You are on page 1of 58

Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum

systems
A. Di Piazza,∗ C. Müller,† K. Z. Hatsagortsyan,‡ and C. H. Keitel§
Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik,
Saupfercheckweg 1,
69117 Heidelberg,
Germany

(Dated: April 26, 2012)

The field of laser-matter interaction traditionally deals with the response of atoms,
arXiv:1111.3886v2 [hep-ph] 25 Apr 2012

molecules and plasmas to an external light wave. However, the recent sustained tech-
nological progress is opening up the possibility of employing intense laser radiation to
trigger or substantially influence physical processes beyond atomic-physics energy scales.
Available optical laser intensities exceeding 1022 W/cm2 can push the fundamental light-
electron interaction to the extreme limit where radiation-reaction effects dominate the
electron dynamics, can shed light on the structure of the quantum vacuum, and can
trigger the creation of particles like electrons, muons and pions and their corresponding
antiparticles. Also, novel sources of intense coherent high-energy photons and laser-
based particle colliders can pave the way to nuclear quantum optics and may even allow
for potential discovery of new particles beyond the Standard Model. These are the
main topics of the present article, which is devoted to a review of recent investigations
on high-energy processes within the realm of relativistic quantum dynamics, quantum
electrodynamics, nuclear and particle physics, occurring in extremely intense laser fields.

PACS numbers: 12.20.-m, 32.80.-t, 52.38.-r, 25.20.-x

CONTENTS VII. Vacuum-polarization effects 23


A. Low-energy vacuum-polarization effects 23
I. Introduction 2 1. Experimental suggestions for direct detection of
photon-photon scattering 24
II. Novel radiation sources 3 2. Polarimetry-based experimental suggestions 26
A. Strong optical laser sources 3 3. Low-energy vacuum-polarization effects in a
1. Next-generation 10 PW optical laser systems 4 plasma 27
2. Multi-Petawatt and Exawatt optical laser B. High-energy vacuum-polarization effects 27
systems 4
B. Brilliant x-ray laser sources 5 VIII. Electron-positron pair production 29
A. Pair production in photon-laser and electron-laser
III. Free electron dynamics in a laser field 6 collisions 30
A. Classical dynamics 6 B. Pair production in nucleus-laser collisions 31
B. Quantum dynamics 7 C. Pair production in a standing laser wave 32
D. Spin effects and other fundamental aspects of
IV. Relativistic atomic dynamics in strong laser fields 9 laser-induced pair creation 34
A. Ionization 10
IX. QED cascades 35
B. Recollisions and high-order harmonic generation 12
X. Muon-antimuon and pion-antipion pair production 38
V. Multiphoton Thomson and Compton scattering 14
A. Muon-antimuon and pion-antipion pair production in
A. Fundamental considerations 14
laser-driven collisions in plasmas 38
B. Thomson- and Compton-based sources of high-energy
B. Muon-antimuon and pion-antipion pair production in
photon beams 17
high-energy XFEL-nucleus collisions 39
VI. Radiation reaction 18
XI. Nuclear physics 40
A. The classical radiation dominated regime 20 A. Direct laser-nucleus interaction 40
B. Quantum radiation reaction 21 1. Resonant laser-nucleus coupling 40
2. Nonresonant laser-nucleus interactions 42
B. Nuclear signatures in laser-driven atomic and
molecular dynamics 42
∗ dipiazza@mpi-hd.mpg.de
† XII. Laser colliders 43
carsten.mueller@tp1.uni-duesseldorf.de. New address: In-
A. Laser acceleration 43
stitut für Theoretische Physik I, Heinrich-Heine-Universität
B. Laser-plasma linear collider 44
Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
‡ C. Laser micro-collider 45
k.hatsagortsyan@mpi-hd.mpg.de
§ keitel@mpi-hd.mpg.de XIII. Particle physics within and beyond the Standard Model 47
2

A. Electroweak sector of the Standard Model 47 the control of high-harmonic spectra by spatio-temporal
B. Particle physics beyond the Standard Model 47 shaping of the driving pulse (Winterfeldt et al., 2008), on
XIV. Conclusion and outlook 49
harmonic generation in laser-plasma interaction (Teub-
ner and Gibbon, 2009) and on the dynamics of clusters
Acknowledgments 50 in strong laser fields (Fennel et al., 2010).
By increasing the optical laser intensity to the or-
List of frequently-used symbols 50
der of 1017 -1018 W/cm2 , another physically important
References 50 regime in laser-matter interaction is entered: the rel-
ativistic regime. In such intense electromagnetic fields
an electron reaches relativistic velocities already within
I. INTRODUCTION one laser period, the magnetic component of the Lorentz
force becomes of the same order of magnitude of the elec-
The first realization of the laser in 1960 (Maiman, tric one, and the electron’s motion becomes highly non-
1960) is one of the most important technological break- linear as a function of the laser’s electromagnetic field.
throughs. Nowadays lasers are indispensable tools for Although the increasing influence of the magnetic force
investigating physical processes in different areas rang- causes a suppression of atomic HHG in the relativistic do-
ing from atomic and plasma physics to nuclear and high- main, the highly nonlinear motion of the electrons in such
energy physics. This has been possible mainly due to the strong laser fields is at the origin of numerous new effects
continuous progress made along two specific directions: as relativistic self-focusing in plasma and laser wakefield
decrease of the laser pulse duration and increase of the acceleration (Mulser and Bauer, 2010). In the recent re-
laser peak intensity (Mourou and Tajima, 2011). On the views Ehlotzky et al., 2009; Mourou et al., 2006; and
one hand, multiterawatt laser systems with a pulse du- Salamin et al., 2006, different processes occurring at rel-
ration in the femtosecond time scale are readily available ativistic laser intensities are discussed. In particular, in
nowadays and different laboratories have succeeded in the Ehlotzky et al., 2009, QED processes like Compton, Mott
generation of single attosecond pulses. Physics at the at- and Møller scattering in a strong laser field are covered, in
tosecond time scale has been the subject of the recent Mourou et al., 2006, technical aspects and new possibili-
review Krausz and Ivanov, 2009. In this review it has ties of the CPA techniques are reviewed together with rel-
been pointed out how pulses in the attosecond domain ativistic effects in laser-plasma interaction as, for exam-
allow for the detailed investigation of the electron mo- ple, self-induced transparency and wakefield generation,
tion in atoms and during molecular reactions. The pro- while in Salamin et al., 2006, spin-effects as well as rel-
duction of ultrashort pulses is strongly connected with ativistic multiphoton and tunneling recollision dynamics
the increase of the laser peak intensity. This is not only in laser-atom interactions are reviewed. Also in the same
because temporal compression evidently implies an in- year another review was published on nonlinear collective
crease in intensity at a given laser energy, but also be- photon interactions, including vacuum-polarization ef-
cause higher intensities allow, in general, for controlling fects in a plasma (Marklund and Shukla, 2006). Whereas,
faster physical processes, which in turn can be exploited the physics of plasma-based laser electron accelerators
for generating correspondingly shorter light pulses. is the main subject covered in Esarey et al., 2009 and
Not long after the invention of the laser, available in- Malka, 2011, with a special focus on the different phases
tensities were already sufficiently high to trigger non- involved (electron injection and trapping, and pulse prop-
linear optical effects like second harmonic generation. agation) and on the role of plasma instabilities in the
It is, however, only after the experimental implementa- acceleration process. Finally, in Ruffini et al., 2010 dif-
tion of the Chirped Pulse Amplification (CPA) technique ferent processes related to electron-positron (e+ -e− ) pair
(Strickland and Mourou, 1985) that it has been possi- production are reviewed with special emphasis on those
ble to reach the intensity threshold of 1014 -1015 W/cm2 occurring in the presence of highly-charged ions and in
corresponding to electric field amplitudes of the same astrophysical environments.
order as the Coulomb field in atoms. At such inten- In the present article we address physical processes
sities the interplay between the laser and the atomic that mainly occur at optical laser intensities mostly larger
field significantly alters the electron’s dynamics in atoms than 1021 W/cm2 , i.e., well exceeding the relativistic
and molecules and this can be exploited, for example, threshold. After reporting on the latest technological
for generating high-frequency radiation in the extreme- progress in optical and x-ray laser technology (Sec. II),
ultraviolet (XUV) and soft-x-ray regions (high-order we review some basic results on the classical and quan-
harmonic generation or HHG) (Agostini and DiMauro, tum dynamics of an electron in a laser field (Sec. III).
2004; Protopapas et al., 1997). HHG as well as atomic Then, we bridge to lower-intensity physics by reviewing
processes in intense laser fields have been recently re- more recent advances in relativistic ionization and HHG
viewed in Fennel et al., 2010; Teubner and Gibbon, 2009; in atomic gases (Sec. IV). The main subject of the re-
and Winterfeldt et al., 2008, with specific emphasis on view, i.e., the response of fundamental systems like elec-
3

trons, photons and even the vacuum to ultra-intense radi- (Yanovsky et al., 2008), while no experiments have been
ation fields is covered in Secs. V-X. As will be seen, such performed at this intensity yet. This record intensity has
high laser intensities represent a unique tool to investi- been reached when the HERCULES laser was upgraded
gate fundamental processes like multiphoton Compton to become a 300 TW Ti:Sa system, amplified via CPA
scattering (Sec. V), to clarify conceptual issues like radi- and capable of a repetition rate of 0.1 Hz. The 4-grating
ation reaction in classical and quantum electrodynamics compressor allowed for a pulse duration of about 30 fs
(Sec. VI) and to investigate the structure of the quantum and adaptive optics together with a f /1 parabola en-
vacuum (Sec. VII). Also, other fundamental quantum- abled to focus the beam down to a diameter of about
relativistic phenomena like the transformation of pure 1.3 µm. This experimental achievement on the laser in-
light into massive particles as electrons, muons and pi- tensity pushed the capabilities of a multiterawatt laser
ons (and their corresponding antiparticles) can become almost to the limit.
feasible and can even limit the attainability of arbitrar- The 1-PW threshold has been already reached and
ily high laser intensities (Secs. VIII-X). Finally, we will even exceeded in various laboratories. For example, the
also review recent suggestions on employing novel high- Texas Petawatt Laser (TPL) at the University of Texas at
frequency lasers and laser-accelerated particle beams to Austin (Texas, USA) has exceeded the Petawatt thresh-
directly trigger nuclear and high-energy processes (Secs. old thanks to the OPCPA technique, by compressing an
XI-XIII). The main conclusions of the article will be pre- energy of 186 J in a pulse lasting only 167 fs (TPL, 2011).
sented in Sec. XIV. The TPL has been employed for investigating laser-
Units with ~ = c = 1 and the space-time metric plasma interactions at extreme conditions, particularly
η µν = diag(+1, −1, −1, −1) are employed throughout relevant for astrophysics. Also, the two laser systems
this review. Vulcan (Vulcan, 2011) and Astra Gemini (Astra Gemini,
2011) at the Central Laser Facility (CLF) in the United
Kingdom provide powers of the order of 1 PW. The
II. NOVEL RADIATION SOURCES Vulcan facility can deliver an energy of 500 J in a pulse
lasting 500 fs. It is a Nd:YAG laser system amplified
In this section we review the latest technical and ex- via CPA and can provide intensities up to 1021 W/cm2 .
perimental progress in laser technology. We will discuss Whereas, the Astra Gemini laser consists of two inde-
optical and x-ray laser systems separately. The latter pendent Ti:Sa laser beams of 0.5 PW each (energy of
are especially useful for e+ -e− pair production, for di- 15 J and a pulse duration of 30 fs), with a maximum
rect laser-nucleus interaction, as well as as probes for focused intensity of 1022 W/cm2 . The particular layout
vacuum-polarization effects (see in particular Secs. VII, of the Astra Gemini laser renders this system especially
VIII and XI). For overviews of feasible accelerators also versatile for unique applications in strong-field physics,
of relevance for the present review see, e.g., Esarey et al., where two ultrastrong beams are required. Two laser
2009; Malka, 2011; Nakamura et al., 2010; and Wilson, systems are likely to be updated to the Petawatt level
2001 and the relevant original literature as quoted in the in Germany. The first one is the Petawatt High-Energy
respective sections. Laser for heavy Ion eXperiments (PHELIX) Nd:YAG
laser at the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI)
in Darmstadt, capable now of delivering an energy of
A. Strong optical laser sources 120 J in about 500 fs (PHELIX, 2011). The 1-PW
threshold should be reached by increasing the pulse en-
As has been mentioned in the Introduction, since the ergy to 500 J. Combined with the highly-charged ion
invention of the CPA technique (Strickland and Mourou, beams at GSI, the PHELIX facility can be attractive for
1985) laser peak intensities have been boosted by sev- experimental investigations in strong-field quantum elec-
eral orders of magnitude. Another amplification tech- trodynamics (QED). The second system to be updated
nique called Optical Parametric Chirped Pulse Ampli- to 1 PW is the Petawatt Optical Laser Amplifier for Ra-
fication (OPCPA), based on the nonlinear interaction diation Intensive Experiments (POLARIS) laser in Jena
among laser beams in crystals, was suggested almost at (Hein et al., 2010). At the moment, a power of about
the same time as the CPA and proved to be promising as 100 TW (energy of 10 J for a pulse duration of 100 fs)
well (Piskarskas et al., 1986). As a result of the increase has been reached and the goal of 1 PW power should
in available laser intensities, exciting perspectives have be achieved by compressing 120 J in about 120 fs. The
been envisaged in different fields spanning from atomic to Scottish Centre for the Application of Plasma-based Ac-
plasma and even nuclear and high-energy physics (Feder, celerators (SCAPA) research center is one of the main
2010; Gerstner, 2007; Mourou, 2010; Tajima et al., 2010). initiatives within the Scottish Universities Physics Al-
The group of G. Mourou at the University of Michi- liance (SUPA) project dedicated to the high-power laser
gan (Michigan, USA) holds the record so far for the interaction with plasmas. A laser system will be devel-
highest laser intensity ever achieved of 2 × 1022 W/cm2 oped, which will generate pulses of 5-7 J energy and of
4

25-30 fs duration at a repetition rate of 5 Hz, correspond- can laser has already started (Vulcan 10PW, 2011). The
ing to a peak power of 200-250 TW, with potential for new laser will provide beams with an energy of 300 J
future upgrades to the petawatt level (SCAPA, 2012). in only 30 fs via the OPCPA. A 10 PW laser system is
The 1-PW threshold has been also exceeded in Ti:Sa in principle capable of unprecedented intensities larger
laser systems like those described in Sung et al., 2010 than 1023 W/cm2 if the beam is focused to about 1 µm.
(energy of 34 J for a pulse duration of 30 fs) and in The front-end stage of the Vulcan 10 PW is already com-
Wang et al., 2011 (energy of 32.3 J for a pulse duration pleted and it delivers pulses with about 1 J of energy at a
of 27.9 fs) and constructed at the Advanced Photonics central wavelength of 0.9 µm, with sufficient bandwidth
Research Institute (APRI) at Gwangju (Republic of Ko- to support a pulse with duration less than 30 fs.
rea) and at the Beijing National Laboratory for Con- Another 10 PW laser project is the ILE APOLLON
densed Matter Physics in Beijing (China), respectively. to be realized at the Institut de Lumiére Extreme (ILE)
The BELLA (Berkeley Lab Laser Accelerator) is a Ti:Sa in France (Chambaret et al., 2009). The laser pulses
laser system under construction at the Lawrence Berke- are expected to deliver an energy of 150 J in 15 fs at
ley National Laboratory (LBNL) at Berkeley (California, the last stage of amplification after the front end (en-
USA) which will also reach the 1-PW threshold by com- ergy of 100 mJ in less than 10 fs), with a repetition rate
pressing 40 J in 40 fs at a repetition rate of 1 Hz (BELLA, of one shot per minute. Laser intensities of the order
2012). of 1024 W/cm2 are envisaged at the ILE APOLLON sys-
All the above systems require laser energies larger tem, entering the so-called ultrarelativistic regime, where
than 10 J and this limits the repetition rate of exist- also ions (rest energy of the order of 1 GeV) become rel-
ing petawatt lasers in the best situation to about 0.1 Hz ativistic within one laser period of such an intense laser
(Sung et al., 2010). The Ti:Sa Petawatt Field Synthe- field.
sizer (PFS) system under development in Garching (Ger- We mention here also the PEtawatt pARametric Laser
many) aims to be the first high-repetition rate petawatt (PEARL-10) project at the Institute of Applied Physics
laser system with an envisaged repetition rate of 10 Hz of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Nizhny Novgorod
(PFS, 2011). By adopting the OPCPA technique the (Russia), which is an upgrade of the present 0.56-PW
PFS should reach the petawatt level by compressing an laser employing the OPCPA technique, to 10 PW (200 J
energy of about 5 J in 5 fs (Major et al., 2010). For of energy compressed in 20 fs) (Korzhimanov et al.,
a recent review on petawatt-class laser systems, see Ko- 2011).
rzhimanov et al., 2011.
Finally, we also want to mention other high-power
lasers, mainly devoted to fast ignition and characterized 2. Multi-Petawatt and Exawatt optical laser systems
by relatively long pulses of the order of 1 ps-1 ns. Among
others we mention the OMEGA EP system at Rochester The Extreme Light Infrastructure (ELI) (ELI, 2011)
(New York, USA) (energy of 1 kJ for a pulse duration (see Fig. 1), the Exawatt Center for Extreme Light
of 1 ps) (OMEGA EP, 2011) and the National Igni- Studies (XCELS) (XCELS, 2012) and the High Power
tion Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National laser Energy Research (HiPER) facility at the CLF in
Laboratory (LLNL) at Livermore (California, USA) (en- the United Kingdom (HiPER, 2011) are envisaged laser
ergy of 2 MJ distributed in 192 beams with a pulse du- systems with a power exceeding the 100 PW level.
ration of about 3-10 ns) (NIF, 2011). Another high- ELI is a large-scale laser facility consisting of four “pil-
power laser facility is the PETawatt Aquitaine Laser lars” (see Fig. 1): one devoted to nuclear physics, one
(PETAL) in Le Barp close to Bordeaux (France), which to attosecond physics, one to secondary beams (photon
is a multi-petawatt laser, generating pulses with energy beams, ultrarelativistic electron and ion beams) and one
up to 3.5 kJ and with a duration of 0.5 to 5 ps (PETAL, to high-intensity physics. This last one is of relevance
2011). The PETAL facility is planned to be coupled to here and it is supposed to comprise ten beams each with
the Laser MégaJoule (LMJ) under construction in Bor- a power of 10-20 PW that, when combined in phase,
deaux (France). In the LMJ a total energy of 1.8 MJ is should deliver a single beam of about 100-200 PW at a
distributed in a series of 240 laser beamlines, collected repetition rate of one shot per minute. The relatively
into eight groups of 30 beams with a pulse duration of high repetition rate is obtained by compressing in each
0.2-25 ns (LMJ, 2011). beam alone 0.3-0.4 kJ of energy in a pulse of 15 fs. We
mention that one of the aims of the ILE APOLLON sys-
tem is to provide a prototype of the 10-20 PW beams,
1. Next-generation 10 PW optical laser systems that will be then employed at ELI. In the high-field pil-
lar of ELI ultrahigh intensities exceeding 1025 W/cm2
The possibility of building a 10 PW laser system is are envisaged, which are well above the ultrarelativistic
under consideration in various laboratories. At the CLF regime. At such intensities, it will be possible to test dif-
in the United Kingdom the 10 PW upgrade of the Vul- ferent aspects of fundamental physics for the first time.
5

1035

[photons/(s mrad2 mm2 0.1% bandwidth]


1034
European XFEL
1033

Peak brilliance
1032 LCLS

1031

1030 FLASH
29
10

1028
FIG. 1 (Color online) Summary of the four pillars of ELI. A 1 10 102 103 104
power value of 10(×2) PW indicates the availability of two Photon energy [eV]
laser systems each with 10 PW power. Reprinted with per-
mission from Feder, 2010. Copyright 2010, American Institute
of Physics. FIG. 2 (Color online) Comparison among the peak brilliances
of the three facilities FLASH, LCLS and European XFEL as
a function of the laser photon energy. An envisaged peak
brilliance of 5 × 1033 photons/(s mrad2 mm2 0.1% bandwidth)
at a photon energy of 12.4 keV for the SACLA facility is
reported in European XFEL, 2011. See also European XFEL,
The XCELS infrastructure is planned to be built in 2011.
Nizhny Novgorod (Russia) and it will consist of 12 beams
each with energy of 300-400 J and with duration of
B. Brilliant x-ray laser sources
20-30 fs. The pulse resulting from the superposition of
these beams is expected to have a power of 200 PW, a
pulse duration of about 25 fs, and divergence less than Strong optical laser systems are sources of coherent
3 diffraction limits (at a central wavelength of 0.91 µm). radiation at wavelengths of the order of 1 µm, corre-
Apart from aiming to overcome the 100 PW threshold, sponding to photon energies of the order of 1 eV. Con-
the main priorities of XCELS are the creation of sources siderable efforts have been devoted in the past few years
of attosecond and subattosecond, X-ray and γ-ray pulses, to develop coherent radiation sources at photon energies
the development of laser based electron and ion acceler- larger than 100 eV. The discovery of the Self-Amplified
ators with electron and ion energies exceeding 100 GeV Spontaneous Emission (SASE) regime (Bonifacio et al.,
and up to 10 GeV, respectively, the realization in labo- 1984) has opened the possibility of employing Free Elec-
ratory of astrophysical and early-cosmological conditions tron Lasers (FELs) to generate coherent light at such
and the investigation of the structure of the quantum short wavelengths. In a FEL relativistic bunches of elec-
vacuum. trons pass through a spatially-periodic magnetic field
(undulator) and emit high-energy photons. In the SASE
regime the interaction of the electron bunch with its own
The main goal of the other large-scale facility HiPER electromagnetic field “structures” the bunch itself into
is the first demonstration of laser-driven fusion, or fast slices (microbunches) each one emitting coherently even
ignition. To this end HiPER will deliver: 1) an energy of at wavelengths below 1 nm (FELs at such small wave-
about 200 kJ distributed in 40 beams with a pulse dura- lengths are dubbed X-ray Free Electron Lasers (XFELs)).
tion of several nanoseconds and a photon energy of 3 eV The Free-Electron Laser in Hamburg (FLASH) facil-
in the compression side; 2) an energy of about 70 kJ dis- ity at the Deutsches Elektronen-SYnchrotron (DESY)
tributed in 24 beams with a pulse duration of 15 ps and in Hamburg (Germany) (FLASH, 2011) is one of the
a photon energy of 2 eV in the ignition side. Employing most brilliant operating FEL’s. It delivers short pulses
HiPER for high-intensity physics would imply a feasible (duration of about 10-100 fs) of coherent radiation in
reconfiguration of the ignition side to deliver 10 kJ in the extreme ultraviolet-soft x-ray regime (fundamental
only 10 fs via the OPCPA technique. This would render wavelength from 60 nm down to 6.5 nm corresponding
HiPER a laser facility with Exawatt (1018 W) power and to photon energies from 21 to 190 eV) at a repetition
with a potential intensity of 1026 W/cm2 . rate of 100 kHz. The intense electron beams available at
FLASH (total charge of 0.5-1 nC at an energy of 1 GeV)
Finally, we briefly mention the GEKKO EXA facility allow for peak brilliance of the photon beam of about
conceptually under design in Osaka (Japan) (GEKKO 1029 -1030 photons/(s mrad2 mm2 0.1% bandwidth) (see
EXA, 2011). This facility is expected to deliver pulses Fig. 2), exceeding the peak brilliance of conventional
of 2 kJ energy and of 10 fs duration corresponding to synchrotron light sources by several orders of magnitude.
200 PW and with an intensity up to 1025 W/cm2 . The Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at Stanford
6

(California, USA) uses the electron beams generated by III. FREE ELECTRON DYNAMICS IN A LASER FIELD
the Stanford Linear ACcelerator (SLAC) at the National
Accelerator Laboratory to generate flashes of coherent
x-ray radiation of unprecedented brilliance (LCLS, 2011) In this Section we review, for the benefit of the reader,
(see also Emma et al., 2010). Since the electron beam en- some important basic results on the dynamics of a free
ergy can be varied from 4.5 GeV to 14.4 GeV, accordingly electron in a laser field (see also the review Eberly, 1969)
the wavelength of LCLS can be tuned from 1.5 nm to and link them to recent investigations on the subject.
0.15 nm (corresponding to photon energies from 0.8 keV Results in the realm of classical and quantum electro-
to 8 keV). The peak brilliance of the LCLS is of the or- dynamics are considered separately. Radiation-reaction
der of 1032 -1033 photons/(s mrad2 mm2 0.1% bandwidth) and electron self-interaction effects are not included here
(see Fig. 2), the pulse duration is typically of about and their discussion is developed in Sec. VI.
40-80 fs up to 500 fs, which can be decreased to 10 fs in
the low-charge electron beam mode, and the repetition
rate is 120 Hz.
Another XFEL in operation is the SPring-8 Angstrom
Compact free electron LAser (SACLA) at the RIKEN
Harima Institute in Japan (SACLA, 2011). The electron
accelerator, based on a conducting C-band high-gradient
radiofrequency acceleration system, and the short-period A. Classical dynamics
undulator allow for a relatively compact facility of around
700 m in length (compared, for example, with the about
2 km of the LCLS). SACLA employs the 8 GeV electron The motion of a charged particle in a laser field is usu-
beam of the Super Photon Ring - 8 GeV (SPring-8) ac- ally associated to an oscillation along the laser polariza-
celerator (SPring8, 2011) and has generated x-ray beams tion direction. This is pertinent to the non-relativistic
with 0.08 nm wavelength (corresponding to a photon en- regime, while the charge dynamics in the relativistic do-
ergy of 15.5 keV) at a repetition rate of 60 Hz (see also main is enriched by new features like the drift along the
the caption of Fig. 2). laser propagation direction and other non-dipole effects
(like the well-known figure-8 trajectory), as well as by
The European XFEL is under development at DESY in the sharpening of the trajectory at those instants where
Hamburg (Germany) (European XFEL, 2011). It is ex- the velocity along the polarization direction reverses. As
pected to deliver x-ray pulses with a peak brilliance up to a consequence, laser-driven relativistic free electrons also
about 5 × 1033 photons/(s mrad2 mm2 0.1% bandwidth) emit high harmonics of the laser frequency (see Sec. V).
at the unprecedented repetition rate of 27 kHz. The elec-
tron accelerator provides an electron beam with maximal The classical motion of an electron (electric charge
energy of 17.5 GeV able to generate laser pulses with a e < 0 and mass m) in an arbitrary external electromag-
central wavelength of 0.05 nm, which corresponds to a netic field F µν (x) is determined by the Lorentz equation
photon energy of 24.8 keV and with a pulse duration of mduµ /ds = eF µν uν , where uµ = dxµ /ds is the elec-
100 fs. Moreover, the European XFEL will be a versatile tron four-velocity and s its proper time (Landau and
machine consisting of three photon beamlines: the SASE- Lifshitz, 1975). If the external field is a plane wave,
1 and SASE-2, with linearly polarized photons with en- the field tensor F µν (x) depends only on the dimensional
ergy in the range 3.1-24.8 keV and the SASE-3, with phase φ = (n0 x), where nµ0 = (1, n0 ), with n0 being the
linearly or circularly polarized photons of energy in the unit vector along the propagation direction of the wave.
range 0.26-3.1 keV. In this case, for an arbitrary four-vector v µ = (v 0 , v)
We also mention that coherent attosecond pulses of it is convenient to introduce the notation vk = n0 · v,
XUV radiation (photon energy of the order of 100 v⊥ = v − vk n0 and v− = (n0 v) = v 0 − vk . The four-
eV) have been generated employing HHG in a gaseous vector potential of the wave can be chosen in the Lorentz
medium (Agostini and DiMauro, 2004). This technique gauge as Aµ (φ) = (0, A(φ)), with A− (φ) = −Ak (φ) = 0.
allows for the production of beams with central photon We indicate as pµ = (ε, p) = muµ the (kinetic) four-
energy up to several keVs (Popmintchev et al., 2009; San- momentum of the electron. Since a plane-wave field de-
sone et al., 2006), though with intensities several orders pends only on φ, the canonical momenta p⊥ (φ) + eA(φ)
smaller than XFELs. Less stable sources of coherent soft and p− (φ) are conserved as they are the conjugated mo-
x-rays are the so-called x-ray lasers, which are based on menta to the cyclic coordinates x⊥ and t + xk , respec-
the amplification of spontaneous emission by multiply tively. For pµ (φ0 ) = pµ0 = (ε0 , p0 ) = mγ0 (1, β0 ) being
ionized atoms in dense plasmas created by intense laser the initial condition for the electron’s four-momentum at
pulses (Suckewer and Jaegle, 2009; Wang et al., 2008; a given phase φ0 , the above-mentioned conservation laws
Zeitoun et al., 2004). already allow to write the electron’s four-momentum at
7

an arbitrary phase φ as (Landau and Lifshitz, 1975) has been switched off (A(∞) = 0) has the components
p⊥ (∞) = eA(φ0 ) and pk (∞) = e2 A2 (φ0 )/2m.
p0,⊥ · [A(φ) − A(φ0 )] Realistic laser pulses, as those produced in laborato-
ε(φ) =ε0 − e
p0,− ries, have a more complicated structure than a plane
(1)
e2 [A(φ) − A(φ0 )]2 wave, essentially because they are spatially focused on
+ , the transverse planes and the area of the focusing spot
2 p0,−
changes along the laser’s propagation axis. Generally
p⊥ (φ) =p0,⊥ − e[A(φ) − A(φ0 )], (2) speaking, if the radius of the minimal focusing area (spot
p0,⊥ · [A(φ) − A(φ0 )] radius) is much larger than the central wavelength of the
pk (φ) =p0,k − e
p0,− laser pulse, then the pulse can be reasonably approxi-
(3) mated by a plane wave. A Gaussian beam in the paraxial
e2 [A(φ) − A(φ0 )]2
+ , approximation offers a more accurate analytical descrip-
2 p0,−
tion of a realistic laser pulse, which shows a Gaussian pro-
where the on-shell condition ε(φ) + pk (φ) = [p2⊥ (φ) + file in the transverse planes (Salamin and Keitel, 2002).
m2 ]/p0,− was employed. For the paradigmatic case of The dynamics of an electron in such a field cannot be de-
a linearly polarized monochromatic plane wave, it is rived analytically and a numerical solution of the Lorentz
Aµ (φ) = Aµ0 cos(ω0 φ), with Aµ0 = (0, E0 u/ω0 ), where E0 equation is required (Salamin et al., 2002).
is the electric field amplitude, ω0 the angular frequency
and u the polarization direction (perpendicular to n0 ).
B. Quantum dynamics
The above analytical solution indicates that even if an
electron is initially at rest, it becomes relativistic within
In the realm of relativistic quantum mechanics, i.e.,
one laser period T0 = 2π/ω0 if the parameter
when e+ -e− pair production is negligible (see also Sec.
p VIII) and the single-particle quantum theory is appli-
|e| −A20 |e|E0
ξ0 = = (4) cable, the dynamics of an electron in an external elec-
m mω0 tromagnetic field with four-vector potential Aµ (x) is de-
is of the order of or larger than unity. In the rela- scribed by the Dirac equation
tivistic regime the magnetic component of the Lorentz
force, which depends on the electron’s velocity, becomes {γ µ [i∂µ − eAµ (x)] − m}Ψ = 0, (5)
comparable to the electric one and the electron’s dy-
where γ µ are the Dirac matrices and where Ψ(x) is the
namics becomes highly nonlinear in the laser-field am-
four-component electron bi-spinor (Berestetskii et al.,
plitude. Thus, the parameter ξ0 is known as classical
1982). Analogously to the classical case, if the exter-
nonlinearity parameter. An heuristic interpretation of
nal field is a plane wave, the Dirac equation can be
the parameter ξ0 is as the work performed by the laser
solved exactly. If pµ0 = (ε0 , p0 ) and σ0 /2 = ±1/2 are
field on the electron in one laser wavelength λ0 = T0 in
the electron’s four-momentum and spin at φ → −∞ and
units of the electron mass, which clearly explains why
if Aµ (−∞) = 0, the positive-energy (ε0 > 0) solution
relativistic effects become important at ξ0 & 1. Alter-
Ψp0 ,σ0 (x) of Eq. (5) reads (Berestetskii et al., 1982;
natively, Eqs. (1)-(3) indicate that the figure-8 trajec-
Volkov, 1935)
tory has a longitudinal (transverse) extension of the or-
der of λ0 ξ02 (λ0 ξ0 ), implying that the electron trajectory 
e

up ,σ
deviates from the unidirectional oscillating one and be- Ψp0 ,σ0 (x) = 1 + n̂0 Â(φ) √ 0 0 eiSp0 , (6)
2p0,− 2V ε0
comes nonlinear in the field p amplitude at ξ0 & 1. Note
thatp numerically ξ0 = 6.0 I0 [1020 W/cm2 ]λ0 [µm] = where in general v̂ = γ µ vµ for a generic four-vector v µ ,
7.5 I0 [10 W/cm ]/ω0 [eV], where I0 = E02 /4π is the
20 2 where up0 ,σ0 is a positive-energy free bi-spinor (Berestet-
wave’s peak intensity, and that ξ0 is gauge- and Lorentz- skii et al., 1982), V is the quantization volume, and where
invariant: the gauge invariance has to be intended with
φ
e(p0 A(φ′ )) e2 A2 (φ′ )
Z  
respect to gauge transformations which do not alter the
Sp0 (x) = −(p0 x) − dφ′ −
dependence of the four-vector potential on φ (see Heinzl −∞ p0,− 2p0,−
and Ilderton, 2009 for a thorough analysis of this issue). (7)
The solution in Eqs. (1)-(3) also indicates that in the is the classical action of an electron in the plane
ultrarelativistic regime at ξ0 ≫ 1, the electron acquires wave (Landau and Lifshitz, 1975). The above electron
a drift momentum along the propagation direction of the states are known as positive-energy Volkov states. The
laser field which is proportional to ξ02 , in contrast to the negative-energy states Ψ−p0 ,−σ0 (x) can be formally ob-
transverse momentum which is proportional to ξ0 . In tained by the replacements pµ0 → −pµ0 and σ0 → −σ0 in
the case of an electron initially at rest, for example, the Eq. (6) except for the energy in the square root (the re-
momentum p(∞) of the electron after the laser pulse sulting bi-spinor u−p0 ,−σ0 is the corresponding negative-
8

