A proposal for testing subcritical vacuum pair production

with high power lasers

G. Gregori
a, b,
*
, D.B. Blaschke
c, d
, P.P. Rajeev
b
, H. Chen
e
, R.J. Clarke
b
, T. Huffman
a
, C.D. Murphy
a
,
A.V. Prozorkevich
f
, C.D. Roberts
g
, G. Ro pke
h
, S.M. Schmidt
i, j
, S.A. Smolyansky
f
,
S. Wilks
e
, R. Bingham
b
a
Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PU, UK
b
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
c
Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, 50-204 Wroclaw, Poland
d
Bogoliubov Laboratory for Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980, Dubna, Russia
e
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550, USA
f
Saratov State University, RU-410026, Saratov, Russia
g
Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439-4843, USA
h
Institut fur Physik, Universitat Rostock, Universitatsplatz 3, 18051 Rostock, Germany
i
Technische Universitat Dortmund, Fakultat Physik & DELTA, 44221 Dortmund, Germany
j
Forschungszentrum Julich GmbH, 52428 Julich, Germany
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 November 2009
Accepted 17 November 2009
Available online 23 November 2009
Keywords:
Quantum electrodynamics
Non-pertubative limit
Pair production
High-intensity lasers
a b s t r a c t
We present a proposal for testing the prediction of non-equilibrium quantum eld theory below the
Schwinger limit. The proposed experiments should be able to detect a measurable number of gamma
rays resulting from the annihilation of pairs in the focal spot of two opposing high-intensity laser beams.
We discuss the dependence of the expected number of gamma rays with the laser parameters and
compare with the estimated background level of gamma hits for realistic laser conditions.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Current generation of high-repetition and high-intensity lasers
as well as 4th generation light sources have opened the possibility
of experimentally test quantum electrodynamics (QED) at the level
where the details of multiple order expansions in the eld propa-
gators can be veried with measurable observables. This subcritical
eld limit is of extreme scientic interest since it will allow prog-
ress of the physics research into completely new realms with the
generation of novel and unexplored states of matter: electron
positron plasmas and excited vacuum states. Moreover, measured
deviations from the predicted QED processes could indicate
correction from quantum gravity or Lorentz-violations. These
experiments can provide the required benchmark for cosmological
vacuum particle production between the Planck and the GUT
(Grand Unied Theory) era. In such cases the external eld
provided by the laser is replaced by the interaction of a massive
scalar eld with the background space-time, but the governing
equations of non-equilibrium quantum eld theory (NeqQFT) still
hold in the same form.
In this paper we will discuss the theoretical framework imple-
mented to calculate pair production at the subcritical limit and we
will solve the governing NeqQFT equations in some idealized, yet
representative, case describing the interaction of two high-inten-
sity laser beams in vacuum. In the second part of this paper, we will
investigate the application of these approaches to a realistic
experimental setup. In particular, we will discuss the possibility of
observing gamma rays from pair annihilation in the laser focal spot
and we will compare this number with the estimated background
level. We will use as examples for the experimental conguration
both the Gemini laser system, recently commissioned at the
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (UK), and the current generation of
petawatt lasers such as the Vulcan laser at the Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory. We will also compare optical pair production versus X-
* Corresponding author. Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Parks Road,
Oxford, OX1 3PU, UK
E-mail address: g.gregori1@physics.ox.ac.uk (G. Gregori).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
High Energy Density Physics
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ hedp
1574-1818/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.hedp.2009.11.001
High Energy Density Physics 6 (2010) 166170
ray Free Electron Laser (FEL) sources and discusses the differences
among those approaches.
2. Subcritical pair production
Due to its intrinsic simplicity, vacuum pair production is the
proposed experiment of choice to test QED in the subcritical eld
limit. It is well known from basic QED that high energy photon
photon scattering can result in the production of electronpositron
pairs. This process and the corresponding reverse interaction of
electronpositronannihilationplayanimportant roleindetermining
theoverall opacityof theinterstellar andintergalactic mediumwhich
in turn relates to the correct estimates of the intrinsic luminosity of
stellar objects. At the same time, pair productionprovides a mean by
which large uxes of positrons could be generated in the vicinity of
active galactic nuclei. One of the most exciting results of g-ray
astronomy has indeed been the detection of the 0.511 MeV emission
line from the Galactic center [1]. Massive compact and quasi stellar
objects are also source of intense beams of optical and infrared
radiation and high-order low-energy multiphoton interactions
whichresult inpair productionarealsopossible. Moreover, processes
involving a massive neutral scalar eld in a dynamical background
(either due to an external semi-classical eld or a space-time metric)
are applicable to cosmological problems such as vacuum particle
production at the Planck time or reheating after GUT scale ina-
tionary expansion [24]. Another process closely related, and
described within the same NeqQFT framework, is the thermal radi-
ation arising from particle production near the event horizon of
a black hole, commonly known as Hawking effects [5], as well as the
Unruh effect [6], which is seen in uniformly accelerated detectors at
relativistic speed. Recently, suggestions have been brought forward
that the Unruh effect could be detected with the currently available
Gemini laser at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory [7].
On the theoretical side, subcritical vacuum breakdown is non-
perturbative. Solutions exist only for idealized congurations and
experimental verication is important for the correct understanding
of the process andits relevance to the total interstellar opacity. At the
same time this work could provide the rst high-density electron
positron plasma to test and simulate a variety of astrophysical
environments. With the advent of chirped pulse amplication (CPA)
techniques [8] and progresses in X-ray free electron lasers (FELs) [9]
it nowbecomes possible to generate very large numbers of coherent
photons (i.e., high electric elds) in both the optical and the X-ray
wavelengths. For any astrophysical object we dene compactness as
the ratio betweenthe total heating dividedby its physical size [10]. In
our context we are often dealing with high compactness objects,
where pairs are primarily created by photonphoton collisions, and
the energy loss is negligible as all the pairs remain conned within
the laser focal spot. For the production of an electronpositron pair,
the center of mass energy of the two photons must exceed 2mc
2
,
which precludes the creationof the pair by the collision of two single
optical or X-ray photons. In strong electromagnetic elds, however,
the interaction is not limitedto initial states withtwo single photons,
but allows multiphoton processes [11]
N
1
Zu
1
N
2
Zu
2
/e

