- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review X

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Growth Rate of Self-Sustained QED Cascades Induced by Intense Lasers

A. Mercuri-Baron1,*,†, A. A. Mironov1,*,‡, C. Riconda1, A. Grassi1, and M. Grech2

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: anthony.mercuri@protonmail.com
  • ‡Contact author: mironov.hep@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. X 15, 011062 – Published 18 March, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.15.011062

Abstract

It was suggested [Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200403 (2008)] that an avalanche of electron-positron pairs can be triggered in the laboratory by a standing wave generated by intense laser fields. Here, we present a general solution to the long-standing problem of the avalanche growth rate calculation. We provide a simple formula that accounts for the damping of the growth rate due to pair and photon migration from the region of prolific generation. We apply our model to a variety of 3D field configurations including focused laser beams and show that (i) the particle yield for the full range of intensity able to generate an avalanche can be predicted, (ii) a critical intensity threshold due to migration is identified, and (iii) the effect of migration is negligible at a higher intensity and the local growth rate dominates. Excellent agreement with Monte Carlo and self-consistent particle-in-cell simulations is shown. The growth rate calculation allows us to predict when abundant pair production will induce a backreaction on the generating field due to plasma collective effects and screening. Our model can be applied to study the generation of electron-positron pair avalanches in realistic fields to plan future experiments at ultrahigh-intensity laser facilities.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Popular Summary

Quantum electrodynamic (QED) plasmas, composed of electrons and positrons coupled to photons, play an important role in the physics of the exteriors of neutron stars and black holes, where extreme electromagnetic fields exist. However, reproducing such conditions in a laboratory is exceptionally challenging. One possible way forward relies on multipetawatt lasers: It has been suggested that a standing wave generated by such high-intensity lasers could trigger an avalanche of electron-positron pairs. Here, we present a general solution to the long-standing problem of the avalanche growth-rate calculation.

Our treatment lets us derive the cascade growth rate analytically as a function of the local values of a general time- and space-dependent electromagnetic field. Our model, benchmarked with 3D simulations, explains and extends many results previously accessible only numerically. It allows us to identify the avalanche onset threshold and shows that at high fields the solution for the cascade growth rate converges to a simpler and universal form.

This new framework is useful in optimizing conditions for producing avalanches and dense QED plasmas in future experiments with high-intensity lasers and can be embedded in studies of plasma dynamics in interactions with extreme laser or stellar fields.

Article Text

References (126)

