Abstract
Highpower lasers in the relativistic intensity regime with multipicosecond pulse durations are available in many laboratories around the world. Laser pulses at these intensities reach gigabar level radiation pressures, which can push the plasma critical surface where laser light is reflected. This process is referred to as the laser hole boring (HB), which is critical for plasma heating, hence essential for laserbased applications. Here we derive the limit density for HB, which is the maximum plasma density the laser can reach, as a function of laser intensity. The time scale for when the laser pulse reaches the limit density is also derived. These theories are confirmed by a series of particleincell simulations. After reaching the limit density, the plasma starts to blowout back toward the laser, and is accompanied by copious superthermal electrons; therefore, the electron energy can be determined by varying the laser pulse length.
Introduction
With the development of kiloJoule class highpower lasers, intense pulses of laser light in the relativistic intensity level exceeding 10^{18} W μm^{2} cm^{−2} with picosecond (ps) to multips pulse duration are now available at LFEX^{1}, NIFARC^{2}, LMJPETAL^{3}, and OMEGAEP^{4}. Lasermatter interactions in the relativistic regime have opened up various applications such as relativistic electron beam generation, fastion acceleration^{5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14}, megaGauss level magnetic field generation^{15,16,17}, intense Xray^{18}, gammaray^{19,20}, positron^{21} and neutron^{22} generations, and fastignitionbased laser fusion^{23,24}. For these applications, energy absorption^{25} and momentum transfer from highintensity lasers to plasma particles are fundamental issues.
In the interaction of intense laser fields with overdense targets, the laser radiation pressure pushes electrons at the plasma surface, which sets up an electrostatic field originating from the charge separation that ultimately accelerates ions in the forward direction. The laser light proceeds to push the plasma surface, which has the relativistic critical density γn_{c} into the target. Here, γ is the relativistic factor of electrons, n_{c} = m_{e}ω^{2}_{L}/(4πe^{2}) is the nonrelativistic critical density, ω_{L} the laser frequency, m_{e} the rest mass of electron, and e the fundamental charge. This process is referred to as the laser hole boring (HB)^{26,27,28,29,30,31}. The HB or the surface steepening has been considered to be important for applications, e.g., laser channeling^{32,33,34}, high harmonic generation^{35,36}, and plasma mirror^{37,38}. For these applications, how long the steepened clean interface is sustained is an essential question.
Laser absorption and hot electron generation also depend on the steepening of the plasma surface in the HB process. In the conventional model of the HB^{26,28,29,30}, which is based on the momentum transfer equation from laser to ions, laser lights bore holes as long as the laser pulse continues, which implies there is no density limit for the HB.
Recently, for the lasersolid interactions in the multips regime, it is reported that the plasma on the laserirradiated front surface expands significantly in the order of 10 μm during the laser irradiation, and superthermal electrons beyond the conventional ponderomotive scaling^{26} are generated^{39,40,41}. A recent LFEX laser experiment demonstrated that the hot electron temperature increases drastically when the laser pulse duration is extended from 1 to 4 ps while keeping the peak intensity same^{42}. Ion acceleration in such a multips laser interaction cannot be described by the conventional target normal sheath acceleration model that assumes plasma expansion with isothermal electron temperature^{43,44,45}. The nonisothermal plasma expansion theory is proposed to explain the multips laserdriven ion acceleration experiments where the time evolution of hot electron temperature is important^{46,47}. In order to control such a hot and/or superthermal electron generation in the multips regime, the cause of the plasma blowout to the front side is essential to be figured out.
In this study, we find that the HB is stopped in the ps time regime even while the laser pulse is still on, and the surface plasma eventually starts to blowout to the front side. We here develop a theory that explains the transition from the HB to the plasma blowout regime. Based on a pressure balance relation between laser radiation pressure and electron thermal pressure, we derive the limit density for the HB as \(8Ra_0^2n_{\mathrm{c}}\left( {\sim 5.8RI_{18}\lambda _{{\mathrm {\mu}} {\mathrm{m}}}^2n_{\mathrm{c}}} \right)\), above which the laser field cannot push beyond. Here, a_{0} = eE_{0}/(m_{e}cω_{L}) is the normalized laser field amplitude, E_{0} the amplitude of the laser electric field, R the reflectivity, I_{18} the laser intensity normalized by 10^{18} W cm^{−2}, λ_{μm} the laser wavelength normalized by 1 μm. We show the validity of the derived model by using particleincell (PIC) simulations. In addition, we obtain the time scale for the transition from the HB to the blowout regime based on the momentum transfer equation in a preformed plasma^{48}. The transition time scale is found in the ps regime, and therefore, the prediction by this theory will appear in multips laser experiments.
Results
Process of hole boring
As an introduction of the HB, we show an interaction of plasma with linearly polarized highintensity laser field by using Fig. 1. Here, the laser intensity is in the relativistic regime, I =5×10^{18} W cm^{−2} so that \({\hat a_0}=2\) where the hat indicates the peak value. We consider a thick plasma with initial ion and electron densities n_{i0} and n_{e0} = Zn_{i0}, respectively, where Z is the ion charge state. The target electron density n_{e0} is an order of magnitude higher than the relativistic critical density γn_{c}. We assume a preplasma of scale length L at the front side where the electron density n_{e} increase linearly from zero to n_{e0}. Figure 1a–f are the results we obtained in a PIC simulation in onedimensional (1D) geometry. The laser field transmits through the underdense region n_{e} < n_{c}. After reaching the critical density n_{c}, the laser field can further penetrate into the plasma n_{e} ≤ γn_{c} due to relativistic transparency. Since γ fluctuates in the interaction, the plasma is not transparent completely in this regime, and thus, the laser field starts to push electrons at the pulse front. In this phase, the pile up of electrons swept up by the laser is fast enough to create a strong electric field that can accelerate ions at a speed exceeding the sound velocity. Consequently, a collisionless shock is formed at the front as seen in the ion phase plot for the longitudinal direction in Fig. 1a. Above the relativistic critical density, n_{e} > γn_{c}, the plasma is opaque and the speed of the interaction front decreases significantly. The laser is incapable of driving shocks by pushing the overdense electrons. We refer to this stage to as the ‘HB’ phase. In the HB phase, electrons in the front surface are also pushed by the laser light making a charge separation. If the laser pulse can sustain the charge separation, ions start to move forward. Note that for the HB, the pulse has to be longer than the ion response time scale, \(2\pi \omega _{{\mathrm{pi}}}^{  1},\) which is in the order of 100 fs at the critical density. Here, ω_{pi} is the ion plasma frequency. As seen in Fig. 1b, the front of the shock generated in the relativistic transparency phase proceeds forward in a faster speed than the laser interaction front, that is the HB front.
As the HB proceeds, we find that the average ion momentum at the HB front \(\overline p _{x{\mathrm{f}}}\) changes from positive as in (b) to zero as in (c). This indicates that the HB front cannot go further when it reaches the condition that the average longitudinal density flux of ions is zero. The asymmetric relation between positive and negative ion density flow can be seen in (d) and (e) where the distributions of ion longitudinal momentum in the region of the pulse front, sampled within Δx = 0.2 μm, are shown for the corresponding times for (a) and (b), respectively. One can see that the distribution that has a notable amount of positive p_{xf} component in (e) turns to a symmetrical distribution with respect to the p_{xf} axis in (f). Therefore, at t = 0.6 ps ((c) and (f)), a stationary state of the plasma front is established, which corresponds to the stopping condition for the HB. At this time, the laser radiation pressure balances with the plasma pressure. The establishment of the stationary state is owing to the electron heating during the HB, by which a hot dense electron cloud is formed behind the HB surface, and thus the negative ion density flow is driven. Since the plasma is heated by the laser continuously, the plasma will start to expand when the electron pressure exceeds the laser radiation pressure. This corresponds to the transition from the HB to the plasma blowout. Note that the stationary state never appears in the conventional aspect of the HB where the electron heating is not taken into account.
In Fig. 2a, we show the time evolution of the positions of the critical density n_{c} and relativistic critical density γn_{c} for the same simulation of Fig. 1. The relation \(\gamma \equiv \left( {1 + (1 + R)\epsilon ^2\hat{a}_0^2/2} \right)^{1/2}\) is used where \(\epsilon\) = 1 for linear polarization and \(\epsilon = \sqrt 2\) for circular polarization. We here use the reflectivity R at the transition time from the HB to the blowout. Figure 2b shows the reflectivity R, which keeps an almost constant value around the transition time from the HB phase to the blowout phase. In early time t < 0.4 ps, positions of n_{c} and γn_{c} are pushed toward positive x direction, however, during the time t = 0.5–0.7 ps that is shaded in Fig. 2a, b, the plasma front hardly moves from x ~ 9.45 μm. After this time, the plasma starts to blowout to the negative x direction.
