Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Stringent requirements for detecting light-induced gravitational effects using interferometry

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Einstein's equations say a strong laser field curves spacetime; this paper derives the interferometric conditions needed to see that curvature and shows today's lasers fall short by orders of magnitude.

desk verdict Solid negative result: concrete thresholds for why laser-generated gravity is out of reach; the no-go conclusion is overdetermined and the caveats are secondary. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05534 v1 pith:KU5XGOZX submitted 2025-06-05 gr-qc physics.optics

F. Fillion-Gourdeau , S. MacLean This is my paper
classification gr-qcphysics.optics
keywords light-inducedgravitationaleffectsMach-ZehnderinterferometerlinearizedgravityHeisenberglimitvacuumbirefringencephoton-photonscatteringe-dipolepulselaserinterferometry
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

According to general relativity, an intense electromagnetic field is itself a source of gravity, so a powerful laser should warp spacetime by a minuscule amount. This paper asks whether that light-induced gravitational effect (LIGE) can be seen by sending probe light through a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (a two-path optical interferometer), and it derives precise conditions under which the effect would be observable. Using the best phase precision allowed by quantum mechanics and treating photon-photon scattering in vacuum as an unavoidable background, the authors find two requirements: the product of the source-field energy and the probe energy must exceed $1.9\times10^{18}\ \mathrm{J}^2$, and the probe must pass through the field over a distance above $9.8\times10^6$ m. For a realistically focused laser pulse modeled as an e-dipole, the calculated length shift is at most about $10^{-34}$ m, and for today's highest-energy pulsed lasers it ranges from $10^{-40}$ to $10^{-43}$ m, against a demonstrated interferometric sensitivity near $10^{-19}$ m. The paper's conclusion is that laboratory detection of LIGE is not in reach for current or foreseen laser infrastructures in the configurations considered.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three pieces. First, the retarded-potential solution of the linearized Einstein equation in the Lorentz gauge converts the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor into the spacetime perturbation $h_{\mu\nu}$; for a homogeneous field this yields $h_{\mu\nu}=H\Theta_{\mu\nu}t^2$ and, through the null-geodesic time delay, the interferometric phase formula. Second, two bounds set the noise floor: the Heisenberg limit for phase estimation, $\Delta\phi_{\rm th}=1/\bar N$, and the vacuum refractive-index change $\Delta n=2c_{\rm qed}\epsilon_0 E^2$ coming from photon-photon scattering in the Euler-Heisenberg effective theory. Third, the realistic case uses the Gaussian e-dipole pulse, a tightly focused exact solution of Maxwell's equations chosen to model an optimal laser focus, with the metric perturbation and photon time delay computed by numerical integration; the effective length difference is $\Delta L=\frac12\int \kappa\,dz'$ evaluated along the probe path, where $\kappa=h_{00}+2h_{03}+h_{33}$.

