Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T20:20:06.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A platform for all-optical Thomson/Compton scattering with versatile parameters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2025

Siyu Chen Open the ORCID record for Siyu Chen [Opens in a new window] ,
Wenchao Yan Open the ORCID record for Wenchao Yan [Opens in a new window] ,
Mingyang Zhu Open the ORCID record for Mingyang Zhu [Opens in a new window] ,
Yaojun Li Open the ORCID record for Yaojun Li [Opens in a new window] ,
Xichen Hu Open the ORCID record for Xichen Hu [Opens in a new window] ,
Hao Xu ,
Weijun Zhou Open the ORCID record for Weijun Zhou [Opens in a new window] ,
Guangwei Lu ,
Mingxuan Wei  and
Lin Lu
...Show all authors
Siyu Chen
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China
Wenchao Yan*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China Collaborative Innovation Center of IFSA, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Mingyang Zhu
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China
Yaojun Li
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China
Xichen Hu
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China
Hao Xu
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China
Weijun Zhou
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China
Guangwei Lu
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China
Mingxuan Wei
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China
Lin Lu
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China Collaborative Innovation Center of IFSA, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Xulei Ge
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China Tsung-Dao Lee Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China Collaborative Innovation Center of IFSA, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Boyuan Li
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China Collaborative Innovation Center of IFSA, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Xiaohui Yuan
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China Collaborative Innovation Center of IFSA, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Feng Liu
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China Collaborative Innovation Center of IFSA, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Min Chen
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China Collaborative Innovation Center of IFSA, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Liming Chen
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China Collaborative Innovation Center of IFSA, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Jie Zhang
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , Shanghai, China Tsung-Dao Lee Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China Collaborative Innovation Center of IFSA, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
*
Correspondence to: W. Yan, State Key Laboratory of Dark Matter Physics, Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas (MoE), School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China. Email: wenchaoyan@sjtu.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A dual-beam platform is developed for all-optical Thomson/Compton scattering, with versatile parameter tuning capabilities including electron energy, radiation energy, radiation polarization, etc. By integrating this platform with a 200 TW Ti:sapphire laser system, we demonstrate the generation of inverse Compton scattering X-/gamma-rays with tunable energies ranging from tens of keV to MeV. The polarization of X-/gamma-rays is manipulated by adjusting the polarization of the scattering laser. In the near future, by combining this platform with multi-PW laser facilities, our goal is to explore the transition from nonlinear Thomson scattering to nonlinear Compton scattering, ultimately verifying theories related to strong-field quantum electrodynamics effects induced by extreme scattering.

Keywords

inverse Compton scatteringplatformstrong-field quantum electrodynamicsX-/gamma-ray

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
High Power Laser Science and Engineering , Volume 13 , 2025 , e56
Check for updates
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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with Chinese Laser Press

1 Introduction

The investigation of strong-field quantum electrodynamics (SF-QED) processes requires extreme field intensities approaching the Schwinger limit[ Reference Schwinger1], which cannot be reached by state-of-the-art laser facilities. However, when a relativistic electron travels through an existing intense laser field, the field experienced by the electron in its rest frame is Lorentz transformed to a level where SF-QED effects matter. Therefore, relativistic electrons can act as probes to test these effects. This interaction is known as Thomson or Compton scattering, depending on whether the process is elastic or inelastic scattering. During the scattering, collimated X-/gamma-rays are generated and can be used as radiation sources, commonly known as the inverse Compton scattering (ICS) source. Previously, scattering experiments were conducted in the laboratories of particle accelerators, but the remarkable advances in laser wakefield acceleration (LWFA)[ Reference Tajima and Dawson2] have now enabled the study of these experiments under the all-optical setup within high-intensity laser laboratories. The principle of the scattering process is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Schematic diagram of the Thomson/Compton scattering process. A relativistic electron beam collides with a scattering laser. The electrons oscillate and emit X-/gamma-rays. Here, $\varphi$ denotes the collision angle between the laser and the electron beam, $\theta$ represents the radiation observation angle, ${\omega}_0$ signifies the central frequency of the scattering laser photon and ${\omega}_\mathrm{sc}$ corresponds to the frequency of the emitted photon.

There are two possible configurations for all-optical scattering experiments. One is a simplified version that involves only one laser beam. This laser beam first drives a wakefield accelerator, and then its leftover energy is reflected by a plasma mirror[ Reference Phuoc, Corde, Thaury, Malka, Tafzi, Goddet, Shah, Sebban and Rousse3– Reference Gu and Weber10] onto electrons, causing head-on scattering. The other scheme features a layout with two independently tunable laser pulses[ Reference Yu, Qi, Wang, Liu, Li, Wang, Zhang, Liu, Qin, Fang, Feng, Wu, Tian, Xu, Wu, Leng, Weng, Wang, Wei, Yi, Song, Li and Xu5, Reference Cole, Behm, Gerstmayr, Blackburn, Wood, Baird, Duff, Harvey, Ilderton, Joglekar, Krushelnick, Kuschel, Marklund, McKenna, Murphy, Poder, Ridgers, Samarin, Sarri, Symes, Thomas, Warwick, Zepf, Najmudin and Mangles11– Reference Pukhov and Meyer-ter Vehn18]. Although precise temporal and spatial synchronization between the two beamlines is technically difficult, the dual-beam scheme offers the distinct advantage of independently controlling the properties of the scattering process. Each of the two lasers can be individually tuned to optimal conditions, enabling the generation of high-energy electrons and a scattering laser that meets specific requirements, respectively. Specifically, by keeping the parameters of the LWFA constant, one can exclusively manipulate the colliding pulse, enabling a single-variable investigation into the scattering process.

To investigate these scattering processes, we established an experimental platform for dual-beam all-optical Thomson/Compton scattering (EPATCS) with versatile parameter tuning capabilities. The EPATCS is a tabletop electron–photon interaction setup, where high-energy electrons are accelerated by one laser beam and then collide with the second laser beam. The flexibility in parameter tuning not only enhances control over experimental conditions, but also opens up new prospects for investigating high-field scattering processes. By precisely controlling the intensity, polarization state and field mode of the colliding laser beam, we can generate X-/gamma-rays with varying characteristics, which can serve as light sources for applications such as high-density dynamic imaging[ Reference Fletcher, Lee, Döppner, Galtier, Nagler, Heimann, Fortmann, LePape, Ma, Millot, Pak, Turnbull, Chapman, Gericke, Vorberger, White, Gregori, Wei, Barbrel, Falcone, Kao, Nuhn, Welch, Zastrau, Neumayer, Hastings and Glenzer19– Reference Wu, Wang, Zhu, Yan, Yu, Li, Zhang, Yang, Tan, Lu, Bi, Mao, Wang, Zhao, Su, Zhou and Gu26] and vortex photons for photonuclear physics[ Reference Habs, Tajima, Schreiber, Barty, Fujiwara and Thirolf27, Reference Weidenmüller28]. The EPATCS can also be built on PW laser facilities and provides the possibility of interaction between multi-GeV electrons and high laser intensity under extreme conditions[ Reference Pukhov and Meyer-ter Vehn18] to study SF-QED effects, including the radiation reaction[ Reference Cole, Behm, Gerstmayr, Blackburn, Wood, Baird, Duff, Harvey, Ilderton, Joglekar, Krushelnick, Kuschel, Marklund, McKenna, Murphy, Poder, Ridgers, Samarin, Sarri, Symes, Thomas, Warwick, Zepf, Najmudin and Mangles11, Reference Poder, Tamburini, Sarri, Di Piazza, Kuschel, Baird, Behm, Bohlen, Cole, Corvan, Duff, Gerstmayr, Keitel, Krushelnick, Mangles, McKenna, Murphy, Najmudin, Ridgers, Samarin, Symes, Thomas, Warwick and Zepf12], pair production[ Reference Gu and Weber10, Reference Breit and Wheeler29– Reference Gu, Klimo, Bulanov and Weber31], conversion of angular momentum transfer in the collision process[ Reference Petrillo, Dattoli, Drebot and Nguyen32– Reference Ababekri, Guo, Wan, Qiao, Li, Lv, Zhang, Zhou, Gu and Li34], etc.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we discuss the versatile tuning of ICS X-/gamma-ray source parameters and their impact on enhancing control over high-field processes and tunable radiation spectra. Section 3 presents the experimental results based on the EPATCS at the 200 TW laser of Shanghai Jiao Tong University. In Section 4, we elucidate the prospective SF-QED research of the EPATCS.

2 Versatile tuning parameters of the experimental platform for dual-beam all-optical Thomson/Compton scattering

The EPATCS offers the potential for multi-parameter adjustments, including tuning the electron beam energy, altering the collision angle between electrons and photons and adjusting the parameters of the colliding laser (such as the laser intensity, wavelength, polarization and orbital angular momentum). In this section, we introduce the experimental designs and explorations to investigate the adjustable parameters and their effects on radiation.

A schematic diagram of a dual-beam collision layout is as shown in Figure 2(a), to investigate the influence of multiple parameters on the photon energy of radiation in the ICS process. The combination of the optical system and guide rail enables precise adjustments to the electron–laser collision angle. Adjustments in the collision angle $\varphi$ , the focusing intensity ${a}_0$ , the wavelength $\lambda$ , the polarization state $P$ and the orbital angular momentum $\overrightarrow{L}$ of the colliding beam will significantly alter the characteristics of the radiation emitted. Adjusting the collision angle $\varphi$ results in a significant variation in the energy spectrum of the X-/gamma-ray from tens of keV to MeV[ Reference Döpp, Phuoc and Andriyash35]. When the normalized vector potential of the colliding laser, ${a}_0$ , varies from less than 1 to greater than 1, the electron–photon interaction shifts from a linear to a nonlinear process[ Reference Powers, Ghebregziabher, Golovin, Liu, Chen, Banerjee, Zhang and Umstadter13, Reference Khrennikov, Wenz, Buck, Xu, Heigoldt, Veisz and Karsch16, Reference Yan, Fruhling, Golovin, Haden, Luo, Zhang, Zhao, Zhang, Liu, Chen, Chen, Banerjee and Umstadter17]. Modifying the wavelength $\lambda$ alters the colliding laser photon energy ${E}_0=\mathrm{\hslash}c/\lambda$ , which in turn modifies the energy of the scattered photons, that is, the radiation energy[ Reference Liu, Golovin, Chen, Zhang, Zhao, Haden, Banerjee, Silano, Karwowski and Umstadter15]. Since this is a fundamental model of the scattering process, the polarization state of the colliding laser directly influences the polarization of the emitted radiation[ Reference Ma, Hua, Liu, He, Zhang, Chen, Yang, Ning, Zhang, Du and Lu9]. When the colliding laser is transformed from a Gaussian laser to a Laguerre–Gaussian laser, adjustments in the orbital angular momentum directly affect the orbital angular momentum of the X/gamma radiation[ Reference Petrillo, Dattoli, Drebot and Nguyen32, Reference Zhou, Yan, Wang and Chen36].

Figure 2

(a) Schematic diagram of the experimental layout with multiple collision angles. (b) Radiation energy under different collision angles $\varphi$ with electron energy from 100 MeV (blue) to 300 MeV (red) when the observed angle $\theta =0^{\circ}$ . The cases of $30{}^{\circ}$ and $135{}^{\circ}$ are specifically marked to correspond with the experimental results discussed later in Section 3.2.

To illustrate this principle with a specific example, adjusting the collision angle demonstrates how changes in laser parameters can regulate radiation. In the ICS process, altering the collision angle between electrons and photons can significantly modify the energy spectrum of the emitted radiation. The energy of the emitted photon ${E}_\mathrm{sc}$ can be expressed by the following[ Reference Debus, Bock, Bussmann, Cowan, Jochmann, Kluge, Kraft, Sauerbrey, Zeil and Schramm37]:

(1) $$\begin{align}{E}_\mathrm{sc}={E}_0\frac{2n{\gamma}_\mathrm{e}^2\left(1-\cos \varphi \right)}{1+{a}_0^2/2+{\gamma}_\mathrm{e}^2{\theta}^2},\end{align}$$

where $n$ represents the nonlinear order, ${E}_0$ represents the incident photon energy, ${\gamma}_\mathrm{e}$ denotes the Lorentz factor of an electron, ${a}_0={eA}_0/{m}_\mathrm{e}c$ is the normalized amplitude of the vector potential and $e$ and ${m}_\mathrm{e}$ are the elementary charge and the rest mass of the electron, respectively. According to Equation (1), the energy of the scattered photons is correlated with that of the incident photons in the following manner: ${E}_\mathrm{sc}\sim {E}_0{\gamma}_\mathrm{e}^2\eta$ , where $\eta =1-\cos \varphi$ is a parameter related to the collision angle, exhibiting a clear range from 0 to 1. Therefore, altering the collision angle acts as an effective approach to enable the continuous adjustment of the ICS radiation energy range. Figure 2(b) illustrates the radiation energy at the observation angle of $\theta =0^{\circ}$ generated by linear ICS at various collision angles for electron energies ranging from 100 to 300 MeV.

In Section 3, the collision angle $\varphi$ and the polarization state of the colliding laser are altered to validate the feasibility of this platform. In Section 3.2, the ICS processes are experimentally validated at collision angles of $30{}^{\circ}$ and $135{}^{\circ}$ , corresponding to the theoretical values calculated in Figure 2(b), and the corresponding radiation energy spectra are diagnosed and analyzed.

3 X-/gamma-ray manipulation by the experimental platform for dual-beam all-optical Thomson/Compton scattering on a 200 TW laser

To validate the applicability of the EPATCS, it was initially integrated into the 200 TW Ti:sapphire laser facility at the Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas of Shanghai Jiao Tong University. A 5 J p-polarized laser pulse with a duration of $\tau =25$ fs (full width at half maximum, FWHM) can be delivered to the target. A schematic diagram of the experimental setup and its primary components are referenced in Appendix B.

3.1 Energy tunability of X-/gamma-rays via LWFA electrons

The laser pulse for LWFA is focused by an off-axis parabolic (OAP) mirror of F# 20 to a Gaussian-like spot size, containing 30% energy with an FWHM diameter of 26 μm, and the focused laser intensity can reach up to $5\times {10}^{18}\ \mathrm{W}\cdot {\mathrm{cm}}^{-2}$ , corresponding to a normalized vector potential of ${a}_0=2$ . The laser was focused above a supersonic gas jet of nitrogen. The electron energy can be effectively adjusted by modifying the relative position of the nozzle and the laser focus and adjusting the plasma density.

As shown in Figure 3, consistent energy electron beams, tunable within the range of 200–600 MeV, can be achieved under stable conditions. For each scenario, the plasma density and acceleration length are indicated, resulting in relatively stable electron energy spectra. Under appropriate plasma density, decreasing the acceleration length within a certain range can effectively enhance the energy of relativistic electrons. The corresponding electron spectrum is shown in Figures 3(a)–3(d). However, as shown in Figures 3(d) and 3(e), when the plasma density is significantly increased, the phase velocity of the wakefield decreases, causing the electrons to dephase earlier, leading to a reduction in their energy. Based on the scale shown in Figure 3 and the actual distance of the image plate from the target, which is 1.6 m, the transverse divergence angle of the electron bunch is approximately 3 mrad (FWHM).

Figure 3

Diagnosis results of the electron beam with different acceleration lengths or plasma densities. From (a) to (e), the corresponding plasma densities are $2.4\times {10}^{18}$ , $2\times {10}^{18}$ , $2\times {10}^{18}$ , $2\times {10}^{18}$ and $3.6\times {10}^{18}\ {\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$ , respectively, with acceleration lengths of 10, 9.5, 9, 8 and 8 mm.

The tuning energy of the electron enables the radiation energy spectrum to span a wide range. As indicated in Equation (1), when ${a}_0\ll 1$ (linear scattering regime), the energy of the emitted photon ${E}_\mathrm{sc}$ is directly proportional to the square of the electron Lorentz factor ${\gamma}_\mathrm{e}$ , a relationship that has been verified in several laboratories[ Reference Powers, Ghebregziabher, Golovin, Liu, Chen, Banerjee, Zhang and Umstadter13, Reference Khrennikov, Wenz, Buck, Xu, Heigoldt, Veisz and Karsch16, Reference Wenz, Döpp, Khrennikov, Schindler, Gilljohann, Ding, Götzfried, Buck, Xu, Heigoldt, Helml, Veisz and Karsch38]. Figure 2(b) demonstrates that under a fixed collision angle, the radiation energy spectrum varies accordingly with changes in electron energy.

3.2 Energy control of X-/gamma-rays by the interaction angle

In the scattering experiments, the relativistic electrons generated by LWFA have a cut-off energy of approximately 300 MeV, approaching a continuous spectrum. Two experimental configurations with collision angles of $\varphi =30{}^{\circ}$ and $\varphi =135{}^{\circ}$ are set, as shown in Figures 4(a) and 4(b), respectively. The colliding beam is derived from the main laser pulse using a small pick-up mirror and is focused to a spot with an 8 μm FWHM. With a pulse energy of 200 mJ and a pulse duration of 25 fs, the on-target peak intensity is approximately $4.8\times {10}^{18}\ \mathrm{W}\cdot {\mathrm{cm}}^{-2}$ . The range of the radiation spectrum can be determined by altering the collision angle using Equation (1). Metal filter sheets of various materials and thicknesses are designed for radiation diagnosis.

Figure 4

(a), (b) Experimental layout diagrams of AOICS under two conditions of $30{}^{\circ}$ and $135{}^{\circ}$ collision angles, respectively. (c), (d) Radiation spectra with error bars for collision angles of $30{}^{\circ}$ and $135{}^{\circ}$ , respectively. The corresponding electron energy spectrum for each instance is displayed in the upper right-hand corner of each graph.

Figure 5

(a) Experimental layout. The polarization state of the X-ray was obtained by placing the polyethylene (PE) forward in the X-ray and placing four image plates around it to diagnose the signal scattering in different polarization states. (b) Schematic representation of Compton scattering of linearly/circularly polarized X-rays with PE scatterers. The red portions indicate the distribution direction of the scattered electrons. (c), (d) Simulation results by FLUKA software, corresponding to the respective Compton scattering signals of linearly polarized and circularly polarized X-rays with PE. (e), (f) Experimental diagnostic results of linearly polarized and circularly polarized X-rays, respectively. (g), (h) The signal image formed by black dots is the one-dimensional integral result of the experimental results, while the dashed blue line represents the simulation results.

In the experimental setup with a collision angle of $30{}^{\circ}$ , Ross filter pairs were selected on the basis of the K-absorption edges of metal filters with varying materials and thicknesses. The signal on the image plate behind the filters was obtained from a single shot. Using the least-squares method, we obtained convergence results and derived the energy spectrum. As shown in Figure 4(c), the quasi-monoenergetic peak of the X-ray spectrum at around 65 keV might come from ICS involving only a subset of electrons. When the electron beam interacts with the laser beam at a small angle, their velocities become comparable, causing the laser pulse to continuously interact with the same portion of the electrons within the Rayleigh length. This consequently results in the production of quasi-monochromatic X-rays.

In the case of a collision angle of $135{}^{\circ}$ , the radiation energy spectrum extends beyond 1 MeV. The intensity distribution of the high-resolution CsI fluorescence from a single shot, located behind the filters, was captured by a 16-bit Andor electron-multiplying charge-coupled device. The iterative least-squares method is adopted for the numerical analysis of the transmission coefficient[ Reference Huang, Kase and Bjärngard39] to calculate the final energy spectrum of the X-rays, as illustrated in Figure 4(d). Variations in the collision angle impact the radiation energy spectrum, which is directly influenced by the electron energy spectrum. The basic principles of spectrum diagnostics can be referred to in Appendix A.

3.3 Polarization control of X-/gamma-rays

Polarized X-rays can be used to probe the characteristics of magnetic structures in structural magnetism and distinguish between chiral and helical magnetic structures[ Reference Ohsumi and Arima40– Reference Siddons, Hart, Amemiya and Hastings44]. Based on the EPATCS, we generate polarized X-rays via the collision of a polarized laser beam and the electrons. As shown in Figure 5(a), a half-wave plate or a quarter-wave plate is incorporated into the scattering laser path to change the polarization state of the scattering laser, which in turn modifies the polarization state of the generated radiation. An OAP mirror of F# 5 is used to focus the colliding laser. Under linear polarization conditions, the focal spot diameter and laser intensity are the same as those presented in Section 3.2, whereas under circular polarization, the laser intensity is approximately $2.4\times {10}^{18}\ \mathrm{W}\cdot {\mathrm{cm}}^{-2}$ . The collision angle is $135{}^{\circ}$ and the experimental layout is as illustrated in Figure 5(a).

As shown in Figure 5(a), a cylindrical polyethylene converter with a diameter of 2 cm and a length of 15 cm is placed 1.9 m from the impact point, and four image plates are placed around the converter. The secondary photon signal radiated on the scatterer is diagnosed in the vertical direction of X-ray propagation based on the Compton scattering. When the scattering angle is close to $90{}^{\circ}$ , the azimuth distribution of scattered photons is highly dependent on X-ray polarization, making Compton scattering effective for the diagnosis of polarization[ Reference An, Chi, Dang, Fu, Guo, Huang, He, Kong, Lan, Li, Liu, Shi, Sun, Wang, Wang, Wang, Wei, Wu, Xu, Xi, Yang, Zhang, Zhang, Zheng, Zhang and Zhang45]. The expressions of the scattering cross-section of Compton scattering in the vertical direction of propagation for linear polarization (see Equation (2)) and circular polarization (see Equation (3)) are as follows[ Reference Depaola46]:

(2) $$\begin{align}\frac{\mathrm{d}{\sigma}_{\mathrm{lin}\perp }}{\mathrm{d}\varOmega}&=\frac{1}{4}{r}_{\mathrm{e}}^2{\left(\frac{\varepsilon }{\varepsilon_0}\right)}^2\left(\frac{\varepsilon }{\varepsilon_0}+\frac{\varepsilon_0}{\varepsilon }-2{\cos}^2{\theta}^{\prime}\right),\end{align}$$
(3) $$\begin{align}\frac{\mathrm{d}{\sigma}_{\mathrm{cir}\perp }}{\mathrm{d}\varOmega}&=\frac{1}{4}{r}_{\mathrm{e}}^2{\left(\frac{\varepsilon }{\varepsilon_0}\right)}^2\left(\frac{\varepsilon }{\varepsilon_0}+\frac{\varepsilon_0}{\varepsilon}\right),\end{align}$$

where ${r}_\mathrm{e}$ represents the classical radius of the electron, where ${\varepsilon}_0$ is the energy of the incident photon, $\varepsilon$ is the energy of the scattered photon and ${\theta}^{\prime }$ denotes the scattering azimuth angle. According to Equation (2), Compton scattering of linearly polarized X-rays through the scatterer in the vertical direction is a function of the azimuth angle ${\theta}^{\prime }$ . When the incident X-ray is circularly polarized, Equation (3) reveals that the vertical Compton scattering is independent of the azimuth angle ${\theta}^{\prime }$ . In the experiment, the optical axis of the half-wave plate is adjusted to an angle of $22.5{}^{\circ}$ from the original horizontal polarization direction, thus producing a linear polarization angle of $45{}^{\circ}$ from the horizontal direction, as shown in Figure 5(b). The reason behind this choice of angle is to facilitate differentiation of the background signal. Due to the wide spectral width of the laser and the bandwidth limitations of the quarter-wave plate, the conversion efficiency of linearly polarized light to circularly polarized light is approximately 80%.

We conducted simulations using FLUKA software to simulate the process; the results are shown in Figures 5(c) and 5(d) and the experimental results are shown in Figures 5(e) and 5(f). Each result accumulated 100 shots, which facilitated the diagnosis of the polarization characteristics of the radiation through the scattered electron distribution. The four image plates are arranged to correspond to azimuth angles ranging from $-225{}^{\circ}$ to $135{}^{\circ}$ , with the portion corresponding to $100{}^{\circ}$ – $135{}^{\circ}$ being absent, due to constraints on the size of the image plate. Figures 5(g) and 5(h) include both theoretical simulation results and experimental data, with normalized intensity signals. The linear polarization diagnostics show a periodic intensity distribution across the four image plates, indicative of a Compton scattering signal corresponding to the scattering of linearly polarized X-rays. The generated linearly polarized radiation spectrum is illustrated in Figure 4(b). The degree of polarization $\left({I}_{\mathrm{max}}-{I}_{\mathrm{min}}\right)/\left({I}_{\mathrm{max}}+{I}_{\mathrm{min}}\right)$ according to the experimental results is about 0.42, and the background greatly influences this result. Moreover, the diagnostic results of circularly polarized X-rays exhibit uniformly distributed intensity signals overall, although a weak periodic intensity distribution signal is still observed near $-180{}^{\circ}$ . This suggests that the degree of polarization of circularly polarized X-rays generated by the ICS is not 100%, but rather an elliptical polarization state along the transverse axis. This result matches the effect of the waveplate bandwidth described above. Our results show that the X-ray diagnostics for circular polarization lack full symmetry. This asymmetry arises from the off-center positioning of the polyethylene scatterer during X-ray irradiation[ Reference Ma, Hua, Liu, He, Zhang, Chen, Yang, Ning, Zhang, Du and Lu9].

The aforementioned experimental results demonstrate precise control over electron energy, with a wide range of radiation energy and polarization states. These verify the versatile multiparameter tunability of the EPATCS. In our platform, the pulse duration of the electron bunch generated by LWFA is typically a few femtoseconds[ Reference Lundh, Lim, Rechatin, Ammoura, Ben-Ismaïl, Davoine, Gallot, Goddet, Lefebvre, Malka and Faure47], and the laser pulse duration is 25 fs. Therefore, in order to realize the collision process described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, following the approaches outlined in previous works[ Reference Kim, Hojbota, Mirzaie, Lee, Kim, Sung and Nam48, Reference Corvan, Dzelzainis, Hyland, Nersisyan, Yeung, Zepf and Sarri49], we implemented spatial and temporal synchronization, achieved measured time jitters below 10 fs and maintained a high spatial accuracy of electron–photon collisions within 5 μm. Moreover, our experimental results confirm that this level of precision is essential for stable electron–laser collisions.

