
- High Power Laser Science and Engineering
- Vol. 8, Issue 4, 04000e34 (2020)
Abstract
Keywords
1 Introduction
Preplasma has an important effect on the interaction between laser and matter, especially in solid targets, which produces different laser absorption mechanisms in sub-relativistic laser states, such as resonance absorption[1] and vacuum heating (the Brunel mechanism)[2]. Based on these studies, several interesting results have been obtained recently, such as the Brunel-like mechanism[3], high harmonic generation[4], and vacuum electron acceleration[5]. With the gargantuan laser powers projected to be realized in the developing petawatt (PW) facilities ELI in Europe[6–9] and SULF in China[10], the interaction between lasers and plasmas is poised to occur in the ultrarelativistic state[11]. As is commonly understood, in the quantum electrodynamics (QED)-dominated regime, when an ultraintense laser interacts with a target, γ-rays can be generated by synchrotron radiation arising from high-energy electrons traveling in a strong, background electromagnetic field[12,13]. Previous studies focused on the function of the preplasma before a dense target[14,15], scanning different parameters to obtain the optimal γ-ray source. The other efficient method to generate γ-ray flare is to make accelerated electrons interact with a reflected laser, a method called all-optical Compton backscattering, in which electrons may be accelerated by a wakefield[16,17] or pondermotive force[18] and laser is reflected by a dense plasma mirror. In these cases, underdense gas or nanoparticles[19] are required before the solid targets in their plans. The γ-rays generated in different regimes have lent themselves to many applications, such as dense matter tomography[20], photonuclear reactions[21], and laboratory astrophysics[22]. Previous research has shown that an ultraintense laser interacting with a plasma can emit γ-rays in different directions, depending on the plasma density[11,12,23] and the corresponding physical mechanisms at play.
As mentioned previously, the preplasma scale length plays an important role in the ultraintense laser matter interactions, which is the object of the present article. Via two-dimensional (2D) simulation and theoretical analysis, we found that the preplasma affects the γ-ray generation markedly. With increasing preplasma scale length, the angular distribution of the γ-rays tends to proceed with small angle. Moreover, the conversion efficiency of laser to γ-ray reaches its highest at an appropriate scale length. This shows that piled plasma formed in preplasma has similar effects to the reflecting mirror in an all-optical Compton backscattering scenario. The mirror is usually made of a solid target and reflects the laser. We propose a simple 2D analytical model to explain the simulation results, which is in good agreement with our simulation. It indicates that a single solid target with appropriate preplasma could also be robust to generating a γ-ray source.
2 Traditional mechanism of γ-ray production in uniform plasma
The nonlinear QED effect[24] must be considered under ultraintense laser conditions, which mainly contains two important processes: γ-ray generation through synchrotron radiation and electron–positron pair creation by the Breit–Wheeler (BW) process[25]. These two processes can be simply described as


Sign up for High Power Laser Science and Engineering TOC. Get the latest issue of High Power Laser Science and Engineering delivered right to you!Sign up now
γ-ray generation is controlled by the parameter:

Figure 1.Schematic of traditional γ-ray generation mechanisms at uniform plasma with different density (blue backgrounds represent plasma densities; black circles are electrons; purple represents the gamma photons; small red arrows show the moving direction of the electrons and gamma photons; light red arrows are the laser; and yellow arrows are the space charge force). (a) Low-density plasma
In a comparatively low-density plasma of near-critical density (
When the plasma is no longer transparent (the plasma density is close to the penetration threshold value ne

In the transition region with nth
When the density is greater than nc*, the laser pulse can only penetrate the target to several skin depths, after which it is reflected backwards. A small number of electrons, accelerated by the ponderomotive force within several skin depths, counterpropagate with the reflected pulse, and emit forward γ-ray bursts, a process known as skin-depth emission (SDE)[11,12].
