Student ID Code: 1010518 Name: Jack Rankin

13/03/2014

Gamma Ray Production by Counter-Propagating Lasers into Relativistically Underdense Plasmas

When an ultraintense laser is fired into plasma, QED processes dominate and strongly couple to plasma physics processes leading to an ultrarelativistic plasma regime named QED-plasma regime [1]. We analysed the conversion of laser energy to gamma-ray photons in a relativistically underdense plasma. We confirm the results of Brady, Ridgers, Arber, Bell and Kirk (2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 245006) [2] showing that between 1% (at 1022 W cm-2) and 14% (at 8 1022 W cm-2) of the laser energy is converted into

gamma-ray photons in the one laser scenario via reinjected electron synchrotron emission (RESE). It is found that the efficiency is improved by a factor of 3 by splitting the laser and firing from opposite directions. In this scenario the RESE mechanism is followed at twice the value of half the intensity for a single laser before the lasers cross and a new process is followed named anti-parallel electron synchrotron emission (APESE).

1. Introduction The recent development of laser technology is allowing unprecedented laser intensities to be reached [3]. For example, the Central Laser Facility (CLF) at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory is currently upgrading to a 10 PW laser and Extreme Light Infrastructure (ELI) plans to go a magnitude higher again [4]. For these new lasers, operating at intensities , a strong electromagnetic field is created ( ). These fields

accelerate electrons sufficiently violently that they radiate a large fraction of their energy as gamma-rays [5]. Therefore, when calculating electron trajectories, it is necessary to include a treatment of the radiation reaction force. It is also important to take into account quantum elements of radiation emission and the production of electron-positron pairs produced by the emitted photons [6]. With todays pet awatt-power lasers the production of gamma-ray photons, and the subsequent pair production, can already be investigated and with the next generation of 10PW lasers these emission processes will dominate [6]. QED emission processes and plasma physics processes are strongly coupled in the laser-plasma interactions under a 10PW laser and this introduces a new regime: QED-plasma regime [7]. This regime is thought to exist in the most energetic phenomena in the universe, such as pulsars and black holes, which are not yet widely understood [8]. 1

1.1

Aims and Objectives

In this paper the most efficient conversion of laser energy into gamma-rays when fired into plasma is investigated. The work of Brady, Ridgers, Arber, Bell and Kirk (2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 245006) [2] found that between 1% (at W/cm2) and 14% (at W/cm2)

of laser energy was converted to gamma-ray photons. In this paper these findings are verified, the situation is investigated when the laser is split and fired from both sides of a relativistically underdense plasma and the physical mechanisms of these scenarios are investigated.

This is achieved by the coupling of a Monte Carlo simulation with a Particle in Cell (PIC) code within a QED-PIC named EPOCH.

1.2

Background Theory

The classical Maxwell Equations and the Lorentz Force were thought to be exact laws of the universe, but are the classical limit of a more fundamental theory, that of quantum electrodynamics (QED) [9]. In most regimes the difference is negligible, and the classical description of gamma-ray emission and the resulting radiation reaction is acceptable, but because of the strength of the electric field and the relativistic speeds, created in the regimes considered here, the consideration of QED effects are necessary. Radiation reaction force and QED effects are outlined in this section so an understanding can be gained as to how these are treated in EPOCH.

1.2a

Radiation Reaction Force

According to the laws of classical electrodynamics, an accelerating charge must radiate. This radiation must carry energy and it follows, from the principle of conservation of energy, that the accelerating charge must lose kinetic energy. Due to this effect, called radiation reaction force, a charged particle accelerates less than a neutral particle, of equivalent mass, under the same force [10].

For a non-relativistic particle, with charge q and undergoing acceleration a, the total power radiated is given by the Larmor Formula.

(1) 2

Where 0 is the permeability of free space, c is the speed of light in a vacuum and is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. However the Larmor Formula stated in Eq. 1 assumes that the particle obeys the Lorentz Force, i.e. it is not considering the radiation reaction force on the charge particle, and hence is an incomplete picture [11]. To solve this problem, Max Abraham suggested a modification to the Lorentz Force by adding what is now called the Abraham-Lorentz equation.

(2)

This is derived under the assumption that the charged particles motion is periodic. It represents the simplest form the radiation reaction force can take, consistent with conservation of energy. Unfortunately, there still remain two major problems with this treatment: runaway solutions and acausal pre-acceleration, violating the principles of conservation of energy and causality respectively [11].