What would settle it

A measurement of a LIGE-like phase shift with either $UU_{\rm probe}<1.9\times10^{18}\ \mathrm{J}^2$ or $L<9.8\times10^6$ m would falsify the corresponding bound; conversely, a calculation exhibiting a configuration with $\Delta\phi_{\rm lige}/\Delta\phi_{\rm qed}>1$ below $L=9.8\times10^6$ m would falsify the near-optimality assumption that supports the infeasibility conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a set of no-go-style requirements. For the simplest configuration, a homogeneous electric field, the LIGE phase in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer is $\Delta\phi_{\rm lige}=\pi\kappa\epsilon_0 E_0^2 L^3/(3\lambda_{\rm probe})=\kappa U/(2\lambda_{\rm probe})$, with $\kappa=8\pi G/c^4$. Requiring this phase to exceed the Heisenberg limit $\Delta\phi_{\rm th}=1/\bar N$ gives $UU_{\rm probe}\gtrsim1.9\times10^{18}\ \mathrm{J}^2$, and requiring it to dominate the QED phase from the vacuum refractive index gives $L\gtrsim9.8\times10^6$ m. Repeating the analysis for harmonic time dependence shows the oscillating case always gives a smaller phase than the static one. For the more realistic e-dipole pulse, the paper solves the linearized Einstein equation numerically, extracts the scaling $\Delta L\propto E_{\max}^2 L^{0.20}\lambda^{2.80}T^{0.84}$, and evaluates concrete sources: a 10 PW laser gives $\Delta L\approx1.04\times10^{-40}$ m, a megajoule fusion laser gives $4.69\times10^{-41}$ m, and a high-power radar gives $6.15\times10^{-43}$ m, all far below the $10^{-19}$ m benchmark. The paper states its conclusion as 'observing these effects presents significant challenges' in 'all cases considered,' while warning that other field configurations and detector schemes were not exhausted.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a homogeneous constant electric field is essentially the best geometry for LIGE relative to the QED background; the paper itself limits its conclusion to 'all cases considered' and, in Section VI, says other field configurations and detection schemes were not exhausted, so this near-optimality is assumed rather than proved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Mach-Zehnder search for LIGE must reach $UU_{\rm probe}\gtrsim1.9\times10^{18}\ \mathrm{J}^2$; the most energetic laser today is about six orders of magnitude short on its own.
  • The $L\gtrsim9.8\times10^6$ m condition means the field region must stretch across roughly the Earth's diameter, and because both LIGE and QED phases scale as $E^2$, raising field strength cannot improve the ratio.
  • Time dependence shrinks the effect: for a harmonic homogeneous field the phase is always below the constant-field value, so slowly varying fields are the favourable regime.
  • For focused e-dipole pulses, the best length shifts sit near the Planck length ($10^{-34}$ m), about fifteen orders below the $10^{-19}$ m sensitivity of existing gravitational-wave interferometers.
  • A plane-wave pump co-propagating with the probe kills the QED background but also makes the LIGE delay vanish, so that particular workaround is closed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's logic, a resonant cavity or multi-beam stack in which the LIGE phase accumulates faster than the QED phase would not be ruled out by the derivation, since the paper's optimality claim covers only the configurations it studied.
  • The QED background is treated as unsubtractable noise; if vacuum-birefringence phases were measured and subtracted, the energy condition could be relaxed, shifting the problem from fundamental quantum limits to systematic control.
  • The e-dipole scaling law was fit over a limited parameter range, and the radio-wavelength extrapolation that makes radar look unfavourable deserves a direct numerical check with multi-cycle or counter-propagating pulse stacks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the feasibility of detecting light-induced gravitational effects (LIGE) with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. For a homogeneous electric field, the authors derive the linearized metric perturbation and the phase shift experienced by a probe photon, obtaining Δφ_lige = κU / (2λ_probe). Combining this with the Heisenberg limit for phase sensitivity, Δφ_th = 1/N, yields the requirement U U_probe ≳ 1.9×10^18 J². Requiring LIGE to dominate the QED light-by-light scattering phase yields a second requirement L ≳ 9.8×10^6 m. For a homogeneous field with harmonic time dependence, the phase is shown to be smaller, so the constant-field bounds are treated as minimal. The paper then considers a tightly focused e-dipole pulse, computing the effective length shift ΔL numerically for near-Schwinger fields and for parameters of ELI-NP, NIF, and a high-power radar. In all cases, ΔL is at or below 10^-34 m, far below the LIGO-class sensitivity of ~10^-19 m. The conclusion is that detection is very challenging with current and foreseeable infrastructure.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable negative result. It places quantitative bounds on a class of proposed LIGE experiments and identifies the QED vacuum polarization as a competing background that for homogeneous fields scales with field strength in the same way as LIGE. The paper is careful to limit its claim to 'all cases considered' and does not overstate a no-go statement. The homogeneous-field calculation is analytic, the Heisenberg-limit bound is parameter-free, and the order-of-magnitude conclusions are highly robust: the gap between predicted signals and experimental sensitivity is 15–24 orders of magnitude. The authors also correctly note that time dependence reduces the LIGE phase relative to the constant-field case. The main limitations—no optimality proof for the homogeneous configuration, no public code or uncertainty estimates for the numerical e-dipole results—do not affect the central conclusion, which is overdetermined by the Heisenberg-limit condition alone.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.C, Eq. (39)] The statement that 'it is required that LIGE dominates over QED effects' is stronger than necessary, because the QED phase is deterministic and could in principle be calibrated and subtracted; since the Heisenberg-limit condition in Eq. (34) already makes detection infeasible, the wording should be softened to avoid implying that the L bound is a fundamental requirement rather than a conservative single-measurement condition.