  1. R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Electromagnetic extraction of energy from Kerr black holes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 179, 433 (1977).
  2. A. L. Ford, B. D. Keenan, and M. V. Medvedev, Electron-positron cascade in magnetospheres of spinning black holes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 063016 (2018).
  3. F. C. Michel and H. Li, Electrodynamics of neutron stars, Phys. Rep. 318, 227 (1999).
  4. P. Goldreich and W. H. Julian, Pulsar electrodynamics, Astrophys. J. 157, 869 (1969).
  5. J. Arons, Some problems of pulsar physics or I’m madly in love with electricity, Space Sci. Rev. 24, 437 (1979).
  6. R. Gueroult, Y. Shi, J.-M. Rax, and N. J. Fisch, Determining the rotation direction in pulsars, Nat. Commun. 10, 3232 (2019).
  7. T. Piran, The physics of gamma-ray bursts, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1143 (2005).
  8. P. Chang, A. Spitkovsky, and J. Arons, Long-term evolution of magnetic turbulence in relativistic collisionless shocks: Electron-positron plasmas, Astrophys. J. 674, 378 (2008).
  9. A. Spitkovsky, Particle acceleration in relativistic collisionless shocks: Fermi process at last?, Astrophys. J. 682, L5 (2008).
  10. P. Kumar and B. Zhang, The physics of gamma-ray bursts & relativistic jets, Phys. Rep. 561, 1 (2015).
  11. A. N. Timokhin and A. K. Harding, On the maximum pair multiplicity of pulsar cascades, Astrophys. J. 871, 12 (2019).
  12. F. Cruz, T. Grismayer, and L. O. Silva, Kinetic model of large-amplitude oscillations in neutron star pair cascades, Astrophys. J. 908, 149 (2021).
  13. F. Cruz, T. Grismayer, S. Iteanu, P. Tortone, and L. O. Silva, Model of pulsar pair cascades in non-uniform electric fields: Growth rate, density profile, and screening time, Phys. Plasmas 29, 052902 (2022).
  14. B. Cerutti, G. R. Werner, D. A. Uzdensky, and M. C. Begelman, Simulations of particle acceleration beyond the classical synchrotron burnoff limit in magnetic reconnection: An explanation of the Crab flares, Astrophys. J. 770, 147 (2013).
  15. A. A. Philippov and A. Spitkovsky, Ab initio pulsar magnetosphere: Three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of axisymmetric pulsars, Astrophys. J. Lett. 785, L33 (2014).
  16. R. Hu and A. M. Beloborodov, Axisymmetric pulsar magnetosphere revisited, Astrophys. J. 939, 42 (2022).
  17. H. Chen and F. Fiuza, Perspectives on relativistic electron–positron pair plasma experiments of astrophysical relevance using high-power lasers, Phys. Plasmas 30, 020601 (2023).
  18. K. Qu, S. Meuren, and N. J. Fisch, Creating pair plasmas with observable collective effects, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 65, 034007 (2023).
  19. G. Sarri, K. Poder, J. Cole, W. Schumaker, A. Di Piazza, B. Reville, T. Dzelzainis, D. Doria, L. Gizzi, G. Grittani et al., Generation of neutral and high-density electron–positron pair plasmas in the laboratory, Nat. Commun. 6, 6747 (2015).
  20. C. D. Arrowsmith et al., Laboratory realization of relativistic pair-plasma beams, Nat. Commun. 15, 5029 (2024).
  21. C. P. Ridgers, C. S. Brady, R. Duclous, J. G. Kirk, K. Bennett, T. D. Arber, and A. R. Bell, Dense electron-positron plasmas and bursts of gamma-rays from laser-generated quantum electrodynamic plasmas, Phys. Plasmas 20, 056701 (2013).
  22. N. B. Narozhny and A. M. Fedotov, Creation of electron-positron plasma with superstrong laser field, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 223, 1083 (2014).
  23. G. Sarri, M. E. Dieckmann, I. Kourakis, A. Di Piazza, B. Reville, C. Keitel, and M. Zepf, Overview of laser-driven generation of electron-positron beams, J. Plasma Phys. 81, 455810401 (2015).
  24. P. Zhang, S. Bulanov, D. Seipt, A. V. Arefiev, and A. G. R. Thomas, Relativistic plasma physics in supercritical fields, Phys. Plasmas 27, 050601 (2020).
  25. K. Qu, S. Meuren, and N. J. Fisch, Signature of collective plasma effects in beam-driven QED cascades, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 095001 (2021).
  26. 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).
  27. 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).
  28. S. V. Popruzhenko and A. M. Fedotov, Dynamics and radiation of charged particles in ultra-intense laser fields, Phys. Usp. 66, 460 (2023).
  29. A. Di Piazza, C. Müller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012).
  30. R. Ruffini, G. Vereshchagin, and S.-S. Xue, Electron-positron pairs in physics and astrophysics: From heavy nuclei to black holes, Phys. Rep. 487, 1 (2010).

