Nuclear isomers play essential roles in various fields, including stellar nucleosynthesis, nuclear clocks, nuclear batteries, clean nuclear energy, and γ-ray lasers. Recent technological advances in high-intensity lasers have made it possible to excite or de-excite nuclear isomers using table-top laser equipment. Utilizing a particle-in-cell code, we investigate the interaction of a laser with a nanowire array and calculate the production rates of the 73mGe (E1 = 13.3 keV) and 107mAg (E1 = 93.1 keV) isomers. For 73m1Ge, production by Coulomb excitation is found to contribute a peak efficiency of 1.0 × 1019 particles s−1 J−1, while nuclear excitation by electron capture (NEEC) contributes a peak of 1.65 × 1011 particles s−1 J−1. These results indicate a high isomeric production ratio, as well as demonstrating the potential for confirming the existence of NEEC, a long-expected but so far experimentally unobserved fundamental process.

With the development of laser technology, accompanied by increases in available laser intensity, a number of high-intensity laser (HIL)-induced nuclear physics phenomena have emerged.1,2 Owing in particular to the use of the chirped pulse amplification (CPA) technique,3 the output power of lasers has steadily increased since the 1980s. Currently, laser intensities exceeding 1023 W/cm2 are achievable,4–7 corresponding to electromagnetic field intensities E ≈ 1015 V/m and B ≈ 3 × 106 T. The interaction of extreme electromagnetic waves with matter can directly or indirectly induce various nuclear processes. The rapid development of high-powered lasers has provided an unprecedented opportunity to study some important fundamental questions of nuclear physics under extreme conditions, as well as opening the way to possible new nuclear technology applications. Super-strong lasers can create high-energy-density environments, in which a variety of unique nuclear physics phenomena are attracting increasing attention,8–10 including in particular, excitation and de-excitation of isomeric states.11–17 

Controlling the excitation or de-excitation of nuclear isomers is a crucial issue in various fields, including nuclear batteries,18,19 nuclear lasers,20 nuclear clocks,21–23 and nuclear astrophysics.24–27 Nuclear batteries have very high energy densities. For example, 178mHf, with a half-life of ∼31 years, is widely recognized as a suitable material for nuclear batteries.18,19

Nuclear isomers are also expected to play important roles in enhancing the precision of time measurement. It is well known that the clocks with the highest precision currently available are atomic clocks,22 the working principle of which is based on spectral lines corresponding to atomic de-excitation, which are used as the time unit. The precision of these clocks depends on the spectral linewidths.21 With a deeper understanding of their excitation and de-excitation mechanisms, some nuclear isomers, such as 229mTh and 235mU, are expected to be used in nuclear clocks and provide the next generation of standard clocks.22 

Furthermore, nuclear isomers are believed to play a crucial role during the process of cosmic nucleosynthesis.24,27 In a high-temperature environment, energy levels of isomers and their surroundings will undergo significant changes with temperature, resulting in a greatly increased number of excitation and de-excitation pathways for the isomers, thereby affecting their effective lifetimes (half-lives). Such changes are highly sensitive to the environmental temperature. Therefore, an isomer in the usual sense is not necessarily the same as an isomer in astrophysics (with the latter being referred to in the literature as astrophysical isomers or “astromers”).27 It has been predicted that the astromers may have significant astronomically observable effects on the rapid neutron capture process (r-process).27 

Nuclear isomers can typically be generated through processes such as heavy nuclear fission, collisions involving heavy ions, and interactions with HILs. Among these, the ultra-high density of laser plasmas stands out for its ability to induce ultrafast excitation of short-lived nuclear isomers, surpassing the abilities of the other two processes. Laser-driven plasmas provide an ideal environment for the study of nuclear isomer excitation or de-excitation. Advances in laser technology, coupled with growing understanding of plasma physics, have opened up new possibilities for investigating nuclear isomer-related phenomena, leading to a deeper understanding of nuclear physics.

In recent years, some theoretical and experimental progress has been made with laser-driven production of isomers. Pan et al.14 presented a feasibility study on photo-excitation production of four nuclear isomers (103Rh, 113m,115mIn, and 176mLu) with an intense γ-ray source based on laser–electron Compton scattering (LCS). Feng et al.12 reported the first experimental demonstration of femtosecond pumping of nuclear isomeric states (83m3Kr) by the Coulomb excitation (CE) of ions with the quivering electrons induced by laser fields. Fan et al.17 experimentally demonstrated efficient production of 93mMo via a 93Nb(p, n) reaction induced by an intense laser pulse. These works are of significant value, providing the basis for further theoretical and experimental efforts in this field.

In this paper, we perform particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations of the laser-induced plasma dynamics using the Smilei code28 and then investigate the nuclear isomer excitation processes in the plasma. In Sec. II, we provide a brief introduction to the theoretical background of HIL-induced nuclear excitation, including CE and nuclear excitation by electron capture (NEEC). In Sec. III, we present the details of the PIC simulations, and then discuss the results obtained. We present a summary of the study in Sec. IV. We will focus on the nuclear isomer production rates in a laser-induced plasma, as well as the possibilities for experimental confirmation of the NEEC mechanism.

Several mechanisms exist for exciting or de-exciting nuclear isomers, including direct photon excitation (PE), inelastic scattering (such as CE), nuclear excitation by electronic transition (NEET), NEEC, electron bridge (EB) processes,29,30 photonuclear reactions (γ, Xn), and protonuclear reactions (p, Xn).15–17 There are well-established theoretical and experimental results for the first three mechanisms.30–32 However, despite considerable theoretical work, experimental evidence for the NEEC and EB mechanisms has yet to be obtained.33–35 

The relative contributions of the various mechanisms in a HIL-induced plasma depend on the electron energy spectra and the specific structures of the target nuclei. Generally, as the maximum energy of the electron spectrum increases, so does the photon spectrum, owing to the bremsstrahlung effect. With increasing maximum photon energy, the possibility of the (γ, Xn) reaction producing an isomer also increases. Additionally, in cases where nuclei have specific energy levels, direct photon absorption may significantly contribute to isomeric excitation.

CE can excite isomeric states in HIL-induced plasmas. However, direct excitation through this mechanism may not be significant, owing to its relatively small cross-sections. An alternative path is through excitation of a nucleus from its ground state (g.s.) to a higher state (h.s.), followed by a decay back to the isomeric state (i.s.): g.s. → h.s. → i.s.

Although NEET can occur in HIL-induced plasma, cross-sections are again relatively small or even negligible.31,32 In practice, the EB mechanism can be ignored, since it requires a narrowband laser,32,36 and these are not widely available.

By contrast to the above mechanisms, the cross-sections for NEEC in HIL-induced plasmas are significant.37,38 Although NEEC has been considered as an inverse process for internal conversion for almost 50 years,39 it has yet to be experimentally confirmed.33–35 However, theoretical calculations have indicated that NEEC should be a highly efficient mechanism for nuclear isomeric excitation,40 and it may play a crucial role in astrophysical environments.41–43 Therefore, much effort has been put into the search for evidence of the NEEC mechanism in HIL-induced plasmas.12,13,38

In the following, we will briefly introduce the theories of CE and NEEC. Descriptions of the other mechanisms can be found in Refs. 29 and 30.

CE (Fig. 1) refers to the inelastic scattering process in which a charged particle transfers energy to a nucleus via the electromagnetic interaction.44,45 As the charged particle approaches the nucleus, the nucleus experiences the electric field produced by the particle. This electric field may cause the nucleus to become excited to a higher energy state. The cross-section for CE can be written as44 
(1)
Here, E is the energy of the charged particle, ΔE′ = (1 + A1/A2E, where ΔE is the excitation energy, and A1 and A2 are the masses of the particle and nucleus, respectively. λ is the order of the electric multipole component, B() is the reduced transition probability associated with a radiative transition of multipole order , fEλ(ηi,ξ) is the f function described in Ref. 44, and c is given by
(2)
where Z1 and Z2 are the charges of the particle and nucleus, respectively. A similar formula holds for magnetic excitation.
The number of isomeric products resulting from CE can be estimated as
(3)
where ne and ni are the number densities of electrons and ions, respectively, and ve is the electron velocity.

HIL can create high-energy-density environments, providing new methods for the production of short-lived nuclear isomers such as those of Ag and Ge, which have half-lives of the order of seconds and microseconds, respectively. For example, 73Ge (natural abundance 7.75%) has an isomeric level at 13.3 keV (73m1Ge) with a half-life of 2.91 µs. The two naturally occurring isotopes of silver, 107Ag (abundance 51.35%) and 109Ag (abundance 48.65%), have similar isomeric levels: 107m1Ag at 93 keV, with a half-life of 44 s, and 109m1Ag at 88 keV, with a half-life of 39 s. These two nuclides are almost identical, and so we will henceforth only discuss the isomers of 107Ag.

FIG. 1.

Feynman diagrams of the possible mechanisms for producing nuclear isomers in plasma: (a) CE; (b) NEEC. “○e” indicates that the electron is in an atomically bound state and “e” that it is in a continuum state. N indicates that the nucleus is in its ground state and N∗ that it is in an excited state.

FIG. 1.

Feynman diagrams of the possible mechanisms for producing nuclear isomers in plasma: (a) CE; (b) NEEC. “○e” indicates that the electron is in an atomically bound state and “e” that it is in a continuum state. N indicates that the nucleus is in its ground state and N∗ that it is in an excited state.

Close modal

In this work, we consider mainly 107Ag and 73Ge isotopes. Each of these has several possible transitions to isomeric states. Let us take excitation of the 107Ag isotope as an example. As shown in Fig. 2, the transition could be excitation of the ground state (GS) to the third excited state (T03), followed by decay to the first excited state (T31), which will be denoted as GS → Third → First (T031). Excited levels above the third excited state (423.2 keV) are also possible. However, as discussed earlier, if the electron spectra are soft, such contributions are negligible, which is the case in the present study.

FIG. 2.

Energy level diagrams of (a) 107Ag and (b) 73Ge. The nucleus can be excited to its isomeric states directly, or it can first be excited to higher states, with subsequent decay to its isomeric states.

FIG. 2.

Energy level diagrams of (a) 107Ag and (b) 73Ge. The nucleus can be excited to its isomeric states directly, or it can first be excited to higher states, with subsequent decay to its isomeric states.

Close modal

NEEC (Fig. 1) is a resonant process that involves the capture of free electrons into a bound atomic state. In this process, a portion of the electron’s energy is transferred to the nucleus as excitation energy.

For an HIL-induced plasma, because the system is far from equilibrium, the temperature is not well defined. Therefore, the NEEC rate must be estimated using an alternative approach. The NEEC cross-section for a nucleus in its ground state can be written as46 
(4)
Here,
where JE and JG are the nuclear spins of the excited and ground states, respectively, and jc and jf are the total angular momenta of the captured and free electrons, respectively. λe is the free-electron wavelength and Γγ is the width of the electromagnetic nuclear transition. αq,αrIC are the partial internal conversion coefficients (ICCs), which depend on αr and q, which themselves depend on the final electronic configuration αr(nlj) and the ion charge state q before electron capture. Lr(EEr) is a Lorentzian function centered at the free-electron resonance energy Er. The integral of the NEEC cross-section σq,αrNEEC over the free-electron energy Ee is called the resonance strength Sq,αrNEEC, which can be expressed as
(5)
Similar to Eq. (3), the number of isomeric products resulting from NEEC can be estimated as
(6)
where ne is the number density of electrons, ni,q is the number density of the q-valence ion, and ve is the electron velocity at the resonance energy Er. In this work, we focus on the NEEC process for ground state ions across various charged states and shells, all of which are in their electronic ground states (referred to as the ground state assumption, GSA). Consequently, only the ground state is accounted for in αq,r, i.e., αq,r = αq,0.

We take both the CE and NEEC processes together to estimate nuclear isomeric products, employing Eqs. (3) and (6).

We use numerical simulations employing the PIC code Smilei28 to investigate the nuclear isomer yield in laser-induced plasmas. Bonasera and co-workers47,48 accelerated protons by target normal sheath acceleration (TNSA) using lasers and flat targets, achieving proton cutoff energies of around 35 MeV and proton conversion efficiencies of around 3%. Nanowire structures have been demonstrated to provide a powerful way to increase the deposition of laser energy into a target, enhancing laser absorption efficiency and the conversion efficiency of laser-generated hot electrons.49–52 Therefore, we will employ a nanowire structure in this work.

In our model, the cylindrical Ag and Ge nanowires have a typical length of around L = 10.0 μm along the x direction, a typical diameter of around D = 0.2 μm, and a typical periodic spacing of around S = 0.45 μm. The wires are attached to a 2-μm-thick substrate of Ag or Ge foil (Fig. 3). The Ag nanowire target has an initial density of n0 = 5.85 × 1028 m−3. Here, nc=mew02/4πe2 is the critical density. The L, D, and S values of the nanowires have been set as realistic target parameters for experiments. The nanowire structures employed in this modeling could be fabricated using currently available nanotechnology techniques.53 

FIG. 3.

Nanowire array target model used in the simulation. The simulation involves modeling several adjustable parameters, including the wire length L, wire diameter D, distance between wires S, and substrate thickness d.

FIG. 3.

Nanowire array target model used in the simulation. The simulation involves modeling several adjustable parameters, including the wire length L, wire diameter D, distance between wires S, and substrate thickness d.

Close modal

A p-polarized linear laser pulse is focused onto the front surface of the wires and is incident normally into the wire array target. The laser wavelength λ0 = 800 nm, and the amplitude profile of the laser pulse is given by a(t) = a0 exp[(tt0)/τ2], where a0 = eEL/mew0c = 2 is the dimensionless amplitude of the laser electric field, t0 = 25 fs, and τ = 10 fs is the laser pulse half-duration. EL and w0 are the peak electric field strength and the circular frequency of the laser, respectively. These values corresponds to a laser intensity of ∼8.6 × 1018 W/cm2. Under this laser intensity and for a three-dimensional simulation box of 13 × 0.9 × 0.9 μm3, the laser energy is about 1.27 mJ.

We carry out a two-dimensional PIC simulation using a 2D box with dimensions 13 × 0.9 μm2, sampled by 13 000 × 900 cells, which corresponds to steps of Δx = Δy = 10 Å. Absorbing boundary conditions are imposed for both the laser field and particles in the transverse direction. The boundary in the y direction is periodic, and the entire target is in a cold atomic state, with the “tunnel” model for field ionization being adopted.54 Unless specified otherwise, the default parameters utilized in the simulation are those listed in Table I.

TABLE I.

Parameters of PIC simulation.

ParameterValue
Substrate thickness d 2.0 μ
Wire length L 10.0 μ
Wire diameter D 0.2 μ
Periodic spacing S 0.45 μ
x range [0.0, 13.0] μ
y range [−0.45, 0.45] μ
Δx, Δy steps 1.0 nm 
Δt step 11.2 as 
Target density 5.85 × 1022 particles/cm3 (Ag) 
 4.43 × 1022 particles/cm3 (Ge) 
ParameterValue
Substrate thickness d 2.0 μ
Wire length L 10.0 μ
Wire diameter D 0.2 μ
Periodic spacing S 0.45 μ
x range [0.0, 13.0] μ
y range [−0.45, 0.45] μ
Δx, Δy steps 1.0 nm 
Δt step 11.2 as 
Target density 5.85 × 1022 particles/cm3 (Ag) 
 4.43 × 1022 particles/cm3 (Ge) 

In simulating the interaction of a p-polarized laser with a nanowire array target, electrons and ions are first generated through the “tunnel” field ionization model, and electrons are pulled out of the nanowires. Through the direct laser acceleration (DLA) mechanism,55,56 strong electric and magnetic fields from the laser pulses accelerate electrons and ions. The electron dynamics simulated by the PIC are illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5.

FIG. 4.

Representative spectra of electrons captured at different locations at times (a) t = 18 fs and (b) t = 22 fs. Arrows indicate the directions of the electron velocities, and the color shading indicates the respective energies. The periodicity in the electron directions is attributed to the oscillations of the laser electromagnetic field.

FIG. 4.

Representative spectra of electrons captured at different locations at times (a) t = 18 fs and (b) t = 22 fs. Arrows indicate the directions of the electron velocities, and the color shading indicates the respective energies. The periodicity in the electron directions is attributed to the oscillations of the laser electromagnetic field.

Close modal
FIG. 5.

Spectra of electron energy at different times for (a) Ag and (b) Ge. The color shading indicates Ne log10Ne with units keV−1 fs−1 J−1 presents energy spectra of Ag and Ge at different times. Both Ag and Ge electrons reach peak energy levels at ∼35 fs, coinciding with the exit of the primary laser beam from the nanowire array. Subsequently, the electron energies (temperature) decrease. A significant number of electrons exceed the energy thresholds for CE of 107Ag and 73Ge. Furthermore, a significant proportion of electrons satisfy the energy requirements for NEEC resonance in 107Ag and 73Ge, as described in Sec. II.

FIG. 5.

Spectra of electron energy at different times for (a) Ag and (b) Ge. The color shading indicates Ne log10Ne with units keV−1 fs−1 J−1 presents energy spectra of Ag and Ge at different times. Both Ag and Ge electrons reach peak energy levels at ∼35 fs, coinciding with the exit of the primary laser beam from the nanowire array. Subsequently, the electron energies (temperature) decrease. A significant number of electrons exceed the energy thresholds for CE of 107Ag and 73Ge. Furthermore, a significant proportion of electrons satisfy the energy requirements for NEEC resonance in 107Ag and 73Ge, as described in Sec. II.

Close modal

Figure 4 presents momentum spectra at different locations and times of electrons generated by the interaction of the laser with the Ag nanoarray target. It is notable that the directions of electron motion oscillate in response to the laser’s electromagnetic field. This oscillation increases the probability of electron–ion collisions, thereby facilitating the production of isomers through CE or NEEC.

Some nuclear excitation mechanisms, in particular NEEC in this study, depend strongly on ion charge states. In our simulation, we have adopted the internal field ionization model from the Smilei code,54 which can be activated by defining ionization energies and an electron as the ionizing species. The ionization model assumes that the outermost electron always ionizes first.

As shown in Eq. (4), the NEEC cross-section is dependent on the charge state. Hence, it is crucial to consider the evolution of the charge states for both Ag and Ge nanowire arrays when evaluating the NEEC reaction rate in simulations. The corresponding results are shown in Fig. 6. These indicate the following. For the Ag nanowire array, the leading edge of the laser beam reaches the surface of the nanowires, and the charge state of the most abundant Ag ions gradually increases [Fig. 6(a)]. After about t > 70 fs, very few Ag ions have charge states ≤5, with Ag12+ dominating. There is a similar result for Ge ions, as shown in Fig. 6(b). The charge states around Ge10+ dominate.

FIG. 6.

Profiles of ion number Nionq,t in various charge states q for (a) Ag and (b) Ge at different times t. The color shading indicates log10Nionq,t, with units of q−1 fs−1 J−1.

FIG. 6.

Profiles of ion number Nionq,t in various charge states q for (a) Ag and (b) Ge at different times t. The color shading indicates log10Nionq,t, with units of q−1 fs−1 J−1.

Close modal

The isomers produced by CE can be obtained by utilizing the output of the PIC simulation with the help of Eq. (3). Specifically, in the case of the CE mechanism, the cross-section of the T031 process depends strongly on the electron energy, as demonstrated in Fig. 7(a). For example, in the case of 107Ag, the cross-section (magenta line) increases rapidly above the energy threshold for the reaction. The energy threshold Eth for the T031 reaction is the energy of the third level of 107Ag.

FIG. 7.

Representative results from PIC simulations for (a) 107Ag and (b) 73Ge: electron energy spectra dNe/dEe(t) at times t = 50, 100, and 150 fs, CE cross-section σ(Ee), and their product [dNe/dEe(t)]σ(Ee). The products are plotted to delineate the major contributory sources, since the reaction rates are proportional to [dNe/dEe(t)]σ(Ee).

FIG. 7.

Representative results from PIC simulations for (a) 107Ag and (b) 73Ge: electron energy spectra dNe/dEe(t) at times t = 50, 100, and 150 fs, CE cross-section σ(Ee), and their product [dNe/dEe(t)]σ(Ee). The products are plotted to delineate the major contributory sources, since the reaction rates are proportional to [dNe/dEe(t)]σ(Ee).

Close modal

On the other hand, the electron density exhibits an approximately exponential decrease with increasing energy according to ne ∝ exp(−Ee/E01) + exp(−Ee/E02), where E01 and E02 are constants. In a plasma, the number density of high-energy electrons is much lower than that of low-energy electrons.

Equation (3) and the results in Fig. 7(a) suggest that the primary contribution to the final products stems from a relatively small range of energy. In the case of 107Ag, this energy range is approximately [Eth, 3.5] MeV, which can be observed in Fig. 7(a). Similar results can be found for 73Ge [Fig. 7(b)].

In this study, we have considered nanowire lengths L and substrate thicknesses d in the ranges L = 5–15 μm and d = 0–2 μm. However, in the simulations, the nanowire length is 10 μm and the substrate thickness is 2 μm, unless stated otherwise. Other parameters such as the wire diameter D = 200 nm and the distance between wires S = 450 nm have been kept constant.

Figure 8 shows the CE production rates of the isomers 73mGe and 107mAg. 73mGe@T01 denotes the rate at which 73Ge directly produces 73m1Ge via CE from GS → First, and 73mGe@T031 denotes the rate at which 73Ge indirectly produces 73m1Ge via CE from GS → Third → First. The first peak in Fig. 8, occurring at ∼35 fs, corresponds to the moment at which the Gaussian-shaped laser completely penetrates the nanowire array. The second peak, around 90 fs, marks the instant when the laser makes contact with the substrate of the array. There are additional peaks at 170, 270, and 380 fs, which appear to exhibit a periodic trend. These peaks may be related to the phenomenon of plasma wave echoing within the targets. The isomer 73m1Ge (E1 = 13.3 keV, T1/2 = 2.91 µs) is produced via CE through the T01 and T031 processes at peak efficiencies of 6.3 × 1018 particles s−1 J−1 and 3.3 × 1018 particles s−1 J−1, respectively. The total rate of production of 73m1Ge via CE is about 1.0 × 1019 particles s−1 J−1 through the T01 and T031 processes. The isomer 107m1Ag (E1 = 93.1 keV, T1/2 = 44.3 s) is produced via CE through the T031 process with a peak efficiency of 2.95 × 1016 particles s−1 J−1.

FIG. 8.

Production rates, normalized to laser energy, of 107Ag and 73Ge isomers through CE.

FIG. 8.

Production rates, normalized to laser energy, of 107Ag and 73Ge isomers through CE.

Close modal

As shown in Eq. (4), NEEC cross-sections depend on the charge state. Figure 9 shows the resonance strengths Sq,αrNEECσq,αrNEEC(Ee)dEe for both 107Ag and 73Ge. A notable observation is the strong dependence of the NEEC resonance strength on the capturing subshell. In the case of 107Ag, Sq,αrNEEC is relatively large, 1011 b eV, when the capturing subshell is L3(q = 41+) or K(q = 47+). For 73Ge, the maximum Sq,αrNEEC5×104 b eV occurs when the capturing subshell is L3(q = 26+). Therefore, we disregard 107Ag with its lower reaction cross-section and focus solely on calculating the NEEC reaction rate of 73Ge.

FIG. 9.

NEEC resonance strength SNEEC-GSA(Er, q) as a function of charge state q and resonance energy Er for for (a) 107mAg and (b) 73mGe.

FIG. 9.

NEEC resonance strength SNEEC-GSA(Er, q) as a function of charge state q and resonance energy Er for for (a) 107mAg and (b) 73mGe.

Close modal

Taking the PIC simulation results and using Eq. (6), we can calculate the production rates by NEEC. Figure 10 shows the production rates of the isomer 73mGe by NEEC for ions in different charge states and at different times. 73mGe (E1 = 13.3 keV, T1/2 = 2.91 µs) is produced at a peak efficiency of 1.65 × 1011 particles s−1 J−1 via NEEC, compared with 1.0 × 1019 particles s−1 J−1 via CE. Therefore, distinguishing between production by NEEC and that by CE would be a very difficult task. However, considering that CE requires high-energy electrons, while NEEC involves much lower-energy electrons, the use of lower-intensity lasers to provide a large number of low-energy electrons and fewer high-energy electrons could potentially enhance the ratio r = NNEEC/NCE and thus create opportunities to observe the effects of NEEC.

FIG. 10.

(a) Production rate rq(t) of 73mGe by NEEC as a function of time t for different ion charge states q. (b) Total rq(t), given by rtotal(t) = ∑qrq(t).

FIG. 10.

(a) Production rate rq(t) of 73mGe by NEEC as a function of time t for different ion charge states q. (b) Total rq(t), given by rtotal(t) = ∑qrq(t).

Close modal

We have conducted numerical simulations of nuclear isomer production by CE and NEEC in nanowire targets under femtosecond laser irradiation. In particular, we have focused on the production of isomers in the first excited states 73m1Ge (E1 = 13.3 keV, T1/2 = 2.91 µs) and 107m1Ag (E1 = 93.1 keV, T1/2 = 44.3 s). Our results reveal that for 73m1Ge, CE contributes a peak efficiency of 1.0 × 1019 particles s−1 J−1, while, under the same setup, NEEC contributes a peak efficiency of 1.65 × 1011 particles s−1 J−1. Despite the relatively low isomer production ratio between NEEC and CE, the laser-driven method still holds potential for confirming the existence of the NEEC mechanism, which has been studied for over 50 years, but has yet to be experimentally confirmed. The high efficiency of production by CE can be attributed to the high ion density and the high electron energy. The electrons are accelerated through nonlinear resonant interactions during the duration of the laser pulses. The combination of high efficiency, femtosecond timescale, and relatively easy production of short-lived nuclear isomers makes this approach highly favorable for investigating nuclear transition mechanisms and exploring the potential applications of nuclear γ-ray lasers.

This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (NKPs) (Grant No. 2023YFA1606900) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant No. 12235003. The computations in this study were performed using the CFFF platform of Fudan University.

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Zhiguo Ma: Data curation (equal); Investigation (equal); Software (equal); Writing – original draft (equal). Yumiao Wang: Methodology (equal). Yi Yang: Methodology (equal). Youjing Wang: Software (equal). Kai Zhao: Software (equal). Yixin Li: Investigation (equal); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Changbo Fu: Conceptualization (equal); Funding acquisition (equal); Investigation (equal); Methodology (equal); Project administration (equal); Resources (equal); Writing – original draft (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Wanbing He: Conceptualization (equal); Methodology (equal); Resources (equal). Yugang Ma: Conceptualization (equal); Funding acquisition (equal); Project administration (equal); Resources (equal).

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

1.
K. W. D.
Ledingham
,
P.
McKenna
, and
R. P.
Singhal
, “
Applications for nuclear phenomena generated by ultra-intense lasers
,”
Science
300
,
1107
1111
(
2003
).
2.
Y. I.
Salamin
,
S. X.
Hu
,
K. Z.
Hatsagortsyan
, and
C. H.
Keitel
, “
Relativistic high-power laser–matter interactions
,”
Phys. Rep.
427
,
41
155
(
2006
).
3.
D.
Strickland
and
G.
Mourou
, “
Compression of amplified chirped optical pulses
,”
Opt. Commun.
55
,
447
449
(
1985
).
4.
J. W.
Yoon
,
Y. G.
Kim
,
I. W.
Choi
et al, “
Realization of laser intensity over 1023 W/cm2
,”
Optica
8
,
630
635
(
2021
).
5.
X.
Wang
,
X.
Liu
,
X.
Lu
et al, “
13.4 fs, 0.1 Hz OPCPA front end for the 100 PW-class laser facility
,”
Ultrafast Sci.
2022
,
9894358
.
6.
L. L.
Ji
,
J.
Snyder
, and
B. F.
Shen
, “
Single-pulse laser-electron collision within a micro-channel plasma target
,”
Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion
61
,
065019
(
2019
).
7.
Y.
Wu
,
L.
Ji
, and
R.
Li
, “
On the upper limit of laser intensity attainable in nonideal vacuum
,”
Photonics Res.
9
,
541
547
(
2021
).
8.
B. A.
Remington
,
D.
Arnett
,
R. P.
Drake
, and
H.
Takabe
, “
Modeling astrophysical phenomena in the laboratory with intense lasers
,”
Science
284
,
1488
1493
(
1999
).
9.
F.
Gobet
,
C.
Plaisir
,
F.
Hannachi
et al, “
Nuclear physics studies using high energy lasers
,”
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A
653
,
80
83
(
2011
).
10.
C.
Fu
,
G.
Zhang
, and
Y.
Ma
, “
New opportunities for nuclear and atomic physics on the femto- to nanometer scale with ultra-high-intensity lasers
,”
Matter Radiat. Extremes
7
,
024201
(
2022
).
11.
J.
Feng
,
Y.
Li
,
J.
Tan
et al, “
Laser plasma-accelerated ultra-intense electron beam for efficiently exciting nuclear isomers
,”
Laser Photonics Rev.
17
,
2300514
(
2023
).
12.
J.
Feng
,
W.
Wang
,
C.
Fu
et al, “
Femtosecond pumping of nuclear isomeric states by the Coulomb collision of ions with quivering electrons
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
128
,
052501
(
2022
).
13.
W.
Wang
,
J.
Zhou
,
B.
Liu
, and
X.
Wang
, “
Exciting the isomeric 229Th nuclear state via laser-driven electron recollision
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
127
,
052501
(
2021
).
14.
W. T.
Pan
,
T.
Song
,
H.-Y.
Lan
et al, “
Photo-excitation production of medically interesting isomers using intense γ-ray sourcepan
,”
Appl. Radiat. Isot.
168
,
109534
(
2021
).
15.
H. Y.
Lan
,
D.
Wu
,
J. X.
Liu
et al, “
Photonuclear production of nuclear isomers using bremsstrahlung induced by laser-wakefield electrons
,”
Nucl. Sci. Tech.
34
,
74
(
2023
).
16.
J.
Zhang
,
W.
Qi
,
W.
Fan
et al, “
Study of the isomeric yield ratio in the photoneutron reaction of natural holmium induced by laser-accelerated electron beams
,”
Front. Astron. Space Sci.
10
,
1265919
(
2023
).
17.
W.
Fan
,
W.
Qi
,
J.
Zhang
et al, “
Efficient production of the nuclear isomer 93mMo with laser-accelerated proton beam and its astrophysical implication on 92Mo production
,”
Phys. Rev. Res.
5
,
043120
(
2023
).
18.
P.
Walker
and
G.
Dracoulis
, “
Energy traps in atomic nuclei
,”
Nature
399
,
35
40
(
1999
).
19.
J. J.
Carroll
, “
Nuclear structure and the search for induced energy release from isomers
,”
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B
261
,
960
964
(
2007
).
20.
E. V.
Tkalya
, “
Proposal for a nuclear gamma-ray laser of optical range
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
106
,
162501
(
2011
).
21.
B.
Seiferle
,
L.
von der Wense
,
P. V.
Bilous
et al, “
Energy of the 229Th nuclear clock transition
,”
Nature
573
,
243
246
(
2019
).
22.
L.
von der Wense
and
B.
Seiferle
, “
The 229Th isomer: Prospects for a nuclear optical clock
,”
Eur. Phys. J. A
56
,
277
(
2020
).
23.
K.
Beeks
,
T.
Sikorsky
,
T.
Schumm
et al, “
The thorium-229 low-energy isomer and the nuclear clock
,”
Nat. Rev. Phys.
3
,
238
248
(
2021
).
24.
D.
Belic
,
C.
Arlandini
,
J.
Besserer
et al, “
Photoactivation of 180Tam and its implications for the nucleosynthesis of nature’s rarest naturally occurring isotope
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
83
,
5242
(
1999
).
25.
Y.-B.
Xu
,
H.-J.
Ding
,
S.-D.
Zhang
et al, “
Observation of 186mTa
,”
Nucl. Sci. Tech.
17
,
16
20
(
2006
).
26.
G.
Gosselin
,
P.
Morel
, and
P.
Mohr
, “
Modification of nuclear transitions in stellar plasma by electronic processes: K isomers in 176Lu and 180Ta under s-process conditions
,”
Phys. Rev. C
81
,
055808
(
2010
).
27.
G. W.
Misch
,
S. K.
Ghorui
,
P.
Banerjee
,
Y.
Sun
, and
M. R.
Mumpower
, “
Astromers: Nuclear isomers in astrophysics
,”
Astrophys. J., Suppl. Ser.
252
(
1
),
2
(
2020
).
28.
J.
Derouillat
,
A.
Beck
,
F.
Pérez
et al, “
Smilei: A collaborative, open-source, multi-purpose particle-in-cell code for plasma simulation
,”
Comput. Phys. Commun.
222
,
351
373
(
2018
).
29.
Z.
Ma
,
C.
Fu
,
W.
He
, and
Y.
Ma
, “
Manipulation of nuclear isomers with lasers: Mechanisms and prospects
,”
Sci. Bull.
67
,
1526
1529
(
2022
).
30.
M. R.
Harston
and
J. F.
Chemin
, “
Mechanisms of nuclear excitation in plasmas
,”
Phys. Rev. C
59
,
2462
(
1999
).
31.
S.
Kishimoto
,
Y.
Yoda
,
M.
Seto
,
Y.
Kobayashi
,
S.
Kitao
,
R.
Haruki
,
T.
Kawauchi
,
K.
Fukutani
, and
T.
Okano
, “
Observation of nuclear excitation by electron transition in 197Au with synchrotron X rays and an avalanche photodiode
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
85
,
1831
1834
(
2000
).
32.
I.
Izosimov
, “
Role of autoionization states in nuclear excitation and triggering by an electron transition (NEET)
,”
J. Nucl. Sci. Technol.
45
,
1
5
(
2008
).
33.
C. J.
Chiara
,
J. J.
Carroll
,
M. P.
Carpenter
et al, “
Isomer depletion as experimental evidence of nuclear excitation by electron capture
,”
Nature
554
,
216
218
(
2018
).
34.
Y.
Wu
,
C. H.
Keitel
, and
A.
Pálffy
, “
93mMo isomer depletion via beam-based nuclear excitation by electron capture
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
122
,
212501
(
2019
).
35.
S.
Guo
,
B.
Ding
,
X. H.
Zhou
et al, “
Probing 93mMo isomer depletion with an isomer beam
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
128
,
242502
(
2022
).
36.
N.-Q.
Cai
,
G.-Q.
Zhang
,
C.-B.
Fu
, and
Y.-G.
Ma
, “
Populating 229mTh via two-photon electronic bridge mechanism
,”
Nucl. Sci. Tech.
32
,
59
(
2021
).
37.
Y.
Wu
,
J.
Gunst
,
C. H.
Keitel
, and
A.
Pálffy
, “
Tailoring laser-generated plasmas for efficient nuclear excitation by electron capture
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
120
,
052504
(
2018
).
38.
J.
Gunst
,
Y.
Wu
,
C. H.
Keitel
, and
A.
Pálffy
, “
Nuclear excitation by electron capture in optical-laser-generated plasmas
,”
Phys. Rev. E
97
,
063205
(
2018
).
39.
V. I.
Goldanskii
and
V. A.
Namiot
, “
On the excitation of isomeric nuclear levels by laser radiation through inverse internal electron conversion
,”
Phys. Lett. B
62
,
393
394
(
1976
).
40.
A.
Pálffy
,
J.
Evers
, and
C. H.
Keitel
, “
Isomer triggering via nuclear excitation by electron capture
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
99
,
172502
(
2007
).
41.
S.
Helmrich
,
K.
Spenneberg
, and
A.
Pálffy
, “
Coupling highly excited nuclei to the atomic shell in dense astrophysical plasmas
,”
Phys. Rev. C
90
,
015802
(
2014
).
42.
G.
Gosselin
,
V.
Méot
, and
P.
Morel
, “
Modified nuclear level lifetime in hot dense plasmas
,”
Phys. Rev. C
76
,
044611
(
2007
).
43.
G.
Gosselin
and
P.
Morel
, “
Enhanced nuclear level decay in hot dense plasmas
,”
Phys. Rev. C
70
,
064603
(
2004
).
44.
K.
Alder
,
A.
Bohr
,
T.
Huus
,
B.
Mottelson
, and
A.
Winther
, “
Study of nuclear structure by electromagnetic excitation with accelerated ions
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
28
,
432
542
(
1956
).
45.
C.
Bertulani
, “
Theory and applications of Coulomb excitation
,” arXiv:0908.4307 (
2009
).
46.
S.
Gargiulo
,
I.
Madan
, and
F.
Carbone
, “
Nuclear excitation by electron capture in excited ions
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
128
,
212502
(
2022
).
47.
S.
Kimura
and
A.
Bonasera
, “
Deuteron-induced reactions generated by intense lasers for PET isotope production
,”
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A
637
,
164
170
(
2011
).
48.
M. R. D.
Rodrigues
,
A.
Bonasera
,
M.
Scisciò
et al, “
Radioisotope production using lasers: From basic science to applications
,”
Matter Radiat. Extremes
9
,
037203
(
2024
).
49.
D.
Kong
,
G.
Zhang
,
Y.
Shou
et al, “
High-energy-density plasma in femtosecond-laser-irradiated nanowire-array targets for nuclear reactions
,”
Matter Radiat. Extremes
7
,
064403
(
2022
).
50.
L.-Q.
Zhang
,
S.-D.
Wu
,
H.-R.
Huang
et al, “
Brilliant attosecond γ-ray emission and high-yield positron production from intense laser-irradiated nano-micro array
,”
Phys. Plasmas
28
,
023110
(
2021
).
51.
A.
Curtis
,
C.
Calvi
,
J.
Tinsley
,
R.
Hollinger
,
V.
Kaymak
,
A.
Pukhov
,
S.
Wang
,
A.
Rockwood
,
Y.
Wang
,
V. N.
Shlyaptsev
, and
J. J.
Rocca
, “
Micro-scale fusion in dense relativistic nanowire array plasmas
,”
Nat. Commun.
9
,
1077
(
2018
).
52.
H.
Schwoerer
,
S.
Pfotenhauer
,
O.
Jäckel
et al, “
Laser-plasma acceleration of quasi-monoenergetic protons from microstructured targets
,”
Nature
439
,
445
448
(
2006
).
53.
T. Y.
Xia
,
L. S.
Zhang
,
P. J.
Wang
, and
Y.
Fang
, “
Synthesis of highly ordered silver nanowire arrays with SERS activity
,”
Adv. Mater. Res.
535–537
,
368
371
(
2012
).
54.
M. V.
Ammosov
,
N. B.
Delone
, and
V. P.
Krainov
, “
Tunnel ionization of complex atoms and of atomic ions in an alternating electromagnetic field
,”
Sov. Phys. JETP
64
,
1191
(
1986
).
55.
S.
Jiang
,
L. L.
Ji
,
H.
Audesirk
et al, “
Microengineering laser plasma interactions at relativistic intensities
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
116
,
085002
(
2016
).
56.
A.
Pukhov
,
Z.-M.
Sheng
, and
J.
Meyer-ter Vehn
, “
Particle acceleration in relativistic laser channels
,”
Phys. Plasmas
6
,
2847
2854
(
1999
).