1: %\documentclass[showpacs, preprintnumbers, amsmath,

2: %amssymb]{revtex4}

3: 

4: \documentclass[twocolumn, showpacs, preprintnumbers, amsmath, amssymb]{revtex4}

5: 

6: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

7: 

8: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities are

9: 

10: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}

11: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}

12: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B

13: 

14: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

15: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

16: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

17: \usepackage{mathbbol}

18: %\usepackage{axodraw}

19: \usepackage{epsf}

20: \usepackage{mathrsfs}

21: \usepackage{slashed}

22: \usepackage{stmaryrd}

23: 

24: %abbreviations for display-mode

25: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

26: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

27: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

28: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

29: \newcommand{\bml}{\begin{mathletters} \baselineskip 10pt}

30: \newcommand{\eml}{\baselineskip 12pt \end{mathletters}}

31: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

32: 

33: %LC superscripts

34: \newcommand{\m}{{\scriptscriptstyle -}}

35: \newcommand{\p}{{\scriptscriptstyle +}}

36: 

37: %integrals

38: \newcommand{\intl}{\int\limits_{-L}^L}

39: \newcommand{\ppint}{\int\!\!\!\!\!\!-}

40: 

41: %symbol abbreviations

42: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}

43: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}

44: \newcommand{\ommf}{\om_{\mbox{\footnotesize MF}}}

45: \newcommand{\omtd}{\om_{\mbox{\footnotesize TD}}}

46: \newcommand{\vi}{\varphi}

47: \newcommand{\bra}{\langle}

48: \newcommand{\ket}{\rangle}

49: \newcommand{\cond}{\bra 0 | \bar \psi \psi | 0 \ket}

50: \newcommand{\blackbox}{\rule{2mm}{2mm}}

51: \newcommand{\simleq}{\scriptstyle{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}}

52: \newcommand{\simgeq}{\scriptstyle{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}}

53: \newcommand{\lca}{\phi_{\mathrm{LC}}}

54: \newcommand{\bsa}{\chi_{\mathrm{BS}}}

55: \newcommand{\pprime}{\prime \prime}

56: \newcommand{\D}{\mathcal{D}}

57: \newcommand{\HPHYS}{\mathbb{H}_{\mathrm{phys}}}

58: \newcommand{\LB}{\triangle_{\mathrm{LB}}}

59: 

60: 

61: \def\lambdabar{\protect\@lambdabar}

62: \def\@lambdabar{%

63: \relax

64: \bgroup

65: \def\@tempa{\hbox{\raise.73\ht0

66: \hbox to0pt{\kern.2\wd0\vrule width.7\wd0

67: height.1pt depth.1pt\hss}\box0}}%

68: \mathchoice{\setbox0\hbox{$\displaystyle\lambda$}\@tempa}%

69: {\setbox0\hbox{$\textstyle\lambda$}\@tempa}%

70: {\setbox0\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}\@tempa}%

71: {\setbox0\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}\@tempa}%

72: \egroup

73: }

74: 

75: %special fonts in math-mode

76: \newcommand{\Proj}{\mathbb{P}}

77: \newcommand{\real}{\mathbb{R}}

78: \newcommand{\complex}{\mathbb{C}}

79: \newcommand{\integer}{\mathbb{Z}}

80: \newcommand{\Aphys}{\mathfrak{A}_{\mathrm{phys}}}

81: \newcommand{\Pn}{\Proj_{\mbox{\scriptsize \sf N}}}

82: \newcommand{\sfn}{\mbox{\scriptsize \sf N}}

83: \newcommand{\Pnm}{\Proj_{\mbox{\scriptsize \sf N-1}}}

84: \newcommand{\cS}{\mathcal{S}}

85: \newcommand{\cP}{\mathcal{P}}

86: \newcommand{\cH}{\mathcal{H}}

87: \newcommand{\cF}{\mathcal{F}}

88: \newcommand{\LHE}{\mathscr{L}_{\mathrm{HE}}}

89: \newcommand{\DL}{\delta \mathscr{L}}

90: \newcommand{\SCS}{\mathscr{S}}

91: \newcommand{\SCP}{\mathscr{P}}

92: 

93: %commands with input variables

94: \newcommand{\sfrac}[2]{{\textstyle \frac{#1}{#2}}}

95: \newcommand{\pad}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

96: \newcommand{\fud}[2]{\frac{\delta #1}{\delta #2}}

97: \newcommand{\comm}[2]{\left[#1 \, , \, #2 \right] }

98: \newcommand{\vcb}[1]{\mbox{\bf #1}}

99: \newcommand{\svcb}[1]{\mbox{\footnotesize\bf #1}}

100: \newcommand{\vc}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}

101: \newcommand{\svc}[1]{\mbox{\footnotesize\boldmath$#1$}}

102: \newcommand{\ssvc}[1]{\mbox{\scriptsize\boldmath$#1$}}

103: \newcommand{\pb}[2]{\left\{#1 \, , \, #2 \right\}}

104: \newcommand{\spinor}[2]{\left[ \begin{array}{c}

105:                                #1 \\ #2 \end{array} \right]}

106: \newcommand{\twovector}[2]{\left( \begin{array}{c}

107:                                #1 \\ #2 \end{array} \right)}

108: \newcommand{\pol}[1]{\mathfrak{P}_{\svc{#1}}}

109: \newcommand{\charlink}[3]{X_{#1; \, \ssvc{#2}\ssvc{#3}}}

110: \newcommand{\DLHE}[1]{\mathscr{L}_{\mathrm{HE},#1}}

111: 

112: %roman style in math-mode

113: \newcommand{\sgn}{{\mbox{sgn}}}

114: \newcommand{\tr}{\mbox{tr}}

115: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mbox{Tr}}

116: \newcommand{\FP}{\mbox{FP}}

117: \newcommand{\ad}{\; \mbox{ad}}

118: \newcommand{\Ad}{\; \mbox{Ad}}

119: \newcommand{\e}{\mbox{e}}

120: \newcommand{\diag}{{\mbox{diag}}}

121: 

122: %\nofiles

123: 

124: \begin{document}

125: 

126: %\preprint{FSU-TPI/XX/05}

127: 

128: \title{On the Observation of Vacuum Birefringence}% Force line breaks with \\

129: 

130: \author{Thomas Heinzl}

131: \email{theinzl@plymouth.ac.uk}

132: 

133: \affiliation{School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of

134: Plymouth\\

135: Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK}

136: 

137: %\altaffiliation[Also at ]{Physics Department, XYZ University.}

138: %Lines break automatically or can be forced with \\

139: 

140: %\homepage{http://hpcs3.tpi.uni-jena.de/~sbz/}

141: 

142: \author{Ben Liesfeld}

143: 

144: \author{Kay-Uwe Amthor}

145: 

146: \author{Heinrich Schwoerer}

147: 

148: \author{Roland Sauerbrey}

149: \email{sauerbrey@ioq.uni-jena.de}

150: 

151: \affiliation{Institut f{\"u}r Optik und Quantenelektronik,

152: Friedrich-Schiller-Universit{\"a}t Jena\\

153: Max-Wien-Platz 1, 07743 Jena, Germany}

154: 

155: %\author{Katrin Koch}

156: 

157: \author{Andreas Wipf}%

158: \email{wipf@tpi.uni-jena.de}

159: 

160: \affiliation{Theoretisch-Physikalisches Institut,

161: Friedrich-Schiller-Universit\"at Jena\\

162: Max-Wien-Platz 1, 07743 Jena, Germany}

163: 

164: %\author{Charlie Author}

165: %\homepage{http://www.Second.institution.edu/~Charlie.Author}

166: %\affiliation{

167: %Second institution and/or address\\

168: %This line break forced% with \\

169: %}%

170: 

171: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,

172:              %  but any date may be explicitly specified

173: 

174: 

175: \begin{abstract}

176: We suggest an experiment to observe vacuum birefringence induced

177: by intense laser fields. A high-intensity laser pulse is focused

178: to ultra-relativistic intensity and polarizes the vacuum which

179: then acts like a birefringent medium. The latter is probed by a

180: linearly polarized x-ray pulse. We calculate the resulting

181: ellipticity signal within strong-field QED assuming Gaussian

182: beams. The laser technology required for detecting the signal will

183: be available within the next three years.

184: \end{abstract}

185: 

186: 

187: \pacs{12.20.-m, 42.50.Xa, 42.60.-v}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy

188:                              % Classification Scheme.

189: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword

190:                               %display desired

191: \maketitle

192: 

193: %\section{\label{sec:1}Introduction}

194: 

195: \noindent

196: The interactions of light and matter are described by

197: quantum electrodynamics (QED), at present the best-established

198: theory in physics. The QED Lagrangian couples photons to charged

199: Dirac particles in a gauge invariant way. At photon energies small

200: compared to the electron mass, $\omega \ll m_e$, electrons (and

201: positrons) will generically not be produced as real particles.

202: Nevertheless, as already stated by Heisenberg and Euler, ``...even

203: in situations where the [photon] energy is not sufficient for

204: matter production, its virtual possibility will result in a

205: `polarization of the vacuum' and hence in an alteration of

206: Maxwell's equations'' \cite{heisenberg:1936}. These authors were

207: the first to explicitly derive the nonlinear terms induced by QED

208: for small photon energies but arbitrary intensities (see also

209: \cite{weisskopf:1936}).

210: 

211: The most spectacular process resulting from these modifications

212: presumably is pair production in a constant electric field. This

213: is an \textit{absorptive} process as photons disappear by

214: disintegration into matter pairs. It can occur for field strengths

215: larger than the critical one given by \cite{sauter:1931,schwinger:1951}

216: %

217: \be

218:   E_c \equiv \frac{m_e^2}{e} \simeq 1.3 \times 10^{18} \,

219:   \mathrm{V/m} \; .

220: \ee

221: %

222: In this electric field an electron gains an energy $m_e$ upon

223: travelling a distance equal to its Compton wavelength,

224: $\lambdabar_e = 1/m_e$. The associated intensity is $I_c = E_c^2

225: \simeq 4.4 \times 10^{29}$ W/cm$^2$ such that both field strength

226: and intensity are way out of experimental reach for the time being

227: --  unless one can utilize huge relativistic gamma factors

228: produced by large scale particle accelerators

229: \cite{bula:1996,burke:1997}.

230: 

231: Alternatively, there are also \textit{dispersive} effects that may

232: be considered. These include many of the phenomena studied in

233: nonlinear optics as well as ``birefringence of the vacuum'' first

234: addressed by Klein and Nigam \cite{klein:1964} in 1964, soon

235: followed by more systematic studies

236: \cite{BB:1967,bialynicka-birula:1970,brezin:1970b}. In essence,

237: the polarized QED vacuum acts like a birefringent medium (e.g.~a

238: calcite crystal) with two indices of refraction depending on the

239: polarization of the incoming light.  In a static magnetic field of

240: $5\, \mathrm{T}$ a light polarization rotation has recently been

241: observed \cite{zavattini:2005}. The measured signal differs from

242: the QED expectations and may be caused by a new coupling of

243: photons to an hitherto unobserved pseudoscalar.

244: 

245: Detection of the tiny dispersive effects is an enormous challenge.

246: %In the experiment \cite{zavattini:2005} the small field strength

247: %was compensated for by a very large optical path length.

248: In this paper we point out that several orders of magnitude in

249: field strength may be gained by employing high-power lasers.

250: Distorting the vacuum with lasers has been suggested long ago

251: \cite{brezin:1970b} but was not considered experimentally for lack

252: of sufficient laser power. However, recent progress in both laser

253: technology and x-ray detection has lead to novel experimental

254: capabilities. It is therefore due time to specifically address the

255: feasibility of a strong-field laser experiment to measure vacuum

256: birefringence. In the light of the results \cite{zavattini:2005}

257: such experiments are also necessary in order to test whether

258: strong electromagnetic fields provide windows into new physics.

259: 

260: We intend to utilize the high-repetition rate petawatt class laser

261: system POLARIS which is currently under construction at the Jena

262: high-intensity laser facility and which will be fully operational

263: in 2007 \cite{hein:2004}. POLARIS consists of a diode-pumped laser

264: system based on chirped pulse amplification (CPA) which will be

265: operating at $\Lambda = 1032\,\mathrm{nm}$ ($\Omega = 1.2$ eV)

266: with a repetition rate of $0.1\,\mathrm{Hz}$. A pulse duration of

267: about $140\,\mathrm{fs}$ and a pulse energy of $150\,\mathrm{J}$

268: in principle allows to generate intensities in the focal region of

269: $I=10^{22} \, \mathrm{W/cm^{2}}$. This corresponds to a

270: substantial electric field $E \simeq 2 \times 10^{14} \,

271: \mathrm{V/m}$, still about four orders of magnitude below $E_c$.

272: 

273: The proposed experimental setup is shown in

274: Fig.~\ref{FIG:exp_setup}. A high-intensity laser pulse is focused

275: by an off-axis parabolic mirror.  A linearly polarized

276: laser-generated ultra-short x-ray pulse is aligned collinearly

277: with the focused optical laser pulse. After passing through the

278: focus the laser induced vacuum birefringence will lead to a small

279: ellipticity of the x-ray pulse which will be detected by a high

280: contrast x-ray polarimeter \cite{hart:1991}. The whole setup is

281: located in an ultra-high vacuum chamber and is entirely computer

282: controlled.

283: 

284: Shown in grey in Fig.~\ref{FIG:exp_setup} is an extension of the

285: setup which enables us to accurately overlap two counter

286: propagating high-intensity laser pulses. Accurate control over

287: spatial and temporal overlap was convincingly demonstrated

288: carrying out an autocorrelation of the laser pulses \emph{at full

289: intensity} \cite{liesfeld:2005} and generating Thomson

290: backscattered x-rays from laser-accelerated electrons

291: \cite{schwoerer:2005}. This counter propagating scheme, a

292: table-top ``photon collider'', may also be employed for pair

293: creation from the vacuum. For the x-ray probe pulse we have chosen

294: an x-ray source of photon energy $\omega \simeq 1$ keV, since the

295: birefringence signal is proportional to $\omega^2$ (see below) .

296: Our long-term plans are to replace the present source by an x-ray

297: free electron laser (XFEL) or by a laser-based Thomson

298: backscattering source \cite{schwoerer:2005} both of which deliver

299: ultrashort and highly polarized x-rays.

300: %

301: \begin{figure}

302: \begin{center}

303: 

304: \includegraphics[scale=0.33]{experimental_setup_qed.eps}

305: 

306: \end{center}

307: 

308: \caption{\label{FIG:exp_setup}Proposed experimental setup for the

309: demonstration of vacuum birefringence: A high-intensity laser

310: pulse is focused by an $F/2.5$ off-axis parabolic mirror. A hole

311: is drilled into the parabolic mirror in alignment with the

312: $z$-axis (axes as indicated) in such a way that an x-ray pulse can

313: propagate along the $z$-axis through the focal region of the

314: high-intensity laser pulse. Using a polarizer-analyzer pair the

315: ellipticity of the x-ray pulse may be detected. Shown in grey:

316: Extension of the setup for the generation of counter propagating

317: laser pulses and a high-intensity standing wave which may be used

318: for pair creation.}

319: \end{figure}

320: %\section{\label{sec:2}Theoretical Analysis}

321: %\subsection{Generalities}

322: 

323: Refraction is a dispersive process based on modified propagation

324: properties of the probe photons travelling through a region where

325: a (strong) background field is present. The resulting corrections

326: to pure Maxwell theory to leading order in the probe field $a_\mu$

327: may be expressed in terms of an effective action

328: \cite{brezin:1970b}

329: %

330: \be \label{DELTA_S}

331:   \delta S \equiv \sfrac{1}{2} \int d^4 x \, d^4 y \, a_\mu (x)

332:   \Pi^{\mu \nu} (x, y; A) a_\nu(y) \; ,

333: \ee

334: %

335: where $A_\mu$ denotes the background field and $\Pi^{\mu\nu}$ the

336: polarization tensor. To lowest order in a loop (or $\hbar$)

337: expansion the former is given by the Feynman diagram

338: %

339: \be \label{POLFEYN}

340:   \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{poltensor.eps}

341: \ee

342: %

343: with the heavy lines denoting the dressed propagator depending on

344: the background field $A$,

345: %

346: \be

347:   \includegraphics[scale=0.85]{dressedprop.eps}

348: \ee

349: %

350: Hence, $S_F[A]$ is an infinite series of diagrams where the $n$th

351: term corresponds to the absorption and/or emission of $n-1$

352: background photons (represented by the dashed external lines) by

353: the ``bare'' electron.

354: 

355: The dressed propagator is known exactly only for a few special

356: background configurations (see \cite{dittrich:2000} for an

357: overview). Typically, one obtains rather unwieldy integral

358: representations which have to be analyzed numerically. In our

359: case, however, we can exploit the fact that we are working in the

360: regime of both low energy and small intensities leading to

361: \textit{two} small parameters \cite{affleck:1987}, namely

362: %

363: \bea

364:   \nu^2 &\equiv& \omega^2 / m_e^2 \simeq 4 \times 10^{-6} \;,

365:   \label{XI} \\

366:   \epsilon^2 &\equiv& E^2/E_c^2 = I/I_c \simeq 2 \times 10^{-8} \;.

367:   \label{EPSILON} \eea

368: %

369: \textit{Low intensity}, $\epsilon^2 \ll 1$, means that we can work

370: to lowest nontrivial order in the external field i.e.\

371: $O(\epsilon^2)$. In terms of Feynman diagrams (\ref{POLFEYN}) then

372: reduces to

373: %

374: \be \label{POLEXPAND}

375:   \includegraphics[scale=0.85]{polexpand.eps}

376: \ee

377: %

378: %The first omitted term has four external background photon lines

379: %as terms with an odd number of external photon lines vanish due to

380: %Furry's theorem.

381: 

382: \textit{Low energy}, $\nu \ll 1$, implies that we may safely

383: expand $\Pi^{\mu\nu}$ in derivatives or, after Fourier

384: transformation, in powers of the probe 4-momentum $k = \omega (1,

385: n \vcb{k})$ where $\vcb{k}^2 = 1$ and $n \ge 1$ is the index of

386: refraction. Thus, the derivative expansion is in powers of

387: $\omega^2$ or, equivalently, of $\nu^2$. Again we restrict our

388: analysis to leading order which turns out to be $\nu^2$. The first

389: vacuum polarization diagram in (\ref{POLEXPAND}) is $O(\nu^4)$

390: while the second is $O(\epsilon^2 \nu^2)$ so we may safely neglect

391: the former. The low-energy limit of the remaining diagram is

392: obtained from the celebrated Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian

393: \cite{heisenberg:1936} which to leading order in $\epsilon^2$ is

394: given by

395: %

396: \be \label{LHE}

397:   \DL (\SCS, \SCP) = \sfrac{1}{2} \gamma_- \SCS^2 +

398:   \sfrac{1}{2} \gamma_+ \SCP^2  \; .

