schwinger, On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polar- ization, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  15. [23]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Folgerungen aus der Dirac- schen Theorie des Positrons, Zeit. Phys. 98, 714 (1936)

    1936

  16. [24]

    R. A. Treumann, W. Baumjohann, and A. Balogh, The strongest magnetic fields in the universe: how strong can they become?, Front. Phys. 2, 59 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Enoto, S

    T. Enoto, S. Kisaka, and S. Shibata, Observational di- versity of magnetized neutron stars, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 106901 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Greiner, B

    W. Greiner, B. M¨ uller, and J. Rafelski, Quantum Elec- trodynamics of Strong Fields (Springer, Berlin, 1980)

    1980

  19. [27]

    D. S. Gemmell, Channeling and related effects in the motion of charged particles through crystals, Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 129 (1974)

    1974

  20. [28]

    S. S. Bulanov, V. D. Mur, N. B. Narozhny, J. Nees, and V. S. Popov, Multiple Colliding Electromagnetic Pulses: A Way to Lower the Threshold of e+e− Pair Production from Vacuum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 220404 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Remme, A

    S. Remme, A. Eckey, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, A. B. Voitkiv, and C. M¨ uller, Bound-free electron-positron pair pro- duction in combined Coulomb and constant crossed elec- tromagnetic fields: A Schwinger-like process with intrin- sic assistance, Phys. Rev. A 113, 033115 (2026)

    2026

  22. [30]

    Fradkin, D

    E. Fradkin, D. Gitman, and S. Shvartsman, Quan- tum Electrodynamics with Unstable Vacuum (Springer, Berlin, 1991)

    1991

  23. [31]

    A. A. Grib, S. G. Mamayev, and V. M. Mostepanenko, Vacuum quantum effects in strong fields (Friedmann Laboratory Publishing, St.Petersburg, 1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    V. R. Khalilov, Electrons in a Strong Magnetic Field: An Advanced Classical and Quantum Treatment (Gor- don and Breach Publishers, Amsterdam, 1996). Original Russian text was published in 1988

    1996

  25. [33]

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

    1985

  26. [34]

    A. I. Nikishov, Problems of intense external-field inte n- sity in quantum electrodynamics, J. Sov. Laser Res. 6, 619 (1985)

    1985

  27. [35]

    Rafelski, L

    J. Rafelski, L. P. Fulcher, and A. Klein, Fermions and bosons interacting with arbitrarily strong external fields, Phys. Rep. 38, 227 (1978)

    1978

  28. [36]

    S. P. Roshchupkin, Resonant effects in collisions of rel - ativistic electrons in the field of a light wave, Laser Physics 6, 837 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    G. A. Mourou, T. Tajima, and S. V. Bulanov, Optics in the relativistic regime, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 309 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Y. I. Salamin, S. Hu, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Relativistic high-power laser–matter interac- tions, Phys. Rep. 427, 41 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Ehlotzky, K

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

    2009

  32. [40]

    Ruffini, G

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

    2010

  33. [41]

    Di Piazza, C

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

    2012

  34. [42]

    Gelis and N

    F. Gelis and N. Tanji, Schwinger mechanism revisited, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 87, 1 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Cajiao V´ elez, J

    F. Cajiao V´ elez, J. Z. Kami´ nski, and K. Krajewska, Electron Scattering Processes in Non-Monochromatic and Relativistically Intense Laser Fields, Atoms 7, 34 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    T. Sun, Q. Zhao, K. Xue, Z.-W. Lu, L.-L. Ji, F. Wan, Y. Wang, Y. I. Salamin, and J.-X. Li, Production of polarized particle beams via ultraintense laser pulses, Rev. Mod. Plasma Phys. 6, 38 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Gonoskov, T

    A. Gonoskov, T. G. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045001 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Brodin and J

    G. Brodin and J. Zamanian, Quantum kinetic theory of plasmas, Rev. Mod. Plasma Phys. 6, 1 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Fedotov, A

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

    2023

  40. [48]

    S. V. Popruzhenko and A. M. Fedotov, Dynamics and radiation of charged particles in ultra-intense laser fields, Phys.-Usp. 66, 460 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Sarri, B