  2. [Section V.B, paragraph after Eq. (65)] The sentence 'the exponent b2 approaches that of the homogeneous case for which b1 = 3' contains a typo: the homogeneous exponent is b1 = 3, but in context the comparison should be to b2 ≈ 3; please correct this to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section V.B and Tables II–IV] The numerical values of ΔL are reported to three significant figures without any estimate of numerical uncertainty or convergence data, and no code or data are made available; a data availability statement and a short convergence study would improve reproducibility, although the conclusions are robust because the values are orders of magnitude below sensitivity.
  4. [Section V.C.3] The required radar power of P ≈ 8.1×10^30 W is obtained by extrapolating the scaling law in Eq. (65) far outside the fitted range; since the directly computed ΔL_radar ≈ 6.15×10^-43 m already shows infeasibility, this extrapolated estimate should be labeled as illustrative.
  5. [Section V.B] The fitted exponents b1 ≈ 0.20, b2 ≈ 2.80, and b3 ≈ 0.84 are given without fit quality or the parameter ranges over which the fit was performed; specifying these details would help readers judge the extrapolation to longer wavelengths.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the detectability bounds and e-dipole infeasibility estimates follow from independent inputs (linearized gravity, Heisenberg-limit phase sensitivity, Euler-Heisenberg QED) and are not defined in terms of their own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The homogeneous-field phase shift is obtained by solving the linearized Einstein equation (Eq. 6) with the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor and then integrating the null geodesic condition; the resulting phase Δφ_lige = κU/(2λ_probe) (Eq. 31) is not assumed from the target conclusion. The first detectability bound follows by imposing Δφ_lige > Δφ_th with Δφ_th = 1/N̄ (Heisenberg limit, an external quantum-information result) and N̄ ≈ U_probe/(ℏω_probe), yielding U U_probe > 4πℏc/κ by direct algebra. The second bound compares Δφ_lige with the Euler-Heisenberg QED phase Δφ_qed, both scaling as E0^2, giving L > sqrt(12 c_qed/κ); neither quantity is a fit to the other. The e-dipole section evaluates ΔL numerically from the same linearized-gravity integral with an independently published field model (Gonoskov et al.), then reports direct numerical values for ELI-NP, NIF, and radar parameters. The scaling-law exponents b1≈0.20, b2≈2.80, b3≈0.84 are fitted to those numerical results, but the infeasibility conclusion is not forced by that fit: the direct ΔL values (≈10^-40 m to 10^-43 m) are 15-21 orders of magnitude below the LIGO-class sensitivity of ≈10^-19 m, so the conclusion is overdetermined. The paper explicitly scopes its claim to 'all cases considered' (Section VI) and notes that optimality of the homogeneous configuration is not proven; that is a limitation, not a circular step. No load-bearing self-citation or equation-level reduction to the paper's own inputs was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard GR and QED external results and on scenario parameters; the only internally fitted quantities are the scaling-law exponents and prefactor for the e-dipole extrapolations. No new entity is introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • b1 (propagation length exponent in scaling law) = ≈0.20
    Fitted to numerical ∆L data in Sec. V B for the e-dipole model; used to extrapolate radar requirements, not for the homogeneous-field bounds.
  • b2 (wavelength exponent) = ≈2.80
    Fitted to numerical data in Sec. V B; enters the λ³ extrapolation used for the radar estimate.
  • b3 (pulse duration exponent) = ≈0.84
    Fitted to numerical data in Sec. V B; secondary for the central conclusion.
  • C (scaling law prefactor) = ≈2.15e-37 m
    Normalization of Eq. (65) from the default e-dipole simulation at E_max=1e18 V/m, L=200 μm, λ=1000 nm, T=2 cycles; used only for extrapolations.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Linearized Einstein equation with Lorentz gauge and retarded integral solution (Eqs. 5-6)
    Standard weak-field GR; paper verifies ||h|| <<1 in Sec. III C.
  • standard math Electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor as in Eqs. (7)-(12)
    Standard Maxwell stress-energy; no exotic couplings.
  • domain assumption Heisenberg-limit phase sensitivity ∆φ_th=1/N is attainable in a lossless MZ interferometer
    Known quantum-metrology bound cited [48,53]; optimistic upper bound on detector performance.
  • domain assumption Euler-Heisenberg effective action describes vacuum polarization and refractive index change at E << E_S
    Standard QED low-energy theory cited [59-62]; used for the photon-photon scattering background.
  • domain assumption The e-dipole pulse is a representative focused laser field and the probe trajectory through the focus gives the relevant length shift
    Modeling choice based on Refs. [64,65]; accepted as realistic but not proven optimal in Sec. VI.
  • domain assumption Numerical retarded-potential integration and midpoint-rule quadrature are converged
    Paper states convergence was checked but ships no code or error bars (Sec. V A).
  • domain assumption LIGO's 100-400 Hz displacement sensitivity approximates the resolvable static length change
    Used to compare e-dipole results with 1e-19 m (Ref. [54]); static measurements face additional low-frequency noise, making this optimistic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stringent requirements for detecting light-induced gravitational effects using interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KU5XGOZX

@misc{pith2026250605534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stringent requirements for detecting light-induced gravitational effects using interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KU5XGOZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05534}
}
read the original abstract

Intense laser fields have been proposed as a means to generate light-induced gravitational effects, providing a novel approach to investigate gravity and its coupling to electromagnetism in a controlled laboratory setting. In this article, a detection scheme based on interferometry is introduced to assess the feasibility of observing such effects. Initially, the space-time deformation and the resulting induced phase difference are evaluated in homogeneous electric fields. Using the theoretical minimum phase sensitivity bound -- a known result in quantum information -- and accounting for background signal coming from photon-photon scattering -- a fundamental quantum electrodynamics effect related to vacuum properties -- a set of stringent requirements for detectability is obtained. Then, a more realistic scenario is considered where gravitational effects are generated by an e-dipole pulse. In all cases considered, it is demonstrated that observing these effects presents significant challenges, even with the capabilities of current and foreseen laser infrastructures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05534 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Proposed detection concept of LIGE and QED [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Numerical results for the effective length ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Back-reflection in dipole fields and beyond

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Back-reflection in dipole fields is dominated by a four-wave-mixing channel; an optimized three-pulse planar setup gives ~1.5 discernible signal photons per shot with signal-to-background ~10^5.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    background noise

    and reaching the region where the electric field is ap- plied along the second arm of the interferometer. We se- lect a coordinate system where the photon travels along thez-coordinate and passes by the point (t,x) = (0,0) when the field is turned-on. Then, it traverses the field region over a distanceL, the field is turned-off and the photon experienced ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    optimal pulses

    This is investigated further in the next section. IV. HOMOGENEOUS ELECTRIC FIELD WITH HARMONIC TIME-DEPENDENCE The electromagnetic field corresponding to an homo- geneous electric field with a harmonic time-dependence 6 is E(t) = ˆexE0H(t) sin(ωt−ϕ),(43) B(t) = 0,(44) whereωis the angular frequency of oscillation andϕan arbitrary phase. Following the same...

    work page

  3. [3]

