4.6 Article

Pulse-duration dependence of the double-to-single ionization ratio of Ne by intense 780-nm and 800-nm laser fields: Comparison of simulations with experiments

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.043408

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11274219]
  2. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry
  3. United States National Science Foundation [PHY-1430245, PHY-1520970, PHY-1803844]
  4. XSEDE Allocation [PHY-090031]
  5. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI [16H04029, 16H04103, 17K05597]
  6. Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Office of Science, United States Department of Energy [DE-FG02-86ER13491]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate ab initio calculations of the ratio of double-to-single ionization of Ne atoms in strong laser fields are difficult due to the many-electron nature of the target. Here, with accurate total cross sections carefully evaluated by using the state-of-the-art many-electron R-matrix theory for both electron-impact ionization and electron-impact excitation of Ne+, we simulate the total double-ionization yields of Ne2+ in strong laser fields at 780 and 800 nm for pulse durations in the range from 7.5 to 200 fs based on the improved quantitative rescattering model. The corresponding single-ionization yields of Ne+ are calculated within the nonadiabatic tunneling model of Perelomov, Popov, and Terent'ev. The ratio of double-to-single ionization of Ne is then obtained from the calculated double- and single-ionization yields. By normalizing the ratio to the one calculated from solving the time-dependent Schrodinger equation for a short few-cycle pulse, we make quantitative comparisons of our results with experimental data to show that our model predicts the experimental findings very well. Finally, we analyze the pulse-duration dependence of the double-to-single ionization ratio.

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