4 Prospective roadmap for strong-field quantum electrodynamics research via the experimental platform for dual-beam all-optical Thomson/Compton scattering

By integrating with multi-PW laser facilities, the adjustable parameters of the EPATCS provide a fundamental platform for the approaching research initiatives, including multiphoton Thomson/Compton scattering, radiation reaction, vacuum polarization effects and pair production[ Reference An, Chi, Dang, Fu, Guo, Huang, He, Kong, Lan, Li, Liu, Shi, Sun, Wang, Wang, Wang, Wei, Wu, Xu, Xi, Yang, Zhang, Zhang, Zheng, Zhang and Zhang45, Reference Gonoskov, Blackburn, Marklund and Bulanov50– Reference Bulanov, Schroeder, Esarey and Leemans55]. When high-energy electrons interact with an intense laser, and the laser intensity in the rest frame of the electron approaches or reaches the Schwinger critical field ${E}_{\mathrm{s}}={m}_\mathrm{e}^2{c}^3/e\mathrm{\hslash}$ , the relativistic and nonlinear effects of the electrons in the electric field become significant. To describe such quantum effects, the quantum nonlinearity parameter ${\chi}_\mathrm{e}=\sqrt{{\left({F}^{\mu \nu}{p}_{\mu}\right)}^2}/\left({E}_{\mathrm{s}}{m}_\mathrm{e}c\right)$ is defined, where ${F}^{\mu \nu}={\partial}_{\mu }{A}_{\nu }-{\partial}_{\nu }{A}_{\mu }$ is the four-tensor electromagnetic field and ${p}_{\mu }$ represents the particle’s four-momentum. When ${\chi}_\mathrm{e}\ll 1$ , classical electrodynamics can effectively describe the interaction between particles and electromagnetic fields. When ${\chi}_{\mathrm{e}}\gtrsim 1$ , quantum effects (such as electron–positron pair production and nonlinear Compton scattering) become significant, and classical theories are no longer applicable.

We plan to go through a three-phase development process to explore the SF-QED process through the EPATCS. Table 1 presents the fundamental experimental proposal and parameters.

Table 1

The fundamental experimental proposal and parameters.

In phase I, the EPATCS will be transferred and built in multiple advanced laser facilities. The platform will be transferred to the 0.5 PW femtosecond laser facility, which is commissioned in the Key Laboratory for Laser Plasmas at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. According to the matching condition of the LWFA, a low-energy dispersive electron beam with a maximum energy of less than 1 GeV can be generated stably. Another focused laser beam with an intensity of up to ${10}^{21}\ \mathrm{W}\cdot {\mathrm{cm}}^{-2}$ corresponds to a normalized intensity of ${a}_0\sim 20$ . Under this premise, the quantum parameter is ${\chi}_\mathrm{e}\sim 0.2$ . In this regime, electrons interacting with an intense laser field undergo nonlinear Compton scattering, with multiphoton scattering emerging as a significant characteristic. The emission of high-energy radiation results in significant energy loss for the electrons. Future scientific exploration based on this platform will focus on investigating radiation reaction effects, nonlinear Compton scattering, etc.

In phase II, the platform will be transferred to PW-level laser facilities, for instance, on a 1 PW laser facility at the Synergetic Extreme Condition User Facility (SECUF) of the Institute of Physics in the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It can contribute to studies of the classical radiation-dominated regime (CRDR)[ Reference Samsonov, Nerush and Kostyukov54, Reference Bulanov, Schroeder, Esarey and Leemans55] with normalized amplitude ${a}_0\sim 40$ . It can also be transferred to a 2.5 PW Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser system at the Tsung-Dao Lee Institute (TDLI), with a normalized amplitude ${a}_0$ that can be up to 60. Meanwhile, a high-quality electron beam with a central energy of 2 GeV, corresponding to $\gamma \approx 4000$ , can be generated using an intense PW laser. At this point, the quantum parameter is ${\chi}_\mathrm{e}\sim 1.4$ , which allows the radiation reaction phenomenon to be observed more directly. Independently, high-precision spatiotemporal synchronization of the EPATCS is crucial to validate and explore the locally monochromatic approximation (LMA)[ Reference Heinzl, King and MacLeod56] and the local-constant-field approximation (LCFA)[ Reference Di Piazza, Tamburini, Meuren and Keitel57– Reference Gelfer, Fedotov, Mironov and Weber61]. As the phenomenon becomes more pronounced, it will deepen our understanding of the fundamental principle of SF-QED.

In phase III, the EPATCS could be transferred to 10 PW laser facilities, such as SULF[ Reference Li, Gan, Yu, Wang, Liu, Guo, Xu, Xu, Hang, Xu, Wang, Huang, Cao, Yao, Zhang, Chen, Tang, Li, Liu, Li, He, Yin, Liang, Leng, Li and Xu62], SEL[ Reference Cartlidge63], APOLLON[ Reference Burdonov, Fazzini, Lelasseux, Albrecht, Antici, Ayoul, Beluze, Cavanna, Ceccotti, Chabanis, Chaleil, Chen, Chen, Consoli, Cuciuc, Davoine, Delaneau, d’Humières, Dubois, Evrard, Filippov, Freneaux, Forestier-Colleoni, Gremillet, Horny, Lancia, Lecherbourg, Lebas, Leblanc, Ma, Martin, Negoita, Paillard, Papadopoulos, Perez, Pikuz, Qi, Quéré, Ranc, Söderström, Scisciò, Sun, Vallières, Wang, Yao, Mathieu, Audebert and Fuchs64], ELI[ Reference Aléonard, Altarelli, Antici, Apolonskiy, Audebert, Bartnik, Barty, Bernstein, Biegert, Böni, Booth, Bote, Bulanov, Butkus, Cardoso, Chambaret, Charambilidis, Cheriaux, Clarke and Zepf65, Reference Radier, Chalus, Charbonneau, Thambirajah, Deschamps, David, Barbe, Etter, Matras, Ricaud, Leroux, Richard, Lureau, Baleanu, Banici, Gradinariu, Caldararu, Capiteanu, Naziru, Diaconescu, Iancu, Dabu, Ursescu, Dancus, Ur, Tanaka and Zamfir66] and EP-OPAL[ Reference Zuegel, Bahk, Begishev, Bromage, Dorrer, Okishev and Oliver67]. Considering that a stable electron energy of multi-GeV could be generated, the normalized amplitude ${a}_0$ of the scattering laser would be up to 200, when the laser beam is focused to the diffraction limit, and the quantum parameter could be higher than 4. When ${a}_0\gtrsim 137$ and ${\chi}_\mathrm{e}\gtrsim 1$ , the radiation reaction in each photon emission is generally substantial and is fully accounted for within the context of SF-QED[ Reference Ritus68, Reference Di Piazza, Hatsagortsyan and Keitel69]. Under such conditions, quantum effects will become consequential, which will be conducive to researching the experimental phenomena in the quantum radiation-dominated regime (QRDR)[ Reference Samsonov, Nerush and Kostyukov54, Reference Di Piazza, Hatsagortsyan and Keitel69, Reference Di Piazza70]. Furthermore, in this scenario, when the electron collides with the laser, the resulting high-energy gamma photons interact again with the intense laser. This interaction allows for effective detection of pair production, providing experimental evidence for the nonlinear Breit–Wheeler process[ Reference Breit and Wheeler29, Reference Gu, Klimo, Bulanov and Weber31]. This will deepen our understanding of SF-QED processes and further refine the SF-QED theories and experimental validation. The relevant international experimental progress and proposals are summarized in Figure 6.

5 Conclusions

The development of an all-optical Thomson/Compton scattering platform, the EPATCS, featuring versatile parameter tunability, harnesses the exceptional benefits of LWFA and super-intense ultrafast lasers. We successfully demonstrate the capability of the EPATCS by providing precise control over the parameters of the X-rays of ICS, including the energy spectrum, polarization state and other parameters of high-energy radiation. With the ongoing development of super-intense ultrafast laser facilities, we aim to explore SF-QED in depth under various physical regimes, including radiation damping, nonlinear Compton scattering and nonlinear Breit–Wheeler electron–positron pair production.

Appendix A Principle of X-/gamma-ray spectrum diagnostics

Due to differences in X-ray energy resulting from collisions at different angles, two diagnostic approaches are implemented.

In the ICS experiment with a collision angle of $30{}^{\circ}$ , the X-ray energy range of 10–100 keV can be predicted based on Equation (1) in the main text and the electron spectrum. Within this energy range, the sector-shaped Ross filter was utilized for spectral diagnostics[ Reference Khutoretsky81]. The corresponding reference formula is as follows:

(4) $$\begin{align}{S}_k-{S}_{k+1}=\int \mathrm{d}(E)\left[{T}_k(E)-{T}_{k+1}(E)\right]R(E)\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}E},\end{align}$$

where ${S}_k$ ( $k=\mathrm{1,2,3},\dots$ ) represents the signal intensity on the imaging plate after X-rays pass through metal filters of different types and thicknesses, ${T}_k$ ( $k=\mathrm{1,2,3},\dots$ ) denotes the transmission of the filters for X-rays, $R(E)$ indicates the response efficiency of the imaging plate to X-rays at different energy levels and $\mathrm{d}N/ \mathrm{d}E$ describes the final X-ray energy spectrum.

