We present a numerical study on the electron and ion density perturbation in low-temperature plasmas driven by the frequency detuning of two intense laser beams. Our study is performed in the hydrodynamic regime, which becomes applicable when the plasma grating period induced by the beating of the laser beams is greater than the Debye length and collective processes such as plasma oscillations can be excited. Our findings show a resonance in electron density perturbation as the frequency detuning approaches a value consistent with the Bohm–Gross dispersion relation in low- and high-pressure plasmas. We discuss the potential of this resonance as a diagnostic tool for precisely measuring electron temperature and density in low-temperature plasmas through coherent scattering.

The characterization of thermodynamic properties of low-temperature plasmas (LTPs) such as the temperature of electrons (Te), ions (Ti), and neutrals (T) and their density (ne, ni, and N, respectively) is crucial for a wide array of applications, including surface cleaning, etching, thin film deposition, aerospace propulsion, and biomedical and environmental applications.1–6 Nowadays, a great variety of plasma diagnostic methods exist for determining these plasma parameters; the selection of an appropriate diagnostic method varies and greatly depends on factors such as the specific properties of the plasma being studied or the desired parameters to be measured. However, state-of-the-art diagnostics often come with limitations, such as perturbing the plasma state they aim to observe or being restricted by specific operating conditions. For example, Langmuir probes are introduced into the plasma, being in direct contact with it and thus perturbing it. Additionally, mechanical probes can only be applied at the edge of the plasma since they cannot withstand the high temperatures at their core, and thus spatially resolved measurements across the whole plasma extent are not possible. In contrast, laser-based, non-intrusive diagnostics can probe plasma properties with minimal disruption while they require limited assumptions to be made for the plasma state. From an experimental perspective, one of the main challenges of these non-intrusive diagnostics is the coupling of plasma radiation with background noise. In many instances, to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), it is necessary to collect photons over multiple laser pulses;7–9 thus, these measurements have the inherent assumption that the plasma conditions remain exactly the same on a shot-to-shot basis. A single laser shot acquisition approach alleviates this assumption and enables measurements in highly transient plasmas.

In this Letter, a novel non-intrusive diagnostic approach to measure electron temperature and density in LTPs is proposed. This approach consists in observing the scattering of a laser beam from Langmuir density perturbation waves driven by ponderomotive forces, which arise from the interaction and beating of two laser beams within the plasma. Ponderomotive forces in optical lattices have been already discussed by Pan et al. to probe plasmas,10 although the focus there was on the translational neutral temperature rather than electron temperature. We anticipate significant enhancement in the scattered signal as the frequency detuning approaches a frequency difference given by the Bohm–Gross dispersion relation,11 indicating a resonance with an excited Langmuir wave.12 

Two intense laser beams, linearly polarized, crossing at an angle θ in a quasi-neutral weakly ionized plasma are considered; they are termed as pumps. The laser fields are represented by the real part of the complex function E1,2(r,z,t)=12E01,02(r)expi(k1,2zω1,2t)y+c.c. E01=E02=E(r) is the amplitude of the electric fields, and y is the unit vector along the direction of polarization. When k01=ω01/c is the wave number in free space, k1=k01(1ωpe2/ω12)12 is the wave number in plasma. Here, ωpe=(n0e2meε0)12 is the electron plasma frequency, n0 is the unperturbed plasma density, me is the electron mass, e is the unit electric charge, and ε0 is the vacuum electric permittivity. The resulting electric field E(z,t)=E1(z,t)+E2(z,t), which has a beat frequency Δf=(2π)1(ω1ω2) and a wave vector Δk=k1k2, ultimately induces a plasma grating in the medium driven by ponderomotive forces. The grating period is determined by the crossing angle of the laser beams and is given by d=λ2sin(θ/2), where λ is the pump laser wavelength. It is assumed that the interfering electric field produces no additional ionization (with intensities I01×1015 W/m2 for a wavelength of 1064 nm), and only interacts with plasma constituents through the ponderomotive potentials, given by
(1)
(2)
respectively. Here, αeff is the effective polarizability13 of neutrals and ions, and qe,i and me,i represent the electric charge and mass of electrons and ions, respectively. Both potentials, propagate at the same phase velocity vp=ΔωΔk, interacting only with species with velocities close to vp. The ponderomotive forces associated with these potentials are given by Fd=ϕd and Fp=ϕp; here, Fd is referred to as the dipole force while Fp as the ponderomotive force. Under the action of these ponderomotive forces, the particles minimize their potential energy by moving translationally to low or high electric field locations depending on the potential sign. From Eqs. (1) and (2), it follows that the dipole force pushes neutrals and ions to high-electric field regions, whereas the ponderomotive force moves electrons and ions to low-electric field locations. As soon as ions and electrons start to be displaced to different locations by the two ponderomotive forces, the resulting charge separation induces a self-consistent electric field E=ϕ that slows down the movement of electrons and drags the ions.