−(q0 x) + “oscillating terms”, with (Ritus, 1985)

m2 ξ02 µ
q0µ = pµ0 + n . (8)
4p0,− 0

The four-vector q0µ plays the role of an “effective” four-


momentum of the electron in the laser field and it is indi-
cated as electronp “quasimomentum”. p The corresponding
electron “mass” q02 = m∗ = m 1 + ξ02 /2 is known as
electron’s dressed mass. The results for the quasimo-
FIG. 3 (Color) Free wave packet evolution in a plane wave mentum q0µ and the dressed mass m∗ in the case of a
field. The solid gray line indicates the center of mass tra- circularly polarized laser field with the same amplitude
jectory, coinciding essentially with the classical trajectory, and frequency is obtained from the above ones with the
and the laser pulse travels from left to right. The blue re- replacement ξ02 → 2ξ02 . The quasimomentum coincides
gions indicate the copropagating self-adaptive numerical grid. classically with the average momentum of the electron
Time and space coordinates are given in “atomic units”, with
1 a.u. = 24 as and 1 a.u. = 0.05 nm, respectively. From
in the plane wave. Correspondingly, the mass dressing
Bauke and Keitel, 2011. depends only on the classical nonlinearity parameter ξ0
and it is an effect of the quivering motion of the electron
in the monochromatic wave (see also the recent review
Ehlotzky et al., 2009). As we will see in Sec. V.A, it
energy free bi-spinor 1 (Berestetskii et al., 1982)). Al-
is important that conservation laws in QED processes
though it has been shown long ago that positive- and
in the presence of a monochromatic plane-wave field in-
negative-energy Volkov states form a complete set of or-
volve the quasimomentum q0µ for the incoming electrons
thogonal states on the hypersurfaces φ = const (Ritus,
rather than the four-momentum pµ0 . The question of the
1985), the corresponding property on the hypersurfaces
electron dressed mass in pulsed laser fields has been in-
t = const is not straightforward and it has been proved
vestigated in Heinzl et al., 2010a and Mackenroth and
only recently (see Ritus, 1985 and Zakowicz, 2005, and
Di Piazza, 2011.
Boca and Florescu, 2010 for a proof of the orthogonal-
In the realm of QED the parameter ξ0 can also be
ity and of the completeness of the Volkov states, respec-
heuristically interpreted as the work performed by the
tively).
laser field on the electron in the typical QED length
Since the Volkov states form a basis of the space of λC = 1/m ≈ 3.9 × 10−11 cm (Compton wavelength) in
the solutions of Dirac equation in a plane wave, they can units of the laser photon energy ω0 (see Eq. (4)). This
be employed to build electron wave packets and study qualitatively explains why multiphoton effects in a laser
their evolution. A pedagogical example of laser-induced field become important at ξ0 & 1, such that the laser field
Dirac dynamics is displayed in Fig. 3 for a plane wave has to be taken into account exactly in the calculations
with peak intensity of 6.3 × 1023 W/cm2 and central (Ritus, 1985). In the framework of QED this is achieved
wavelength of 2 nm. The figure shows the drift of the by working in the so-called Furry picture (Furry, 1951),
wave packet in the propagation direction of the wave, its where the e+ -e− field Ψ(x) is quantized in the presence
spreading and its shearing due to non-dipole effects. In of the plane-wave field. This amounts essentially in em-
Fillion-Gourdeau et al., 2012 an alternative method of ploying the Volkov (dressed) states and the correspond-
solving the time-dependent Dirac equation in coordinate ing Volkov (dressed) propagators (Ritus, 1985) instead
space is presented, which explicitly avoids the fermion of free particle states and free propagators to compute
doubling, i.e., the appearance of unphysical modes when the amplitudes of QED processes. In the Furry picture
the Dirac equation is discretized. the effects of the plane wave are accounted for exactly
As in the classical case, we shortly mention here the and only the interaction between the e+ -e− field Ψ(x)
paradigmatic case of a monochromatic, linearly polar- and the radiation field F µν (x) ≡ ∂ µ Aν (x) − ∂ ν Aµ (x)
ized plane-wave field Aµ (φ) = Aµ0 cos(ω0 φ). In this case is accounted for by means of perturbation theory. The
the action Sp0 (x) can be written in the form Sp0 (x) = complete evolution of the system “e+ -e− field+radiation
field” is obtained by means of the S-matrix
  Z 
4 µ
S = T exp −ie d xΨ̄γ ΨAµ , (9)
1 We point out that the discussed Volkov states Ψ±p0 ,±σ0 (x) are
the so-called Volkov in-states, as they transform into free-states
in the limit t → −∞ (Fradkin et al., 1991). Volkov out-states,
where T is the time-ordering operator and Ψ̄(x) =
which transform into free-states in the limit t → ∞, can be Ψ† (x)γ 0 . For an initial state containing only a single elec-
derived analogously and differ from the Volkov in-states only by tron with four-momentum pµ0 , the quantitative descrip-
an inconsequential constant phase factor (recall that A(∞) = 0). tion of the interaction between the electron, the laser field
9

and the radiation field involves in particular the gauge- field F0µν , with the replacement F0µν → F µν (x) (Ritus,
and Lorentz-invariant quantum parameter 1985). For a monochromatic plane wave with angular fre-
p quency ω0 this occurs if ξ0 ≫ 1. As will be seen in Sec.
|e| −(F0,µν pν0 )2 p0,− E0 V.A, this condition corresponds, e.g., to the formation
χ0 = 3
= , (10)
m m Fcr time of multiphoton Compton scattering (∼ m/|e|E0 )
where Fcr = m2 /|e| = 1.3 × 1016 V/cm = 4.4 × 1014 G being much shorter than the laser period T0 .
being the critical electromagnetic field of QED (Ritus, As has been mentioned, the S-matrix in Eq. (9)
1985). The definition of Fcr indicates that a constant describes all possible electrodynamical processes among
and uniform electric field with strength of the order of electrons, positrons and photons. The above consid-
Fcr , provides an e+ -e− pair with an energy of the or- erations can be easily adapted for discussing processes
der of its rest energy 2m in a distance of the order of involving an initial positron. Whereas, the probability
the Compton wavelength λC , implying the instability dPγ /dV dt of a quantum process in a plane-wave field in-
of the vacuum under e+ -e− pair creation in the pres- volving an incoming photon, as, e.g., multiphoton e+ -e−
ence of such a strong field (Heisenberg and Euler, 1936; pair production, depends on the parameters ξ0 and
Sauter, 1931; Schwinger, 1951). In Eq. (10) we con- p
sidered the case of a linearly polarized plane wave of |e| −(F0,µν k ν )2 k− E0
κ0 = = , (13)
the form Aµ (φ) = Aµ0 ψ(φ), with ψ(φ) being an arbi- m3 m Fcr
trary function with max |dψ(φ)/dφ| = 1 and we intro-
duced the tensor amplitude F0µν = k0µ Aν0 − k0ν Aµ0 , with where k µ = (ω, k) is the four-momentum of the incoming
k0µ = ω0 nµ0 . For an ultrarelativistic electron initially photon (see Ritus, 1985 and Secs. VII-IX). For a pho-
counterpropagating withprespect to the plane wave it is ton counterpropagating with p respect to the plane wave
χ0 = 5.9 × 10−2 ε0 [GeV] I0 [1020 W/cm2 ]. The parame- it is κ0 = 5.9 × 10−2 ω[GeV] I0 [1020 W/cm2 ]. In the
ter χ0 can be interpreted as the amplitude of the electric case of multiphoton e+ -e− pair production, the param-
field of the plane wave in the initial rest-frame of the elec- eter κ0 can be interpreted as the amplitude of the elec-
tron in units of the critical field of QED and it controls tric field of the plane wave in units of the critical field
the magnitude of pure quantum effects like the photon Fcr in the center-of-mass system of the created electron
recoil in multiphoton Compton scattering and spin ef- and positron (Ritus, 1985). The above remarks on pro-
fects. This is why it is known as “nonlinear quantum cesses occurring in a constant or slowly-varying back-
parameter”. ground field F µν (x) and involving an incoming electron,
Since the probability dPe /dV dt per unit volume and also apply to the case of an p incoming photon once one
unit time of a quantum process is a gauge- and Lorentz replaces χ(x) with κ(x) = |e| |(Fµν (x)k ν )2 |/m3 .
invariant quantity, for those processes in a plane-wave
field involving an incoming electron, as, e.g., multiphoton
Compton scattering, it can depend only on the two pa-
rameters ξ0 and χ0 (Ritus, 1985). For an electromagnetic IV. RELATIVISTIC ATOMIC DYNAMICS IN STRONG
field F µν (x) = (E(x), B(x)) either constant or slowly- LASER FIELDS
varying, the quantity dPe /dV dt, calculated in the lat-
ter case in the leading order with respect to the fields’ When super-intense infrared laser pulses, as those de-
derivatives, can in principle also depend on the two field scribed in Sec. II.A, impinge on an atom, the latter is
invariants immediately partly or fully ionized (Becker et al., 2002;
Keitel, 2001; Protopapas et al., 1997). The ejected elec-
1 µν 1
F (x) = F (x)Fµν (x) = − [E 2 (x) − B 2 (x)], (11) trons experience the typical “zig-zag” motion of a free
4 2 electron in both laser polarization and propagation direc-
1 µν
G (x) = F (x)F̃µν (x) = −E(x) · B(x) (12) tions (see Eqs. (2)-(3) and Fig. 3) and will not, in gen-
4 eral, return to the ionic core. With an enhanced binding
which identically vanish for a plane wave. In the sec- force on the remaining electrons, the ionization dynamics
ond equation F̃µν (x) = ǫµναβ F αβ (x)/2 is the dual becomes increasingly complex and may experience sub-
field of F µν (x) and ǫµναβ is the four-dimensional com- tle relativistic and correlation effects. When the bind-
pletely anti-symmetric tensor with ǫ0123 = +1 (since ing force of the ionic core and that of the applied laser
G (x) is actually a pseudo-scalar function, the probabil- field eventually become comparable, the electrons may
ity dPe /dV dt can only depend on G 2 (x)). Note, how- in special cases return to and interact with the parent
ever, that p if |F (x)|, |G (x)| ≪ min(1, χ2 (x))Fcr
2
, with ion (rescattering (Corkum, 1993; Kuchiev, 1987; Schafer
ν 2 3
χ(x) = |e| |(Fµν (x)p0 ) |/m , then the dependence of et al., 1993)). This interaction leads, for example, to the
dPe /dV dt on F (x) and G (x) can be neglected. In this ejection of other electrons, to the absorption of energy in
case the probability dPe /dV dt essentially coincides with a scattering process or to the emission of high-harmonic
the analogous quantity calculated for a constant crossed photons in case of recombination.
10

A. Ionization

Total population
Previously, atomic or molecular ionization was stud-
ied with laser pulses of intensity below 1016 W/cm2 , and
the relativistic laser-matter interaction was dominated
by the plasma community. The pioneering experiment
reported in Moore et al., 1999 on the ionization behav-
ior of atoms and ions in interaction with a laser with
intensity of 3 × 1018 W/cm2 has thus attracted consid-
Log10 I0[W/cm2]
erable interest. The laser magnetic field component was
shown to alter the direction of ionization characteristi-
cally (see Sec. III.A). This is because in the relativis- FIG. 4 (Color) The total Rb10+ (black lines) and Rb11+ (red
tic regime the ionized electron in a laser field acquires lines) ion populations in a gaseous target as a function of
a large momentum along the laser propagation direction the peak intensity of a linearly-polarized laser field with a
(see Eq. (3)) and photoelectrons are emitted mostly in wavelength of 0.8 µm and with a pulse duration of 5 fs. The
solid lines display two-electron inelastic tunneling, the dashed
that direction within a characteristic opening angle θ:
lines one-electron inelastic tunneling and the dashed-dotted
tan θ ∼ p⊥ (∞)/pk (∞) ∼ 2/ξ0 (see the discussion below lines the results via the PPT theory. Adapted from Kornev
Eq. (4)). With highly-charged ions becoming more easily et al., 2009.
available in a wide range of charges, e.g., via super-strong
laser fields or by passing the ion beams through metallic
foils, relativistic laser-induced ionization has been fur- but were concealed by competing rescattering effects. In
ther studied (Chowdhury et al., 2001; Dammasch et al., Kornev et al., 2009, it was shown that, in the relativistic
2001; DiChiara et al., 2008, 2010; Gubbini et al., 2005; regime, the role of inelastic and collective tunneling can
Palaniyappan et al., 2008; Yamakawa et al., 2003, 2004). significantly increase and the relativistic PPT rate has
In this situation rescattering is generally suppressed been generalized in this respect. In a linearly polarized
(N )
and multiple ionization of atoms and ions takes place field, the rate Rcoll of inelastic collective tunneling of N
mostly via direct ionization, especially including tunnel- equivalent electrons from the outer shell of an ion is de-
ing. On the theoretical side attention was then focused scribed by the following universal formula (Kornev et al.,
on the relativistic generalization (Milosevic et al., 2002; 2009):
Popov et al., 1997; Popov, 2004; Popov et al., 2006) of
√ N
the so-called Perelomov-Popov-Terent’ev (PPT) theory (N ) m 6 2N M !(l + 1/2)
N Y
(l + mj )!
or Ammosov-Delone-Krainov (ADK) model (Ammosov Rcoll = 3(N −1) Cκl M M+1

α 2 N π j=1 (mj !)2 (l − mj )!
et al., 1986; Perelomov, 1967), which describes atomic
2(ν−1)N −M+1/2
ionization in the quasistatic tunneling regime. While the

2 3N −1 2Ea
common intuitive interpretation of the laser induced tun- ×I κ e−2N Ea /3E0 ,
E0
neling fails in the relativistic regime (Reiss, 2008), a re- (14)
vised picture has been proposed in Klaiber et al., 2012.
The Strong Field Approximation (SFA) (Faisal, 1973; where α = e2 ≈ 1/137 is the fine-structure constant,
Keldysh, 1965; Reiss, 1980), which treats in a universal m1 , . . . , mN are the magnetic quantum numbers of the
way both the multiphoton and the tunneling regimes of bound electrons, M = N
P
j=1 m j , l is the orbital quan-
strong-field ionization, has also been extended to the rel- q
(N ) (N )
ativistic regime (Reiss, 1990a,b). Both the PPT theory tum number of the electrons, κ = 2Ip /mN , Ip =
PN (0) (0)
and the SFA assume that the direct ionization process oc- j=1 (Ip,j − ∆j ), Ip,j is the jth ionization potential of
curs as a single-electron phenomenon and thus neglects a parent ion, ∆j is the energy of the core excitation,
atomic structure effects. Ea = κ3 Fcr is the atomic field, Z|e| is the charge of
When the tunneling process proceeds very fast, multi- the residual ion, I is the adimensional overlap integral
electron correlation effects can occur due to the so-called (see Kornev et√al., 2009 for its precise definition) and
shake-up processes. Thus, the detachment of one elec- Cκl ≈ (2/ν)ν / 2πν, with ν = Zα/κ. According to the
tron from the atom or ion via tunneling modifies the calculations in Kornev et al., 2009, inelastic and collec-
self-consistent potential sensed by the remaining elec- tive tunneling effects contribute significantly to the rel-
trons and may result, consequently, in the excitation of ativistic ionization dynamics at intensities larger than
the atomic core (inelastic tunneling). A strong excitation 1018 W/cm2 , thus changing the ionization probability by
may also trigger the simultaneous escape of several elec- more than one order of magnitude (see Fig. 4).
trons from the bound state through the potential barrier Spin effects of bound systems in strong laser fields were
(collective tunneling). These effects were known to oc- shown to moderately alter the quantum dynamics and
cur also in the nonrelativistic regime (Zon, 1999, 2000) its associated radiation via spin-orbit coupling in highly-
11

tribution for low-energy electrons to electron-correlation


effects. A similar experiment on the energy- and angle-
resolved photoionization was later reported for xenon at a
laser intensity of 1019 W/cm2 (DiChiara et al., 2010). For
energies below 0.5 MeV, the yield and the angular distri-
bution were shown not to be described by a one-electron
strong-field model, but rather involve most likely mul-
tielectron and high-energy atomic excitation processes.
A further experiment on relativistic ionization of the
methane molecule at I0 ∼ 1018 -1019 W/cm2 (Palaniyap-
pan et al., 2008) indicated that molecular mechanisms of
ionization play no role, and that C5+ ions are produced
at these intensities mostly via the cross-shell rescattering
FIG. 5 (Color) (a) Experimental photoelectron spectra for atomic ionization mechanism. All these experimental re-
argon at I0 = 1.2 × 1019 W/cm2 and at an angle of 62◦ from sults still await an accurate theoretical description.
the laser propagation direction. Analytical results are shown On the computational side, various numerical meth-
for all photoelectrons (continuous line) and for the L-shell ods have been developed to describe the laser-driven rel-
(dashed line). The angular distributions are at an electron ativistic quantum dynamics in highly-charged ions. A
energy of (b) 60 keV, (c) 400 keV, and (d) 770 keV. From Fast-Fourier-Transform split-operator code was imple-
DiChiara et al., 2008.
mented in Mocken and Keitel, 2008 for solving the Dirac
equation in 2+1 dimensions by employing adaptive grid
and parallel computing algorithms. Another method has
charged ions already at an intensity of ∼ 1017 W/cm2 been developed in Selstø et al., 2009 to solve the 3D
(Hu and Keitel, 1999; Walser et al., 2002). More recently Dirac equation by expanding the angular part of the
a nonperturbative relativistic SFA theory has been de- wave-function in spherical harmonics. The latter was
veloped, describing circular dichroism and spin effects in applied to hydrogenlike ions in intense high-frequency
the ionization of helium in an intense circularly polarized laser pulses with emphasis on investigating the role of
laser field (Bhattacharyya et al., 2011). Here, two-photon negative-energy states. In Bauke et al., 2011, the clas-
ionization has been studied in the nonrelativistic inten- sical relativistic phase-space averaging method, general-
sity range 1013 -1015 W/cm2 with a photon energy of 45 ized to arbitrary central potentials, and the enhanced
eV, yielding small relative spin-induced corrections of the time-dependent Dirac and Klein-Gordon numerical treat-
order of 10−3 . ments are employed to investigate the relativistic ioniza-
A series of experiments has been devoted to the mea- tion of highly-charged hydrogenlike ions in short intense
surement of atomic multi-electron effects in relativisti- laser pulses. For ionization dynamics beyond the tunnel-
cally strong laser fields. In DiChiara et al., 2008, the en- ing regime, quantum mechanical and classical methods
ergy distribution of the ejected electrons and the angle- give similar results, for laser wavelengths from the near-
resolved photoelectron spectra for atomic photoioniza- infrared region to the soft x-ray regime. Furthermore
tion of argon at I0 ∼ 1019 W/cm2 have been inves- a useful procedure has been developed, which employs
tigated experimentally. Here, isolation of the single- the over-the-barrier ionization yields for highly-charged
atom response in the multicharged environment has been ions, to determine the peak laser field strength of short
achieved by measuring photoelectron yields, energies, ultrastrong pulses in the range I0 ∼ 1018 -1026 W/cm2
and angular distributions as functions of the sample den- (Hetzheim and Keitel, 2009). In addition, in this arti-
sity. Ionization of the entire valence shell along with sev- cle the ionization angle of the ejected electrons is inves-
eral inner-shell electrons was shown at I0 ∼ 1017 -1019 tigated by the full quantum mechanical solution of the
W/cm2 . A typical spectrum in the case of linear polar- Dirac equation and the laser field strength is shown to be
ization is displayed in Fig. 5. An extended plateau-like also linked to the electron emission angle. The magnetic
structure appears in the spectrum due to the electrons field-induced tilt in the lobes of the angular distributions
originating from the L-shell and the longitudinal com- of photoelectrons in laser-induced relativistic ionization
ponent of the focused laser field. A surprising feature has also been discussed in Klaiber et al., 2007.
is observed in the energy-resolved angular distribution. There are also several new theoretical results for the
In contrast to the nonrelativistic case with increasing ionic quantum dynamics in strong high-frequency laser
rescatterings and, thus, angular-distribution widths at fields, in the so-called stabilization regime, where the
high energies, here azimuthally isotropic angular distri- ionization rate decreases or remains constant also with
butions are observed at low energies (∼ 60 keV in Fig. 5), increasing laser intensity. An unexpected nondipole ef-
which become narrower for high-energy photoelectrons. fect has been reported in Førre et al., 2006 via numeri-
The authors attribute the anomalous broad angular dis- cally solving the Schrödinger equation for a hydrogenic
12

field may lead to a very broad energy spectrum of emit-


ted recombination photons, with pronounced side wings,
and to characteristic modifications of the photon angular
distribution.
Specific features of nondipole quantum dynamics in
strong and ultrashort laser pulses have also been inves-
tigated employing the so-called Magnus approximation
(Dimitrovski et al., 2009). The dominant nondipole ef-
fect is found to be a shift of the entire wave-function to-
wards the propagation direction, inducing a substantial
population transfer into states with similar geometry.
The recent experiment reported in Smeenk et al., 2011
addresses the question of how the photon momenta are
FIG. 6 (Color online) Dipole (left) and nondipole (right) shared between the electron and ion during laser-induced
probability densities of the Kramers-Henneberger wave- multiphoton ionization. Theoretically, this problem re-
function in the x-z plane for a x-polarized, 10-cycle sin-like
quires a nondipole treatment, even in the nonrelativis-
pulse propagating in the positive z direction (upward), with
E0 = 1.5 × 1011 V/cm and ω0 = 54 eV. The snapshots are tic case, to take into account explicitly the laser photon
taken at t = 0, t = T0 /2, and t = 1.8 T0 from top to bot- momentum. Energy-conservation of ℓ-photon ionization
tom. The length of the horizontal line corresponds to about here means that ℓω0 = Ip + Up + K, where Ip is the ion-
50 aB ≈ 2.7 nm, with aB = λC /α ≈ 5.3 × 10−9 cm being ization energy of the atom, Up = e2 E02 /4mω02 is the pon-
the Bohr radius . Note that the scale is logarithmic with four deromotive energy and K is the electron’s kinetic energy.
contours per decade. From Førre et al., 2006. The experimental results in Smeenk et al., 2011, obtained
using laser fields with wavelength of 0.8 µm and 1.4 µm in
the intensity range of 1014 -1015 W/cm2 has show that the
atom beyond the dipole approximation. For this purpose fraction of the momentum, corresponding to the number
the Kramers-Henneberger transformation (Henneberger, of observed photons needed to overcome the ionization
1968; Kramers, 1956) has been employed, i.e., the trans- energy Ip , is transferred to the created ion rather than
formation to the instantaneous rest-frame of a classical to the photoelectron. The electron carries only the mo-
free electron in the laser field, and the terms ∼ ξ02 have mentum corresponding to the kinetic energy K, while
been neglected in the Hamiltonian (the value of ξ0 con- the ponderomotive energy and the corresponding por-
sidered was approximately 0.14). In Fig. 6, the result- tion of the momentum are transferred back to the laser
ing angular distribution of the ejected electrons in the field. This experiment shows that the tunneling concept
nondipole regime of stabilization displays a third unex- for the ionization dynamics is only an approximation. In
pected lobe anti-parallel to the laser propagation direc- fact, the quasistatic tunneling provides no mechanism to
tion, together with the two expected lobes along the laser transfer linear momentum to the ion, a conclusion that
polarization direction. As a classical explanation, a drift agrees with recent concerns in Reiss, 2008.
along the laser propagation direction was identified for
the bound electron wave packet in the nondipole case (see
the middle panel of Fig. 6). Inside the laser field the elec- B. Recollisions and high-order harmonic generation
tron has a velocity component along the positive z axis
but this velocity tends to zero at the end of the pulse. Tunneling in the nonrelativistic regime is generally fol-
Thus, the electromagnetic forces alone do not change the lowed by recollisions with the parent ion along with var-
electron momentum along the propagation direction at ious subsequent effects (Corkum, 1993; Kuchiev, 1987;
the end of the pulse. The net effect of the Coulomb forces Schafer et al., 1993). A characteristic feature of strong-
on the electron wave packet is consequently a momentum field processes in the relativistic regime is the suppression
component along the negative z axis: the electron, which of recollisions due to the magnetically induced relativistic
is most probably situated in the upper hemisphere over drift of the ionized electron in the laser propagation direc-
the pulse, undergoes a momentum kick in the negative z tion (see Sec. III.A). Although relativistic effects become
direction each time it passes close to the nucleus. A sim- significant when the parameter ξ0 exceeds unity, signa-
ilar effect has been reported for molecules (Førre et al., tures of the drift in the laser propagation direction can be
2007). observed already in the weakly relativistic regime ξ0 . 1.
Radiative recombination, being the time-reversed pro- The drift will have a significant impact on the electron’s
cess of photoionization, of a relativistic electron with a rescattering probability if, at the instant of recollision,
highly-charged ion in the presence of a very intense laser the drift distance dk in the laser propagation direction is
field has been considered in Müller et al., 2009. It was larger than the electron’s wave packet size awp,k in that
shown that the strong coupling of the electron to the laser direction (Palaniyappan et al., 2006). The drift distance
13

is approximately given by dk ∼ λ0 ξ02 /2 (see, e.g., Eq.


(3)). Instead, the wave packet size awp,k can be estimated
from awp,k ∼ vk ∆t, where vk is a typical electron velocity
along the laser propagation direction and ∆t is the excur-
sion time of the electron in the continuum. The velocity
vk can be related to the tunneling time τtun via the time-
energy uncertainty: mvk2 /2 ∼ 1/τtun. In turn, one can FIG. 7 (Color) The HHG setup with two counterpropagating
APTs. After ionization by the laser pulse 1, the ejected elec-
estimate the tunneling time τtun as τtun ∼ ltun /vpb , where
tron is driven in the same pulse (light blue), propagates freely
ltun ∼ Ip /|e|E0 is the tunneling length and vb ∼ 2Ip /m after the pulse 1 has left (gray dashed) and is driven back to
the velocity of the bound electron. In the above esti- the ion by the laser pulse 2 (dark blue). From Kohler et al.,
mate, it was assumed that the work carried out by the 2011.
laser field along the tunneling length equals Ip . Thus, at
the rescattering moment q ∆t ∼ T0 , the wave packet size
p
awp,k is of the order of λ0 |e|E0 / m3 Ip and the role of
is reduced by the increase of the laser frequency in the
the drift can be characterized by means of the parameter system’s center of mass, an equally strong drift via two
r = (dk /awp,k )2 as estimated by constituents with equal mass or via appropriate initial
p momenta from antisymmetric orbitals, respectively.
2mIp
r∼ ξ03 . (15) On the other hand, the laser field can also be modi-
16ω0 fied to suppress the relativistic drift by employing tightly
The condition r & 1 determines the parameter region focused laser beams (Lin et al., 2006), two counter-
over which the signature of the drift becomes conspicu- propagating laser beams with linear polarization (Kei-
ous. tel et al., 1993; Kylstra et al., 2000; Taranukhin, 2000;
As an alternative view on the relativistic drift, the ion- Taranukhin and Shubin, 2001, 2002) or equal-handed cir-
ized electron here misses the ionic core when it is ionized cular polarization (Milosevic et al., 2004). In the first
with zero momentum. Nevertheless, the recollision will two cases, the longitudinal component in the tightly fo-
occur if the electron is ionized with an appropriate initial cused laser beam may counteract the drift, or the Lorentz
momentum pd (∼ mξ02 /4, see Eq. (3)), opposite to the force may be eliminated in a small area near the antin-
laser propagation direction. The probability Pi (pd ) of odes of the resulting standing wave, respectively. In the
this process is exponentially damped, though, due to the third case involving circularly polarized light, the rela-
nonzero momentum pd (see, e.g., Salamin et al., 2006): tivistic drift is eliminated because the electron velocity
is oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field.
2 (2mIp )3/2 p2d This setup is well suited for imaging attosecond dynam-
  
Pi (pd ) ∼ exp − 1+ . (16) ics of nuclear processes but not for HHG because of the
3 m|e|E0 4mIp
phase-matching problem (Liu et al., 2009). In the weakly
The drift term pin the exponent proportional to p2d will be relativistic regime the Lorentz force may also be com-
2 pensated by a second weak laser beam polarized along
important if 2mIp pd /m|e|E0 & 1, which is equivalent
to the condition r & 3. At near-infrared wavelengths the direction of propagation of the strong beam (Chirilă
(ω0 ≈ 1 eV) and for the ionization energy Ip = 13.6 eV of et al., 2002). Furthermore, the relativistic drift can be
atomic hydrogen, it becomes relevant at laser intensities significantly reduced by means of special tailoring of the
I0 approximately above 3 × 1016 W/cm2 . Then, HHG driving laser pulse, which strongly reduces the time when
and other recollision phenomena are suppressed. the electron’s motion is relativistic with respect to a si-
The attainability of relativistic recollisions would, how- nusoidal laser pulse (Klaiber et al., 2006, 2007). Two
ever, be very attractive for ultrahigh HHG (Kohler et al., consecutive laser pulses (Verschl and Keitel, 2007a) or
2012) as well as for the realization of laser controlled a single laser field assisted by a strong magnetic field
high-energy (Hatsagortsyan et al., 2006) and nuclear pro- can also be used to reverse the drift (Verschl and Kei-
cesses (Chelkowski et al., 2004; Milosevic et al., 2004). tel, 2007b). In addition two strong Attosecond Pulse
Various methods for counteracting the relativistic drift Trains (APTs) (Hatsagortsyan et al., 2008) or an infrared
have been proposed, such as by utilizing highly-charged laser pulse assisted by an APT (Klaiber et al., 2008)
ions (Hu and Keitel, 2001; Keitel and Hu, 2002) which have been employed to enhance relativistic recollisions.
move relativistically against the laser propagation di- In fact, due to the presence of the APT the ionization
rection (Chirilă et al., 2004; Mocken and Keitel, 2004), can be accomplished by one XUV photon absorption and
by employing Positronium (Ps) atoms (Henrich et al., the relatively large energy ωX of the XUV-photon with
2004), or through preparing antisymmetric atomic (Fis- ωX = Ip + p2d /2m can compensate the subsequent mo-
cher et al., 2007) and molecular (Fischer et al., 2006) or- mentum drift pd ∼ mξ02 /4 in the infrared laser field.
bitals. Here the impact of the drift of the ionized electron The main motivation for the realization of relativis-
14

tic recollisions is the extension of HHG towards the hard recent theoretical investigations on this process, we dis-
x-ray regime with obvious benefits for time-resolved high- cuss its possible applications for producing high-energy
resolution imaging. In the past couple of decades, nonrel- photon beams.
ativistic atomic HHG (Corkum, 1993; Lewenstein et al.,
1994) has been developed as a reliable source of coher-
ent XUV radiation and attosecond pulses (Agostini and A. Fundamental considerations
DiMauro, 2004) opening the door for attosecond time-
resolved spectroscopy (Krausz and Ivanov, 2009). Non- When an electron is wiggled by an intense laser wave,
relativistic HHG in an atomic gas medium allows already it emits electromagnetic radiation. This process occurs
to generate coherent x-ray photons up to keV energies with absorption of energy and momentum by the electron
(Sansone et al., 2006) and to produce XUV pulses shorter from the laser field and it is named as multiphoton Thom-
than 100 as (Goulielmakis et al., 2008). The most favor- son scattering or multiphoton Compton scattering, de-
able conversion efficiency for nonrelativistic keV harmon- pending on whether quantum effects, like photon recoil,
ics is anticipated with mid-infrared driving laser fields are negligible or not. Multiphoton Thomson and Comp-
(Chen et al., 2010; Popmintchev et al., 2009). However, ton scattering in a strong laser field have been studied
progress in this field has slowed down, especially because theoretically since a long time (see Salamin and Faisal,
of the inhibition, alluded to above, of recollisions due 1998; Sarachik and Schappert, 1970; and Sengupta, 1949
to optical driving-field intensity above 3 × 1016 W/cm2 . for multiphoton Thomson scattering and Brown and Kib-
This indicates the limit on the cut-off frequency ωc of ble, 1964; Goldman, 1964; and Nikishov and Ritus, 1964a
nonrelativistic HHG to ωc ≈ 3.17Up ∼ 10 keV. for multiphoton Compton scattering). The classical cal-
Another factor hindering HHG at high intensities is culation of the emitted spectrum is based on the analyt-
the less favorable phase-matching. In strong laser fields, ical solution in Eqs. (1)-(3) of the Lorentz equation in
outer-shell electrons are rapidly ionized and produce a a plane wave and the substitution of the corresponding
large free electron background causing a phase mismatch electron trajectory in the Liénard-Wiechert fields (Jack-
between the driving laser wave and the emitted x-rays. son, 1975; Landau and Lifshitz, 1975). Whereas, as we
The feasibility of phase-matched relativistic HHG in a have discussed in Sec. III.B, the quantum calculation of
macroscopic ensemble was first investigated in Kohler the amplitude of the process is performed in the Furry
et al., 2011. Here, the driving fields are two counterprop- picture of QED. As a result, the total emission probabil-
agating APTs consisting of 100 as pulses with a peak ity depends only on the two Lorentz- and gauge-invariant
intensity of the order of 1019 W/cm2 (see Fig. 7). The parameters ξ0 (see Eq. (4)) and χ0 (see Eq. (10)).
electron is driven to the continuum by the laser pulse 1 The parameter ξ0 has already been discussed in Sec.
in Fig. 7, followed by the usual relativistic drift. There- III.A. In the contest of multiphoton Compton scattering
after, the laser pulse 2 overtakes the electron, reverses this parameter controls in particular the effective order
the drift and imposes the rescattering, yielding a much ℓeff of the emitted harmonics, which, for an ultrarela-
higher HHG signal than for a conventional laser field at tivistic electron, can be estimated in the following way.
the same cut-off energy. Here phase-matching can be ful- In order to effectively emit a frequency ω ′ , the formation
filled due to an additional intrinsic phase specific to this length lf of the process must not exceed the coherence
setup, depending on the time delay between the pulses length lcoh , because, otherwise, interference effects would
and on the pulse intensity. The latter, being unique for hinder the emission. Since an electron with p instanta-
this laser setup, mainly affects the electron excursion neous velocity β and energy ε = mγ = m/ 1 − β 2 ≫ m
time and varies along the propagation direction. The mainly emits along the direction of β, within a cone with
phase-matching is achieved by modifying the laser in- apex angle ϑ ∼ 1/γ ≪ 1, the formation length lf can be
tensity along the propagation direction and by balanc- estimated from lf ∼ ̺/γ, with ̺ being the instantaneous
ing the phase slip due to dispersion with the indicated radius of curvature of the electron trajectory (Jackson,
intrinsic phase. Note, however, that HHG in the rela- 1975). On the other hand, lcoh = π/ω ′ (1 − β cos ϑ) ∼
tivistic regime has been observed experimentally rather γ 2 /ω ′ (Baier et al., 1998; Jackson, 1975). By requir-
efficiently in laser plasma interactions (Dromey et al., ing that lf . lcoh , we obtain the following estimate
2006). for the largest-emitted frequency (cut-off frequency) ωc′ :
ωc′ ∼ γ 3 /̺. Now, in the average rest-frame of the elec-
tron, i.e., in the reference frame where the average elec-
V. MULTIPHOTON THOMSON AND COMPTON tron velocity along the propagation direction of the laser
SCATTERING vanishes (see Eq. (3)), it is γ ⋆ ∼ ξ0 (corresponding to the
energy ε⋆ ∼ mξ0 ) and lf⋆ ∼ λ⋆0 /ξ0 , where the upper in-
In this section we discuss one of the most fundamental dex ⋆ indicates the variable in this frame. Consequently,
processes in QED in a strong laser field: the emission of ωc′ ⋆ ∼ ξ03 ω0⋆ and the effective order of the emitted har-
radiation by an accelerated electron. After reporting on monics is ℓeff ∼ ξ03 (note that ℓeff is a Lorentz scalar). As
15

the order of the emitted harmonics corresponds quantum recognized as a possible experimental signature of multi-
mechanically to the number of laser photons absorbed by photon Compton scattering (Harvey et al., 2009).
the electron during the emission process, the parameter First calculations on multiphoton Thomson and Comp-
ξ0 is also said to determine the “multiphoton” character ton scattering have mainly focused on the easiest case of a
of the process. monochromatic background plane wave, either with cir-
On the other hand, the nonlinear quantum parameter cular or linear polarization. The main results of these
χ0 (see Eq. (10)) in the contest of multiphoton Compton investigations, like the dependence of the emitted fre-
scattering controls the importance of quantum effects as quencies on the laser intensities have been recently re-
the recoil of the emitted photon. In fact, we can esti- viewed in Ehlotzky et al., 2009. The complete description
mate classically the importance of the emitted photon of the multiphoton Compton scattering process with re-
recoil from the ratio ωc′ /ε and our considerations above spect to the polarization properties of the incoming and
exactly indicate that ωc′ /ε ∼ ξ02 ω0⋆ /m ∼ χ0 . Thus, multi- the outgoing electrons, and of the emitted photon in a
photon Thomson scattering is characterized by the con- monochromatic laser wave has been presented in Ivanov
dition χ0 ≪ 1, while multiphoton Compton scattering et al., 2004. Recently significant attention has been de-
by χ0 & 1. This result can also be obtained in the case voted to the investigation of multiphoton Thomson and
of a monochromatic laser wave starting from the energy- Compton scattering in the presence of short and even
momentum conservation relation ultrashort plane-wave pulses (we recall that such pulses
have still an infinite extension in the directions perpen-
q0µ + ℓk0µ = q ′µ + k ′µ (17) dicular to the propagation direction). In Boca and Flo-
rescu, 2009 multiphoton Compton scattering has been
in the case in which ℓ laser photons are absorbed in the considered in the presence of a pulsed plane wave. The
process (Ritus, 1985). Here q0µ and q ′µ are the quasimo- angular-resolved spectra are practically insensitive to the
menta of the initial and final electron (see Eq. (8)) and precise form of the laser pulse for ω0 τ0 ≥ 20, with τ0
k ′µ = ω ′ n′µ is the four-momentum of the produced pho- being the pulse duration. The main differences with re-
ton (n′2 = 0). From this expression it is easy to obtain spect to the monochromatic case are: 1) a broadening of
the energy ω ′ of the emitted photon as the lines corresponding to the emitted frequencies; 2) the
appearance of sub-peaks, which are due to interference
ℓω p
ω′ =  0 0,− 2 2  . (18) effects in the emission at the beginning and at the end of
m ξ
(n′ p0 ) + ℓω0 + 4p0,−0 n′− the laser pulse. On the one hand, the continuous nature
of the emission spectrum in a finite pulse in contrast to
By reminding that ℓeff ∼ ξ03 and by estimating the typical the discrete one in the monochromatic case has a clear
emission angle of the photon (Mackenroth and Di Piazza, mathematical counterpart. In both cases, in fact, the
2011), it is possible to show that ω ′ ∼ χ0 ε0 at ξ0 ≫ 1. As total transverse momenta P⊥ with respect to the laser
it has also been throughroughly investigated analytically propagation direction and the total quantity P− are con-
and numerically in Boca and Florescu, 2011 and Seipt served in the emission process (see Sec. III). However, in
and Kämpfer, 2011a, multiphoton Compton and Thom- the monochromatic case the following additional conser-
son spectra coincide in the limit χ0 → 0, although in vation law holds (for a linearly polarized plane wave, see
Seipt and Kämpfer, 2011a differences have been observed Eq. (17))
numerically in the detailed structure of the classical and
m2 ξ02 m2 ξ02
quantum spectra also for χ0 ≪ 1. The most important ε0 + p0,k + + 2ℓω0 = ω ′ + kk′ + ε′ + p′k + , (19)
difference between classical and quantum spectra is cer- 2p0,− 2p′−
tainly the presence of a sharp cut-off in the latter as so that the resulting four-dimensional energy-momentum
an effect of the photon recoil: the energy of the photon conservation law allows only for the emission of the dis-
emitted in a plane wave is limited by the initial energy crete frequencies in Eq. (18). On the other hand, the
of the electron2 . This does not occur classically, as there appearance of sub-peaks has been in particular investi-
the frequency of the emitted radiation does not have the gated in Heinzl et al., 2010c, where it has been found
physical meaning of photon energy. The dependence of that the number Ns-p of sub-peaks within the first har-
the energy cut-off on the laser intensity has been recently monic scales linearly with the pulse duration τ0 and with
ξ02 : Ns-p = 0.24 ξ02 τ0 [fs]. In this paper the effects of spa-
tial focusing of the driving laser pulse are also discussed.
The authors investigate in particular the dependence of
2 In the case of a plane-wave background field, this limitation

the deflection angle αout undergone by the electron af-
rather concerns the quantity k− of the emitted photon, as
′ = p ′ ter colliding head-on with a Gaussian focused beam as a
k− 0,− −p− < p0,− . However, for an ultrarelativistic electron
with p0,− ≫ mξ0 and initially counterpropagating with respect function of the impact parameter b (see Fig. 8).
′ ≈ 2ω ′ and p′ ≈ 2ε′ (Baier
to the laser field, it is p0,− ≈ 2ε0 , k− − By further decreasing the laser pulse duration, it has
et al., 1998). been argued that effects of the relative phase between the
16

A more general scaling law has been determined in Seipt


and Kämpfer, 2011b, which relaxes the previous assump-
tions on head-on collision and on backscattered radiation
employed in Heinzl et al., 2010c. Moreover, in Seipt and
Kämpfer, 2011a a simple relation is determined between
the classical and the quantum spectral densities. Finally,
in Boca and Oprea, 2011 it is found that in the ultra-
relativistic case γ0 ≫ 1 the angular distribution of the
emitted radiation, integrated with respect to the photon
energy, only depends on the ratio ξ0 /γ0 and not on the
independent values of ξ0 and γ0 (see also Mackenroth
et al., 2010).