  31. For brevity, we omit the word “nonlinear” throughout this paper when referring to both these processes.

  32. For a photon of frequency ωγ in the laboratory frame, the analogous frame can be defined as the one where ℏωγ′=mc2.

  33. T. K. Gaisser, R. Engel, and E. Resconi, Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2016).
  34. I. V. Sokolov, N. M. Naumova, J. A. Nees, and G. A. Mourou, Pair creation in QED-strong pulsed laser fields interacting with electron beams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 195005 (2010).
  35. S. S. Bulanov, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, and W. P. Leemans, Electromagnetic cascade in high-energy electron, positron, and photon interactions with intense laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062110 (2013).
  36. T. G. Blackburn, A. Ilderton, C. D. Murphy, and M. Marklund, Scaling laws for positron production in laser–electron-beam collisions, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022128 (2017).
  37. A. Mercuri-Baron, M. Grech, F. Niel, A. Grassi, M. Lobet, A. Di Piazza, and C. Riconda, Impact of the laser spatio-temporal shape on Breit-Wheeler pair production, New J. Phys. 23, 085006 (2021).
  38. C. D. Zerby and H. S. Moran, Studies of the longitudinal development of electron-photon cascade showers, J. Appl. Phys. 34, 2445 (1963).
  39. V. I. Ritus, Quantum effects of the interaction of elementary particles with an intense electromagnetic field, J. Russ. Laser Res. 6, 497 (1985).
  40. A. R. Bell and J. G. Kirk, Possibility of prolific pair production with high-power lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200403 (2008).
  41. J. G. Kirk, A. R. Bell, and I. Arka, Pair production in counter-propagating laser beams, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 51, 085008 (2009).
  42. 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).
  43. A. Gonoskov, A. Bashinov, S. Bastrakov, E. Efimenko, A. Ilderton, A. Kim, M. Marklund, I. Meyerov, A. Muraviev, and A. Sergeev, Ultrabright GeV photon source via controlled electromagnetic cascades in laser-dipole waves, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041003 (2017).
  44. A. A. Mironov, E. G. Gelfer, and A. M. Fedotov, Onset of electron-seeded cascades in generic electromagnetic fields, Phys. Rev. A 104, 012221 (2021).
  45. N. V. Elkina, A. M. Fedotov, I. Y. Kostyukov, M. V. Legkov, N. B. Narozhny, E. N. Nerush, and H. Ruhl, QED cascades induced by circularly polarized laser fields, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 14, 054401 (2011).
  46. A. A. Mironov, N. B. Narozhny, and A. M. Fedotov, Collapse and revival of electromagnetic cascades in focused intense laser pulses, Phys. Lett. A 378, 3254 (2014).
  47. T. Grismayer, M. Vranic, J. L. Martins, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Seeded QED cascades in counterpropagating laser pulses, Phys. Rev. E 95, 023210 (2017).
  48. V. F. Bashmakov, E. N. Nerush, I. Y. Kostyukov, A. M. Fedotov, and N. B. Narozhny, Effect of laser polarization on quantum electrodynamical cascading, Phys. Plasmas 21, 013105 (2014).
  49. M. Jirka, O. Klimo, S. V. Bulanov, T. Z. Esirkepov, E. Gelfer, S. S. Bulanov, S. Weber, and G. Korn, Electron dynamics and γ and e−e+ production by colliding laser pulses, Phys. Rev. E 93, 023207 (2016).
  50. E. G. Gelfer, A. A. Mironov, A. M. Fedotov, V. F. Bashmakov, E. N. Nerush, I. Y. Kostyukov, and N. B. Narozhny, Optimized multibeam configuration for observation of QED cascades, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022113 (2015).
  51. M. Marklund, T. G. Blackburn, A. Gonoskov, J. Magnusson, S. S. Bulanov, and A. Ilderton, Towards critical and supercritical electromagnetic fields, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 11, e19 (2023).
  52. H. Vincenti, T. Clark, L. Fedeli, P. Martin, A. Sainte-Marie, and N. Zaim, Plasma mirrors as a path to the Schwinger limit: Theoretical and numerical developments, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 232, 2303 (2023).
  53. C. P. Ridgers, C. S. Brady, R. Duclous, J. G. Kirk, K. Bennett, T. D. Arber, A. P. L. Robinson, and A. R. Bell, Dense electron-positron plasmas and ultraintense γ rays from laser-irradiated solids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 165006 (2012).
  54. M. Jirka, O. Klimo, M. Vranic, S. Weber, and G. Korn, QED cascade with 10 PW-class lasers, Sci. Rep. 7, 15302 (2017).
  55. C. Slade-Lowther, D. D. Sorbo, and C. P. Ridgers, Identifying the electron-positron cascade regimes in high-intensity laser-matter interactions, New J. Phys. 21, 013028 (2019).
  56. X.-L. Zhu, T.-P. Yu, Z.-M. Sheng, Y. Yin, I. C. E. Turcu, and A. Pukhov, Dense GeV electron-positron pairs generated by lasers in near-critical-density plasmas, Nat. Commun. 7, 13686 (2016).
  57. A. S. Samsonov, I. Y. Kostyukov, and E. N. Nerush, Hydrodynamical model of QED cascade expansion in an extremely strong laser pulse, Matter Radiat. Extremes 6, 034401 (2021).
  58. I. I. Artemenko and I. Y. Kostyukov, Ionization-induced laser-driven QED cascade in noble gases, Phys. Rev. A 96, 032106 (2017).
  59. M. Tamburini, A. Di Piazza, and C. H. Keitel, Laser-pulse-shape control of seeded QED cascades, Sci. Rep. 7, 5694 (2017).
  60. M. Jirka and S. V. Bulanov, Effects of colliding laser pulses polarization on e-e+ cascade development in extreme focusing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 125001 (2024).
  61. M. Lobet, C. Ruyer, A. Debayle, E. d’Humières, M. Grech, M. Lemoine, and L. Gremillet, Ultrafast synchrotron-enhanced thermalization of laser-driven colliding pair plasmas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 215003 (2015).
  62. J. Y. Yu, T. Yuan, W. Y. Liu, M. Chen, W. Luo, S. M. Weng, and Z. M. Sheng, QED effects induced harmonics generation in extreme intense laser foil interaction, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 60, 044011 (2018).
  63. W. Luo, W.-Y. Liu, T. Yuan, M. Chen, J.-Y. Yu, F.-Y. Li, D. Del Sorbo, C. P. Ridgers, and Z.-M. Sheng, QED cascade saturation in extreme high fields, Sci. Rep. 8, 8400 (2018).
  64. E. N. Nerush, I. Y. Kostyukov, A. M. Fedotov, N. B. Narozhny, N. V. Elkina, and H. Ruhl, Laser field absorption in self-generated electron-positron pair plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 035001 (2011).
  65. T. Grismayer, M. Vranic, J. L. Martins, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Laser absorption via quantum electrodynamics cascades in counter propagating laser pulses, Phys. Plasmas 23, 056706 (2016).
  66. E. S. Efimenko, A. V. Bashinov, S. I. Bastrakov, A. A. Gonoskov, A. A. Muraviev, I. B. Meyerov, A. V. Kim, and A. M. Sergeev, Extreme plasma states in laser-governed vacuum breakdown, Sci. Rep. 8, 2329 (2018).
  67. D. Papadopoulos, J.-P. Zou, C. Le Blanc, L. Ranc, F. Druon, L. Martin, A. Fréneaux, A. Beluze, N. Lebas, M. Chabanis et al., First commissioning results of the Apollon laser on the 1 PW beam line, in CLEO: Science and Innovations (Optica Publishing Group, Washington, DC, 2019), pp. STu3E–4, 10.1364/CLEO_SI.2019.STu3E.4.
  68. S. Weber, S. Bechet, S. Borneis, L. Brabec, M. Bučka, E. Chacon-Golcher, M. Ciappina, M. DeMarco, A. Fajstavr, K. Falk et al., P3: An installation for high-energy density plasma physics and ultra-high intensity laser–matter interaction at ELI-Beamlines, Matter Radiat. Extremes 2, 149 (2017).
  69. Center for Relativistic Laser Science, https://corels.ibs.re.kr/html/corels_en/.
  70. K. A. Tanaka, K. M. Spohr, D. L. Balabanski, S. Balascuta, L. Capponi, M. O. Cernaianu, M. Cuciuc, A. Cucoanes, I. Dancus, A. Dhal et al., Current status and highlights of the ELI-NP research program, Matter Radiat. Extremes 5, 024402 (2020).
  71. Astra Gemini laser, https://www.clf.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/The-Astra-Gemini-Facility.aspx.
  72. Z. Gan, L. Yu, S. Li, C. Wang, X. Liang, Y. Liu, W. Li, Z. Guo, Z. Fan, X. Yuan et al., 200 J high efficiency Ti:sapphire chirped pulse amplifier pumped by temporal dual-pulse, Opt. Express 25, 5169 (2017).
