Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-zlvph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T17:35:42.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ultra-intense laser pulses in near-critical underdense plasmas – radiation reaction and energy partitioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2017

Erik Wallin*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, SE–412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
Arkady Gonoskov
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, SE–412 96 Göteborg, Sweden Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nizhny Novgorod 603950, Russia University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod 603950, Russia
Christopher Harvey
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, SE–412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
Olle Lundh
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Lund Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 118, SE–221 00 Lund, Sweden
Mattias Marklund
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, SE–412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
*
Email address for correspondence: erik.wallin@chalmers.se
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although, for current laser pulse energies, the weakly nonlinear regime of laser wakefield acceleration is known to be the optimal for reaching the highest possible electron energies, the capabilities of upcoming large laser systems will provide the possibility of running highly nonlinear regimes of laser pulse propagation in underdense or near-critical plasmas. Using an extended particle-in-cell (PIC) model that takes into account all the relevant physics, we show that such regimes can be implemented with external guiding for a relatively long distance of propagation and allow for the stable transformation of laser energy into other types of energy, including the kinetic energy of a large number of high energy electrons and their incoherent emission of photons. This is despite the fact that the high intensity of the laser pulse triggers a number of new mechanisms of energy depletion, which we investigate systematically.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017
Figure 0

Figure 1. Comparing the effects of classical and quantum radiation reaction in a ultra-high intensity regime. Here $I=4\times 10^{24}~\text{W}~\text{cm}^{-2}$ and $N=3\times 10^{20}~\text{cm}^{-3}$. In (a) we show the case of QED radiation reaction, in (b) classical radiation reaction via the Landau–Lifshitz model and in (c) the case without radiation reaction. All these three cases have self-consistent ion motion included. In (d) we have included classical radiation reaction via the Landau–Lifshitz model but kept the ions (hydrogen) stationary and in case (e) the ions are fixed and the radiation reaction is turned off. As expected, the notion of fixed ions gives results very far from the self-consistent picture. We note a significant effect of radiation reaction on the ion motion by comparison of (ac), while the difference in (a) and (b) is negligible. Thus, the small differences between (a) and (b) supports the notion that we in the LWFA case can use the classical radiation reaction model with great accuracy even at very high intensities, putting our use of the classical model for radiation reaction for these systems on a firm footing.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Comparison of the results for simulations with and without the RR force at $0.53~\text{ps}$, when the laser has propagated $160~\unicode[STIX]{x03BC}\text{m}$ into the plasma. (a) The electron density (green to black) and the $y$-component of the electric field (red to blue) for the intensity equal to $8\times 10^{21}~\text{W}~\text{cm}^{-2}$, for which the two cases are inseparable. (b) The angular plot of the synchrotron emission for the same case. (ch) The same information (note: with the same scales and axes) for the cases with (a,c,e,g) and without (b,d,f,h) the RR force shown in a more compact form for the intensities $8\times 10^{22}~\text{W}~\text{cm}^{-2}$, $8\times 10^{23}~\text{W}~\text{cm}^{-2}$ and $4\times 10^{24}~\text{W}~\text{cm}^{-2}$ counting from left to right. (e) The two boxes show the regions in which the number of electrons in the laser pulse and electron bunch regions are measured.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Ratio of peak electron energies (left axis) and pulse depletion times (right axis) for simulations without to those with RR included. The pulse depletion time is calculated as the time taken for the laser to lose half its initial energy. The ratio of the peak electron energies in the two cases is calculated throughout the simulations and is generally found to increase with time. Here we plot the maximum value which typically occurs when the pulse is depleted. Note the different scales on the vertical axes.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Electron energy distribution at 1.06 ps. The inclusion of RR reduces the peak energy of the electrons.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Redistribution of laser pulse energy to electrons, ions (hydrogen) and photons over time for the intensity $4\times 10^{24}~\text{W}~\text{cm}^{-2}$. The energy of the electrons is clearly overestimated without RR. Also, a substantial amount of energy goes to the ions in both cases.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Electron density in the laser pulse region, measured in a box as shown in figure 2(e). The range shown is until the laser pulse starts to break down and the wakefield collapses allowing particles flow freely through the box. For the lowest intensity, the electrons do not flow as much around the pulse, but pass through it and there is no difference between the RR and no RR cases. For higher intensities the electrons are forced around the pulse, but the effect of RR counteracts this. More electrons flow through the pulse due to RR, and there is also a trapping effect, where for the higher intensity cases the electrons spend more time in the high intensity region. The thickness of the box is $2~\unicode[STIX]{x03BC}\text{m}$, the same as the electron density slice in figure 2

Figure 6

Figure 7. Electron density in the electron bunch region, measured in a box around the bunch as shown in figure 2(e). At higher intensities the inclusion of RR increases the amount of charge in the bunch up to the point were the laser is too depleted to drive the bunch. For the case without RR the bunch electrons, as well as the laser pulse, have lost less energy and the bunch can be sustained for a longer time. For the lower intensities the pulse is quickly depleted, after which only the background plasma is measured.

Figure 7

Figure 8. Radiation spectra for the four different intensity cases. For the lowest intensity there is little difference between the RR and no RR cases, but this grows very notable for the higher intensities where the inclusion of RR removes the high-frequency contribution, as the peak energy of the electrons is lowered.

Figure 8

Figure 9. Angular distribution of radiated energy as a function of the angle from the propagation direction of the laser pulse. Note that the energy scale is normalized.