Numerical simulation of high-order above-threshold-ionization enhancement in argon

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 1341-1350

  Muller, H G ^a  

^a FOM INSTITUTE AMOLF   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001626050     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.1341     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. P. Agostini, F. Fabre, G. Mainfray, G. Petite, and N. K. Rahman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1127 (1979).
2. K. J. Schafer, B. Yang, L. F. DiMauro, and K. C. Kulander, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1599 (1993).
3. G. G. Paulus, W. Nicklich, Huale Xu, P. Lambropoulos, and H. Walther, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2851 (1994).
4. H. B. van Linden van den Heuvell and H. G. Muller, in Studies in Modern Optics No. 8, Multiphoton Processes, edited by S. J. Smith and P. L. Knight (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1988).
5. H. G. Muller, Comments At. Mol. Phys. 24, 355 (1990).
6. H. R. Reiss, Phys. Rev. A 22, 1786 (1980).
7. W. Becker, R. R. Schlicher, and M. O. Scully, J. Phys. B 19, L785 (1986).
8. P. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1994 (1993).
9. J. M. Schins, P. Breger, P. Agostini, R. C. Constantinescu, H. G. Muller, G. Grillon, A. Antonetti, and A. Mysyrowicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2180 (1994)
10. J. M. SchinsP. BregerP. AgostiniR. C. ConstantinescuH. G. MullerG. GrillonA. AntonettiA. MysyrowiczPhys. Rev. A 52, 1272 (1995).
11. M. P. Hertlein, P. H. Bucksbaum, and H. G. Muller, J. Phys. B 30, L197 (1997).
12. P. Hansch, M. A. Walker, and L. D. Van Woerkom, Phys. Rev. A 55, R2535 (1997).
13. L.-A. Lompré, A. l’Huiller, P. Monot, M. Ferray, G. Mainfray, and C. Manus, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 7, 754 (1990).
14. R. R. Freeman, P. H. Bucksbaum, H. Milchberg, S. Darack, D. Schumacher, and M. E. Geusic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1092 (1987).
15. At this intensity, the barrier is centered on (Formula presented) bohrs, at a level of (Formula presented)
16. P. H. Bucksbaum, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, J. Phys. B 30, L843 (1997).
17. H. G. Muller and F. C. Kooiman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1207 (1998).
18. E. Cormier and P. Lambropoulos, J. Phys. B 29, 1667 (1996).
19. This “gauge” is a description in an oscillating frame, in which the radiative forces on the electron are cancelled by the inertial forces, and the only effect of the light is to make the position of the nucleus time dependent [W. C. Henneberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 838 (1968)].
20. P. A. Christiansen, Y. S. Lee, and K. S. Pitzer, J. Chem. Phys. 71, 4445 (1979).
21. J. L. Krause, K. J. Schafer, and K. C. Kulander, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3535 (1992)
22. J. L. KrauseK. J. SchaferK. C. KulanderPhys. Rev. A 45, 4998 (1992).
23. C. E. Moore, Atomic Energy Levels, Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) No. 467 (U.S. GPO, Washington, DC, 1949), Vol. I, p. 212.
24. This applies both to spin-orbit couplings and two-electron orbit-orbit couplings.
25. H. G. Muller, Laser Phys. 9, 138 (1999).
26. The ionization rate of (Formula presented) states was about two orders of magnitude smaller, and does not contribute to the ATI spectrum along the polarization vector, since it has a node there.
27. This is a special case of the popular sine-square turn on in terms of the electric field (Formula presented)
28. For instance, the atomic propagator evolves eigenstates with a frequency (Formula presented) rather than with their eigenvalue (Formula presented)
29. R. Taïeb, V. Véniard, and A. Maquet, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 13, 363 (1996).
30. M. J. Nandor, M. A. Walker, L. D. Van Woerkom, and H. G. Muller (unpublished).
31. K. J. Schafer and K. C. Kulander, Phys. Rev. A 42, 5794 (1990).
32. This is the rate for a single orbital; even neglecting ionization from the (Formula presented) orbitals perpendicular to the polarization, the rate for the atom would be double.
33. M. V. Ammosov, N. B. Delone, and V. P. Krainov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 91, 2008 (1986) [Sov. Phys. JETP 64, 1191 (1986)];
34. N. B. Delone and V. P. Krainov, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 168, 531 (1998) [Phys. Usp. 41, 469 (1998)].
35. In mathematical terms: the limit of a moving δ function cannot be taken pointwise.
36. K. Im, R. Grobe, and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2853 (1994).
37. M. Pont, N. R. Walet, M. Gavrila, and C. W. McCurdy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 939 (1988).
38. Bonian Dai and P. Lambropulos, Phys. Rev. A 36, 5205 (1987)
39. P. L. Knight, M. A. Lauder, and B. J. Dalton, Phys. Rep. 190, 1 (1990).
40. This kind of identification should not be taken too literally: at some phases of the field the state is displaced so much that the nucleus is centered in one of the lobes, and at that moment the state has more (Formula presented) than (Formula presented) character.
41. H. B. Bebb and A. Gold, Phys. Rev. 143, 1 (1966).
42. H. G. Muller, Opt. Express (to be published).
43. K. C. Kulander, K. J. Schafer, and J. L. Krause, in Atoms in Intense Laser Fields, edited by M. Gavrila (Academic, New York, 1992), p. 247.