The four traditional mechanisms mentioned previously occur specifically in a uniform plasma with sharp edge. If a preplasma exists that covers a broad range from underdense to solid density, the γ-ray generation is not simply the superimposition of the four traditional mechanisms. The preplasma will alter the electron acceleration and laser reflection process, which then alters the features of the γ-rays. This represents a new phenomenon, as described in the following.
3 Simulation setup
Here, a 2D particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation code OPIC[32] was used to investigate the process of an ultraintense laser (1022 W/cm2) irradiating a solid CH target with different preplasma scale lengths. A QED model is included in the code, which takes into account QED effects of the synchrotron radiation of γ-rays and the Breit–Wheeler electron–positron pair production using a Monte Carlo algorithm. Meanwhile, the radiation reaction effect is also taken into account in our simulation, which is important in the QED regime[33–36]. It presents high-energy electrons that partially lose their energy through emitting gamma photons in laser field.
In the simulation, a box of dimensions 25 m × 10 m (
Figure 2.Schematic of the simulation setup and γ-ray generation mechanisms for a solid target with preplasma. Electrons are accelerated in the preplasma, and then interact with the reflected laser through the piled preplasma, emitting bright gamma radiation.
4 Results and discussion
Figure 3.Temporal evolution of electron numbers with at preplasma scale length of 0, 0.5λ, 2λ, and 4λ (the characteristic times of the maximum electron numbers are marked with arrows). The laser pulse profile at
Figure 4.(a)–(d) Spatial density distributions of the electrons (black) and gamma photons (red) at corresponding characteristic times. (e)–(l) Phase space distribution of electron momentum (e)–(h)
Figure 5.The angular energy distributions of (a)–(d) energetic electrons and (e)–(h) and gamma photons at corresponding characteristic times (all units are MeV): (a), (e)
The sharpest boundary case of L = 0 presents typical characteristics of the SDE mechanism. The gamma ray and energetic electrons are generated in laser skin layer from the region of x>18λ, which is the dense plasma of 200nc, seen in Figure 4(a). The energetic electron have similar forward and transverse momentum (as shown in Figures 4(e) and 4(i)), which makes the electrons and gamma photons split into two large angles around ±45° in the forward direction, as shown in Figures 5(a) and 5(e).
When increasing the preplasma scale length slightly to L = 0.5λ, the energetic electrons are born from two different regions: dense plasma of 200nc (x > 18λ) and preplasma <200nc (x < 18λ), marked by a red dashed line in Figure 4(b). Most energetic electrons are produced in dense plasma of 200nc via an SDE-like mechanism. In addition to those accelerated in skin depth similar to SDE, electrons are also accelerated in preplasma. Therefore, the forward-moving electrons have higher momentum and numbers owing to the longer acceleration length, as shown in Figures 4(f) and 4(j). The forward-moving energetic electrons interact with the backward laser field reflected by the skin layer of dense plasma, and produce brighter forward γ-rays. Some energetic electrons are generated in preplasma of x < 18λ, which exhibit obvious features of the RESE mechanism. The electrons have backward and transverse momentum. The backward reinjected electrons, reflected by the space-charge field of dense plasma, counterpropagate in the incident laser field, and emit a burst of backward γ-rays in preplasma, as can be seen in Figure 5(f). Thus, the angular profiles of energetic electrons and γ-rays present two forward ±45° peaks (SDE-like) and one backward peak (RESE), as shown in Figures 5(b) and 5(f).
If further increasing the preplasma to L = 2λ scale length, the generation region of γ-rays has changed apparently: the majority of γ-rays generated in underdense preplasma below
Figure 6.(a) The electron density (black to white colorbar) and laser field condition at characteristic time; (b) lineplot in the position of
), and electron density (blue is the current distribution and green is the initial profile).
Increasing the preplasma scale length to L = 4
A simple analytical model is now presented to explain the continuous enhanced and collimated γ-ray emission with increasing preplasma scale length. When a linear-polarized laser penetrates the plasma, electrons are pushed forward by the ponderomotive force, which can be written as[41]

Figure 7.The conversion efficiency of laser energy to (a) electrons and (b) γ-rays at various preplasma scale lengths.
Figure 8.The conversion efficiency from laser energy to γ-rays at different scale lengths and laser parameters. The conversion efficiencies are saturated at longer scale lengths ().
As can be found in Figure 8, with increasing scale length, the conversion efficiency first increases owing to the longer acceleration length, then reaches a saturated region, and finally decreases slightly at various laser parameters. The saturation phenomenon is a natural result of the piled plasma mirror. The γ-rays are the combined effect of forward electron acceleration and backward laser field reflected by piled plasma. At small scale length, the short acceleration length limits the electron energy and the γ-ray emission. At very long scale length, the plasma accumulation and the piled plasma mirror are not formed in time owing to over-attenuated preplasma, which decreases the reflected laser field and the γ-ray emission, although it has more energetic electrons. Thus, the optimal scale length of γ-ray generation is the balance between acceleration of electrons and laser reflection.
From Figure 8 we also find the positive correlation between the optimal scale length and laser pulse duration. A shorter laser pulse needs to be reflected by piled plasma early to serve as the background field for the accelerated electrons before the laser energy is depleted. On the other hand, longer laser duration can accelerate electrons fully before the laser reflected because the longer pulse contains more energy to accelerate electrons and act as a background field. Meanwhile, the formation time of piled plasma mirror and the scale length are proportionate. Therefore, the optimal scale length for a long pulse is nearly five times that of a short pulse (as shown in Figure 8 for a = 200), which is a multiple of the duration time.
5 Conclusion
In summary, we have investigated the influence of preplasma scale length on γ-ray emission in the interaction between an ultraintense laser and solid targets via 2D PIC simulation. We find that the preplasma will enhance and collimate the γ-ray emission significantly. It exhibits the formation of piled plasma mirror, which has the same function as plasma mirror in an all-optical Compton backscattering scenario. The forward-accelerated electrons interact with the backward laser field reflected by the piled plasma in the preplasma region and produce the γ-ray emission. A solid target with appropriate preplasma could be robust to generating a useful γ-ray source, which is easier for experimental operation. The feature may be slightly different in an actual 3D situation, but the primary physical characterization will be maintained[15]. The current study may be conducted in PW facilities such as SULF and ELI, and is helpful for future experiments, especially for bright collimated γ-ray source generation, and it may also be used to diagnose the preplasma according to the features of the emitted γ-rays.
References
[1] J. P. Friedberg, R. W. Mitchell, R. L. Morse, L. I. Rudsinski. Phys. Rev. Lett., 28, 795(1972).
[2] F. Brunel. Phys. Rev. Lett., 59, 52(1987).
[3] J. P. Geindre, R. S. Marjoribanks, P. Audebert. Phys. Rev. Lett., 104(2010).
[4] M. Bocoum, M. Thevenet, F. Bohle, B. Beaurepaire, A. Vernier, A. Jullien, J. Faure, R. Lopez-Martens. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(2016).
[5] M. Thévenet, A. Leblanc, S. Kahaly, H. Vincenti, A. Vernier, F. Quéré, J. Faure. Nat. Phys., 12, 355(2015).
[6] http://www.eli-laser.eu. http://www.eli-laser.eu
[7] C. Danson, D. Hillier, N. Hopps, D. Neely. High Power Laser Sci. Eng., 3, e3(2015).
[8] S. Weber, S. Bechet, S. Borneis, L. Brabec, M. Bučka, E. Chacon-Golcher, M. Ciappina, M. DeMarco, A. Fajstavr, K. Falk, E. R. Garcia, J. Grosz, Y. J. Gu, J. C. Hernandez, M. Holec, P. Janečka, M. Jantač, M. Jirka, H. Kadlecova, D. Khikhlukha, O. Klimo, G. Korn, D. Kramer, D. Kumar, T. Lastovička, P. Lutoslawski, L. Morejon, V. Olšovcová, M. Rajdl, O. Renner, B. Rus, S. Singh, M. Šmid, M. Sokol, R. Versaci, R. Vrána, M. Vranic, J. Vyskočil, A. Wolf, Q. Yu. Matter Radiat. Extrem., 2, 149(2017).
[9] S. Mondal, M. Shirozhan, N. Ahmed. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, 35, A93(2018).
[10] Y. Chu, Z. Gan, X. Liang. Opt. Lett., 40, 5011(2015).
[11] C. S. Brady, C. P. Ridgers, T. D. Arber, A. R. Bell, J. G. Kirk. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109(2012).
[12] C. P. Ridgers, C. S. Brady, R. Duclous. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108(2012).
[13] X.-L. Zhu, M. Chen, S.-M. Weng. Sci. Adv., 6(2020).
[14] T. Nakamura, J. K. Koga, T. Esirkepov, M. Kando, G. Korn, S. V. Bulanov. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108(2012).
[15] K. V. Lezhnin, P. V. Sasorov, G. Korn, S. V. Bulanov. Phys. Plasmas, 25(2018).
[16] K. T. Phuoc, S. Corde, C. Thaury. Nat. Photonics, 6, 308(2012).
[17] J. F. Ong, K. Seto, A. C. Berceanu, S. Aogaki, L. Neagu. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 61(2019).
[18] Z. Gong, R. H. Hu, H. Y. Lu. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 60(2018).
[19] T. W. Huang, C. M. Kim, C. T. Zhou. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 60(2018).
[20] K. J. Weeks, V. N. Litvinenko, J. M. J. Madey. Med. Phys., 24, 417(1997).
[21] E. Schreiber, R. Canon, B. Crowley. Phys. Rev. C, 61(2000).
[22] S. Bulanov, T. Z. Esirkepov, M. Kando, J. Koga, K. Kondo, G. Korn. Plasma Phys. Rep., 41, 1(2015).
[23] H. X. Chang, B. Qiao, Y. X. Zhang. Phys. Plasmas, 24(2017).
[24] V. I. Ritus. J. Sov. Laser Res., 6, 497(1985).
[25] C. P. Ridgers, J. G. Kirk, R. Duclous. J. Comput. Phys., 260, 273(2014).
[26] J. Schwinger. Phys. Rev., 82, 664(1951).
[27] H. X. Chang, B. Qiao, T. W. Huang. Sci. Rep., 7(2017).
[28] A. P. L. Robinson, R. M. G. M. Trines, N. P. Dover, Z. Najmudin. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 54(2012).
[29] E. Lefebvre, G. Bonnaud. Phys. Rev. Lett., 74(1995).
[30] H. Sakagami, K. Mima. Phys. Rev. E, 54(1996).
[31] D. J. Stark, C. Bhattacharjee, A. V. Arefiev, T. Toncian, R. D. Hazeltine, S. M. Mahajan. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115(2015).
[32] Z. M. Zhang, B. Zhang, W. Hong. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 58(2016).
[33] A. D. Piazza, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. H. Keitel. Phys. Rev. Lett., 105(2010).
[34] L. L. Ji, A. Pukhov, I. Y. Kostyukov, B. F. Shen, K. Akli. Phys. Rev. Lett., 112(2014).
[35] L. L. Ji, A. Pukhov, E. N. Nerush, I. Y. Kostyukov, B. F. Shen, K. U. Akli. Phys. Plasmas, 21(2014).
[36] K. Poder, M. Tamburini, G. Sarri. Phys. Rev. X, 8(2018).
[37] T. W. Huang, C. M. Kim, C. T. Zhou. New J. Phys., 21(2019).
[38] D. J. Stark, T. Toncian, A. V. Arefiev. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(2016).
[39] X.-L. Zhu, T.-P. Yu, M. Chen, S.-M. Weng, Z.-M. Sheng. New J. Phys., 20(2018).
[40] A. Ben-Ismaïl, O. Lundh, C. Rechatin. Appl. Phys. Lett., 98(2011).
[41] P. Gibbon.

Set citation alerts for the article
Please enter your email address