- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review A

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Electron-positron-pair creation in the superposition of two oscillating electric-field pulses with largely different frequency, duration, and relative positioning

N. Folkerts, J. Putzer, S. Villalba-Chávez, and C. Müller

  • Institut für Theoretische Physik I, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany

PDF

Phys. Rev. A 107, 052210 – Published 18 May, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.052210

Abstract

Production of electron-positron pairs in two oscillating strong electric field pulses with largely different frequencies and durations is considered. In a first scenario, the influence of a low-frequency background field on pair production by a short main pulse of high frequency is analyzed. The background field is shown to cause characteristic modifications of the momentum spectra of created particles, which, in turn, may be used for imaging of the background pulse. In a second scenario, an ultrashort, relatively weak assisting pulse is superimposed onto a strong main pulse. By studying the dependence of the pair production on the field parameters it is shown that duration and relative position of the ultrashort pulse modify the momentum spectra of produced particles in a distinctive way. Both scenarios enable one, moreover, to extract partial information about the time periods when pairs with certain momenta are produced predominantly.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (66)

  1. F. Ehlotzky, K. Krajewska, and J. Z. Kamiński, Rep. Prog. Phys. 72, 046401 (2009).
  2. R. Ruffini, G. Vereshchagin, and S.-S. Xue, Phys. Rep. 487, 1 (2010).
  3. A. Di Piazza, C. Müller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012).
  4. A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rep. 1010, 1 (2023).
  5. See https://eli-laser.eu; I. C. E. Turcu et al., Rom. Rep. Phys. 68, S145 (2016).
  6. See https://corels.ibs.re.kr.
  7. S. Meuren, E-320 Collaboration at FACET-II, https://facet.slac.stanford.edu.
  8. C. H. Keitel, A. Di Piazza, G. G. Paulus, T. Stöhlker, E. L. Clark, S. Mangles, Z. Najmudin, K. Krushelnick, J. Schreiber, M. Borghesi et al., arXiv:2103.06059.
  9. See http://www.hibef.eu; H. Abramowicz et al., Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top. 230, 2445 (2021).
  10. D. L. Burke, R. C. Field, G. Horton-Smith, J. E. Spencer, D. Walz, S. C. Berridge, W. M. Bugg, K. Shmakov, A. W. Weidemann, C. Bula et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1626 (1997).
  11. E. Brézin and C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1191 (1970).
  12. V. S. Popov, Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 13, 261 (1971) [JETP Lett. 13, 185 (1971)]; Yad. Fiz. 19, 1140 (1974) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 19, 584 (1974)].
  13. A. A. Grib, V. M. Mostepanenko, and V. M. Frolov, Theor. Math. Phys. 13, 1207 (1972); V. M. Mostepanenko and V. M. Frolov, Yad. Fiz. 19, 885 (1974) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 19, 451 (1974)].
  14. V. G. Bagrov, D. M. Gitman, and S. M. Shvartsman, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 68, 392 (1975) [Sov. Phys. JETP 41, 191 (1975)].
  15. A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev. D 70, 053013 (2004).
  16. F. Hebenstreit, R. Alkofer, G. V. Dunne, and H. Gies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 150404 (2009).
  17. G. R. Mocken, M. Ruf, C. Müller, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. A 81, 022122 (2010).
  18. W. Y. Wu, F. He, R. Grobe, and Q. Su, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 32, 2009 (2015).
  19. C. Kohlfürst, M. Mitter, G. von Winckel, F. Hebenstreit, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D 88, 045028 (2013).
  20. I. A. Aleksandrov, G. Plunien, and V. M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. D 95, 056013 (2017).
  21. J. Unger, S. Dong, R. Flores, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Phys. Rev. A 99, 022128 (2019).
  22. A. Blinne and H. Gies, Phys. Rev. D 89, 085001 (2014).
  23. A. Wöllert, H. Bauke, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. D 91, 125026 (2015).
  24. F. Fillion-Gourdeau, F. Hebenstreit, D. Gagnon, and S. MacLean, Phys. Rev. D 96, 016012 (2017)
  25. Z. L. Li, Y. J. Li, and B. S. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 96, 076010 (2017).
  26. C. Kohlfürst, Phys. Rev. D 99, 096017 (2019).
  27. C. K. Dumlu, Phys. Rev. D 82, 045007 (2010).
  28. O. Olugh, Z.-L. Li, B.-S. Xie, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D 99, 036003 (2019).
  29. C. Gong, Z. L. Li, Y. J. Li, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Phys. Rev. A 101, 063405 (2020).