Figure 7

(a) The signal intensity distribution on the image plate in the $30{}^{\circ}$ collision angle ICS experiment, along with the corresponding types of metal filters and their respective thicknesses. (b) The transmission curves for different energy intervals are obtained by subtracting the transmission rates of adjacent filter combinations, where the annotated numbers correspond to the numbers in (a).

The signal distribution on the image plate behind the filters is shown in Figure 7(a), and the transmission rate subtractions between adjacent filters are shown in Figure 7(b). In the spectral deconvolution calculation, we assume that dN/dE is an independent value within each energy interval, thus simplifying Equation (4) to the following:

(5) $$\begin{align}\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}E}=\frac{\int \mathrm{d}(E)\left[{T}_k(E)-{T}_{k+1}(E)\right]R(E)}{S_k-{S}_{k+1}}.\end{align}$$

By calculating $\mathrm{d}N/ \mathrm{d}E$ for different intervals and selecting the midpoint of each interval as the corresponding energy value, the spectrum curve of X-rays can be obtained. The horizontal error originates from the actual range of each energy interval, while the vertical error arises from the intensity fluctuations in the extracted signal region and the measurement error of the image plate response curve[ Reference Bonnet, Comet, Denis-Petit, Gobet, Hannachi, Tarisien, Versteegen and Aléonard82].

When the collision angle is $135{}^{\circ}$ , the calculated gamma-ray spectrum extends to the MeV range. Within this energy range, the metal thickness required for gamma-ray absorption is mostly in the millimeter scale, and the corresponding distribution of the gamma-ray transmission rate is as shown in Figure 8(b). To solve the gamma-ray spectrum in this energy range, we employed an iterative fitting method based on underdetermined equations using the least-squares approach.

Figure 8

(a) The signal intensity distribution on the image plate in the $135{}^{\circ}$ collision angle ICS experiment, along with the corresponding types of metal filters and their respective thicknesses. (b) The radiation transmittance curves of different metal filters varying with energy.

Figure 9

The overlap geometry of the experimental schematic diagram.

Based on the electron spectrum, the corresponding gamma-ray spectrum can be calculated as a reference spectrum. Within the energy range of the reference spectrum, the gamma-ray reference spectra are discretized by selecting evenly spaced energy reference points ${E}_j$ ( $j=\mathrm{1,2,3},\dots, n$ ). The number of photons corresponding to each energy point is defined as ${N}_j$ . Let the number of metal filters be $m$ ( $m<n$ ), and use this distribution as the reference spectrum type to substitute it into the gamma-ray transmission curve ${T}_{ij}$ . The gamma-ray intensity distribution ${S}_i={\sum}_j{T}_{ij}{N}_j$ is then obtained under different thicknesses and materials. Meanwhile, the experimentally measured intensity distribution is ${r}_i$ ( $i=\mathrm{1,2,3},\dots, m$ ), as shown in Figure 8(a). Considering the relatively low response efficiency of the image plate to MeV gamma-rays, CsI crystals are used here to diagnose the energy deposition distribution of gamma-rays (where the response of CsI to gamma-rays of different energies is ${R}_{ij}$ ). For simplicity, we define ${T}_{ij}^{\prime}={T}_{ij}{R}_{ij}$ . Following this, the evaluation function is defined as the variance between the signal intensity derived from the reference spectrum and the measured signal:

(6) $$\begin{align}\sigma =\sum \limits_i{\left({r}_i-{S}_i\right)}^2.\end{align}$$

With this evaluation function, multiple iterative calculations are performed and the iterative function is as follows[ Reference Phuoc, Corde, Thaury, Malka, Tafzi, Goddet, Shah, Sebban and Rousse3]:

(7) $$\begin{align}{N}_j^{\prime}={N}_j+\frac{\alpha {\sum}_i\left({T}_{ij}^{\prime}\times \frac{r_i-{S}_i}{\sum_i{T}_{ik}^{\prime }}\right)}{\sum_i{T}_{kj}^{\prime }}.\end{align}$$

The iteration proceeds until the variance minimizes, at which point the process concludes, yielding the final radiation spectrum. The errors mainly arise from the numerical fluctuations in signal intensity across various regions of the experimental results.

Appendix B The experimental schematic diagram

The primary components of the experiment include two laser beams, a gas nozzle and diagnostic systems for both electrons and radiation, as shown in Figure 9. A portion of the laser beam from the main optical path is extracted using a pick-up mirror to serve as the collision laser, while the remaining portion is focused by an F# 20 long-focus OAP mirror onto a gas nozzle. After passing through a delay line, the collision laser is focused by an F# 5 OAP mirror to a point 1 mm downstream of the nozzle. After scattering, electrons are deflected by a dipole magnet to measure the electron energy spectrum, and the emitted radiation hits a CsI scintillator to produce fluorescence, which is used to observe the profile of high-energy gamma radiation.

For energy spectrum measurements, filters are added between the magnet and CsI to perform radiation spectrum diagnostics. When the radiation energy is of the order of tens of keV or lower, an image plate is used instead of the CsI scintillator to image the radiation profile. For polarization measurements, a cylindrical plastic converter is placed after the electron deflection, along with four image plates positioned perpendicular to each other.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2021YFA1601700), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 12074251, 11991073, 12335016, 12105174 and 12225505) and the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant Nos. XDA25030400 and XDA25010100). The authors would like to acknowledge the sponsorship from the Yangyang Development Fund. The authors thank Songyu Ge and Rongzhao Hu from Shanghai Run Li Vacuum Technology Co., Ltd.