The runaway solution problem was solved by Dirac by renormalizing the mass in the Abraham-Lorentz equation to get the Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac equation.

)]

(3)

This Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac equation still does not address the causality problem [12].

However, if the radiation-reaction adjustment is assumed to be small relative to the original Lorentz Force, the Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac equation can be approximated using a mathematical expansion. This expansion was first calculated by Landau and Lifschitz and solves the causality problem; unfortunately however it no longer conserved energy or momentum [13].

In the simulations used in this paper radiation reaction is taken account of discretely in radiation reaction impulses rather than as a continuous emission. The physical rationale for this stems from the quantum realities of the regimes investigated and how this is done in EPOCH is explored later on in this paper.

1.2b

Quantum Electrodynamics

To accurately conduct a simulation of a scenario involving accelerating charged particles it is necessary to include a treatment of the radiation reaction force, however our picture is not yet complete. Classical electrodynamics is merely the limit of the more fundamental theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) [10]. To determine the type of radiation emitted by the accelerating charged particles in this scenario it is important to consider whether QED emission processes will contribute. The parameter as defined in Eq. 4 determines the importance of quantum effects in emission [14]. (4) Where is the Lorentz Factor of the emitted particle, Schwinger Field,

is the

is the component of the lasers electric field perpendicular to the

electrons motion, is the velocity of the electron is units of speed of light, c and B is the magnetic field. The Schwinger Field is the electric field required to break the quantum vacuum, giving virtual electron-positron pairs sufficient energy to separate them by the Compton wavelength and become real [15]. When ~ 1 it becomes important to take account of quantum effects [16, 17] because (a) classical theory predicts the emission of photons with more energy than the emitting electron.

FIG. 1. Spectrum for Energy of Photons. The function F(,) is called the quantum synchrotron function and can be thought as the quantum equivalent of the photon frequency. F(,) is a function of both , the parameter determining the importance of strong-field QED effects introduced in Eq. 1, and the dimensionless photon frequency , describing the energy of the emitted photon. The corresponding classical functions are shown as dashed lines. [14]

to make physical sense, modifications are needed. (b) Photon emission becomes probabilistic and so a stochastic model of electron motion is needed. (c) Photons emitted are sufficiently energetic to produce electron-positron pairs. As the gamma-ray photons created when ~ 1 have a significant fraction of the accelerating electrons kinetic energy the continuous emission described by the classical treatment is impossible. A formulation explaining these phenomena must deal in discrete emission hence the requirement for a quantum treatment. This is treated mathematically rigorously in Kirk, Bell and Arka (2009 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 51, 085008) [14] and demonstrated graphically in Fig. 1. There are two strong-field QED emission processes that need to be taken into account when ~ 1 [7]. Firstly, synchrotron radiation becomes important in the plasma energetics. Synchrotron radiation is the electromagnetic waves emitted as a charged particle, in this case an electron, is accelerated, see Fig. 2. These photons are sufficiently energetic to produce electron-positron pairs when they interact with multiple laser photons as per Eq. 5., this is the second QED emission process which needs to be taken into account, the Breit-Wheeler Process, also Fig. 2..

(5) Where is a gamma-ray photon, n represents numerous laser photons and e- and e+ are electrons and positrons respectively. This is called the Breit-Wheeler Process and becomes the

FIG. 2. Feynman representation of the emission processes included in this model. On the left, synchrotron radiation, electron absorbs n photons before emitting a high-energy photon. On the right, pair production by a photon via the Breit-Wheeler Process. The double lines represent dressed states. [6]

dominant mechanism for electron-positron pair production in the regime being investigated.

1.2c

QED Processes and Plasma Physics

The plasma physics effects and the dominant QED processes, which are found to be dominant in next-generation lasers interactions with plasma, are shown by Ridgers, Brady, Duclous, Kirk, Bennett, Arber and Bell (2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 165006) [2] to have a complex feedback to one another. Therefore, in this paper, as in [1] and [2], we deal in a QED Plasma regime in which QED processes and plasma physics are inseparable [1].

1.3

Reinjected Electron Synchrotron Emission

The work of Brady et al. [2] studied gamma-ray production in relativistically underdense plasmas: The process studied involved a build-up phase where electrons from the plasma are pushed forward by the laser, then a breakdown event where the electrons move into the laser, emitting gamma-rays, i.e. the authors show that the emission of gamma-rays is not constant but occurs at discrete points known as breakdown events. This phase is named re-injected electron synchrotron emission (RESE). This phenomenon flows physically from a build-up of electric potential and mathematically from the definition of introduced earlier.
, defined in Eq. 4 becomes Eq. 6. ( is the Lorentz factor)

For a laser where

(6)

Here the depends on the velocity direction of an electron with respect to the laser direction. For a particle propagating against the laser becomes Eq. 7.

(7)

For a particle propagating with the laser becomes Eq. 8.

(8)

This difference explains the production of gamma-rays. Since > 100, is negligible when a particle is propagating with the laser beam, but ~ 1 when a particle is propagating against the laser beam. Hence synchrotron emission is only a noticeable effect at breakdown events in the RESE regime. In the RESE regime it is found that eventually some electrons are accelerated back into the laser. Brady et al. found that up to 15% of the laser energy can be converted to gamma-rays for high enough laser intensity (8 1023 W cm-2) [2].

Brady et al. conclude that RESE absorption in underdense plasmas is one of the most efficient methods for producing gamma-rays.

As described earlier, this investigation builds directly on the work of Brady et al. by splitting the laser and firing from both sides of a relativistically underdense plasma so a direct comparison can be made with Brady et al.s results. It is shown that this is a more efficient method of converting of laser energy into gamma-rays.

1.4

Relativistically Underdense Plasma

Plasma that is relativistically underdense simply means that the laser expels electrons but leaves the decoupled ions behind. This requires the plasma frequency, , as defined in Eq.

9. for a plasma of electron number density ne, to be exceeded by the laser frequency,

(9)

The condition

is necessary but is not sufficient. Regimes exist where at different

points in the laser cycle the laser frequency is insufficient to decouple ions and electrons even though this condition is satisfied [2, 19]. Sufficient 2. Methodology has to be experimentally determined.

We study gamma-ray production in relativistically underdense plasmas. First we analyse the scenario of a laser fired into plasma and producing gamma-ray photons via RESE. Further investigated in this paper is the use of a beam splitter to split the laser into two counterpropagating lasers of half the intensity of the original. To make the comparison valid the parameters of the simulations conducted have been kept the same as in the one laser scenario. The definition of plasma frequency has been similarly unaltered. The 1D QED-PIC 7

simulations were run in a 20 m domain with 2048 gridpoints with 128 particles per species per cell. Linearly polarised lasers with pulse length 30 fs with varying intensities were used to analyse gamma-ray photon production. 2.1 EPOCH

This project is conducted in EPOCH, a QED-PIC code [17], which is a numerical simulation extending the Vlasov-Maxwell system to include pair production and synchrotron emission. Particle-in-cell (PIC) codes, like EPOCH, work by overlaying a grid of points over the domain and splitting the time frame into equal discrete blocks. Particle position, trajectory and optical depth (explained later) are then recorded at each time interval on an iterative basis [5].

However, instead of tracking each particle, to reduce computing power required, EPOCH groups particles together into larger pseudoparticles. These pseudoparticles have the properties of the constituent particles they represent and they obey the classical Lorentz force equation, shown in Fig. 3 [20].

FIG. 3. Pseudoparticles in EPOCH. Instead of tracking each individual particle, EPOCH conserves computing power by grouping together particles of the same species and considers these larger pseudoparticles. This treatment works as the mass to charge ratio remains constant so the dynamics are unaltered. [20]

FIG. 4. EPOCH Treatment. The dressed electron is treated classically but with probabilistic gamma emission, i.e. treated classically within the dashed boxes and QED effects only being taken into account at the interaction point.

EPOCH treats the pseudoparticles, in this case electrons, classically (apart from at points of emission) as there are enough individual electrons to allow the law of averages to be realised, see Fig. 4. The electrons involved are treated as dressed particles, that is, they are considered together with a large number of photons, an interaction is therefore given by Eq. 10.

(10) Where n + e- is a dressed electron and is a high energy photon that can have up to 60% of the electrons momentum [12]. Hence another important aspect of EPOCH is discrete photons emission, outside of this emission pseudoparticles are treated as behaving classically. EPOCH calculates a Radiation-Reaction impulse rather than a continuous force [5]. The discontinuous radiation model used in EPOCH randomly samples the synchrotron spectrum, shown in Fig. 1., to assign an energy to the photons, which are emitted at a time calculated via the Monte Carlo method [6]. To do this the code assigns an optical depth, e, from which a probability of emission is calculated according to Eq. 11.

(11)

At each emission the optical depth is reset to zero and a final optical depth

is assigned to

the each electron. The optical depth increases from zero as it propagates until it reaches the

final optical depth when a photon is emitted. At each time-step the electrons position, momentum and current optical depth are updated as calculated by Eq.s 10, 11 and 12.

(10)

(11)

where

(12)

(13)

is the differential rate of production of photons of parameter by an electron of parameter and F(, ) defined in Fig. 1. by where is the fine structure constant, is the Compton time defined

is the Compton wavelength.

This treatment was found to produce the correct emission spectrum [5]. 2.2 Optimal Intensity for Single Laser System The first results presented in this paper confirm the results of Brady et al. and attempt to find the optimal intensity in terms of laser energy converted to gamma-ray photon energy. In this scenario the gamma-ray photons are created via re-injected electron synchrotron emission (RESE). This phenomenon flows physically from a build-up of electric potential and mathematically from the definition of introduced earlier.

The simulation was run twice for each laser intensity, once with quantum emission process and once without quantum emission processes. This allows a comparison to be made and it is then possible to calculate the change in energy of the laser and of gamma-ray photons produced. The optimal laser intensity is found in respect to the highest proportion of laser energy conversion into gamma-ray photons.

10

The definition of the parameter opens up the possibility that QED effects could be maximised by operating with counter propagating laser beams, i.e. more efficient production of gamma-ray photons as a proportion of laser energy. 2.3 Two Laser System As was shown mathematically in Section 1.3, gamma-ray photons are produced in greater quantities when electrons are counter propagating to the laser. In the one laser system this happens at discrete breakdown events and it is believed that this constitutes a proportion of the electrons at the laser head being reinjected [2]. It is hypothesised that a laser set-up of constant injection from counter-propagating beams will result in the maximisation of the parameter and hence greater gamma-ray production. The target was arbitrarily chosen to be 5 m thick. Measurements were taken as soon as the lasers had exited one another.
12 10 8

Change in Energy Due to QED Effects ( % of total laser energy)

6 4 2 0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

-2
-4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14

Laser Intensity (1023 Wcm-2)

Gamma Ray Positron Laser

FIG. 5. Percentage change in energy components of the one laser plasma system at different laser intensities. The error bars calculated based on statistical error being proportion to the inverse square of the particle number, we did not have time to complete convergence studies.

11

2.4 Ideal Thickness of Two Laser System The ideal thickness of the plasma in this two laser system will be where the parameter and electron number density are maximised. As the laser is absorbed by the plasma its energy decreases and correspondingly the parameter of electrons in this system are reduced with the depth of the laser. The electron number density will vary depending on where the laser is in relation to the RESE build-up. 3. Results 3.1 Single Laser System When a linearly polarised laser propagates into a relativistically underdense plasma it is found that laser energy is absorbed and gamma-rays are produced [21]. The conversion of laser energy into gamma-ray photon energy is between 1% (at 1022 W cm-2) and a maximum of 14% (at 8 1023 W cm-2). These results are shown in Fig. 5 in the form of a comparison

between QED and non-QED processes.

In the one laser scenario gamma-ray emission is found not to be continuous but rather happens at discrete breakdown events. At these breakdown events, a percentage of electrons from the front of the laser beam are accelerated backwards rapidly. This percentage is found to be 36% 5%. This is due to the building of an electric potential. This process is called reinjected electron synchrotron emission (RESE). S ince , defined earlier, only approaches unity when electrons are travelling towards the laser, photons are only produced at breakdown events. These breakdown points occur characteristically after time which depends only on

FIG. 6. The laser head moves through the plasma at speed c. This sweeps electrons in front of it, leaving the ions where they are (from the definition of relativistically underdense). An electric potential builds and after a period of time, BD, a breakdown occurs and a fraction of these electrons are accelerated back into the laser. This is reinjected electron synchrotron emission or RESE.

12

FIG. 7. Visualisation of a RESE breakdown in the one laser scenario. Top Left: Electron number density against distance immediately before the breakdown event. The laser head has driven electrons in front of it and increased the number density at its head, while the electrons in front of it lay undisturbed. Top Right: Electron number density against distance immediately after breakdown event. The peak in number density has broken down as a proportion of the electrons built up are accelerated back into the laser due to the electrostatic potential built up. Bottom Left: The photon density before the breakdown. Bottom Right: Photon density immediately after the breakdown, showing the massive increase in photon production as a result of electron injection and the corresponding increase in the of the electron.

13

laser intensity and initial target density. The concept is shown diagrammatically in Fig. 6 and snapshots of the simulations are used to demonstrate it in Fig.7. 3.2 Two Laser System A laser set-up of injection from counter-propagating beams (see Fig. 8.) results in greater gamma-ray production than the one laser system by a factor 3. This simulation is conducted with total laser intensity of 2 the one laser system. 1023 W cm-2 and is compared with the equivalent intensity in

It is found that, to start with, the energy of gamma-ray photons produced in this second scenario is equal to twice the energy of gamma-ray photons produced at half the intensity as might be expected. Before the lasers cross one another the RESE scenario is followed. However when the lasers cross, the scenario changes: photon production increases but remains periodic with a changed period. The new period now is the time it takes for half

the wavelength of one laser to pass through another, essentially when electrons carried by a laser head is injected into the other. The maximum production rate of gamma-rays is found to be 3.3 Comparison The results as shown in Fig. 9 show the much higher rate of production for the two-laser scenario. The log of the rate of production is shown in Fig. 10 to show the RESE production and the clear period with which gamma-ray photons are produced. .

FIG. 8. In the two laser scenario, initially the RESE mechanism is happening at twice half the intensity as might be expected. However when the lasers meet the laser heads injected electrons directly into the counter propagating laser beam. This is a more efficient way to create gamma-ray photons from laser energy.

14

Rate of Production of Gamma-Ray Photons (per second)

9E+28 8E+28 7E+28 6E+28 5E+28 4E+28

3E+28
2E+28 1E+28 0

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

Time (fs)
Single Laser Two Lasers

FIG. 9. The comparative number of gamma-ray photons produced for the same intensity of laser. The efficiency of conversion is seen to be much higher for the two laser scenario than the one.

Log (Rate of Production of GammaRay Photons)

67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50

Time (fs)
Single Laser Two Lasers

FIG. 10. Plotting the log of rate of production allows us to more clearly see the RESE scenario early on in the two laser scenario before the jump in production rate as the lasers cross each other at 41 fs. Note that the one laser scenario grows between the first and second breakdown as more electrons build, it is shown to then decrease steadily as the energy of the laser decreases.

The average photon energy is 1.8 MeV at I = 2 rises to 5.2 MeV at I = 2 higher. (1

1023 W cm-2 in the one laser scenario, this

1023) W cm-2 in the two laser scenario. This is a factor of 3

It is also worth noting that the breakdowns for the two scenarios vary. In the RESE the breakdown time can be calculated theoretically [2]. 15

(14)

So breakdown time is determined by the intensity of the electron and the number density of electrons. The difference is shown in Fig. 11 for the two scenarios. For the one laser case in our comparison this is calculated as , and is found to be s.

When the lasers cross RESE is no longer followed and a new scenario exists, APESE. The time between photon creation events is correspondingly changed. Each laser maximum drives electrons forward, i.e. two peaks for every wavelength. As the lasers are travelling into one another it is reasonable to expect that the time interval is the time it takes for of a wavelength of the laser to pass a point travelling at the speed of light, i.e. Eq. 15.

(15)

This theory predicts that the time between peaks in photon production in the two laser scenario is 1.77 fs. It is found to be 1.74 fs.

Rate of Production of Gamma-Ray Photons

1.8E+26 1.6E+26 1.4E+26 1.2E+26 1E+26 8E+25 6E+25 4E+25 2E+25 0

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Time (fs)
Single Laser Two Lasers

FIG. 11. RESE emission and the differing breakdown times in the two scenarios. In the one laser scenario the electric field is higher (as the intensity is not split) and so the breakdown period is longer than the two laser scenario.

16

4.

Discussion

Brady, Ridgers, Arber, Bell and Kirk (2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 245006) conducted the one laser simulation conducted in this paper and first described the RESE mechanism. This paper verifies their results and adds to the understanding of the regime, which was poorly understood, by resolving the percentage of electrons that are reinjected. It further adds to the understanding in that it is now understood this mechanism does not merely happen at the first maximum amplitude of the laser but rather at various peaks.

This work is extended in this paper to consider the situation of counter-propagating lasers and a new mechanism for gamma-ray production is studied, APESE. A physical understanding is developed where it is shown that gamma-ray photon production is maximised when two laser heads collide, i.e. high number densities are doubly injected. The efficiency of APESE is also quantified with relation to RESE. APESE is about 3 times as efficient a mechanism for gamma-ray photon production and this makes sense with relation to the 36% of electron reinjected in RESE.

4.1

Simplifications

These simulations have used a simple laser profile throughout. This is not in practice possible; the lasers would have a Gaussian or even super-Gaussian profile. However, to make the physical analysis simpler a simple laser profile was assumed. In further simulations it may be worth investigated how a Gaussian wave profile alters the results.

These simulations were also conducted in one dimension (1D) due to the computing capacity we had access too. In further studies it may be worth extending to two and even three dimensions to see if the analysis holds, if the capacity is available. It is possible that the electron number densities are not allowed to approach each other in more dimensions due to the large repulsion effect and electrons may be pushed out of the way meaning this analysis breaks down. 5. Conclusions In the near term, laser intensities available are expected to increase and the available aerogels are expected to get thinner. Hence in the near future, the APESE absorption mechanism presented in this paper will become an important method with which to create an efficient gamma-ray photon source. 17

Before this is attempted further analysis is needed into the APESE mechanism. Namely, more dimensions are needed in the simulations to see if this analysis holds in three dimensions and studies into how thick the ideal aerogel would be for maximal conversion of laser energy into gamma-ray photons.

As laser intensities increase, and if is this analysis is shown to hold in higher dimensions, it will be possible to create a table-top gamma-ray source for laboratory experiments to help solve some of the outstanding issues of nuclear physics and astrophysics [8], and will provide leaps in medical physics for both nuclear medicine and non-intrusive surgery [22].

References [1] C. P. Ridgers, C. S. Brady, R. Duclous, J. G. Kirk, K. Bennett, T. D. Arber, A. P. L. Robinson and A. R. Bell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 165006 (2012) [2] C. S. Brady, C. P. Ridgers, T. D. Arber, A. R. Bell and J. G. Kirk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 245006 (2012) [3] [4] D. Strickland and G. Mourou, Opt. Commun. 56, 219 (1985) Science and Technology Facilities Council, The Vulcan 10 Petawatt Project, (2013) http://www.stfc.ac.uk/CLF/Facilities/Vulcan/The+Vulcan+10+Petawatt+Project/146 84.aspx [5] R. Duclous, J. G. Kirk, and A. R. Bell, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 53, 015009 (2011) [6] C. P. Ridgers, J. G. Kirk, R. Duclous, T. G. Blackburn, C. S. Brady, K. Bennett, T. D. Arber and A. R. Bell, Journal of Computational Physics 260, 273-285 (2014) [7] C. P. Ridgers, C. S. Brady, R. Duclous, J. G. Kirk, K. Bennett, T. D. Arber and A. R. Bell, Physics of Plasmas 20, 056701 (2013) [8] [9] Guo Wei et al., Chinese Physics C (HEP & NP) 32, II 190-193 (2008) L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Course of Theoretical Physics (ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford, 1987), Vol. 2. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Introduction to Electrodynamics, D. J. Griffiths, Prentice Hall, (1999) R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics P.R. Johnson and B.L. Hu, Phy. Rev. D 65, 065015 (2002) D. J. Griffiths, T. C. Proctor and D. F. Schroeter, Am. J. Phys. 78, 4 (2010) J.G. Kirk, A.R. Bell and I. Arka, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 51, 085008 (2009)

18

[15] [16] [17] [18]

J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951) A. R. Bell and J. G. Kirk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200403 (2008) C. S. Brady and T. D. Arber, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 53, 015001 (2011) C. Bamber, S.J. Boege, T. Koffas, T. Kotseroglou, A.C. Melissinos, D.D. Meyerhofer, D.A. Reis and W. Ragg, Phy. Rev. D 60, 092004 (1999)

[19] [20] [21]

F. Cattani, A. Kim, D. Anderson and M. Lisak, Phys. Rev. E 62, 1234 (2000) QED Plasmas and Intense Laser-Plasma Interactions Lecture by T. D. Arber P. A. Norreys, F. N. Beg, Y. Sentoku, L. O. Silva, R. A. Smith and R. M. G. M. Trines, Physics of Plasmas 16, 041002 (2009)

[22]

J. C. Ganz, Gamma Knife Neurosurgery, Springer (2011)

19