Talk:Attosecond physics
Add topic | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Very nice work and interesting topic!--Margalb (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I really appreciate this article because I work on the mathematical aspect of quantum mechanics and it helps me to understand how important the time scale is in quantum physics. By the way, the term "adiabatic approximation" comes to my mind, but I do not know whether it is related to attosecond physics. --Zheeeng (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
A very comprehensive and well-structured article! Thank you for your contribution!--HybridCFD (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Observations and suggestions for improvements
[edit]The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following expert review of the article within the Science, Tecnology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in June 2021.
I find the page greatly improved since the last version. I have the following comments:
- The section title ""Weak Attosecond pulse-strong-IR-fields-atoms interactions"" is quite difficult to read. Maybe it would be better to avoid long and complex adjectives. Since the section is all about photo-ionization by attosecond radiation, what about “attosecond ionization of atoms in weak IR fields”.
- The definition “infrared (IR)” appears multiple times in the page.
- The section ""attosecond techniques"" seems to be incomplete. In general, there is a strong focus on photoionization techniques, while all-optical techniques are only briefly mentioned and HHG spectroscopy (still attosecond) is missing. To have a better balanced description will help to be more representative.
sorry i didnt want to make an account
[edit]Just made "ionization tunneling" link to the tunnel ionization page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_ionization) instead of the ionization page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization)
I'm not a physicist but it seemed like we already had a more accurate page to link to, if I'm wrong pls revert & ban me idrc 65.144.169.43 (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent finding!--ReyHahn (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Light Pulse Duration WR
[edit]I found this article (https://phys.org/news/2025-12-shortest-pulse-captures-ultrafast-electron.html) that says that there was a 19.2 attosecond laser pulse but the article says 43 attosecond. Is the article's claim substantiated? ~2026-41670-5 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)