2000
DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.84.4253
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Edenet al.Reply:

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

10
71
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
10
71
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2 along with momentum-dependent band pairing amplitudes. The FS agrees well with first-principles calculations [14] and the experimentally measured FS of Sr 2 RuO 4 [17,25,26], consisting of three bands labelled α, β, and γ.…”
Section: Momentumsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…2 along with momentum-dependent band pairing amplitudes. The FS agrees well with first-principles calculations [14] and the experimentally measured FS of Sr 2 RuO 4 [17,25,26], consisting of three bands labelled α, β, and γ.…”
Section: Momentumsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…We have also shown explicitly that, by turning correlation on, the electrons tend to be emitted more in the same direction instead of equally in the opposite direction, as would be the case for non-interacting, or weakly correlated particles. This tendency has been noted also by Taylor [16], in the data of Weber et al [2,3], as well as in the theory of Becker and Faisal [5]. Whether the physical interpretation of the effect at different ranges of photon frequency and radiation intensity is exactly the same, in our opinion, remains an interesting question.…”
supporting
confidence: 67%
“…Under most circumstances, it is dominated by sequential single-ejection processes and it is only under special conditions that direct multiphoton double ionization can be identified and studied. After the unequivocal detection of the process by Walker et al [1], in the strong-field long-wavelength multiphoton (high order of non-linear) regime, it is only quite recently that the angular distribution of the emitted electrons was explored by Weber et al [2,3] through a novel technique (COLTRIMS). Much insight into the underlying mechanism has been provided by Becker and Faisal [4,5] who have pointed out the dominant influence on the correlation that is responsible for the behavior.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The temperature increases with the increase of target size for an emission of projectile fragments with charge Z = 6 and 18, but for an emission of projectile fragment with charge Z =24 and 25, this dependence is not obvious. The temperature of the projectile fragment emission source have been investigated by different collaborations [30,31,[39][40][41][42][43][44]. The ALADIN collaboration studied the slope temperature (T slope ) for the spectator decay as a function of the projectile fragment mass (A frag ) for spectator decays following 197 Au on 197 Au collisions; they found that there is a rapid increase of T slope with projectile fragment mass, which saturates for A frag 3 around T slope ∼17 MeV [39,45].…”
Section: Transverse Momentum Distributionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The temperature of the projectile fragment emission source have been investigated by different collaborations [30,31,[39][40][41][42][43][44]. The ALADIN collaboration studied the slope temperature (T slope ) for the spectator decay as a function of the projectile fragment mass (A frag ) for spectator decays following 197 Au on 197 Au collisions; they found that there is a rapid increase of T slope with projectile fragment mass, which saturates for A frag 3 around T slope ∼17 MeV [39,45]. The EOS collaboration also studied the variation of the remnant temperature with the charged particle multiplicity; they found that the remnant temperature increases with increase of the charged particle multiplicity and the maximum is about 15.6±0.47 MeV [46].…”
Section: Transverse Momentum Distributionmentioning
confidence: 99%