    G. Sarri, B. King, T. Blackburn, et al. , Input to the Eu- ropean strategy for particle physics: strong-field quan- tum electrodynamics, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 140, 1151 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    R. P. Feynman and S. Weinberg, Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics. The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lec- tures (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1987)

    1986

  43. [51]

    P. A. M. Dirac, A theory of electrons and protons, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 126, 360 (1930)

    1930

  44. [52]

    C. D. Anderson, The Positive Electron, Phys. Rev. 43, 491 (1933)

    1933

  45. [53]

    P. A. M. Dirac, On the Annihilation of Electrons and Protons, Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 26, 361 (1930)

    1930

  46. [54]

    Breit and J

    G. Breit and J. A. Wheeler, Collision of two light quanta, Phys. Rev. 46, 1087 (1934)

    1934

  47. [55]

    Tomonaga, On a Relativistically Invariant Formu- lation of the Quantum Theory of Wave Fields, Prog

    S. Tomonaga, On a Relativistically Invariant Formu- lation of the Quantum Theory of Wave Fields, Prog. Theor. Phys. 1, 27 (1946)

    1946

  48. [56]

    Rivier and E

    D. Rivier and E. C. G. Stuecklberg, A Convergent Ex- pression for the Magnetic Moment of the Neutron, Phys. Rev. 74, 218 (1948)

    1948

  49. [57]

    V. I. Ritus, Lagrangian of an intense electromagnetic field and quantum electrodynamics at short distances, Sov. Phys. JETP 42, 774 (1975). 18

    1975

  50. [58]

    V. I. Ritus, Lagrange function of intense electromag- netic field, in Proceedings of the P. N. Lebedev Institute , Vol. 168 (Nauka Publishers, Moscow, 1986), p. 5 (in Russian)

    1986

  51. [59]

    Dittrich and M

    W. Dittrich and M. Reuter, Effective Lagrangians in Quantum Electrodynamics, Lect. Notes in Phys. 220, 1 (1985)

    1985

  52. [60]

    Dittrich and H

    W. Dittrich and H. Gies, Probing the Quantum Vac- uum, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics 166, 1 (2000)

    2000

  53. [61]

    Dittrich, Finite temperature effects in QED, Phys

    W. Dittrich, Finite temperature effects in QED, Phys. Lett. B 83, 67 (1979)

    1979

  54. [62]

    Dittrich, Effective Lagrangians at finite tempera- ture, Phys

    W. Dittrich, Effective Lagrangians at finite tempera- ture, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2385 (1979)

    1979

  55. [63]

    Bechler, Two Point Green’s Functions in Quantum Electrodynamics at Finite Temperature and Density, Ann

    A. Bechler, Two Point Green’s Functions in Quantum Electrodynamics at Finite Temperature and Density, Ann. Phys. 135, 19 (1981)

    1981

  56. [64]

    J. Z. Kami´ nski, On the effective lagrangian of QED at high temperature, Phys. Lett. B 102, 172 (1981)

    1981

  57. [65]

    J. Z. Kami´ nski, On low-temperature corrections to QED, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 31, 582 (1981)

    1981

  58. [66]

    Gies, QED effective action at finite temperature: Two-loop dominance, Phys

    H. Gies, QED effective action at finite temperature: Two-loop dominance, Phys. Rev. D 61, 085021 (2000)

    2000

  59. [67]

    Hattori, K

    K. Hattori, K. Itakura, and S. Ozaki, Strong-field physics in QED and QCD: From fundamentals to ap- plications, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 133, 104068 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Bia/suppress lynicki-Birula and Z

    I. Bia/suppress lynicki-Birula and Z. Bia/suppress lynicka-Birula,Quantum Electrodynamics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1975) . Original Polish first edition was published in 1969

    1975

  61. [69]

    H. K. Avetissian, A. K. Avetissian, G. F. Mkrtchian, and K. V. Sedrakian, Electron-positron pair produc- tion in the field of superstrong oppositely directed laser beams, Phys. Rev. E 66, 016502 (2002)

    2002

  62. [70]

    Blinne and H

    A. Blinne and H. Gies, Pair production in rotating elec- tric fields, Phys. Rev. D 89, 085001 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Blinne and E

    A. Blinne and E. Strobel, Comparison of semiclassical and Wigner function methods in pair production in ro- tating fields, Phys. Rev. D 93, 025014 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    Cheng, Q

    T. Cheng, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Introductory review on quantum field theory with space–time resolution, Con- temp. Phys. 51, 315 (2010)

    2010

  65. [73]

    C. K. Li, Y. J. Li, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Phase sensitiv- ity of the pair-creation process in colliding laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A 108, 033112 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    D. D. Su, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Strong field induced creation of transverse positron-electron pairs from the vacuum, Phys. Rev. D 112, 116017 (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    Li, X.-X

    C.-K. Li, X.-X. Zhou, Q. Chen, B. An, Y.-J. Li, N.- S. Lin, and Y. Wan, Transition signatures for elec- tron–positron pair creation in space–time inhomoge- neous electric field, Chin. Phys. B 35, 054201 (2026)

    2026

  68. [76]

    I. A. Aleksandrov, A. Kudlis, and A. I. Klochai, Kinetic theory of vacuum pair production in uniform electric fields revisited, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043009 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Bia/suppress lynicki-Birula, P

    I. Bia/suppress lynicki-Birula, P. G´ ornicki, and J. Rafelski,Phase- space structure of the Dirac vacuum, Phys. Rev. D 44, 1825 (1991)

    1991

  70. [78]

    Bechler, F

    A. Bechler, F. C. V´ elez, K. Krajewska, and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Vortex Structures and Momentum Sharing in Dynamic Sauter–Schwinger Process, Acta Phys. Pol. A 143, S18 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    M. M. Majczak, K. Krajewska, J. Z. Kami´ nski, and A. Bechler, Scattering matrix approach to dynamical Sauter-Schwinger process: Spin- and helicity-resolved momentum distributions, Phys. Rev. D 110, 116025 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  73. [81]

    Villalba-Ch´ avez, O

    S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, O. Mathiak, R. Egger, and C. M¨ uller, Light-amplified Landau-Zener conductiv- ity in gapped graphene monolayers: A simulacrum of photocatalyzed vacuum instability, Phys. Rev. D 108, 116007 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    Golub, R

    A. Golub, R. Egger, C. M¨ uller, and S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, Dimensionality-Driven Photoproduction of Massive Dirac Pairs near Threshold in Gapped Graphene Mono- layers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110403 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    I. Akal, R. Egger, C. M¨ uller, and S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, Simulating dynamically assisted production of Dirac pairs in gapped graphene monolayers, Phys. Rev. D 99, 016025 (2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    M. C. Suster, J. Derlikiewicz, K. M. Kotur, F. Ca- jiao V´ elez, K. Krajewska, and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Dy- namical mass generation in graphene by bicircular laser fields, J. Phys.: Conf. Series 1508, 012004 (2020)

    2020

  77. [85]

    Dreisow, S

    F. Dreisow, S. Longhi, S. Nolte, A. T¨ unnermann, and A. Szameit, Vacuum Instability and Pair Production in an Optical Setting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 110401 (2012)

    2012

  78. [86]

    Brezin and C

    E. Brezin and C. Itzykson, Pair Production in Vacuum by an Alternating Field, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1191 (1970)

    1970

  79. [87]

    F. J. Dyson, The Radiation Theories of Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman, Phys. Rev. 75, 486 (1949)

    1949

  80. [88]

    F. J. Dyson, The S Matrix in Quantum Electrodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. 75, 1736 (1949)

    1949

  81. [89]

    A. I. Nikishov, S-matrix of Quantum Electrodynamics with the external field creating pairs, in Proceedings of the P. N. Lebedev Institute , Vol. 168 (Nauka Publishers, Moscow, 1986), p. 156 (in Russian)

    1986

  82. [90]

    Schubert, Perturbative quantum field theory in the string-inspired formalism, Phys

    C. Schubert, Perturbative quantum field theory in the string-inspired formalism, Phys. Rep. 355, 73 (2001)

    2001

  83. [91]

    G. V. Dunne and C. Schubert, Worldline instantons and pair production in inhomogenous fields, Phys. Rev. D 72, 105004 (2005)