FIG. 8 (Color online) Deflection αout of an electron initially In the above-mentioned publications the spectral prop-
counterpropagating with respect to a laser field with an en- erties of the emitted radiation in the classical and quan-
ergy of 3 J and a pulse duration of 20 fs, as a function of the
tum regimes have been considered. In Kim et al., 2009
impact parameter b for different laser waist radii w0 . From
Heinzl et al., 2010c. and Zhang et al., 2008, instead, the temporal properties
of the emitted radiation in multiphoton Thomson scatter-
ing have been investigated. In both papers the feasibility
of generating single attosecond pulses is discussed.
pulse profile and the carrier wave (the so-called Carrier
Envelope Phase (CEP)) should become visible in multi- Photoemission by a single-electron wave packet via
photon Thomson and Compton scattering. In Boca and Thomson scattering in a strong laser field has been dis-
Florescu, 2009 the case of ultrashort pulses with ω0 τ0 & 4 cussed in Peatross et al., 2008. It was shown that the
has been discussed and effects of the CEP on the har- partial emissions from the individual electron momentum
monic yield in specific frequency ranges have been ob- components do not interfere when the driving field is a
served. In Mackenroth et al., 2010 the dependence of the plane wave. In other words, the size of the electron wave
angular distribution of the emitted radiation in multi- packet, even when it spreads to the scale of the wave-
photon Thomson and Compton scattering on the CEP of length of the driving field, does not affect the Thomson
few-cycles pulses has been exploited to propose a scheme emission.
to measure the CEP of ultrarelativistic laser pulses (in-
tensities larger than 1020 W/cm2 ). The method is es- Finally, we shortly mention that multiphoton effects
sentially based on the high directionality of the photon in Thomson and Compton scattering have been mea-
emission by an ultrarelativistic electron, because the tra- sured in various laboratories. The second-harmonic ra-
jectory of the electron, in turn, also depends on the laser’s diation was first observed in the collision of a 1 keV elec-
CEP. Accuracies in the measurement of the CEP of the tron beam with a Q-switched Nd:YAG laser, although
order of a few degrees are theoretically envisaged. Multi- the laser intensity was such that ξ0 ≈ 0.01 (Englert
photon Compton scattering in one-cycle laser pulses has and Rinehart, 1983), and then in the interaction of a
been considered in Mackenroth and Di Piazza, 2011 and mode-locked Nd:YAG laser (ξ0 = 2) with plasma elec-
a substantial broadening of the emission lines with re- trons (Chen et al., 1998). Multiphoton Thomson scat-
spect to the monochromatic case has been observed. The tering of laser radiation in the x-ray domain has been
high-directionality of radiation emitted via multiphoton reported in Babzien et al., 2006 (see Pogorelsky et al.,
Thomson scattering has also been employed as a diag- 2000 for a similar proof-of-principle experiment). Single-
nostic tool in Har-Shemesh and Di Piazza, 2012, where shot measurements of the angular distribution of the sec-
a new rather precise method has been proposed to mea- ond harmonic (photon energy 6.5 keV) at various laser
sure the peak intensity of strong laser fields (intensities polarizations have been carried out by employing a 60
between 1020 W/cm2 and 1023 W/cm2 ) from the angular MeV electron beam and a subterawatt CO2 laser beam
aperture of the photon spectrum. with ξ0 = 0.35. In the prominent SLAC experiment
The study of multiphoton Thomson and Compton (Bula et al., 1996) multiphoton Compton emission was
scattering in short laser pulses has also stimulated the in- detected for the first time. In this experiment an ultra-
vestigation of scaling laws for the photon spectral density relativistic electron beam with energy of about 46.6 GeV
(Boca and Oprea, 2011; Heinzl et al., 2010c; Seipt and collided with a terawatt Nd:glass laser with an intensity
Kämpfer, 2011a,b). For example, in Heinzl et al., 2010c a of 1018 W/cm2 (ξ0 ≈ 0.8 and χ0 ≈ 0.3) and four-photon
scaling law has been found for backscattered radiation in Compton scattering has been observed indirectly via a
the case of head-on laser-electron collisions, which sim- nonlinear energy shift in the spectrum of the outcoming
plifies the averaging over the electron-beam phase space. electrons.
17

B. Thomson- and Compton-based sources of high-energy synchronized with the driving laser field. In order to
photon beams further improve the all-optical setup, design parameters
for a proof-of-concept experiment have been analyzed in
The single-particle theoretical analysis presented above Hartemann et al., 2007. For the calculation of the Comp-
indicates that high-energy photons can be emitted via ton scattering parameters, a 3D Compton scattering code
multiphoton Thomson and Compton scattering of an ul- has been used, which was extensively tested for Comp-
trarelativistic electron. For example, an electron with ton scattering experiments performed at LLNL (Brown
initial energy ε0 ≫ m colliding head-on with an optical et al., 2004; Brown and Hartemann, 2004; Hartemann
laser field (ω0 ≈ 1 eV) of moderate intensity (ξ0 . 1) is et al., 2004, 2005) (see Sun and Wu, 2011 for an alter-
barely deflected by the laser field (̺ ∼ λ0 γ0 /ξ0 ≫ λ0 ) native numerical simulation scheme). It is shown that
and potentially emits photons with energies ω[keV] . x-ray fluxes exceeding 1021 s−1 and a peak brightness
3.8 × 10−3 ε20 [MeV]. This feature has boosted the idea larger than 1019 photons/(s mrad2 mm2 0.1% bandwidth)
of so-called Thomson- and Compton-based sources of can be achieved at photon energies of about 0.5 MeV. A
high-energy photons as a valid alternative to conven- few years later the Compton-based photon source Mo-
tional synchrotron sources, the main advantages of the noEnergetic Gamma-ray (MEGa-ray) has been designed
former being the compactness, the wide tunability, the at LLNL (Gibson et al., 2010). Production of gamma-
shortness of the photon beams in the femtosecond scale rays ranging from 75 keV to 0.9 MeV has been demon-
and the potential for high brightness. Unlike the exper- strated with a peak spectral brightness of 1.5 × 1015 pho-
iments on multiphoton Thomson and Compton scatter- tons/(s mrad2 mm2 0.1% bandwidth) and with a flux of
ing where laser systems with ξ0 & 1 are generally em- 1.6 × 105 photons/shot. An experimental setup for high-
ployed, Thomson- and Compton-based photon sources flux gamma-ray generation has been constructed in the
preferably require lasers with ξ0 . 1, such that multipho- Saga Light-Source facility in Tosu (Japan), by collid-
ton effects are suppressed and shorter bandwidths of the ing a 1.4 GeV electron beam with a CO2 laser (wave-
photon beam are achieved. On the other hand, the elec- length 10.6 µm) (Kaneyasu et al., 2011). A flux of about
tron beam quality is crucial for Thomson- and Compton- 3.2 × 107 photons/s gamma photons with energy larger
based radiation sources. In particular, the brightness of than 0.5 MeV has been obtained.
the photon beam scales inversely quadratically with the In the basic setups of Thomson- and Compton-based
electron beam emittance, and linearly with the electron photon sources the electrons experience the intense laser
bunch current density. field for a time-interval much shorter than that needed
Proof-of-principle experiments have demonstrated to cross the whole laser beam, the former being of the or-
Thomson- and Compton-based photon sources by cross- der of the laser’s Rayleigh length divided by the speed of
ing a high-energy laser pulse with a picosecond relativis- light. Thus, the quest for a more intense laser pulse at a
tic electron beam from a conventional linear electron ac- given power in order to increase the photon yield implies
celerator (Chouffani et al., 2002; Leemans et al., 1996; a tighter focusing and therefore a shorter effective inter-
Pogorelsky et al., 2000; Sakai et al., 2003; Schoenlein action time, which in turn causes a broadening of the
et al., 1996; Ting et al., 1995, 1996). We also mention photon spectrum. In Debus et al., 2010 the Traveling-
the benchmark experiment carried out at LLNL, where Wave Thomson Scattering (TWTS) setup is proposed,
photons with an energy of 78 keV have been produced which allows the electrons to stay in the focal region
with a total flux of 1.3 × 106 photons/shot, by collid- of the laser beam during the whole crossing time (see
ing an electron beam with an energy of 57 MeV with a Fig. 9). This is achieved by employing cylindrical op-
Ti:Sa laser beam with an intensity of about 1018 W/cm2 tics to focus the laser field only along one direction (red
(ξ0 ≈ 0.5) (Gibson et al., 2004). lines in Fig. 9) and, depending on the angle between
Another achievement in the development of Thomson- the initial electron velocity and the laser wave-vector, by
and Compton-based photon sources has been the exper- tilting the laser pulse front. As a result, an interaction
imental realization of a compact all-optical setup, where length ∼ 1 cm-1 m can be achieved and, correspondingly
the electrons are accelerated by an intense laser. In very large photon fluxes (up to 5 × 1010 photons/shot
the first experiment with an all-optical setup (Schwoerer at 20 keV). An alternative way of reaching longer effec-
et al., 2006), x-ray photons in the range of 0.4 keV to 2 tive laser-electron interaction times has been proposed in
keV have been generated. In this experiment the elec- Karagodsky et al., 2010, where a planar Bragg structure
tron beam was produced by a high-intensity Ti:Sa laser is employed to guide the laser pulse and realize Thom-
beam (I0 ≈ 2 × 1019 W/cm2 ) focused into a pulsed he- son/Compton scattering in a waveguide. In this way,
lium gas jet. The characteristic feature of the all-optical the yield of x-rays can be enhanced by about two orders
setup is that the electron bunches and, consequently, the of magnitude with respect to the conventional free-space
generated x-ray photon beams have an ultrashort dura- Gaussian-beam configuration at given electron beam and
tion (∼ 100 fs) and a linear size of the order of 10 µm. injected laser power in both configurations. However,
Another advantage is that the electrons can be precisely there are two constraints specific to this setup. On the
18

Normalized on-axis brightness


FIG. 9 (Color) Schematic setup of TWTS with the red lines
indicating the laser focal lines. In the notation of Debus et al.,
2010 φ is the angle between the initial electrons’ velocity and
the laser’s wave vector and α is the angle between the laser
pulse front and the laser propagation direction. Adapted from
Debus et al., 2010.
ω ′ /ε0

FIG. 10 (Color online) Normalized on-axis brightness for dif-


one hand, the electron beam has to have a small angular ferent values of the rapidity ρ = cosh−1 γ0 at a plasma tem-
spread in order to be injected into the planar Bragg struc- perature of 20 keV. See Hartemann et al., 2008 for the mean-
ing of the blue circles at ρ = 6. Adapted from Hartemann
ture without causing wall damage. On the other hand,
et al., 2008.
the laser field strength has to be such that ξ0 . 8 × 10−4
to avoid surface damage.

Finally, in Hartemann et al., 2008 a setup has been


VI. RADIATION REACTION
proposed to obtain bright GeV gamma-rays via Comp-
ton scattering of electrons by a thermonuclear plasma.
In fact, a thermonuclear deuterium-tritium plasma pro- The issue of “radiation reaction” (RR) is one of the
duces intense blackbody radiation with a temperature oldest and most fundamental problems in electrodynam-
∼ 20 keV and a photon density ∼ 1026 cm−3 (Tabak ics. Classically it corresponds to the determination of
et al., 1994). When a thermal photon with energy the equation of motion of a charged particle, an electron
ω ∼ 1 keV counterpropagates with respect to a GeV for definiteness, in a given electromagnetic field F µν (x).
electron (γ0 ∼ 103 ), a Doppler-shifted high-energy pho- In fact, the Lorentz equation mduµ /ds = eF µν uν (see
ton ω ′ ∼ γ02 ω ∼ 1 GeV can be emitted on axis, i.e., in Sec. III.A) does not take into account that the electron,
the same direction of the incoming electron. Since ω ′ while being accelerated, emits electromagnetic radiation
has to be smaller than the initial electron energy ε0 , a and loses energy and momentum in this way. The first
kinematical photon pileup is induced in the emitted pho- attempt of taking into account the reaction of the radia-
ton spectrum at ε0 (Zeldovich and Sunyaev, 1969) (see tion emitted by the electron on the motion of the electron
Fig. 10). This results in a quasimonochromatic GeV itself (from here comes the expression “radiation reac-
gamma-ray beam with a peak brightness & 1030 pho- tion”), was accomplished by H. A. Lorentz in the nonrel-
tons/(s mrad2 mm2 0.1% bandwidth), comparable with ativistic regime (Lorentz, 1909). Starting from the known
that of the FLASH (see Sec. II.B). Larmor formula PL = (2/3)e2 a2 for the power emitted
by an electron with instantaneous acceleration a, Lorentz
The unique features of Thomson- and Compton-based argued that this energy-loss corresponds to a “damping”
photon sources render them a powerful experimental de- force FR = (2/3)e2 da/dt acting on the electron. The
vice. For example, they can be employed for medi- expression of the damping force was generalized to the
cal radio-isotope production and photo-fission, and for relativistic case by M. Abraham in the form (Abraham,
studying nuclear resonance fluorescence for in situ iso- 1905)
tope detection (Albert et al., 2010). In this respect, such
photon sources will represent the main experimental tool
for nuclear-physics investigations at the Romanian pil- d2 uµ duν duν µ
 
2
lar of ELI (see Fig. 1). Other possible applications, FRµ = e2 + u . (20)
3 ds2 ds ds
at photon energies beyond the MeV threshold, include
the production of positron beams (Hugenschmidt et al.,
2012; Omori et al., 2003) as well as the investigations of In order to solve the problem of a radiating electron self-
high-energy processes occurring in gamma-gamma and consistently, P. A. M. Dirac suggested in Dirac, 1938 to
gamma-lepton collisions (Telnov, 1990). start from the coupled system of Maxwell and Lorentz
19

equations solutions with an exponentially-diverging electron accel-


eration, even in the absence of an external field (see the
∂µ FTµν = 4πj ν


 books Hartemann, 2001 and Rohrlich, 2007 for reviews
∂λ FT,µν + ∂µ FT,νλ + ∂ν FT,λµ = 0

(21) on these issues).
µ It was first shown in Landau and Lifshitz, 1975 that in
 m du = eF µν u ,


0 T ν the nonrelativistic limit the RR force given by Eq. (20)
ds
is much smaller than the Lorentz force, if the typical
where FTµν (x) = F µν (x) + FSµν (x), with FSµν (x) be- wavelength λ and the typical field-amplitude F of the
ing the “self” electromagnetic field generated by the external electromagnetic field fulfill the two conditions
electron four-current j µ (x) = e dsδ(x − x(s))uµ and
R

where the meaning of the symbol m0 for the electron Fcr


λ ≫ αλC , F ≪ , (23)
mass will be clarified below. In order to write an “ef- α
fective” equation of motion for the electron which in- where Fcr is the critical electromagnetic field of QED (see
cludes RR, one “removes” the degrees of freedom of Sec. III.B). This allows for the reduction of order in the
the electromagnetic field (Teitelboim, 1971). This is LAD equation, i.e., for the substitution of the electron
achieved in Landau and Lifshitz, 1975 at the level of acceleration in the RR force via the Lorentz force divided
the Lagrangian of the system electron+electromagnetic by the electron mass. In order to perform the analogous
field and an interesting connection of the RR problem reduction of order in the relativistic case, the conditions
with the derivation of the so-called Darwin Lagrangian (23) have to be fulfilled in the instantaneous rest-frame
is indicated. By working at the level of the equations of the electron (Landau and Lifshitz, 1975). The result
of motion (21), one first employs the Green’s function is the so-called Landau-Lifshitz (LL) equation
method and formally determines the retarded solution
µν
FT,ret (x) of the (inhomogeneous) Maxwell’s equations: duµ 2 he
m =eF µν uν + e2 (∂α F µν )uα uν
µν
FT,ret µν
(x) = F µν (x) + FS,ret (x) (Teitelboim, 1971). Sub- ds 3 m
e2 µν e2

µν
stitution of FT,ret (x) in the Lorentz equation eliminates α αν
− 2 F Fαν u + 2 (F uν )(Fαλ u )u . λ µ
the electromagnetic field’s degrees of freedom, but it is m m
not straightforward because FT,ret µν
(x) has to be calcu- (24)
lated at the electron’s position, where the electron cur- The LL equation is not affected by the shortcomings of
rent diverges. This difficulty is circumvented by model- the LAD equation: for example, it is evident that if the
ing the electron as a uniformly charged sphere of radius a external field vanishes, so does the electron acceleration.
tending to zero. After performing the substitution, and Most importantly, the conditions (23) in the instanta-
by neglecting terms which vanish in the limit a → 0, one neous rest-frame of the electron have always to be fulfilled
obtains the equation (m0 + δm)duµ /ds = eF µν uν + FRµ in the realm of classical electrodynamics, i.e., if quantum
with δm = (4/3)e2 /a being formally diverging. How- effects are neglected. In order for this to be true, in fact,
ever, it is important to note that the only diverging term the two weaker conditions λ ≫ λC and F ≪ Fcr have
in the limit a → 0 is proportional to the electron four- to be fulfilled in the instantaneous rest-frame of the elec-
acceleration. At this point a sort of “classical renor- tron: the first guarantees that the electron’s wave func-
malization principle” is employed, saying that what one tion is well localized and the second ensures that pure
measures experimentally as the physical electron mass m quantum effects, like photon recoil or spin effects are
is the overall coefficient of the four-acceleration duµ /ds. negligible (Baier et al., 1998; Berestetskii et al., 1982;
Therefore, one sets m = m0 + δm and obtains the so- Ritus, 1985) (see also Sec. III.B). This observation led
called Lorentz-Abraham-Dirac (LAD) equation: F. Rohrlich to state recently that the LL equation is the
duµ 2 2 d2 uµ

duν duν µ
 “physically correct” classical relativistic equation of mo-
µν
m = eF uν + e + u . (22) tion of a charged particle (Rohrlich, 2008). Rohrlich’s
ds 3 ds2 ds ds
statement is also supported by the findings in Spohn,
We point out that renormalization in quantum field the- 2000, where it is shown that the physical solutions of
ory is based on the fact that the bare quantities, like the LAD equation, i.e., those which are not runaway-
charge and mass, appear in the Lagrangian density of the like, are on the critical manifold of the LAD equation
theory, which is not an observable physical quantity. On itself and are governed there exactly by the LL equa-
the other hand, the bare electron mass m0 , which is for- tion. On the other hand, since the LL equation is derived
mally negatively diverging for m to be finite, appears here from the LAD equation, one may still doubt on its rigor-
in the system of equations (21), which should “directly” ous validity, due to the application in the latter equation
provide classical physical observables, like the electron of the “suspicious” classical mass-renormalization proce-
trajectory. On the other hand, it is also known that the dure. However, this procedure is avoided in Gralla et al.,
LAD equation is plagued with physical inconsistencies 2009 by employing a more sophisticated zero-size limit-
like, for example, the existence of the so-called “runaway” ing procedure, where also the charge and the mass of the
20

particle are sent to zero but in such a way that their ra- term in the RR force, i.e., the term proportional to the
tio remains constant. The authors conclude that at the derivative of the electron acceleration (see Eq. (20)),
leading-order level the LL equation represents the self- is thoroughly investigated and in Kazinski and Shipulya,
consistent perturbative equation of motion for a charge 2011 the asymptotics of the physical solutions of the LAD
without electric and magnetic moment. The motion of equation at large proper times are obtained. Whereas, in
a continuous charge distribution interacting with an ex- Noble et al., 2011 a kinetic theory of RR is proposed,
ternal electromagnetic field is also investigated by a self- based on the LAD equation and applicable to study sys-
consistent model and at a more formal level in Burton tems of many particles including RR (this last aspect
et al., 2007. is also considered in Rohrlich, 2007). Enhancement of
From the original derivation of the LL equation from RR effects due to the coherent emission of radiation by a
the LAD equation in Landau and Lifshitz, 1975, it is large number of charges is discussed in Smorenburg et al.,
expected that the two equations should predict the same 2010. In this respect, we mention here that, in order to
electron trajectory, possibly with differences smaller than investigate strong laser-plasma interactions at intensities
the quantum effects. This conclusion has been recently exceeding 1023 W/cm2 , RR effects have been also imple-
confirmed by analytical and numerical investigations in mented in Particle-In-Cell (PIC) codes (Tamburini et al.,
Hadad et al., 2010 for an external plane-wave field with 2012, 2010; Zhidkov et al., 2002) by modifying the Vlasov
linear and circular polarization and in Bulanov et al., equation for the electron distribution function according
2011 for different time-dependent external electromag- to the LL equation. Specifically, in Zhidkov et al., 2002
netic field configurations. An effective numerical method it is shown that in the collision of a laser beam with
to calculate the trajectory of an electron via the LL equa- intensity I0 = 1023 W/cm2 with an overdense plasma
tion, which explicitly maintains the relativistic covari- slab, about 35% of the absorbed laser energy is con-
ance and the mass-shell condition u2 = 1, has been ad- verted into radiation and that the effect of RR amounts
vanced in Harvey et al., 2011a. An alternative numerical to about 20%. One-dimensional (Tamburini et al., 2010)
method for determining the dynamics of an electron in- and three-dimensional (Tamburini et al., 2012) PIC sim-
cluding RR effects has been proposed in Mao et al., 2010. ulations have shown that RR effects strongly depend on
We should emphasize that the LL equation is not the the polarization of the driving field: while for circular po-
only equation which has been suggested to overcome the larization they are negligible even at I0 ∼ 1023 W/cm2 ,
inconsistencies of the LAD equation. A list of alternative at those intensities they are important for linear polariza-
equations can be found in the recent review (Hammond, tion. The simulations also show the beneficial effects of
2010) (see also Seto et al., 2011). A phenomenological RR in reducing the energy spread of ion beams generated
equation of motion, including RR and quantum effects via laser-plasma interactions (see also Sec. XII.A). A dif-
related to photon recoil, has been suggested in Sokolov ferent beneficial effect of RR on ion acceleration has been
et al., 2010a, 2009 (see also Sec. VI.B). The authors write found in Chen et al., 2011 for the case of a transparent
the differential variation of the electron momentum as plasma: RR strongly suppresses the backward motion of
due to two contributions: one arising from the external the electrons, cools them down and increases the num-
field and one corresponding to the recoil of the emitted ber of ions to be bunched and accelerated. Finally, the
photon. The resulting equation can be written as the system in Eq. (25) has been implemented in a 3D PIC
system code in Sokolov et al., 2009 showing that a laser pulse
with intensity 1022 W/cm2 loses about 27% of its energy
dxµ 2 IQED eF µν pν

m = pµ + e 2 in the collision with a plasma slab. The same system of


dτ 3 IL m2 equations has been employed to study the penetration
µ µ
(25)
dp dxν p of ultra-intense laser beams into a plasma in the hole-
= eF µν


 − IQED ,
dτ dτ m boring regime (Naumova et al., 2009) and to investigate
where τ is the time in the “momentarily comoving the process of ponderomotive ion acceleration at ultra-
Lorentz frame” of the electron where the spatial compo- high laser intensities in overcritical bulk targets (Schlegel
nents of pµ instantaneously vanish, IQED is the quantum et al., 2009).
radiation intensity (Ritus, 1985) and IL = (2/3)αω02 ξ02 .
The expression of IQED in the case of a plane wave is
employed, which is valid only for an ultrarelativistic elec- A. The classical radiation dominated regime
tron in the presence of a slowly-varying and undercritical
otherwise arbitrary external field (see Sec. III.B). As it was already observed in Landau and Lifshitz,
It has also to be stressed that the original LAD equa- 1975, the fact that the RR force in the LL equation has
tion is still the subject of extensive investigation (the to be much smaller than the Lorentz force in the instan-
first study of the LAD equation in a plane-wave field was taneous rest-frame of the electron does not exclude that
performed in Hartemann and Kerman, 1996). In Ferris some components of the two forces can be of the same
and Gratus, 2011, for example, the origin of the Schott order of magnitude in the laboratory system. This occurs
21

if the condition αγ 2 F/Fcr ∼ 1 is fulfilled at any instant, is of the order of the electron’s longitudinal momentum
with γ being the relativistic Lorentz factor of the elec- itself in the laser field. As a result, it is found that in
tron and F the amplitude of the external electromagnetic the ultrarelativistic case and for a few-cycle pulse, if the
field. For an ultrarelativistic electron this condition can conditions
be fulfilled also in the realm of classical electrodynam-
ics (quantum recoil effects are negligible if γF/Fcr ≪ 1) 4γ02 − ξ02
RC & >0 (28)
and it characterizes the so-called Classical Radiation- 2ξ02
Dominated Regime (CRDR). The CRDR has been in-
are fulfilled, then the electron is reflected in the laser
vestigated in Shen, 1970 for a background constant and
field only if RR is taken into account (see also Harvey and
uniform magnetic field. In Koga et al., 2005 an equivalent
Marklund, 2012 for a recent investigation of the electron’s
definition of the CRDR in the presence of a background
dynamics in the two complementary regimes 2γ0 ≶ ξ0
laser field has been formulated, as the regime where the
including RR effects). This can have measurable effects
average energy radiated by the electron in one laser pe-
if one exploits the high directionality of the radiation
riod is comparable with the initial electron energy. By
emitted by an ultrarelativistic electron (see Sec. V.A).
estimating the radiated power PL from the relativistic
The results in Di Piazza et al., 2009a show in fact that
Larmor formula PL = −(2/3)e2 (duµ /ds)(duµ /ds) (Jack-
the apex angle of the angular distribution of the emitted
son, 1975) with duµ /ds → (e/m)F µν uν , one obtains that
radiation, with and without RR effects included, may
PL ∼ αχ0 ξ0 ε0 . Therefore, the conditions of being in the
differ by more than 10◦ already at an average optical
CRDR are
laser intensity of 5 × 1022 W/cm2 (ξ0 ≈ 150) and at an
RC = αχ0 ξ0 ≈ 1, χ0 ≪ 1, (26) initial electron energies of 40 MeV (2γ0 ≈ 156) for which
RC ≈ 0.08. Small RR effects on photon spectra emitted
where, as has been seen in Sec. III.B, the second condi- by initially bound electrons had already been predicted
tion ensures in particular that the quantum effects like via numerical integration of the LL equation in Keitel
photon recoil are negligible. The same condition RC ≈ 1 et al., 1998 well below the CRDR.
has been obtained in Di Piazza, 2008 by exactly solving
the LL equation (24) for a general plane-wave background
field. The analytical solution shows in fact that for an B. Quantum radiation reaction
ultrarelativistic electron the main effect of RR is due to
the last term in Eq. (24). As a consequence, while the The shortcomings of the classical approaches to the
quantity u− (φ) is constant if the equation of motion is problem of RR suggest that it can be fully understood
that due to Lorentz, it decreases here with respect to φ only at the quantum level. In the seminal paper Moniz
as u− (φ) = u0,− /h(φ), where uµ0 is the four-velocity at and Sharp, 1977 the origin of the classical inconsisten-
an initial φ0 and cies, like the existence of runaway solutions of the LAD
equation, were clarified in the nonrelativistic case. The
2
2 RC φ authors first show that such inconsistencies are also ab-

dψ(ϕ)
Z
h(φ) = 1 + dϕ , (27) sent in classical electrodynamics if one considers charge
3 ω 0 φ0 dϕ
distributions with a typical radius larger than the classi-
where the four-potential of the wave has been assumed cal electron radius r0 = αλC ≈ 2.8 × 10−13 cm. Going
to have the form Aµ (φ) = Aµ0 ψ(φ) (see Sec. III.B, be- to the nonrelativistic quantum theory and by analyzing
low Eq. 10). This effect has been recently suggested in the Heisenberg equations of motion of the electron in an
Harvey et al., 2011b as a possible signature to measure external time-dependent field, the authors conclude that
RR (see also Lehmann and Spatschek, 2011). The two the quantum theory of a pointlike particle does not ad-
conditions in Eq. (26) are, in principle, compatible for mit any runaway solutions, provided that the external
sufficiently large values of ξ0 . For example, for an opti- field varies slowly along a length of the order of λC (this
cal (ω0 = 1 eV) laser field with an average intensity of is an obvious assumption in the realm of nonrelativis-
1024 W/cm2 and for an electron initially counterpropa- tic theory, as time-dependent fields with typical wave-
gating with respect to the laser field with an energy of lengths of the order of λC would in principle allow for
20 MeV, it is χ0 = 0.16 and RC = 1.3. This example e+ -e− pair production, see Sec. VIII). From this point
shows that, in general, it is not experimentally easy to of view a classical theory of RR has only physical mean-
enter the CRDR at least with presently-available laser ing as the classical limit (~ → 0) of the corresponding
systems. In Di Piazza et al., 2009a a different regime has quantum theory and the authors indicate that the result-
been investigated, which is parametrically less demand- ing equation of motion is the nonrelativistic LL equation
ing than the CRDR but in which the effects of RR are with the bare mass m0 (it is shown that the electrostatic
still large. In this regime the change in the longitudi- self-energy of a point charge vanishes in nonrelativistic
nal (with respect to the laser field propagation direction) quantum electrodynamics). On the other hand, if one
momentum of the electron due to RR in one laser period considers the quantum equations of motion of a charge
22

distribution and performs the classical limit before the the process of multiphoton Compton scattering and then,
pointlike limit, then the classical equations of motion of classically, to the Lorentz dynamics. Whereas, all high-
the charge distribution are, of course, recovered and, once order terms give rise to radiative corrections and to high-
the point-like limit is then performed, runaway solutions order coherent and incoherent (cascade) processes, and
appear again. The nonrelativistic form of the LL equa- determine what we call “quantum RR”. Here, by high-
tion has been also recovered from quantum mechanics order coherent processes is meant those involving more
in Krivitskii and Tsytovich, 1991 by including radiative than one basic QED process (photon emission by an
corrections to the time-dependent electron momentum electron/positron or e+ -e− photoproduction) but all oc-
operator in the Heisenberg representation, and by calcu- curring in the same formation region. Analogously, in
lating the time-derivative of the average momentum in a higher-order incoherent or cascade processes each basic
semiclassical state. QED process occurs in a different formation region. Now,
The situation in the relativistic theory is less straight- in the case of a background plane wave at ξ0 ≫ 1 and
forward because relativistic quantum electrodynamics, χ0 . 1, the quantum effects are certainly important but
i.e., QED, is a field theory fundamentally different from the radiative corrections and higher-order coherent pro-
classical electrodynamics. The first theory of relativis- cesses scale with α and can be neglected (Ritus, 1972).
tic quantum RR goes back to W. Heitler and his group Also, if χ0 does not exceed unity then the photons emit-
(Heitler, 1984; Jauch and Rohrlich, 1976). However, the ted by the electron are mainly unable, by interacting
evaluations of the QED amplitudes in Heitler’s theory in- again with the laser field, to create e+ -e− pairs, as the
volve the solution of complicated integral equations and pair production probability is exponentially suppressed
it has given a practical result only in the calculation of (see also Secs. VIII and IX). Therefore, it can be con-
the total energy emitted by a nonrelativistic quantum cluded that at ξ0 ≫ 1 and χ0 . 1, RR in QED corre-
oscillator, with and without RR. sponds to the overall photon recoil experienced by the
At first sight one would say that RR effects are auto- electron when it emits many photons consecutively and
matically taken into account in QED, because the elec- incoherently (Di Piazza et al., 2010a).
tromagnetic field is treated as a collection of photons A qualitative understanding of the above conclusion
that take away energy and momentum, when they are can be attained by assuming that χ0 ≪ 1 and by esti-
emitted by charged particles. However, photon recoil is mating the average number Nγ of photons emitted by
always proportional to ~, making it a purely quantum an electron in one laser period at ξ0 ≫ 1. Since the
quantity with no classical counterpart. Moreover, if one probability of emitting one photon in a formation length
calculates the spectrum of multiphoton Compton scat- is of the order of α and since one laser period contains
tering in an external plane-wave field, for example, and about ξ0 formation lengths (Ritus, 1985) then Nγ ∼ αξ0 .
then performs the classical limit χ0 → 0, one obtains Also, the typical energy ω ′ of a photon emitted by an
the corresponding multiphoton Thomson spectrum cal- electron is of the order ω ′ ∼ χ0 ε0 , then the average en-
culated via the Lorentz equation and not via the LAD ergy E emitted by the electron is E ∼ αξ0 χ0 ε0 = RC ε0 .
or the LL equation (see also Sec. V.A). Finally, it has This estimate is in agreement with the classical result ob-
also been seen that in classical electrodynamics the RR tained from the LL equation. In other words, the classical
effects may not be a small perturbation on the Lorentz limit of RR in this regime corresponds to the emission of
dynamics and they cannot be obtained as the result of a a higher and higher number of photons all with an en-
single limiting procedure. Otherwise they would always ergy much smaller than the electron energy, in such a
appear as a small correction. way that even though the recoil at each emission is al-
In order to understand what RR is in QED, it is more most negligible, the cumulative effect of all photon emis-
convenient to go back to Eq. (21) and to notice that sions may have a finite nonnegligible effect. Note that ω ′
the LAD, namely the LL, equation is equivalent to the and Nγ are both pure quantum quantities and only their
coupled system of Maxwell and Lorentz equations. If one product E has a classical analogue in the limit χ0 → 0.
determines the trajectory of the electron via the LL equa- These considerations have allowed for the introduction
tion and then calculates the total electromagnetic field in Di Piazza et al., 2010a of the Quantum Radiation-
FTµν (x) via the Liénard-Wiechert four-potential (Landau Dominated Regime (QRDR), which is characterized by
and Lifshitz, 1975), one has solved completely the classi- multiple emission of photons already in one laser period.
cal problem of the radiating electron in the given electro- This regime is then characterized by the conditions
magnetic field. As has been discussed in Sec. III.B, the
RQ = αξ0 ≈ 1, χ0 & 1. (29)
solution of the analogous problem in strong-field QED
would correspond to completely determine the S-matrix Quantum photon spectra have been calculated numeri-
in Eq. (9), as well as the asymptotic state |t → +∞i cally in Di Piazza et al., 2010a without RR, i.e., by in-
for the given initial state |t → −∞i = |e− i, which rep- cluding only the emission of one photon (four-momentum
resents a single electron. The first-order term in the k ′µ ), and with RR, i.e., by including multiple-photon
perturbative expansion of the S-matrix corresponds to emissions (and by integrating with respect to all the four-
1

0.1

0.0001
RR /d̟ ′
dSQ
no RR /d̟ ′
dSQ
dSCRR /d̟′ 1.2

0.001

̟′
2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

dSCno RR /d̟′ 1.00.02


0.01
0.04 0.06

0.1

FIG. 11 (Color online) Quantum photon spectra as a function


of ̟ ′ = k−

/p0,− calculated with (solid, black line) and with-
out (long dashed, red line) RR and the corresponding classical
ones with (short dashed, blue line) and without (dotted, ma-
genta line) RR. The error bars in the quantum spectrum with
RR stem from numerical uncertainties in multidimensional
integrations. The numerical parameters in our notation are:
ε0 = 1 GeV, ω0 = 1.55 eV and I0 = 1023 W/cm2 (RQ = 1.1
and χ0 = 1.8). Adapted from Di Piazza et al., 2010a.
0.08 0.10

1

FIG. 12 Vacuum polarization diagram in an external back-

tromagnetic field in the vacuum itself. The possibility of


photon-photon interaction in vacuum, within the frame-
work of QED, can be understood qualitatively by observ-
ing that a photon may locally “materialize” into an e+ -e−
pair which, in turn, interacts with other photons. For the
same reason a background electromagnetic field can in-
fluence photon propagation (see Fig. 12 and Berestetskii
et al., 1982). In the latter case the extension lf of the
23

ground electromagnetic field. The thick electron lines indicate


electron propagators calculated in the Furry picture, account-
ing exactly for the presence of the background field.

region where this transformation occurs, i.e., its forma-


tion length, depends, in principle, on the structure of
momenta of the emitted photons except one indicated as the background field (Baier and Katkov, 2005). How-
k ′µ ). The results show that in the QRDR the effects of ever, in some cases it can be estimated qualitatively via
RR are essentially three (see Fig. 11): 1) increase of the the Heisenberg uncertainty principle from the typical mo-
photon yield at low photon energies; 2) decrease of the mentum p flowing in the e+ -e− loop in Fig. 12. We con-
photon yield at high photon energies; 3) shift of the max- sider, for example, a constant background electromag-
imum of the photon spectrum towards low photon ener- netic field (or a slowly-varying one, at leading order in
gies. Figure 11 also shows that the classical treatment of the space-time derivatives of the field itself). In this case,
RR (via the LL equation) artificially overestimates the if the energy ω of the incoming photon (see Fig. 12) is at
above effects, the reason being that quantum corrections most of the order of m, then the momentum p flowing in
decrease the average energy emitted by the electron with the e+ -e− loop is of the order of m and lf ∼ 1/p ∼ λC .
respect to the classical value (Ritus, 1985). However, at If ω ≫ m the analysis is more complicated and the for-
χ0 ≪ 1, i.e., when the recoil of each emitted photon is mation length strongly depends on the structure of the
much smaller than the electron energy, then the quantum background field.
spectra converge into the corresponding classical ones. From the theoretical point of view it is convenient to
As mentioned in Sec. VI, a semiclassical phenomenolog- distinguish between low-energy vacuum-polarization ef-
ical approach to RR in the quantum regime has been fects if ω ≪ m and high-energy ones if ω & m.
proposed in Sokolov et al., 2009, 2010b.
Finally, the quantum modifications induced by the
electron’s self-field onto the Volkov states (see Eq. (6)) A. Low-energy vacuum-polarization effects
have been recently investigated in Meuren and Di Pi-
azza, 2011. It is found that the classical expression of The scattering in vacuum of a real photon by another
the electron quasimomentum q0µ in a linearly polarized real photon is possibly the most fundamental vacuum-
plane wave (see Eq. (8)) admits a correction depend- polarization process (Berestetskii et al., 1982) and it
ing on the quantum parameter χ0 and also that self-field has not yet been observed experimentally. The total
effects induce a peculiar dynamics of the electron spin. cross section of the process depends only on the Lorentz-
invariant parameter η = (k1 k2 )/m2 , with k1µ and k2µ be-
ing the four-momenta of the colliding photons or, equiv-
VII. VACUUM-POLARIZATION EFFECTS alently, on the energy ω ∗ of the two colliding photons in
their center-of-momentum system (η = 2ω ∗ 2 /m2 ). This
QED predicts that photons interact with each other process has been investigated in Euler, 1936 in the low-
also in vacuum (Berestetskii et al., 1982). Effects aris- energy limit η ≪ 1 and then in Akhiezer, 1937 in the
ing from this purely quantum interaction are referred to high-energy limit η ≫ 1. The complete expression of the
as vacuum polarization effects. This is in contrast to cross section σγγ→γγ was calculated in Karplus and Neu-
classical electrodynamics where the linearity of Maxwell’s man, 1950 and can also be found in Berestetskii et al.,
equations in vacuum forbids self-interaction of the elec- 1982 (see also Fig. 13). In the low-energy limit η ≪ 1
24

1 the order of λC , therefore if the classical electromag-


netic field F µν (x) = (E(x), B(x)) comprises only wave-
σγγ→γγ [10−30 cm2] lengths much larger than λC , the interaction is approxi-
mately pointlike and the effective Lagrangian density is
10−3
accordingly a local quantity. Also, since the effective La-
grangian density is a Lorentz invariant, it can depend
only on the electromagnetic field invariants F (x) and
10−6 G 2 (x) already introduced in Sec. III.B. The complete ex-
10−1 1 10 102 103

pression of the effective Lagrangian density was reported
ω /m
for the first time in Heisenberg and Euler, 1936 and Weis-
skopf, 1936 (see also Schwinger, 1951) and it is known as
FIG. 13 Cross section of real photon-photon scattering as a the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian density. Here we are in-
function of the energy of the colliding photons in their center- terested only in the experimentally-relevant low-intensity
of-momentum system in units of the electron mass. Adapted limit |F (x)|, |G (x)| ≪ Fcr2
and the leading-order Euler-
from Berestetskii et al., 1982. Copyright Elsevier (1982). Heisenberg Lagrangian density LEH (x) reads (Dittrich
and Gies, 2000; Dittrich and Reuter, 1985)
the cross section σγγ→γγ is given by (Berestetskii et al.,
1 α 4F 2 (x) + 7G 2 (x)
1982) LEH (x) = − F (x) + . (32)
4π 360π 2 2
Fcr
973
σγγ→γγ = α4 λ2C η 3 η≪1 (30) Different experimental observables have been suggested
81000π
to detect low-energy vacuum-polarization effects. Those
and in the high-energy one η ≫ 1 by (Baier et al., 1974; will be reviewed next.
Berestetskii et al., 1982)

1 108 13 2 148 4
σγγ→γγ = + π − 8π 2 ζ(3) + π 1. Experimental suggestions for direct detection of
π 5 2 225 photon-photon scattering
η≫1
4 2 1
i
− 24ζ(5) α λC ,
η The most direct way to search for photon-photon scat-
(31) tering events in vacuum by means of laser fields is to let
two laser beams collide and to look for scattered photons.
where ζ(x) is the Riemann zeta function (Olver et al., However, by employing a third “assisting” laser beam, if
2010). In terms of the center-of-momentum energy one of the final photons is kinematically allowed to be
ω ∗ , the cross section becomes σγγ→γγ [cm2 ] = 7.4 × emitted along this beam with the same frequency and po-
10−66 (ω ∗ [eV])6 at ω ∗ ≪ m and σγγ→γγ [cm2 ] = 5.4 × larization, then the number of photon-photon scattering
10−36 /(ω ∗ [GeV])2 at ω ∗ ≫ m. The steep dependence events can be coherently enhanced (Varfolomeev, 1966).
of σγγ→γγ on η for η ≪ 1 is the main reason why real In this laser-assisted setup the “signal” of photon-photon
photon-photon scattering has, so-far, eluded experimen- scattering is, of course, the remaining outgoing photon.
tal observation (see the reviews Marklund and Shukla, In Lundin et al., 2007 and Lundström et al., 2006 an
2006 and Salamin et al., 2006 for experiments and ex- experiment has been suggested to observe laser-assisted
perimental proposals until 2005 aiming to observe real photon-photon scattering with the Astra-Gemini laser
photon-photon scattering in vacuum). system (see Sec. II.A). The authors found a particular
However, various proposals have been put forward re- “three-dimensional” setup, which turns out to be espe-
cently in order to observe this process by colliding strong cially favorable for the observation of the process (see
laser beams which contain a large number of photons. Fig. 14). The number Nγ of photons scattered in one
A common theoretical starting point of all these pro- shot for an optimal choice of the geometrical factors and
posals is the “effective-Lagrangian” approach (Dittrich of the polarization angles between the incoming and the
and Gies, 2000; Dittrich and Reuter, 1985). In this ap- assisting beams is found to be
proach the interaction among photons in vacuum is de-
scribed via an effective Lagrangian density of the elec- P1 [PW]P2 [PW]P3 [PW]
tromagnetic field. By starting from the total Lagrangian Nγ ≈ 0.25 . (33)
(λ4 [µm])3
density of the classical electromagnetic field and of the
quantum e+ -e− Dirac field, one integrates out the de- Here, P1 and P2 are the powers of the incoming beams,
grees of freedom of the latter field and is left with a P3 is the power of the assisting beam and λ4 is the wave-
Lagrangian density depending only on the electromag- length of the scattered wave to be measured. By plug-
netic field. As has been seen above, the formation re- ging in the feasible values for Astra-Gemini P1 = P2 =
gion of photon-photon interaction at low energies is of 0.1 PW and P3 = 0.5 PW, one obtains Nγ ≈ 0.07, i.e.,
25

FIG. 15 (Color) Intensity Id of the vacuum-scattered wave


for a probe beam propagating along the positive y direction
and colliding with two strong beams aligned along the x axis.
FIG. 14 (Color) Schematic “three-dimensional” setup for
The crosses correspond to coordinates xn according to the
laser-assisted photon-photon scattering involving two incom-
classical prediction xn = (n + 1/2)λp d/D, where n in an inte-
ing beams (in blue), an assisting one (in red) and a scattered
ger number, λp is the wavelength of the probe field, d is the
one (in violet). From Lundström et al., 2006.
distance between the interaction region and the observation
screen and D is the distance between the centers of the two
strong beams. The numerical values of the parameters can be
roughly one photon scattered every 15 shots (for the pa- found in King et al., 2010a. Adapted from King et al., 2010a.
rameters of Astra Gemini the wavelength of both incom-
ing beams is chosen as 0.4 µm, that of the assisting beam
gating beams. For optimal lasers parameters and at a
as 0.8 µm, so that the wavelength λ4 = 0.276 µm of the
scattered photon is different from those of the incoming strong-laser power of 100 PW the diffracted vacuum sig-
and assisting beams). nal is predicted to be measurable in a single shot. The
effects on photon-photon scattering of the temporal pro-
The quantum interaction among photons in vacuum file of the laser pulses have been recently investigated
has been exploited in King et al., 2010a to propose, for in King and Keitel, 2012, showing a suppression of the
the first time, a double-slit setup comprised only of light number of vacuum scattered photons with respect to the
(see also Marklund, 2010). In this setup two strong par- infinite-pulse (monochromatic) case.
allel beams collide head-on with a counterpropagating The concept of Bragg scattering has been exploited in
probe pulse. The photons of the probe have the choice Kryuchkyan and Hatsagortsyan, 2011 to observe the scat-
to interact either with one or with the other strong beam, tering of photons by a modulated electromagnetic-field
and, when scattered, they are predicted to build an in- structure in vacuum. If a probe wave passes through
terference pattern with alternating minima and maxima a series of parallel strong laser pulses and if the Bragg
typical of double-slit experiments (see Fig. 15). Also, condition on the impinging angle is fulfilled, the num-
if one of the slits is closed, i.e., if the probe collides ber of diffracted photons can be strongly enhanced. At
with only one strong beam, the interference fringes dis- a fixed intensity for each strong beam the enhancement
appear. The key idea behind this setup is that the factor with respect to laser-assisted photon-photon scat-
vacuum-scattered beam (intensity Id ), although propa- tering is equal to the number of beams in the periodic
gating along the same direction as the probe, has a much structure. However, in experiments usually the total en-
wider angular distribution than the latter, offering the ergy of the laser beams is fixed and an enhancement by
possibility of detecting vacuum-scattered photons out- a factor of two is predicted. By considering NG equal
side the focus of the undiffracted probe beam. For a Gaussian pulses propagating along the x direction and
strong-field intensity of I0 ≈ 5 × 1024 W/cm2 that may their centers separated by a distance D > 2wz from each
be in the near future be available at ELI or at HiPER other, the resulting photon-photon scattering probabil-
and for a probe beam with wavelength λp = 0.527 µm ity will be proportional to the phase-matching factor P,
and intensity Ip = 4 × 1016 W/cm2 , it is predicted that with
about four photons per shot would contribute to build up
the interference pattern in the observable region (it is the sin2 (δkz NG D/2)
region outside the circle in Fig. 15, where Id > 100 Ip ). P= , (34)
sin2 (δkz D/2)
The diffraction of a probe beam in vacuum by a single fo-
cused strong laser pulse is also investigated in Tommasini where the vector δk = k2 − k1 is the difference between
and Michinel, 2010 in the case of almost counterpropa- the wave vectors of the reflected and incident waves. The
26

Bragg condition is satisfied for δkz = 2πl/D, with l be- respectively.


ing an integer. By employing ten optical laser beams The birefringence of the polarized vacuum is exploited
with a wavelength of 1 µm and each with an intensity in Heinzl et al., 2006 to show that if a linearly-polarized
of 2.3 × 1023 W/cm2 , about five vacuum-scattered pho- probe x-ray beam (wavelength λp ) propagates along a
tons are predicted per shot. Finally, an enhancement strong optical standing wave, then it emerges from the
of vacuum-polarization effects in laser-laser collision has interaction elliptically polarized with ellipticity ǫ given
been predicted in Monden and Kodama, 2011 by em- by
ploying strong laser beams with large angular aperture.
2α l0,R I0
For example, it is predicted that the number of vacuum- ǫ= κ , (39)
radiated photons will be enhanced by two orders of mag- 15 λp Icr
nitude, if the angular aperture of the colliding beams is where κ ∼ 1 is a geometrical factor and l0,R is the
increased from 53◦ to 103◦ . Rayleigh length of the intense laser beam. If this beam
Other experimental suggestions to measure photon- is generated by a laser like ELI (I0 ∼ 1025 W/cm2 ), val-
photon scattering in vacuum can be found in Eriksson ues of the ellipticities of the order of 10−7 are predicted
et al., 2004 and Tommasini et al., 2008. at λp = 0.1 nm. Recent advances on x-ray polarime-
try allow for measurement of ellipticities of the order of
10−9 at a wavelength of 0.2 nm (Marx et al., 2011). In
2. Polarimetry-based experimental suggestions
Ferrando et al., 2007 a phase-shift has been found the-
oretically to be induced by vacuum-polarization effects
The expression of the Euler-Heiseberg Lagrangian den-
when two laser beams cross in the vacuum, which is pre-
sity in Eq. (32), suggests to interpret a region where only
dicted to be measurable at laser intensities available at
an electromagnetic field is present as a material medium
ELI or at HiPER.
characterized by a polarization PEH = ∂LEH /∂E −
When an electromagnetic wave with wavelength λ im-
E/4π and a magnetization MEH = ∂LEH /∂B + B/4π
pinges upon a material body, the features of the scattered
(Jackson, 1975) given by
radiation depend on the so-called diffraction parameter
α D = l⊥ 2
/λd (Jackson, 1975). Here, l⊥ is the spatial di-
2(E 2 − B 2 )E + 7(E · B)B , (35)
 
PEH = 2 2
180π Fcr mension of the body perpendicular to the propagation
α direction of the incident wave and d is the distance of
2(B 2 − E 2 )B + 7(E · B)E . (36)
 
MEH = 2 2
180π Fcr the screen, where the radiation is detected, from the in-
teraction region. The near region, D ≫ 1, is known as
Note that an arbitrary single plane wave cannot “polar-
the “refractive-index limit”, because the effects of the
ize” the vacuum, as in this case PEH and MEH identi-
presence of the body can be described as if the wave
cally vanish. Equations (35) and (36) indicate that the
propagates through a medium with a given refractive
presence of an electromagnetic field in the vacuum alters
index. However, if D . 1 then the diffraction effects
the vacuum’s refractive index. The situation is even more
become important and description of the wave-body in-
complicated because of the vectorial nature of the back-
teraction only in terms of a refractive index is in gen-
ground electromagnetic field which polarizes the vacuum
eral not possible. This aspect has been pointed out in
and introduces a privileged direction in it. As a result,
Di Piazza et al., 2006 within the context of light-light
the vacuum’s refractive index is altered in a way that
interaction in vacuum (see also Di Piazza et al., 2007a).
depends, in general, on the mutual polarizations of the
Tight focusing required to reach high intensities usually
probe electromagnetic field and of the background field:
renders the interaction region so small that diffraction
the polarized vacuum behaves as a birefringent medium.
effects may become substantial at typical experimental
For example, in the case of an arbitrary constant electro-
conditions. In some cases diffractive effects reduce by an
magnetic field (E, B), the refractive indices nEH,1/2 of
order of magnitude the values of the ellipticity calculated
a wave propagating along the direction n and polarized
via the refractive-index approach and also induce a ro-
along one of the two independent directions u1 = E/|E|
tation of the main axis of the polarization ellipse with
and u2 = B/|B|, with E = E − (n · E)E + n × B and
respect to the initial polarization direction of the probe
B = B − (n · B)B − n × E are given by (Dittrich and
field (Di Piazza et al., 2006). Tight focusing of the strong
Gies, 2000)
polarizing beam requires quite a detailed mathematical
4α (n × E)2 + (n × B)2 − 2n · (E × B) description employing a realistic focused Gaussian beam,
nEH,1 = 1 + 2
, while a simpler description was employed for the usually
90π Fcr
(37) weakly-focused probe beam. This prevented the appli-
cability of the results in the so-called far region where
7α (n × E)2 + (n × B)2 − 2n · (E × B)
nEH,2 = 1 + , D ≪ 1 and where the spatial spreading of the probe field
90π 2
Fcr is also important. This assumption has been recently re-
(38) moved in King et al., 2010b, where it was also pointed
27

out that by considering the diffraction of a probe beam where


by two separated beams instead of that by a single stand- v
u !
ing wave, an increase in the ellipticity and in the rotation u 4πe2 ni 1 Z
n0 = t 1 − +p ,
of polarization angle by a factor 1.5 is expected. mω02
p
1 + ξ02 (mi /m)2 + Z 2 ξ02
A different method based on the phase-contrast Fourier
(41)
imaging technique has been suggested in Homma et al.,
is the refractive index of the plasma without vacuum-
2011 to detect vacuum birefringence. This technique pro-
polarization effects (Mulser and Bauer, 2010). Equation
vides a very sensitive tool to measure the absolute phase
(40) already indicates the possibility of enhancing the ef-
shift of a probe beam when it crosses an intense laser
fects of vacuum polarization by working at laser frequen-
field. Numerical simulations demonstrate the feasibility
cies ω0 such that n0 ≪ 1, i.e., close to the effective plasma
of measuring vacuum birefringence also by employing an
critical frequency. This region of parameters is in general
optical probe field and a 100-PW strong laser beam.
complex to investigate, due to the arising of different in-
Photon “acceleration” in vacuum due to vacuum polar-
stabilities. However, the idealized situation investigated
ization has been studied in Mendonça et al., 2006. This
in Di Piazza et al., 2007b shows, at least in principle, the
effect corresponds to a shift of the photon frequency when
possibility of enhancing the vacuum-polarization effects
it passes through a strong electromagnetic wave. If kpµ
by an order of magnitude at a given intensity I0 with
is the four-momentum of a probe photon with energy
respect, for example, to the results in Di Piazza et al.,
ωp when it enters a region where a strong laser beam
2006. The effects of the presence of an additional strong
is present, then, due to vacuum-polarization effects, ωp
constant magnetic field have been analyzed in Lundin
becomes sensitive to the gradient of the intensity of the
et al., 2007. The general theory presented in this pa-
strong beam. As a result, a frequency up-shift (down-
per covers different waves propagating in a plasma as
shift) is predicted at the rear (front) of the strong beam.
Alfvén modes, whistler modes, and large-amplitude laser
According to Eqs. (37) and (38) the phase velocity
modes. We also mention the recent paper Bu and Ji,
of light in vacuum is smaller than unity. This circum-
2010, in which the photon acceleration process has been
stance has been exploited in Marklund et al., 2005, where
investigated in a cold plasma and the reference Brodin
Cherenkov radiation by ultrarelativistic particles mov-
et al., 2007, where vacuum-induced photon splitting in
ing with constant velocity in a photon gas has been pre-
a plasma is studied. Finally, we mention the possibility
dicted, if the speed of the particle exceeds the phase ve-
of testing nonlinear vacuum QED effects in waveguides.
locity of light. Finally, in Zimmer et al., 2012 an induced
In Brodin et al., 2001 the generation of new modes in
electric dipole moment of the neutron has been proposed
waveguides due to vacuum-polarization effects has been
as a signature of the polarization of the QED vacuum.
predicted. More recently signatures of nonlinear QED
effects in the transmitted power along a waveguide have
3. Low-energy vacuum-polarization effects in a plasma been analyzed in Ferraro, 2010.

Equations (37) and (38) indicate that vacuum-


B. High-energy vacuum-polarization effects
polarization effects elicited by a plane wave with intensity
I0 would alter the vacuum refractive index by an amount
Generally speaking the treatment of vacuum-
of the order of (α/45π)(I0 /Icr ). It was first realized in
polarization effects for an incoming photon with energy
Di Piazza et al., 2007b that this aspect can be in prin-
ω in the presence of a background electromagnetic field
ciple significantly improved in a plasma. For the sake
with a typical angular frequency ωb cannot be performed
of simplicity the case of a cold plasma was considered
in an effective Lagrangian approach if ωωb /m2 & 1: the
and the vacuum-polarization effects were implemented in
incoming photon “sees” the nonlocality of its interaction
the inhomogeneous Maxwell’s equations as an additional
with the background electromagnetic field through its
“vacuum four-current” (Di Piazza et al., 2007b). Now,
local “transformation” into an e+ -e− pair (see Fig. 12).
unlike in the vacuum, the field invariant F (x) for a single
The technical difficulty in treating vacuum-polarization
monochromatic circularly polarized plane wave does not
effects at high energies arises from the fact that the
vanish in a plasma. Thus, vacuum-polarization effects in
interaction between the virtual e+ -e− pair and the
a plasma already arise in the presence of a single travel-
background field has to be accounted for exactly. This
ing plane wave. In Di Piazza et al., 2007b the vacuum-
has been accomplished for the background field of a
corrected refractive index n of a two-fluid electron-ion
nucleus with charge number Z such that Zα ∼ 1 and
plasma (ion mass, density and charge number given by
Delbrück scattering and photon splitting in such a field
mi , ni and Z, respectively) in the presence of a circularly
have also been observed experimentally (see the reviews
polarized plane wave has been found as
r Lee et al., 2003 and Milstein and Schumacher, 1994).
2α I0 As we have recalled in Sec. III.B, the Dirac equa-
n = n20 + (1 − n20 )2 , (40) tion in a background plane wave described by the four-
45π Icr
28

vector potential Aµ (φ) can be solved exactly and ana- proton collides head-on with a strong laser field. The
lytically. Accordingly, the exact electron (Volkov) prop- quantum interaction of the Coulomb field of the proton
agator G(x, y|A) in the same background field has also with the laser field allows for a merging of laser photons
been determined (see, e.g., Ritus, 1985). The so-called into a single high-energy photon. The use of a proton,
“operator technique”, developed in Baier et al., 1976a,b, instead of an electron, for example, is required in order to
turns out to be very convenient for investigating vacuum- suppress the background process of multiphoton Thom-
polarization effects at high energies (the operator tech- son/Compton scattering, where again many photons of
nique for a constant background field was developed the laser can be directly absorbed by the proton and con-
in Baier et al., 1975a,b; and Schwinger, 1951). In verted into a single high-energy photon (see Sec. V.A).
this technique a generic electron state Ψ(x) in a plane- In fact, the kinematics of the two processes, vacuum-
wave field and the propagator G(x, y|A) are intended mediated laser photon merging and multiphoton Thom-
as the configuration representation of an abstract state son/Compton scattering is the same, except that in the
|Ψi and of an operator G(A) such that Ψ(x) = hx|Ψi treatment in Di Piazza et al., 2008a only an even num-
and G(x, y|A) = hx|G(A)|yi. In particular, since the ber of laser photons can merge in the vacuum-mediated
propagator G(x, y|A) is the solution of the equation process. The probability of ℓ-photon Thomson/Compton
{γ µ [i∂µ − eAµ (φ)] − m}G(x, y|A) = δ(x − y), then the scattering of a particle with charge Q and mass M de-
abstract operator G(A) is simply pends on the parameter ξ0,c = |Q|E0 /M ω0 and scales
2ℓ
as ξ0,c at ξ0,c ≪ 1. Thus, the use of a “heavy” particle
1
G(A) = , (42) like a proton (mass mp = 1.8 × 103 m = 938 MeV) is
γ µ [Pµ − eAµ (φ)] − m
essential to suppress this background process. Note that
with P µ being the four-momentum operator. Evaluation in order to have ξ0,p = |e|E0 /mp ω0 ≈ 1 for a proton,
via the operator technique of the matrix element corre- a laser field with intensity of the order of 1024 W/cm2
sponding to a generic vacuum-polarization process is then is required. It is found that for an optical background
carried out by manipulating abstract operators, which is field such that ξ0 ≫ 1, the amplitude of the (2ℓ)-photon
easier than by working with the corresponding quantities merging process depends only on the nonlinear quantum
in configuration space. parameter
In Di Piazza et al., 2007c the operator technique has E0 2ℓ(1 + vp )ω0 1 − cos ϑ
(2ℓ)
been employed to calculate the rate of photon splitting χ0,p = , (43)
Fcr m 1 + vp cos ϑ
in a strong laser field for an incoming photon with four-
momentum k µ . This was the first investigation of a QED where vp is the proton velocity and ϑ is the angle between
process involving three Volkov propagators. The calcu- the direction of the emitted photon and the propagation
lated rate is valid for an arbitrary plane-wave field, pro- direction of the plane wave. By colliding a proton beam,
vided that radiative corrections can be neglected, i.e., at of energy available at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
2/3 of the order of 7 TeV (LHC, 2011) with an optical laser
ακ0 ≪ 1, with κ0 = (k− /m)(E0 /Fcr ), in the most un-
favorable regime ξ0 , κ0 ≫ 1 (Ritus, 1972). In fact, as we beam of intensity of 3 × 1022 W/cm2 , it is demonstrated
have mentioned in Sec. III.B, QED processes involving that the vacuum-mediated merging of two laser photons
the collision of a photon and an intense plane wave are and the analogous two-photon Thomson/Compton scat-
controlled by the two Lorentz- and gauge-invariant pa- tering have comparable rates, implying that the inclu-
rameters ξ0 and κ0 . In Di Piazza et al., 2007c it turned sive signal should be twice the one expected without
out to be more convenient to perform a parametric study vacuum-polarization effects. By accounting for the de-
of the photon-splitting rate by varying the two parame- tails of the proton beams available at LHC and of the
ters ξ0 and η0 = ω0 k− /m2 (note that κ0 = η0 ξ0 ). By laser system PFS (see Sec. II.A), about 670 two-photon
employing the Furry theorem (Berestetskii et al., 1982), merging events and about 5 four-photon merging events
it is shown that photon splitting in a laser field only oc- are expected per hour. In the discussed setup most of the
curs with absorption of an odd number of laser photons. photons are emitted almost in the direction of the proton
(2)
In particular, if the strong field is circularly polarized and velocity (ϑ ≈ π) in which χ0,p ∼ 1. It is also indicated in
if it counterpropagates with respect to the incoming pho- Di Piazza et al., 2008a that the use of the perturbative
ton, conservation of the total angular momentum along expression of the laser-photon merging rate at leading
(2)
the propagation direction of the beams implies that for order in χ0,p ≪ 1 would lead to an error of about 30%.
η0 ≪ 1 photon splitting can occur only via absorption of Other setups for observing vacuum-polarization effects in
one or of three laser photons. laser-proton collisions have been discussed in Di Piazza
In Di Piazza et al., 2008a a physical scenario has been et al., 2008b, involving, for example, XFEL or single in-
advanced in which nonperturbative vacuum-polarization tense XUV pulses. Finally, the process of Delbrück scat-
effects can be in principle observed (here “nonperturba- tering in a combined Coulomb and laser field has been
tive” means “high-order” in the quantum nonlinearity studied in Di Piazza and Milstein, 2008. Here an incom-
parameter, see below). In this scenario a high-energy ing photon is scattered by the Coulomb field of a nucleus

29

a) b) c) These processes share the common feature to possess


x different interaction regimes which are mainly character-
ized by the value of the parameter ξ0 . When ξ0 ≪ 1
the presence of the laser field can be taken into account
FIG. 16 Feynman diagrams corresponding to processes (i) perturbatively and this yields a pair production rate R
(part a)), (ii) (part b)) and (iii) (part c)), respectively. The of the form Re+ -e− ∼ mξ02ℓm , where ℓm is the minimum
thick continuous lines in parts a) and b) indicate Volkov
positive- and negative-energy states. The crossed vertex in
integer number which kinematically allows the process.
part b) stands for the Coulomb electromagnetic field. The For the process (i) it is ℓm (k0 k) > 2m2 , with k0µ and k µ
diagram in part c) is related to the vacuum current jvac µ
(x), being the four-momentum of the laser photon and the
+ −
that one has to determine in order to calculate the e -e pair incoming photon, respectively. For the process (ii) it is
yield (Dittrich and Gies, 2000). The double line indicates the ℓm ω0⋆ > 2m, where ω0⋆ = ω0 uc,− is the laser angular fre-
electron propagator calculated in the Furry picture including quency in the rest-frame of the charge which produces the
exactly the background standing wave. Coulomb field and which has four-velocity uµc . Finally,
for the process (iii) it is ℓm ω0 > 2m. Due to the specific
dependence of the pair production rate on ξ0 , this regime
and by a strong laser field. While the presence of the
of pair production is called multiphoton regime. In con-
laser field is taken into account exactly in the calcula-
trast, when ξ0 ≫ 1 the presence of the laser field has to
tions, only leading-order effects in the nuclear parameter
be taken into account exactly by performing the calcu-
Zα are accounted for. Analogously to Di Piazza et al.,
lations in the Furry picture. As the condition ξ0 ≫ 1
2008a, it is found that high-order nonlinear corrections
is realized for vanishing laser frequencies at a fixed laser
in the parameter κ0 to the cross section of the process
amplitude, this regime is called quasistatic regime and
already become important at κ0 ≈ 0.2. For example,
the pair-production rate here is governed by a different
these corrections amount to about 50% at κ0 = 0.35.
parameter which depends on the process at hand. For
process (i), for example, the form of the rate depends
on the physical parameter κ0 introduced in Sec. III.B
VIII. ELECTRON-POSITRON PAIR PRODUCTION 3/2
and it scales as ∼ mκ0 exp(−8/3κ0 ) if κ0 ≪ 1 and as
2/3
One of the most important predictions of QED has ∼ mκ0 if κ0 ≫ 1 (Nikishov and Ritus, 1964a; Reiss,
been the possibility of transforming light into matter 1962). For process (ii), we distinguish the case in which
(Dirac, 1928). If two photons with four-momenta k1µ the incoming particle is an electron, from that in which
and k2µ collide at an angle such that the parameter η = it is a heavier particle like a nucleus with charge num-
(k1 k2 )/m2 exceeds two, the creation of an e+ -e− pair be- ber Z. In the first case the pair production rate depends
comes kinematically allowed (Breit-Wheeler e+ -e− pair on the parameter χ0 , already introduced in Sec. III.B,
production (Breit and Wheeler, 1934)). Shortly after the and the recoil due to the pair creation on the electron
realization of the laser in 1960, theoreticians started to has to be taken into account (see also Sec. VIII.A). In
study possibilities for the creation of e+ -e− pairs from the second case the motion of the nucleus is usually as-
vacuum by very strong laser fields (Nikishov and Ritus, sumed not to be altered by the pair creation process and
1964a; Reiss, 1962; Yakovlev, 1965). Because of con- the nucleus itself is described as a background Coulomb
straints from energy-momentum conservation, a single field (see also Sec. VIII.B). The pair-production rate
plane-wave laser field cannot create pairs from vacuum, depends on the parameter χ0,n = un,− (E0 /Fcr ), with
no matter how intense it is. For a single plane wave, in uµn being the four-velocity of the nucleus, and on the
fact, all the photons propagate along the same direction nuclear parameter Zα. Specifically,
√ the pair-production
and the parameter η vanishes identically for any pair of rate scales as m(Zα)2 exp(−2 3/χ0,n ) if χ0,n ≪ 1 and
photons in the plane wave. Thus, an additional source of as m(Zα)2 χ0,n ln χ0,n if χ0,n ≫ 1 (Milstein et al., 2006;
energy is therefore required to trigger the process of pair Yakovlev, 1965). Finally, for process (iii), the rate Re+ -e−
production in a plane wave. There are essentially three has been derived mainly by approximating the stand-
different possibilities (see also Fig. 16): ing wave as an oscillating electric field (see also Sec.
VIII.C). It is found that Re+ -e− depends on the ratio
(i) pair production by a high-energy photon propa- Υ0 = E0 /Fcr , with E0 being the amplitude of the stand-
gating in a strong laser field (multiphoton Breit- ing wave in the (fixed) laboratory frame, and that it
Wheeler pair production); scales as mΥ20 exp(−π/Υ0 ) if Υ0 ≪ 1 and as mΥ20 if
Υ0 ≫ 1 (Brezin and Itzykson, 1970; Popov, 1971, 1972).
(ii) pair production by a Coulomb field in the presence As expected, these scalings coincide with the correspond-
of a strong laser field; ing ones in a constant electric field E0 (Schwinger, 1951).

(iii) pair production by two counterpropagating strong The physical meaning of the three parameters κ0 , χ0,n
laser beams forming a standing light wave. and Υ0 can be qualitatively understood in the follow-
30

ing way. For process (i) the dressing of the electron A. Pair production in photon-laser and electron-laser
and positron mass (see Sec. III.B) modifies the thresh- collisions
old of e+ -e− pair production at ξ0 ≫ 1 according to
ℓm (k0 k) & 2m2 ξ02 . Now, analogously to multiphoton Among the pair-production processes mentioned
Thomson and Compton scattering (see Sec. V.A), the above, only laser-induced pair production for ξ0 < 1 has
typical number of laser photons absorbed in pair pro- been observed experimentally. Its feasibility has been
duction via photon-laser collision is of the order of ξ03 shown, in fact, in the pioneering E-144 experiment at
(Nikishov and Ritus, 1964a) and the threshold condition SLAC (Bamber et al., 1999; Burke et al., 1997) (see
becomes κ0 & 1. Concerning the process (ii), the ap- Reiss, 1971 for a corresponding theoretical proposal).
pearance of the parameter χ0,n in the quasistatic limit The experiment relied on collisions of the 46.6 GeV elec-
ξ0 ≫ 1 can be understood by noting that the quantity tron beam from SLAC’s linear accelerator with a coun-
un,− E0 is the amplitude of the laser field in the rest-frame terpropagating intense laser pulse of photon energy of
of the nucleus and that a constant and uniform electric ω0 = 2.4 eV and intensity 1.3 × 1018 W/cm2 (ξ0 ≈ 0.4).
field with strength of the order of Fcr = m2 /|e| supplies In the rest-frame of the electrons, the laser intensity and
a e+ -e− pair with its rest energy 2m along the typical frequency are largely Doppler up-shifted to the required
length scale of QED λC = 1/m (see also Sec. III.B). level and the pair generation probability is effectively en-
This last observation also demonstrates the presence of hanced. In principle both reactions (i) and (ii) contribute
the parameter Υ0 for process (iii). The typical exponen- to pair production in this kind of collisions. Based on
tial scaling of the pair production rate for ξ0 ≫ 1, and separate simulations of both production channels, reac-
at κ0 ≪ 1, χ0,n ≪ 1 and Υ0 ≪ 1 for processes (i), (ii) tion (i) was found to dominate. The high-energy photon
and (iii), respectively, is reminiscent of a quantum tun- originates from multiphoton Compton backscattering of
neling process. Thus, one refers to this regime also as a laser photon off the electron beam.
tunneling pair production (note, however, that the no- Despite the significance of the SLAC experiment, a uni-
tion of “tunneling” in laser-induced processes should be fied description of pair creation in electron-laser collisions
regarded with special care beyond the dipole approxima- has been presented only recently, treating the competing
tion (Klaiber et al., 2012; Reiss, 2008)). mechanisms (i) and (ii) within the same formalism (Hu
In all processes discussed above, the laser field is al- et al., 2010). Good agreement with the experimental re-
ways participating directly in the pair creation step and sults has been obtained. Moreover, it was shown that the
fundamental properties of the quantum vacuum under SLAC study observed the onset of nonperturbative pair
extreme high-field conditions are probed. However, as creation dynamics, which adds even further significance
will be seen shortly, lying at the border of experimental to this benchmarking experiment (see also Reiss, 2009).
feasibility, the expected pair yields are generally rather A formal treatment of the process has also been given in
small. It is worth mentioning here that lasers can also Ilderton, 2011, where special emphasis is put on effects
be applied for abundant generation of e+ -e− pairs (Chen stemming from the finite duration of the laser pulse.
et al., 2009, 2010). When a solid target is irradiated by an Figure 17 shows a survey of various combinations of
intense laser pulse, a plasma is formed and electrons are incoming electron energies and optical laser intensities
accelerated to high energies. They may emit radiation which give rise to an observable pair yield. It covers the
by bremsstrahlung which efficiently converts into e+ -e− range from the perturbative few-photon regime (ξ0 ≈ 0.1
pairs through the Bethe-Heitler process. The laser field at I0 ≈ 1017 W/cm2 ) to the highly nonperturbative do-
plays an indirect role in the pair production here by serv- main (ξ0 ≈ 10 at I0 ≈ 1021 W/cm2 ), where the con-
ing solely as a particle accelerator. The prolific amount tributions from thousands of photon absorption chan-
of antimatter generated this way may lead to interesting nels need to be included. We note that few-GeV elec-
applications in various fields of science (Müller and Kei- tron beams can be produced today using compact laser-
tel, 2009). Abundant production of e+ -e− pairs and of plasma accelerators (Leemans et al., 2006) (see also Sec.
high-energy photons in the collision of a multipetawatt XII). Future pair creation studies may therefore rely on
laser beam and a solid target has been recently investi- all-optical setups, where a laser-generated electron beam
gated in Nakamura et al., 2011 and Ridgers et al., 2012. collides with a counterpropagating laser pulse. Another
In particular, in Nakamura et al., 2011 it has been shown all-optical setup for pair creation by a seed electron ex-
that almost all the laser pulse energy is converted after posed to two counterpropagating laser pulses was put
the collision into a well collimated high-power gamma- forward in Bell and Kirk, 2008, which will be discussed
ray flash. Whereas, the numerical simulations in Ridgers in Sec. IX.
et al., 2012 indicate that about 35 % of the energy of Pair creation studies could also be conducted as a non-
a 10 PW laser pulse after the laser-target interaction is standard application of the 17.5 GeV electron beam at
converted into a gamma-ray burst and that simultane- the upcoming European XFEL beamline at DESY (Euro-
ously a pure e+ -e− plasma is produced with a maximum pean XFEL, 2011), which will normally serve to generate
positron density of 1026 m−3 . coherent x-ray pulses. However, in combination with a
31
à
150 Rate ~ 105s-1 B. Pair production in nucleus-laser collisions

Electron Energy @GeVD


à
100 perturbative
50 few-photon
à While in electron-laser collisions the contribution of
SLAC
20 experiment
à reaction (ii) to pair production is in general small, it be-
10
nonperturbative comes accessible to experimental observation when the
multiphoton
projectile electrons are replaced by heavier particles such
5 à
transition to as protons or other nuclei. The two-step production pro-
tunneling à
2 cess via multiphoton Compton scattering will then be
tunneling
1 strongly suppressed by the large projectile mass. The re-
1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 cent commissioning of the LHC at CERN has stimulated
2
Laser Intensity @Wcm D substantial activities on pair production in combined
FIG. 17 (Color online) Transition from the perturbative to
laser and nuclear Coulomb fields, which may be viewed as
the fully nonperturbative regimes of e+ -e− pair creation in a generalization of the well-known Bethe-Heitler process
electron-laser collisions. The laser photon energy is 2.4 eV. to strong fields (multiphoton Bethe-Heitler pair produc-
Adapted from Hu et al., 2010. tion). The large Lorentz factors γn of the ultrarelativistic
nuclear beams lead to efficient enhancement of the laser
parameters in the projectile rest-frame.
Indeed, when a proton beam with Lorentz factor γp ≈
table-top 10-TW optical laser system, it would also be 3000, as presently available at LHC, collides head-on with
very suitable to probe the various regimes of pair pro- a superintense laser beam of intensity I0 ≈ 1022 W/cm2 ,
duction. In particular, the production channel (ii) could the Lorentz-boosted laser field strength approaches the
be investigated by a suitable choice of beam parameters critical value Fcr . This circumstance motivated the first
(Hu et al., 2010). calculations of nonperturbative pair production in colli-
sions of a relativistic nucleus with a superintense near-
Other aspects of pair creation by a high-energy photon optical laser beam (Müller et al., 2003a,b). Smaller pro-
and a strong laser field have been investigated in recent jectile Lorentz factors may be sufficient, when ultrastrong
years. In Heinzl et al., 2010a, process (i) was considered XFEL pulses are employed (Avetissian et al., 2003). The
in the case where the laser pulse has finite duration. It calculations were based on an S-matrix treatment and as-
was found that the finite pulse duration is imprinted on sumed laser fields of circular polarization. Later on, also
the spectra of created particles. Pair production by a the case of linear field polarization was studied (Kamiński
high-energy photon and an ultrashort laser pulse was also et al., 2006; Krajewska et al., 2006; Müller et al., 2004;
considered in Tuchin, 2010. Quantum interference effects Sieczka et al., 2006). This case is rendered more involved
can arise in photon-induced pair creation in a two-mode due to the appearance of generalized Bessel functions,
laser field of commensurate frequencies (Narozhny and which are of very high order when ξ0 ≫ 1. The underly-
Fofanov, 2000). ing S-matrix element is generally of the form
Z
In addition, the fundamental process (i) may allow for
Sp+ ,σ+ ,p− ,σ− = −ie d4 xΨ†p− ,σ− (x)Vn (r)Ψ−p+ ,−σ+ (x).
applications as a novel tool in ultrashort pulse spectrom-
etry. A corresponding detection scheme for the char- (44)
acterization of short gamma-ray pulses of GeV photons It describes the transition of an electron from the
down to the zeptosecond scale, called Streaking at High negative-energy Volkov state Ψ−p+ ,−σ+ (x) to a positive-
Energies with Electrons and Positrons (SHEEP), has energy Volkov state Ψ†p− ,σ− (x), which is mediated by the
been proposed in Ipp et al., 2011. The basic concept Coulomb potential Vn (r) = Z|e|/r of the projectile nu-
of SHEEP is based on e+ -e− pair production in vacuum cleus. An alternative approach to the problem based on
by a photon of the test pulse, assisted by an auxiliary the polarization operator in a plane electromagnetic wave
counter-propagating intense laser pulse. In contrast to has been developed in Milstein et al., 2006. It allows
conventional streak imaging, two particles with opposite to obtain total production rates analytically. Both ap-
charges, electron and positron, are created in the same proaches rely on the strong-field approximation and in-
relative phase within the third streaking pulse that co- clude the laser field exactly to all orders, whereas the
propagates with the test pulse. By measuring simulta- nuclear field is treated at leading order in Zα.
neously the energy and momentum of the electrons and Since the high-intensity Bethe-Heitler process has not
the positrons originating from different positions within been observed in experiment yet, in recent years physi-
the test pulse, its length and, in principle, even its shape cists have proposed scenarios which may allow to realize
can be reconstructed. The time resolution of SHEEP for the various interaction regimes of the process by present-
different classes of tests, streaking and strong pulses can day technology. Few-photon Bethe-Heitler pair produc-
range from femtosecond to zeptosecond duration. tion in the perturbative domain could be realized in colli-
32

sions of the LHC proton beam with an XUV pulse of an- known because of the intermediate nature of this param-
gular frequency ωX ≈ 100 eV and of moderate intensity eter regime. However, by performing a fitting procedure
IX ∼ 1014 W/cm2 (Müller, 2009). Corresponding radi- to numerically obtained results, a total pair production
ation sources of table-top dimension are available nowa- rate scaling as m(Zα)2 exp(−3.49/χ0,n) was obtained in
days in many laboratories. They are based on HHG from Müller et al., 2009b, which closely resembles
√ the tunnel-
atomic gas jets or solid surfaces (see Sec. IV.B). The rate ing exponential behaviour m(Zα)2 exp(−2 3/χ0,n ).
Re+ -e− of pair creation by two-photon absorption close to While in Eq. (44) the influence of the projectile is de-

the energetic threshold (i.e., ωX = un,− ωX & m, for the scribed by an external Coulomb field, the projectile can

angular frequency ωX of the XUV pulse in the rest-frame also be treated as a quantum particle which allows to
of the nucleus) is given by (Milstein et al., 2006) study nuclear recoil effects (Krajewska and Kamiński,
 ⋆ j+2 2010, 2011; Müller and Müller, 2009). Besides, in laser-
1 ωX nucleus collisions, bound-free pair creation can occur
Re+ -e− = 3−j (Zα)2 ξ04 ωX⋆
−1 , (45)
4 m where the electron is created in a deeply bound atomic
state of the nucleus. The process was studied first for
with j = 0 for linear polarization and j = 2 for circular
circular laser polarization (Matveev et al., 2005; Müller
polarization.
et al., 2003c) and later on also for linear polarization
In the quasistatic regime of the process sizable pair
(Deneke and Müller, 2008), including contributions from
yields require superintense laser fields from a petawatt
the various atomic subshells.
source in conjunction with an LHC proton beam (Müller
et al., 2003b; Sieczka et al., 2006). Such experiments
will become feasible when petawatt laser pulses are made C. Pair production in a standing laser wave
available by high-power devices of table-top size, rather
than by immobile large-scale facilities as they exist at Purely light-induced pair production can occur when
present. A method to enable tunneling pair production two noncopropagating laser waves are superimposed.
with more compact multiterawatt laser systems has been The simplest field configuration consists of two coun-
proposed in Di Piazza et al., 2009b, 2010b. It relies on terpropagating laser pulses of equal frequency and in-
the application of an additional weak XUV field, which tensity. The resulting field is a standing wave which is
is superimposed on a powerful optical laser wave. In this inhomogeneous both in space and time and a theoreti-
two-color setup, the energy threshold for pair creation cal treatment of the process is very challenging. In or-
can be overcome by the absorption of one photon from der to render the problem tractable and since the pro-
the high-frequency field and several additional photons duction process mainly occurs where the electric field
from the low-frequency field. As a result, by choosing the component of the background field is stronger than the

XUV frequency ωX such that the parameter δ = (2m − magnetic one (Dittrich and Gies, 2000), in the standard

ωX )/m fulfills the conditions 0 < δ ≪ 1, the tunneling approach the resulting standing light wave is approxi-
barrier can be substantially lowered and even controlled. mated by a purely electric field oscillating in time. This
The pair production rate in the quasistatic regime for approximation is expected to be justified for a strong
0 < δ ≪ 1 depends essentially only on the parameters δ (I0 > 1020 W/cm2 ), optical laser field where the typ-
and χ0,n , and on the classical nonlinearity parameter ξX ical spatial scale of the field variation λ0 ∼ 1 µm is
of the XUV field. For a circularly polarized strong laser much larger than the pair formation length m/|e|E0 =
field it becomes (Di Piazza et al., 2009b) p
λC Fcr /E0 ≈ 2.6 × 10−2 µm/ I0 [1020 W/cm2 ] (Ritus,
1985). Note the analogy between the formation length
 
1 p 2 1
Re+ -e− = √ m(Zα)2 ξX 2 2
χ0,n ζ0 exp − (46) m/|e|E0 for pair production and the tunneling length
64 π 3 ζ0
ltun ∼ Ip /|e|E0 in atomic ionization (see Sec. IV.B),
3/2 with Ip being the ionization potential energy.
for ζ0 = χ0,n /2δ
√ ≪ 1, to be compared with the usual
scaling ∼ (−2 3/χ0,n ) in the absence of the XUV field. Pair production in an oscillating electric field is a
A related process is laser-assisted Bethe-Heitler pair generalization of the Schwinger mechanism (Schwinger,
creation, where the high-frequency photon energy sat- 1951) to time-dependent fields and it has been considered

isfies ωX > 2m. A pronounced channeling of the e+ -e− by many theoreticians, starting from the seminal works
pair due to the forces exerted by the laser field after their Brezin and Itzykson, 1970 and Popov, 1971, 1972 (for a
creation was found (Lötstedt et al., 2008, 2009). Multi- comprehensive list of references until 2005, see Salamin
photon Bethe-Heitler pair creation in a two-color laser et al., 2006).
wave was investigated in Roshchupkin, 2001. While in the laser-electron and laser-nucleus collisions
Analytical formulas for positron energy spectra and of the previous subsections the Doppler boost of the laser
angular distributions in the tunneling regime of the pro- parameters due to a highly relativistic Lorentz factor
cess were obtained in Kuchiev and Robinson, 2007. For could be exploited, in laser-laser collisions this is not pos-
pair production at ξ0 ∼ 1 no analytical expressions are sible so that high field strengths E0 or high frequencies
33

TABLE I Number Ne+ -e− of e+ -e− pairs produced by differ-


ent numbers n of laser pulses, with a total energy W of 10 kJ.
The threshold value total energy Wth needed to produce one
e+ -e− pair is shown in the third column. The precise collision
geometry and the pulse parameters can be found in Bulanov
et al., 2010a. Adapted from Bulanov et al., 2010a.

n Ne+ -e− at W = 10 kJ Wth [kJ]


2 < 10−18 40
4 < 10−8 20
8 4.0 10
E0/Fcr 16 1.8 × 103 8
FIG. 18 (Color) Number of pairs produced by the x-ray as- 24 4.2 × 106 5.1
sisted Schwinger mechanism for two different values of the x-
ray angular frequency ωX , indicated as ω in the figure, (blue
and black solid lines) and the ratio of these catalyzed pairs to
those produced by the standard Schwinger mechanism (blue pair creation probability can be very large and partially
and black dashed lines), both as functions of the optical field compensate for the exponential suppression (Narozhny
strength in units of Fcr . Adapted from Dunne et al., 2009. et al., 2006).
Fine details of pair production in a time-dependent os-
cillating electric field are being studied nowadays because
ω0 are required in the laboratory frame. Theoreticians
they might serve as characteristic signatures to discrim-
are therefore aiming to find ways for enhancing the pair
inate the process of interest from potentially stronger
production probability in order to render the process ob-
background processes. For example, it was found that
servable in the foreseeable future.
the momentum spectrum of the created particles is highly
A first possibility to facilitate the observability of pair
sensitive to a subcycle structure of the field (Hebenstreit
creation in a standing optical laser wave is to superim-
et al., 2009) and that in the presence of an alternating-
pose an x-ray photon (or any other high-frequency com-
sign time-dependent electric field, coherent interference
ponent) onto the high-field region (Dunne et al., 2009;
effects are observed in the Schwinger mechanism (Akker-
Monin and Voloshin, 2010; Schützhold et al., 2008). In
mans and Dunne, 2012). The observation in Hebenstreit
this way, the Schwinger mechanism is catalyzed so that
et al., 2009 found an elegant mathematical explanation
the usual exponential suppression ∼ exp(−π/Υ0 ) is sig-
via the Stokes phenomenon (Dumlu and Dunne, 2010).
nificantly lowered. For example, in the limit when the
Further effects stemming from the precise shape of the
x-ray energy approaches the threshold value 2m, the pair
external field were analyzed in Dumlu, 2010 and Dumlu
production rate Re+ -e− becomes
and Dunne, 2011. Also, the oscillating dynamics of the

π−2
 e+ -e− plasma created by a uniform electric field, in-
Re+ -e− ∼ m exp − (47) cluding backreaction effects, was investigated (Apostol,
Υ0
2011; Benedetti et al., 2011; Han et al., 2010) (see also
assuming that the x-ray propagation direction is perpen- Bialynicki-Birula and Rudnicki, 2011 and Kim and Schu-
dicular to the electric field vector of the strong optical bert, 2011).
field. An overview of the pair production enhancement In addition to pair creation in superstrong laser pulses
effect due to the x-ray assistance is shown in Fig. 18. of low frequency, the process is also extensively discussed
Another proposal to enhance the pair yield is the ap- in connection with the upcoming XFEL facilities (see,
plication of multiple colliding laser pulses instead of only e.g., Alkofer et al., 2001 and Ringwald, 2001). Here the
two (Bulanov et al., 2010a). It has been demonstrated question arises as to what extent the spatial field depen-
that the threshold laser energy necessary to produce a dence may influence the pair creation process, both in
single pair, decreases when the number of colliding pulses terms of total probabilities and particle momentum dis-
is increased. The results are summarized in Table I. Pair tributions. According to Noether’s theorem, pair produc-
production exceeds the threshold when eight laser pulses, tion in a time-dependent oscillating electric field occurs
with a total energy of 10 kJ, are simultaneously focused with conservation of the total momentum, as well as of
on one spot. Doubling (tripling) the number of pulses the total spin. The problem therefore reduces effectively
leads to an enhancement by two (six) orders of magni- to a two-level system since the field couples negative and
tude. The threshold energy drops from 40 kJ for two positive-energy electron states of same momentum and
pulses to 5.1 kJ for 24 pulses, clearly indicating that the spin only. The production process exhibits resonance
multiple-pulse geometry is strongly favorable. Besides, it when the energy gap is an integer multiple of the laser fre-
was noticed that the pre-exponential volume factor in the quency, leading to a characteristic Rabi flopping between
34

For another numerical approach to space-time depen-

Maximal production probability


dent problems in quantum field theory, we refer to the
review Cheng et al., 2010. Moreover, Schwinger pair pro-
duction in a space-time dependent electric field pulse has
been treated very recently within the Wigner formalism
(Hebenstreit et al., 2011). Here, a self-bunching effect
of the created particles in phase space, due to the spa-
tiotemporal structure of the pulse, was found.
Finally, we mention that, unlike a plane-wave field, a
spatially focused laser beam is capable to produce e+ -e−
pairs from vacuum and this process has been investigated
ω0/m in Narozhny et al., 2004 for different field polarizations.
Spontaneous pair production may, in principle, also occur
FIG. 19 (Color online) Probability spectrum of e+ -e− pair in a nuclear field for charge numbers Z exceeding a crit-
production in two counterpropagating laser pulses, with the ical value Zc , which depends on the nuclear model. For
laser magnetic field included (black triangles) and neglected
example, Zc = 173 for a uniformly charged sphere with
(red crosses). In the first case, the labeling (ℓr -ℓl ) signifies the
number of absorbed photons from the right-left propagating radius 1.2 × 10−12 cm (Berestetskii et al., 1982). See
wave; in the second case, the peak labels denote the total pho- the reviews Baur et al., 2007 and Zeldovich and Popov,
ton number (ℓ). A vanishing initial momentum (i.e., positron 1972 for more detailed information also on e+ -e− pair
momentum) and ξ0 = 1 have been assumed. Adapted from production in heavy ion collisions.
Ruf et al., 2009.

D. Spin effects and other fundamental aspects of


the negative and positive-energy Dirac continua (Popov, laser-induced pair creation
1971). Due to the electron dressing by the oscillating
field, the resonant laser frequencies are determined by A particularly interesting aspect of tunneling pair cre-
the equation ℓω0 = 2hεi, where hεi is the time-averaged ation is the electron and positron spin-polarization. In
electron energy in the time-dependent oscillating electric general, pronounced spin signatures in a field-induced
field. Accordingly, when the particle momentum is var- process may be expected when the background field
ied, several resonances occur corresponding to different strength approaches the critical value Fcr (Kirsebom
photon numbers ℓ. This gives rise to a characteristic ring et al., 2001; Walser et al., 2002). This indeed coincides
structure in the momentum distribution (Mocken et al., with the condition for a sizable yield of tunneling pair
2010). production. Studies of spin effects in pair production by
Modifications of these well-established properties of a high-energy photon and a strong laser field were per-
the pair creation process, when the spatial field depen- formed in Tsai, 1993 and Ivanov et al., 2005, based on
dence and, thus, the laser magnetic-field component are considerations on helicity amplitudes and on the spin-
accounted for, have been revealed in Ruf et al., 2009. polarization vector, respectively. Characteristic differ-
Utilizing an advanced computer code for solving the cor- ences between fermionic and bosonic particles have been
responding Dirac equation numerically, it was shown that revealed with respect to pair creation in an oscillating
the positions of the resonances are shifted, several new electric field (Popov, 1972) and in recent studies of the
resonances occur, and the resonance lines are split due to Klein paradox (Cheng et al., 2009b; Krekora et al., 2004;
the influence of the spatial field dependence (see Fig. 19). Wagner et al., 2010a). In the latter case it was shown
The basic reason for these effects is that, in contrast to that the existence of a fermionic (bosonic) particle in the
a uniform oscillating electric field, the photons in the initial state leads to suppression (enhancement) of the
counterpropagating laser pulses carry momentum along pair production probability due to the different quan-
the beam axis. Therefore not only the total number ℓ tum statistics. The enhancement in the bosonic case may
of absorbed laser photons matters, but also how many be even exponential due to an avalanche process (Wag-
of them have originated from the laser pulse travelling ner et al., 2010b). Concerning tunneling pair creation in
to the right and left, respectively. For example, for the combined laser and nuclear Coulomb fields, it has been
multiphoton order ℓ = 5 two different resonance frequen- shown that the internal spin-polarization vector is pro-
cies exist now, corresponding to ℓr = 3, ℓl = 2 on the portional in magnitude to χ0,n and, to leading order,
one hand, and to ℓr = 4, ℓl = 1, on the other. Due directed along the transverse momentum component of
to the photon momentum, the former two-level scheme the electron (Di Piazza et al., 2010c). A helicity analy-
is also broken into a V -type three-level scheme. This sis of pair production in laser-proton collisions revealed
causes a splitting of the resonance lines, in analogy with that: 1) right-handed leptons are emitted in the labora-
the Autler-Townes effect known from atomic physics. tory frame under slightly smaller angles with respect to
35

the proton beam than left-handed ones; 2) the rate of V.A and VIII). Now, at the j th step in which an elec-
pair creation of spin-1/2 particles exceeds by almost one tron/positron emits a photon or a photon transforms into
order of magnitude the corresponding quantity for spin-0 (j) (j)
an e+ -e− pair, the initial quantity p0,− or k0,− is con-
particles (Müller and Müller, 2011). served and it is distributed over the two final particles (an
Other fundamental aspects of laser-induced pair cre- electron/positron and a photon in multiphoton Comp-
ation have been recently investigated as well. They com- ton scattering and an e+ -e− pair in multiphoton Breit-
prise various kinds of e+ -e− correlations (Fedorov et al., Wheeler pair production). Thus, both resulting particles
2006; Krajewska and Kamiński, 2008; Krekora et al., at each step will have a value of their own parameter
2005), multiple pair creation (Cheng et al., 2009a), ques- ′(j) ′(j) ′(j) ′(j)
χ0 = (p0,− /m)(E0 /Fcr ) or κ0 = (k0,− /m)(E0 /Fcr )
tions of locality (Cheng et al., 2008) and vacuum decay smaller than that of the incoming particle. Moreover,
times (Labun and Rafelski, 2009), and consistency re- due to the special symmetry of the plane-wave field, the
strictions on the maximum laser field strength to guar- (j) (j)
quantities p0,− or k0,− are also rigorously conserved be-
antee the validity of the external-field approximation tween two steps (see also Sec. III.A). Then, the avalanche
(Gavrilov and Gitman, 2008). (k) (k)
ends when the parameters χ0,i and κ0,i at a certain step
k are smaller than unity for i ∈ [1, . . . , Nk ], with Nk be-
ing the number of particles at that step.
IX. QED CASCADES
The question arises as to whether other field configura-
As it was discussed in the previous section, the E-144 tions exist, where an avalanche process can be efficiently
experiment at SLAC is the only one, so far, where laser- triggered (see the review Aharonian and Plyasheshnikov,
driven multiphoton e+ -e− pair production has been ob- 2003 for the development of QED cascades in matter,
served. Considering that about 100 positrons have been photon gas and magnetic field). A positive answer to
detected in 22000 shots, each comprising the collision of this question has first been given in Bell and Kirk, 2008:
about 107 electrons with the laser beam, the process re- even the presence of a single electron initially at rest
sults to be rather inefficient. One could attribute this in a standing wave generated by two identical counter-
to the relatively low intensity I0 of the laser system of propagating circularly polarized laser fields can prime an
1.3 × 1018 W/cm2 (ξ0 ≈ 0.4 as the laser photon en- avalanche process already at field intensities of the order
ergy was ω0 = 2.4 eV). However, the extremely high of 1024 W/cm2 . We note that in the presence of a single
energy ε0 of the electron beam (about 46.6 GeV) en- plane wave the same process would require an intensity
sured that that the nonlinear quantum parameter χ0 was of the order of Icr , because for an electron initially at rest
about unity (χ0 ≈ 0.3). A recent investigation (Sokolov χ0 = E0 /Fcr . From this point of view, the authors of Bell
et al., 2010a) has pointed out in general that in the and Kirk, 2008 explain qualitatively the advantage of em-
mentioned setup, i.e., an electron beam colliding with ploying two counterpropagating laser beams by means of
a strong laser pulse, RR effects prevent the development an analogy taken from accelerator physics: a collision be-
of a cascade or avalanche process with an efficient, pro- tween two particles in their center-of-momenta is much
lific production of e+ -e− pairs even at much larger laser more efficient than if one of the particles is initially at
intensities such that ξ0 ≫ 1. By an avalanche or cas- rest, because much more of the initial energy can be
cade process we mean here a process in which the in- transferred, for example, to create new particles. The
coming electrons emit high-energy photons in the laser authors approximated the standing wave by a rotating
field, which can interact with the field itself generating electric field (see Sec. VIII.C). In such a field and for
e+ -e− pairs, which, in turn, emit photons again and so an ultrarelativistic electron the controlling parameter is
on (of course a cascade process may also be initiated by χ̃0 = (p⊥ /m)(E0 /Fcr ), where p⊥ is the component of the
a photon beam rather than by an electron beam). The electron momentum perpendicular to the electric field.
above result has been obtained by numerically integrat- By estimating p⊥ ∼ mξ0 (see also Eq. (2)), one ob-
ing the kinetic equations, which describe the evolution of tains χ̃0 ≈ I0 [1024 W/cm2 ]/ω0 [eV] (here ω0 , E0 and I0
the electron, the positron and the photon distributions in are the standing-wave’s angular frequency, electric field
a plane-wave background field from a given initial elec- amplitude and intensity). The investigation in Bell and
tron distribution, and by accounting for the two basic Kirk, 2008 is based on the analysis of the trajectory of
processes that couple these distributions, i.e., multipho- the electron in the rotating electric field including RR
ton Compton scattering and multiphoton Breit-Wheeler effects via the LL equation. Since the momentum of the
pair production. The physical reason why an avalanche electron oscillates around a value of the order of mξ0 , the
process cannot develop in a single plane-wave field can electron emits high-energy photons efficiently that can in
be understood in the following way. In the ultrarelativis- turn trigger the cascade (see Fig. 20). The possibility of
tic case ξ0 ≫ 1, the above-mentioned basic processes in describing the evolution of the electron via its classical
a plane-wave field are essentially controlled by the pa- trajectory, can be justified as follows. When an elec-
rameters χ0 and κ0 , respectively (see also Secs. III.B, tron interacts with a background electromagnetic field
36

equation was evaluated by employing the total emitted


power calculated quantum mechanically. The stochastic
nature of the emission of a photon has been taken into
account in Duclous et al., 2011. Analogously, the energy
of the emitted photon is chosen randomly following the
synchrotron spectral distribution and the momentum of
the photon is always chosen to be parallel to that of the
emitting electron. By contrast, in the pair production
process by a photon, since the photon is not deflected
by the laser field, it is assumed that after it has propa-
gated one wavelength in the field, it decays into an e+ -e−
pair. The main result in Duclous et al., 2011 is that at
relatively low intensities of the order of 1023 W/cm2 the
pair production rate is increased if the quantum nature
of the photon emission is taken into account. The reason
is that, due to the stochastic nature of the emission pro-
cess, the electron can propagate for an unusually large
FIG. 20 (Color online) The number of e+ -e− pairs (N± ) and
distance before emitting. In this way it may gain an un-
the number of photons (Nγ ) created by an initial single elec- usually large amount of energy and consequently emit a
tron in a rotating electric field as a function of the field inten- high-energy photon, that can be more easily converted
sity. The other plotted quantities are described in Bell and into an e+ -e− pair. Moreover, the discontinuous nature
Kirk, 2008. From Bell and Kirk, 2008. of the (curvature of the) electron trajectory is shown to
slow down the tendency of the electrons to migrate to
regions where the electric field vanishes.
like that of a laser, quantum effects are essentially of two The intensity threshold of the avalanche process in a
kinds (Baier et al., 1998): the first one is associated with rotating electric field has also been investigated in Fedo-
the quantum nature of the electron motion and the sec- tov et al., 2010. Denoting by tacc the time an electron
ond one with the recoil undergone by the electron when it needs to reach an energy corresponding to χ0 = 1 start-
emits a photon. For an ultrarelativistic electron it can be ing from rest in the given field, by te (tγ ) the electron
shown that, while the first kind of quantum effects is neg- (photon) lifetime under photon emission (e+ -e− pair pro-
ligible, the second kind is large and has to be taken into duction) and by tesc the time after which the electron es-
account (Baier et al., 1998). Thus, the basic assumption capes from the laser field, the authors give the following
is that, since the background laser field is strong, the elec- conditions for the occurrence of the avalanche process:
tron is promptly accelerated to ultrarelativistic energies, tacc . te , tγ ≪ tesc . Estimates based on the classical
the motion between two photon emissions is essentially electron trajectory without including RR effects, lead to
classical and, if necessary, only the emissions have to be the simple condition E0 & αFcr for the avalanche to be
treated quantum mechanically by including the photon primed in an optical field. The above estimate corre-
recoil. On the other hand, photons are assumed to prop- sponds to an intensity of about 2.5 × 1025 W/cm2 , i.e.,
agate in the field along straight lines. one order of magnitude larger than what was found in
The model employed in Bell and Kirk, 2008 was im- Bell and Kirk, 2008. However, the main result of Fedo-
proved in Kirk et al., 2009 by considering colliding pulsed tov et al., 2010 concerns the limitation, brought about
fields with finite time duration and a realistic represen- on the maximal laser intensity that can be produced
tation for the synchrotron spectrum emitted by a rela- in the discussed field configuration by the starting of
tivistic electron. The results in Bell and Kirk, 2008 were the avalanche process. In fact, the energy to acceler-
essentially confirmed and numerical simulations with lin- ate the electrons and the positrons participating in the
early polarized beams have shown a general insensitiv- cascade has to come from the background electromag-
ity of the cascade development to the polarization of netic field. By assuming an exponential increase of the
the beams. Another interesting finding in Kirk et al., number of electrons and positrons, it is found that al-
2009 is that the electrons in the standing wave tend to ready at laser intensities of the order of 1026 W/cm2 the
migrate to regions where the electric field vanishes and created electrons and positrons have an energy which ex-
then they do not contribute to the pair-production pro- ceeds the initial total energy of the laser beams. This
cess anymore. In both papers Bell and Kirk, 2008 and hints at the fact that at such intensities the colliding
Kirk et al., 2009 the emission of radiation by the electron laser beams are completely depleted due to the avalanche
was treated classically, i.e., the electron was supposed process. The results obtained from qualitative estimates
to loose energy and momentum continuously although in Fedotov et al., 2010 have been scrutinized in Elkina
in Kirk et al., 2009 the damping force-term in the LL et al., 2011 by means of more realistic numerical meth-
37

ods based on kinetic or cascade equations. In general, a Monte Carlo method. Whereas, the instants of radia-
if f∓ (r, p, t) (fγ (r, k, t)) is the electron/positron (pho- tion and pair production have been randomly generated.
ton) distribution function (upper and lower sign for elec- In particular, the exponential increase of the number of
tron and positron,p respectively) in the phase-space (r, p) e+ -e− pairs and the qualitative estimate, for example, of
((r, k)) and ε = m2 + p2 (ω = |k|), their evolution the typical energy of the electron at the moment of the
in the presence of a given classical electromagnetic field photon emission carried out in Fedotov et al., 2010 have
(E(r, t), B(r, t)) is described by the kinetic equations been confirmed (apart from discrepancies within one or-
  der of magnitude).
∂ p ∂ ∂ In both papers Elkina et al., 2011 and Fedotov et al.,
+ · ± FL (r, p, t) · f∓ (r, p, t)
∂t ε ∂r ∂p 2010 only the case of a rotating electric field was con-
sidered. In Bulanov et al., 2010b it is pointed out that
Z
= dk wrad (r, p + k → k, t)f∓ (r, p + k, t) the limitation on the maximal laser intensity reachable
Z (48) before the cascade is triggered, strongly depends on the
− f∓ (r, p, t) dk wrad (r, p → k, t) polarization of the laser beams which create the stand-
Z ing wave. The paradigmatic cases of a rotating electric
+ dk wcre (r, k → p, t)fγ (r, k, t), field and of an oscillating electric field are compared.
  The estimates presented in Bulanov et al., 2010b for the
∂ k ∂ case of a rotating electric field essentially confirm that
+ · fγ (r, p, t)
∂t ω ∂r the avalanche starts at laser intensities of the order of
1025 W/cm2 . The main physical reason why the cascade
Z
= dp wrad (r, p → k, t)[f+ (r, p, t) + f− (r, p, t)] (49)
process in a circularly polarized standing wave starts at
Z such an intensity is that in a rotating electric field the
− fγ (r, k, t) dp wcre (r, k → p, t), electron emits photons with typical energies of the order
of 0.29 ω0 γ 3 , i.e., proportional to the cube of the Lorentz
where FL (r, p, t) = e[E(r, t)+(p/ε)×B(r, t)] and where factor of the emitting electron γ (Bulanov et al., 2010b).
wrad (r, p → k, t) (wcre (r, k → p, t)) is the local prob- Whereas, in an oscillating electric field the typical emit-
ability per unit time and unit momentum that an elec- ted energy scales as γ 2 , such that in order to radiate a
tron/positron (photon) with momentum p (k) emits (cre- hard photon with a given energy, a much more energetic
ates) at the space-time point (t, r) a photon with momen- electron is needed. Hence, the authors of Bulanov et al.,
tum k (an e+ -e− pair with the electron/positron having 2010b conclude that in an oscillating electric field RR and
a momentum p). It is worth pointing out here a con- quantum effects do not play a fundamental role at laser
nection between the development of a QED cascade and intensities smaller than Icr and that avalanche processes
the quantum description of RR. In fact, as has been dis- do not constitute a limitation. It is crucial however, for
cussed in Sec. VI, from a quantum point of view, RR cor- the conclusion in Bulanov et al., 2010b that the collision
responds to the multiple recoils experienced by the elec- of the laser beams occurs in vacuum, i.e., the seed elec-
tron in the incoherent emission of many photons. Thus, trons and positrons which would trigger the cascade are
in the kinetic approach RR is described by those terms in supposed to be created in the collision itself.
Eqs. (48) and (49), which do not involve e+ -e− pair pro- The question of the occurrence of the avalanche for two
duction. In fact, in Elkina et al., 2011 it has been shown colliding linearly polarized pulses has also been addressed
in the ultrarelativistic case that the equation of motion in Nerush et al., 2011b, where a detailed description of
for the average momentum of the electron distribution, the system under investigation has been provided. In
as derived from Eq. (48), coincides with the LL equation fact, previous models had assumed the background elec-
in the classical regime χ0 ≪ 1 (note that pair production tromagnetic field as given, neglecting in this way the field
is exponentially suppressed at χ0 ≪ 1). generated by the electrons and positrons. The approach
In Elkina et al., 2011 the background field is approx- followed in Nerush et al., 2011b exploits the existence of
imated as a uniform, rotating electric field E(t) and two energy scales for the photons: one is that of the ex-
f± (r, p, t) → f± (p, t) (fγ (r, k, t) → fγ (k, t)). Analo- ternal laser field and of the plasma fields which is much
gously to Duclous et al., 2011, it is assumed that the smaller than m, and the other is that of the photons
momentum of the photon emitted in multiphoton Comp- produced by the high-energy electrons which is, by con-
ton scattering is parallel to that of the emitting electron trast, much larger than m. The evolution of the low-
(positron); in the same way, the momenta of the elec- energy photons is described by means of Maxwell’s equa-
tron and positron created in multiphoton Breit-Wheeler tions which are solved with a PIC code, i.e., the photons
pair production are assumed to be parallel to that of the are treated as a classical electromagnetic field. Whereas,
creating photon. The evolution of the electron, positron the production of hard photons as well as the creation
and photon distributions has been investigated by nu- of e+ -e− pairs is described as a stochastic process em-
merically integrating the resulting cascade equations via ploying a Monte Carlo method. Unless low-energy ones,
38

X. MUON-ANTIMUON AND PION-ANTIPION PAIR


PRODUCTION
y/λ0
The production of e+ -e− pairs in strong laser fields
has been discussed in Sec. VIII. In view of the ongo-
ing technical progress the question arises as to whether
also heavier particles such as muon-antimuon (µ+ -µ− )
or pion-antipion (π + -π − ) pairs can be produced with the
y/λ0

emerging near-future laser sources. The production of


µ+ -µ− pairs from vacuum in the tunneling regime ap-
pears rather hopeless, though, since the required field
needs to be close to Fcr,µ = ̺2µ Fcr = 5.6 × 1020 V/cm,
with the ratio ̺µ = mµ /m ≈ 207 between the muon
mass mµ and the electron mass m. Even by boosting
y/λ0

the effective laser fields with the Lorentz factors (∼ 105 )


of the most energetic electron beams available (Bamber
et al., 1999), the value of Fcr,µ seems out of reach. The
tunneling production of π + -π − pairs is even more diffi-
x/λ0 cult as ̺π = mπ /m ≈ 273. However, µ+ -µ− and π + -π −
production can occur in microscopic collision processes
in laser-generated or laser-driven plasmas, as well as by
FIG. 21 (Color online) Snapshot of the normalized electron few-photon absorption from a high-frequency laser wave.
density ρe (part a)), of the normalized photon density ργ (part
b)), and of the normalized laser intensity ρl (part c)) 25.5 laser
periods after the two laser counterpropagating beams col-
lided. The normalized density of positrons is approximately A. Muon-antimuon and pion-antipion pair production in
the same as that of the electrons. Also, the intensity of each laser-driven collisions in plasmas
colliding beam is I0 = 3×1024 W/cm2 and the common wave-
length is λ0 = 0.8 µm. Adapted from Nerush et al., 2011b. Energetic particle collisions in a plasma can in prin-
ciple drive µ+ -µ− and π + -π − production. The plasma
may consist either of electrons and ions or of electrons
and positrons. Both kinds of plasmas can be produced by
intense laser beams interacting with a solid target. With
respect to e+ -e− plasmas, this has been predicted by
Liang et al., 1998. As has been mentioned in Sec. VIII,
abundant amounts of e+ -e− pairs have been recently pro-
hard photons are treated as particles and their evolution duced in this manner at LLNL with pair densities of
is described via a distribution function. It is surpris- the order of 1016 cm−3 (Chen et al., 2009, 2010) and
ing that by considering a single seed electron initially much higher densities of the order of 1022 cm−3 have been
at rest at a node of the magnetic field of a linearly po- also predicted (Shen and Meyer-ter-Vehn, 2001). Theo-
larized standing wave, an avalanche process is observed reticians have therefore started to investigate the prop-
in the numerical simulation already for a laser intensity erties and time evolution of relativistic e+ -e− plasmas
I0 = 3×1024 W/cm2 and a laser wavelength λ0 = 0.8 µm (Aksenov et al., 2007; Hu and Müller, 2011; Kuznetsova
(see Fig. 21). The figure clearly shows the formation of et al., 2008; Kuznetsova and Rafelski, 2012; Mustafa and
an overdense e+ -e− plasma in the central region |x| . λ0 . Kämpfer, 2009; Thoma, 2009a,b). In particular, it has
In the same numerical simulations it is found that after been shown (Kuznetsova et al., 2008; Thoma, 2009a,b)
about 20 laser periods almost half of the initial energy of that in an e+ -e− plasma of 10 MeV temperature, µ+ -µ−
the laser field has been transferred to the plasma. Dis- pairs, π + -π − pairs as well as neutral π 0 can be created
agreement with the predictions in Bulanov et al., 2010b in e+ -e− collisions. The required energy stems from the
is stated to be due to the formation of the avalanche in high-energy tails of the thermal distributions.
regions between the nodes of the electric and magnetic Also cold e+ -e− plasmas of high density can be gener-
field, where the simplified analysis of the electron motion ated nowadays due to dedicated positron accumulation
carried out in Bulanov et al., 2010b is not valid. Fur- and trapping techniques (Cassidy et al., 2005). When
ther analytical insight into the formation of the cascade such a nonrelativistic low-energy plasma interacts with a
has been reported in Nerush et al., 2011a by analyzing superintense laser field, µ+ -µ− pair production can oc-
approximate solutions of the cascade equations in the cur as well (Müller et al., 2006, 2008b). In this case,
presence of a rotating electric field. the plasma particles acquire the necessary energy by
39

strong coupling to the external field which drives the elec- In the case of µ+ -µ− pair creation, by considering an
trons and positrons into violent collisions. The minimum x-ray photon energy of ω0 = 12 keV and a nuclear rela-
laser peak intensity to ignite the reaction e+ e− → µ+ µ− tivistic Lorentz factor of γn = 7000, the photon energy in
amounts to about 7 × 1022 W/cm2 at a typical optical the rest-frame of the nucleus amounts to ω0⋆ ≈ 2γn ω0 =
laser photon energy of ω0 = 1 eV, corresponding to 168 MeV. The energy gap of 2mµ for µ+ -µ− pair pro-
ξ0,min = ̺µ ≈ 207. The rate Re+ e− →µ+ µ− of the pro- duction can thus be overcome by two-photon absorption
cess in the presence of a linearly polarized field reads (Müller et al., 2008a, 2009a). Note that because of pro-
s nounced recoil effects, the Lorentz factor which would be
1 α2 2
ξ0,min N+ N− required for two-photon µ+ -µ− production by a projec-
Re+ e− →µ+ µ− ≈ 3 2 2 4 1 − 2 , (50) tile electron is much larger: γ & 106 , corresponding to a
2 π m ξ0 ξ0 V
currently unavailable electron energy in the TeV range.
with the number N± of electrons/positrons and the in- At first sight, e+ -e− and µ+ -µ− pair production in
teraction volume V , which is determined by the laser fo- combined laser and Coulomb fields seem to be very sim-
cal spot size. Equation (50) may be made intuitively ilar processes since the electron and muon only differ by
meaningful by introducing the invariant cross section their mass (and lifetime). In this picture, the corre-
σe+ e− →µ+ µ− of µ+ -µ− production in an e+ -e− collision sponding production probabilities would coincide when
in vacuum (Peskin and Schroeder, 1995): the laser field strength and frequency are scaled in accor-
r ! dance with the mass ratio ̺µ , i.e., Pµ+ -µ− (E0,µ , ω0,µ ) =
4π α2 4m2µ 2m2µ Pe+ -e− (E0 , ω0 ) for E0,µ = ̺2µ E0 and ω0,µ = ̺µ ω0 . This
σe+ e− →µ+ µ− = 1 − ∗ 2 1 + ∗ 2 , (51) simple scaling argument does not apply, however, as the
3 ε∗ 2 ε ε
large muon mass is connected with a correspondingly
where the upper index ∗ indicates quantities in the small Compton wavelength λC,µ = λC /̺µ ≈ 1.86 fm
center-of-mass system of the colliding electron and (1 fm = 10−13 cm), which is smaller than the radius of
positron, as, e.g., the common electron and positron en- most nuclei. As a result, while the nucleus can be ap-
ergy ε∗ . Now, by exploiting the fact that the quan- proximately taken as pointlike in e+ -e− pair production
tity Re+ -e− /V is a Lorentz invariant and that in the (λC ≈ 386 fm), its finite extension must be taken into
present physical scenario ε∗ can be estimated as mξ0 , account in µ+ -µ− pair production. Pronounced nuclear
Eq. (50) implies the usual relation Re∗+ e− →µ+ µ− /V ∗ ∼ size effects have also been found for µ+ -µ− production in
σe+ e− →µ+ µ− n∗+ n∗− between the number of events per unit relativistic heavy-ion collisions (Baur et al., 2007).
volume and per unit time Re∗+ e− →µ+ µ− /V ∗ and the cross Muon pair creation in XFEL-nucleus collisions can be
section σe+ e− →µ+ µ− ; n∗± = N± /V ∗ denote here the par- calculated via the amplitude in Eq. (44), with the nu-
ticle densities. The process e+ e− → µ+ µ− in the pres- clear potential Vn (r) arising from an extended nucleus.
ence of an intense laser wave has also been considered in It leads to the appearance of a nuclear form factor F (q2 )
Nedoreshta et al., 2009. which depends on the recoil momentum q. For example,
In laser-produced electron-ion plasmas resulting from F (q2 ) = exp(−q2 a2 /6) for a Gaussian nuclear charge dis-
intense laser-solid interactions, µ+ -µ− and π + -π − pairs tribution of root-mean-square radius a. Since the typi-
can be generated by the cascade mechanism via energetic cal recoil momentum is q ∼ mµ , the form factor leads to
bremsstrahlung, like in the case of e+ -e− pair produc- substantial suppression of the process. The fully differen-
(el) (inel)
tion mentioned in Sec. VIII. Assuming a laser-generated tial production rate dRµ+ -µ− = dRµ+ -µ− + dRµ+ -µ− may
few-GeV electron beam, several hundreds to thousands be split into an elastic and an inelastic part, depending
of µ+ -µ− pairs arise from bremsstrahlung conversion in on whether the nucleus remains in its ground state or
(el)
a high-Z target material (Titov et al., 2009). The pro- gets excited during the process. They read dRµ+ -µ− =
duction of π + -π − pairs by laser-accelerated protons was (0) (inel) (0)
dRµ+ -µ− Z 2 F 2 (q2 ) and dRµ+ -µ− ≈ dRµ+ -µ− Z[1−F 2 (q2 )],
considered in Bychenkov et al., 2001, where a threshold (0)
laser intensity of 1021 W/cm2 for the process to occur respectively, with dRµ+ -µ− being the production rate for
was determined. a pointlike proton.
Figure 22 shows total µ+ -µ− production rates Rµ⋆ + -µ−
in the rest-frame of the nucleus for several nuclei col-
B. Muon-antimuon and pion-antipion pair production in liding with an intense XFEL beam. For an extended
high-energy XFEL-nucleus collisions nucleus, the elastic rate increases with its charge but de-
creases with its size. This interplay leads to the emer-
In this subsection another mechanism of µ+ -µ− and gence of maximum elastic rates for medium-heavy ions.
π -π − pair creation by laser fields will be pursued, which
+
Figure 22 also implies that the total rate Rµ+ -µ− =
is based on the collision of an x-ray laser beam with an (el) (inel)
Rµ+ -µ− + Rµ+ -µ− in the laboratory frame saturates at
ultrarelativistic nuclear beam. This setup is similar to
(inel)
the one of Sec. VIII.B. high Z values since Rµ+ -µ− increases with nuclear charge.
40

be triggered. This two-step mechanism thus represents a


combination of the processes considered in Sec. VIII.B
and X.A. Besides, it may be considered as a generaliza-
tion of the well-established analogy between strong-field
Rµ⋆ + -µ− [1/s]

ionization and pair production (see Sec. VIII) to include


also the recollision step.

XI. NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Influencing atomic nuclei with optical laser radiation


is, in general, a difficult task because of the large nuclear
Z
level spacing ∆E of the order of 1 keV-1 MeV, which
+ −
FIG. 22 Total rates for µ -µ pair creation by two-photon exceeds typical laser photon energies ω0 ∼ 1 eV by orders
absorption from an intense XFEL beam (ω0 = 12 keV, I0 = of magnitude (Matinyan, 1998). Also the laser’s electric
2.5 × 1022 W/cm2 ) colliding with various ultrarelativistic nu- work performed over the tiny nuclear extension rn ∼ 1-5
clei (γn = 7000). The triangles show elastic rates, whereas fm is usually too small to cause any sizable effect. In fact,
the squares indicate total (“elastic + inelastic”) rates. The the requirement |e|E0 rn ∼ ∆E can only be satisfied for at
numerical data are connected by fit curves. The dotted line
holds for a pointlike nucleus. The production rates are calcu-
laser-field amplitudes at least close to Fcr . Direct laser-
lated in the rest-frame of the nucleus. Adapted from Müller nucleus interactions have therefore mostly been dismissed
et al., 2008a. in the past.
On the other hand, laser-induced secondary reactions
in nuclei have been explored especially in the late 1990s.
Via laser-heated clusters and laser-produced plasmas,
For highly-charged nuclei the main contribution stems various nuclear reactions have been ignited, such as fis-
from the inelastic channel where the protons inside the sion, fusion and neutron production. In all these cases,
(inel)
nucleus act incoherently (Rµ+ -µ− ∝ Z). This implies the interaction of the laser field with the target first
that despite the high charges, high-order Coulomb cor- produces secondary particles such as photo-electrons or
rections in Zα are of minor importance. In the collision, bremsstrahlung photons which, in a subsequent step,
also e+ -e− pairs are produced by single-photon absorp- trigger the nuclear reaction. For a recent review on this
tion in the nuclear field. However, this rather strong subject we refer to Ledingham and Galster, 2010 and
background process does not deplete the x-ray beam. Ledingham et al., 2003.
In XFEL-proton collisions, π + -π − pairs can be gener- In recent years, however, the interest in direct laser-
ated as well. A corresponding calculation has been re- nucleus coupling has been revived by the ongoing techno-
ported in Dadi and Müller, 2011, which includes both logical progress towards laser sources of increasingly high
the electromagnetic and hadronic pion-proton interac- intensities as well as frequencies. Indeed, when suitable
tions. The latter was described approximately by a phe- nuclear isotopes are considered, intense high-frequency
nomenological Yukawa potential. It was shown that, fields or superstrong near-optical fields may be capable
despite the larger pion mass, π + -π − pair production of affecting the nuclear structure and dynamics.
by two-photon absorption from the XFEL field largely
dominates over the corresponding process of µ+ -µ− pair A. Direct laser-nucleus interaction
production in the Doppler-boosted frequency range of
ω0⋆ ≈ 150-210 MeV. This dominance is due to the much 1. Resonant laser-nucleus coupling
larger strength of the strong (hadronic) force compared
with the electromagnetic force. As a consequence, in this There are several low-lying nuclear transitions in the
energy range µ+ -µ− pairs are predominantly produced keV range, and even a few in the eV range. Examples of
indirectly via two-photon π + -π − production and subse- the latter are 229 Th (∆E ≈ 7.6 eV) and 235 U (∆E ≈ 76
quent pion decay, π + → µ+ + νµ and π − → µ− + ν̄µ . eV) (Beck et al., 2007). These isotopes can be excited
In relativistic laser-nucleus collisions, µ+ -µ− or π + -π − by the 5th harmonic of a Ti:Sa laser (ω0 = 1.55 eV)
pairs can also be produced indirectly within a two-step and by pulses envisaged at the ELI attosecond source
process (Kuchiev, 2007). First, upon the collision, an (ELI, 2011), respectively. Even higher frequencies can
e+ -e− pair is created via tunneling pair production. Af- be attained by laser pulse reflection from relativistic fly-
terwards, the pair, being still subject to the electromag- ing mirrors of electrons extracted from an underdense
netic forces exerted by the laser field, is driven by the plasma (Bulanov et al., 1994) or possibly also from an
field into an energetic e+ -e− collision. If the collision en- overdense plasma (Habs et al., 2008). Otherwise keV-
ergy is large enough, the reaction e+ e− → µ+ µ− may energy photons are generated by XFELs, which, as we
41

have seen in Sec. II.B, are presently emerging as large-


TABLE II The transition energy ∆E , the dipole moment µ,
scale facilities, e.g., at SLAC (LCLS, 2011) and DESY the life-time τg (τe ) of the ground (excited) state of few rel-
(European XFEL, 2011), and which could be employed evant nuclear systems and E1 transitions (Aas et al., 1999;
with focusing (Mimura et al., 2010) and reflection devices NNDC, 2011). Adapted from Bürvenich et al., 2006a.
(Shvyd’ko et al., 2011). In addition, also XFEL facili-
ties of table-top size (Grüner et al., 2007; Kneip et al., Nucleus Transition ∆E [keV] µ[e fm] τg τe [ps]
153 − + a
2010) and even fully coherent XFEL sources are envis- Sm 3/2 → 3/2 35.8 > 0.75 47 h < 100
aged such as the future XFEL Oscillator (XFELO) (Kim 181
Ta 9/2− → 7/2+ 6.2 0.04a stable 6 × 106
et al., 2008) or the Seeded XFEL (SXFEL) (Feldhaus 225
Ac 3/2+ → 3/2− 40.1 0.24a 10.0 d 720
et al., 1997; LCLS II, 2011). Brilliant gamma-ray beams 223
Ra −
3/2 → 3/2 +
50.1 0.12 11.435 d 730
with spectra peaked between 20 KeV and 150 KeV have 227
Th 3/2− → 1/2+ 37.9 b
18.68 d b

been recently produced from resonant betatron motion of 231


Th 5/2− → 5/2+ 186 0.017 25.52 h 1030
electrons in a plasma wake (Cipiccia et al., 2011). A new
a Estimated via the Einstein A coefficient from τe and ∆E
material research center, the Matter-Radiation Interac- b Not listed in the National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC)
tions in Extremes (MaRIE) (MaRIE, 2011) is planned, (NNDC, 2011)
allowing for both fully coherent XFEL light with photon
energy up to 100 keV and accelerated ion beams. The
photonuclear pillar of ELI to be set up near Bucharest
(Romania) is planned to provide a compact XFEL along
with an ion accelerator aiming for energies of 4-5 GeV
(ELI, 2011). In addition, coherent gamma-rays reach-
ing few MeV energies via electron laser interaction are


envisaged at this facility (ELI, 2011; Habs et al., 2009).
With these sources of coherent high-frequency pulses,
driving electric dipole (E1) transitions in nuclei is becom-
ing feasible (Bürvenich et al., 2006a). Table II displays
a list of nuclei with suitable E1 transitions. Along with
an appropriate moderate nucleus acceleration, resonance
may be induced due to the Doppler shift via the factor Z
(1 + vn )γn in the counterpropagating setup, with vn and
γn being the nucleus velocity and its Lorentz factor, re- FIG. 23 (Color online) Number Nγ of signal photons per nu-
cleus per laser pulse for several isotopes with first excited
spectively (Bürvenich et al., 2006a). For example, with
223 states below 12.4 keV (green squares) and above 12.4 keV
Ra and an XFEL frequency of 12.4 keV a factor of (red crosses). The results are plotted versus the atomic
(1 + vn )γn = 4 would be sufficient. In general such mod- number Z. The considered European XFEL has a pulse
erate pre-accelerations of the nuclei would be of great duration of 100 fs and an average brilliance of 1.6×1025
assistance since they increase the number of possible nu- photons/(s mrad2 mm2 0.1% bandwidth) (European XFEL,
clear transitions for the limited number of available light 2011). Adapted from Pálffy et al., 2008.
frequencies. Note that the electric field strength of the
laser pulse transforms analogously in the rest-frame of
the nucleus, such that the applied laser field in the labo- interactions of laser radiation with nuclei is expected to
ratory frame may correspondingly be weaker for a coun- pave the way for nuclear quantum optics. Especially con-
terpropagating setup. trol in exciting and deexciting certain long-living nuclear
For optimal coherence properties of the envisaged high- states would have dramatic implications for nuclear iso-
frequency facilities, subsequent pulse applications were mer research (Aprahamian and Sun, 2005; Pálffy et al.,
shown to yield notable excitation of nuclei (Bürvenich 2007; Walker and Dracoulis, 1999). As an obvious ap-
et al., 2006a). In addition, many low-energy electric plication this would be of relevance for nuclear batter-
quadrupole (E2) and magnetic dipole (M1) transitions ies (Aprahamian and Sun, 2005; Walker and Dracoulis,
are available. Here it is interesting to note that certain E2 1999), i.e., for controlled pumping and release of energy
or M1 transitions can indeed be competitive in strength stored in long-lived nuclear states. In atomic physics, the
with E1 transitions (Pálffy, 2008; Pálffy et al., 2008). STimulated Raman Adiabatic Passage (STIRAP) tech-
While the majority of transitions is available for high nique has proven to be highly efficient in controlling pop-
frequencies in the MeV domain (requiring substantial nu- ulations robustly with high precision (Bergmann et al.,
cleus accelerations), Fig. 23 displays also numerous suit- 1998). On the basis of currently envisaged accelerators
able nuclear transitions below 12.4 keV along with the and coherent high-frequency laser facilities, it has been
excitation efficiencies from realistic laser pulses. While recently shown that such an efficient coherent population
indeed experimental challenges are high, resonant direct transfer will also be feasible in nuclei (Liao et al., 2011).
42

Most recently, a nuclear control scheme with optimized muonic wave-function has a large overlap with the nu-
pulse shapes and sequences has been developed in Wong cleus. Precise measurements of x-ray transitions be-
et al., 2011. tween stationary muonic states are therefore sensitive to
Serious challenges are certainly imposed by the nuclear nuclear-structure features such as finite size, deforma-
linewidths that may either be too narrow to allow for suf- tion, surface thickness, or polarization.
ficient interaction with the applied laser pulses or inhibit When a muonic atom is subjected to a strong laser
excitations and coherences due to large spontaneous de- field, the muon becomes a dynamic nuclear probe which
cay. Decades of research in atomic physics allowing now is periodically driven across the nucleus by the field. This
for shaping atomic spectra via quantum interference (Ev- can be inferred, for example, from the high-harmonic ra-
ers and Keitel, 2002; Kiffner et al., 2010; Postavaru et al., diation emitted by such systems (Shahbaz et al., 2010,
2011) raise hopes that such obstacles may be overcome 2007). Figure 24 compares the HHG spectra from muonic
in the near future as well. hydrogen versus muonic deuterium subject to a very
Direct photoexcitation of giant dipole resonances strong XUV laser field. Such fields are envisaged at the
with few-MeV photons via laser-electron interaction was ELI attosecond source (see Fig. 1). Due to the differ-
shown to be feasible (Weidenmüller, 2011) based on en- ent masses Mn of the respective nuclei (Mn = mp for a
visaged experimental facilities such as ELI. Finally, care hydrogen nucleus and Mn ≈ mp +mn for a deuterium nu-
has to be taken to compare the laser-induced nuclear cleus by neglecting the binding energy, with mp/n being
channels with competing nuclear processes via, for ex- the proton/neutron mass), muonic hydrogen gives rise to
ample, bound electron transitions or electron captures in a significantly larger harmonic cut-off energy. The reason
the atomic shells (Pálffy, 2010; Pálffy et al., 2007). can be understood by inspection of the ponderomotive
energy

e2 E02 e2 E02
 
1 1
2. Nonresonant laser-nucleus interactions Up = = + , (52)
4ω02 Mr 4ω02 mµ Mn
Already decades ago a lively debate was started on
which depends in the present case on the reduced mass
whether nuclear β-decay may be significantly affected
Mr = mµ Mn /(mµ + Mn ) of the muon-nucleus system.
by the presence of a strong laser pulse or not (Akhme-
The reduced mass of muonic hydrogen (≈ 93 MeV) is
dov, 1983; Becker et al., 1984; Nikishov and Ritus, 1964b;
smaller than that of muonic deuterium (≈ 98 MeV) and
Reiss, 1983) and a conclusive experimental answer to this
this implies a larger ponderomotive energy and an en-
issue is still to come. Most recently the notion of affect-
larged plateau extension. The influence of the nuclear
ing nuclear α-decay with strong laser pulses has been
mass can also be explained by the separated motions of
discussed showing that moderate changes of such nuclear
the atomic binding partners. The muon and the nucleus
reactions with the strongest envisaged laser pulses are
are driven by the laser field into opposite directions along
indeed feasible (Castañeda Cortés et al., 2012, 2011).
the laser’s polarization axis. Upon recombination their
When the laser intensity is high enough (I0 > 1026 kinetic energies sum up as indicated on the right-hand
W/cm2 ) low-frequency laser fields are able to influence side of Eq. (52). Within this picture, the larger cut-off
the nuclear structure without necessarily inducing nu- energy for muonic hydrogen results from the fact that,
clear reactions. In such ultrastrong fields, low-lying nu- due to its smaller mass, the proton is more strongly ac-
clear levels get modified by the dynamic (AC-) Stark shift celerated by the laser field than the deuteron.
(Bürvenich et al., 2006b). These AC-Stark shifts are of Due to the large muon mass, very high harmonic cut-
the same order as in typical atomic quantum optical sys- off energies can be achieved via muonic atoms with charge
tems relative to the respective transition frequencies. At number Z in the nonrelativistic regime of interaction.
even higher, supercritical intensities (I0 > 1029 W/cm2 ) Since the harmonic-conversion efficiency as well as the
the laser field induces modifications to the proton root- density of muonic atom samples are rather low, it is im-
mean-square radius and to the proton density distribu- portant to maximize the radiative signal strength. A siz-
tion (Bürvenich et al., 2006b). able HHG signal requires efficient ionization on the one
hand, and efficient recombination on the other. The for-
mer is guaranteed if the laser’s electric field amplitude
B. Nuclear signatures in laser-driven atomic and molecular E0 lies just below the border of over-barrier ionization,
dynamics
Mr2 (Zα)3
Muonic atoms represent traditional tools for nuclear E0 . . (53)
Qeff 16
spectroscopy by employing atomic physics techniques.
Due to the large muon mass compared to that of the Here, Qeff = |e|(Z/Mn + 1/mµ )Mr represents an effec-
electron, mµ ≈ 207 m, and because of its correspond- tive charge (Reiss, 1979; Shahbaz et al., 2010). Efficient
ingly small Bohr radius aB,µ = λC,µ /α ≈ 255 fm, the recollision is guaranteed if the magnetic drift along the
43
-9
10 are quite small, however, because of the large difference
between the laser photon energy and the nuclear tran-
sition energy. Nuclear excitation can also be triggered
Harmonic Signal [arb. u.]

-12
10 by intense laser-induced recollisions of field-ionized high-
energy electrons (Kornev and Zon, 2007; Milosevic et al.,
2004; Mocken and Keitel, 2004).
-15 Finally, muonic molecules are of particular interest for
10
nuclear fusion studies. Modifications of muon-catalyzed
fusion in strongly laser-driven muonic D+ 2 molecules have
been investigated (Chelkowski et al., 2004; Paramonov,
-18
10 2007). It was found that applied field intensities of the
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 order of 1023 W/cm2 can control the molecular recol-
Harmonic Order lision dynamics by triggering the nuclear reaction on
a femtosecond time scale. Similar theoretical studies
FIG. 24 (Color) HHG spectra emitted from muonic hydrogen have recently been carried out on aligned (electronic)
(black) and muonic deuterium (red) in a laser field of intensity
HT molecules, i.e., involving a Tritium atom (Zhi and
I0 ≈ 1023 W/cm2 and photon energy ω0 ≈ 60 eV. “Arb. u.”
stands for “arbitrary units”. From Shahbaz et al., 2007. Sokolov, 2009).

laser propagation direction can be neglected. Equation XII. LASER COLLIDERS


(15) indicates that this is the case here, provided
The fast advancement in laser technology is opening up
3
the possibility of employing intense laser beams to effi-

Qeff E0 16ω0
.p . (54) ciently accelerate charged particles and to make them col-
M r ω0 2Mr Ip
lide for eventually even initiating high-energy reactions.
The two above inequalities define a maximum laser in-
tensity and a minimum laser angular frequency which are
still in accordance with the conditions imposed. At these A. Laser acceleration
laser parameters, the maximum harmonic cut-off ener-
gies are attained and an efficient ionization-recollision Strong laser fields provide new mechanisms for par-
process is guaranteed. For muonic hydrogen the corre- ticle acceleration alternative to conventional accelerator
sponding lowest frequency lies in the Vacuum Ultraviolet technology (Tajima and Dawson, 1979). With presently-
(VUV) range (ω0 ≈ 27 eV) and the maximum field in- available laser systems an enormous electron acceleration
tensity amounts to 1.6 × 1023 W/cm2 . At these values, gradient ∼ 1 GeV/cm can be achieved, which exceeds by
the harmonic spectrum extends to a maximum energy of three orders of magnitude that of conventional accelera-
approximately 0.55 MeV. For light muonic atoms with tors and which raises prospects for compact accelerators
nuclear charge number Z > 1, the achievable cut-off (Clayton et al., 2010; Faure et al., 2004; Geddes et al.,
energies are even higher, reaching several MeVs. This 2004; Hafz et al., 2008; Mangles et al., 2004). Differ-
holds prospects for the production of coherent ultrashort ent schemes of laser-electron acceleration have been pro-
gamma-ray pulses (see also Xiang et al., 2010). posed. These include the laser wakefield accelerator, the
In principle, also nuclear size effects arise in the HHG plasma beat wave accelerator, the self-modulated laser
signal from muonic atoms. This has been shown qualita- wakefield accelerator and plasma waves driven by mul-
tively in 1D numerical simulations, where a 50% enhance- tiple laser pulses (see the recent reviews Esarey et al.,
ment of the harmonic plateau height has been obtained 2009 and Malka, 2011). High-gradient plasma wakefields
for muonic hydrogen compared with muonic deuterium can also be generated with an ultrashort bunch of pro-
(Shahbaz et al., 2010, 2007). This has been attributed to tons (Caldwell et al., 2009), allowing electron acceler-
the enhanced final muon acceleration towards the hydro- ation to TeV energies in a single stage. The achiev-
genic core. For more precise predictions, 3D calculations able current and emittance of presently-available laser-
are desirable. accelerated electron beams is sufficient to build syn-
Existing results also indicate that muonic atoms in chrotron radiation sources or even to aim at compact
high-intensity, high-frequency laser fields can be utilized XFEL lasers (Schlenvoigt et al., 2008).
to dynamically gain structure information on nuclear Laser acceleration of ions provides quasimonoenergetic
ground states via their high-harmonic response. Besides, beams with energy of several MeVs per nucleon (Fuchs
the laser-driven muonic charge cloud, causing a time- et al., 2007; Haberberger et al., 2012; Hegelich et al.,
dependent Coulomb field, may lead to nuclear excita- 2006; Schwoerer et al., 2006; Toncian et al., 2006). It
tion (Shahbaz et al., 2009). The excitation probabilities mostly employs the interaction of high-intensity lasers
44

with solid targets. One of the main goals of laser-ion starts (Leemans et al., 2006). In fact, the strong interac-
acceleration is to create low-cost devices for medical ap- tion comes into play at distances d of the order of d ∼ 1
plications, such as for hadron cancer therapy (Combs fm, which for relativistic processes corresponds to ener-
et al., 2009). Several regimes have been identified for gies ε ∼ 1/d ∼ 1 GeV. Thus, a laser-based collider is in
laser-ion acceleration (see also the forthcoming review principle suitable for performing particle-physics exper-
Macchi et al., 2012). For laser intensities in the range iments. However, in order to initiate high-energy reac-
1018 -1021 W/cm2 and for solid targets with a thickness tions with sizable yield, not only GeV energies are re-
ranging from a few to tens of micrometers, the so-called quired but also collision luminosities L at least as high
target-normal-sheath acceleration is the main mecha- as 1026 -1027 cm−2 s−1 . Meanwhile, for the ultimate goal
nism (Fuchs et al., 2006). A further laser-ion interac- of being competitive with the next International Linear
tion process is the skin-layer ponderomotive acceleration Collider (ILC, 2011), energies on the order of 1 TeV and
(Badziak, 2007). By contrast, the radiation-pressure ac- luminosities of the order of 1034 cm−2 s−1 are required
celeration regime operates when the target thickness is (Ellis and Wilson, 2001).
decreased (see Esirkepov et al., 2004 and Macchi et al., The potential of the Laser-Plasma Accelerator (LPA)
2009 for the so-called “laser piston” and “light sail” scheme to develop a laser-plasma linear collider is dis-
regimes, respectively). In Galow et al., 2011 a chirped cussed in Schroeder et al., 2010. Two LPA regimes are
ultrastrong laser pulse is applied to proton acceleration analyzed which are distinguished by the relationship be-
in a plasma. Chirping of the laser pulse ensures optimal tween the laserpbeam waist size w0 and the plasma fre-
phase synchronization of the protons with the laser field quency ωp = 4πnp e2 /m, with np being the plasma
and leads to efficient proton energy gain from the field. density: 1) the quasilinearp regime at large radius of the
In this way, a dense proton beam (with about 107 protons laser beam ωp2 w02 > 2ξ02 / 1 + ξ02 /2 (ξ0 ∼ 1); 2) the bub-

per bunch) of high energy (250 MeV) and good quality ble regime, at ωp w0 . 2 ξ0 (ξ0 > 1). The latter is
(energy spread ∼ 1%) can be generated. less suitable for the collider application because the bub-
An alternative promising way for particle acceleration ble cavity leads to defocusing for positrons; besides, the
is direct laser acceleration in a tightly focused laser beam focusing forces and accelerating forces are not indepen-
(Salamin and Keitel, 2002) or in crossed laser beams dently controllable here as both depend on the plasma
(Salamin et al., 2003). Especially efficient accelerations density. Whereas, in the quasilinear regime this is pos-
(Bochkarev et al., 2011; Gupta et al., 2007; Salamin, sible due to the existence of a second control parameter
2006) can be achieved in a radially polarized axicon laser given by the laser beam waist size. In the following,
beam (Dorn et al., 2003). For example, the generation we will discuss qualitatively the scaling properties of the
of mono-energetic GeV electrons from ionization in a ra- quasilinear regime. For more accurate expressions the
dially polarized laser beam is theoretically demonstrated reader is referred to Schroeder et al., 2010.
in Salamin, 2007, 2010. A setup for direct laser acceler- In the standard LPA scheme, the electron plasma wave
ation of protons and bare carbon nuclei is considered in is driven by an intense laser pulse with duration τ0 of
Salamin et al., 2008. It has been shown that laser pulses the order of the plasma wavelength λp = 2π/ωp , which
of 0.1-10 PW can accelerate the nuclei directly to energies accelerates the electrons injected in the plasma wave by
in the range required for hadron therapy. Simulations wave breaking (Esarey et al., 2009; Leemans and Esarey,
in Galow et al., 2010 and further optimization studies in 2009; Malka et al., 2008). The accelerating field Ep of
Harman et al., 2011 indicate that protons stemming from the plasma wave can be estimated from
laser-plasma processes can be efficiently post-accelerated mωp
employing single and crossed pulsed laser beams, focused Ep ∼ ∝ n1/2
p . (55)
|e|
to spot radii of the order of the laser wavelength. The
protons in the resulting beam have kinetic energies ex- In fact, in the plasma wave, the charge separation occurs
ceeding 200 MeV and small energy spreads of about 1%. on a length scale of the order of λp , producing a sur-
The direct-acceleration method has proved to be efficient face charge density σp ∼ |e|np λp and a field Ep ∼ 4πσp ,
also for other applications. In Salamin, 2011 it is shown which corresponds to Eq. (55). The number of elec-
that 10 keV helium and carbon ions, injected into 1 TW- trons Ne that can be accelerated in a plasma wave is
power crossed laser beams of radial polarization, can be given approximately by the number of charged particles
accelerated in vacuum to energies of hundreds of keV required to compensate for the laser-excited wakefield,
necessary for ion lithography. having a longitudinal component Ek . From the relation
Ek ∼ 4πNe |e|/πw02 , it follows that
πnp
B. Laser-plasma linear collider Ne ∼ ∝ np−1/2 , (56)
ωp3
Laser-electron accelerators have already entered the because w0 ωp ∼ 1 in the quasilinear regime. The inter-
GeV energy domain where the realm of particle physics action length of a single LPA stage is limited by laser-
45

diffraction effects, dephasing of the electrons with re- conditions each acceleration stage would be powered by
spect to the accelerating field, and laser-energy deple- a laser pulse with an energy of 30 J corresponding to
tion. Laser-diffraction effects can be reduced by employ- an average power of about 0.5 MW at the required rep-
ing a plasma channel, and plasma-density tapering can etition rate of 15 kHz. Such high-average powers are
be utilized to prevent dephasing. Therefore, the LPA beyond the performance of present-day lasers. The fu-
interaction length will be determined by the energy de- ture hopes for high-average-power lasers are connected
pletion length Ld . We can estimate the latter by equat- with diode-pumped lasers and new amplifier materials.
ing the energy spent for accelerating the Ne electrons Further challenges of LPA colliders are their complexity,
along Ld (∼ Ne |e|Ep Ld ) to the energy of the laser pulse as they involve plasma channels and density tapering,
(∼ E02 πw02 τ0 /8π). Recalling that w0 ωp ∼ 1, this yields and, most importantly, the problem of how to accelerate
positrons.
ω02
Ld ∼ λp ∝ np−3/2 . (57)
ωp2
C. Laser micro-collider
A staging of LPA is required to achieve high current den-
sities along with high energies. The electron energy gain We turn now to another scheme for a laser collider,
∆εs in a single-stage LPA is which is based on principles quite different than those of
the LPA scheme discussed above. In the LPA scheme,
ω02
∆εs ∼ |e|Ep Ld ∼ m ∝ n−1
p . (58) the electron is accelerated due to its synchronous motion
ωp2 with the propagating field. In this way the symmetry
in the energy exchange process between the electron and
Therefore, the number of stages Ns to achieve a
the oscillating field is broken, as required by the Lawson-
total acceleration energy ε0 is Ns = ε0 /∆εs ∼
Woodward theorem (Lawson, 1979; Woodward, 1947).
(ε0 /m)(ωp /ω0 )2 ∝ np . It corresponds to a total collider
Another way to exploit the energy gain of the electron
length Lc of
in the oscillating laser field is to initiate high-energy pro-
ε0 cesses in situ, i.e., inside the laser beam (McDonald and
L c ∼ Ns L d ∼ λp ∝ np−1/2 . (59)
m Shmakov, 1999). In this case the temporary energy gain
of the electron during interaction with a half cycle of the
When two identical beams each with N particles and
laser wave is used to trigger some processes during which
with horizontal (vertical) transverse beam size σx (σy )
the electron state may change (in particular, the electron
collide with a frequency f , the luminosity L is defined as
may annihilate with a positron) and the desired asymme-
L = N 2 f /4πσx σy . In LPA N = Ne and f is the laser
try in the energy exchange can be achieved. In fact, this
repetition rate, then
approach is widely employed in the nonrelativistic regime
1 1 f via laser-driven recollisions of an ionized electron with its
L∼ . (60) parent ion (see Sec. IV.B).
64π ωp σx σy r02
2
The question arises also as to whether the temporary
The laser energy Ws required in a single stage in energy gain of the electron in the laser beam can also be
the LPA collider is approximately given by Ws ∼ employed in the relativistic regime at ultrahigh energies.
m(λp /r0 )(ω0 /ωp )2 at ξ0 ∼ 1 and the total required power As pointed out in Sec. IV, an extension of the established
PT amounts to PT ∼ Ns Ws f ∼ ε0 f (λp /r0 ). recollision scheme with normal atoms into the relativistic
The above estimates show that, although the number regime is hindered by the relativistic drift. However, the
Ne of electrons in the bunch as well as the single-stage drift will not cause any problem when positronium (Ps)
energy gain ∆εs increase at low plasma densities, the atoms are used because its constituent particles, electron
accelerating gradient ∆εs /Ld nevertheless decreases be- and positron, have the same absolute value of the charge-
cause the laser depletion length Ld and the overall col- to-mass ratio (see Sec. III.A).
lider length Lc increase as well. Limiting the total length A corresponding realization of high-energy e+ -e− rec-
of each LPA in a collider to about 100 m will require ollisions in the GeV domain aiming at particle reactions
a plasma density np ∼ 1017 cm−3 to provide a center- has been proposed in Hatsagortsyan et al., 2006. It re-
of mass energy of ∼ 1 TeV for electrons, with ∼ 10 lies on (initially nonrelativistic) Ps atoms exposed to
GeV energy gain per stage (Schroeder et al., 2010). For super-intense laser pulses. After almost instantaneous
a number of electrons per bunch of Ne ∼ 109 , a laser ionization of Ps in the strong laser field, the free electron
repetition rate of 15 kHz and a transverse beam size of and positron oscillate in opposite directions along the
about 10 nm would be required to reach the goal-value laser electric field and experience the same ponderomo-
of 1034 cm−2 s−1 for the accelerator luminosity. At the tive drift motion along the laser propagation direction. In
usual condition w0 ∼ 1/ωp ∼ 10 µm, instead, the lu- this way, the particles acquire energy from the field and
minosity amounts to L ∼ 1027 cm−2 s−1 . In the above are driven into periodic e+ -e− collisions (Henrich et al.,
46

in a strongly laser-driven e+ -e− plasma may be consid-


ered as the coherent counterpart of the incoherent process
e+ e− → µ+ µ− discussed in Sec. X.A.
Rigorous quantum-electrodynamical calculations for
µ+ -µ− pair production in a laser field have been per-
formed in Müller et al., 2006, 2008b,c. In agreement
with Eq. (61), they enabled the development of a simple-
man’s model in which the rate of the laser-driven pro-
FIG. 25 (a) In conventional e+ -e− colliders bunches of ac- cess can be expressed via a convolution of the rescat-
celerated electrons and positrons are focused to collide head- tering electron wave packet with the field-free cross sec-
on-head incoherently, i.e., the bunches collide head-on-head
tion σe+ e− →µ+ µ− (see Eq. 51). The latter attains the
but electrons and positrons in the bunch do not. (b) In the (max)
recollision-based collider, the electron and positron originat- maximal value σe+ e− →µ+ µ− ∼ α2 λ2C,µ ∼ 10−30 cm2 at
ing from the same Ps atom may collide head-on-head coher- ε∗ ≈ 260 MeV (Peskin and Schroeder, 1995). However,
ently (Henrich et al., 2004). From Hatsagortsyan et al., 2006. when the field driving the Ps atoms is a single laser wave,
the e+ -e− recollision times are long and the µ+ -µ− pro-
duction process is substantially suppressed by extensive
2004). Provided that the applied laser intensity is large
wave packet spreading. This obstacle can be overcome
enough, elementary particle reactions like heavy lepton-
when two counterpropagating laser beams are employed.
pair production can be induced in these recollisions. The
The role of the spreading of the electron wave packet in
common center-of-mass energy ε∗ of the electron and the
counterpropagating focused laser beams of circular and
positron at the recollision time arises mainly from the
linear polarization has been investigated in detail in Liu
transversal momentum of the particles and it scales as
et al., 2009. The advantage of the circular-polarization
ε∗ ∼ mξ0 . A basic particle reaction which could be trig-
setup is the focusing of the recolliding electron wave
gered in a laser-driven collider is e+ -e− annihilation with
packet. However, this advantage is reduced by a spa-
production of a µ+ -µ− pair, i.e., e+ e− → µ+ µ− . The
tial offset in the e+ -e− collision when the initial coordi-
energy threshold for this process in the center-of-mass
nate of the Ps atom deviates from the symmetric position
system is 2mµ ≈ 210 MeV. It can be reached with a laser
between the laser pulses. The latter imposes a severe re-
field such that ξ0 ∼ 200, corresponding to laser intensities
striction on the Ps gas size along the laser propagation
of the order of 1022 W/cm2 , currently within reach.
direction. Thus, the linear-polarization setup is prefer-
In addition, the proposed recollision-based laser col-
able when the offset at the recollision is very small and
lider can yield high luminosities compared to conven-
the wave packet size at the recollision is within accept-
tional laser accelerators. In the latter, bunches of elec-
able limits. Results from a Monte Carlo simulation of
trons and positrons are accelerated and brought into
the e+ -e− wave-packet dynamics in counterpropagating
head-on-head collision. However, the particles in the
linearly polarized laser pulses are shown in Fig. 26.
bunch are distributed randomly such that each micro-
The luminosity L and the number of reaction
scopic e+ -e− collision is not head-on-head but has a mean
events N for the recollision-based collider with counter-
impact parameter bi ∼ ab determined by the beam ra-
propagating laser pulses can be estimated as:
dius ab , characterizing the collision as incoherent (see
Fig. 25). Instead, in the recollision-based collider the 1
L ∼NPs τr f, (62)
electron and the positron stem from the same Ps atom a3wp
with initial coordinates being confined within the range (max)
σe+ e− →µ+ µ−
of one Bohr radius aB ≈ 5.3 × 10−9 cm. Since they are N ∼ τr NPs NL , (63)
driven coherently by the laser field, they can recollide a3wp
with a mean impact parameter bc ∼ awp of the order of respectively, where NPs is the number of Ps atoms, τr
the electron wave packet size awp (see Fig. 25). Con- the recollision time of the order of the lasers period, NL
sequently, the luminosity contains a coherent component the number of laser pulses, and f the laser repetition
(Hatsagortsyan et al., 2006): rate. Taking NPs ≈ 108 (Cassidy and Mills, 2005), f = 1

Np (Np − 1) Np
 Hz and the spatial extension of the e+ -e− pair from Fig.
L= + 2 f, (61) 26, one estimates a luminosity of L ∼ 1027 cm−2 s−1 and
b2i bc
about one µ+ -µ− pair production event every 103 laser
where Np is the number of particles in the bunch, and f shots at a laser intensity of 4.7 × 1022 W/cm2 .
is the bunch repetition frequency. The coherent com- In conclusion, the scheme of the recollision-based laser
ponent (Np /b2c )f can lead to a substantial luminosity collider allows to realize high-energy and high-luminosity
enhancement in the case when the particle number is collisions in a microscopic setup. However, it is not easily
low and the particle’s wave packet spreading is small, scalable to the parameters of the ILC, namely, to TeV
Np a2wp < a2b . Note that the reaction Ps → µ+ µ− arising energies and luminosities of the order of 1034 cm−2 s−1 .
47

Electron Positron
into a fermion-antifermion pair was calculated in Kurilin,
3 (a)

2
(b)
1
2004, 2009. In all cases, the effect of the laser field was
1
0,9
found to be small. As a general result, the presence of the
y [a.u.] 0

-1
0,8

laser field modifies the field-free decay rate RM,0 of a par-


0,7
-2

-3 0,6
ticle with mass M to RM = R0,M (1+∆), with the correc-
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
0,5
tion ∆ being of the order of χ20,M in the range of param-
x [a.u.] x [a.u.]

3 (c)
0,4
eters ξ0,M = ξ0 m/M > 1 and χ0,M = χ0 (m/M )3 ≪ 1.
(d)

2 0,3 The elastic scattering of a muon neutrino and an electron


y [a.u.]

0
0,2 in the presence of a strong laser field has been considered
-1 0,1
in Bai et al., 2012 and multiphoton effects in the cross
-2

-3
0
section are predicted.
-10 -5 0

z [a.u.]
5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10
External fields can also induce decay processes, which
z [a.u.]
are energetically forbidden otherwise. In Kurilin, 1999,
FIG. 26 (Color) The coordinate-space distributions of the the field-induced lepton decay l− → W − + νl was
electron and the positron wave-packets at the recollision time considered. Since the mass of the initial-state parti-
in focused counterpropagating pulses along the z direction cle is smaller than the mass of the decay products,
with w0 = 10 µm, λ0 = 0.8 µm and with I0 = 4.7 × the process is clearly impossible in vacuum. The pres-
1022 W/cm2 (parts (a) and (c)) and I0 = 1.4 × 1023 W/cm2
ence of the field does allow for such an exotic decay,
(parts (b) and (d)). The Ps atom is initially located at the
origin. Spatial coordinates are given in “atomic units”, with but the probability Pl− →W − +νl remains exponentially
1 a.u. = 0.05 nm. Adapted from Liu et al., 2009. suppressed, i.e., Pl− →W − +νl ∼ exp(−1/χ0,W ), where
χ0,W = χ0 (m/mW )3 .
Finally, the production of an e+ -e− pair by high-energy
XIII. PARTICLE PHYSICS WITHIN AND BEYOND THE neutrino impact on a strong laser pulse has been cal-
STANDARD MODEL culated in Tinsley, 2005. The setup is similar to the
e+ -e− pair production processes in QED discussed in
The sustained progress in laser technology towards Secs. VIII.A and VIII.B. However, as it was shown in
higher and higher field intensities raises the question as Tinsley, 2005, the laser-induced process ν → ν + e+ + e−
to what extent ultrastrong laser fields may develop into is extremely unlikely. At a field intensity of about
a useful tool for particle physics beyond QED. Below we I0 = 3 × 1018 W/cm2 , the production length is on the
review theoretical predictions regarding the influence of order of a light year, even for a neutrino energy of 1 PeV.
super-intense laser waves on electroweak processes and
their potential for probing new physics beyond the Stan-
dard Model. B. Particle physics beyond the Standard Model

Recently, a lot of attention has been devoted to the


A. Electroweak sector of the Standard Model possibility of employing intense laser sources to test as-
pects of physical theories which go even beyond the Stan-
The energy scale of weak interactions is set by the dard Model. In Heinzl et al., 2010b, for example, it is
masses of the W ± and Z 0 exchange bosons, mW ≈ mZ ∼ envisaged that effects of the noncommutativity of space-
100 GeV. Therefore, the influence of external laser fields, time modify the kinematics of multiphoton Compton
even if strong on the scale of QED, is generally rather scattering by inducing a nonzero photon mass. We recall
small. An overview of weak interaction processes in the that in noncommutative quantum field theories operators
presence of intense electromagnetic fields has been given X µ are associated to spacetime coordinates xµ , which do
in Kurilin, 1999. not commute, but rather satisfy the commutation rela-
Various weak decay processes in the presence of in- tions [X µ , X ν ] = iΘµν , with Θµν being an antisymmetric
tense laser fields have been considered. They can be di- constant tensor (Douglas and Nekrasov, 2001).
vided into two classes: 1) laser-assisted processes which On a different side, one of the still open problems of
also exist in the absence of the field but may be modi- the Standard Model is the so-called strong CP problem
fied due to its presence; 2) field-induced processes which (Kim and Carosi, 2010). The nontrivial structure of
can only proceed when a background field is present, the vacuum, as predicted by Quantum Chromodynam-
providing an additional energy reservoir. With respect ics (QCD), allows for the violation within QCD of the
to processes from the first category, π → µ + ν and combined symmetry of charge conjugation (C) and par-
µ− → e− + ν̄e + νµ have already been examined (Ritus, ity (P). This implies a value for the neutron’s electric
1985). Laser-assisted muon decay has also been revis- dipole moment which, however, is already many orders
ited recently (Dicus et al., 2009; Farzinnia et al., 2009; of magnitude larger than experimental upper limits. One
Narozhny and Fedotov, 2008). W ± and Z 0 boson decay way of solving this problem was suggested in Peccei and
48

Quinn, 1977 which required the existence of a massive see the standard review Erber, 1966 and the very current
pseudoscalar boson, called axion. The axion has never overview paper Dunne, 2012 for recent progresses in the
been observed experimentally although some of its prop- field). On the other hand, laser beams deliver fields much
erties can be predicted on theoretical grounds: it should stronger than those employed in the mentioned experi-
be electrically neutral and its mass should not exceed ments (the magnetic field strength of a laser beam with
1 eV in order of magnitude. Although being electri- the available intensity of 1022 W/cm2 amounts to about
cally neutral, the axion is predicted to couple to the elec- 6.5×105 T) but in a microscopic space-time region. How-
tromagnetic field F µν (x) through a Lagrangian-density ever, it has been first realized in Mendonça, 2007 that en-
term visaged ultrahigh intensities at future laser facilities may
g compensate for the tiny space-time extension of the laser
Laγ (x) = a(x)F µν (x)F̃µν (x), (64) spot region. In Mendonça, 2007 the coupled equations of
4
the electromagnetic field F µν (x) and the axion field a(x)
with g being the photon-axion coupling constant and a(x)
 ∂ ∂ µ a + m2 a = 1 gF µν F̃

the axion field. µ a µν
The photon-axion Lagrangian density in Eq. (64) has 4 (65)
µν µν
∂µ F = g(∂µ a)F̃

mainly two implications: 1) the existence of axions in-
duces a change in the polarization of a light beam pass-
are solved approximately. It is shown that if a probe
ing through a background electromagnetic field; 2) a
laser field propagates through a strong plane-wave field,
photon can transform into an axion (and vice versa)
the axion field “grows” at the expense mainly of the
in the presence of a background electromagnetic field.
probe field itself, whose intensity should be observed to
The first prediction has been tested in experiments
decrease. Laser powers of the order of 1 PW have al-
like the Brookhaven-Fermilab-Rochester-Trieste (BFRT)
ready been shown to provide stronger hints for the pres-
(Cameron et al., 1993) and the Polarizzazione del Vuoto
ence of axions than magnetic-field-based experiments like
con LASer (PVLAS) (PVLAS, 2011), where a linearly
the PVLAS. More realistic Gaussian laser beams are
polarized probe laser field crossed a region in which a
considered in Döbrich and Gies, 2010 where the start-
strong magnetic field was present of 3.25 T and 5 T
ing point is also represented by Eq. (65). The sug-
at BFRT and at PVLAS, respectively. Testing the sec-
gested experimental setup assumes a probe electromag-
ond prediction is the aim of the so-called “light shining
netic beam with angular frequency ωp,in passing through
through a wall” experiments like the Any Light Particle
a strong counterpropagating Gaussian beam with angu-
Search (ALPS) (ALPS, 2010), the CERN Axion Solar
lar frequency ω0,k and another strong Gaussian beam
Telescope (CAST) (CAST, 2008) and Gamma to milli-
propagating perpendicularly and with angular frequency
eV particle search (GammeV) (GammeV, 2011) (see also
ω0,⊥ . By choosing ω0,⊥ = 2ω0,k , it is found that after
the detailed theoretical analysis in Adler et al., 2008).
a photon-axion-photon double conversion, photons are
In the GammeV experiment, for example, the light of a
generated with angular frequencies ωp,out = ωp,in ± ω0,k .
Nd:YAG laser passes through a region in which a 5 T
The amplitudes of these processes are shown to be
magnetic field is present. A mirror is positioned behind
peaked at specific values of the axion mass ma,± =
that region in order to reflect the laser light. The axions q
2 (1 ± 1)/2. Since the optical photon
2 ωp,in ω0,k + ω0,k
which would eventually be created in the magnetic-field
region pass through the mirror undisturbed and can be energies are of the order of 1 eV, this setup allows for the
reconverted to photons by means of a second magnetic investigation of values of the axion mass in this regime.
field, activated after the mirror itself. So far these exper- This is very important because such a region of the ax-
iments have given negative results. An interesting exper- ion mass is inaccessible to experiments based on strong
imental proposal has been put forward in Rabadán et al., magnetic fields, which can probe regions at most in the
2006, where the high-energy photon beam delivered by meV range.
an XFEL facility has been suggested as a probe beam to In addition to electrically neutral new particles such
test regions of parameters (like the axion mass ma or the as axions, yet unobserved particles with nonzero charge
photon-axion coupling constant g) which are inaccessible may also exist. The fact that they have so far escaped
via optical laser light. detection implies that they are either very heavy (ren-
The perspective for reaching ultrahigh intensities at dering them a target for large-scale accelerator experi-
future laser facilities has stimulated new proposals for ments), or that they are light but very weakly charged.
employing such fields to elicit the photon-axion interac- In the latter case, these so-called minicharged particles,
tion (Gies, 2009). In fact, an advantage of using strong i.e., particles with absolute value of the electric charge
uniform magnetic fields is that they can be kept strong much smaller than |e|, are suitable candidates for laser-
for a macroscopically long time (of the order of hours) based searches (Gies, 2009). Let mǫ and Qǫ = ǫe, with
and on a macroscopic spatial region (of the order of 1 m) 0 < ǫ ≪ 1, denote the minicharged particle mass and
(for QED processes occurring in a strong magnetic field, charge, respectively. Then, the corresponding critical
49

field scale Fcr,ǫ = m2ǫ /|Qǫ | can be much lower than on the polarization of probe beams and on the detection
Fcr . As a consequence, vacuum nonlinearities associ- of a typically very low number of signal photons out of
ated with minicharged particles may be very pronounced large backgrounds. Similar challenges are envisaged to
in an external laser field with intensity much less than detect the presence of light and weakly-interacting hypo-
Icr ∼ 1029 W/cm2 . Moreover, even at optical photon thetical particles like axions and minicharged particles.
energies ∼ 1 eV the effective Lagrangian approach might The physical properties (mass, coupling constants, etc.)
become inappropriate to describe the relevant physics if of such hypothetical particles are, of course, unknown.
mǫ . 1 eV (see Sec. VII.A). In Gies et al., 2006, vac- In this respect intense laser fields may be employed here
uum dichroism and birefringence effects due to the ex- to set bounds on physical quantities like the axion mass
istence of minicharged particles were analyzed when a and, in particular, to scan regions of physical parameters,
probe laser beam with ωp > 2mǫ traverses a magnetic which are inaccessible to conventional methods based, for
field. It was shown that polarization measurements in example, on astrophysical observations.
this setup would provide much stronger constraints on Different schemes have been proposed to observe e+ -e−
minicharged particles in the mass range below 0.1 eV pair production at intensities below the Schwinger limit,
than in previous laboratory searches. which seems now to be feasible in the near future, at least
from a theoretical point of view. Corresponding studies
would complement the results of the pioneering E-144
XIV. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK experiment and deepen our understanding of the QED
vacuum in the presence of extreme electromagnetic fields.
The fast development of laser technology has been This is also connected with the recent investigations on
paving the way to employ laser sources for investigating the development of QED cascades in laser-laser collisions.
relativistic, quantum electrodynamical, nuclear and high- In addition to being intrinsically interesting, the devel-
energy processes. Starting with the lowest required in- opment of QED cascades is expected to set a limit on the
tensities, relativistic atomic processes are already within maximal attainable laser intensity. However, the study of
the reach of available laser systems, while the proposed quantum cascades in intense laser fields has started rela-
methods to compensate the deteriorating effects of the tively recently and is still under vivid development. More
relativistic drift still have to be tested experimentally. advanced analytical and numerical methods are required
Moreover, a fully consistent theoretical interpretation of in order to describe realistically and quantitatively such
recent experimental results on correlation effects in rela- a complex system as an electron-positron-photon plasma
tivistic multielectron tunneling is still missing. in the presence of a strong driving laser field.
Concerning the interaction of free electrons with in- Nuclear quantum optics is also a new exciting and
tense laser beams, we have seen that experiments have promising field. Since the energy difference between nu-
been performed to explore the classical regime. Only clear levels is typically in the multi-keV and MeV range,
the E-144 experiment at SLAC has so far been realized high-frequency laser pulses, especially in combination
on multiphoton Compton scattering, although presently with accelerators, are preferable in controlling nuclear
available lasers and electron beams would allow for prob- dynamics. As pointed out, especially table-top highly co-
ing this regime in full detail. We have also pointed out herent x-ray light beams, envisaged for the future, open
that at laser intensities of the order of 1022 -1023 W/cm2 , up perspectives for exciting applications including nu-
RR effects come into play at electron energies of the order clear state preparation and nuclear batteries.
of a few GeV. It is envisaged that the quantum radiation- Finally, we want to point out that most of the consid-
dominated regime, where quantum and RR effects sub- ered processes have not yet been observed or tested ex-
stantially alter the electron dynamics, could be one of perimentally. This is in our opinion one of the most chal-
the first extreme regimes of light-matter interaction to lenging aspects of upcoming laser physics, not only from
be probed with upcoming petawatt laser facilities. On an experimental point of view, but also from the point of
the theoretical side, most of the calculations have been view of theoretical methods. Experimentally, the main
performed by approximating the laser field as a plane reason is that in order to test, for example, nonlinear
wave, as the Dirac equation in the presence of a focused quantum electrodynamics or to investigate nuclear quan-
background field cannot be solved analytically. Certainly, tum optics, high-energy particle beams (including photon
new methods have to be developed to calculate photon beams) are required to be available in the same labora-
spectra including quantum effects and spatio-temporal tory as the strong laser. On the one hand, the combined
focusing of the laser field in order to be able to quanti- expertise from different experimental physical communi-
tatively interpret upcoming experimental results. ties is required to perform such complex but fundamental
Nonlinear quantum electrodynamical effects have been experiments. On the other hand, the fast technological
shown to become observable at future multipetawatt development of laser-plasma accelerators is very promis-
laser facilities, as well as at ELI and HiPER. Here the ing and exciting, as this seems the most feasible way
main challenges concern the measurability of tiny effects towards the realization of stable, table-top high-energy
50

particle accelerators. Combining such high-energy probe LIST OF FREQUENTLY-USED SYMBOLS


beams with an ultrarelativistic laser beam in a single all-
optical setup will certainly result in a unique tool for E0 laser field amplitude
advancing our understanding of intense laser-matter in- Fcr = m2 /|e| critical electromagnetic field
teractions.
(≈ 1.3 × 1016 V/cm)
(≈ 4.4 × 1014 G)
2
I0 = E0 /4π laser peak intensity
2
Icr = Fcr /4π critical laser intensity
(≈ 4.6 × 1029 W/cm2 )
Z nuclear charge number
e electron charge

(≈ −1/ 137 ≈ −0.085)
k µ = (ω, k) = ωnµ initial or incoming photon
four-momentum
k ′µ = (ω ′ , k′ ) = ω ′ n′µ final or outgoing photon
four-momentum
k0µ = ω0 nµ0 = ω0 (1, n0 ) laser photon four-momentum
m electron mass
(≈ 0.511 MeV)
µ
p0 = (ε0 , p0 ) = mγ0 (1, β0 ) initial or incoming electron
four-momentum
α = e2 fine-structure constant
(≈ 1/137 ≈ 7.3 × 10−3 )
χ0 = (p0,− /m)(E0 /Fcr ) nonlinear electron quantum
parameter
κ0 = (k− /m)(E0 /Fcr ) nonlinear photon quantum
parameter
λ0 = T0 = 2π/ω0 laser wavelength and period
λC = 1/m Compton wavelength
(≈ 3.9 × 10−11 cm)
ξ0 = |e|E0 /mω0 classical relativistic
parameter
ω0 laser angular frequency
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES

Aas, A. J., H. Mach, J. Kvasil, M. J. G. Borge, B. Fogelberg,


I. S. Grant, K. Gulda, E. Hagebø, P. Hoff, W. Kurcewicz,
A. Lindroth, G. Løvhøiden, et al., 1999, Nucl. Phys. A 654,
499.
We are grateful to many students, colleagues and col- Abraham, M., 1905, Theorie der Elektrizität (Teubner,
laborators for inspiring discussions, ideas, and sugges- Leipzig).
tions, in particular in joint publications during the here Adler, S. L., J. Gamboa, F. Méndez, and J. López-Sarrión,
most relevant last six years, to H. Bauke, T. J. Bürvenich, 2008, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 323, 2851.
A. Dadi, C. Deneke, J. Evers, B. Galow, R. Grobe, Z. Agostini, P., and L. F. DiMauro, 2004, Rep. Prog. Phys. 67,
Harman, H. Hu, A. Ipp, U. D. Jentschura, B. King, M. 813.
Aharonian, F. A., and A. V. Plyasheshnikov, 2003, Astropart.
Klaiber, M. Kohler, G. Yu. Kryuchkyan, W.-T. Liao, C.
Phys. 19, 525.
Liu, E. Lötstedt, A. Macchi, F. Mackenroth, S. Meuren, Akhiezer, A. I., 1937, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion 11, 263.
A. I. Milstein, G. Mocken, S. J. Müller, T.-O. Müller, A. Akhmedov, E. K., 1983, Sov. Phys. JETP 58, 883.
Pálffy, F. Pegoraro, M. Ruf, Y. I. Salamin, M. Tamburini, Akkermans, E., and G. V. Dunne, 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108,
M. Verschl, and A. B. Voitkiv. 030401.
51

Aksenov, A. G., R. Ruffini, and G. V. Vereshchagin, 2007, Benedetti, A., W.-B. Han, R. Ruffini, and G. V. Vereshchagin,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 125003. 2011, Phys. Lett. B 698, 75.
Albert, F., S. G. Anderson, D. J. Gibson, C. A. Hagmann, Berestetskii, V. B., E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii,
M. S. Johnson, M. Messerly, V. Semenov, M. Y. Shverdin, 1982, Quantum electrodynamics (Elsevier Butterworth-
B. Rusnak, A. M. Tremaine, F. V. Hartemann, C. W. Heinemann, Oxford).
Siders, et al., 2010, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 13, Bergmann, K., H. Theuer, and B. W. Shore, 1998, Rev. Mod.
070704. Phys. 70, 1003.
Alkofer, R., M. B. Hecht, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, and Bhattacharyya, S., M. Mazumder, J. Chakrabarti, and
D. V. Vinnik, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 193902. F. H. M. Faisal, 2011, Phys. Rev. A 83, 043407.
ALPS (Any Light Particle Search), 2010, URL http://alps. Bialynicki-Birula, I., and L. Rudnicki, 2011, eprint
desy.de/. arXiv:1108.2615v1.
Ammosov, M. V., N. B. Delone, and V. P. Krainov, 1986, Boca, M., and V. Florescu, 2009, Phys. Rev. A 80, 053403.
Sov. Phys. JETP 64, 1191. Boca, M., and V. Florescu, 2010, Rom. J. Phys. 55, 511.
Apostol, M., 2011, J. Mod. Opt. 58, 611. Boca, M., and V. Florescu, 2011, Eur. Phys. J. D 61, 449.
Aprahamian, A., and Y. Sun, 2005, Nature Phys. 1, 81. Boca, M., and A. Oprea, 2011, Phys. Scr. 83, 055404.
Astra Gemini, 2011, URL http://www.clf.rl.ac.uk/ Bochkarev, S., K. Popov, and V. Bychenkov, 2011, Plasma
Science/12258.aspx. Phys. Rep. 37, 603.
Avetissian, H. K., A. K. Avetissian, G. F. Mkrtchian, and Bonifacio, R., C. Pellegrini, and L. M. Narducci, 1984, Opt.
K. V. Sedrakian, 2003, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A Commun. 50, 373.
507, 582. Breit, G., and J. A. Wheeler, 1934, Phys. Rev. 46, 1087.
Babzien, M., I. Ben-Zvi, K. Kusche, I. V. Pavlishin, I. V. Brezin, E., and C. Itzykson, 1970, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1191.
Pogorelsky, D. P. Siddons, V. Yakimenko, D. Cline, Brodin, G., M. Marklund, B. Eliasson, and P. K. Shukla,
F. Zhou, T. Hirose, Y. Kamiya, T. Kumita, et al., 2006, 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 125001.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 054802. Brodin, G., M. Marklund, and L. Stenflo, 2001, Phys. Rev.
Badziak, J., 2007, Opto-Electron. Rev. 15, 1. Lett. 87, 171801.
Bai, L., M.-Y. Zheng, and B.-H. Wang, 2012, Phys. Rev. A Brown, L. S., and T. W. B. Kibble, 1964, Phys. Rev. 133,
85, 013402. A705.
Baier, V. N., V. S. Fadin, V. M. Katkov, and E. A. Kuraev, Brown, W. J., S. G. Anderson, C. P. J. Barty, S. M. Betts,
1974, Phys. Lett. B 49, 385. R. Booth, J. K. Crane, R. R. Cross, D. N. Fittinghoff, D. J.
Baier, V. N., and V. M. Katkov, 2005, Phys. Rep. 409, 261. Gibson, F. V. Hartemann, E. P. Hartouni, J. Kuba, et al.,
Baier, V. N., V. M. Katkov, A. I. Milstein, and V. M. 2004, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 7, 060702.
Strakhovenko, 1976a, Sov. Phys. JETP 42, 400. Brown, W. J., and F. V. Hartemann, 2004, Phys. Rev. ST
Baier, V. N., V. M. Katkov, and V. M. Strakhovenko, 1975a, Accel. Beams 7, 060703.
Sov. Phys. JETP 40, 225. Bu, Z., and P. Ji, 2010, Phys. Plasmas 17, 073103.
Baier, V. N., V. M. Katkov, and V. M. Strakhovenko, 1975b, Bula, C., K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, C. Bamber,
Sov. Phys. JETP 41, 198. S. Boege, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Melissinos, D. D. Meyer-
Baier, V. N., V. M. Katkov, and V. M. Strakhovenko, 1998, hofer, W. Ragg, D. L. Burke, R. C. Field, G. Horton-Smith,
Electromagnetic Processes at High Energies in Oriented et al., 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3116.
Single Crystals (World Scientific, Singapore). Bulanov, S. S., V. D. Mur, N. B. Narozhny, J. Nees, and V. S.
Baier, V. N., A. I. Milstein, and V. M. Strakhovenko, 1976b, Popov, 2010a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 220404.
Sov. Phys. JETP 42, 961. Bulanov, S. S., T. Zh. Esirkepov, A. G. R. Thomas, J. K.
Bamber, C., S. J. Boege, T. Koffas, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Koga, and S. V. Bulanov, 2010b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105,
Melissinos, D. D. Meyerhofer, D. A. Reis, W. Ragg, 220407.
C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, D. L. Burke, et al., Bulanov, S. V., T. Z. Esirkepov, M. Kando, J. K. Koga, and
1999, Phys. Rev. D 60, 092004. S. S. Bulanov, 2011, Phys. Rev. E 84, 056605.
Bauke, H., H. G. Hetzheim, G. R. Mocken, M. Ruf, and C. H. Bulanov, S. V., N. M. Naumova, and F. Pegoraro, 1994, Phys.
Keitel, 2011, Phys. Rev. A 83, 063414. Plasmas 1, 745.
Bauke, H., and C. H. Keitel, 2011, Comp. Phys. Commun. Burke, D. L., R. C. Field, G. Horton-Smith, J. E. Spencer,
182, 2454. D. Walz, S. C. Berridge, W. M. Bugg, K. Shmakov, A. W.
Baur, G., K. Hencken, and D. Trautmann, 2007, Phys. Rep. Weidemann, C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, et al.,
453, 1. 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1626.
Beck, B. R., J. A. Becker, P. Beiersdorfer, G. V. Brown, K. J. Burton, D. A., J. Gratus, and R. W. Tucker, 2007, Ann. Phys.
Moody, J. B. Wilhelmy, F. S. Porter, C. A. Kilbourne, and (N.Y.) 322, 599.
R. L. Kelley, 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 142501. Bürvenich, T. J., J. Evers, and C. H. Keitel, 2006a, Phys.
Becker, W., F. Grasbon, R. Kopold, D. B. Milosevic, G. G. Rev. Lett. 96, 142501.
Paulus, and H. Walther, 2002, Adv. Atom. Mol. Opt. Phys. Bürvenich, T. J., J. Evers, and C. H. Keitel, 2006b,
48, 35. Phys. Rev. C 74, 044601.
Becker, W., R. R. Schlicher, and M. O. Scully, 1984, Nucl. Bychenkov, V., Y. Sentoku, S. Bulanov, K. Mima, G. Mourou,
Phys. A 426, 125. and S. Tolokonnikov, 2001, JETP Letters 74, 586.
Bell, A. R., and J. G. Kirk, 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, Caldwell, A., K. Lotov, A. Pukhov, and F. Simon, 2009, Na-
200403. ture Phys. 5, 563.
BELLA (Berkeley Lab Laser Accelerator), 2012, Cameron, R., G. Cantatore, A. C. Melissinos, G. Ruoso,
URL http://www.lbl.gov/publicinfo/newscenter/ Y. Semertzidis, H. J. Halama, D. M. Lazarus, A. G. Prodell,
features/2008/apr/af-bella.html. F. Nezrick, C. Rizzo, and E. Zavattini, 1993, Phys. Rev. D
52

47, 3707. Di Piazza, A., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2006,


Cassidy, D. B., S. H. M. Deng, R. G. Greaves, T. Maruo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 083603.
N. Nishiyama, J. B. Snyder, H. K. M. Tanaka, and A. P. Di Piazza, A., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2007a,
Mills, 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 195006. Laser Phys. 17, 345.
Cassidy, D. B., and A. P. Mills, 2005, Nature (London) 449, Di Piazza, A., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2007b,
195. Phys. Plasmas 14, 032102.
CAST (CERN Axion Solar Telescope), 2008, URL http:// Di Piazza, A., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2008a,
cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 010403.
Castañeda Cortés, H. M., A. Pálffy, and C. H. Keitel, 2012, Di Piazza, A., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2008b,
to be published. Phys. Rev. A 78, 062109.
Castañeda Cortés, H. M., S. V. Popruzhenko, D. Bauer, and Di Piazza, A., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2009a,
A. Pálffy, 2011, New J. Phys. 13, 063007. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 254802.
Chambaret, J. P., P. Georges, G. Chériaux, G. Rey, C. L. Di Piazza, A., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2010a,
Blanc, P. Audebert, D. Douillet, J. L. Paillard, P. Cavillac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 220403.
D. Fournet, F. Mathieu, and G. Mourou, 2009, in Frontiers Di Piazza, A., E. Lötstedt, A. I. Milstein, and C. H. Keitel,
in Optics, p. FMI2. 2009b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 170403.
Chelkowski, S., A. D. Bandrauk, and P. B. Corkum, 2004, Di Piazza, A., E. Lötstedt, A. I. Milstein, and C. H. Keitel,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 083602. 2010b, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062122.
Chen, H., S. C. Wilks, J. D. Bonlie, E. P. Liang, J. Myatt, Di Piazza, A., and A. I. Milstein, 2008, Phys. Rev. A 77,
D. F. Price, D. D. Meyerhofer, and P. Beiersdorfer, 2009, 042102.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 105001. Di Piazza, A., A. I. Milstein, and C. H. Keitel, 2007c, Phys.
Chen, M., A. Pukhov, T.-P. Yu, and Z.-M. Sheng, 2011, Rev. A 76, 032103.
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 53, 014004. Di Piazza, A., A. I. Milstein, and C. Müller, 2010c, Phys.
Chen, M.-C., P. Arpin, T. Popmintchev, M. Gerrity, Rev. A 82, 062110.
B. Zhang, M. Seaberg, D. Popmintchev, M. M. Murnane, DiChiara, A. D., I. Ghebregziabher, R. Sauer, J. Waesche,
and H. C. Kapteyn, 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 173901. S. Palaniyappan, B. L. Wen, and B. C. Walker, 2008, Phys.
Chen, S.-Y., A. Maksimchuk, and D. Umstadter, 1998, Nature Rev. Lett. 101, 173002.
(London) 396, 653. DiChiara, A. D., I. Ghebregziabher, J. M. Waesche,
Cheng, T., S. P. Bowen, C. C. Gerry, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, T. Stanev, N. Ekanayake, L. R. Barclay, S. J. Wells,
2008, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032106. A. Watts, M. Videtto, C. A. Mancuso, and B. C. Walker,
Cheng, T., Q. Su, and R. Grobe, 2009a, Phys. Rev. A 80, 2010, Phys. Rev. A 81, 043417.
013410. Dicus, D. A., A. Farzinnia, W. W. Repko, and T. M. Tinsley,
Cheng, T., Q. Su, and R. Grobe, 2010, Contemp. Phys. 51, 2009, Phys. Rev. D 79, 013004.
315. Dimitrovski, D., M. Førre, and L. B. Madsen, 2009, Phys.
Cheng, T., M. R. Ware, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, 2009b, Phys. Rev. A 80, 053412.
Rev. A 80, 062105. Dirac, P. A. M., 1928, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 117, 610.
Chirilă, C. C., C. J. Joachain, N. J. Kylstra, and R. M. Dirac, P. A. M., 1938, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 167, 148.
Potvliege, 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 243603. Dittrich, W., and H. Gies, 2000, Probing the Quantum Vac-
Chirilă, C. C., N. J. Kylstra, R. M. Potvliege, and C. J. uum (Springer, Heidelberg).
Joachain, 2002, Phys. Rev. A 66, 063411. Dittrich, W., and M. Reuter, 1985, Effective Lagrangians in
Chouffani, K., D. Wells, F. Harmon, J. Jones, and G. Lan- Quantum Electrodynamics (Springer, Heidelberg).
caster, 2002, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A 495, 95. Döbrich, B., and H. Gies, 2010, J. High Energy Phys. 10, 022.
Chowdhury, E. A., C. P. J. Barty, and B. C. Walker, 2001, Dorn, R., S. Quabis, and G. Leuchs, 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett.
Phys. Rev. A 63, 042712. 91, 233901.
Cipiccia, S., M. R. Islam, B. Ersfeld, R. P. Shanks, Douglas, M. R., and N. A. Nekrasov, 2001, Rev. Mod. Phys.
E. Brunetti, G. Vieux, X. Yang, R. C. Issac, S. M. Wig- 73, 977.
gins, G. H. Welsh, M.-P. Anania, D. Maneuski, et al., 2011, Dromey, B., M. Zepf, A. Gopal, K. Lancaster, M. S. Wei,
Nature Phys. 7, 867. K. Krushelnick, M. Tatarakis, N. Vakakis, S. Moustaizis,
Clayton, C. E., J. E. Ralph, F. Albert, R. A. Fonseca, S. H. R. Kodama, M. Tampo, C. Stoeckl, et al., 2006, Nature
Glenzer, C. Joshi, W. Lu, K. A. Marsh, S. F. Martins, Phys. 2, 456.
W. B. Mori, A. Pak, F. S. Tsung, et al., 2010, Phys. Rev. Duclous, R., J. G. Kirk, and A. R. Bell, 2011, Plasma Phys.
Lett. 105, 105003. Control. Fusion 53, 015009.
Combs, S. E., A. Nikoghosyan, O. Jaekel, C. P. Karger, Dumlu, C. K., 2010, Phys. Rev. D 82, 045007.
T. Haberer, M. W. Münter, P. E. Huber, J. Debus, and Dumlu, C. K., and G. V. Dunne, 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104,
D. Schulz-Ertner, 2009, Cancer 115, 1348. 250402.
Corkum, P. B., 1993, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1994. Dumlu, C. K., and G. V. Dunne, 2011, Phys. Rev. D 83,
Dadi, A., and C. Müller, 2011, Phys. Lett. B 697, 142. 065028.
Dammasch, M., M. Dörr, U. Eichmann, E. Lenz, and Dunne, G., 2012, eprint arXiv:1202.1557v1.
W. Sandner, 2001, Phys. Rev. A 64, 061402. Dunne, G. V., H. Gies, and R. Schützhold, 2009, Phys. Rev.
Debus, A., M. Bussmann, M. Siebold, A. Jochmann, D 80, 111301(R).
U. Schramm, T. Cowan, and R. Sauerbrey, 2010, Appl. Eberly, J. H., 1969, in Progress in Optics, Vol. 7, edited by
Phys. B 100, 61. E. Wolf (North Holland, Amsterdam), p. 359.
Deneke, C., and C. Müller, 2008, Phys. Rev. A 78, 033431. Ehlotzky, F., K. Krajewska, and J. Z. Kaminski, 2009, Rep.
Di Piazza, A., 2008, Lett. Math. Phys. 83, 305. Progr. Phys. 72, 046401.
53

ELI (Extreme Light Infrastructure), 2011, URL http://www. L. Romagnani, A. Schiavi, Y. Sentoku, et al., 2007, Phys.
extreme-light-infrastructure.eu/. Rev. Lett. 99, 015002.
Elkina, N. V., A. M. Fedotov, I. Yu. Kostyukov, M. V. Legkov, Furry, W. H., 1951, Phys. Rev. 81, 115.
N. B. Narozhny, E. N. Nerush, and H. Ruhl, 2011, Phys. Galow, B. J., Z. Harman, and C. H. Keitel, 2010, Opt. Express
Rev. ST Accel. Beams 14, 054401. 18, 25950.
Ellis, J., and I. Wilson, 2001, Nature (London) 409, 431. Galow, B. J., Y. I. Salamin, T. V. Liseykina, Z. Harman, and
Emma, P., R. Akre, J. Arthur, R. Bionta, C. Bostedt, C. H. Keitel, 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 185002.
J. Bozek, A. Brachmann, P. Bucksbaum, R. Coffee, F.-J. GammeV (Gamma to milli-eV particle search), 2011, URL
Decker, Y. Ding, D. Dowell, et al., 2010, Nature Photon. http://gammev.fnal.gov/.
4, 641. Gavrilov, S. P., and D. M. Gitman, 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett.
Englert, T. J., and E. A. Rinehart, 1983, Phys. Rev. A 28, 101, 130403.
1539. Geddes, C. G. R., C. Toth, J. van Tilborg, E. Esarey, C. B.
Erber, T., 1966, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 626. Schroeder, D. Bruhwiler, C. Nieter, J. Cary, and W. P.
Eriksson, D., G. Brodin, M. Marklund, and L. Stenflo, 2004, Leemans, 2004, Nature (London) 431, 538.
Phys. Rev. A 70, 013808. GEKKO EXA, 2011, (Homepage mostly in Japanese), URL
Esarey, E., C. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, 2009, Rev. www.physics.harvard.edu/~ wilson/energypmp/2010_
Mod. Phys. 81, 1229. Ongena2.
Esirkepov, T., M. Borghesi, S. V. Bulanov, G. Mourou, and Gerstner, E., 2007, Nature (London) 446, 17.
T. Tajima, 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 175003. Gibson, D. J., F. Albert, S. G. Anderson, S. M. Betts, M. J.
Euler, H., 1936, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 26, 398. Messerly, H. H. Phan, V. A. Semenov, M. Y. Shverdin,
European XFEL, 2011, URL http://xfel.eu/. A. M. Tremaine, F. V. Hartemann, C. W. Siders, D. P.
Evers, J., and C. H. Keitel, 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 163601. McNabb, et al., 2010, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 13,
Faisal, F. H. M., 1973, J. Phys. B 6, L89. 070703.
Farzinnia, A., D. A. Dicus, W. W. Repko, and T. M. Tinsley, Gibson, D. J., S. G. Anderson, C. P. J. Barty, S. M. Betts,
2009, Phys. Rev. D 80, 073004. R. Booth, W. J. Brown, J. K. Crane, R. R. Cross, D. N.
Faure, J., Y. Glinec, A. Pukhov, S. Kiselev, S. Gordienko, Fittinghoff, F. V. Hartemann, J. Kuba, G. P. L. Sage, et al.,
E. Lefebvre, J.-P. Rousseau, F. Burgy, and V. Malka, 2004, 2004, Phys. Plasmas 11, 2857.
Nature (London) 431, 541. Gies, H., 2009, Eur. Phys. J. D 55, 311.
Feder, T., 2010, Phys. Today 63, 20. Gies, H., J. Jaeckel, and A. Ringwald, 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett.
Fedorov, M. V., M. A. Efremova, and P. A. Volkov, 2006, 97, 140402.
Opt. Commun. 264, 413. Goldman, I., 1964, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 1412.
Fedotov, A. M., N. B. Narozhny, G. Mourou, and G. Korn, Goulielmakis, E., M. Schultze, M. Hofstetter, V. S. Yakovlev,
2010, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 080402. J. Gagnon, M. Uiberacker, A. L. Aquila, E. M. Gul-
Feldhaus, J., E. L. Saldin, J. R. Schneider, E. A. Schneid- likson, D. T. Attwood, R. Kienberger, F. Krausz, and
miller, and M. V. Yurkov, 1997, Opt. Commun. 140, 341. U. Kleineberg, 2008, Science 320, 1614.
Fennel, Th., K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, J. Tiggesbäumker, P.-G. Gralla, S. E., A. I. Harte, and R. M. Wald, 2009, Phys. Rev.
Reinhard, P. M. Dinh, and E. Suraud, 2010, Rev. Mod. D 80, 024031.
Phys. 82, 1793. Grüner, F., S. Becker, U. Schramm, T. Eichner, M. Fuchs,
Ferrando, A., H. Michinel, M. Seco, and D. Tommasini, 2007, R. Weingartner, D. Habs, J. Meyer-ter Vehn, M. Geissler,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 150404. M. Ferrario, L. Serafini, B. van der Geer, et al., 2007, Appl.
Ferraro, R., 2010, J. Phys. A 43, 195202. Phys. B 86, 431.
Ferris, M. R., and J. Gratus, 2011, J. Math. Phys. 52, 092902. Gubbini, E., U. Eichmann, M. Kalashnikov, and W. Sandner,
Fillion-Gourdeau, F., E. Lorin, and A. D. Bandrauk, 2012, 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 053602.
Comp. Phys. Commun. 183, 1403. Gupta, D. N., N. Kant, D. E. Kim, and H. Suk, 2007, Phys.
Fischer, R., M. Lein, and C. H. Keitel, 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett. Lett. A 368, 402.
97, 143901. Haberberger, D., S. Tochitsky, F. Fiuza, C. Gong, R. A. Fon-
Fischer, R., M. Lein, and C. H. Keitel, 2007, J. Phys. B 40, seca, L. O. Silva, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi, 2012, Nature
F113. Phys. 8, 95.
FLASH (Free-Electron Laser in Hamburg), 2011, URL Habs, D., M. Hegelich, J. Schreiber, M. Gross, A. Henig,
http://hasylab.desy.de/facilities/flash/index_ D. Kiefer, and D. Jung, 2008, Appl. Phys. B 93, 349.
eng.html. Habs, D., T. Tajima, J. Schreiber, C. P. J. Barty, M. Fujiwara,
Førre, M., J. P. Hansen, L. Kocbach, S. Selstø, and L. B. and P. G. Thirolf, 2009, Eur. Phys. J. D 55, 279.
Madsen, 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 043601. Hadad, Y., L. Labun, J. Rafelski, N. Elkina, C. Klier, and
Førre, M., S. Selstø, J. P. Hansen, T. K. Kjeldsen, and L. B. H. Ruhl, 2010, Phys. Rev. D 82, 096012.
Madsen, 2007, Phys. Rev. A 76, 033415. Hafz, N. A. M., T. M. Jeong, I. W. Choi, S. K. Lee, K. H.
Fradkin, E. S., D. M. Gitman, and Sh. M. Shvartsman, Pae, V. V. Kulagin, J. H. Sung, T. J. Yu, K.-H. Hong,
1991, Quantum Electrodynamics with Unstable Vacuum T. Hosokai, J. R. Cary, D.-K. Ko, et al., 2008, Nature Pho-
(Springer, Berlin). ton. 2, 571.
Fuchs, J., P. Antici, E. d’Humières, E. Lefebvre, M. Borgh- Hammond, R. T., 2010, Electron. J. Theor. Phys. 7, 221.
esi, E. Brambrink, C. A. Cecchetti, M. Kaluza, V. Malka, Han, W.-B., R. Ruffini, and S.-S. Xue, 2010, Phys. Lett. B
M. Manclossi, S. Meyroneinc, P. Mora, et al., 2006, Nature 691, 99.
Phys. 2, 48. Har-Shemesh, O., and A. Di Piazza, 2012, Opt. Lett. 37,
Fuchs, J., C. A. Cecchetti, M. Borghesi, T. Grismayer, 1352.
E. d’Humières, P. Antici, S. Atzeni, P. Mora, A. Pipahl, Harman, Z., Y. I. Salamin, B. J. Galow, and C. H. Keitel,
54

2011, Phys. Rev. A 84, 053814. Hu, S. X., and C. H. Keitel, 2001, Phys. Rev. A 63, 053402.
Hartemann, F., A. Tremaine, S. Anderson, C. Barty, S. Betts, Hugenschmidt, C., K. Schreckenbach, D. Habs, and P. Thirolf,
R. Booth, W. Brown, J. Crane, R. Cross, D. Gibson, D. Fit- 2012, Appl. Phys. B 106, 241.
tinghoff, J. Kuba, et al., 2004, Laser Part. Beams 22, 221. ILC (International Linear Collider), 2011, URL http://www.
Hartemann, F. V., 2001, High-Field Electrodynamics (CRC linearcollider.org/.
Press, Boca Raton). Ilderton, A., 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 020404.
Hartemann, F. V., W. J. Brown, D. J. Gibson, S. G. Ander- Ipp, A., J. Evers, C. H. Keitel, and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, 2011,
son, A. M. Tremaine, P. T. Springer, A. J. Wootton, E. P. Phys. Lett. B 702, 383.
Hartouni, and C. P. J. Barty, 2005, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Ivanov, D. Y., G. L. Kotkin, and V. G. Serbo, 2005, Eur.
Beams 8, 100702. Phys. J. C 40, 27.
Hartemann, F. V., D. J. Gibson, W. J. Brown, A. Rousse, Ivanov, D. Yu., G. L. Kotkin, and V. G. Serbo, 2004, Eur.
K. T. Phuoc, V. Malka, J. Faure, and A. Pukhov, 2007, Phys. J. C 36, 127.
Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 10, 011301. Jackson, J. D., 1975, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New
Hartemann, F. V., and A. K. Kerman, 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. York).
76, 624. Jauch, J. M., and F. Rohrlich, 1976, The Theory of Photons
Hartemann, F. V., C. W. Siders, and C. P. J. Barty, 2008, and Electrons (Springer, Berlin).
Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 125001. Kamiński, J. Z., K. Krajewska, and F. Ehlotzky, 2006, Phys.
Harvey, C., T. Heinzl, N. Iji, and K. Langfeld, 2011a, Phys. Rev. A 74, 033402.
Rev. D 83, 076013. Kaneyasu, T., Y. Takabayashi, Y. Iwasaki, and S. Koda, 2011,
Harvey, C., T. Heinzl, and A. Ilderton, 2009, Phys. Rev. A Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A 659, 30.
79, 063407. Karagodsky, V., D. Schieber, and L. Schächter, 2010, Phys.
Harvey, C., T. Heinzl, and M. Marklund, 2011b, Phys. Rev. Rev. Lett. 104, 024801.
D 84, 116005. Karplus, R., and M. Neuman, 1950, Phys. Rev. 80, 380.
Harvey, C., and M. Marklund, 2012, Phys. Rev. A 85, 013412. Kazinski, P. O., and M. A. Shipulya, 2011, Phys. Rev. E 83,
Hatsagortsyan, K. Z., M. Klaiber, C. Müller, M. C. Kohler, 066606.
and C. H. Keitel, 2008, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25, B92. Keitel, C. H., 2001, Contemp. Phys. 42, 353.
Hatsagortsyan, K. Z., C. Müller, and C. H. Keitel, 2006, Eu- Keitel, C. H., and S. X. Hu, 2002, Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 541.
rophys. Lett. 76, 29. Keitel, C. H., P. L. Knight, and K. Burnett, 1993, Europhys.
Hebenstreit, F., R. Alkofer, G. V. Dunne, and H. Gies, 2009, Lett. 24, 539.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 150404. Keitel, C. H., C. Szymanowski, P. L. Knight, and A. Maquet,
Hebenstreit, F., R. Alkofer, and H. Gies, 2011, Phys. Rev. 1998, J. Phys. B 31, L75.
Lett. 107, 180403. Keldysh, L. V., 1965, Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 1307.
Hegelich, B. M., B. J. Albright, J. Cobble, K. Flippo, S. Let- Kiffner, M., M. Macovei, J. Evers, and C. H. Keitel, 2010,
zring, M. Paffett, H. Ruhl, J. Schreiber, R. K. Schulze, and Prog. Opt. 55, 85.
J. C. Fernández, 2006, Nature (London) 439, 441. Kim, D., H. Lee, S. Chung, and K. Lee, 2009, New J. Phys.
Hein, J., M. Hornung, R. Bödefeld, S. Podleska, A. Sävert, 11, 063050.
R. Wachs, A. Kessler, S. Keppler, M. Wolf, J. Polz, Kim, J. E., and G. Carosi, 2010, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 557.
O. Jäckel, M. Nicolai, et al., 2010, AIP Conf. Proc. 1228, Kim, K.-J., Yu. V. Shvyd’ko, and S. Reiche, 2008, Phys. Rev.
159. Lett. 100, 244802.
Heinzl, T., and A. Ilderton, 2009, Opt. Commun. 282, 1879. Kim, S. P., and C. Schubert, 2011, Phys. Rev. D 84, 125028.
Heinzl, T., A. Ilderton, and M. Marklund, 2010a, Phys. Lett. King, B., A. Di Piazza, and C. H. Keitel, 2010a, Nature Pho-
B 692, 250. ton. 4, 92.
Heinzl, T., A. Ilderton, and M. Marklund, 2010b, Phys. Rev. King, B., A. Di Piazza, and C. H. Keitel, 2010b, Phys. Rev.
D 81, 051902(R). A 82, 032114.
Heinzl, T., B. Liesfeld, K.-U. Amthor, H. Schwoerer, R. Sauer- King, B., and C. H. Keitel, 2012, eprint arXiv:1202.3339v1.
brey, and A. Wipf, 2006, Opt. Commun. 267, 318. Kirk, J. G., A. R. Bell, and I. Arka, 2009, Plasma Phys.
Heinzl, T., D. Seipt, and B. Kämpfer, 2010c, Phys. Rev. A Control. Fusion 51, 085008.
81, 022125. Kirsebom, K., U. Mikkelsen, E. Uggerhøj, K. Elsener,
Heisenberg, W., and H. Euler, 1936, Z. Phys. 98, 714. S. Ballestrero, P. Sona, and Z. Z. Vilakazi, 2001, Phys.
Heitler, W., 1984, The Quantum Theory of Radiation (Dover Rev. Lett. 87, 054801.
Publications, New York). Klaiber, M., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2006,
Henneberger, W. C., 1968, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 838. Phys. Rev. A 74, 051803.
Henrich, B., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2004, Klaiber, M., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2007,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 013601. Phys. Rev. A 75, 063413.
Hetzheim, H. G., and C. H. Keitel, 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett. Klaiber, M., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. Müller, and C. H. Keitel,
102, 083003. 2008, Opt. Lett. 33, 411.
HiPER (High Power laser Energy Research), 2011, URL Klaiber, M., E. Yakaboylu, H. Bauke, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan,
http://www.hiper-laser.org/. and C. H. Keitel, 2012, to be published.
Homma, K., D. Habs, and T. Tajima, 2011, Appl. Phys. B Kneip, S., C. McGuffey, J. L. Martins, S. F. Martins,
104, 769. C. Bellei, V. Chvykov, F. Dollar, R. Fonseca, C. Hunting-
Hu, H., and C. Müller, 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 090402. ton, G. Kalintchenko, A. Maksimchuk, S. P. D. Mangles,
Hu, H., C. Müller, and C. H. Keitel, 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett. et al., 2010, Nature Phys. 6, 980.
105, 080401. Koga, J., T. Zh. Esirkepov, and S. V. Bulanov, 2005, Phys.
Hu, S. X., and C. H. Keitel, 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4709. Plasmas 12, 093106.
55

Kohler, M. C., M. Klaiber, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Leemans, W. P., R. W. Schoenlein, P. Volfbeyn, A. H. Chin,
Keitel, 2011, Europhys. Lett. 94, 14002. T. E. Glover, P. Balling, M. Zolotorev, K. J. Kim, S. Chat-
Kohler, M. C., T. Pfeifer, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. topadhyay, and C. V. Shank, 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77,
Keitel, 2012, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , in press. 4182.
Kornev, A. S., E. B. Tulenko, and B. A. Zon, 2009, Phys. Lehmann, G., and K. H. Spatschek, 2011, Phys. Rev. E 84,
Rev. A 79, 063405. 046409.
Kornev, A. S., and B. A. Zon, 2007, Laser Phys. Lett. 4, 588. Lewenstein, M., P. Balcou, M. Yu. Ivanov, A. L’Huillier, and
Korzhimanov, A. V., A. A. Gonoskov, E. A. Khazanov, and P. B. Corkum, 1994, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2117.
A. M. Sergeev, 2011, Phys. Usp. 54, 9. LHC, 2011, URL http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/.
Krajewska, K., and J. Z. Kamiński, 2008, Laser Phys. 18, Liang, E. P., S. C. Wilks, and M. Tabak, 1998, Phys. Rev.
185. Lett. 81, 4887.
Krajewska, K., and J. Z. Kamiński, 2010, Phys. Rev. A 82, Liao, W., A. Pálffy, and C. H. Keitel, 2011, Phys. Lett. B
013420. 705, 134.
Krajewska, K., and J. Z. Kamiński, 2011, Phys. Rev. A 84, Lin, Q., S. Li, and W. Becker, 2006, Opt. Lett. 31, 2163.
033416. Liu, C., M. Kohler, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. Müller, and C. H.
Krajewska, K., J. Z. Kamiński, and F. Ehlotzky, 2006, Laser Keitel, 2009, New J. Phys. 11, 105045.
Phys. 16, 272. LMJ (Laser MégaJoule), 2011, (Homepage in French), URL
Kramers, H. A., 1956, Collected Scientific Papers (North- http://www-lmj.cea.fr/index.htm.
Holland, Amsterdam). Lorentz, H. A., 1909, The Theory of Electrons (Teubner,
Krausz, F., and M. Yu. Ivanov, 2009, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, Leipzig).
163. Lötstedt, E., U. D. Jentschura, and C. H. Keitel, 2008, Phys.
Krekora, P., Q. Su, and R. Grobe, 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, Rev. Lett. 101, 203001.
040406. Lötstedt, E., U. D. Jentschura, and C. H. Keitel, 2009, New
Krekora, P., Q. Su, and R. Grobe, 2005, J. Mod. Opt. 52, J. Phys. 11, 013054.
489. Lundin, J., L. Stenflo, G. Brodin, M. Marklund, and P. K.
Krivitskii, V. S., and V. N. Tsytovich, 1991, Sov. Phys. Usp. Shukla, 2007, 14, 064503.
34, 250. Lundström, E., G. Brodin, J. Lundin, M. Marklund, R. Bing-
Kryuchkyan, G. Yu., and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, 2011, Phys. ham, J. Collier, J. T. Mendonça, and P. Norreys, 2006,
Rev. Lett. 107, 053604. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 083602.
Kuchiev, M. Yu., 1987, JETP Lett. 45, 404. Macchi, A., M. Borghesi, and M. Passoni, 2012, Rev. Mod.
Kuchiev, M. Yu., 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 130404. Phys. , to be published.
Kuchiev, M. Yu., and D. J. Robinson, 2007, Phys. Rev. A 76, Macchi, A., S. Veghini, and F. Pegoraro, 2009, Phys. Rev.
012107. Lett. 103, 085003.
Kurilin, A. V., 1999, Nuovo Cim. 112, 977. Mackenroth, F., and A. Di Piazza, 2011, Phys. Rev. A 83,
Kurilin, A. V., 2004, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67, 2095. 032106.
Kurilin, A. V., 2009, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 72, 1034. Mackenroth, F., A. Di Piazza, and C. H. Keitel, 2010, Phys.
Kuznetsova, I., D. Habs, and J. Rafelski, 2008, Phys. Rev. D Rev. Lett. 105, 063903.
78, 014027. Maiman, T. H., 1960, nature 187, 493.
Kuznetsova, I., and J. Rafelski, 2012, eprint Major, Z., S. Klingebiel, C. Skrobol, I. Ahmad, C. Wandt,
arXiv:1109.3546v2. S. A. Trushin, F. Krausz, and S. Karsch, 2010, AIP Conf.
Kylstra, N. J., R. A. Worthington, A. Patel, P. L. Knight, Proc. 1228, 117.
J. R. Vázquez de Aldana, and L. Roso, 2000, Phys. Rev. Malka, V., 2011, eprint arXiv:1112.5054v1.
Lett. 85, 1835. Malka, V., J. Faure, Y. A. Gauduel, E. Lefebvre, A. Rousse,
Labun, L., and J. Rafelski, 2009, Phys. Rev. D 79, 057901. and K. T. Phuoc, 2008, Nature Phys. 4, 447.
Landau, L. D., and E. M. Lifshitz, 1975, The Classical Theory Mangles, S. P. D., C. D. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, A. G. R.
of Fields (Elsevier, Oxford). Thomas, J. L. Collier, A. E. Dangor, E. J. Divall, P. S.
Lawson, J. D., 1979, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS-26, 4217. Foster, J. G. Gallacher, C. J. Hooker, D. A. Jaroszynski,
LCLS (Linac Coherent Laser Source), 2011, URL https:// A. J. Langley, et al., 2004, Nature (London) 431, 535.
slacportal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/lcls_public/ Mao, Q. Q., Q. Kong, Y. K. Ho, H. O. Che, H. Y. Ban, Y. J.
Pages/Default.aspx. Gu, and S. Kawata, 2010, Laser Part. Beams 28, 83.
LCLS II (Linac Coherent Light Source II), 2011, URL MaRIE (Matter-Radiation Interactions in Extremes Experi-
https://slacportal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/lcls_ mental), 2011, URL http://marie.lanl.gov/.
public/lcls_ii. Marklund, M., 2010, Nature Photon. 4, 72.
Ledingham, K. W. D., and W. Galster, 2010, New J. Phys. Marklund, M., G. Brodin, L. Stenflo, and P. K. Shukla, 2005,
12, 045005. New J. Phys. 7, 70.
Ledingham, K. W. D., P. McKenna, and R. P. Singhal, 2003, Marklund, M., and P. K. Shukla, 2006, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78,
Science 300, 1107. 591.
Lee, R. N., A. L. Maslennikov, A. I. Milstein, V. M. Marx, B., I. Uschmann, S. Höfer, R. Lötzsch, O. Wehrhan,
Strakhovenko, and Yu. A. Tikhonov, 2003, Phys. Rep. 373, E. Förster, M. Kaluza, T. Stöhlker, H. Gies, C. Detlefs,
213. T. Roth, J. Härtwig, et al., 2011, Opt. Commun. 284, 915.
Leemans, W., and E. Esarey, 2009, Phys. Today 62, 44. Matinyan, S., 1998, Phys. Rep. 298, 199.
Leemans, W. P., B. Nagler, A. J. Gonsalves, C. Tóth, C. G. Matveev, V. I., E. S. Gusarevich, and I. N. Pashev, 2005, J.
R. G. K. Nakamura and, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and Exp. Theor. Phys. 100, 1043.
S. M. Hooker, 2006, Nature Phys. 2, 696. McDonald, K. T., and K. Shmakov, 1999, Phys. Rev. ST
56

Accel. Beams 2, 121301. Mustafa, M. G., and B. Kämpfer, 2009, Phys. Rev. A 79,
Mendonça, J. T., 2007, Europhys. Lett. 79, 21001. 020103(R).
Mendonça, J. T., M. Marklund, P. K. Shukla, and G. Brodin, Nakamura, K., et al. (Particle Data Group), 2010, J. Phys. G
2006, Phys. Lett. A 359, 700. 37, 075021.
Meuren, S., and A. Di Piazza, 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, Nakamura, T., J. K. Koga, T. Zh. Esirkepov, M. Kando, and
260401. S. V. B. Georg Korn, 2011, eprint arXiv:1111.5678v3.
Milosevic, N., P. B. Corkum, and T. Brabec, 2004, Phys. Rev. Narozhny, N. B., S. S. Bulanov, V. D. Mur, and V. S. Popov,
Lett. 92, 013002. 2004, Phys. Lett. A 330, 1.
Milosevic, N., V. P. Krainov, and T. Brabec, 2002, Phys. Rev. Narozhny, N. B., S. S. Bulanov, V. D. Mur, and V. S. Popov,
Lett. 89, 193001. 2006, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 102, 9.
Milstein, A. I., C. Müller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, U. D. Narozhny, N. B., and A. M. Fedotov, 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett.
Jentschura, and C. H. Keitel, 2006, Phys. Rev. A 73, 100, 219101.
062106. Narozhny, N. B., and M. S. Fofanov, 2000, J. Exp. Theor.
Milstein, A. I., and M. Schumacher, 1994, Phys. Rep. 243, Phys. 90, 415.
183. Naumova, N., T. Schlegel, V. T. Tikhonchuk, C. Labaune,
Mimura, H., S. Handa, T. Kimura, H. Yumoto, D. Yamakawa, I. V. Sokolov, and G. Mourou, 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102,
H. Yokoyama, S. Matsuyama, K. Inagaki, K. Yamamura, 025002.
Y. Sano, K. Tamasaku, Y. Nishino, et al., 2010, Nature Nedoreshta, V. N., S. P. Roshchupkin, and A. I. Voroshilo,
Phys. 6, 122. 2009, Laser Phys. 19, 531.
Mocken, G., and C. H. Keitel, 2008, Comp. Phys. Commun. Nerush, E. N., V. F. Bashmakov, and Kostyukov, 2011a,
178, 868. Phys. Plasmas 18, 083107.
Mocken, G. R., and C. H. Keitel, 2004, J. Phys. B 37, L275. Nerush, E. N., I. Yu. Kostyukov, A. M. Fedotov, N. B.
Mocken, G. R., M. Ruf, C. Müller, and C. H. Keitel, 2010, Narozhny, N. V. Elkina, and H. Ruhl, 2011b, Phys. Rev.
Phys. Rev. A 81, 022122. Lett. 106, 035001.
Monden, Y., and R. Kodama, 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, NIF (National Ignition Facility), 2011, URL https://
073602. lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/.
Monin, A., and M. B. Voloshin, 2010, Phys. Rev. D 81, Nikishov, A. I., and V. I. Ritus, 1964a, Sov. Phys. JETP 19,
085014. 529.
Moniz, E. J., and D. H. Sharp, 1977, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2850. Nikishov, A. I., and V. I. Ritus, 1964b, Sov. Phys. JETP 19,
Moore, C. I., A. Ting, S. J. McNaught, J. Qiu, H. R. Burris, 1191.
and P. Sprangle, 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1688. NNDC (National Nuclear Data Center), 2011, URL http://
Mourou, G., 2010, Interview with Optik & Photonik 5, 7. www.nndc.bnl.gov/.
Mourou, G., and T. Tajima, 2011, Science 331, 41. Noble, A., J. Gratus, D. Burton, B. Ersfeld, M. R. Islam,
Mourou, G. A., T. Tajima, and S. V. Bulanov, 2006, Rev. Y. Kravets, G. Raj, and D. Jaroszynski, 2011, Proc. of
Mod. Phys. 78, 309. SPIE 8079, 80790L.
Müller, C., 2009, Phys. Lett. B 672, 56. Olver, F. W. J., D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert, and C. W. Clark
Müller, C., C. Deneke, and C. H. Keitel, 2008a, Phys. Rev. (eds.), 2010, NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions
Lett. 101, 060402. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Müller, C., C. Deneke, M. Ruf, G. R. Mocken, K. Z. Hat- OMEGA EP, 2011, URL http://www.lle.rochester.edu/
sagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2009a, Laser Phys. 19, 791. omega_facility/omega_ep/index.php.
Müller, C., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2006, Phys. Omori, T., T. Aoki, K. Dobashi, T. Hirose, Y. Kurihara,
Rev. D 74, 074017. T. Okugi, I. Sakai, A. Tsunemi, J. Urakawa, M. Washio,
Müller, C., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2008b, and K. Yokoya, 2003, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A 500,
Phys. Rev. A 78, 033408. 232.
Müller, C., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, 2008c, Palaniyappan, S., I. Ghebregziabher, A. D. DiChiara, J. Mac-
Phys. Lett. B 659, 209. Donald, and B. C. Walker, 2006, Phys. Rev. A 74, 033403.
Müller, C., K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, M. Ruf, S. Müller, H. G. Palaniyappan, S., R. Mitchell, R. Sauer, I. Ghebregziabher,
Hetzheim, M. C. Kohler, and C. H. Keitel, 2009b, Laser S. L. White, M. F. Decamp, and B. C. Walker, 2008, Phys.
Phys. 19, 1743. Rev. Lett. 100, 183001.
Müller, C., and C. H. Keitel, 2009, Nature Photon. 3, 245. Pálffy, A., 2008, J. Mod. Opt. 55, 2603.
Müller, C., A. B. Voitkiv, and N. Grün, 2003a, Nucl. Instr. Pálffy, A., 2010, Contemp. Phys. 51, 471.
Meth. Phys. Res. B 205, 306. Pálffy, A., J. Evers, and C. H. Keitel, 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett.
Müller, C., A. B. Voitkiv, and N. Grün, 2003b, Phys. Rev. A 99, 172502.
67, 063407. Pálffy, A., J. Evers, and C. H. Keitel, 2008, Phys. Rev. C 77,
Müller, C., A. B. Voitkiv, and N. Grün, 2003c, Phys. Rev. 044602.
Lett. 91, 223601. Paramonov, G. K., 2007, Chem. Phys. 338, 329.
Müller, C., A. B. Voitkiv, and N. Grün, 2004, Phys. Rev. A Peatross, J., C. Müller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel,
70, 023412. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 153601.
Müller, C., A. B. Voitkiv, and B. Najjari, 2009, J. Phys. B Peccei, R. D., and H. R. Quinn, 1977, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38,
42, 221001. 1440.
Müller, S., and C. Müller, 2009, Phys. Rev. D 80, 053014. Perelomov, A. M., 1967, Sov. Phys. JETP 25, 336.
Müller, T.-O., and C. Müller, 2011, Phys. Lett. B 696, 201. Peskin, M. E., and D. V. Schroeder, 1995, An Introduction to
Mulser, P., and D. Bauer, 2010, High Power Laser-Matter Quantum Field Theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading).
Interaction (Springer, Berlin). PETAL (PETawatt Aquitaine Laser), 2011, URL http://
57

petal.aquitaine.fr/-The-PETAL-laser-facility-. Salamin, Y. I., 2010, Phys. Rev. A 82, 013823.


html. Salamin, Y. I., 2011, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 14, 071302.
PFS (Petawatt Field Sinthesizer), 2011, URL http://www. Salamin, Y. I., and F. H. M. Faisal, 1998, Phys. Rev. A 54,
attoworld.de/Home/attoworld/High-fieldPhysics/ 4383.
ThePetawattFieldSynthesizer/index.html. Salamin, Y. I., Z. Harman, and C. H. Keitel, 2008, Phys. Rev.
PHELIX (Petawatt High-Energy Laser for heavy Ion eXper- Lett. 100, 155004.
iments), 2011, URL http://www.gsi.de/forschung/pp/ Salamin, Y. I., S. X. Hu, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H.
phelix/index_e.html. Keitel, 2006, Phys. Rep. 427, 41.
Piskarskas, A., A. Stabinis, and A. Yankauskas, 1986, Sov. Salamin, Y. I., and C. H. Keitel, 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88,
Phys. Usp. 29, 869. 095005.
Pogorelsky, I. V., I. Ben-Zvi, T. Hirose, S. Kashiwagi, V. Yaki- Salamin, Y. I., G. R. Mocken, and C. H. Keitel, 2002, Phys.
menko, K. Kusche, P. Siddons, J. Skaritka, T. Kumita, Rev. ST Accel. Beams 5, 101301.
A. Tsunemi, T. Omori, J. Urakawa, et al., 2000, Phys. Salamin, Y. I., G. R. Mocken, and C. H. Keitel, 2003, Phys.
Rev. ST Accel. Beams 3, 090702. Rev. E 67, 016501.
Popmintchev, T., M.-C. Chen, A. Bahabad, M. Gerrity, Sansone, G., E. Benedetti, F. Calegari, C. Vozzi, L. Avaldi,
P. Sidorenko, O. Cohen, I. P. Christov, M. M. Murnane, R. Flammini, L. Poletto, P. Villoresi, C. Altucci,
and H. C. Kapteyn, 2009, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. R. Velotta, S. Stagira, S. De Silvestri, et al., 2006, Science
106, 10516. 314, 443.
Popov, V., V. Mur, and B. Karnakov, 1997, JETP Letters Sarachik, E. S., and G. T. Schappert, 1970, Phys. Rev. D 1,
66, 229. 2738.
Popov, V. S., 1971, JETP Lett. 13, 185. Sauter, F., 1931, Z. Phys. 69, 742.
Popov, V. S., 1972, Sov. Phys. JETP 34, 709. SCAPA (Scottish Centre for the Application of Plasma-based
Popov, V. S., 2004, Phys. Usp. 47, 855. Accelerators), 2012, URL http://www.scapa.ac.uk/.
Popov, V. S., B. M. Karnakov, V. D. Mur, and S. G. Pozd- Schafer, K. J., B. Yang, L. F. DiMauro, and K. C. Kulander,
nyakov, 2006, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 102, 760. 1993, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1599.
Postavaru, O., Z. Harman, and C. H. Keitel, 2011, Phys. Rev. Schlegel, T., N. Naumova, V. T. Tikhonchuk, C. Labaune,
Lett. 106, 033001. I. V. Sokolov, and G. Mourou, 2009, Phys. Plasmas 16,
Protopapas, M., C. H. Keitel, and P. L. Knight, 1997, Rep. 083103.
Progr. Phys. 60, 389. Schlenvoigt, H.-P., K. Haupt, A. Debus, F. Budde, O. Jäckel,
PVLAS (Polarizzazione del Vuoto con LASer), 2011, URL S. Pfotenhauer, H. Schwoerer, E. Rohwer, J. G. Gallacher,
http://w3.ts.infn.it/experiments/pvlas/. E. Brunetti, R. P. Shanks, S. M. Wiggins, et al., 2008,
Rabadán, R., A. Ringwald, and K. Sigurdson, 2006, Phys. Nature Phys. 4, 130.
Rev. Lett. 96, 110407. Schoenlein, R. W., W. P. Leemans, A. H. Chin, P. Volfbeyn,
Reiss, H. R., 1962, J. Math. Phys. 3, 59. T. E. Glover, P. Balling, M. Zolotorev, K.-J. Kim, S. Chat-
Reiss, H. R., 1971, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1072. topadhyay, and C. V. Shank, 1996, Science 274, 236.
Reiss, H. R., 1979, Phys. Rev. A 19, 1140. Schroeder, C. B., E. Esarey, C. G. R. Geddes, C. Benedetti,
Reiss, H. R., 1980, Phys. Rev. A 22, 1786. and W. P. Leemans, 2010, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 13,
Reiss, H. R., 1983, Phys. Rev. C 27, 1199. 101301.
Reiss, H. R., 1990a, Phys. Rev. A 42, 1476. Schützhold, R., H. Gies, and G. V. Dunne, 2008, Phys. Rev.
Reiss, H. R., 1990b, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 7, 574. Lett. 101, 130404.
Reiss, H. R., 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 043002. Schwinger, J., 1951, Phys. Rev. 82, 664.
Reiss, H. R., 2009, Eur. Phys. J. D 55, 365. Schwoerer, H., S. Pfotenhauer, O. Jäckel, K.-U. Amthor,
Ridgers, C. P., C. S. Brady, R. Duclous, J. G. Kirk, K. Ben- B. Liesfeld, W. Ziegler, R. Sauerbrey, K. W. D. Leding-
nett, T. D. Arber, A. P. L. Robinson, and A. R. Bell, 2012, ham, and T. Esirkepov, 2006, Nature (London) 439, 445.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 165006. Seipt, D., and B. Kämpfer, 2011a, Phys. Rev. A 83, 022101.
Ringwald, A., 2001, Phys. Lett. B 510, 107. Seipt, D., and B. Kämpfer, 2011b, Phys. Rev. ST Accel.
Ritus, V. I., 1972, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 69, 555. Beams 14, 040704.
Ritus, V. I., 1985, J. Sov. Laser Res. 6, 497. Selstø, S., E. Lindroth, and J. Bengtsson, 2009, Phys. Rev. A
Rohrlich, F., 2007, Classical Charged Particles (World Scien- 79, 043418.
tific, Singapore). Sengupta, N. D., 1949, Bull. Math. Soc. (Calcutta) 41, 187.
Rohrlich, F., 2008, Phys. Rev. E 77, 046609. Seto, K., H. Nagatomo, J. Koga, and K. Mima, 2011, Phys.
Roshchupkin, S. P., 2001, Phys. At. Nucl. 64, 243. Plasmas 18, 123101.
Ruf, M., G. R. Mocken, C. Müller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and Shahbaz, A., T. J. Bürvenich, and C. Müller, 2010, Phys.
C. H. Keitel, 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 080402. Rev. A 82, 013418.
Ruffini, R., G. Vereshchagin, and S.-S. Xue, 2010, Phys. Rep. Shahbaz, A., C. Müller, T. J. Bürvenich, and C. H. Keitel,
487, 1. 2009, Nucl. Phys. A 821, 106.
SACLA (SPring-8 Angstrom Compact free electron LAser), Shahbaz, A., C. Müller, A. Staudt, T. J. Bürvenich, and C. H.
2011, URL http://xfel.riken.jp/eng/. Keitel, 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 263901.
Sakai, I., T. Aoki, K. Dobashi, M. Fukuda, A. Higurashi, Shen, B., and J. Meyer-ter-Vehn, 2001, Phys. Rev. E 65,
T. Hirose, T. Iimura, Y. Kurihara, T. Okugi, T. Omori, 016405.
J. Urakawa, M. Washio, et al., 2003, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Shen, C. S., 1970, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 410.
Beams 6, 091001. Shvyd’ko, Yu., S. Stoupin, V. Blank, and S. Terentyev, 2011,
Salamin, Y. I., 2006, Phys. Rev. A 73, 043402. Nature Photon. 5, 539.
Salamin, Y. I., 2007, Opt. Lett. 32, 90. Sieczka, P., K. Krajewska, J. Z. Kaminski, P. Panek, and
58

F. Ehlotzky, 2006, Phys. Rev. A 73, 053409. Varfolomeev, A. A., 1966, Sov. Phys. JETP 23, 681.
Smeenk, C. T. L., L. Arissian, B. Zhou, A. Mysyrowicz, D. M. Verschl, M., and C. H. Keitel, 2007a, J. Phys. B 40, F69.
Villeneuve, A. Staudte, and P. B. Corkum, 2011, Phys. Verschl, M., and C. H. Keitel, 2007b, Europhys. Lett. 77,
Rev. Lett. 106, 193002. 64004.
Smorenburg, P. W., L. P. J. Kamp, G. A. Geloni, and O. J. Volkov, D. M., 1935, Z. Phys. 94, 250.
Luiten, 2010, Laser Part. Beams 28, 553. Vulcan, 2011, URL http://www.clf.rl.ac.uk/Facilities/
Sokolov, I. V., N. M. Naumova, J. A. Nees, and G. A. Mourou, Vulcan/12248.aspx.
2010a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 195005. Vulcan 10PW, 2011, URL http://www.clf.rl.ac.uk/
Sokolov, I. V., N. M. Naumova, J. A. Nees, G. A. Mourou, New+Initiatives/The+Vulcan+10+Petawatt+Project/
and V. P. Yanovsky, 2009, Phys. Plasmas 16, 093115. 14684.aspx.
Sokolov, I. V., J. A. Nees, V. P. Yanovsky, N. M. Naumova, Wagner, R. E., M. R. Ware, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, 2010a,
and G. A. Mourou, 2010b, Phys. Rev. E 81, 036412. Phys. Rev. A 81, 024101.
Spohn, H., 2000, Europhys. Lett. 50, 287. Wagner, R. E., M. R. Ware, Q. Su, and R. Grobe, 2010b,
SPring8 (Super Photon Ring - 8 GeV), 2011, URL http:// Phys. Rev. A 81, 052104.
www.spring8.or.jp/en/. Walker, P., and G. Dracoulis, 1999, Nature (London) 399,
Strickland, D., and G. Mourou, 1985, Opt. Commun. 55, 447. 35.
Suckewer, S., and P. Jaegle, 2009, Laser Phys. Lett. 6, 411. Walser, M. W., D. J. Urbach, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, S. X. Hu,
Sun, C., and Y. K. Wu, 2011, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams and C. H. Keitel, 2002, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043410.
14, 044701. Wang, Y., E. Granados, F. Pedaci, D. Alessi, B. Luther,
Sung, J. H., S. K. Lee, T. J. Yu, T. M. Jeong, and J. Lee, M. Berrill, and J. J. Rocca, 2008, Nature Photon. 2, 94.
2010, Opt. Lett. 35, 3021. Wang, Z., C. Liu, Z. Shen, Q. Zhang, H. Teng, and Z. Wei,
Tabak, M., J. Hammer, M. E. Glinsky, W. L. Kruer, S. C. 2011, Opt. Lett. 36, 3194.
Wilks, J. Woodworth, E. M. Campbell, M. D. Perry, and Weidenmüller, H. A., 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 122502.
R. J. Mason, 1994, Phys. Plasmas 1, 1626. Weisskopf, V., 1936, K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Mat. Fys. Medd.
Tajima, T., and J. M. Dawson, 1979, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 14, 1.
267. Wilson, E. J. N., 2001, An Introduction to Particle Accelera-
Tajima, T., D. Habs, and G. A. Mourou, 2010, Optik & Pho- tors (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
tonik 5, 24. Winterfeldt, C., C. Spielmann, and G. Gerber, 2008, Rev.
Tamburini, M., T. V. Liseykina, F. Pegoraro, and A. Macchi, Mod. Phys. 80, 117.
2012, Phys. Rev. E 85, 016407. Wong, I., A. Grigoriu, J. Roslund, T.-S. Ho, and H. Rabitz,
Tamburini, M., F. Pegoraro, A. Di Piazza, C. H. Keitel, and 2011, Phys. Rev. A 84, 053429.
A. Macchi, 2010, New J. Phys. 12, 123005. Woodward, P. M., 1947, J. Inst. Electr. Eng. 93, 1554.
Taranukhin, V. D., 2000, Laser Phys. 10, 330. XCELS (Exawatt Center for Extreme Light Studies), 2012,
Taranukhin, V. D., and N. Yu. Shubin, 2001, Quantum Elec- URL http://www.xcels.iapras.ru/.
tronics 31, 179. Xiang, Y., Y. Niu, Y. Qi, R. Li, and S. Gong, 2010, J. Mod.
Taranukhin, V. D., and N. Yu. Shubin, 2002, J. Opt. Soc. Opt. 57, 385.
Am. B 19, 1132. Yakovlev, V. P., 1965, Sov. Phys. JETP 22, 223.
Teitelboim, C., 1971, Phys. Rev. D 4, 345. Yamakawa, K., Y. Akahane, Y. Fukuda, M. Aoyama, N. In-
Telnov, V., 1990, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A 294, 72. oue, and H. Ueda, 2003, Phys. Rev. A 68, 065403.
Teubner, U., and P. Gibbon, 2009, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 445. Yamakawa, K., Y. Akahane, Y. Fukuda, M. Aoyama, N. In-
Thoma, M. H., 2009a, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 959. oue, H. Ueda, and T. Utsumi, 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,
Thoma, M. H., 2009b, Eur. Phys. J. D 55, 271. 123001.
Ting, A., R. Fischer, A. Fisher, K. Evans, R. Burris, J. Krall, Yanovsky, V., V. Chvykov, G. Kalinchenko, P. Rousseau,
E. Esarey, and P. Sprangle, 1995, J. Appl. Phys. 78, 575. T. Planchon, T. Matsuoka, A. Maksimchuk, J. Nees,
Ting, A., R. Fischer, A. Fisher, C. I. Moore, B. Hafizi, R. El- G. Cheriaux, G. Mourou, and K. Krushelnick, 2008, Opt.
ton, K. Krushelnick, R. Burris, S. Jackel, K. Evans, J. N. Express 16, 2109.
Weaver, P. Sprangle, et al., 1996, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Zakowicz, S., 2005, J. Math. Phys. 46, 032304.
Res. A 375, ABS68. Zeitoun, P., G. Faivre, S. Sebban, T. Mocek, A. Hallou, M. Fa-
Tinsley, T. M., 2005, Phys. Rev. D 71, 073010. jardo, D. Aubert, P. Balcou, F. Burgy, D. Douillet, S. Kaza-
Titov, A. I., B. Kämpfer, and H. Takabe, 2009, Phys. Rev. mias, G. de Lachèze-Murel, et al., 2004, Nature 431, 426.
ST Accel. Beams 12, 111301. Zeldovich, Y., and V. S. Popov, 1972, Sov. Phys. Usp. 14,
Tommasini, D., A. Ferrando, H. Michinel, and M. Seco, 2008, 673.
Phys. Rev. A 77, 042101. Zeldovich, Ya. B., and R. A. Sunyaev, 1969, Astrophys. Space
Tommasini, D., and H. Michinel, 2010, Phys. Rev. A 82, Sci. 4, 301.
011803. Zhang, P., Y. Song, and Z. Zhang, 2008, Phys. Rev. A 78,
Toncian, T., M. Borghesi, J. Fuchs, E. d’Humières, P. Antici, 013811.
P. Audebert, E. Brambrink, C. A. Cecchetti, A. Pipahl, Zhi, M. C., and A. V. Sokolov, 2009, Phys. Rev. A 80, 023415.
L. Romagnani, and O. Willi, 2006, Science 312, 410. Zhidkov, A., J. Koga, A. Sasaki, and M. Uesaka, 2002, Phys.
TPL (Texas Petawatt Laser), 2011, URL http://www.ph. Rev. Lett. 88, 185002.
utexas.edu/~ utlasers/. Zimmer, O., C. A. Dominguez, H. Falomir, and M. Loewe,
Tsai, Y. S., 1993, Phys. Rev. D 48, 96. 2012, Phys. Rev. D 85, 013004.
Tuchin, K., 2010, Phys. Lett. B 686, 29. Zon, B. A., 1999, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 89, 219.
Zon, B. A., 2000, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 91, 899.