    One of the state-of-the-art facilities for such lasers is the Extreme Light Infrastructure - Nuclear Physics (ELI-NP), where a 10 PW laser has been successfully demonstrated [75]

    Short-pulse high-power lasers We consider a high-power, short-pulse laser. One of the state-of-the-art facilities for such lasers is the Extreme Light Infrastructure - Nuclear Physics (ELI-NP), where a 10 PW laser has been successfully demonstrated [75]. The laser parameters are given in Table II. The maximum electric field strength given in the table is ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    As men- tioned earlier, the laser with the most energy has been developed at NIF for triggering nuclear fusion reactions [63]

    Pulsed high-energy lasers We now consider a pulsed high-energy laser. As men- tioned earlier, the laser with the most energy has been developed at NIF for triggering nuclear fusion reactions [63]. The laser parameters are given in Table III. Again, the maximum electric field strength given in the table is for an e-dipole model and is obtained from Eqs. (C...

    work page

  5. [5]

    According to Eq

    High-power pulsed radar Finally, we consider a high-power radar capable of generating light pulses at much longer wavelengths than those produced by lasers, specifically in the radio range (λ∼[0.01,10] m). According to Eq. (65), these longer wavelengths increase the LIGE signal significantly. Typi- cal high-power radars can reach close to 50 MW for pulses...

    work page

  6. [6]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravi- tation(W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

  7. [7]

    Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity(John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972)

    S. Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity(John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972)

    1972

  8. [8]

    S. M. Carroll,Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduc- tion to General Relativity(Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Einstein, Die grundlage der allgemeinen rela- tivit¨ atstheorie, Annalen der Physik354, 769 (1916)

    A. Einstein, Die grundlage der allgemeinen rela- tivit¨ atstheorie, Annalen der Physik354, 769 (1916)

    1916

  2. [10]

    M. G. Stewart, Precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, American Journal of Physics73, 730 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, A. S. Konopliv, J. G. Williams, D. E. Smith, and M. T. Zuber, Precession of mercury’s perihelion from ranging to the messenger spacecraft, The Astronomical Journal153, 121 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    S. S. Shapiro, J. L. Davis, D. E. Lebach, and J. S. Gre- gory, Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using geodetic very-long-baseline interferom- etry data, 1979–1999, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 121101 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    Fomalont, S

    E. Fomalont, S. Kopeikin, G. Lanyi, and J. Benson, Progress in measurements of the gravitational bending of radio waves using the vlba, The Astrophysical Journal 699, 1395 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Earman and C

    J. Earman and C. Glymour, The gravitational red shift as a test of general relativity: History and analysis, Stud- ies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A11, 175 (1980)

    1980

  7. [15]

    R. F. C. Vessot, M. W. Levine, E. M. Mattison, E. L. Blomberg, T. E. Hoffman, G. U. Nystrom, B. F. Farrel, R. Decher, P. B. Eby, C. R. Baugher, J. W. Watts, D. L. Teuber, and F. D. Wills, Test of relativistic gravitation with a space-borne hydrogen maser, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 2...

    1980

  8. [16]

    M¨ uller, A

    H. M¨ uller, A. Peters, and S. Chu, A precision measure- ment of the gravitational redshift by the interference of matter waves, Nature463, 926 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Akiyamaet al.(The Event Horizon Telescope Collab- oration), First m87 event horizon telescope results

    K. Akiyamaet al.(The Event Horizon Telescope Collab- oration), First m87 event horizon telescope results. i. the shadow of the supermassive black hole, The Astrophysi- cal Journal Letters875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Gw151226: Observation of grav- itational waves from a 22-solar-mass binary black hole coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241103 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    J. A. Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev.97, 511 (1955)

    1955

  14. [22]

    F. J. Ernst, Linear and toroidal geons, Phys. Rev.105, 1665 (1957)

    1957

  15. [23]