  73. PEARL laser complex, https://ipfran.ru/science/laser-physics-and-nonlinear-optics/generation-of-extreme-laser-fields/PEARL-laser-complex.
  74. 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 et al., Petawatt and exawatt class lasers worldwide, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 7, e54 (2019).
  75. 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 intensity over 1023  W/cm2, Optica 8, 630 (2021).
  76. J. Bromage, S.-W. Bahk, I. A. Begishev, C. Dorrer, M. J. Guardalben, B. N. Hoffman, J. B. Oliver, R. G. Roides, E. M. Schiesser, M. J. Shoup Iii et al., Technology development for ultraintense all-OPCPA systems, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 7, e4 (2019).
  77. NSF OPAL, https://www.lle.rochester.edu/nsf-opal/.
  78. E. Khazanov, A. Shaykin, I. Kostyukov, V. Ginzburg, I. Mukhin, I. Yakovlev, A. Soloviev, I. Kuznetsov, S. Mironov, A. Korzhimanov et al., eXawatt Center for Extreme Light Studies, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 11, e78 (2023).
  79. B. Shao, Y. Li, Y. Peng, P. Wang, J. Qian, Y. Leng, and R. Li, Broad-bandwidth high-temporal-contrast carrier-envelope-phase-stabilized laser seed for 100 PW lasers, Opt. Lett. 45, 2215 (2020).
  80. I. Y. Kostyukov, I. I. Artemenko, and E. N. Nerush, Growth rate of QED cascades in a rotating electric field, Probl. At. Sci. Technol. 116, 259 (2018).
  81. A. Gonoskov, S. Bastrakov, E. Efimenko, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, I. Meyerov, A. Muraviev, A. Sergeev, I. Surmin, and E. Wallin, Extended particle-in-cell schemes for physics in ultrastrong laser fields: Review and developments, Phys. Rev. E 92, 023305 (2015).
  82. T. Z. Esirkepov, S. S. Bulanov, J. K. Koga, M. Kando, K. Kondo, N. N. Rosanov, G. Korn, and S. V. Bulanov, Attractors and chaos of electron dynamics in electromagnetic standing waves, Phys. Lett. A 379, 2044 (2015).
  83. B. King and H. Hu, Classical and quantum dynamics of a charged scalar particle in a background of two counterpropagating plane waves, Phys. Rev. D 94, 125010 (2016).
  84. E. N. Nerush, V. F. Bashmakov, and I. Y. Kostyukov, Analytical model for electromagnetic cascades in rotating electric field, Phys. Plasmas 18, 083107 (2011).
  85. F. Niel, C. Riconda, F. Amiranoff, R. Duclous, and M. Grech, From quantum to classical modeling of radiation reaction: A focus on stochasticity effects, Phys. Rev. E 97, 043209 (2018).
  86. G. Fauth, J. Berges, and A. Di Piazza, Collisional strong-field QED kinetic equations from first principles, Phys. Rev. D 104, 036007 (2021).
  87. B. King, N. Elkina, and H. Ruhl, Photon polarization in electron-seeded pair-creation cascades, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042117 (2013).
  88. D. Seipt and A. G. R. Thomas, Kinetic theory for spin-polarized relativistic plasmas, Phys. Plasmas 30, 093102 (2023).
  89. Q. Zhao, T. Sun, K. Xue, F. Wan, and J.-X. Li, Cascade of polarized Compton scattering and Breit-Wheeler pair production, Phys. Rev. D 108, 116012 (2023).
  90. A. Sampath and M. Tamburini, Towards realistic simulations of QED cascades: Non-ideal laser and electron seeding effects, Phys. Plasmas 25, 083104 (2018).
  91. M. Jirka, P. Sasorov, S. S. Bulanov, G. Korn, B. Rus, and S. V. Bulanov, Reaching high laser intensity by a radiating electron, Phys. Rev. A 103, 053114 (2021).
  92. A. A. Mironov, A. M. Fedotov, and N. B. Narozhny, Generation of quantum-electrodynamic cascades in oblique collisions of ultrarelativistic electrons with an intense laser field, Quantum Electron. 46, 305 (2016).
  93. 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)
  94. J. Derouillat, A. Beck, F. Pérez, T. Vinci, M. Chiaramello, A. Grassi, M. Flé, G. Bouchard, I. Plotnikov, N. Aunai et al., smilei: A collaborative, open-source, multi-purpose particle-in-cell code for plasma simulation, Comput. Phys. Commun. 222, 351 (2018).