399: \ee

400: %

401: The basic building blocks in (\ref{LHE}) are the scalar and

402: pseudoscalar invariants

403: \cite{schwinger:1951,bialynicka-birula:1970}

404: %

405: \bea

406:   \SCS &\equiv& - \sfrac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} = \sfrac{1}{2}

407:   ( \vc{E}^2 - \vc{B}^2) \; , \label{S}

408:   \\

409:   \SCP &\equiv& - \sfrac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu} \tilde{F}^{\mu\nu} = \vc{E} \cdot

410:   \vc{B} \label{P} \; ,

411: \eea

412: %

413: where $F_{\mu\nu}$ denotes the electromagnetic field-strength

414: tensor (comprising both background and probe photon field) and

415: $\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}$ its dual. The nonlinear couplings in

416: (\ref{LHE}) are given by

417: %

418: \be \label{GAMMA_PM}

419:   \gamma_+ \equiv 7 \rho \; , \quad \gamma_- \equiv 4 \rho \; ,

420:   \quad \rho \equiv \frac{\alpha}{45 \pi} \frac{1}{E_c^2} \; ,

421: \ee

422: %

423: with $\alpha = 1/137$ being the fine-structure constant.

424: 

425: To proceed we split the fields into an intense (laser) background

426: and a weak probe field according to the replacement $F_{\mu\nu}

427: \to F_{\mu\nu} + f_{\mu\nu}$ with upper (lower) case letters for

428: electromagnetic quantities henceforth referring to the background

429: (probe). In the following we regard the plane wave probe field

430: $f_{\mu\nu}$ as a weak disturbance on top of the strong background

431: field $F_{\mu\nu}$ which we take as an electromagnetic wave of

432: frequency $\Omega$. It can be a plane or standing wave or more

433: realistic variants thereof like Gaussian beams (see discussion

434: below). In any case, for the actual experiment we will have the

435: hierarchy of frequencies $\Omega \ll \omega \ll m_e$ in agreement

436: with (\ref{XI}).

437: 

438: The leading-order contribution to the polarization tensor is found

439: by performing the split $F \to F + f$ in the Heisenberg-Euler

440: action, $\delta S = \int d^4 x \, \DL$, and writing it in the form

441: (\ref{DELTA_S}). This yields a polarization tensor

442: %

443: \be \label{PI}

444:   \Pi^{\mu\nu} = - \gamma_- \, k^2 \SCS \, \mathbb{P}^{\mu\nu} + \gamma_-

445:   \, b^\mu b^\nu + \gamma_+ \, \tilde{b}^\mu \tilde{b}^\nu \; ,

446: \ee

447: %

448: where $\mathbb{P}^{\mu\nu} = g^{\mu\nu} - k^\mu k^\nu / k^2$ is

449: the standard projection orthogonal to $k$ and $\SCS$ denotes the

450: \textit{background} invariant. In addition we have introduced the

451: new 4-vectors \cite{bialynicka-birula:1970},

452: %

453: \be \label{BBT}

454:   b^\mu \equiv F^{\mu\nu}k_\nu \; , \quad \tilde{b}^\mu \equiv

455:   \tilde{F}^{\mu\nu} k_\nu \; .

456: \ee

457: %

458: Note that we have $b \cdot k = 0 = \tilde{b} \cdot k$ and hence

459: $\Pi^{\mu\nu}k_\nu = 0$ as required by gauge invariance. It is

460: useful to diagonalize $\Pi^{\mu\nu}$ and rewrite it in terms of a

461: spectral decomposition. In full generality this is a bit awkward,

462: but for our purposes matters can be simplified. The eigenvalues of

463: $\Pi^{\mu\nu}$ in principle depend on the four invariants $k^2$,

464: $\SCS$, $\SCP$ and $b^2$. From (\ref{PI}) we note that there is no

465: $\SCP$ dependence and that only the combination $k^2 \SCS$

466: appears. Let us count powers of $\epsilon$ and $\nu$ to determine

467: the relative magnitudes of the invariants. If we write the index

468: of refraction as $n = 1 + \Delta$ we expect $\Delta =

469: O(\epsilon^2)$ the deviation of $n$ from unity being due to the

470: external fields. Hence $k^2$ is no longer zero but rather $k^2 =

471: O(\epsilon^2 \nu^2)$ implying $k^2 \SCS = O(\epsilon^4 \nu^2)$.

472: For generic geometrical settings (see below) the invariant $b^2 =

473: O(\epsilon^2 \nu^2)$. The upshot of this power counting exercise

474: is the important inequality

475: %

476: \be \label{INEQ}

477:   |k^2 \SCS| \ll |b^2| \; ,

478: \ee

479: %

480: by means of which we may neglect $k^2 \SCS$. This justifies the

481: statement in \cite{dittrich:2000} that to leading order in

482: $\epsilon$ and $\nu$ the eigenvalues of $\Pi^{\mu\nu}$ do not

483: depend on the invariants $\SCS$ and $\SCP$. Hence, under the

484: assertion (\ref{INEQ}) constant fields behave as \textit{crossed

485: fields} ($\vc{E}$ and $\vc{B}$ orthogonal and of the same

486: magnitude) for which strictly $\SCS = \SCP = 0$. In addition, one

487: has $b^2 = \tilde{b}^2$ and $b \cdot \tilde{b} = 0$ so that

488: (\ref{PI}) turns into the spectral representation

489: %

490: \be \label{PI_DIAG}

491:   \Pi^{\mu\nu} = \gamma_- \, b^\mu b^\nu + \gamma_+ \, \tilde{b}^\mu

492:   \tilde{b}^\nu \; .

493: \ee

494: %

495: We read off that the (nontrivial) eigenvectors are given by

496: (\ref{BBT}) corresponding to eigenvalues $\gamma_\pm b^2 (k)$.

497: Note that $b^2$ is the only nonvanishing invariant which can be

498: built from crossed fields.

499: 

500: Adopting a plane wave ansatz for the probe field $a_\mu$ yields a

501: homogeneous wave equation which in momentum space becomes linear

502: algebraic. It has nontrivial solutions only if a secular equation

503: holds which determines the dispersion relations for $k^2$. With

504: the eigenvalues given above there are \textit{two} of them, $k^2 -

505: \gamma_\pm b^2 (k) = 0$. Inserting $k = \omega (1, n \vcb{k})$, we

506: finally obtain two solutions for the index of refraction,

507: %

508: \be \label{N1}

509:   n_\pm = 1 + \sfrac{1}{2} \gamma_\pm Q^2 \; .

510: \ee

511: %

512: The nonnegative quantity $Q^2$ is an energy density which in

513: 3-vector notation becomes

514: %

515: \be

516:   Q^2 = \vc{E}^2 + \vc{B}^2 - 2 \vc{S} \cdot \vcb{k} - (\vc{E} \cdot

517:   \vcb{k})^2 - (\vc{B} \cdot \vcb{k})^2 \; ,

518: \ee

519: %

520: with $\vc{S} = \vc{E} \times \vc{B}$ being the Poynting vector. The

521: inequality (\ref{INEQ}) holds as long as $Q^2 \ne 0$. The indices of

522: refraction become maximal if probe and background are counter

523: propagating (`head-on collision'), $\vcb{k} = - \vc{S}/|\vc{S}|$,

524: whereupon

525: %

526: \be \label{QQ}

527:   Q^2 = \vc{E}^2 + \vc{B}^2 + 2 |\vc{S}| \equiv 4 I \; ,

528: \ee

529: %

530: with $I$ denoting the background intensity. Note that one gains a

531: factor of four as compared to a purely electric or purely magnetic

532: background. Plugging (\ref{QQ}) into (\ref{N1}) the indices of

533: refraction become $n_\pm = 1 + 2 \gamma_\pm I$ or, upon inserting

534: $\gamma_\pm$,

535: %

536: \be

537:   n_\pm = 1 + \left\{14 \atop 8 \right\} \rho I = 1 +

538:   \frac{\alpha}{45\pi} \left\{14 \atop 8 \right\}

539:   \frac{I}{I_c}  \; .

540: \ee

541: %

542: To the best of our knowledge, these values have first been

543: obtained in \cite{BB:1967}. They imply birefringence with a

544: relative phase shift between the two rays proportional to

545: $\triangle n \equiv n_+ - n_-$,

546: %

547: \be \label{DPHI}

548:   \triangle \phi = 2\pi \frac{d}{\lambda} \triangle n = \frac{4

549:   \alpha}{15} \frac{d}{\lambda} \frac{I}{I_c} = \frac{4

550:   \alpha}{15} \frac{d}{\lambda} \epsilon^2 \; .

551: \ee

552: %

553: 

554: \begin{table}

555: \caption{\label{TABLE:1} Numerical values for the phase shift

556: (\protect\ref{DPHI_KAPPA}) and ellipticity signal $\delta^2$.

557: First line: present specifications of the Jena laser facility.

