Coherent control and entanglement in the attosecond electron-recollision dissociation of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mmultiscripts><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:none/><mml:none/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mmultiscripts></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the attosecond electron recollision dissociation of $\mathrm{D}_{2}{}^{+}$ recently demonstrated experimentally [H. Niikura et al., Nature (London) 421, 826 (2003)] from a coherent control perspective. In this process, a strong laser field incident on ${\mathrm{D}}_{2}$ ionizes an electron, accelerates the electron in the laser field to eV energies, and then drives the electron to recollide with the parent ion, causing $\mathrm{D}_{2}{}^{+}$ dissociation. A number of results are demonstrated. First, a full dimensional strong field approximation model is constructed and shown to be in agreement with the original experiment. This is then used to rigorously demonstrate that the experiment is an example of coherent pump-dump control. Second, extensions to bichromatic coherent control are proposed by considering dissociative recollision of molecules prepared in a coherent superposition of vibrational states. Third, by comparing the results to similar scenarios involving field-free attosecond scattering of independently prepared $\mathrm{D}_{2}{}^{+}$ and electron wave packets, recollision dissociation is shown to provide an example of wave-packet coherent control of reactive scattering. Fourth, this analysis makes clear that it is the temporal correlations between the continuum electron and $\mathrm{D}_{2}{}^{+}$ wave packet, and not entanglement, that are crucial for the subfemtosecond probing resolution demonstrated in the experiment. This result clarifies some misconceptions regarding the importance of entanglement in the recollision probing of $\mathrm{D}_{2}{}^{+}$. Finally, signatures of entanglement between the recollision electron and the atomic fragments, detectable via coincidence measurements, are identified.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".