4.7 Review

Report on progress in physics: observation of the Breit-Wheeler process and vacuum birefringence in heavy-ion collisions

期刊

REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS
卷 86, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6633/acdae4

关键词

quantum electrodynamics; Breit-Wheeler process; vacuum birefringence; vacuum dichroism; heavy-ion collisions; light-by-light scattering

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This report reviews the efforts made over several decades in high-energy particle and heavy-ion collider experiments to observe the linear Breit-Wheeler process (γγ → e+e-) and vacuum birefringence (VB). Motivated by recent observations by the STAR collaboration, the report summarizes key issues related to the interpretation of polarized γγ → l+l- measurements in high-energy experiments. It covers historical context, theoretical developments, progress in experimental approaches, detector capabilities, and connections with VB.
This report reviews the effort over several decades to observe the linear Breit-Wheeler process (?? & RARR; e(+)e(-)) and vacuum birefringence (VB) in high-energy particle and heavy-ion collider experiment. This report, motivated by the STAR collaboration's recent observations, attempts to summarize the key issues related to the interpretation of polarized ?? & RARR; l(+)l(-) measurements in high-energy experiments. To that end, we start by reviewing the historical context and essential theoretical developments, before focusing on the decades of progress made in high-energy collider experiments. Special attention is given to the evolution in experimental approaches in response to various challenges, to the demanding detector capabilities required to unambiguously identify the linear Breit-Wheeler process, and to the connections with VB. We close the report with a discussion, followed by a look at near-future opportunities for utilizing these discoveries and for testing quantum electrodynamics in previously unexplored regimes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据