; (1)
where N
1
and N
2
are large integers. Experimental verication of the
collision between w4 coherent optical photons with one gamma
ray photon with energy w30 GeV (created by Compton backscatter
of another optical photon against an high energy electron beam)
and the corresponding production of electronpositron pairs has
been demonstrated at the SLAC facility [12,13]. Here, instead, we are
interested in the more extreme case of a vacuumbreakdown driven
by large number of low-energy photons N
1
wN
2
N[1 and
u
1
wu
2
u ( m (we use, as customary, natural units where
h c 1). This is an example of NeqQFT where quantummean eld
approaches have been proposed [2,14,15] but need experimental
validation. The basic of these approaches is the so-called quantum
Vlasov equation. In spinor QED assuming an external semi-classical
electric eld, it is possible to show that, for fermions, the particle
number operator satises an equation of the type [2,15]
df
k
t
dt

_
U
k
t
t
t
2U
k
t
k
t

_
t
N
du
_
_
_
_
U
k
u
t
u
U
k
u
k
u
_
1 2f
k
u
_
cos
_
_
2
_
t
u
dsU
k
s
_
_
_
_
_
; (2)
which is known as a quantum Vlasov equation, and
U
2
k
m
2
k
2
t

_
k
jj
eA
_
2
; (3)
with

2
t
m
2
k
2
t
; (4)

2
jj

_
k
jj
eA
_
2
; (5)
and k
t
k
rr
is the momentum perpendicular (parallel) to the line-
arly polarized electric eld
_
A (in the Coulomb gauge). The
total electronpositron number per unit volume is then obtained
by integrating over all the momenta,
Nt 2
_
d
3
k
2p
3
f
k
t: (6)
The quantum Vlasov equation has a non-Markovian character
given by the factor [1 2f
k
(t)] arising from quantum statistics as it
takes into account the full history of the distribution function. It
simply says that the pair production rate will be affected by the
particles already present in the system. However, in the case of weak
(subcritical) elds, such an effect can be often neglected [17]. The
non-Markovian character is also inherent in the phase oscillations
represented by the cosine term. This is related to quantum coher-
ence, resulting from the fact that when the two pairs are created,
they are initially fully correlated (i.e., entangled). The time-scale for
these quantum coherence effects to wash out is in the order of
s
qu
w2p=U
k
w2p=m [2,14]. In order for the statistical description of
pair production to be valid, this time must be shorter than the time
requiredto produce the pairs. This, for small k, can be estimatedfrom
Eq. (2) to be [14]
s
cl
w
_
_
U
k
t
t
t
U
k
t
k
t
_
1
w
m
e3
: (7)
Inthe semi-classical casewe alsoneedtoassume that the external
eld remains approximately constant during particle generation,
that is s
cl
< s
pl
[14], where s
pl
is the characteristic time associated to
collective plasma uctuations: s
pl
2p=u
pl
2pm=e
2
n
av

1=2
with n
av
the average pair density.
Equation (6) is just a formal solution, and a few words are
necessary in order to correctly interpret its meaning. This point has
been discussed in the literature [2,3], and it stems from the fact that
the number of pairs does not commute withtheHamiltonian(indeed
it is not a constant of motion). This follows directly from the uncer-
taintyprinciple. If we have N
ep
pairs, theuncertaintyrelationreads as
G. Gregori et al. / High Energy Density Physics 6 (2010) 166170 167
DEDt D
_
N
ep
m
_
Dtw1; (8)
and the uncertainty in the particle number is DN
ep
w1=mDt. This
implies that the particle number is indeed a well dened quantity
at asymptotic times Dt/N or for very massive (classical) parti-
cles. On the other hand, this relation applies only for a system
where particle production during the time interval under consid-
eration is negligible. In the more general case, we need to assume
that particles will be produced within the considered time interval.
We thus obtain
DN
ep
w
1
mDt

dN
ep
dt

Dt; (9)
which, letting dN
ep
=dtwN
ep
=s
cl
, is minimized for
Dt s
mi

1
_
mjdN
ep
=dtj
_
1=2
w1=
_
N
ep
e3
_
1=2
: (10)
The particle number is a well dened quantity only if the change
in the number of particles is small within the time we are consid-
ering. If not, we need to resort to higher order approximations. This
renormalization technique is referred to as adiabatic regularization
[2,14,16]. We note that DN
ep
cannot be made arbitrarily small, and it
is minimized for DN
ep
2=m
1=2
jdN
ep
=dtj
1=2
w2N
ep
e3
1=2
=m. In
summary, the quantum Vlasov equation represents a physical
observable (the number of electronpositron pairs) only if the hier-
archy of times s
mi
as
cl
and s
qu
< s
cl
< s
pl
is satised.
We should note that the NeqQFT framework is not the only one
been implemented in the calculation of subcritical pair production,
and at present a large amount of theoretical work has appeared
[1825]. While the various approaches seem to converge for large
electric elds [17], some discrepancies in the predicted pair number
are seen in the subcritical regime. On the other hand, recent work
seems to demonstrate that despite theoretical techniques being
very different, they are effectively equivalent solution of the same
problem, with the differences arising only from the details of the
numerical methods [26]. Still remains the fact that the precise
details of the vacuum breakdown mechanisms in full spatial and
temporal resolution are not yet fully understood despite the pio-
neering work of Schwinger [27]. Techniques based on the worldline
path integral [28,29] as well as calculation of the tunneling prob-
abilities of virtual pairs from the Dirac sea [30,31] have been
successful in determining the pair production in simplied non-
uniformeld congurations. However, experiments in supercritical
elds (i.e., in the Coulomb eld of an ion) have shown contradicting
results and the question is still open on whether the Dirac equation
is applicable in these scenarios [25] see also discussions on the
Klein paradox [32] and the necessity to use a multi-body second
quantization formalism (as in the NeqQFT approaches) becomes
clear. In simpler terms, as particles are created, their associated
electric eld adds to the external eld, which then feeds back to the
production of the next pair.
3. Solution of the quantum Vlasov equation for idealized
elds
Several attempts have been made to solve the quantum Vlasov
equation in cosmological regimes [24]. More recently, attention
has been drawn to the fact that the newgeneration of laser and FEL
facilities has now reached electric eld intensities where the
particle production could have observable effects. In the simplest
case of a time invariant, spatially homogeneous electric eld, the
solution is well known. This was originally derived by Schwinger
[2,27] and found that the pair number is exponentially suppressed:
N
Schwinger
fexp
_
p
m
2
e3
_
exp
_
p
3
c
3
_
(11)
where 3
c
m
2
=e 1:3 10
18
V=m is the Schwinger eld. Since
the critical eldcorresponds to the electric eldsuchthat its work on
two electron charges separated by a Compton wavelength equals
their rest mass, to reach a sizeable rate of pair productionwe need to
have 3a3
c
. On the other hand, the subcritical eld regime is dened
by the weak eld condition 3 ( 3
c
, implying a negligible number of
pairs being generated. Equation (11) is only valid for static elds. In
case of dynamically variable electric elds, the pair production
problemcanbe understood as a tunneling with anoscillating barrier.
This enhances the probabilityof generationof pairs since the average
barrier seen by the virtual pair is lower.
Aclear advantage of the quantumVlasovapproachis that it canbe
used to model the full temporal dependence of the particle number
for any time tas
cl
. A solution of Equation (2) for a sinusoidal,
spatially homogeneous, laser eld has been recently proposed [24].
In this paper, we will consider instead a different temporal depen-
dence of a spatially uniform eld at the laser focus of two counter-
propagating laser beams:
3t 3
0
sinh
2
nt; (12)
for which the Dirac equation is exactly solvable and analytical
approximations are easily obtained. If we assume that the pair
production is modest, i.e., f
k
( 1, and 3
0
( 3
c
, then [33]
Nt
1
22p
3
_
d
3
k
2
t