    J. M. M. Senovilla, Black hole formation by incoming electromagnetic radiation, Classical and Quantum Grav- 13 ity32, 017001 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    ´Alvarez-Dom ´ ınguez, L

    A. ´Alvarez-Dom ´ ınguez, L. J. Garay, E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, and J. Polo-G´ omez, No black holes from light, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 041401 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Gertsenshtein, Wave resonance of light and gravi- tional waves, Sov Phys JETP14, 84 (1962)

    M. Gertsenshtein, Wave resonance of light and gravi- tional waves, Sov Phys JETP14, 84 (1962)

    1962

  18. [26]

    W. K. De Logi and A. R. Mickelson, Electrogravitational conversion cross sections in static electromagnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D16, 2915 (1977)

    1977

  19. [27]

    H. N. Long, D. V. Soa, and T. A. Tran, Electromagnetic- gravitational conversion cross-sections in external elec- tromagnetic fields, Modern Physics Letters A09, 3619 (1994)

    1994

  20. [28]

    Palessandro and T

    A. Palessandro and T. Rothman, A simple derivation of the gertsenshtein effect, Physics of the Dark Universe40, 101187 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles, Phys. Rev. D37, 1237 (1988)

    1988

  22. [30]

    J. C. R. Magueijo, Cosmic magnetic field imprints on cosmic radiation, Phys. Rev. D49, 671 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    V. B. Braginsky, C. M. Caves, and K. S. Thorne, Labo- ratory experiments to test relativistic gravity, Phys. Rev. D15, 2047 (1977)

    1977

  24. [32]

    Q. G. Bailey, Testing gravity in the laboratory, inRecent Progress on Gravity Tests: Challenges and Future Per- spectives, edited by C. Bambi and A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no (Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2024) pp. 1–26

    2024

  25. [33]

    S.-W. Bahk, P. Rousseau, T. A. Planchon, V. Chvykov, G. Kalintchenko, A. Maksimchuk, G. A. Mourou, and V. Yanovsky, Generation and characterization of the highest laser intensities (10 22 w/cm2), Opt. Lett.29, 2837 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    J. W. Yoon, Y. G. Kim, I. W. Choi, J. H. Sung, H. W. Lee, S. K. Lee, and C. H. Nam, Realization of laser in- tensity over 1023 w/cm2, Optica8, 630 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    C. N. Danson, C. Haefner, J. Bromage, T. Butcher, J.- C. F. Chanteloup, E. A. Chowdhury, A. Galvanauskas, L. A. Gizzi, J. Hein, D. I. Hillier, and et al., Petawatt and exawatt class lasers worldwide, High Power Laser Science and Engineering7, e54 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    R. C. Tolman, P. Ehrenfest, and B. Podolsky, On the gravitational field produced by light, Phys. Rev.37, 602 (1931)

    1931

  29. [37]

    R. J. Adler, Gravitational radiation from laser pulses, Phys. Rev. D11, 2685 (1975)

    1975

  30. [38]

    M. O. Scully, General-relativistic treatment of the gravi- tational coupling between laser beams, Phys. Rev. D19, 3582 (1979)

    1979

  31. [39]

    R. L. Mallett, Weak gravitational field of the electromag- netic radiation in a ring laser, Physics Letters A269, 214 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    R. M. L. Baker Jr., F. Li, and R. Li, Ultra-High-Intensity Lasers for Gravitational Wave Generation and Detection, AIP Conference Proceedings813, 1352 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Ji and Y

    P. Ji and Y. Bai, Gravitational effects induced by high- power lasers, The European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields46, 817 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    R¨ atzel, M

    D. R¨ atzel, M. Wilkens, and R. Menzel, Gravitational properties of light—the gravitational field of a laser pulse, New Journal of Physics18, 023009 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Schneiter, D

    F. Schneiter, D. R¨ atzel, and D. Braun, The gravitational field of a laser beam beyond the short wavelength ap- proximation, Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 195007 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Lageyre, E

    P. Lageyre, E. d’Humi` eres, and X. Ribeyre, Gravitational influence of high power laser pulses, Phys. Rev. D105, 104052 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Morozov, V

    A. Morozov, V. Pustovoit, and I. Fomin, Generation of gravitational waves by a standing electromagnetic wave, Gravitation and Cosmology27, 24 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Spengler, D

    F. Spengler, D. R¨ atzel, and D. Braun, Perspectives of measuring gravitational effects of laser light and particle beams, New Journal of Physics24, 053021 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Atonga, K

    E. Atonga, K. Martineau, R. Aboushelbaya, A. Barrau, M. von der Leyen, S. Howard, A. James, J. Lee, C. Lin, H. Martin, I. Ouatu, R. Paddock, R. Ruskov, R. Timmis, and P. Norreys, Gravitational waves from high-power twisted light, Phys. Rev. D110, 044023 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Ribeyre and V

    X. Ribeyre and V. Tikhonchuk, High frequency gravi- tational waves generation in laser plasma interaction, in The Twelfth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent De- velopments in Theoretical and Experimental General Rel- ativity, Astrophysics and Relativistic Field Theories (In 3...

    2012

  41. [49]

    E. G. Gelfer, H. Kadlecov´ a, O. Klimo, S. Weber, and G. Korn, Gravitational waves generated by laser accel- erated relativistic ions, Physics of Plasmas23, 093107 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Kadlecov´ a, O

    H. Kadlecov´ a, O. Klimo, S. Weber, and G. Korn, Grav- itational wave generation by interaction of high power lasers with matter using shock waves, The European Physical Journal D71, 1 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Ataman, Vacuum birefringence detection in all-optical scenarios, Phys

    S. Ataman, Vacuum birefringence detection in all-optical scenarios, Phys. Rev. A97, 063811 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    N. Ahmadiniazet al., Towards a vacuum birefringence experiment at the helmholtz international beamline for extreme fields (letter of intent of the biref@hibef collab- oration), High Power Laser Science and Engineering13, e7 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, M. Jarzyna, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Chapter four - quantum limits in optical interferometry (Elsevier, 2015) pp. 345–435

    2015

  46. [54]

    L. C. Evans,Partial differential equations, Vol. 19 (Amer- ican Mathematical Society, 2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    A. D. Polyanin,Handbook of linear partial differential equations for engineers and scientists(Chapman and hall/crc, 2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    Bastianelli and C

    F. Bastianelli and C. Schubert, One loop photon-graviton mixing in an electromagnetic field: part 1, Journal of High Energy Physics2005, 069 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    Bastianelli, U

    F. Bastianelli, U. Nucamendi, C. Schubert, and V. M. Villanueva, Photon–graviton mixing in an electromag- netic field, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical41, 164048 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    Pezz´ e and A

    L. Pezz´ e and A. Smerzi, Mach-zehnder interferometry at the heisenberg limit with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 073601 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    Buikemaet al., Sensitivity and performance of the advanced ligo detectors in the third observing run, Phys

    A. Buikemaet al., Sensitivity and performance of the advanced ligo detectors in the third observing run, Phys. Rev. D102, 062003 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Marklund and P

    M. Marklund and P. K. Shukla, Nonlinear collective ef- fects in photon-photon and photon-plasma interactions, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 591 (2006)

    2006

  53. [61]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Advances in qed with in- tense background fields, Physics Reports1010, 1 (2023), advances in QED with intense background fields. 14

    2023

  54. [62]

    Karbstein, Probing vacuum polarization effects with high-intensity lasers, Particles3, 39 (2020)

    F. Karbstein, Probing vacuum polarization effects with high-intensity lasers, Particles3, 39 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Ahmadiniaz, T

    N. Ahmadiniaz, T. E. Cowan, R. Sauerbrey, U. Schramm, H.-P. Schlenvoigt, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Heisenberg limit for detecting vacuum birefringence, Phys. Rev. D101, 116019 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Battesti and C

    R. Battesti and C. Rizzo, Magnetic and electric prop- erties of a quantum vacuum, Reports on Progress in Physics76, 016401 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    G. V. Dunne, Heisenberg–euler effective lagrangians: Ba- sics and extensions, inFrom Fields to Strings: Circum- navigating Theoretical Physics, pp. 445–522

  58. [66]

    G. V. Dunne, The heisenberg-euler effective action: 75 years on, International Journal of Modern Physics: Con- ference Series14, 42 (2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    G. L. J. A. Rikken and C. Rizzo, Magnetoelectric birefrin- gences of the quantum vacuum, Phys. Rev. A63, 012107 (2000)

    2000

  60. [68]

    Abu-Shawarebet al.(The Indirect Drive ICF Collab- oration), Achievement of target gain larger than unity in an inertial fusion experiment, Phys

    H. Abu-Shawarebet al.(The Indirect Drive ICF Collab- oration), Achievement of target gain larger than unity in an inertial fusion experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 065102 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    Marklund, T

    M. Marklund, T. G. Blackburn, A. Gonoskov, J. Mag- nusson, S. S. Bulanov, and A. Ilderton, Towards criti- cal and supercritical electromagnetic fields, High Power Laser Science and Engineering11, e19 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Gonoskov, A

    I. Gonoskov, A. Aiello, S. Heugel, and G. Leuchs, Dipole pulse theory: Maximizing the field amplitude from 4π focused laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A86, 053836 (2012)

    2012

  63. [71]

    Gonoskov, I

    A. Gonoskov, I. Gonoskov, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. Kim, M. Marklund, G. Mourou, and A. Sergeev, Prob- ing nonperturbative qed with optimally focused laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 060404 (2013)

    2013

  64. [72]

    E. S. Efimenko, A. V. Bashinov, A. A. Gonoskov, S. I. Bastrakov, A. A. Muraviev, I. B. Meyerov, A. V. Kim, and A. M. Sergeev, Laser-driven plasma pinching ine−e+ cascade, Phys. Rev. E99, 031201 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    A. V. Bashinov, E. S. Efimenko, A. A. Muraviev, V. D. Volokitin, I. B. Meyerov, G. Leuchs, A. M. Sergeev, and A. V. Kim, Particle trajectories, gamma-ray emission, and anomalous radiative trapping effects in magnetic dipole wave, Phys. Rev. E105, 065202 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    S. G. Johnson, Multi-dimensional adaptive integration in C: The Cubature package,https://github.com/ stevengj/cubature(2005)

    2005

  67. [75]

    Ciufolini, S

    I. Ciufolini, S. Kopeikin, B. Mashhoon, and F. Ricci, On the gravitomagnetic time delay, Physics Letters A308, 101 (2003)

    2003

  68. [76]

    Ciufolini and F

    I. Ciufolini and F. Ricci, Time delay due to spin and gravitational lensing, Classical and Quantum Gravity19, 3863 (2002)

    2002

  69. [77]

    J. Mu, Z. Li, F. Jing, Q. Zhu, K. Zhou, S. Wang, S. Zhou, N. Xie, J. Su, J. Zhang, X. Zeng, Y. Zuo, L. Cao, and X. Wang, Coherent combination of femtosecond pulses via non-collinear cross-correlation and far-field distribu- tion, Opt. Lett.41, 234 (2016)

    2016

  70. [78]

    A. M. Fedotov, N. B. Narozhny, G. Mourou, and G. Korn, Limitations on the attainable intensity of high power lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 080402 (2010)

    2010

  71. [79]

    Seipt, T

    D. Seipt, T. Heinzl, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, Depletion of intense fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 154803 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

    Radier, O

    C. Radier, O. Chalus, M. Charbonneau, S. Thambirajah, G. Deschamps, S. David, J. Barbe, E. Etter, G. Matras, S. Ricaud, and et al., 10 pw peak power femtosecond laser pulses at eli-np, High Power Laser Science and Engineer- ing10, e21 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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