The density perturbation on electrons and ions caused by the beating of the laser beams is studied in the hydrodynamic regime, i.e., when the grating period is larger than the Debye length given by λD=ε0kBTen0e2 and collective processes such as plasma oscillations manifest Jackson. In the opposite case, i.e., at low-pressure plasmas with a grating period shorter than the Debye length, the density perturbation must be studied in the kinetic regime by solving the electron Boltzmann equation with the Bhatnagar–Gross–Krook approximation.14 Scattering from this collective periodic perturbation is referred to as coherent Thomson scattering (CTS).16 

The radial motion of electrons and ions can be neglected since the axial ponderomotive forces are much larger than the radial ponderomotive forces for Gaussian beam profiles with beam width r0. The radial ponderomotive forces become significant when Δk=4πλsin(θ2)12r0, which is not the case for laser beams with radii r0(100200)μm. Therefore, assuming laser beams with relatively large radii, the density perturbation on electrons and ions is modeled only along the axial direction (z-axis) with constant amplitudes E(r)=E0.

The perturbation along the axial direction induced by the beating of the laser fields on the density of electrons and ions is modeled by the two-fluid [Eqs. (3)–(6)] and Poisson [Eq. (7)] equations. On ions, the ponderomotive force has been neglected, since the dipole force acting on them is stronger by a factor of αeffmiω1ω2q2 (916 in the case considered here, which is for argon).
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
The first term on the right-hand side (RHS) of Eqs. (3) and (5) are the ponderomotive and dipole forces, respectively. The second term is the Coulomb force due to the self-induced electric field. The equation of state for electrons and ions is given by P=γnkBTe,i, where kB is the Boltzmann constant, Te,i is the temperature, and γ is the ratio of specific heat.17 Additionally, νen and νin are the collision frequencies of electrons and ions with background neutrals, respectively. The collision frequency of a charged particle s with a neutral is given by ν=N0σn|skBTsms, where σn|s is the collision cross section and N0 is the neutral density.18 Additionally, Coulombian collisions are neglected due to the low ionization degrees considered (104107). Equations (4) and (6) are the continuity equations for electrons and ions, respectively.
Equations (3)–(6) are written as a system of balance laws with time-derivative, flux, and source terms.19 In quasi-linear form,
(8)
where the coefficient matrix A=FU is the Jacobian matrix. For each phase velocity vp=ΔωΔk, the system (8) is solved using a second order accurate Lax Wendroff20 scheme as initial value problem U0(z,t0)=(0n00n0)T. The one-dimensional and periodic ponderomotive potentials allow the use of periodic boundary conditions U(z0,t)=U(zN,t), where zN=5d for the results presented here. The same condition is applied for the self-induced electric field E(z0,t)=E(zN,t).
A gas discharge carried out in an argon gas with pressure P=380 Torr, temperature T=293.15 K, and ionization degree of 5×105 is considered here. Under these parameters, the unperturbed electron and ion number density is n0=6.3×1020 m−3. The electron and ion temperatures are chosen to be Te=1 eV and Ti=0.05 eV, having elastic collision cross sections21 with Ar atoms of σn|e1020 m2 and σn|i1018 m2, respectively. The laser central wavelength λ is 1064 nm, and the crossing angle between the beams is θ=10°. The dipole polarizability for an Ar+ ion was taken as 1.125×1040 (Cm2/V),22 and isothermal compression has been considered (γ=1). In these conditions, the optical lattice period d6.1 μm is 20 times higher than the Debye length λD0.29 μm, thus demonstrating the validity of the hydrodynamic approach followed here. The results of our numerical calculations show that the electron density perturbation is enhanced when the frequency difference is equal to the Bohm–Gross dispersion relation,11 
(9)

Figure 1 shows the maximum electron density perturbation as a function of time for various frequency differences detuning, which is achieved by fine-tuning one laser beam at ω1=ω0+2πΔf and fixing the second one at ω0=2πcλ. The electron density perturbation reaches an oscillating steady state around 0.4 ns, with an average value of 3.33×1017 m−3 at the Bohm–Gross frequency given by Eq. (9) taking a value of Δf0.23 THz for the plasma parameters mentioned above. For the other frequency differences considered, the electron density perturbation reaches an oscillating steady state around 0.13 ns. The induced electron density perturbation is calculated as δne(t)=Max(ne(x,t)n0).

FIG. 1.

Electron density perturbation as a function of time for various frequency differences with an intensity of 1×1013 W/m2.

FIG. 1.

Electron density perturbation as a function of time for various frequency differences with an intensity of 1×1013 W/m2.

Close modal

In Fig. 1, the red curve represents the amplitude of an exited Langmuir wave for a relatively high-pressure low-temperature plasma. In these conditions, the constraint dλD is easily achieved since the Debye length scales as λDTen0, and the main damping mechanism is due to electron–neutral collisions. The numerical simulations show the excitation of Langmuir waves even for λD>d, although several authors have shown that the limit wavelength for a plasma wave is the Debye length.11,12,23,24 Additionally, in both cases, at the long and short wavelengths, the Langmuir wave amplitude remains constant without any indication of wave braking or soliton formation.25–27 

The ion density perturbation is shown in Fig. 2 and reaches an oscillating steady state faster than electrons around 0.2 ns, with an average value of 8.97×1012 m−3 for the Bohm–Gross frequency (0.23 THz). The ion density perturbation reaches an oscillating steady state slower than electrons around 0.3 ns for the other frequency differences considered. Importantly, the ion density perturbation is four orders of magnitude less than electrons due to their heavy mass compared to the electron mass.

FIG. 2.

Ion density perturbation as a function of time for various frequency differences with an intensity of 1×1013 W/m2.

FIG. 2.

Ion density perturbation as a function of time for various frequency differences with an intensity of 1×1013 W/m2.

Close modal

Figure 3 shows the electron density perturbation in the limiting case for a pump wavelength of 1064 nm and a crossing angle of 1°, in which low-pressure plasma sources (ne1016 m3) could be probed with dλD. Here, the Langmuir wave is subject to collisional and Landau damping.15,28 The electron density perturbation is greatly enhanced when the frequency detuning approaches the Bohm–Gross frequency independently of the power density used. By increasing one order of magnitude of the power density, the amplitude of the exited Langmuir wave is also increased by one order of magnitude indicating a linear trend. The maximum of each curve is centered at a frequency provided by the Bohm–Gross dispersion relation, represented by the vertical lines in the figure. For each frequency detuning, the simulation time was 4πωpe1 s, and the electron density perturbation has been calculated as δne=(Max(δne(t))+Min(δne(t)))/2.

FIG. 3.

Electron density perturbation in a logarithmic scale as a function of the frequency detuning for different plasma inputs. The neutral pressure is 1520 Torr.

FIG. 3.

Electron density perturbation in a logarithmic scale as a function of the frequency detuning for different plasma inputs. The neutral pressure is 1520 Torr.

Close modal

Our findings suggest that the resonances shown in Fig. 3 hold potential for plasma diagnostics since the resonance shift directly correlates with the unperturbed electron density and electronic temperature. This correlation is further demonstrated by comparing the three curves in Fig. 3:

  1. With the unperturbed plasma density fixed at n0=4.9×1016 m−3, and electron temperatures of 1 and 1.5 eV considered, a shift toward higher frequency differences is observed (red and blue curves).

  2. When the electron temperature remains fixed at Te=1.5 eV, and unperturbed plasma densities of 4.9×1016 and 6.6×1016 m−3 are examined, the resonance shifts toward a higher frequency detuning (blue and green curves).

Thus far, only the two crossing pump laser beams that induce this density grating have been considered. By introducing a third laser beam, termed the probe, with polarization orthogonal to that of the pumps, we can utilize its scattering from the electron grating for plasma characterization based on the frequency value ΔfMax where the perturbation reaches its maximum value. Moreover, if the probe is scattered at a Bragg angle θB and fulfilling phase matching conditions, the resulting signal is coherent due to constructive interference of scattered waves from a moving electron grating. The coherence of the signal has been demonstrated experimentally with optical lattices in molecular and atomic gases.29–33 The intensity Is of the signal can be estimated as Is=RI3, where R=tanh2(2δnKd/λ3) is the reflection coefficient of the periodic grating with modulation of the refractive index δn1.34  K=L/d is the number of periods of the grating having a length L. I3 and λ3 are the intensity and wavelength of the probe, respectively. The relation between the probe wavelength and the Bragg angle is given by mλ3=2dsin(θB), where m is the diffraction order.35 

In a weakly ionized plasma, the refractive index is influenced by the presence of electrons, ions, and neutrals.36 This modulation can be described in terms of the density perturbations of electrons δne, ions δni, and neutrals δN given by δn=12πε0(α0δN+αiδni)(ωpe/ω3)2(δne)/2n0. Here, ω3 is the angular frequency of the probe, ωpe is the electron plasma frequency, and α0 and αi are the polarizability of neutrals and ions, respectively. Due to the lighter mass of electrons compared to ions and neutrals, their response time is faster, resulting in larger density perturbations on such timescales, as numerically checked (Fig. 2). Additionally, the density perturbation of neutral argon atoms can be neglected, as its perturbation is expected to be comparable to that of ions due to their similar mass. Consequently, the modulation on the refractive index can be mainly attributed to the electron density perturbation δn(ωpe/ω3)2(δne)/2n0. For a small density perturbation and small refractive index modulation, the spectrum of the scattered signal is proportional to the probe intensity, square of the grating length, probe wavelength, and electron density perturbation Is(Lλ3δne)2I3.

It is important to distinguish two cases: (1) γeΔkvtheωpe, which is achievable with a high-pressure plasma source. The electron density can be estimated directly from the frequency value where the signal has its maximum,
(10)

From the resonance value Δf0.23 THz shown in Fig. 1 and using Eq. (10), an electron number density of 6.6×1020 m−3 is obtained with a percentage error of 4% for an unperturbed density of 6.3×1020 m−3. The electron temperature estimation relies on the peak height, which correlates with electron temperature variations. When the electron temperature increases the electron–neutral collision frequency increases, and the amplitude of the Langmuir wave decreases due to collisional damping with neutrals, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Here, the unperturbed plasma density is n0=7.5×1020 m−3 with background neutral densities N0=1.3×1025 m−3. The ion temperature Ti=0.05 eV and crossing angle θ=10° remain constant. Additionally, the grating period lies in between 1025 Debye lengths.

FIG. 4.

Resonant electron density perturbation in a logarithmic scale as a function of temperature. The collision cross section between electrons and background neutrals has been considered constant for this temperature range.

FIG. 4.

Resonant electron density perturbation in a logarithmic scale as a function of temperature. The collision cross section between electrons and background neutrals has been considered constant for this temperature range.

Close modal
(2) γeΔkvtheωpe, achievable with low-pressure plasma sources. The electron temperature can be estimated directly from the frequency value where the signal has its maximum,
(11)

For the resonant frequencies specified in Fig. 3, electron temperatures of 1.08, 1.58, and 1.61 are obtained with percentage errors of 8%,5%, and 7%, respectively. Additionally, the relative electron number density can be estimated from the height of the peaks at the resonance frequency. Increasing the unperturbed plasma density increases the electron density perturbation as shown in Fig. 5. Here, a pressure of 10 Torr has been considered while the ionization degree was varied from 1×107 to 5×107. Electron and ion temperatures are fixed at Te=1 eV and Ti=0.05 eV, respectively. The crossing angle is θ=1° and the grating period lies between ∼1 and 4 Debye lengths. Lower plasma densities require pump wavelengths larger than 1064 nm.

FIG. 5.

Resonant electron density perturbation in a logarithmic scale as a function of unperturbed electron density.

FIG. 5.

Resonant electron density perturbation in a logarithmic scale as a function of unperturbed electron density.

Close modal

We investigated the electron density perturbation within typical parameters of LTPs under the influence of the beating of two laser beams by varying their frequency difference in the hydrodynamic regime, which is valid for a lattice period larger than the Debye length. We have found a noticeable enhancement in the electron density perturbation when the frequency detuning approaches the Bohm–Gross frequency, indicating a resonance with a Langmuir wave. The numerical simulations show resonance with Langmuir waves at low-pressure and high-pressure plasmas and its limits should be tested experimentally. We considered and proposed the applicability of this resonance as a new tool for plasma characterization, by observing the spectrum of a Bragg-scattered signal from electrons trapped in the traveling wave oscillating at the beat angular frequency. The intensity of the scattered signal is ultimately determined by the square of the induced electron density perturbation, which is proportional to the intensity of the pumps, and laser–plasma heating and multiphoton ionization should be considered when using high power densities.37,38 The signal presents its maximum at the Bohm–Gross frequency, and the shift and height of this peak offer the possibility of determining both electron temperature and density.

The main advantage of this approach is the fact that the resulting signal is a coherent laser beam, which in an experimental setup will allow for the detector to be placed at a considerable distance from the measurement point, mitigating any interference from plasma radiation. In contrast with non-coherent optical diagnostics, this is anticipated to enhance the SNR of the measurement by several orders of magnitude. Moreover, if chirped optical lattices33 are utilized, where the frequency detuning is performed in a single laser shot, this diagnostic method would be ideal for characterizing non-stationary and highly transient plasma environments.

Finally, our study suggests the potential for utilizing similar methods to excite various plasma waves, offering further advanced plasma diagnostics methods. For instance, ion–acoustic waves could be excited following the same approach to characterize electron and ion plasma parameters.

G.F.A and A.G. are supported by the Luxembourg National Research Fund 15480342 (FRAGOLA). M.N.S. acknowledges partial support by the Princeton Collaborative Research Facility (PCRF) supported by the U.S. DOE under Contract No. DE-AC02-09CH11466.

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Gabriel M. Flores Alfaro: Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal); Investigation (equal); Writing – original draft (lead); Writing – review & editing (equal). Mikhail N. Shneider: Formal analysis (equal); Funding acquisition (lead); Investigation (equal); Methodology (equal); Supervision (equal); Writing – original draft (supporting); Writing – review & editing (equal). Alexandros Gerakis: Formal analysis (equal); Funding acquisition (lead); Investigation (equal); Project administration (lead); Supervision (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal).

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

1.
P.
Krüger
,
R.
Knes
, and
J.
Friedrich
, “
Surface cleaning by plasma-enhanced desorption of contaminants (PEDC)
,”
Surf. Coat. Technol.
112
,
240
244
(
1999
).
2.
V. M.
Donnelly
and
A.
Kornblit
, “
Plasma etching: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow
,”
J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A
31
,
050825
(
2013
). https://pubs.aip.org/avs/jva/articlepdf/doi/10.1116/1.4819316/15812061/050825_1_online.pdf.
3.
D.
Graves
, “
Plasma processing
,”
IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.
22
,
31
42
(
1994
).
4.
J. C.
Adam
,
J. P.
Boeuf
,
N.
Dubuit
,
M.
Dudeck
,
L.
Garrigues
,
D.
Gresillon
,
A.
Heron
,
G. J. M.
Hagelaar
,
V.
Kulaev
,
N.
Lemoine
,
S.
Mazouffre
,
J. P.
Luna
,
V.
Pisarev
, and
S.
Tsikata
, “
Physics, simulation and diagnostics of hall effect thrusters
,”
Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion
50
,
124041
(
2008
).
5.
G.
Fridman
,
G.
Friedman
,
A.
Gutsol
,
A. B.
Shekhter
,
V. N.
Vasilets
, and
A.
Fridman
, “
Applied plasma medicine
,”
Plasma Processes Polymers
5
,
503
533
(
2008
).
6.
C. A.
Aggelopoulos
, “
Recent advances of cold plasma technology for water and soil remediation: A critical review
,”
Chem. Eng. J.
428
,
131657
(
2022
).
7.
K.
Muraoka
,
K.
Uchino
, and
M. D.
Bowden
, “
Diagnostics of low-density glow discharge plasmas using Thomson scattering
,”
Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion
40
,
1221
(
1998
).
8.
K.
Muraoka
and
A.
Kono
, “
Laser Thomson scattering for low-temperature plasmas
,”
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
44
,
043001
(
2011
).
9.
C.
Jiang
,
J.
Miles
,
J.
Hornef
,
C.
Carter
, and
S.
Adams
, “
Electron densities and temperatures of an atmospheric-pressure nanosecond pulsed helium plasma jet in air
,”
Plasma Sources Sci. Technol.
28
,
085009
(
2019
).
10.
X.
Pan
,
P. F.
Barker
,
A.
Meschanov
,
J.
H. Grinstead
,
M. N.
Shneider
, and
R. B.
Miles
, “
Temperature measurements by coherent Rayleigh scattering
,”
Opt. Lett.
27
(
3
),
161
163
(
2002
).
11.
D.
Bohm
and
E. P.
Gross
, “
Theory of plasma oscillations. A. Origin of medium-like behavior
,”
Phys. Rev.
75
,
1851
1864
(
1949
).
12.
L.
Tonks
and
I.
Langmuir
, “
Oscillations in ionized gases
,”
Phys. Rev.
33
,
195
210
(
1929
).
13.
R.
Boyd
,
Nonlinear Optics, Electronics & Electrical
(
Academic Press
,
2003
).
14.
J. D.
Jackson
, “
Longitudinal plasma oscillations
,”
J. Nucl. Energy. Part C, Plasma Phys. Accel. Thermonucl. Res.
1
,
171
(
1960
).
15.
P. L.
Bhatnagar
,
E. P.
Gross
, and
M.
Krook
, “
A model for collision processes in gases. I. Small amplitude processes in charged and neutral one-component systems
,”
Phys. Rev.
94
,
511
525
(
1954
).
16.
M.
Mokrov
,
M. N.
Shneider
, and
A.
Gerakis
, “
Analysis of coherent Thomson scattering from a low temperature plasma
,”
Phys. Plasmas
29
,
033507
(
2022
). https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/articlepdf/doi/10.1063/5.0072540/16642199/033507_1_online.pdf.
17.
F.
Chen
,
Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion
(
Springer International Publishing
,
2015
).
18.
A.
Richardson
,
2019 NRL Plasma Formulary
(
Naval Research Laboratory
,
2019
).
19.
E.
Toro
,
Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics: A Practical Introduction
(
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
,
2009
).
20.
P.
Lax
and
B.
Wendroff
, “
Systems of conservation laws
,”
Commun. Pure Appl. Math.
13
,
217
237
(
1960
).
21.
M. M.
Becker
,
H.
Kahlert
,
A.
Sun
,
M.
Bonitz
, and
D.
Loffhagen
, “
Advanced fluid modeling and PIC/MCC simulations of low-pressure CCRF discharges
,”
Plasma Sources Sci. Technol.
26
,
044001
(
2017
).
22.
L. E.
Wright
,
E. L.
Snow
,
S. R.
Lundeen
, and
W. G.
Sturrus
, “
Optical spectroscopy of high-L Rydberg states of argon
,”
Phys. Rev. A
75
,
022503
(
2007
).
23.
V. P.
Debye
, “
Zur theorie der electrolyte
,”
Phyikalishce Z.
XXIV
,
185
206
(
1923
).
24.
A.
Vlasov
, “
On the kinetic theory of an assembly of particles with collective interaction
,”
Russ. Phys. J.
9
,
25
40
(
1945
).
25.
T.
Tajima
,
M. V.
Goldman
,
J. N.
Leboeuf
, and
J. M.
Dawson
, “
Breakup and reconstitution of Langmuir wave packets
,”
Phys. Fluids
24
,
182
183
(
1981
). https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pfl/articlepdf/24/1/182/12440447/182_1_online.pdf.
26.
A.
Grassi
,
L.
Fedeli
,
A.
Macchi
, and
F.
Pegoraro
, “
Phase space dynamics after the breaking of a relativistic Langmuir wave in a thermal plasma
,”
Eur. Phys. J. D
68
,
178
(
2014
).
27.
A.
Kakad
and
B.
Kakad
, “
Ponderomotive processes as proxies for breaking of ion acoustic solitary waves
,”
Phys. Plasmas
23
,
122101
(
2016
). https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/articlepdf/doi/10.1063/1.4968842/16007248/122101_1_online.pdf.
28.
L.
Landau
, “
On electronic plasma oscillations
,”
J. Phys. USSR
10
,
25
(
1946
).
29.
J. H.
Grinstead
and
P. F.
Barker
, “
Coherent Rayleigh scattering
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
85
,
1222
1225
(
2000
).
30.
X.
Pan
,
M. N.
Shneider
, and
R. B.
Miles
, “
Coherent Rayleigh-Brillouin scattering
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
89
,
183001
(
2002
).
31.
X.
Pan
,
M. N.
Shneider
, and
R. B.
Miles
, “
Coherent Rayleigh-Brillouin scattering in molecular gases
,”
Phys. Rev. A
69
,
033814
(
2004
).
32.
A.
Gerakis
,
M. N.
Shneider
, and
P. F.
Barker
, “
Coherent Brillouin scattering
,”
Opt. Express
19
,
24046
24054
(
2011
).
33.
A.
Gerakis
,
M. N.
Shneider
, and
P. F.
Barker
, “
Single-shot coherent Rayleigh–Brillouin scattering using a chirped optical lattice
,”
Opt. Lett.
38
,
4449
4452
(
2013
).
34.
A.
Yariv
and
P.
Yeh
,
Optical Waves in Crystals: Propagation and Control of Laser Radiation
(
Wiley
,
1984
).
35.
W. H.
Bragg
and
W. L.
Bragg
, “
The reflection of x-rays by crystals
,”
Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A
88
,
428
438
(
1913
). https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1913.0040.
36.
K. P.
Hinz
, “
Optical diagnostics of sf6 high-current discharges
,”
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
19
,
2381
(
1986
).
37.
H.
Kunze
,
The Laser as a Tool for Plasma Diagnostics
(
North-Holland Publishing Company
,
1968
).
38.
J. P.
Davis
,
A. L.
Smith
,
C.
Giranda
, and
M.
Squicciarini
, “
Laser-induced plasma formation in Xe, Ar, N2, and O2 at the first four Nd:YAG harmonics
,”
Appl. Opt.
30
,
4358
4364
(
1991
).