Collective Effects in Multiphoton Ionization: Application to Two-Photon One-Electron Ionization of Xenon
The purpose of the present work1–3 is to study various aspects of multiphoton ionization of heavy atoms4–11 which are known to show collective behaviour in single photon ionization.12–14 ultimate goal is to treat the non-linear collective and single- particle dynamics in cases where the field is strong enough to seriously perturb the atomic states (dynamic Stark shift and broadening; ponderomotive effects; harmonic generation, etc.). However, this is a rather formidable problem for a many-electron atom. Strong-field effects have essentially only been seriously considered within one- electron formulations and model calculations, and many problems remain to be solved.
KeywordsXenon Kelly Exter
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.A. L’Huillier, and G. Wendin: submitted to J. Phys. BGoogle Scholar
- 6.K. Boyer, H. Egger, T.S. Luk, H. Pummer, and C.K. Rhodes: Phys. Rev. A 32, 214 ( 1984Google Scholar
- 12.G. Wendin: In New Trends in Atomic Physics, Les Houches Summer School, Session XXXVIII, 1982, eds. G. Grynberg, and R. Stora, ( Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1984 ) p. 555Google Scholar
- 14.G. Wendi: In Giant Resonances in Atoms, Molecules and Silods, NATA Summer School, Les Houches, 16–26 June, 1986, eds. J.P. Connerade, J.-M. Esteva, and R.C. Karnatak, (Plenun) in press.Google Scholar
- 17.A.F. Starace, Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Vacuum Ultraviolet Radiation Physics, 4–8 August, 1986, Lung Sweden; to appear in Phys. Scripta (Sweden).Google Scholar
- 19.P. Gangopadhyay, X. Tang, P. lambropoulos, and R. Shakeshaft: Phys. Rev. A, in press.Google Scholar
- 20.The present independent-electron approximation includes all ladder diagrams and exchange self-interaction. In this basis, the RPA buble expansion gives accurate RPAe results. The HF configuration-average one-electron result for the 2-proton 1-electron cross-section lies somewhat lower that the result of the present basis set applied to Fig. 2a and Eq. (7), and agrees quite well with McGuire18.Google Scholar