CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Laser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsAtomic and Molecular PhysicsQuantum optics and atomic interactions

Phase differences in the photoemission from krypton in the fine-structure-split ionization channelsP3/22andP1/22

Baggash, M., Rottke, H.·2015·Physical Review A
DOI 10.1103/physreva.92.013424
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Using the reconstruction of attosecond beating by interference of two-photon transitions (RABBITT) technique, a nonzero phase difference is observed in the two-photon ionization transition of krypton atoms into the ionization channels $^{2}P_{1/2}$ and $^{2}P_{3/2}$ when an electron is removed from the $4p$ shell. The phase difference is studied for excitation energies ranging from $\ensuremath{\approx}18\phantom{\rule{0.28em}{0ex}}\mathrm{eV}$ up to $\ensuremath{\approx}28\phantom{\rule{0.28em}{0ex}}\mathrm{eV}$. The phase differences are found to depend on the relative directions of linear polarization of the photoionization laser pulses and the pulses inducing the subsequent continuum-continuum transition. The experimental results are compared to phase differences calculated on the basis of dipole matrix elements for photoionization and scattering phases known for krypton from earlier experiments. The results indicate that the RABBITT phase differences do not give an obvious direct access to time-delay differences in the primary photoionization step of the atom.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreva.92.013424

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Unless one channel is dominant, interpretation of experimental results in terms of photoionization time delays or phase retrieval becomes ambiguous.

    “Unless one of the channels is dominant, the interpretation of the experimental results in terms of photoionization time delays (figure 22) [196] or phase retrieval (figure 23) becomes ambiguous.”

    From Roadmap of ultrafast x-ray atomic and molecular physics (2018) · cites this paper as [196]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Baggash, M., & Rottke, H.
Affiliations
Max-Born-Institute for Nonlinear Optics and Short Pulse Spectroscopy (DE)
ORCID
Rottke, H.
Venue
Physical Review A
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2015-07-27
Volume
92
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1050-2947
  • 1094-1622
DOI
10.1103/physreva.92.013424
OpenAlex
W2562828702
Cited by
4
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
FWCI
0.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
Locations
Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Laser-Matter Interactions and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Atomic and Molecular Physics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum optics and atomic interactions
Keywords
krypton, two-photon ionization, phase difference, RABBITT, fine structure splitting, polarization dependence, dipole matrix elements, photoionization time delay, photoemission

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review