4.6 Article

Laser-induced field emission from a tungsten nanotip by circularly polarized femtosecond laser pulses

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 101, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.045406

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation through the Ambizione [PZ00P2_131701]
  2. NCCR MUST
  3. Kazato Research Foundation
  4. Murata Science Foundation
  5. Sumitomo Foundation
  6. Research Foundation for Opto-Science and Technology
  7. Japanese Science and Technology Agency via the PRESTO project [1082208]
  8. PETACom project - FET Open H2020 program
  9. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [389759512, SPP1840]
  10. EU via ATTOCO [307203]
  11. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PZ00P2_131701] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have investigated emission patterns and energy spectra of electrons from a tungsten nanotip induced by circularly polarized femtosecond laser pulses. Variations of emission patterns were observed for different helicities of circular polarization while the energy spectra remained almost identical. The physics behind this difference in emission patterns is the change in propagation directions of surface electromagnetic waves on the tip apex. The energy spectra showed the same spectroscopic signatures as the linearly polarized laser in a strong-field regime, which are a low-energy peak and a plateau feature. The low-energy peak is due to a delayed electron emission with respect to a prompt emission. The experimental data and plasmonic simulations support our previous conclusion, where the observed delayed emission processes originate from an inelastic rescattering process. This work demonstrates that the use of circular polarization is an easy means to add extra knobs to control the spatial and temporal emission from a nanotip at the nanometer and femtosecond scale. It could find applications as a helicity-driven subcycle optical switch.

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

4.6
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