4.6 Article

Analytical model for calibrating laser intensity in strong-field-ionization experiments

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
Volume 93, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.023413

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
  2. National Science Foundation [IIA-1430493]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11164025, 11264036, 11465016, 11364038]
  4. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20116203120001]
  5. Basic Scientific Research Foundation for the Institution of Higher Learning of Gansu Province
  6. Office of Integrative Activities [1430519] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Office Of The Director [1430519] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Office Of The Director
  9. Office of Integrative Activities [1430493] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The interaction of an intense laser pulse with atoms and molecules depends extremely nonlinearly on the laser intensity. Yet experimentally there still exists no simple reliable methods for determining the peak laser intensity within the focused volume. Here we present a simple method, based on an improved Perelomov-Popov-Terent'ev model, that would allow the calibration of laser intensities from the measured ionization signals of atoms or molecules. The model is first examined by comparing ionization probabilities (or signals) of atoms and several simple diatomic molecules with those from solving the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. We then show the possibility of using this method to calibrate laser intensities for atoms, diatomic molecules as well as large polyatomic molecules, for laser intensities from the multiphoton ionization to tunneling ionization regimes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available