References

Schwinger, J., Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951).10.1103/PhysRev.82.664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajima, T. and Dawson, J. M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 267 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phuoc, K. Ta, Corde, S., Thaury, C., Malka, V., Tafzi, A., Goddet, J. P., Shah, R. C., Sebban, S., and Rousse, A., Nat. Photonics 6, 308 (2012).10.1038/nphoton.2012.82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, H.-E., Wang, X., Shaw, J. M., Li, Z., Arefiev, A. V., Zhang, X., Zgadzaj, R., Henderson, W., Khudik, V., Shvets, G., and Downer, M. C., Phys. Plasmas 22, 023106 (2015).10.1063/1.4907655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, C., Qi, R., Wang, W., Liu, J., Li, W., Wang, C., Zhang, Z., Liu, J., Qin, Z., Fang, M., Feng, K., Wu, Y., Tian, Y., Xu, Y., Wu, F., Leng, Y., Weng, X., Wang, J., Wei, F., Yi, Y., Song, Z., Li, R., and Xu, Z., Sci. Rep. 6, 29518 (2016).10.1038/srep29518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döpp, A., Guillaume, E., Thaury, C., Gautier, J., Andriyash, I., Lifschitz, A., Malka, V., Rousse, A., and Phuoc, K. T., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 58, 034005 (2016).10.1088/0741-3335/58/3/034005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, C., Wang, J., Feng, J., Li, Y., Li, D., Li, M., He, Y., Ma, J., Tan, J., Zhang, B., Yan, W., and Chen, L., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 61, 024001 (2019).10.1088/1361-6587/aaebe3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Y., Yu, C., Qin, Z., Wang, W., Qi, R., Zhang, Z., Feng, K., Ke, L., Chen, Y., Wang, C., Liu, J., Li, R., and Xu, Z., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 61, 085030 (2019).10.1088/1361-6587/ab29d9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, Y., Hua, J., Liu, D., He, Y., Zhang, T., Chen, J., Yang, F., Ning, X., Zhang, H., Du, Y., and Lu, W., Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 014073 (2023).10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.014073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, Y.-J. and Weber, S., Opt. Express 26, 19932 (2018).10.1364/OE.26.019932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J. M., Behm, K. T., Gerstmayr, E., Blackburn, T. G., Wood, J. C., Baird, C. D., Duff, M. J., Harvey, C., Ilderton, A., Joglekar, A. S., Krushelnick, K., Kuschel, S., Marklund, M., McKenna, P., Murphy, C. D., Poder, K., Ridgers, C. P., Samarin, G. M., Sarri, G., Symes, D. R., Thomas, A. G. R., Warwick, J., Zepf, M., Najmudin, Z., and Mangles, S. P. D., Phys. Rev. X 8, 011020 (2018).Google Scholar
Poder, K., Tamburini, M., Sarri, G., Di Piazza, A., Kuschel, S., Baird, C. D., Behm, K., Bohlen, S., Cole, J. M., Corvan, D. J., Duff, M., Gerstmayr, E., Keitel, C. H., Krushelnick, K., Mangles, S. P. D., McKenna, P., Murphy, C. D., Najmudin, Z., Ridgers, C. P., Samarin, G. M., Symes, D. R., Thomas, A. G. R., Warwick, J., and Zepf, M., Phys. Rev. X 8, 031004 (2018).Google Scholar
Powers, N. D., Ghebregziabher, I., Golovin, G., Liu, C., Chen, S., Banerjee, S., Zhang, J., and Umstadter, D. P., Nat. Photonics 8, 28 (2014).10.1038/nphoton.2013.314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S., Powers, N. D., Ghebregziabher, I., Maharjan, C. M., Liu, C., Golovin, G., Banerjee, S., Zhang, J., Cunningham, N., Moorti, A., Clarke, S., Pozzi, S., and Umstadter, D. P., Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 155003 (2013).10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.155003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C., Golovin, G., Chen, S., Zhang, J., Zhao, B., Haden, D., Banerjee, S., Silano, J., Karwowski, H., and Umstadter, D., Opt. Lett. 39, 4132 (2014).10.1364/OL.39.004132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khrennikov, K., Wenz, J., Buck, A., Xu, J., Heigoldt, M., Veisz, L., and Karsch, S., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 195003 (2015).10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.195003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, W., Fruhling, C., Golovin, G., Haden, D., Luo, J., Zhang, P., Zhao, B., Zhang, J., Liu, C., Chen, M., Chen, S., Banerjee, S., and Umstadter, D., Nat. Photonics 11, 514 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pukhov, A. and Meyer-ter Vehn, J., Appl. Phys. B Lasers Opt. 74, 355 (2002).10.1007/s003400200795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, L. B., Lee, H. J., Döppner, T., Galtier, E., Nagler, B., Heimann, P., Fortmann, C., LePape, S., Ma, T., Millot, M., Pak, A., Turnbull, D., Chapman, D. A., Gericke, D. O., Vorberger, J., White, T., Gregori, G., Wei, M., Barbrel, B., Falcone, R. W., Kao, C.-C., Nuhn, H., Welch, J., Zastrau, U., Neumayer, P., Hastings, J. B., and Glenzer, S. H., Nat. Photonics 9, 274 (2015).10.1038/nphoton.2015.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorkhover, T., Schorb, S., Coffee, R., Adolph, M., Foucar, L., Rupp, D., Aquila, A., Bozek, J. D., Epp, S. W., Erk, B., Gumprecht, L., Holmegaard, L., Hartmann, A., Hartmann, R., Hauser, G., Holl, P., Hömke, A., Johnsson, P., Kimmel, N., Kühnel, K.-U., Messerschmidt, M., Reich, C., Rouzée, A., Rudek, B., Schmidt, C., Schulz, J., Soltau, H., Stern, S., Weidenspointner, G., White, B., Küpper, J., Strüder, L., Schlichting, I., Ullrich, J., Rolles, D., Rudenko, A., Möller, T., and Bostedt, C., Nat. Photonics 10, 93 (2016).10.1038/nphoton.2015.264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schropp, A., Hoppe, R., Meier, V., Patommel, J., Seiboth, F., Ping, Y., Hicks, D. G., Beckwith, M. A., Collins, G. W., Higginbotham, A., Wark, J. S., Lee, H. J., Nagler, B., Galtier, E. C., Arnold, B., Zastrau, U., Hastings, J. B., and Schroer, C. G., Sci. Rep. 5, 11089 (2015).10.1038/srep11089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, T., Rödel, C., Rödel, M., Pelka, A., McBride, E. E., Fletcher, L. B., Harmand, M., Krygier, A., Higginbotham, A., Bussmann, M., Galtier, E., Gamboa, E., Garcia, A. L., Garten, M., Glenzer, S. H., Granados, E., Gutt, C., Lee, H. J., Nagler, B., Schumaker, W., Tavella, F., Zacharias, M., Schramm, U., and Cowan, T. E., Phys. Plasmas 24, 102709 (2017).10.1063/1.5008289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, T., Rödel, M., Metzkes-Ng, J., Pelka, A., Garcia, A. L., Prencipe, I., Rehwald, M., Nakatsutsumi, M., McBride, E. E., Schönherr, T., Garten, M., Hartley, N. J., Zacharias, M., Grenzer, J., Erbe, A., Georgiev, Y. M., Galtier, E., Nam, I., Lee, H. J., Glenzer, S., Bussmann, M., Gutt, C., Zeil, K., Rödel, C., Hübner, U., Schramm, U., and Cowan, T. E., Phys. Rev. X 8, 031068 (2018).Google Scholar
Mo, M., Murphy, S., Chen, Z., Fossati, P., Li, R., Wang, Y., Wang, X., and Glenzer, S., Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw0392 (2019).10.1126/sciadv.aaw0392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaus, L., Bischoff, L., Bussmann, M., Cunningham, E., Curry, C. B., E, J., Galtier, E., Gauthier, M., García, A. L., Garten, M., Glenzer, S., Grenzer, J., Gutt, C., Hartley, N. J., Huang, L., Hübner, U., Kraus, D., Lee, H. J., McBride, E. E., Metzkes-Ng, J., Nagler, B., Nakatsutsumi, M., Nikl, J., Ota, M., Pelka, A., Prencipe, I., Randolph, L., Rödel, M., Sakawa, Y., Schlenvoigt, H.-P., Šmíd, M., Treffert, F., Voigt, K., Zeil, K., Cowan, T. E., Schramm, U., and Kluge, T., Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043194 (2021).10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Y., Wang, S., Zhu, B., Yan, Y., Yu, M., Li, G., Zhang, X., Yang, Y., Tan, F., Lu, F., Bi, B., Mao, X., Wang, Z., Zhao, Z., Su, J., Zhou, W., and Gu, Y., Matter Radiat. Extremes 9, 037202 (2024).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habs, D., Tajima, T., Schreiber, J., Barty, C. P. J., Fujiwara, M., and Thirolf, P. G., Eur. Phys. J. D 55, 279 (2009).10.1140/epjd/e2009-00101-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidenmüller, H. A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 122502 (2011).10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.122502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breit, G. and Wheeler, J. A., Phys. Rev. 46, 1087 (1934).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, H. R., J. Math. Phys. 3, 59 (1962).10.1063/1.1703787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, Y.-J., Klimo, O., Bulanov, S. V., and Weber, S., Commun. Phys. 1, 93 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrillo, V., Dattoli, G., Drebot, I., and Nguyen, F., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 123903 (2016).10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.123903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y.-Y., Li, J.-X., Hatsagortsyan, K. Z., and Keitel, C. H., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 074801 (2018).10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.074801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ababekri, M., Guo, R.-T., Wan, F., Qiao, B., Li, Z., Lv, C., Zhang, B., Zhou, W., Gu, Y., and Li, J.-X., Phys. Rev. D 109, 016005 (2024).10.1103/PhysRevD.109.016005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döpp, A., Phuoc, K. T., and Andriyash, I. A., J. Plasma Phys. 89, 965890501 (2023).10.1017/S0022377823000909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, W., Yan, W., Wang, J., and Chen, L., Ultrafast Sci. 3, 0005 (2023).10.34133/ultrafastscience.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debus, A., Bock, S., Bussmann, M., Cowan, T. E., Jochmann, A., Kluge, T., Kraft, S. D., Sauerbrey, R., Zeil, K., and Schramm, U., Proc. SPIE 7359, 735908 (2009).10.1117/12.820741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenz, J., Döpp, A., Khrennikov, K., Schindler, S., Gilljohann, M. F., Ding, H., Götzfried, J., Buck, A., Xu, J., Heigoldt, M., Helml, W., Veisz, L., and Karsch, S., Nat. Photonics 13, 263 (2019).10.1038/s41566-019-0356-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, P.-H., Kase, K. R., and Bjärngard, B. E., Med. Phys. 9, 695 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohsumi, H. and Arima, T.-h., Adv. Phys. X 1, 128 (2016).Google Scholar
Togawa, Y., Kousaka, Y., Inoue, K., and Kishine, J.-i., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 85, 112001 (2016).10.7566/JPSJ.85.112001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, S. L., Van Der Laan, G., and Hesjedal, T., Phys. Rev. B 96, 094401 (2017).10.1103/PhysRevB.96.094401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, A. T., Joly, Y., Schulze, K. S., Marx-Glowna, B., Uschmann, I., Grabiger, B., Bernhardt, H., Loetzsch, R., Juhin, A., Debray, J., Wille, H.-C., Yavaş, H., Paulus, G. G., and Röhlsberger, R., Optica 8, 56 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, D. P., Hart, M., Amemiya, Y., and Hastings, J. B., Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1967 (1990).10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
An, G.-P., Chi, Y.-L., Dang, Y.-L., Fu, G.-Y., Guo, B., Huang, Y.-S., He, C.-Y., Kong, X.-C., Lan, X.-F., Li, J.-C., Liu, F.-L., Shi, J.-S., Sun, X.-J., Wang, Y., Wang, J.-L., Wang, L., Wei, Y.-Y., Wu, G., Xu, G.-L., Xi, X.-F., Yang, G.-J., Zhang, C.-L., Zhang, Z., Zheng, Z.-P., Zhang, X.-D., and Zhang, S.-P., Matter Radiat. Extremes 3, 219 (2018).10.1016/j.mre.2018.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depaola, G. O., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 512, 619 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundh, O., Lim, J., Rechatin, C., Ammoura, L., Ben-Ismaïl, A., Davoine, X., Gallot, G., Goddet, J.-P., Lefebvre, E., Malka, V., and Faure, J., Nat. Phys. 7, 219 (2011).10.1038/nphys1872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, D. Y., Hojbota, C. I., Mirzaie, M., Lee, S. K., Kim, K. Y., Sung, J. H., and Nam, C. H., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 93, 113001 (2022).10.1063/5.0115918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corvan, D. J., Dzelzainis, T., Hyland, C., Nersisyan, G., Yeung, M., Zepf, M., and Sarri, G., Opt. Express 24, 3127 (2016).10.1364/OE.24.003127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonoskov, A., Blackburn, T. G., Marklund, M., and Bulanov, S. S., Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045001 (2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Piazza, A., Müller, C., Hatsagortsyan, K. Z., and Keitel, C. H., Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012).10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, S., Bechet, S., Borneis, S., Brabec, L., Bučka, M., Chacon-Golcher, E., Ciappina, M., DeMarco, M., Fajstavr, A., Falk, K., Garcia, E.-R., Grosz, J., Gu, Y.-J., Hernandez, J.-C., Holec, M., Janečka, P., Jantač, M., Jirka, M., Kadlecova, H., Khikhlukha, D., Klimo, O., Korn, G., Kramer, D., Kumar, D., Lastovička, T., Lutoslawski, P., Morejon, L., Olšovcová, V., Rajdl, M., Renner, O., Rus, B., Singh, S., Šmid, M., Sokol, M., Versaci, R., Vrána, R., Vranic, M., Vyskočil, J., Wolf, A., and Yu, Q., Matter Radiat. Extremes 2, 149 (2017).10.1016/j.mre.2017.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, Y.-J., Jirka, M., Klimo, O., and Weber, S., Matter Radiat. Extremes 4, 064403 (2019).10.1063/1.5098978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samsonov, A. S., Nerush, E. N., and Kostyukov, I. Yu., Matter Radiat. Extremes 8, 014402 (2023).10.1063/5.0117504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulanov, S. S., Schroeder, C. B., Esarey, E., and Leemans, W. P., Phys. Rev. A 87, 062110 (2013).10.1103/PhysRevA.87.062110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinzl, T., King, B., and MacLeod, A. J., Phys. Rev. A 102, 063110 (2020).10.1103/PhysRevA.102.063110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Piazza, A., Tamburini, M., Meuren, S., and Keitel, C. H., Phys. Rev. A 99, 022125 (2019).10.1103/PhysRevA.99.022125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khokonov, M. Kh. and Nitta, H., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 094801 (2002).10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.094801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilderton, A., King, B., and Seipt, D., Phys. Rev. A 99, 042121 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podszus, T. and Di Piazza, A., Phys. Rev. D 99, 076004 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfer, E. G., Fedotov, A. M., Mironov, A. A., and Weber, S., Phys. Rev. D 106, 056013 (2022).10.1103/PhysRevD.106.056013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, W., Gan, Z., Yu, L., Wang, C., Liu, Y., Guo, Z., Xu, L., Xu, M., Hang, Y., Xu, Y., Wang, J., Huang, P., Cao, H., Yao, B., Zhang, X., Chen, L., Tang, Y., Li, S., Liu, X., Li, S., He, M., Yin, D., Liang, X., Leng, Y., Li, R., and Xu, Z., Opt. Lett. 43, 5681 (2018).10.1364/OL.43.005681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartlidge, E., Science 359, 382 (2018).10.1126/science.359.6374.382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdonov, K., Fazzini, A., Lelasseux, V., Albrecht, J., Antici, P., Ayoul, Y., Beluze, A., Cavanna, D., Ceccotti, T., Chabanis, M., Chaleil, A., Chen, S. N., Chen, Z., Consoli, F., Cuciuc, M., Davoine, X., Delaneau, J. P., d’Humières, E., Dubois, J.-L., Evrard, C., Filippov, E., Freneaux, A., Forestier-Colleoni, P., Gremillet, L., Horny, V., Lancia, L., Lecherbourg, L., Lebas, N., Leblanc, A., Ma, W., Martin, L., Negoita, F., Paillard, J.-L., Papadopoulos, D., Perez, F., Pikuz, S., Qi, G., Quéré, F., Ranc, L., Söderström, P.-A., Scisciò, M., Sun, S., Vallières, S., Wang, P., Yao, W., Mathieu, F., Audebert, P., and Fuchs, J., Matter Radiat. Extremes 6, 064402 (2021).10.1063/5.0065138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aléonard, M., Altarelli, M., Antici, P., Apolonskiy, A., Audebert, P., Bartnik, A., Barty, C., Bernstein, A., Biegert, J., Böni, P., Booth, N., Bote, D., Bulanov, S., Butkus, R., Cardoso, L., Chambaret, J. P., Charambilidis, D., Cheriaux, G., Clarke, R., and Zepf, M., WHITEBOOK ELI – Extreme Light Infrastructure; Science and Technology with Ultra-Intense Lasers (Andreas Thoss, 2011).Google Scholar
Radier, C., Chalus, O., Charbonneau, M., Thambirajah, S., Deschamps, G., David, S., Barbe, J., Etter, E., Matras, G., Ricaud, S., Leroux, V., Richard, C., Lureau, F., Baleanu, A., Banici, R., Gradinariu, A., Caldararu, C., Capiteanu, C., Naziru, A., Diaconescu, B., Iancu, V., Dabu, R., Ursescu, D., Dancus, I., Ur, C. A., Tanaka, K. A., and Zamfir, N. V., High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 10, e21 (2022).10.1017/hpl.2022.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuegel, J. D., Bahk, S.-W., Begishev, I. A., Bromage, J., Dorrer, C., Okishev, A. V., and Oliver, J. B.. In CLEO: 2014 (OSA, 2014), paper JTh4L.4.10.1364/CLEO_AT.2014.JTh4L.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritus, V. I., J. Sov. Laser Res. 6, 497 (1985).10.1007/BF01120220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Piazza, A., Hatsagortsyan, K. Z., and Keitel, C. H., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 220403 (2010).10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.220403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Piazza, A., Lett. Math. Phys. 83, 305 (2008).10.1007/s11005-008-0228-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bula, C., McDonald, K. T., Prebys, E. J., Bamber, C., Boege, S., Kotseroglou, T., Melissinos, A. C., Meyerhofer, D. D., Ragg, W., Burke, D. L., Field, R. C., Horton-Smith, G., Odian, A. C., Spencer, J. E., Walz, D., Berridge, S. C., Bugg, W. M., Shmakov, K., and Weidemann, A. W., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3116 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, D. L., Field, R. C., Horton-Smith, G., Spencer, J. E., Walz, D., Berridge, S. C., Bugg, W. M., Shmakov, K., Weidemann, A. W., Bula, C., McDonald, K. T., Prebys, E. J., Bamber, C., Boege, S. J., Koffas, T., Kotseroglou, T., Melissinos, A. C., Meyerhofer, D. D., Reis, D. A., and Ragg, W., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1626 (1997).10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwoerer, H., Liesfeld, B., Schlenvoigt, H.-P., Amthor, K.-U., and Sauerbrey, R., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 014802 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarri, G., Corvan, D. J., Schumaker, W., Cole, J. M., Di Piazza, A., Ahmed, H., Harvey, C., Keitel, C. H., Krushelnick, K., Mangles, S. P. D., Najmudin, Z., Symes, D., Thomas, A. G. R., Yeung, M., Zhao, Z., and Zepf, M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 224801 (2014).10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.224801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirzaie, M., Hojbota, C. I., Kim, D. Y., Pathak, V. B., Pak, T. G., Kim, C. M., Lee, H. W., Yoon, J. W., Lee, S. K., Rhee, Y. J., Vranic, M., Amaro, Ó., Kim, K. Y., Sung, J. H., and Nam, C. H., Nat. Photonics 18, 1212 (2024).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turcu, I. C. E., Negoita, F., Jaroszynski, D. A., Mckenna, P., Balascuta, S., Ursescu, D., Dancus, I., Cernaianu, M. O., Tataru, M. V., Ghenuche, P., Stutman, D., Boianu, A., Risca, M., Toma, M., Petcu, C., Acbas, G., Yoffe, S. R., Noble, A., Ersfeld, B., Brunetti, E., Capdessus, R., Murphy, C., Ridgers, C. P., Neely, D., Mangles, S. P. D., Gray, R. J., Thomas, A. G. R., Kirk, J. G., Ilderton, A., Marklund, M., Gordon, D. F., Hafizi, B., Kaganovich, D., Palastro, J. P., D’Humieres, E., Zepf, M., Sarri, G., Gies, H., Karbstein, F., Schreiber, J., Paulus, G. G., Dromey, B., Harvey, C., Di Piazza, A., Keitel, C. H., Kaluza, M. C., Gales, S., and Zamfir, N. V., Rom. Rep. Phys. 68, S145 (2016).Google Scholar
Chen, Z., Meuren, S., Gerstmayr, E., Yakimenko, V., Bucksbaum, P. H., Reis, D. A., and The E-320 Collaboration, in Optica High-brightness Sources and Light-driven Interactions Congress 2022 (Optica Publishing Group, 2022), paper HF4B.6.10.1364/HILAS.2022.HF4B.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LUXE Collaboration, Abramowicz, H., Soto, M. A., Altarelli, M., Aßmann, R., Athanassiadis, A., Avoni, G., Behnke, T., Benettoni, M., Benhammou, Y., Bhatt, J., Blackburn, T., Blanch, C., Bonaldo, S., Boogert, S., Borysov, O., Borysova, M., Boudry, V., Breton, D., Brinkmann, R., Bruschi, M., Burkart, F., Büßer, K., Cavanagh, N., Corso, F. Dal, Decking, W., Deniaud, M., Diner, O., Dosselli, U., Elad, M., Epshteyn, L., Esperante, D., Ferber, T., Firlej, M., Fiutowski, T., Fleck, K., Fuster-Martinez, N., Gadow, K., Gaede, F., Gallas, A., Cabrera, H. G., Gerstmayr, E., Ghenescu, V., Giorato, M., Golubeva, N., Grojean, C., Grutta, P., Grzelak, G., Hallford, J., Hartman, L., Heinemann, B., Heinzl, T., Helary, L., Hendriks, L., Hoffmann, M., Horn, D., Huang, S., Huang, X., Idzik, M., Irles, A., Jacobs, R., King, B., Klute, M., Kropf, A., Kroupp, E., Lahno, H., Manghi, F. L., Lawhorn, J., Levanon, A., Levi, A., Levinson, L., Levy, A., Levy, I., Liberman, A., Liss, B., List, B., List, J., Lohmann, W., Maalmi, J., Madlener, T., Malka, V., Marsault, T., Mattiazzo, S., Meloni, F., Miron, D., Morandin, M., Moroń, J., Nanni, J., Neagu, A. T., Negodin, E., Paccagnella, A., Pantano, D., Pietruch, D., Pomerantz, I., Pöschl, R., Potlog, P. M., Prasad, R., Quishpe, R., Ranken, E., Ringwald, A., Roich, A., Salgado, F., Santra, A., Sarri, G., Sävert, A., Sbrizzi, A., Schmitt, S., Schulthess, I., Schuwalow, S., Seipt, D., Simi, G., Soreq, Y., Spataro, D., Streeter, M., Swientek, K., Hod, N. T., Teter, T., Thiebault, A., Thoden, D., Trevisani, N., Urmanov, R., Vasiukov, S., Walker, S., Warren, M., Wing, M., Yap, Y. C., Zadok, N., Zanetti, M., Żarnecki, A. F., Zbińkowski, P., Zembaczyński, K., Zepf, M., Zerwas, D., Ziegler, W., and Zuffa, M., Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 233, 1709 (2024).Google Scholar
Los, E. E., Gerstmayr, E., Arran, C., Streeter, M. J. V., Colgan, C., Cobo, C. C., Kettle, B., Blackburn, T. G., Bourgeois, N., Calvin, L., Carderelli, J., Cavanagh, N., Di Piazza, S. J. D. Dann, A., Fitzgarrald, R., Ilderton, A., Keitel, C. H., Marklund, M., McKenna, P., Murphy, C. D., Najmudin, Z., Parsons, P., Rajeev, P. P., Symes, D. R., Tamburini, M., Thomas, A. G. R., Wood, J. C., Zepf, M., Sarri, G., Ridgers, C. P., and Mangles, S. P. D., arXiv:2407.12071 (2024).Google Scholar
Matheron, A., Marquès, J.-R., Lelasseux, V., Shou, Y., Andriyash, I. A., Phung, V. L. J., Ayoul, Y., Beluze, A., Dăncuş, I., Dorchies, F., D’Souza, F., Dumergue, M., Frotin, M., Gautier, J., Gobert, F., Gugiu, M., Krishnamurthy, S., Kargapolov, I., Kroupp, E., Lancia, L., Lazăr, A., Leblanc, A., Lo, M., Mataja, D., Mathieu, F., Papadopoulos, D., Claveria, P. S. M., Phuoc, K. T., Talposi, A.-M., Tata, S., Ur, C. A., Ursescu, D., Văsescu, L., Doria, D., Malka, V., Ghenuche, P., and Corde, S., arXiv:2412.19337 (2024).Google Scholar
Khutoretsky, I. V., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66, 773 (1995).10.1063/1.1146285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnet, T., Comet, M., Denis-Petit, D., Gobet, F., Hannachi, F., Tarisien, M., Versteegen, M., and Aléonard, M. M., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84, 103510 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the Thomson/Compton scattering process. A relativistic electron beam collides with a scattering laser. The electrons oscillate and emit X-/gamma-rays. Here, $\varphi$ denotes the collision angle between the laser and the electron beam, $\theta$ represents the radiation observation angle, ${\omega}_0$ signifies the central frequency of the scattering laser photon and ${\omega}_\mathrm{sc}$ corresponds to the frequency of the emitted photon.

Figure 1

Figure 2 (a) Schematic diagram of the experimental layout with multiple collision angles. (b) Radiation energy under different collision angles $\varphi$ with electron energy from 100 MeV (blue) to 300 MeV (red) when the observed angle $\theta =0^{\circ}$. The cases of $30{}^{\circ}$ and $135{}^{\circ}$ are specifically marked to correspond with the experimental results discussed later in Section 3.2.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Diagnosis results of the electron beam with different acceleration lengths or plasma densities. From (a) to (e), the corresponding plasma densities are $2.4\times {10}^{18}$, $2\times {10}^{18}$, $2\times {10}^{18}$, $2\times {10}^{18}$ and $3.6\times {10}^{18}\ {\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$, respectively, with acceleration lengths of 10, 9.5, 9, 8 and 8 mm.

Figure 3

Figure 4 (a), (b) Experimental layout diagrams of AOICS under two conditions of $30{}^{\circ}$ and $135{}^{\circ}$ collision angles, respectively. (c), (d) Radiation spectra with error bars for collision angles of $30{}^{\circ}$ and $135{}^{\circ}$, respectively. The corresponding electron energy spectrum for each instance is displayed in the upper right-hand corner of each graph.

Figure 4

Figure 5 (a) Experimental layout. The polarization state of the X-ray was obtained by placing the polyethylene (PE) forward in the X-ray and placing four image plates around it to diagnose the signal scattering in different polarization states. (b) Schematic representation of Compton scattering of linearly/circularly polarized X-rays with PE scatterers. The red portions indicate the distribution direction of the scattered electrons. (c), (d) Simulation results by FLUKA software, corresponding to the respective Compton scattering signals of linearly polarized and circularly polarized X-rays with PE. (e), (f) Experimental diagnostic results of linearly polarized and circularly polarized X-rays, respectively. (g), (h) The signal image formed by black dots is the one-dimensional integral result of the experimental results, while the dashed blue line represents the simulation results.

Figure 5

Table 1 The fundamental experimental proposal and parameters.

Figure 6

Figure 6 The relevant international experimental progress and proposals[3–6,11–17,71–80]. The solid-colored sections represent experiments that have been completed or are currently being planning, while the hollow elliptical regions correspond to the parameter ranges associated with the three phases discussed in this paper. The ranges corresponding to the classical radiation-dominated regime (CRDR) and the quantum radiation-dominated regime (QRDR) are indicated.

Figure 7

Figure 7 (a) The signal intensity distribution on the image plate in the $30{}^{\circ}$ collision angle ICS experiment, along with the corresponding types of metal filters and their respective thicknesses. (b) The transmission curves for different energy intervals are obtained by subtracting the transmission rates of adjacent filter combinations, where the annotated numbers correspond to the numbers in (a).

Figure 8

Figure 8 (a) The signal intensity distribution on the image plate in the $135{}^{\circ}$ collision angle ICS experiment, along with the corresponding types of metal filters and their respective thicknesses. (b) The radiation transmittance curves of different metal filters varying with energy.

Figure 9

Figure 9 The overlap geometry of the experimental schematic diagram.