Routes to nonsequential double ionization

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 85, Issue 18, 2000, Pages 3781-3784

  Kopold, R ^c   Becker, W ^a,c   Rottke, H ^c   Sandner, W ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^b TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^c MAX BORN INSTITUT   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; BINDING ENERGY; ELECTRON TUNNELING; ELECTRONS; IONIZATION; KINETIC ENERGY; LASER PULSES; LASERS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PHOTONS;

ELECTRONIC BOUND STATE; KELDYSH-FAISAL-REISS MODEL; LEWENSTEIN-IVANOV MODEL; MOMENTUM DISTRIBUTION; NONSEQUENTIAL DOUBLE IONIZATION; STRONG FIELD APPROXIMATION;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 0034295229     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3781     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. K. C. Kulander, Phys. Rev. A 38, 778 (1988).
2. M. Nandor et al., Phys. Rev. A 60, R1771 (1999).
3. A. L'Huillier et al., Phys. Rev. A 27, 2503 (1983).
4. S. Augst et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2212 (1989).
5. D. N. Fittinghoff et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2642 (1992).
6. K. Kondo et al., Phys. Rev. A 48, R2531 (1993).
7. B. Walker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1227 (1994).
8. P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1994 (1993).
9. P. B. Lerner et al., Phys. Rev. A 49, R12 (1994).
10. M. Yu. Kuchiev, J. Phys. B 28, 5093 (1995).
11. A. Becker and F. H. M. Faisal, J. Phys. B 29, L197 (1996); Phys. Rev. A 59, R1742 (1999).
12. A. Becker and F. H. M. Faisal, J. Phys. B 29, L197 (1996); Phys. Rev. A 59, R1742 (1999).
13. J. B. Watson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1884 (1997).
14. D. Bauer, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3028 (1997).
15. K. J. LaGattuta and J. S. Cohen, J. Phys. B 31, 5281 (1998).
16. W. C. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 520 (1999).
17. T. Dundas et al., J. Phys. B 32, L231 (1999).
18. L. F. DiMauro and P. Agostini, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 35, 79 (1995).
19. P. Lambropoulos et al., Phys. Rep. 305, 203 (1998).
20. M. Lein et al., J. Phys. B 33, 433 (2000).
21. M. Dörr, Opt. Express 6, 111 (2000).
22. Th. Weber et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 443 (2000).
23. R. Moshammer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 447 (2000).
24. Th. Weber et al., J. Phys. B 33, L127 (2000).
25. A. Becker and F. H. M. Faisal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3546 (2000).
26. M. Lewenstein et al., Phys. Rev. A 49, 2117 (1994).
27. A. Lohr et al., Phys. Rev. A 55, R4003 (1997).
28. The fact that in this matrix element and in our later developments the specific form of the interaction potential is of subordinate significance is emphasized by L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics (Nonrelativistic Theory) (Pergamon. New York, 1977), 3rd ed., Sect. 53.
29. In particular, the Coulomb interactions between the returning electron, the still bound electron, and the ionic core are approximated by one joint contact interaction. In contrast, A. Becker and F.H.M. Faisal [24] exactly retain the Coulomb interaction between the returning and the bound electron but ignore the ion. Both approaches disregard the Coulomb repulsion between the two electrons in the final state. This has no effect on their total momentum P.
30. 2, by using the theoretical spectrum of V. P. Krainov [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 14, 425 (1997)].
31. 02 = 0.1w.