TY - JOUR
T1 - Comment on "nonlinear quantum effects in electromagnetic radiation of a vortex electron"
AU - Karnieli, Aviv
AU - Remez, Roei
AU - Kaminer, Ido
AU - Arie, Ady
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Physical Society.
PY - 2022/3
Y1 - 2022/3
N2 - This comment on the paper by Karlovets and Pupasov-Maksimov [Phys. Rev. A 103, 012214 (2021)10.1103/PhysRevA.103.012214] addresses their criticism of the combined experimental and theoretical study by Remez et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 060401 (2019)10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.060401]. We show, by means of simple optical arguments as well as numerical simulations, that the arguments raised by Karlovets and Pupasov-Maksimov do not hold in the experimental regime reported by Remez et al. Further, we discuss a clarification for the theoretical derivations presented by Karlovets and Pupasov-Maksimov, as they hold only when the final state of the emitting electron is observed in coincidence with the emitted photon. Although this scenario is feasible and may stimulate new experimental regimes that do correspond to the predictions reported by Karlovets and Pupasov-Maksimov, it is not the common scenario in cathodoluminescence, where only the light is measured. Upon lifting the concerns regarding the experimental regime reported by Remez et al., and explicitly clarifying the electron postselection, we believe that the paper by Karlovets and Pupasov-Maksimov may constitute a valuable contribution to the problem of spontaneous emission by shaped electron wave functions, as it presents new expressions for the emission rates beyond the ubiquitous paraxial approximation.
AB - This comment on the paper by Karlovets and Pupasov-Maksimov [Phys. Rev. A 103, 012214 (2021)10.1103/PhysRevA.103.012214] addresses their criticism of the combined experimental and theoretical study by Remez et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 060401 (2019)10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.060401]. We show, by means of simple optical arguments as well as numerical simulations, that the arguments raised by Karlovets and Pupasov-Maksimov do not hold in the experimental regime reported by Remez et al. Further, we discuss a clarification for the theoretical derivations presented by Karlovets and Pupasov-Maksimov, as they hold only when the final state of the emitting electron is observed in coincidence with the emitted photon. Although this scenario is feasible and may stimulate new experimental regimes that do correspond to the predictions reported by Karlovets and Pupasov-Maksimov, it is not the common scenario in cathodoluminescence, where only the light is measured. Upon lifting the concerns regarding the experimental regime reported by Remez et al., and explicitly clarifying the electron postselection, we believe that the paper by Karlovets and Pupasov-Maksimov may constitute a valuable contribution to the problem of spontaneous emission by shaped electron wave functions, as it presents new expressions for the emission rates beyond the ubiquitous paraxial approximation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126480141&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.036202
DO - 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.036202
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:85126480141
SN - 2469-9926
VL - 105
JO - Physical Review A
JF - Physical Review A
IS - 3
M1 - 036202
ER -