4.6 Article

Semiclassical two-step model for strong-field ionization

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 94, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.013415

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community's FP7 through CRONOS Project [280879]
  2. Academy of Finland [267686]
  3. Nordic Innovation through Top-Level Research Initiative Project [P-13053]
  4. COST Action [CM-1204]
  5. STSM Grant from COST Action [CM-1204]
  6. ERC-StG [277767]
  7. VKR Center of Excellence QUSCOPE
  8. CONICET (Argentina) [PIP0386]
  9. ANPCyT (Argentina) [PICT-2014-2363]
  10. [FWF-SFB049 NextLite]
  11. [UBACyT0617BA]
  12. Villum Fonden [00007335] Funding Source: researchfish
  13. European Research Council (ERC) [277767] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  14. Academy of Finland (AKA) [267686, 267686] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a semiclassical two-step model for strong-field ionization that accounts for path interferences of tunnel-ionized electrons in the ionic potential beyond perturbation theory. Within the framework of a classical trajectory Monte Carlo representation of the phase-space dynamics, the model employs the semiclassical approximation to the phase of the full quantum propagator in the exit channel. By comparison with the exact numerical solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation for strong-field ionization of hydrogen, we show that for suitable choices of the momentum distribution after the first tunneling step, the model yields good quantitative agreement with the full quantum simulation. The two-dimensional photoelectron momentum distributions, the energy spectra, and the angular distributions are found to be in good agreement with the corresponding quantum results. Specifically, the model quantitatively reproduces the fanlike interference patterns in the low-energy part of the two-dimensional momentum distributions, as well as the modulations in the photoelectron angular distributions.

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