In Fig. 2d, e, we show the electron distributions in the phase space for the longitudinal x direction at t = 0.4 ps, that is the HB phase, and t = 1.0 ps, that is the blowout phase, respectively. In the HB phase (d), electrons are experiencing J × B acceleration at the peripheral of the HB surface, x ~ 9.4 μm. In the lowdensity region in front of the HB surface, mainly the electrons in the region where n_{e} < 0.1n_{c} interact directly with the incident laser field and gain momenta p_{xe}/m_{e}c ~ 5 (2.1 MeV). On the other hand, in the blowout phase (e), the region where 0.1n_{c} < n_{e} < n_{c} expands about 1 μm, which causes the enhanced acceleration of electrons^{40}. The spectra of electron energy ε_{e} at t = 0.4 and 1.0 ps are shown in Fig. 2c. The number of hot electrons in the MeV range are increased by an order of magnitude, and the highenergy slope is enhanced, resulting in temperatures higher than the ponderomotive temperature T_{p} and also than the Beg scaling T_{B}^{49}.
Hole boring limit density
We now consider the pressure balance at the laserplasma (LP) interaction front in the stationary state, where the HB cannot proceed further. We assume that a plane laser field with the normalized amplitude a_{0} is irradiating an overdense plasma distributed in the region x ≥ 0. At the stationary state, the electrons are pushed slightly by the laser radiation pressure with the distance \(\ell _{\mathrm{s}}/2\) where \(\ell _{\mathrm{s}} = \left( {m_{\mathrm{e}}c^2/\left( {4\pi n_{\mathrm{e}}e^2} \right)} \right)^{1/2}\) is the skin depth for the incident laser field. Note here that since the laser amplitude decays in \(\ell _{\mathrm{s}}\), the intensity decreases in the scale length of \(\ell _{\mathrm{s}}/2\). Then, only ions remain in the front surface \(0 \le x < \ell _{\mathrm{s}}/2\) with the density n_{i}, while the inside \(x \ge \ell _{\mathrm{s}}/2\) is filled by both ions with density n_{i} and electrons with density n_{e} = Zn_{i}. The positive electrostatic field generated by the charge separation at the front surface, \(E_{\mathrm{s}} = 2\pi en_{\mathrm{e}}\ell _{\mathrm{s}}\), drags ions to the positive x direction. However, in the stationary state of the LP interaction front, the ion density is maintained by the negative density flow of ions as seen in Fig. 1c, f. The pressure balance relation at the interaction surface between laser field and electrons is derived by integrating the electron fluid equation of motion in the stationary state as described in the Methods as
The lefthand side represents the laser radiation pressure with intensity I, the first term on the righthand side (RHS) corresponds to the electron pressure with temperature T_{e}, and the second term on the RHS denotes the sheath electrostatic potential energy density, which corresponds to the surface tension in the width of the skin depth. Note that some of the previous papers have also included the electron pressure term^{28,30}. However, the stationary state sustained by the surface tension of the field has never been considered, which is the critical difference of Eq. (1) from the conventional descriptions of the HB. We assume that the plasma is composed of hot and bulk electron components as n_{e} = n_{h} + n_{b}. We here assume n_{e}T_{e} ~ n_{h}T_{h} where T_{h} is the hot electron temperature, by neglecting the bulk electron pressure.
The hot electron density and velocity can be determined by the conservation of energy density flux,
Here, β_{e} = v_{e}/c is the ratio between electron drift velocity v_{e} and the speed of light c, and α ≡ ir/2 is the geometrical factor where r = 1 for the nonrelativistic Maxwell momentum disrtibution, r = 2 for the relativistic Maxwell (Maxwell–Jüttner) momentum distribution, and i = 1, 2, or 3 represents the dimension of momentum distribution. Hereafter, we consider r = 2. For quasi1D relativistic interactions, we can assume i = 1, and thus, α = 1. Equation (2) indicates that the absorbed laser energy flux is carried by electrons. We simplify Eq. (2) by replacing n_{e}T_{e}β_{e} on the RHS by n_{h}T_{h}. This approximation is valid for the relativistic condition, a_{0} > 1 and thus \(\beta _{\mathrm{h}}\sim 1\). When the laser field amplitude becomes super relativistic (a_{0} ≳ 300), other energy loss mechanisms such as the radiation damping will come into play, and hence, the pressure balance at the LP interaction surface will change^{50}.
From Eqs. (1) and (2), we can derive the front density n_{e} for the stationary state. We define this stationary density as the limit density of the HB, n_{s}, which is obtained as
Here, we used the relation \(I/c = n_{\mathrm{c}}m_{\mathrm{e}}c^2\epsilon ^2a_0^2/2\). Equation (3) represents the limit density for the HB, above which the laser light cannot proceed forward. For this limit density, the laser light with intensity I is incapable of sustaining a charge separation that is sufficient for driving positive mean density flux of ions. When one assumes a 1D relativistic Maxwell distribution α = 1, the relativistic limit for the hot electron velocity β_{h} = 1, and linear polarization \(\epsilon\) = 1, Eq. (3) reduces to
Equation (4) presents the dependence of the HB limit density on normalized laser amplitude a_{0} and reflectivity R. Note that for the ideal condition for the HB, we generally consider the density regime n_{e} ~ γn_{c} ~ a_{0}n_{c}. On the other hand, the HB limit density n_{s} given by Eq. (4) corresponds to a higher density than γn_{c} for a_{0} > 1 when the reflectivity is not so low satisfying \(R > a_0^{ 2}/8\). In other words, the HB proceeds beyond the density regime n_{e} ~ a_{0}n_{c}, and stops at the density \(n_{\mathrm{e}} = 8Ra_0^2n_{\mathrm{c}}\). The maximum HB limit density is obtained for R = 1, that is \(n_{{\mathrm{smax}}}/n_{\mathrm{c}} = 8a_0^2\). In the case of multidimensional interactions (α > 1), due to the additional freedom of lateral energy diffusion, the plasma pressure becomes lower even with the same R as seen from Eq. (2). Consequently, laser lights can proceed higher density in multidimensional geometry than in the 1D case. However, the maximum limit density \(8a_0^2n_{\mathrm{c}}\) is not changed by the dimension effect as can be confirmed by Eq. (3).
In Fig. 3, we plot Eq. (4) for various reflectivities R by dotted lines. The bold solid line for R = 1 corresponds to the maximum HB density. Hence, the shaded area above the solid line is the prohibited area where laser light cannot reach that density. We also present the maximum density to which the laser light can reach in 1D and twodimensional (2D) (quasi1D) PIC simulations. We see that all the simulation points are below the maximum HB limit density. The maximum density obtained in each simulation agrees with the theoretically obtained limit density n_{s} for R with a difference limited in the range of ±0.1, except for the result of 2D circular polarization (Cpol), which will be addressed below. Note that in the 2D geometry, the reflectivity tends to be lower than the 1D geometry, so that the maximum density in the 2D simulation is typically far below the theoretical limit, that is n_{smax} for R = 1. Although the reflectivity R changes in time, the variation of R in the shaded interval in Fig. 2b, that is ±0.1 ps, around the HB stationary state is small about 0.01 as shown in Fig. 3 for each simulation.
Hereafter, we estimate the time scale t_{s} to reach the HB limit density. As seen in Fig. 2, superthermal electrons appear after the transition to the blowout phase. Hence, t_{s} is important to control the electron heating, which is essential for various applications of intense LP interactions.
During the HB stage, the momentum transfer from laser light to ions, in the frame moving with the ion front velocity v_{f}, is expressed by
where M_{i} is the ion mass, and the electron pressure term is neglected for simplicity. Here we assume an exponential density profile with the scale length L as n_{e} = Zn_{i} = γn_{c} exp(x/L). The front position of the HB (x_{f}) is obtained by integrating v_{f} in time as
as in ref. ^{48}. Then, the electron density at the HB front n_{f} is given as
The transition time scale t_{s} is obtained by solving Eqs. (6) and (7) for t with substituting n_{s} to n_{f} in Eq. (7) as
where A ≡ (Zm_{e}/(2M_{i}))^{1/2}/2, and n_{s}/n_{c} on the RHS is given by Eq. (3). Here, we define the time when the laser front reaches to the position of n_{e} = γn_{c} as t = 0. In the above derivation, we assume the laser field amplitude a_{0} is constant in time. Note that this assumption is valid for the present simulations where the pulse profile is constant in most of the interaction time. In the case of laser pulses with Gaussian temporal profiles, the time scale for reaching the HB limit density n_{s} is estimated approximately to be 2t_{s}. Equation (8) implies that the LP interaction front proceeds by boring the exponentially distributed plasma with the initial scale length L, and then subsequently reaches the HB limit density n_{s} in the time scale of t_{s}.
In Fig. 4a, the transition times t_{s} given by Eq. (8) are plotted as a function of \(\epsilon\)a_{0} by black lines for various reflectivities R. Here, the relativistic 1D momentum condition, that is α = 1 and β_{h} = 1, and preplasma scale length L = 2 μm are used. The derived time scales are in the order of ps. The times when the HB stops in the simulations agree well with the theoretical lines. In the case of circular polarization, which is the combination of P and Spolarizations, the Ppolarization has higher absorption than the Spolarization, resulting that the polarization of the laser field during the interaction is not circular anymore. Namely, the interaction becomes a twobeamlike interaction, so that the result departs from the single beam scaling, e.g., n_{s} and t_{s}.
As an example of the HB process, Fig. 4b shows the electron density profile in positiontime space obtained by the 2D simulation shown in Fig. 4a at \(\epsilon\)a_{0} = 4. The laser front gets to the position of n_{e} = γn_{c} at t = 0 by the process of relativistic transparency. Up to time t = t_{s}, the HB surface moves to the higher density direction. After passing t = t_{s}, the HB surface is pushed backward (lower density side), which corresponds to the plasma blowout.
To check the multidimensional effect, we demonstrated a 2D simulation for a tightly focused laser pulse. The results are plotted in Figs. 3 and 4 by white circles. Both results are in a good agreement with values derived by Eqs. (3) and (8), assuming the 2D condition α = 2 and reflectivity R obtained in each simulation. The obtained scalings are therefore confirmed to be applicable in multidimensional situations.
In conclusion, we derived the limit density for the HB n_{s} based on a balance relation between laser radiation pressure and plasma pressure. The HB limit density is found to be \(n_{\mathrm{s}} = 8Ra_0^2n_{\mathrm{c}}\left( {\sim5.8RI_{18}\lambda _{{\mathrm{{\mu}}{\mathrm{m}}}}^2n_{\mathrm{c}}} \right)\). After reaching the HB limit density n_{s}, the laser light is incapable of sustaining the charge separation that is sufficient for driving the forward mean density flux of ions in the HB surface, and thus, the laser light can no longer proceed into the higher density region. By using the PIC simulation, we demonstrated that the HB reaches the stationary state when the laser pulse front proceeds to the density equal to the limit density n_{s}. We derived the transition time t_{s}, at which the plasma turns from the HB to the blowout, as Eq. (8).
The transition time t_{s} is critical for applications such as laser channeling, high harmonic generation, and plasma mirror, which require steepened clean interface for efficient operation. The blowout plasma interacts with the laser field resulting copious superthermal electrons, which are important to increase the efficiency of the applications, e.g., ion acceleration^{46,47} and pairplasma creation^{51,52} with multips kiloJoule laser lights.
Methods
Numerical simulations
Simulation results in 1D geometry shown in Figs. 1,2–4 are obtained using a fully relativistic collisional PIC code EPIC3D^{53}. The calculations are executed in 2D spatial dimension where the size of simulation box is L_{ x } = 40.96 μm in the laser propagation direction, while we use four meshes in the transverse y direction with the mesh size of 10 nm. A laser field with the normalized amplitude of \(a_0(t) = \hat{a}_0f_a(t)\) is excited by an antenna at the left boundary. Here, \(\hat{a}_0\) is the peak value and f_{ a } is the pulse shape factor whose time dependence at the antenna position is given by \(f_a = {\mathrm{exp}}\left[ {\left( {t  t_0} \right)^2/\tau _{\mathrm{L}}^2} \right]\) for t < t_{0} and f_{ a } = 1 for t ≥ t_{0}, where t_{0} = 0.1 ps and τ_{L} = 0.15 ps. The laser wavelength is λ_{L} = 1.05 μm. In the calculations for Figs. 1 and 2, the peak normalized amplitude is \(\hat{a}_0 = 2,\) which corresponds to the intensity of 5 × 10^{18} W cm^{−2}. A uniform fully ionized neutral deuteron plasma is distributed initially from x = 10–20 μm with a linear preplasma of length L = 1 μm whose electron density increases from zero at x = 9 μm to the uniform plasma density \(n_{{\mathrm{e}}0} > 8\hat{a}_0^2\) at x = 10 μm. In the calculations for Figs. 1 and 2, n_{e0} = 40n_{c} is assumed. The initial plasma distribution and the incident laser field are uniform in the transverse y direction.
Simulation results in 2D geometry shown in Figs. 3 and 4 are obtained using a fully relativistic PIC code PICLS^{54}. The size of simulation box is L_{ x } = 40 μm in the laser propagation direction and L_{ y } = 120 μm in the transverse direction with the mesh size of 20 nm. The laser pulse function and the wavelength are same as those used in the EPIC simulations. A uniform fully ionized neutral deuteron plasma is distributed initially from x = 20–40 μm with an exponential preplasma of scale length L = 2 μm whose electron density increases from 0.6n_{c} at x = 10 μm to the uniform plasma density 100n_{c} at x = 20 μm. The initial plasma distribution is uniform in the transverse y direction. The laser field is focused at x = 20 μm to the spot sizes of 60 μm in the wide focus case, and 1.5 μm in the tight focus case, which is close to the diffraction limit to reduce the selffocusing effect. Since the spot size for the wide focus cases is much larger than the plasma scale length L, the interaction around the beam center can be regarded as quasi1D, that is α ~ 1, where the effect of multidimensional energy diffusion is small.
The reflectivities R for the simulations referred in Figs. 3 and 4 are observed around the transition time t_{s} ± Δt, where Δt = 0.1 ps, which corresponds to the scale of the ion response time \(2\pi \omega _{{\mathrm{pi}}}^{  1}\).
Derivation of the pressure balance equation
The pressure balance relation for the stationary state of the HB Eq. (1) is derived from the electron fluid equation of motion in the stationary state given by
where ϕ is the electrostatic potential, and all quantities are averaged over the laser period. Here, we consider a 1D geometry where an overdense plasma is distributed in the region x ≥ 0. Electrons are pushed by the laser radiation pressure with the distance \(\ell _{\mathrm{s}}/2,\) where \(\ell _{\mathrm{s}}\) is the skin depth, while ions remain in the front surface \(0 \le x < \ell _{\mathrm{s}}/2\) with the density n_{i}( = n_{e}/Z). We assume the scales of spatial variation \(\nabla n_{\mathrm{e}}\sim 2n_{\mathrm{e}}/\ell _{\mathrm{s}}\) and \(\nabla a_0\sim  a_0/\ell _{\mathrm{s}}\) in the interface, and obtain \(\nabla \left( {n_{\mathrm{e}}a_0^2/\gamma } \right) =  n_{\mathrm{e}}\left( {\nabla a_0^2} \right)/(2\gamma )\). Here, \(\gamma \equiv \left( {1 + (1 + R)\epsilon ^2\hat{a}_0^2/2} \right)^{1/2}\) is used, and we approximated \((1 + R)\epsilon ^2 {\hat{a}}_0^2/2\sim \gamma ^2\) in the calculation of ∇γ. Using the above assumptions for spatial variation, integrate Eq. (9) from x = −∞ to x = +∞, then
which is the pressure balance relation Eq. (1). Here, the relation \(I/c = n_{\mathrm{c}}m_{\mathrm{e}}c^2\epsilon ^2a_0^2/2\) is used, and the electron density at the laser front is given by γn_{c}. \(E_{\mathrm{s}}^2/8\pi\) is the sheath electric field energy density generated by the charge separation in the interface \(0 \le x < \ell _{\mathrm{s}}/2\). In obtaining this sheath field term, we used the Poisson equation and neglected the ion pressure.
Note that in the HB stage where the ion front has not reached the stationary state, the charge separation field eventually moves the ion front in the forward (positive x) direction. Therefore, for describing the HB stage, the last term on the RHS of Eq. (10) is replaced by the kinetic energy density of ions moving with the HB velocity v_{f}, and then the momentum transfer equation in the frame moving with the velocity v_{f} is obtained as Eq. (5).
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
 1.
Miyanaga, N. et al. 10kJ PW laser for the FIREXI program. J. Phys. IV Fr. 133, 81–87 (2006).
 2.
Crane, J. K. et al. Progress on converting a NIF Quad to eight, petawatt beams for advanced radiography. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 244, 032003 (2010).
 3.
Batani, D. et al. Development of the PETawatt aquitaine laser system and new perspectives in physics. Phys. Scr. 2014, 014016 (2014).
 4.
Maywar, D. N. et al. OMEGA EP highenergy petawatt laser: progress and prospects. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 112, 032007 (2008).
 5.
Macchi, A., Borghesi, M. & Passoni, M. Ion acceleration by superintense laserplasma interaction. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 751–793 (2013).
 6.
Daido, H., Nishiuchi, M. & Pirozhkov, A. S. Review of laserdriven ion sources and their applications. Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 056401 (2012).
 7.
Wilks, S. C. et al. Energetic proton generation in ultraintense lasersolid interactions. Phys. Plasmas 8, 542549 (2001).
 8.
Snavely, R. A. et al. Intense highenergy proton beams from petawattlaser irradiation of solids. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2945–2948 (2000).
 9.
Esirkepov, T., Borghesi, M., Bulanov, S. V., Mourou, G. & Tajima, T. Highly efficient relativisticion generation in the laserpiston regime. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 175003 (2004).
 10.
Yin, L. et al. Threedimensional dynamics of breakout afterburner ion acceleration using highcontrast shortpulse laser and nanoscale targets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 045003 (2011).
 11.
Fiuza, F. et al. Laserdriven shock acceleration of monoenergetic ion beams. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 215001 (2012).
 12.
Haberberger, D. et al. Collisionless shocks in laserproduced plasma generate monoenergetic highenergy proton beams. Nat. Phys. 69, 1383–1386 (2011).
 13.
Hegelich, B. M. et al. Laser acceleration of quasimonoenergetic MeV ion beams. Nature 439, 441–444 (2006).
 14.
Palaniyappan, S. et al. Efficient quasimonoenergetic ion beams from laserdriven relativistic plasmas. Nat. Commun. 6, 10170 (2015).
 15.
Sentoku, Y., dHumiéres, E., Romagnani, L., Audebert, P. & Fuchs, J. Dynamic control over megaampere electron currents in metals using ionizationdriven resistive magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 135005 (2011).
 16.
Sarri, G. et al. Dynamics of selfgenerated, large amplitude magnetic fields following highintensity laser matter interaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 205002 (2012).
 17.
Tatarakis, M. et al. Laser technology: measuring huge magnetic fields. Nature 415, 280–280 (2002).
 18.
Powers, N. D. et al. Quasimonoenergetic and tunable Xrays from a laserdriven Compton light source. Nat. Photonics 8, 28–31 (2014).
 19.
Nakamura, T. et al. Highpower gammaray flash generation in ultraintense laserplasma interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 195001 (2012).
 20.
Iwata, N., Nagatomo, H., Fukuda, Y., Matsui, R. & Kishimoto, Y. Effects of radiation reaction in the interaction between cluster media and high intensity lasers in the radiation dominant regime. Phys. Plasmas 23, 063115 (2016).
 21.
Chen, H. et al. Scaling the yield of laserdriven electronpositron jets to laboratory astrophysical applications. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 215001 (2015).
 22.
Komeda, O. et al. First demonstration of laser engagement of 1Hzinjected flying pellets and neutron generation. Sci. Rep. 3, 2561 (2013).
 23.
Tabak, M. et al. Ignition and high gain with ultrapowerful lasers. Phys. Plasmas 1, 1626 (1994).
 24.
Kodama, R. et al. Fast heating of ultrahighdensity plasma as a step towards laser fusion ignition. Nature 412, 798–802 (2001).
 25.
Levy, M. C., Wilks, S. C., Tabak, M., Libby, S. B. & Baring, M. G. Petawatt laser absorption bounded. Nat. Commun. 5, 4149 (2014).
 26.
Wilks, S. C., Kruer, W. L., Tabak, M. & Langdon, A. B. Absorption of ultraintense laser pulses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1383–1386 (1992).
 27.
Pukhov, A. & MeyerterVehn, J. Laser hole boring into overdense plasma and relativistic electron currents for fast ignition of ICF targets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2686–2689 (1997).
 28.
Sentoku, Y., Kruer, W., Matsuoka, M. & Pukhov, A. Laser hole boring and hot electron generation in the fast ignition scheme. Fusion Sci. Technol. 49, 278–296 (2006).
 29.
Naumova, N. et al. Hole boring in a DT pellet and fastion ignition with ultraintense laser pulses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 025002 (2009).
 30.
Ping, Y. et al. Dynamics of relativistic laserplasma interaction on solid targets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 145006 (2012).
 31.
Weng, S. M. et al. Quasimonoenergetic ion generation by holeboring radiation pressure acceleration in inhomogeneous plasmas using tailored laser pulses. Phys. Plasmas 21, 012705 (2014).
 32.
Pukhov, A. & MeyerterVehn, J. Relativistic magnetic selfchanneling of light in nearcritical plasma: threedimensional particleincell simulation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3975–3978 (1996).
 33.
Li, G. et al. Laser channeling in millimeterscale underdense plasmas of fastignition targets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 125002 (2008).
 34.
Lei, A. L. et al. Relativistic laser channeling in plasmas for fast ignition. Phys. Rev. E 76, 066403 (2007).
 35.
Dromey, B. et al. High harmonic generation in the relativistic limit. Nat. Phys. 2, 456–459 (2006).
 36.
Naumova, N. M., Nees, J. A., Sokolov, I. V., Hou, B. & Mourou, G. A. Relativistic generation of isolated attosecond pulses in a lambda 3 focal volume. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 063902 (2004).
 37.
Vincenti, H. et al. Optical properties of relativistic plasma mirrors. Nat. Commun. 5, 3403 (2014).
 38.
Nakatsutsumi, M. et al. Fast focusing of shortpulse lasers by innovative plasma optics toward extreme intensity. Opt. Lett. 35, 2314 (2010).
 39.
Kemp, A. J. & Divol, L. Interaction physics of multipicosecond petawatt laser pulses with overdense plasma. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 195005 (2012).
 40.
Sorokovikova, A. et al. Generation of superponderomotive electrons in multipicosecond interactions of kilojoule laser beams with soliddensity plasmas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 155001 (2016).
 41.
Hata, M., Sakagami, H., Sunahara, A., Johzaki, T. & Nagatomo, H. Effects of CH foam preplasma on fast ignition. Laser Part. Beams 30, 189–197 (2012).
 42.
Kojima, S. et al. Energy distribution of fast electrons accelerated by high intensity laser pulse depending on laser pulse duration. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 717, 012102 (2016).
 43.
Crow, J. E., Auer, P. L. & Allen, J. E. The expansion of a plasma into a vacuum. J. Plasma Phys. 14, 65 (1975).
 44.
Mora, P. Plasma expansion into a vacuum and ion acceleration. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 5–8 (2003).
 45.
Fuchs, J. et al. Laserdriven proton scaling laws and new paths towards energy increase. Nat. Phys. 2, 48–54 (2006).
 46.
Yogo, A. et al. Boosting laserion acceleration with multipicosecond pulses. Sci. Rep. 7, 42451 (2017).
 47.
Iwata, N. et al. Fast ion acceleration in a foil plasma heated by a multipicosecond high intensity laser. Phys. Plasmas 24, 073111 (2017).
 48.
Kemp, A. J., Sentoku, Y. & Tabak, M. Hotelectron energy coupling in ultraintense lasermatter interaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 075004 (2008).
 49.
Beg, F. N. et al. A study of picosecond lasersolid interactions up to 1019 W cm^{−2}. Phys. Plasmas 4, 447 (1997).
 50.
Pandit, R. R., Ackad, E., d’Humieres, E. & Sentoku, Y. Ponderomotive scaling in the radiative damping regime. Phys. Plasmas 24, 103302 (2017).
 51.
Chen, H. et al. Relativistic positron creation using ultraintense short pulse lasers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 105001 (2009).
 52.
Sarri, G. et al. Generation of neutral and highdensity electronpositron pair plasmas in the laboratory. Nat. Commun. 6, 6747 (2015).
 53.
Kishimoto, Y., Masaki, T. & Tajima, T. High energy ions and nuclear fusion in lasercluster interaction. Phys. Plasmas 9, 589–601 (2002).
 54.
Sentoku, Y. & Kemp, A. J. Numerical methods for particle simulations at extreme densities and temperatures: weighted particles, relativistic collisions and reduced currents. J. Comp. Phys. 227, 6846–6861 (2008).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for Dr. S. C. Wilks for fruitful discussions and encouragement. This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI grant numbers JP15K21767 and JP15K17798, and also by NIFS Collaboration Research program (NIFS17KNSS090).
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
N. I. and Y. S. developed the analytical theory with support from K. M. Assistance with conceptualizing the physical arguments was provided by S. K. Numerical simulations were performed by N. I.,Y. S. and M. H.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Iwata, N., Kojima, S., Sentoku, Y. et al. Plasma density limits for hole boring by intense laser pulses. Nat Commun 9, 623 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467018028295
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

Numerical simulation and validation of subsurface modification and crack formation induced by nanosecondpulsed laser processing in monocrystalline silicon
Journal of Applied Physics (2020)

Observation of MeVenergy ions from the interaction of over picosecond laser pulses with nearcritical density foam targets
High Energy Density Physics (2020)

Transition of dominant heating process from relativistic electron beam heating to thermal diffusion in an over picoseconds relativistic lasersolid interaction
High Energy Density Physics (2020)

Intensification of laserproduced relativistic electron beam using converging magnetic fields for ignition in fast ignition laser fusion
High Energy Density Physics (2020)

Development of singleshot frequencyresolved optical gating for characterizing the instantaneous intensity and phase of LFEX laser pulses
High Energy Density Physics (2020)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.