_
t
N
du
e3u
U
2
k
u
exp
_
_
2i
_
t
u
dsU
k
s
_
_

2
:
(13)
Under the condition e3
0
=mn ( 1, which implies a semi-classical
motion of the charges in the electric eld, the pair number can be
further simplied to [33]
Ntw
1
22p
3
_
d
3
k

2
t
U
4
k
t

_
t
N
du e3u e
2iU
k
u

2
: (14)
Using the eld (12), the asymptotic (residual) pair number
density becomes
n
r
Nt N

e3
0

2
22p
3
_
d
3
k

2
t
U
4
k

2pcschpU
k
=n
n
2

2
w
4
3
e3
0

2
m
_
m
n
_
4
e
2pm=n
;
(15)
wherewe have assumedn ( m, and
t
wU
k
(whichis validfor weak
elds). Moreover, we have takenU
k
wmfor k(mandU
k
wk for kam.
We see that in this case, pair production is exponentially suppressed
for subcritical elds. The exponential term e
2pm=n
is indeed equiv-
alent to what obtained with other techniques [30,31]. This conrms
the fact that, even for oscillating elds, a signicant number of pairs
can persist only for elds close to the Schwinger limit. The specic
functional form for the residual density is dependent on the exact
time variation of the electric eld, and different results are obtained
for sinusoidal elds 3t 3
0
sinnt [24,33]. In the latter case, the
residual density after one oscillationperiod is n
r
we3
0
n
2
=m
3
, which
is again negligible in the subcritical regime.
While the residual density is exponentially suppressed at
asymptotic times for the idealized eld of Eq. (12), the pair density
at nite times is signicantly larger. The average pair density during
the eld excitation can be approximated as
G. Gregori et al. / High Energy Density Physics 6 (2010) 166170 168
n
av
w
Nt 0
2

1
42p
3
_
d
3
k

2
t
U
4
k

_
0
N
du e3u e
2iU
k
u

2
w
e3
0

2
42p
3
_
d
3
k

2
t
U
4
k

1
2iU
k

2
w
1
24p
2
e3
0

2
m
: 16
Differently from the residual number, the average pair density is
not exponentially suppressed. Moreover, calculation assuming
a sinusoidal eld showed the same functional dependence apart
from a numerical prefactor of order unity [24,33]. This may indicate
that the average pair density is not too sensitive on the details of the
eld uctuations.
Until nowwe have considered spatially homogeneous elds. Real
elds, however, are not spatially uniformandvariations are expected
to occur on some macroscopic scale L. These effects are more easily
estimatedwithinthe semi-classical tunnelingprobabilitycalculation
[30,31]. Since in a spatially inhomogenous eld pairs are initially
produced at the maximum of the eld, if they move away from this
point and the eld drops too sharply, they may not gain enough
energy to cross the barrier and become real particles. Thus, opposite
to the case of time varying elds, spatial gradients tend to suppress
pair production. It can be shown that in the subcritical regime this
effect introduces a correction to the pair production number of the
order [30,31]
Cw1
5
4
_
m
e3
0
L
_
2
; (17)
where m=e3
0
L(1.
4. Observable effects from pair production
As we have discussed in the previous section, in the subcritical
regime, pair production at asymptotic times is always exponentially
suppressed, meaning that no residual pairs remains after the laser.
On the other hand, there is a signicant number of pairs during the
time the electric eld is switched on. Assuming that the laser has
wavelength l, then the estimated total number of electronpositron
pairs in the laser spot volume Vws
2
l (where sal is the laser spot
diameter) is given by
N
ep
Vn
av
C
:
x
s
2
l
24p
2
e3
0

2
m
_
1
5
4
_
m
e3
0
s
_
2
_
; (18)
where the scale of spatial inhomogeneities is given by the spot size
Lws.
Such number of electronpositron pairs has a clear observable
effect, namely the generation of gamma rays due to pair annihila-
tion. If during the laser pulse the particle number is a well dened
physical quantity, then collision between those particles are indeed
possible. Since the pair number scales with the laser wavelength
(i.e., the interaction volume at the focal spot), it shows that optical
lasers have some advantage over X-ray FELs. On the other hand, for
very intense FELs we could have the opposite scenario where the
spot volume is too small to generate a sizeable number of pairs
during the evolution of the laser pulse, but the eld intensity is
large enough that a nite number of pairs remains at asymptotic
times. Those pairs may lead to accumulation effects (i.e., interacting
with the external eld) and induce spontaneous pair production
over several laser cycles [34], which is a consequence of the non-
Markovian character of the quantum Vlasov equation. While the
quantumVlasov equation is a collisionless equation, if collisions are
a small perturbation, then the momentum distribution of the pairs
is unaltered and the resultant number of gamma rays is obtained by
multiplying their distribution functions by the annihilation cross
section integrating over all the momenta of the pairs [24]. However,
since we want to explore the scaling of the laser parameters with
the observable number of gamma rays, we will follow here an
equivalent analytical approximation. The ratio of electronpositron
collisions producing gamma ray annihilation is [35]
R s
T
_
3
c
3
0
_
n
2
; (19)
where s
T
is the Thomson cross section, which applies at low
energies compared to the rest mass, as in our case. The model is
applicable if collective plasma phenomena take places on a scale
shorter than the laser cycle, i.e., s
pl
< 2p=n, thus allowing sufcient
time for the particle to interact [14,36]. This also shows that as the
laser eld decreases, annihilation processes becomes more prob-
able. Physically, this means that pairs produced with smaller
momenta are more likely to result in a collision event. The number
of gamma rays emitted is thus
~
N
gg
xN
ep
R
s
T
s
2
ln
2
24p
2
_
e
2
3
c
3
0
m
__
1
5
4
_
m
e3
0
s
_
2
_
x
s
T
s
2
3l
_
e
2
3
c
3
0
m
_

_
1
5
4
_
m
e3
0
s
_
2
_
;
(20)
where we have used the fact that nw2p=l (which is exact for
a sinusoidal wave). While the treatment presented here is far from
being complete, the values obtained with this approach are in
agreement with the predicted number of gamma rays calculated by
full integration of the pair distribution function from the quantum
Vlasov equation [24]. Both approaches are, however, not self
consistent, and a complete analysis will require the addition of
a collisional sinkterminthe quantumVlasov equation[15,37], which
must then be coupled to the gamma ray production rate. Only in this
way the full effects of entanglement and quantumstatistics could be
properly accounted for.
Inorder to get a realistic value for the expectednumber of gamma
rays, we also need to account for the fact that counter-propagating
beam geometries are experimentally difcult to realize (see,
however Ref. [38] for a suggested counter-propagating beam
geometry). If q is the angle between the two beams, then this
introduces a geometrical correction (1 cosq)/2. Moreover, if the
laser beam has a pulse duration s
L
, then gamma ray annihilation
events will occur s
L
n/2p times during the laser shot. Bringing back
the factors of c and Z, the total number of expected gg events during
a laser pulse is then
N
gg
x
1 cosq s
T
mc
3
s
2
s
L
e3
0
3Zcl
2
_
1
5
4
_
mc
2
e3
0
s
_2
_
; (21)
with the electric eld is expressed in terms of the laser intensity, I
0
,
as 3
0
2m
0
cI
0

1=2
(in SI units).
5. Photometric
In this section we compare expected number of g photons from
pair annihilation with respect to background noises. As shown in
Table 1, we expect w0.6 annihilation events per laser shot, corre-
sponding to w10000-events in a 10 h experiment using the Astra
Gemini laser available at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. In
a full experimental week, this corresponds to 5 10
4
annihilation
events producing two gamma ray photons. Coincidence measure-
ments will be performed with high sensitivity large area NaI gamma
ray detectors covering a solid angle of w2p, with an absolute
G. Gregori et al. / High Energy Density Physics 6 (2010) 166170 169
conversionefciency >0.08[39]. We canestimate a total detectionof
w2 10
3
events. In situ measurements to assess the background
level within the laser area have observed 2060 positron events in
10 h, equivalent to 0.05 counts/s. Since theNaI detectors canbe gated
with integration time w1 ms, the background level of cosmic ray hits
can be minimized to w0. Any sporadic background event could be
further eliminated with a coupled anti-coincidence detector.
The major source of noise in these experiments arises from
bremsstrahlung photons emitted by electrons stripped from the
residual gas in the laser focal spot. Since relativistic electrons will be
produced at laser intensities I
0
a10
19
W=cm
2
, this corresponds to
a much larger volume than the laser focal spot. For the Astra Gemini
laser, at pressures w10
6
mbar, we expect up to 10
4
electrons being
ejected by the residual atoms (mostly hydrocarbons and oxygen). If
these electrons are all emitted in a narrowcone, the probability that
each one of them collides with a residual atom before reaching the
chamber walls (w1 m path length) is less than 10
4
. During such
a collision a gamma ray photon is emitted, corresponding to <0.04
events detected per laser shot (0.002 counts/s). If the gamma
detectors are all placed within 1 m from the laser interaction point
and outside the stripped electrons path, no additional gamma ray
event will be recorded, as electrons hitting the chamber walls will
emit photons in the forward direction away from the detector units
(as well as excluded by coincidence detection).
We notice from Table 1 that the error in the number of pairs is
substantiallylarger than1. This implies that the (rest) energyof those
pairs is undeterminedwithanerror (for theGemini laser) of 1.3 MeV.
Alternatively, this results can be interpreted in the sense that only
a fraction of pairs has materialized on the mass shell, but the rest are
still virtual. However, since the detection efciency of scintillators
remains the same over the w1 MeV range (centered at 0.511 MeV)
[40], we wouldexpect that at worst a count rate is reducedbya factor
of 20.025 counts/s (1030 positron events in 10 h), but still signi-
cantly above background.
6. Conclusions
We have presented a proposal to test subcritical pair production
with high-intensity lasers. Using the theoretical framework of
NeqQFT we have shown that the residual pair density after the laser
shot is exponentially suppressed, and the number of pairs remaining
is negligible. However, for realistic laser conditions, there is a signif-
icant number of pairs during the eld evolution and the observable
effect of such pairs is the production of co-incident gamma rays. We
have estimated for the Astra Gemini laser facility at the Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory more than 10
4
annihilation events during an
experimental day. Photometric analysis has shown that this number
of events will be detectable with current instrumentation. We are
proposing anexperimental platformthat couldtest, for the rst time,
NeqQFT models whichare relevant to astrophysical andcosmological
processes, and, at the same time, resolve issues with the current
approximation schemes of non-perturbative QED.
This work was supported in part by the Science and Technology
Facilities Council of the United Kingdom, by Department of Energy,
Ofce of Nuclear Physics, contract no. DE-AC02-06CH11357 and by
the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education under grant no.
N N 202 0953 33. D.B.B., A.V.P, G.R. and S.A.S. are grateful for