  30. M. Ruf, G. R. Mocken, C. Müller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 080402 (2009).
  31. F. Hebenstreit, R. Alkofer, and H. Gies, Phys. Rev. D 82, 105026 (2010); C. Kohlfürst and R. Alkofer, Phys. Lett. B 756, 371 (2016).
  32. I. A. Aleksandrov, G. Plunien, and V. M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. D 94, 065024 (2016); 96, 076006 (2017).
  33. J. Oertel and R. Schützhold, Phys. Rev. D 99, 125014 (2019).
  34. C. Kohlfürst, Phys. Rev. D 101, 096003 (2020).
  35. C. Kohlfürst, N. Ahmadiniaz, J. Oertel, and R. Schützhold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 241801 (2022).
  36. C. K. Li, D. D. Su, Y. J. Li, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Europhys. Lett. 141, 55001 (2023).
  37. N. B. Narozhny and M. S. Fofanov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 90, 415 (2000).
  38. K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kamiński, Phys. Rev. A 85, 043404 (2012); 86, 021402(R) (2012).
  39. J. Braß, R. Milbradt, S. Villalba-Chávez, G. G. Paulus, and C. Müller, Phys. Rev. A 101, 043401 (2020).
  40. E. Akkermans and G. V. Dunne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 030401 (2012).
  41. I. Sitiwaldi and B.-S. Xie, Phys. Lett. B 768, 174 (2017).
  42. J. Z. Kamiński, M. Twardy, and K. Krajewska, Phys. Rev. D 98, 056009 (2018).
  43. L. F. Granz, O. Mathiak, S. Villalba-Chávez, and C. Müller, Phys. Lett. B 793, 85 (2019).
  44. R. Schützhold, H. Gies, and G. Dunne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 130404 (2008); G. V. Dunne, H. Gies, and R. Schützhold, Phys. Rev. D 80, 111301(R) (2009).
  45. M. Orthaber, F. Hebenstreit, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Lett. B 698, 80 (2011).
  46. M. Jiang, W. Su, Z. Q. Lv, X. Lu, Y. J. Li, R. Grobe, and Q. Su, Phys. Rev. A 85, 033408 (2012).
  47. Z. L. Li, D. Lu, B. S. Xie, L. B. Fu, J. Liu, and B. F. Shen, Phys. Rev. D 89, 093011 (2014).
  48. I. Akal, S. Villalba-Chávez, and C. Müller, Phys. Rev. D 90, 113004 (2014).
  49. A. Otto, D. Seipt, D. Blaschke, B. Kämpfer, and S. A. Smolyansky, Phys. Lett. B 740, 335 (2015); A. Otto, D. Seipt, D. Blaschke, S. A. Smolyansky, and B. Kämpfer, Phys. Rev. D 91, 105018 (2015).
  50. The combination of a strong and slow Sauter pulse with a sinusoidal field of infinite extent has been considered in G. Torgrimsson, C. Schneider, J. Oertel, and R. Schützhold, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2017) 043.
  51. A. Otto, H. Oppitz, and B. Kämpfer, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 23 (2018).
  52. A. D. Panferov, S. A. Smolyansky, A. Otto, B. Kämpfer, D. B. Blaschke, and L. Juchnowski, Eur. Phys. J. D 70, 56 (2016).
  53. F. Hebenstreit and F. Fillion-Gourdeau, Phys. Lett. B 739, 189 (2014)
  54. S. Villalba-Chávez and C. Müller, Phys. Rev. D 100, 116018 (2019)
  55. E. Goulielmakis et al., Science 305, 1267 (2004).
  56. J. Itatani, F. Quéré, G. L. Yudin, M. Yu. Ivanov, F. Krausz, and P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 173903 (2002).
  57. H. K. Avetissian, A. K. Avetissian, G. F. Mkrtchian, and Kh. V. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. E 66, 016502 (2002).
  58. Mathematica, version 12.3.1.0 (Wolfram Research, Champaign, IL, 2021).
  59. The quasienergy of the created positron, which formally follows from Eq. (6) by the replacements p⃗→−p⃗ and e→−e, attains the same value.
  60. In order to split the main pulse in the middle, we ramp down the last half cycle of the first half of the pulse by a decreasing sin2 window function. The first half cycle of the second half of the pulse is, accordingly, switched on by an increasing sin2 window function.
  61. S. M. Schmidt, D. Blaschke, G. Röpke, S. A. Smolyansky, and A. V. Prozorkevich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 07, 709 (1998).
  62. We note that the mean value 〈py〉 of the longitudinal momentum also reflects the shape of eA2 very closely.
  63. A. Ipp, J. Evers, C. H. Keitel, and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, Phys. Lett. B 702, 383 (2011).
  64. C. C. Gerry, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Phys. Rev. A 74, 044103 (2006); T. Cheng, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, Contemp. Phys. 51, 315 (2010); C. Gong, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 38, 3582 (2021).
  65. We note moreover that the applied vector potential differs by an overall sign as compared with Ref. [48].
  66. This condition is not exactly met in Fig. 6, causing a small left-right asymmetry there.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 107, 052210– Published 18 May, 2023
  • Received 3 March 2023
  • Accepted 4 May 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation