wendin_1987#
G. Wendin, L. Jonsson and A. L’Huillier, “Many-electron dynamics of heavy atoms in intense laser fields: effects of screening and correlation”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 833-846 (1987)
Source record · Catalogue · Review register
Source kind: theory
Recorded technique: A review of many-electron effects in multiphoton ionisation of heavy atoms (screening, relaxation and shake-up, Fermi-sea correlation; dressing of the hole and of the photoelectron; time scales of two-step double ionisation), with one application: the zero-intensity two-photon one-electron ionisation of the Xe 5p shell with every electron-photon interaction RPA-screened (Sec. 3, Eqs. 7-14, Figs. 2-4), ‘closely following Ref. 15’ (p. 836), Ref. 15 being L’Huillier and Wendin, J. Phys. B 20, L37 (1987): lhuillier_1987b.
Materials in structured entries: None recorded.
Dataset quantities: None recorded.
Contents: 0 datasets; 0 formulas.
Curation notes#
Journal pp. 833-846 = PDF pages 1-14 (a scan: each page one 1-bit image of 3136 x 4448 pixels, about 400 dpi, with a text layer). Identity checked on the first page (Journal of the Optical Society of America B, Vol. 4, No. 5, May 1987, p. 833; Goran Wendin and Lars Jonsson, Chalmers, and Anne L’Huillier, CEN Saclay; received November 25, 1986, accepted January 26, 1987) on 2026-10-09.
NOTHING IS EXTRACTED: the paper’s two-photon cross sections are another paper’s figures redrawn. Figs. 3 and 4 (p. 837) are lhuillier_1987b’s Figs. 2 and 4 (the LDA-basis independent-electron, LDRPA and first-screened LDRPA lines on a linear axis; the RPAE and LDRPA lines on a logarithmic axis, with Gangopadhyay et al.’s squares and McCown et al.’s cross), relettered: lhuillier_1987b’s readings of all five lines, mapped onto these figures through calibrations from their own tick marks (frame-sheared, as in tools/extract/lhuillier_1987b.py), lie on the drawn lines throughout (overlays inspected, 2026-10-09). The captions agree (linear polarisation; Fig. 4: ‘The two-photon (0.46-Ry) and one-photon (0.92-Ry) HF ionization thresholds are indicated by the hatched lines’); the text (pp. 836-838) repeats the letter’s. Taking them again would hold one calculation twice (data rule 5); lhuillier_1987b holds them, and lhuillier_1987 (TC-883) the RPAE, HF and LDRPA of the full account.
THE DEFINITION (p. 836, Eq. 14): ‘The two-photon one-electron ionization generalized cross section sigma_2 (in units of cm4 sec) can be written as sigma_2 = 2 pi (alpha c / a0) (1 / F F0)^2 sum_l |t_eps_i(omega)|^2, where ... omega is the photon energy. F0 is equal to 3.22 x 10^34 in photons (cm2 sec^-1).’ Here the amplitude t carries the intensity I (Eqs. 9a, 11-13, t = I sum d d / (omega_ni - omega)), so the flux F cancels; lhuillier_1987b’s Eq. (1) writes the same cross section as (omega / F0)^2 with t free of I. The rate is sigma_2 F^2.
THE TEXT (p. 837), quoted for the comparisons: McGuire’s result ‘is slightly below our independent-electron result’; Gangopadhyay et al.’s MQDT ‘(represented by squares in Fig. 4) leads to good agreement with the present nonlinear RPAE results in the 0.5-0.6-Ry range’; ‘the cross in Fig. 4 indicates an experimental point obtained at 0.47 Ry (193 nm)’; ‘the experimental point is much closer to the RPAE or LDRPA result than to the one-electron results’. ‘Unfortunately, at present there are no experimental two-photon one-electron cross-section results in the resonance and ATI regions’ (p. 838). The squares are gangopadhyay_1986’s Table I (open continuum), checked in lhuillier_1987b.
karamatskou_2017 (TC-881) overlays ‘the RPAE curve of Wendin et al.’ (its Ref. 21, this paper; digitised by those authors) in its Fig. 3 and moves its own TDCIS curve 0.3264 eV down onto it. That curve, read from karamatskou_2017’s vector drawing (the stroke of colour (33, 178, 171) in its Fig. 3, with that script’s calibration), peaks at 9.176 eV (0.6744 Ry; the 6s), is clipped at the frame at 10.81-10.83 and 11.00-11.02 eV (5d, 7s) and peaks again at 11.535 and 11.636 eV (6d, 8s): the RPAE resonances of this paper’s Fig. 4 (lhuillier_1987 reads the RPAE 6s at 0.675 Ry, 9.184 eV). karamatskou_2017’s shifted 6s peak, 9.159 eV, lies 0.017 eV below the RPAE 6s as drawn there. Between the resonances the RPAE falls below that figure’s frame (5e-50 cm4 s), so no off-resonance values are compared.
NOT TAKEN: Figs. 1, 2 and 5 (diagrams); Sec. 4’s dressing formulas and Sec. 5’s time scales (no data). Further two-photon calculations the paper cites, not in the library: M. S. Pindzola and H. P. Kelly, Phys. Rev. A 11, 1543 (1975); R. Moccia, N. K. Rahman and A. Rizzo, J. Phys. B 16, 2734 (1983) (as printed here; lhuillier_1987b’s reference list gives p. 2737); T. F. Jiang and A. F. Starace (personal communication, 1986); A. L’Huillier and G. Wendin, Phys. Rev. A (to be published; lhuillier_1987, TC-883).
Recorded bibliographic identity status: VALIDATED_WITH_WARNINGS. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents.
Datasets#
No datasets are recorded.
Formulas#
No formulas are recorded.
Corrections#
No dataset errata are recorded in this source record.
Formula corrections, where recorded, appear with their formulas above. Curation notes may also discuss corrections or unresolved interpretation. Consult the review register for the checks and decisions.