    2005

  84. [92]

    G. V. Dunne, Q.-h. Wang, H. Gies, and C. Schu- bert, Worldline instantons and the fluctuation prefactor, Phys. Rev. D 73, 065028 (2006)

    2006

  85. [93]

    C. K. Dumlu and G. V. Dunne, Complex worldline in- stantons and quantum interference in vacuum pair pro- duction, Phys. Rev. D 84, 125023 (2011)

    2011

  86. [94]

    Rajeev, Lorentzian worldline path integral approac h to Schwinger effect, Phys

    K. Rajeev, Lorentzian worldline path integral approac h to Schwinger effect, Phys. Rev. D 104, 105014 (2021)

    2021

  87. [95]

    Degli Esposti and G

    G. Degli Esposti and G. Torgrimsson, Worldline instan- tons for the momentum spectrum of Schwinger pair pro- duction in spacetime dependent fields, Phys. Rev. D 107, 056019 (2023)

    2023

  88. [96]

    M. L. Goldberger and K. M. Watson, Collision Theory (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1964)

    1964

  89. [97]

    R. G. Newton, Scattering theory of waves and particles (Springer, New York, 1982)

    1982

  90. [98]

    I. A. Aleksandrov, G. Plunien, and V. M. Shabaev, Electron-positron pair production in external electric fields varying both in space and time, Phys. Rev. D 94, 065024 (2016)

    2016

  91. [99]

    Selstø, A Computational Introduction to Quantum Physics (Camgridge Univ

    S. Selstø, A Computational Introduction to Quantum Physics (Camgridge Univ. Press, New York, 2024)

    2024

  92. [100]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Camgridge Univ. Press, New York, 2000). 19

    2000

  93. [101]

    Y. Li, Y. Dai, and Y. Shi, Pairwise mode entanglement in Schwinger production of particle-antiparticle pairs in an electric field, Phys. Rev. D 95, 036006 (2017)

    2017

  94. [102]

    Y. Li, Q. Mao, and Y. Shi, Schwinger effect of a rela- tivistic boson entangled with a qubit, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032340 (2019)

    2019

  95. [103]

    Fan, C.-W

    H.-H. Fan, C.-W. Zhang, S. Tang, and B.-S. Xie, Vortex state properties in multiphoton scalar pair production, Phys. Rev. D 111, 076017 (2025)

    2025

  96. [104]

    Fan, L.-N

    H.-H. Fan, L.-N. Hu, S. Tang, Z.-L. Li, and B.-S. Xie, Application of partial wave analysis in multiphoton pair production, Phys. Rev. D 110, 076028 (2024)

    2024

  97. [105]

    Hu, H.-H

    L.-N. Hu, H.-H. Fan, O. Amat, S. Tang, and B.-S. Xie, Spin effect induced momentum spiral and asymmetry degree in pair production, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056013 (2024)

    2024

  98. [106]

    Amat, H.-H

    O. Amat, H.-H. Fan, S. Tang, Y.-F. Huang, and B.-S. Xie, Spin resolved momentum spectra for vacuum pair production via a generalized two level model, Phys. Rev. D 111, 056020 (2025)

    2025

  99. [107]

    J. Braß, D. M¨ uller, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, K. Krajew- ska, and C. M¨ uller, Relative-phase dependence of dy- namically assisted electron-positron pair creation in the superposition of strong oscillating electric-field pulses , arXiv:2505.24488 [physics.atom-ph] (2025)

    2025

  100. [108]

    I. A. Aleksandrov and A. Kudlis, Pair production in rotating electric fields via quantum kinetic equations: Resolving helicity states, Phys. Rev. D 110, L011901 (2024)

    2024

  101. [109]

    J. Z. Kami´ nski, M. Twardy, and K. Krajewska, Diffrac- tion at a time grating in electron-positron pair creation from the vacuum, Phys. Rev. D 98, 056009 (2018)

    2018

  102. [110]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Threshold effects in electron-positron pair creation from the vacuum: Stabi- lization and longitudinal versus transverse momentum sharing, Phys. Rev. A 100, 012104 (2019)

    2019

  103. [111]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Unitary versus pseu- dounitary time evolution and statistical effects in the dynamical Sauter-Schwinger process, Phys. Rev. A 100, 062116 (2019)

    2019

  104. [112]

    Sah and M

    D. Sah and M. Singh, Time Scales in Dynamical Sauter–Schwinger Pair Creation: Dependence on Trans- verse Momentum, Acta Phys. Pol. A 148, 149 (2025)

    2025

  105. [113]

    Sah and M

    D. Sah and M. P. Singh, Electron-positron pair creatio n induced by multi-pulse train of electric fields: Effect of randomness in time-delay, Nucl. Phys. B 1024, 117333 (2026)

    2026

  106. [114]

    Z.-Y. Chen, O. Amat, J.-h. Bai, and M. A. Bake, Spin effect in vacuum pair production under two-color rotat- ing electric fields, Phys. Rev. D 111, 116005 (2025)

    2025

  107. [115]

    J. P. Edwards, N. Ahmadiniaz, S. M. Schmidt, and C. Kohlf¨ urst, Relativistic quantum kinetic theory: Higher order contributions in assisted Schwinger pair production, Phys. Rev. D 112, L031901 (2025)

    2025

  108. [116]

    J. R. Dormand and P. J. Prince, A family of embed- ded Runge-Kutta formulae, J. Comp. Appl. Math. 6, 19 (1980)

    1980

  109. [117]

    Hairer, S

    E. Hairer, S. P. Nørsett, and G. Wanner, Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I: Nonstiff Problems (Springer, Berlin, 1993)

    1993

  110. [118]

    Kohlf¨ urst, N

    C. Kohlf¨ urst, N. Ahmadiniaz, J. Oertel, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Sauter-Schwinger Effect for Col- liding Laser Pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 241801 (2022)

    2022

  111. [119]

    L. V. Keldysh, Ionization in the field of a strong elec- tromagnetic wave, Sov. Phys. - JETP 20, 1307 (1965)

    1965

  112. [120]

    V. S. Popov, The Schwinger effect and possibilities for its observation using optical and X-ray lasers, JETP 94, 1057 (2002)

    2002

  113. [121]

    Hidalgo and P

    L. Hidalgo and P. Draper, Quantum simulations for strong-field QED, Phys. Rev. D 109, 076004 (2024)

    2024

  114. [122]

    S. P. Roshchupkin and M. V. Shakhov, Quantum Entan- glement of the Final Particles in the Resonant Trident Pair Production Process in a Strong Electromagnetic Wave, Photonics 12, 307 (2025)

    2025

  115. [123]

    S. Tang, B. Dillon, and B. King, Entanglement and pair production in intense electromagnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D 112, 056032 (2025)

    2025

  116. [124]

    M. M. Majczak, K. Krajewska, A. Bechler, and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Spirals, vortices, and helicity entanglements in dynamical Sauter-Schwinger pair creation, Phys. Rev. A 113, 052224 (2026)

    2026

  117. [125]

    Fan, L.-J

    H.-H. Fan, L.-J. Li, Z.-H. Yao, O. Amat, S. Tang, and B.-S. Xie, Vortex states and entanglement properties in multiphoton pair production, arXiv:2511.12475 [hep-ph] (2025)

    2025

  118. [126]

    R. Z. Jiang, Z. L. Li, and Y. I. Li, Angular mo- mentum transfer in multiphoton pair production, arXiv:2603.25515 [hep-ph] (2026)

    2026

  119. [127]

    Al-Naseri, J

    H. Al-Naseri, J. Zamanian, and G. Brodin, Plasma dynamics and vacuum pair creation using the Dirac- Heisenberg-Wigner formalism, Phys. Rev. E 104, 015207 (2021)

    2021

  120. [128]

    Brodin, H

    G. Brodin, H. Al-Naseri, J. Zamanian, G. Torgrims- son, and B. Eliasson, Plasma dynamics at the Schwinger limit and beyond, Phys. Rev. E 107, 035204 (2023)

    2023

  121. [129]

    Al-Naseri, Electron–positron pair annihilation i n ki- netic plasma, Phys

    H. Al-Naseri, Electron–positron pair annihilation i n ki- netic plasma, Phys. Plasmas 32, 122111 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.