Loading…

Dialogue on analytical and ab initio methods in attoscience

The perceived dichotomy between analytical and ab initio approaches to theory in attosecond science is often seen as a source of tension and misconceptions. This Topical Review compiles the discussions held during a round-table panel at the ‘Quantum Battles in Attoscience’ cecam virtual workshop, to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The European physical journal. D, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics Atomic, molecular, and optical physics, 2021, Vol.75 (7), p.209-209, Article 209
Main Authors: Armstrong, Gregory S. J., Khokhlova, Margarita A., Labeye, Marie, Maxwell, Andrew S., Pisanty, Emilio, Ruberti, Marco
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The perceived dichotomy between analytical and ab initio approaches to theory in attosecond science is often seen as a source of tension and misconceptions. This Topical Review compiles the discussions held during a round-table panel at the ‘Quantum Battles in Attoscience’ cecam virtual workshop, to explore the sources of tension and attempt to dispel them. We survey the main theoretical tools of attoscience—covering both analytical and numerical methods—and we examine common misconceptions, including the relationship between ab initio approaches and the broader numerical methods, as well as the role of numerical methods in ‘analytical’ techniques. We also evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of analytical as well as numerical and ab initio methods, together with their role in scientific discovery, told through the case studies of two representative attosecond processes: non-sequential double ionisation and resonant high-harmonic generation. We present the discussion in the form of a dialogue between two hypothetical theoreticians, a numericist and an analytician, who introduce and challenge the broader opinions expressed in the attoscience community.
ISSN:1434-6060
1434-6079
DOI:10.1140/epjd/s10053-021-00207-3