558: Second line: optimal scenario with XFEL probe and large Rayleigh

559: length. The peak intensity is taken to be $I_0 = 10^{22}$

560: W/cm$^2$.}

561: \begin{ruledtabular}

562: \begin{tabular}{rrccc}

563: $\omega$ / keV & $\lambda$ / nm & $z_0$ / $\mu$m &$\triangle \phi$ / rad & $\delta^2$\\

564: \hline\\[-5pt]

565: 1.0  & 1.2   & 10 & $1.2 \times 10^{-6}$ & $3.4 \times 10^{-13}$ \\

566: 15   & 0.08  & 25 & $4.4 \times 10^{-5}$ & $4.8 \times 10^{-10}$

567: \end{tabular}

568: \end{ruledtabular}

569: \end{table}

570: %

571: %\section{Discussion}

572: 

573: A realistic laser field will lead to an intensity distribution

574: along the $z$-axis (choosing $\vcb{k} = \vc{e}_z$). If $z_0$

575: measures the typical extension of the distribution we may set $s

576: \equiv z/z_0$ and write the intensity as $I(s) = I_0 \, g(s)$ with

577: peak intensity $I_0$ and a dimensionless distribution function

578: $g(s)$. The phase shift (\ref{DPHI}) is then replaced by the

579: expression \cite{koch:2004}

580: %

581: \be \label{DPHI_KAPPA}

582:   \triangle \phi = \frac{4

583:   \alpha}{15} \frac{z_0}{\lambda} \frac{I_0}{I_c} \kappa \; ,

584: \ee

585: %

586: where the correction factor $\kappa$ is the integral

587: %

588: \be

589:   \kappa = \kappa(s_0) \equiv \int_{-s_0}^{s_0} ds \, g(s) = O(1)

590:   \;  .

591: \ee

592: %

593: Here, $s_0$ denotes the half-width of the intensity distribution

594: in units of $z_0$. In general it is a reasonable approximation to

595: let $s_0 \to \infty$. For a \textit{single} Gaussian beam, $z_0$

596: is the Rayleigh length and the intensity $I_1$ follows a Lorentz

597: curve, hence $g_1(s) = 1/(1+s^2)$ implying $\kappa_1 (\infty) =

598: \pi$. Identifying $d=2z_0$ this differs from (\ref{DPHI}) by a

599: factor of $\pi/2 = O(1)$. For \textit{two} counter propagating

600: Gaussian beams (`standing wave') obtained from splitting a beam of

601: intensity $I_1$ one gains a factor of two in peak intensity but

602: the distribution gets thinned out due to the usual $\cos^2$

603: modulation, which cancels the gain in intensity leading to the

604: \textit{same} correction factor $\kappa_2 = \pi = \kappa_1$.

605: 

606: A linearly polarized electromagnetic wave undergoing vacuum

607: birefringence with a polarization vector oriented under an angle

608: of $45^\circ$ with respect to both background fields $\vc{E}$ and

609: $\vc{B}$ will be rendered elliptically polarized with ellipticity

610: $\delta$ (ratio of the field vectors). In the experiment,

611: intensities will be measured and the experimental quantity to be

612: determined is $\delta^2 \simeq (\frac{1}{2} \Delta \phi)^2 $. In

613: Table~\ref{TABLE:1} expected ellipticity values for given

614: experimental parameters are listed.

615: 

616: These results clearly show the challenging nature but also the

617: feasibility of the proposed experiment. Presently, a petawatt

618: class laser facility such as POLARIS is expected to reach about

619: $10^{22}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$ at unprecedented repetition rates of

620: $\sim 0.1\,\mathrm{Hz}$ \cite{hein:2004}. The values of $\delta^2$

621: obtained for such lasers (Tab.~\ref{TABLE:1}) are at the limit of

622: the accuracy that can now be obtained with high-contrast x-ray

623: polarimeters using multiple Bragg reflections from channel-cut

624: perfect crystals \cite{hart:1991,hasegawa:1999,alp:2000}. These

625: instruments are in principle capable of a sensitivity of $\delta^2

626: \simeq 10^{-11}$ \cite{alp:2000}. Since the expected signal is

627: proportional to both $I^2$ and $\lambda^{-2}$ it may be greatly

628: enhanced by increasing the laser intensity or choosing a smaller

629: probe pulse wave length. For example, with the proposed ELI laser

630: facility reaching $10^{25}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$ \cite{mourou:2005} a

631: sensitivity of the polarimeter of only $10^{-7} \dots 10^{-4}$ is

632: required which is within presently demonstrated values of

633: sensitivity \cite{hart:1991}. The required x-ray probe pulse may

634: be generated either with an XFEL synchronized to a petawatt laser

635: or by the use of Thomson scattered laser photons from

636: monochromatic laser accelerated electron beams

637: \cite{schwoerer:2005,faure:2004}.

638: 

639: It seems worthwhile to point out that although a standing wave for

640: the background (which may be created in the ``photon collider''

641: setup as shown in Fig.~\ref{FIG:exp_setup}) does not lead to an

642: increase in integrated intensity and hence of the birefringence

643: signal, it \textit{does} yield double peak intensity. This is

644: important for the observation of effects sensitive to localized

645: intensity like Cherenkov radiation and pair production.

646: 

647: %\begin{acknowledgments}

648: %\footnotesize

649: \noindent This work was supported by the DFG Project

650: TR~18. The authors gratefully acknowledge stimulating discussions

651: with H.~Gies, A.~Khvedelidze, M.~Lavelle, V.~Malka, D.~McMullan,

652: G.~Mourou, A.~Nazarkin, A.~Ringwald and O.~Schr{\"oder}.

653: 

654: %\end{acknowledgments}

655: %\appendix

656: %\section{Appendixes}

657: 

658: \bibliographystyle{../../bibfiles/h-physrev}

659: \bibliography{../../bibfiles/laser}

660: 

661: \begin{thebibliography}{20}

662: \bibitem{heisenberg:1936}

663: W.~Heisenberg and H.~Euler, Z.~Phys.\ \textbf{98}, 714 (1936).

664: \bibitem{weisskopf:1936}

665: V.~Weisskopf, K.~Dan.~Vidensk.~Selsk.~Mat.~Fys.~Medd.,

666: \textbf{14}, 6 (1936), reprinted in \textit{Quantum

667: Electrodynamics}, J.~Schwinger, ed., Dover, New York 1958.

668: \bibitem{sauter:1931}

669: F.~Sauter, Z.~Phys.\ \textbf{69}, 742 (1931).

670: \bibitem{schwinger:1951}

671: J.~Schwinger, Phys.\ Rev.\ \textbf{82}, 664 (1951).

672: \bibitem{bula:1996}

673: C.~Bula et~al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{76}, 3116 (1996).

674: \bibitem{burke:1997}

675: D.~Burke et~al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{79}, 1629 (1997).

676: \bibitem{klein:1964}

677: J.~Klein and B.~Nigam, Phys.\ Rev.\ \textbf{135}, B1279 (1964).

678: \bibitem{BB:1967}

679: R.~Baier and P.~Breitenlohner, Acta Phys.~Austriaca \textbf{25}, 212

680: (1967);  Nuovo Cim.~B \textbf{47}, 117 (1967).

681: \bibitem{bialynicka-birula:1970}

682: Z.~Bia{\l}ynicka-Birula and I.~Bia{\l}ynicki-Birula, Phys.\ Rev.\

683: D\textbf{2}, 2341 (1970).

684: \bibitem{brezin:1970b}

685: E.~Brezin and C.~Itzykson, Phys.\ Rev.\ D\textbf{3}, 618 (1970).

686: \bibitem{zavattini:2005}

687: E.~Zavattini et.~al., PVLAS collaboration (2005), hep-ex/0507107.

688: %\bibitem{tajima:2002}

689: %T.~Tajima and G.~Mourou, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, \textbf{5},

690: %031301 (2002).

691: \bibitem{hein:2004}

692: J.~Hein et al., Appl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{79}, 419 (2004).

693: \bibitem{hart:1991}

694: M.~Hart et al., Rev.~Sci.~Instrum.\ \textbf{62}, 2540 (1991).

695: \bibitem{liesfeld:2005}

696: B.~Liesfeld et al., Appl.~Phys.~Lett., \textbf{86}, 161107 (2005).

697: \bibitem{schwoerer:2005}

698: H.~Schwoerer et al., Phys.~Rev.~Lett.\ (2005), accepted for

699: publication.

700: \bibitem{dittrich:2000}

701: W.~Dittrich and H.~Gies, \textit{Probing the quantum vacuum},

702: vol.\ 166 of  \textit{Springer Tracts Mod. Phys.} (Springer,

703: Berlin, 2000).

704: \bibitem{affleck:1987}

705: I.~Affleck and L.~Kruglyak, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{59}, 1065

706: (1987).

707: \bibitem{koch:2004}

708: K.~Koch, diploma thesis, Jena (2004), in German.

709: \bibitem{hasegawa:1999}

710: Y.~Hasegawa et al., Acta Cryst.~A \textbf{55}, 955 (1999).

711: \bibitem{alp:2000}

712: E.~Alp, W.~Sturhahn, and T.~Toellner, Hyperfine Interactions

713: \textbf{125}, 45 (2000).

714: \bibitem{mourou:2005}

715: G.~Mourou and V.~Malka, private communication (2005).

716: \bibitem{faure:2004}

717: J.~Faure et al., Nature \textbf{431} (7008), 541 (2004).

718: \end{thebibliography}

719: 

720: \end{document}

721: 

722: %

723: