I High energy laser-electron inerraction same as in TWT amplifier?

Physics news on Phys.org
Brendan Graham said:
Isn't the high energy laser-electron interaction described in the following article and citation, the very same principle used in the classical TWT amplifier?
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-intense-laser-evidence-electrons.html
https://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011020

I'm not sure why you think it is the "same principle".

A klystron, for example, is basically a signal amplifier. It amplifies the input signal, preserving the frequency. In fact, the electrons in the klystron tube are accelerated.

In this experiment that you cited, it is the reverse, where via inverse-Compton scattering, the electrons lose energy upon collision with the counter-propagating photons (which is not present in a klystron tube).

So I do not see any similarities here at all.

Zz.
 
In the sense that one EM field is pumping another.
 
Brendan Graham said:
In the sense that one EM field is pumping another.

What "EM field" is pumping another?

Note that I can accelerate the electrons using ANY methods that I want. I don't have to use the laser-plasma wakefield at all. The back reaction does not require it. All the experiment needed was very high energy electrons.

It would help this "discussion" (if you want to call it that) if you have more to say and explain than simply one-sentence posts.

Zz.
 
In the TWT, a stimulus rotating EM field modulates a DC electron beam naturally accompanied by its orthogonal magnetic field, thus the modulated electron beam itself launches a generated EM field. The EM field generated by the modulated electron beam is collected by a wave guide to the device output.

I believe that "the experiment" required relativistic electrons, relative and opposite to the parallel direction of the EM pumping source, for the purpose of requiring electrons in the beam to have a higher energy than the EM photons. Thus the electron beam would act naturally as the pumping source and not the other way around.

Am I seeing things correctly?
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top