Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T10:07:33.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dynamics of a charged particle in progressive plane waves propagating in vacuum or plasma: Stochastic acceleration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2009

A. Bourdier*
Affiliation:
CEA, DAM, DIF, 91297 Arpajon Cedex, France
M. Drouin
Affiliation:
CEA, DAM, DIF, 91297 Arpajon Cedex, France
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: A. Bourdier, CEA, DAM, Arpajon Cedex, France. E-mail: alain.bourdier@cea.fr

Abstract

The dynamics of a charged particle in a relativistic strong electromagnetic plane wave propagating in a nonmagnetized medium is studied first. The problem is shown to be integrable when the wave propagates in vacuum. When it propagates in plasma, and when the full plasma response is considered, an exhaustive numerical work allows us to conclude that the problem is not integrable. The dynamics of a charged particle in a relativistic strong electromagnetic plane wave propagating along a constant homogeneous magnetic field is studied next. The problem is integrable when the wave propagates in vacuum. When it propagates in plasma, the problem becomes nonintegrable. Finally, one particle in a high intensity wave, propagating in a nonmagnetized medium, perturbed by a low intensity traveling wave is considered. Resonances are identified and conditions for resonance overlap are studied. Stochastic acceleration is shown by considering a single particle. It is confirmed in plasma in realistic situations with particle-in-cell code simulations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Frame of reference.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Poincaré surface of section plots in the laboratory frame: PZversus Z (X = 0, Px > 0). H = 20, β = 1.2. (a, b): Several trajectories are considered. H = 50, β = 1.2. (c): Several trajectories are considered.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Poincaré surface of section plots in the laboratory frame: PZ versus Z (X = 0, Px > 0). H = 248.824, β = 3.24. (a) One trajectory is considered. (b) Enlargement of part of the stochastic orbit.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Lyapunov exponents: (a) Lyapunov exponents calculated for the same initial conditions as those of the trajectory shown in Figures 3a, 3b. The two renormalization techniques are performed, they give almost the same results. (b) Lyapunov exponent corresponding to a regular trajectory.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Poincaré surface of section plots in the laboratory frame: PZ versus Z (X = 0, Px > 0). H = 248.824, β = 3.24. One trajectory is considered.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Lyapunov exponents: (a) Lyapunov exponents calculated for the same initial conditions as those of the trajectory shown in Figure 5. The two renormalizations are performed; they give almost the same results. (b) Lyapunov exponent corresponding to a regular trajectory.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Poincaré surface of section plots in (L*): PZversus Z (X = 0, Px > 0). H = 10, n = 0.3. (a) One trajectory is considered. (b) Enlargement of part of the stochastic orbit H = 20, n = 0.3. (c) One trajectory is considered. (d) Enlargement of part of the stochastic orbit

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Lyapunov exponents: (a) Lyapunov exponents calculated for the same initial conditions as those of the trajectory shown in Figures 7c, 7d. The two renormalizations techniques are performed and give almost the same results. (b) Lyapunov exponent corresponding to a regular trajectory.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. a = 4.03, Ω0 = 2. (a) Surface of section plots for one trajectory. (b) Lyapunov exponent calculated with the same trajectory, the two renormalization methods are compared.

Figure 9

Fig. 10. (Color online) Surface of section plots. Ω0 = 0.282, a = 4.03. (a) n = 1. (b) n = 0.999. (c) n = 0.99. (d) n = 0.988. (e) n = 0.95. (f): n = 0.8.

Figure 10

Fig. 11. Lyapunov exponents for two trajectories. Ω0 = 0.282, a = 4.03. (a) n = 0.99 (the two ways to renormalize are used). (b) n = 1.

Figure 11

Fig. 12. (Color online) Ω0 = 0.282, n = 0.99. (a) a = 3.9. (b) a = 3.88. (c) a = 3.86. (α): Surface of section plots for two trajectories. (β): Average Lorentz factor of the particle versus time.

Figure 12

Fig. 13. (Color online) Lyapunov exponent calculated for one trajectory in the laboratory frame in terms of the $\left(\hat{\hbox{x}}\comma \; \hat{\hbox{P}}_{\rm x}\comma \; \hat{\hbox{y}}\comma \; \hat{\hbox{P}}_{\rm y}\comma \; \hat{\hbox{z}}\comma \; \hat{\hbox{P}}_{\rm z}\right)$ variables. Ω0 = 0.282, a = 4.03. (a) n = 0.99, the two renormalization methods are used, the red circles are obtained by renormalizing dn to d0 every fixed distance ratio d/d0. (b) n = 0.2.

Figure 13

Fig. 14. (Color online) Lyapunov exponent calculated for some initial conditions. Ω0 = 0.282, a = 2.85. The two renormalization methods are used; the circles are obtained by renormalizing dn to d0 every fixed distance ratio d/d0. (a) n = 0.99, ε = 0. (b) n = 0.99, ε = 10−4, (c) n = 0.99, ε = 10−3, (d) n = 0.2, ε = 0.

Figure 14

Fig. 15. (Color online) Lyapunov exponents. (a) Positive Lyapunov exponents calculated by using the two ways to renormalize. H0 = 248.824 [calculated with Eq. (80)], Ωp = 0.01 and β = 3.24. (b) Lyapunov exponent corresponding to a regular trajectory.

Figure 15

Fig. 16. (Color online) Positive Lyapunov exponents calculated when Ωp = 1.999. Each time the distance ratio dn/d0 ≈ 2, the distance dn is renormalized to d0. (a) H0 = 0.442, β = 1.0101. (b) H0 = 0.449, β = 1.012. (c) H0 = 0.814, β = 1.1. (d) H0 = 1.664, β = 1.25.

Figure 16

Fig. 17. Compton resonances. α = 5π/6, a = 1, $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$.

Figure 17

Fig. 18. Compton resonances for different values of the parameters. (a) α = π/6, a = 1, $\tilde{\omega}_{1}= 1$, (b) α = π/4, a = 1, $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$, (c) α = π/6, a = 4, $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$, (d) α = π/6, a = 1, $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 2$

Figure 18

Fig. 19. (Color online) Chirikov criterion: RN,N′ as a function of different parameters when P⊥ = 0. a = 1, a1 = 0.1, (a) Resonances N = −1 and N = −2, (b) N = −2 and N = −3.

Figure 19

Fig. 20. (Color online) Chirikov criterion: RN,N′ in function of electric field amplitudes when P⊥ = 0. Resonances N = −1 and N = −2. (a) $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$, α = π/6, (b) $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$, α = 5π/6.

Figure 20

Fig. 21. (Color online) Energy of one particle versus time. P-polarization. $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$, α = 5π/6, $\gamma_0 = \sqrt{1 + \hbox{a}^{2}}$, (γ0 is the initial Lorentz factor). (a) one wave case, a = 4.0112, a1 = 0. (b) two waves case, a = 4, a1 = 0.3, h = 10−3, (c) two waves case a = 4, a1 = 0.3, h = 10−4

Figure 21

Fig. 22. (Color online) Energy of one particle in two waves versus time. P-polarization. a = 3, $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$, α = π, $\gamma_0 = \sqrt{1 + \hbox{a}^2}$. (a) a1 = 0.1. (b) a1 = 0.25. (c) a1 = 0.3.

Figure 22

Fig. 23. (Color online) Average energy of one particle versus time. P-polarization. $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$, α = π. (α): $\gamma_0 = \sqrt{1 + \hbox{a}^2}$. (a) One wave case: a = 3.0016, a1 = 0. (b) Two waves case: a = 3, a1 = 0.1. (c) Two waves case: a = 3, a1 = 0.2. (d) Two waves case: a = 3, a1 = 0.3. (β): γ0 = 1, a = 3. (a) a1 = 0. (b) a1 = 0.08. (c) a1 = 0.1, (d): a1 = 0.2, (e): a1 = 0.3

Figure 23

Fig. 24. (Color online) Phase space. P-polarization. $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$, α = π, (α): $\gamma_0 = \sqrt{1 + \hbox{a}^2}$. (a) One wave case: a = 3.015, a1 = 0. (b): Two waves case: a = 3, a1 = 0.3. (β): γ0 = 1. (a) One wave case: a = 3.0016, a1 = 0. (b) Two waves case: a = 3, a1 = 0.1.

Figure 24

Fig. 25. (Color online) (a) Energy spectrum in the case of one wave at two different times. a = 3, a1 = 0, $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$,α = π. tL = 50 τ0. (α): τ = 756 ω0−1. (β): τ = 2916ω0−1. t. (b) Energy spectrum at two different times in the case of two waves. P-polarization. a = 3, a1 = 0.3, $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$, α = π. tL = 50 τ0. (α): τ = 756 ω0−1. (β): τ = 2916 ω0−1.

Figure 25

Fig. 26. (Color online) Electron energy distribution from 1D PIC simulations at different times. P-polarization. The plasma slab is with a thickness of L = 100 µm and a density at Ne = 0.01 Nc. tL = 9.77 τ0. A semi-infinite laser pulse is incident with a peak amplitude a = 3.

Figure 26

Fig. 27. (Color online) Color map in log scale of the space – time Fourier transform of the transverse electromagnetic field. P polarization. The plasma slab is with a thickness of L = 100 µm and a density at Ne = 0.01 Nc. tL = 50 τ0. A semi-infinite laser pulse is incident with a peak amplitude a = 3.

Figure 27

Fig. 28. (Color online) Electron energy distribution from 1D PIC simulations at different time. P polarization. The plasma slab is 100 µm thick and has a density Ne = 0.01 Nc, tL = 50 τ0. Two semi-infinite laser pulses collide with maximum peak amplitudes a = 3. (a) a1 = 0.01, (b) a1 = 0.1, (c) a1 = 0.2, (d) a1 = 0.3.

Figure 28

Fig. 29. (Color online) Average energy of one particle in two waves versus time. S-polarization. $\tilde{\omega}_1 = 1$, α = π, $\tilde{\hbox{P}}_{\rm y} = 0$. $\gamma_0 = \sqrt{1 + \hbox{a}^2}$: (a) a = 3.0066, a1 = 0. (b) a = 3, a1 = 0.2. γ0 = 1: (c) a = 3;0066, a1 = 0, (d) a = 3, a1 = 0.2.

Figure 29

Fig. 30. (Color online) Electron energy distribution from 1D PIC simulations at different times. S-polarization. The plasma slab is 100 µm thick and has a density Ne = 0.01 Nc, tL = 50 τ0. Two semi-infinite laser pulses collide with peak amplitudes. a = 3, a1 = 0.2.