Interplay of electron correlation and intense field dynamics in the double ionization of helium

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 1999, Pages

  Becker, A ^a   Faisal, F H M ^a  

^a BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA ACQUISITION; IONIZATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PHOTONS; SYNCHROTRON RADIATION;

DOUBLE IONIZATION; ELECTRON CORRELATION; INTENSE FIELD DYNAMICS; QUASISTATIC TUNNELING;

HELIUM;

EID: 0001146311     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.59.R1742     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. V. V. Suran and I. P. Zapesochnyi', Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 1, 420 (1975).
2. T. S. Luk et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 110 (1983).
3. L. F. DiMauro and P. Agostini, Adv. At., Mol., Opt. Phys. 35, 79 (1995).
4. B. Walker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1227 (1994).
5. D. N. Fittinghoff et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2642 (1992).
6. B. Walker et al., Phys. Rev. A 48, R894 (1993).
7. K. Kondo et al., Phys. Rev. A 48, R2531 (1993).
8. D. N. Fittinghoff et al., Phys. Rev. A 49, 2174 (1994).
9. S. Augst et al., Phys. Rev. A 52, R917 (1995);
10. A. Talebpour et al., J. Phys. B 30, 1721 (1997).
11. M. Yu. Kuchiev, JETP Lett. 45, 404 (1987);
12. J. Phys. B 28, 5093 (1995);
13. Phys. Lett. A 212, 77 (1995).
14. P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1994 (1993).
15. F. H. M. Faisal and A. Becker, in Selected Topics on Electron Physics, edited by D. M. Campbell and H. Kleinpoppen (Plenum, New York, 1996), p. 317.
16. A. Becker and F. H. M. Faisal, J. Phys. B 29, L197 (1996).
17. F. H. M. Faisal and A. Becker, Laser Phys. 7, 684 (1997).
18. F. H. M. Faisal and A. Becker, in Multiphoton Processes 1996, edited by P. Lambropoulos and H. Walther, Intl. Conf. Ser. No. 154 (IOP, Bristol, 1997), p. 118.
19. J. H. McGuire, Electron Corrrlation Dynamics in Atomic Collisions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1997).
20. D. G. Lappas et al., J. Phys. B 29, L619 (1996);
21. J. B. Watson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1884 (1997);
22. D. Bauer, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3028 (1997).
23. n may also be considered as the maximum possible classical energy attainable in the field, which would seem to restrict the applicability of the formula, Eq. (1), for laser parameters outside the so-called "multiphoton regime."
24. re ≈ 54 a.u.
25. W. Lotz, Z. Phys. 216, 241 (1968)
26. W. Lotz, Z. Phys. 232, 101 (1970).
27. L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1945 (1964)
28. [Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 1307 (1965)];
29. F. H. M. Faisal, J. Phys. B 6, L89 (1973);
30. H. R. Reiss, Phys. Rev. A 22, 1786 (1980).
31. V. P. Krainov, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 14, 425 (1997).
32. This rather ad hoc Coulomb correction overcomes the usual small KFR rates and provides very satisfactory agreements with the single-ionization yields shown in the figures and other rare gases (unpublished).
33. Due to the well-known difficulty of intensity measurements, it is usual to assume that the experimental intensities can have 50% uncertainty. For the present comparison the nominal experimental intensities are multiplied, respectively, by a factor of 1.0 [Figs. 2(a),(b)], 0.8 [Fig. 3(a)], 1.25 [Fig. 3(b)], and 0.5 [Fig. 3(c)], which lie well within the measurement uncertainty reported.
34. M. R. Cervenan and N. R. Isenor, Opt. Commun. 13, 175 (1975).
35. D. Charalambidis et al., J. Phys. B 30, 1467 (1997).