support from the Helmholtz Association for their participation at
the Summer School on Dense Matter in Heavy-Ion Collisions and
Astrophysics in Dubna, July 1426, 2008, where this project has
been started. D.B.B. thanks D. Habs and G. Mourou for enlightening
discussions and encouragement during the ELI workshops, in
particular the one at Frauenwo rth, October 2008. G.G. would also
like to thank T. Heinzl for useful discussions about the manuscript.
References
[1] G.R. Riegler, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 248 (1981) 113.
[2] E.A. Calzetta, B.-L.B. Hu, Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory, Cambridge,
2008.
[3] L. Parker, Phys. Rev. 183 (1969) 1057.
[4] L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 346.
[5] S.W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43 (1975) 199.
[6] W.G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976) 870.
[7] G. Brodin, et al., Class. Quantum Grav 25 (2008) 145005.
[8] D. Strickland, G. Mourou, Opt. Commun. 56 (1985) 219.
[9] J. Arthur et al., LCLS Design Study Group Collaboration, Report No. SLAC-
R-0521 1988.
[10] E. Liang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4887.
[11] H.R. Reiss, J. Math. Phys. 46 (1962) 1087.
[12] D.L. Burke, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1626.
[13] C. Bamber, et al., Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 092004.
[14] Y. Kluger, et al., Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 125015.
[15] S.M. Schmidt, et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 7 (1998) 709.
[16] L. Parker, S.A. Fulling, Phys. Rev. D 9 (1973) 341.
[17] F. Hebenstreit, et al., Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 061701.
[18] E. Brezin, C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1191.
[19] V.S. Popov, Phys. Lett. A 298 (2002) 83.
[20] H.K. Avetissan, et al., Phys. Rev. E 66 (2002) 016502.
[21] G. Dunne, T. Hall, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 105022.
[22] N.B. Narozhny, et al., Phys. Lett. A 330 (2004) 1.
[23] S.S. Bulanov, et al., J. Experim. Theor. Phys. 102 (2006) 9.
[24] D.B. Blaschke, et al., Phys Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 140402.
[25] T. Cheng, et al., Phys. Rev. A 77 (2008) 032106.
[26] C.K. Dumlu, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 065027.
[27] J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82 (1951) 664.
[28] G.V. Dunne, C. Schubert, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 105004.
[29] G.V. Dunne, et al., Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 065028.
[30] S.P. Kim, D.N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 065020.
[31] S.P. Kim, D.N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 045013.
[32] P. Krekora, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 040406.
[33] A.V. Prozorkevich, et al., Proc. SPIE 5476 (2004) 68.
[34] C.D. Roberts, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 153901.
[35] M. Yu. Kuchiev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 130404.
[36] W. Heitler, The Quantum Theory of Radiation. Oxford University Press,
London, 1954.
[37] D.V. Vinnik, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 22 (2001) 341.
[38] T. Heinzl, et al., Opt. Commun. 267 (2006) 318.
[39] G.F. Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement. Wiley, New York, 2000.
[40] S.-W. Kwak, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 604 (2009) 161.
Table 1
Operation parameters for current laser systems and expected gg yield. A beam
crossing angle of q 135

has been assumed. The Astra Gemini and the Vulcan PW

systems are both located at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
Astra Gemini Vulcan PW
Wavelength (nm) 800 1064
Pulse length (fs) 30 500
Laser energy (J) 15 500
Spot diameter (mm) 5 5
Intensity (W/cm
2
) 2.5 10
21
5 10
21
E
0
(V/m) 1.4 10
14
1.9 10
14
n
av
(cm
3
) 8.0 10
20
1.6 10
21
N
ep
1.6 10
10
4.2 10
10
s
mi
(fs) 9.9 10
10
5.1 10
10
s
qu
(fs) 8.1 10
6
8.1 10
6
s
cl
(fs) 1.2 10
2
8.7 10
3
DN
ep
2.6 10
3
5.0 10
3
2ps
pl
/n 0.13 0.22
N
gg
0.63 0.21
Repetition rate Every 20 s Every 1 h
N
gg
after 10 h 10879 805
G. Gregori et al. / High Energy Density Physics 6 (2010) 166170 170