Intense-field stabilization and the range of the potential

Quantum-classical Correspondence in Intense Laser Field-atom Interactions

“…The fact that we find suppression of ionization in a short-range potential does not contradict our earlier results [6], despite our claim therein that there is no stabilization due to interference suppression (in the sense of Fedorov [18][19][20]) in short-range potentials. That conclusion was based on the fact that short-range potentials have only a finite number of bound states, thus limiting the number of states that can interfere effectively; the result is that the probability of ionization by a pulse goes to unity at high fields in short-range potentials.…”

“…Both quantum and classical approaches have been taken, using many different model atomic potentials. We and our collaborators have studied several classical-ensemble models for intense-field stabilization and the correspondence between their results and those of quantum treatments [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. This report is a synopsis of our most recent results [7][8][9][10].…”

“…For example, in considering ionization rates, one must ask how the atom is excited to a quasi-steady state [6,7,11,12]. In the case of pulsed fields, the probability of ionization depends very much on the pulse shape, particularly on how the pulse turns on (ramp-up); ionization is most likely to happen during ramp-up [7,8].…”

“…In the case of pulsed fields, the probability of ionization depends very much on the pulse shape, particularly on how the pulse turns on (ramp-up); ionization is most likely to happen during ramp-up [7,8]. One must also consider the range of the potential [6,9,10] and its dimensionality. The angular momentum of the initial state is important, as is the field frequency relative to the binding energy.…”

“…(2) and (3), using ω = 1 and m = 0.75. The roles played by ω and m were discussed earlier [6,7]. We fix the length of the pulse plateau, Τ -Τ0, at 30 optical periods.…”