  95. Hereinafter, we treat electrons and positrons identically and for brevity refer to both as “electrons” unless mentioned explicitly.

  96. A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Quantum processes in the field of a plane electromagnetic wave and in a constant field I, Sov. Phys. JETP 19, 529 (1964).
  97. A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Pair production by a photon and photon emission by an electron in the field of an intense electromagnetic wave and in a constant field, Sov. Phys. JETP 25, 1135 (1967).
  98. V. N. Baier and V. M. Katkov, Processes involved in the motion of high energy particles in a magnetic field, Sov. Phys. JETP 26, 854 (1968).
  99. E. G. Gelfer, A. M. Fedotov, A. A. Mironov, and S. Weber, Nonlinear Compton scattering in time-dependent electric fields beyond the locally constant crossed field approximation, Phys. Rev. D 106, 056013 (2022).
  100. A. Di Piazza, M. Tamburini, S. Meuren, and C. H. Keitel, Implementing nonlinear Compton scattering beyond the local-constant-field approximation, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012134 (2018).
  101. A. Di Piazza, M. Tamburini, S. Meuren, and C. H. Keitel, Improved local-constant-field approximation for strong-field QED codes, Phys. Rev. A 99, 022125 (2019).
  102. A. Ilderton, B. King, and D. Seipt, Extended locally constant field approximation for nonlinear Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042121 (2019).
  103. E. Raicher, S. Eliezer, C. H. Keitel, and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, Semiclassical limitations for photon emission in strong external fields, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052513 (2019).
  104. T. Heinzl, B. King, and A. J. MacLeod, Locally monochromatic approximation to QED in intense laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 102, 063110 (2020).
  105. B. King, Uniform locally constant field approximation for photon-seeded pair production, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042508 (2020).
  106. A. Di Piazza, WKB electron wave functions in a tightly focused laser beam, Phys. Rev. D 103, 076011 (2021).
  107. C. F. Nielsen, R. Holtzapple, and B. King, High-resolution modeling of nonlinear Compton scattering in focused laser pulses, Phys. Rev. D 106, 013010 (2022).
  108. A. H. Taub, Orbits of charged particles in constant fields, Phys. Rev. 73, 786 (1948).
  109. J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V. B. Shah, Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM Rev. 59, 65 (2017).
  110. https://github.com/amercurib/PairAvalanchesQED.jl
  111. G. Lehmann and K. H. Spatschek, Phase-space contraction and attractors for ultrarelativistic electrons, Phys. Rev. E 85, 056412 (2012).
  112. Z. Gong, R. Hu, Y. Shou, B. Qiao, C. Chen, F. Xu, X. He, and X. Yan, Radiation reaction induced spiral attractors in ultra-intense colliding laser beams, Matter Radiat. Extremes 1, 308 (2016).
  113. J. G. Kirk, Radiative trapping in intense laser beams, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 58, 085005 (2016).

  114. We assume that the main contribution to the cascade growth rate comes from the particles in the E-antinode center of a standing wave; therefore, when calculating γem and χem, we set ε=E0 and ωeff=ω/2 as in a rotating E field.

  115. A. Gonoskov, A. Bashinov, I. Gonoskov, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. Kim, M. Marklund, G. Mourou, and A. Sergeev, Anomalous radiative trapping in laser fields of extreme intensity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 014801 (2014).
  116. 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. E 105, 065202 (2022).
  117. N. B. Narozhny and M. S. Fofanov, Scattering of relativistic electrons by a focused laser pulse, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 90, 753 (2000).
  118. L. D. Landau and I. M. Lifshitz, Theoretical Physics: The Classical Theory of Fields, Course of Theoretical Physics Series Vol. 2 (Pergamon, London, 1988).

  119. We use the same field model and choice for polarization vectors as in Ref. [50]; see Eqs. (15) and (16) therein. The only difference is that here we choose λ=0.8  μm. The focusing parameter is ξ=8, which corresponds to Δ≈0.35 in the notation used in Sec. 5b.

  120. Technical details can be found in the smilei code manual [121].

  121. https://smileipic.github.io/Smilei/
  122. S. Tang, Finite beaming effect on QED cascades, Phys. Lett. B 859, 139136 (2024).

  123. The discussion of positron motion is the same except the change of sign in the rhs in Eq. (a1).

  124. In our notations, after every quantum event, an electron is assigned new initial conditions (this includes scattered electrons in the Compton process).

  125. We use particle energy ϵe,γ=γe,γmc2 as the argument for the probability rates to simplify the notations within Appendix pp3. The transition to the notation used in Eqs. (2) and (3) is straightforward.

  126. We assign γ¯e≔γem and χ¯e≔χem without the fitting parameter used in Ref. [47].

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. X 15, 011062– Published 18 March, 2025
  • Received 15 February 2024
  • Revised 16 August 2024
  • Accepted 9 December 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation