![Arxiv:1007.4146V3 [Physics.Class-Ph] 14 Oct 2011](http://data.docslib.org/img/c423434a62e5cd925238bc16c91fe40d-1.webp)
arXiv:1007.4146v3 [physics.class-ph] 14 Oct 2011 ∗ † vrcnlaeteipeso htteeaetefun- the are these that how- impression processes the radiation leave named can classical ever on apply. focus solution analytic The an find particle to the required on situa- assumptions motion physical special those rather the of where and tions beaming, a relativistic phenomenology, to as radiation leads such both approach of This semi-) understanding found. greater least be and can (at solution transition, an analytic ra- synchrotron, where named as radiation classical Vavilov-Cherenkov of such and properties processes charge, the accelerated diation derive an to from these radiated use power the the formula as for Larmor such the results intermediate and/or Li´enard-Wiechert to potentials accelerations proceed their relations, tal and charges equations of Maxwell’s distribution 1 from the completely limit and quantum-mechanical described the be outside can scales particle charged at from motion arising radiation Electromagnetic 1 orsodn uhr [email protected] author: corresponding orsodn uhr [email protected] author: corresponding otuiest ore ei ihteefundamen- these with begin courses university Most . urns hc a edsrbdi em fcag accelera time-vary charge from of that terms in and described radiation, be can transition which of currents, accelerati ‘apparent case for the allow also Gin in will see treatment systems, Our non-accelerated [1]. radiating, of review a For eea ecito feetoantcrdainprocess radiation electromagnetic of description General 5 alrhrIsiu ¨rTcnlge ntttf¨ur Exper Institut f¨ur Technologie, Institut Karlsruher 4 alrhrIsiu ¨rTcnlge ntttf¨ur Kernp Institut f¨ur Technologie, Institut Karlsruher atceaclrto,adso o trdcst h classi the to reduces it calcu fr how for show or method and time- our acceleration, the of parti particle generality either for complete in allows the implementation implicitly demonstrate numerical method direct This desc to emission. by ‘endpoin this of or do source events, We arisin acceleration radiation treatment. instantaneous to formula discrete, general, relation completely ‘endpoint in and the literature plete, — the formulation in Our developed particles. charged ASnmes 12.q 16.m 16.p 16.q 41. 41.60.Bq, 41.60.Ap, 41.60.-m, 41.20.-q, numbers: PACS ‘brem coherent radiation. Vavilov-Cherenkov from coherent comes ra than media) (coherent rather dense Effect in Askaryan formula cascades the our particle of particular, component In ultra-high-en a emission from to Moon. inant the emission able and radio immediately atmosphere of are Earth’s phenomenology we the formulation, ing this Using an Vavilov-Cherenkov, limits. of description Tamm’s synchrotron, ragnCnr o srpril hsc,Erwin-Rommel- Physics, Astroparticle for Centre Erlangen epeetanwmtoooyfrcluaigteelectromag the calculating for methodology new a present We .INTRODUCTION I. lnyW James W. Clancy 1 eateto srpyis MP,RdodUiest Nij University Radboud IMAPP, Astrophysics, of Department 3 SRN otu ,N-90A wneo,teNetherlands the Dwingeloo, NL-79900AA 2, Postbus ASTRON, ..o 00 50LNjee,TeNetherlands The Nijmegen, 6500GL 9010, P.O.Box 2 Friedrich-Alexander-Universit¨at Erlangen-N¨urnberg, hreaclrto n‘endpoints’ in acceleration charge ∗ , ,2 1, en Falcke, Heino n.de n,e.g. on’, zburg tion. ing mnel enhsk-Cmu ¨d 62 alrh,Germa Karlsruhe, S¨ud, 76128 Campus - Kernphysik imentelle ,3 1, i Huege Tim n re’ CascladQatmTer fSyner- of Theory Quantum Synchrotron- and gic ex- “Classical Tsai can Schwinger, Erber’s physics instance and fundamental for mechanisms, same exist multiple the plain papers that numerous note Indeed, which ‘synchrotron respectively. radi- and radiation’ ‘transition radiation’, [4]. to ‘Vavilov-Cherenkov referred Medium” have ation’, Dielectric equally a could titles through The Circle a in Traveling h olo hsppri hrfr odvlpanew a develop to which by therefore — is formulation’ ‘endpoint paper the this — methodology of goal The charges”. accelerated from ra- comes “electromagnetic processes diation mantra radiation well-known the of and to basics’ description according to pro- general ‘back what going a by to formulating entirely avoided attribute be to can mechanism cess which of problem l soitdwt ycrto aito nadielectric “ a and in [3], radiation medium” synchrotron with associated old r ewe w ei”[] O the bound- “On the radi- [2], through media” “Synchrotron passing two between particles papers: ary charged following of the consider ation instance, of For titles cases. the idealised slightly classical only how- deviates the confusion situation from to physical classi- a lead when these radiation can even of tendency ever the is combination This there a ascribe processes. to cal focus, to systems this physicists complex of par- from among Because a tendency in type a results field. a which radiation for acceleration ticular short-hand particle really charged are of radiating they whereas electromagnetically systems, of mechanisms damental yi apsNr,701Krsue Germany Karlsruhe, 76021 Nord, Campus - hysik 60.Dk s,wt ahsc vn en rae sa as treated being event such each with ts’, rmpril ceeainuigacom- a using acceleration particle from g rniinrdainudrappropriate under radiation transition d a ae aito rcse uhas such processes radiation named cal l raindsrcin n ssuited is and creation/destruction, cle srhug rmpril acceleration, particle from sstrahlung’ aigterdae edfo charged from field radiated the lating rypril neatosi ohthe both in interactions particle ergy inmksi paetta h dom- the that apparent it makes tion qec-oan.I hsppr we paper, this In equency-domains. t.1 15 ragn Germany Erlangen, 91058 1, Str. iigpril oinvaasre of series a via motion particle ribing se usadn usin regard- questions outstanding nswer i-aerdainfo high-energy from radiation dio-wave in obnsnmru results numerous combines — tion’ † , 4 ei aito rmaccelerated from radiation netic n aineLudwig Marianne and eekvRdain 5.Hwvr the However, [5]. Radiation” Cerenkov ˇ sbsdo instantaneous on based es eekvrdainfo nElectron an from radiation Cerenkov ˇ megen, 5 eekvthresh- Cerenkov ˇ ny 2 the calculation of the radiated fields from accelerated and because we wish to preserve phase information, we particles can be performed completely generally via a proceed below to re-derive the emitted radiation in terms method which is intuitively understandable at an under- of the electric-field in the time- and frequency-domains. graduate level. For generality, our formulation must be By beginning with the Li´enard-Wiechert potentials only, equally suited to that of a simple system allowing an we hope to emphasise the generality of our result. analytic solution as to a complex one requiring a numer- ical solution, and allow not just the calculation of the total radiated power, but also the time- and frequency- A. The Li´enard-Wiechert approach dependent electric field strengths. We thus proceed as follows. In Section II, we begin Electric field components due to particle motion and ac- with expressions for the electric field from the well-known celeration can be readily separated using the Li´enard- Li´enard-Wiechert potentials, and use these to develop Wiechert potentials, which are derived directly from our formulation, which is based on the radiation from Maxwell’s equations in the relativistic case3, and repro- the instantaneous acceleration of a particle from/to rest duced below: (an ‘endpoint’). Given the radiation from a single end- e point, we describe how to use this to calculate the radi- Φ(~x, t) = ation from an arbitrary complex physical situation. In " (1 nβ~ rˆ)R # − · ret Section III, we use the endpoint formulation in specific eβ~ applications to numerically reproduce the well-known re- A~(~x, t) = (1) sults from idealised classical phenomena such as syn- " (1 nβ~ rˆ)# − · ret chrotron and transition radiation, and Tamm’s descrip- where R is the distance from the point of emission to an tion of Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation from finite particle 2 observer,r ˆ a unit vector in the direction of the observer, tracks . Section IV discusses the use and range of ap- ~ plicability of our endpoint formulation. In Section V, β = ~v/c (~v is the velocity vector of the particle), and n we return to the original motivation for this work from is the medium refractive index. The subscript ‘ret’ de- notes evaluation at the retarded time t′ = t nR/c. Us- the point of view of the authors, and demonstrate how − this formulation resolves outstanding questions relating ing Eq. 1, it is possible to calculate the total static and to the calculation of radiation from high-energy particles vector potentials from a distribution of source charges, cascades in the Moon and the Earth’s atmosphere. The by summing the contributions from individual charges in explanations also serve to illustrate how the application the distribution. These can then be used to calculate the of classical radiation emission mechanisms to complex corresponding electric and magnetic fields. This alterna- physical situations has led to incorrect and misunder- tive approach is used for instance by Alvarez-Mu˜niz et al. stood conclusions. in the ‘ZHAireS’ code [6]. In our methodology however, we calculate the electric fields directly, since from the Li´enard-Wiechert potentials, the electric field in a dielec- II. AN ENDPOINT FORMULATION tric, non-magnetic medium due to a particle of charge q (in c.g.s. units) can be expressed (see e.g. Jackson [7]) as follows: We wish to describe electromagnetic radiation in terms of particle acceleration. Rather than writing down a general rˆ nβ~ E~ (~x, t) = q − function for the charged particle distribution and its time "γ2(1 nβ~ rˆ)3R2 # derivatives, and then deriving results for specific cases of − · ret ˙ that charge distribution, here we adopt a ‘bottom-up’ ap- q rˆ [(ˆr nβ~) β~] proach. Thus we begin by describing the radiation from + × − × (2) c " (1 nβ~ rˆ)3R # a simple single radiating unit, that being the instanta- − · ret ˙ neous acceleration of a charged particle either to or from with β~ the time-derivative of β~, and γ the usual relativis- rest, and later we will show how to combine such basic tic factor of (1 β2)−0.5. The first term is the near-field units into more complex physical situations. term, since the− strength of the resulting fields falls as Radiation from an instantaneous particle acceleration is R−2 — in the case of β = 0, it reduces to Coulomb’s known best through Larmor’s formula and its relativistic Law. The second term is the radiation term, with the generalisation, which gives the total power radiated per familiar 1/R dependence. The well-known maxim ‘radi- unit frequency and solid angle. In the interest of clarity, ation comes from accelerated charges’ is seen easily by ˙ the dependence of this term on β~.
2 As will be discussed later, this radiation is of a different nature to that produced by the Frank-Tamm description of ‘true’ Vavilov- Cherenkov radiation arising from the particle motion, and comes 3 For a derivation for n = 1, see e.g. Jackson [7]. Using an arbitrary from the ‘bremsstrahlung’ from the implied acceleration events n produces the result for Eq. 2 from Zas, Halzen, and Stanev [14] — or endpoints — at the ends of each track. in the case where the relative permeability, µr, is unity. 3
In most practical applications, the near-field term A conceptual and mathematical difficulty to overcome is presents only a minor correction to the observed fields. that at the time of acceleration, β, and hence E~±(~x, ν), From here on we formulate our methodology purely from is undefined. This can be dealt with by letting the ac- the radiated field term only. Thus the following expres- celeration last a finite (but small) time interval ∆t′, then ′ ′′ ′ ′ sions for the electric fields will be those arising solely taking the limit as ∆t 0. Writing t = t t0, the from the particle acceleration. The applicability of this acceleration takes place→ over the interval 0 < t−′′ < ∆t′, approximation is discussed in Sec. IV. during which we have β(t′′)= β∗t′′/∆t′, β˙ = β∗/∆t′, and ′′ ′ ∗ ′ ′′2 ˆ R(t )= R(t0) 0.5c(β /∆t )t β rˆ. Thus the frequency- domain integral− becomes: · B. Radiation from an endpoint ′ q 2πiνt0 E~±(~x, ν)= lim e The most simple acceleration event is the instantaneous ± ∆t′→0 c · ′ ′ ′ ∆t 1 2πiν(t′′+nR(t′′)/c) acceleration of a particle at rest at time t = t to a ve- ′ e 0 ∆t rˆ [ˆr β~∗] dt′′ (5) ~ ~∗ ~˙ ~∗ ′ ′ nt′′ ~∗ 2 ′′ locity β = β , i.e. β = β δ(t t ), or equivalently the 0 (1 ′ β rˆ) R(t ) × × − 0 Z − ∆t · deceleration of such a particle from velocity β~ = β~∗ to ˙ This somewhat difficult integral can be greatly simplified rest, i.e. β~ = β~∗δ(t′ t′ ). Such events can be termed, ′ − − 0 by applying the limit ∆t 0, in which case the integral respectively, ‘starting points’ and ‘stopping points’, ‘ac- and limit eventually evaluate→ to the rather simple form: celeration’ and ‘deceleration’, or ‘creation’ and ‘destruc- ′ ′ ikR(t0 ) 2πiνt0 tion’ events. We define the electric field resulting from q e e ∗ E~±(~x, ν) = rˆ [ˆr β~ ] (6) ~ ~˙ ′ ∗ these events as E±, where the acceleration vector β can ± c R(t0) 1 nβ~ rˆ × × be either parallel (+) or anti-parallel ( ) to the velocity − · − vector β~, corresponding respectively to acceleration (at where we have written k =2π/λ =2πνn/c. Recall that a starting point) or deceleration (at a stopping point). the ‘ ’ is positive when the acceleration is parallel to the motion± (acceleration from rest), and negative when the Since β~ changes only in magnitude, we write β~ = ββˆ (βˆ acceleration is anti-parallel to the motion (acceleration ~∗ ∗ ˆ a unit vector), and use similar notation for β = β β and to rest). ˙ the time-derivatives: β~ = β˙βˆ. Thus only the scalar com- ponents will need to be expressed as functions of time. 2. Time-domain derivation We proceed to derive E~± from the RHS of Eq. 3 in terms of the ‘lab-time’ (observer time) t in both the time- and frequency-domains. Similar derivations in both domains For the time-domain derivation, we again consider the in the case of linear particle tracks (effectively two end- radiated component of Eq. 2. We can calculate the time- points — see Sec. III B) appear also in Alvarez-Mu˜niz, integral of the electric field for one starting point or stop- Romero-Wolf, and Zas [8], for the case of “Cerenkovˇ ra- ping point, taking into account the conversion from re- diation”: note that in the following no assumption on the tarded emission time t′ to observer-time t as t = t′ +nR/c nature of the radiation need to be made. and dt = dt′(1 nβ~ rˆ), via: − · ˙ q rˆ [(ˆr nβ~) β~] 1. Frequency-domain derivation E~ (~x, t) dt = × − × dt c ∆t " (1 nβ~ rˆ)3R # Z Z − · ret The expression for the radiated component of the electric ~ ~˙ q rˆ [(ˆr nβ) β] ′ field (from Eq. 2) for the instantaneous particle acceler- = × − × dt c ′ ~ 2 ation described above is: Z∆t (1 nβ rˆ) R ′ − · q t1 d rˆ [ˆr β~] q rˆ [ˆr β~∗δ(t′ t′ )] ′ 0 = ′ × × dt E~±(~x, t) = × × − (3) c ′ dt ~ t0 (1 nβ rˆ)R ! ± c " (1 nβ~ rˆ)3R # Z − · − · ret q rˆ [ˆr β~∗] ~ ~˙ = × × (7) where we have removed the β β term from Eq. 2 since ± c (1 nβ~∗ rˆ)R ! ˙ × β~ β~. We begin the frequency-domain derivation by − · takingk the Fourier-transform of Eq. 3 converted to the Here, ∆t = t1 t0 denotes the observer-time window − ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ~ corresponding to the retarded-time window ∆t = t1 retarded time t using t = t + Rn/c and dt = dt (1 nβ ′ − rˆ): − · t0, which encompasses the acceleration process. For a starting point (+ sign), the particle is at rest at the time 2πiνt t′ and has velocity β~∗ at t′ . The opposite is the case for E~±(~x, ν) dt E~±(~x, t) e 0 1 ≡ a stopping point ( sign). Z − ′ Since the acceleration is instantaneous, the distance R = dt′ E~ (~x, t(t′))(1 nβ~ rˆ) e2πiν(t +Rn/c). (4) acc ± − · from the particle to the observer at the acceleration time Z 4 is constant, and the time tacc at which an observer would becomes: ′ ′ view the radiation emitted at time tacc is given by tacc = ikR ∗ 2πiνt0 ′ q e β sin θ e t + nRacc/c. The time window ∆t = t1 t0 in Eq. 7 E~ (~x, ν) = Eˆ (9) acc − ± ± c R 1 nβ∗ cos θ ± is therefore chosen to satisfy t0
-14 (a) 10-14 (b) 10 Acceleration to γ = 100 Acceleration to γ = 100 10-15 γ = 10 γ = 10 -15 γ = 2 10-16 γ = 2 10 γ γ = 1.01 -17 = 1.01 10 -18 10-16 10 10-19 10-17 -10-19 -18 10-18 -10 -10-17 -19 -16 10 Electric field strength at 1 m (V/m/Hz) -10 Electric field strength at 1 m (V/m/Hz) -10-15 -14 10-20 -10 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 θ Angle θ to the velocity vector (degrees) Angle to the velocity vector (degrees)
FIG. 1: Radiation from a single endpoint in vacuum as given by Eqs. 9, and 10 multiplied by the time-interval ∆t, as a function of the angle θ from the shower axis, for a range of γ-factors (and hence β∗s), left: in vacuum, and right: in an n = 2 medium. In both figures, the highly relativistic cases produce near-identical radiation patterns.
note that for mildly- and sub-relativistic particles, the is described piece-wise as a series of starting and stop- emitted radiation at all angles changes with the parti- ping endpoints, the terms will cancel completely — the cle energy, whilst in the ultra-relativistic regime, only particle will not radiate. Superposition of endpoints in extremely near to θC does the radiation pattern change this way is sometimes viewed as destroying the ‘old’ par- with energy. ticle and creating a ‘new’ one — since this formulation is applicable only to the radiated component, static fields (which fall as 1/R2) can be ignored, so that bringing a particle to rest (‘stopping’ it) is equivalent to destroying C. Building physical situations it, and accelerating a particle from rest (‘starting’ it) is equivalent to creating it, and vice versa. An arbitrary We have derived both vectorial (Eq. 6 and Eq. 8, in terms change in particle velocity can be dealt with by com- ~∗ ′ bining two simultaneous, coincident endpoints, the first of β ,r ˆ, n, t0, and R) and scalar (Eq. 9 and Eq. 10, in ∗ ′ to ‘stop’ the particle by bringing it from its old velocity terms of β θ, n, t0, and R) equations for the radiation from an endpoint. For the sake of brevity, in this section to rest, the second to ‘start’ the particle by accelerating we use only the scalar notation of Eq. 9 and Eq. 10 to it to its new velocity. Multiple particles/events can be describe the situation. treated by adding the contributions with appropriate θ, ∗ ′ Despite Eq. 9 and Eq. 10 describing the radiation result- β , n, R, and t0. In the case of a smoothly-varying ve- ∗ ing from a particle accelerating from/to rest, they are, locity β~, the values β~ used at the endpoints should be in fact, more general than this. This is because an arbi- representative of the average velocity between endpoints, trary acceleration of a particle can be viewed as a super- which will tend towards the true value of β~ as the num- position of deceleration and acceleration events, which ber of endpoints used becomes large. Any propagation will not cancel if either θ, β∗, or n differ between the effects between the source and the observer — e.g. ab- two endpoints4. For curved particle motion at constant sorption in a medium, or transmission through an inter- speed, the angle θ from the acceleration vector to the face — should be applied to the (spherically-diverging) observer will be different for coincident endpoints, while radiation from each endpoint. This can be simply done, for gradually accelerating/decelerating particles, the val- since the relevant parameters (e.g. angle of incidence for ues of β∗ will be different for simultaneous endpoints. transmission) will be uniquely defined for each such end- In either case, contributions from starting and stopping point. Note that for ray-tracing methods, the rays will be points will not cancel, and radiation will occur. Con- diverging, and transmission problems should be handled versely, if a simple linear motion with constant velocity accordingly. To illustrate, we have plotted the emitted radiation in four elementary situations in a vacuum and dielectric in Fig. 2: a single endpoint representing an electron ac- 4 The superposition of two endpoints in this manner produces the “well-known formula for radiation of charges which change their celerating from rest (‘acceleration’); the deflection of an ◦ velocity sharply” as discussed by Ginzburg (1982) [1] and Bolo- energetic electron through 20 (‘deflection’); the deceler- tovskii, Davydov, and Rok (1982) [9]. ation of a fast electron (‘slow-down’); and a reversal of 6
(a) 10-15 (b) 10-13 γ γ vacuum (n=1) Acceleration to = 100 dielectric (n=2) Acceleration to = 100 Deflection through 20o (γ = 10) Deflection through 20o (γ = 10) Slow-down (γ = 11 to 10) 10-14 Slow-down (γ = 11 to 10) Reversal (γ = 2) Velocity Reversal (γ = 2) 10-16 -15
10 to inf to inf
10-17 10-16
10-17 10-18 Field magnitude at 1 m [|V/m|] Field magnitude at 1 m [|V/m|] 10-18
10-19 10-19 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Angle θ from initial velocity vector (degrees) Angle θ from initial velocity vector (degrees)
FIG. 2: Electric field magnitude resulting from the acceleration of a relativistic electron in four simple cases (see text) in (left) a vacuum and (right) a dielectric with refractive index n = 2, as given by Eq. 6. direction in a mildly relativistic electron with no change this models the situation of a particle sitting at rest until in speed (‘reversal’). Note in the three highly relativistic suddenly accelerated, in which case the calculated radi- cases the characteristic beaming — in the forward direc- ation pattern will include a large contribution from this tion for the vacuum case, and about the Cherenkov angle sudden acceleration. Therefore, this will be the correct −1 ∗ θC = cos (1/(β n)) in the n = 2 dielectric. For velocity choice if, in the physical situation being modelled, the reversal, significant peaks are observed at the Cherenkov particle genuinely does begin from rest. If it does not, angle since β∗n > 1, while in the vacuum case, no ap- the large initial contribution will be artificial and incor- preciable beaming is evident and the emission is broad, rect. If, on the other hand, the initial point is a stop- which is characteristic of (non-relativistic) dipole radia- ping/deceleration endpoint, the implied motion is that tion. of a particle moving with uniform velocity for an infinite The simple examples presented in Fig. 2 — and Eqs. time until the time of the initial endpoint. Given that 9, 10 themselves — deal only with point-like accelera- such infinite uniform motion does not generally occur in tion events, while in most situations particle motion will nature, the usual interpretation for this choice is that of a be smooth; however, this is not a limitation in practice. particle beginning the calculation with a non-zero veloc- Every numerical simulation necessarily describes particle ity, and that whatever motion it undertook before that motion as a series of uniform motions joined by instan- point is not of interest to the calculation. The choice of taneous acceleration events, for which either of Eqs. 6 or final endpoint, obviously, has similar implications. For 8 will calculate the emitted radiation exactly. The key instance, in the case of synchrotron (curvature) radia- point is that the degree to which the radiation calculated tion in Sec. III A, the initial point must be a stopping from the addition of endpoint contributions resembles the endpoint, and the final point a starting endpoint, since true radiation is limited only by the degree to which the the radiation of interest is only that from the curved mo- simulated motion resembles the true motion. Usually tion of the particle. However, for the radiation from a this means that a particle simulator must be accurate to finite particle track in Sec. III B, the situation of interest within a small fraction of the wavelengths of interest — really is that of a particle which accelerates from and de- for a discussion of this effect in practice, see for example celerates to rest, and hence the initial and final endpoints the discussion in Fig. 3 and Appendix A of Ref. [10] or are starting and stopping endpoints respectively. section 3 of Ref. [11]. It is not a concern of this paper. The second case involves ensuring that the velocity β~∗ used at a starting endpoint and a subsequent stopping endpoint is consistent with the implied motion of the par- 1. Further notes on application ticle: if the particle is accelerated at a starting endpoint at ~x1,t1 and arrives at a stopping endpoint at ~x2,t2, then the condition ~x ~x = cβ~∗(t t ) must be satisfied. In our experience of applying the endpoint formalism to 2 − 1 2 − 1 complex physical situations, two important cases where Furthermore, note that β~∗ must be identical at both the the formalism can be mis-applied have come to our at- starting and stopping endpoints. If β~∗ changed between tention. We discuss each below. the starting and subsequent stopping point, this would The first case concerns the interpretation of the initial imply an additional acceleration, and the radiation asso- and final endpoints used to describe particle motion. If ciated with this acceleration would not be accounted for, the initial endpoint is a starting/acceleration endpoint, leading to incorrect results. This problem arises for an 7
(b) βm+1* = β^vm+1 3, and mathematically as follows: N−1 θ θ ~ ~∗ ~ ~∗ m+1 m E+(tm, Rm, r,ˆ βm+1)+ E−(tm, Rm, r,ˆ βm), (12) m=0 stopping/starting ^r X points R m ~∗ where the calculation of each velocity vector βm, time (a) ^ E + ( t m , Rm ,^ r , βm+1* ) tm, and distance Rm to the observer is a matter of sim- E r β*m = β ^vm ple geometry. While the 1/Rm term can be assumed E _ ( t m , Rm ,^ r , β*m ) constant, Rm also changes the relative phase-factors be- θ tween emission at different endpoints. Note that every β* starting term is balanced at any time tm by a simulta- neous stopping term at the same position. The reason the terms do not cancel is due to the direction of the ~∗ ∗ velocity vectors βm = β vˆm differing between simultane- FIG. 3: (a) Sketch of θ, the angle from the velocity vector; ous starting and stopping terms. Note also that there (b) Schematic diagram of the contributions from two terms ~∗ is only one term with β0 (a stopping event) and one in the sum of Eq. 12. ~∗ with βN (a starting event). This represents the physi- cal situation of a particle moving in some direction from inf, executing the loop described, then continuing on accelerating particle when the instantaneous particle po- to− + inf in the original direction, as described in more sitions and ‘true’ velocities β~ are known (or simulated) at detail in Sec. II C 1. This is necessary so that the radia- discrete times, so that in general the velocities β~ will not tion modelled is due to the curvature of the particle (that point towards the next known position. In such a case, is, synchrotron radiation), rather than any sudden and one must realise that the velocities β~∗ used in the end- large initial and final accelerations to bring the particle point treatment are representative of the time-averaged from/to rest, which would tend to dominate. Finally, true velocity β~ between endpoints. Therefore, the cor- also note that the magnitude β∗ of the vectors β~∗ used rect treatment is to re-normalise each instantaneous β~ in the calculation must be slightly decreased from the (in both direction and magnitude) to the appropriate β~∗ ‘true’ value β, since the (straight line) distance between to fulfill the above-mentioned condition. This will be- endpoints is slightly shorter than the distance along a come important in the following section (Sec. III A) in circular arc; similarly, the vectors β~∗ will not be quite the case of synchrotron radiation. tangential. The necessity of this is also discussed in Sec. II C 1. We present numerical evaluations of Eq. 12 in Fig. 4 for a loop of radius L = 100 m and true velocity β = 0.999 III. COMPARISON TO ESTABLISHED (γ 22.4), equivalent to an 11.4 MeV electron moving THEORY perpendicular≈ to a 3.809 Gauss field. The observer is assumed to lie in the very-far-field in the plane of the It is instructive to recreate classical radiating systems loop. For the plot in the time (frequency) domain, we and reproduce the classical results using our endpoint for- present both a direct calculation, and the results from mulation. We do this below for the cases of synchrotron, taking a Fourier transform from the calculation in the Vavilov-Cherenkov, and transition radiation. frequency (time) domain. All the characteristic features are reproduced perfectly: a steep spectral fall below the cyclotron frequency (ν = 2πL(βc)−1), and a slow rise in power until an exponential cut-off above the critical A. Synchrotron radiation frequency ν = 1.5γ3βc/L 50 GHz. In the time- crit ≈ domain, a sharp pulse of characteristic width 1/νcrit is Synchrotron radiation arises from a relativistic particle seen. That the results calculated by Fourier transform undergoing infinite helical motion (a superposition of cir- do not exactly match the direct calculations is due to the cular motion in a 2D plane and linear motion perpendic- difficulty in generating sufficient data to make an accu- ular to the plane) in a vacuum (n = 1), as is typically in- rate transform. However, the correspondence is obvious. duced by the presence of a uniform magnetic field. Here, From here on therefore, we deal only with calculations in we treat the case of a particle of velocity β executing a the frequency-domain, and take it for granted that one single circular loop of radius L in the x y plane only in a can transmute time-trace data to spectral data and vice vacuum. This motion is viewed by an− observer at a very versa accurately and as needed. large distance R so that the unit-vector in the observer Perhaps the most familiar analytic result on synchrotron diretionr ˆ can be∼ assumed to remain constant throughout radiation is the normalised, angular-integrated power the motion. Such motion can be represented by a series spectrum for ultra-relativistic particles. This makes a of N starting and stopping points, schematically in Fig. useful comparison with our code and, by extension, the 8
FIG. 4: (Color online) Time-trace of a synchrotron pulse produced by a single gyration of an electron with β = 0.999 and gyration radius r = 100 m (left), and power spectrum of the same pulse (right). In each case, the direct calculations (time- and frequency-domain respectively) are shown in comparison with the results generated by fast-Fourier-transforming data from the other domain (frequency- and time-domain respectively). The direct calculation produces the higher-quality result and is much less computing-intensive. (For such practical reasons, the indirect, frequency-domain calculation of the time-trace was performed by modelling only the relevant part of the gyration cycle indicated by the plotted time range.) endpoint formalism. The common analytic result writes At low frequencies, the increasing disagreement with the the power spectrum P (ν) as the product of a normal- analytic result is due to the ultra-relativistic approxi- isation constant C and a dimensionless function F (x), mation breaking down, and here measures the limita- where x = ν/νc is the ratio of the frequency ν to the tions in the theory, which will break down completely as critical synchrotron frequency ν =3βcγ3/(2πr) [7]: x γ−3 8.9 10−5. c → ≈ × √3e3B P (ν) = 2 F (x), (13) mec inf 3 √ 2 F (x) = x K5/3( 2.25x ). (14) B. Particle tracks and Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation Zx Here, K is a modified Bessel function of the second kind. The ’ultra-relativistic approximation’ of β = 1 in deriv- In this paper, we describe physical situations in terms ing this result means that it is only applicable in the of endpoints, whereas in numerical codes, the physical frequency regime far above the cyclotron frequency of situation is usually described in terms of particle tracks. −3 ν0 = βc/(2πr), i.e. x γ . Such a track-based description defines the total charge To compare this analytic≫ result with the endpoint theory distribution in position and time in terms of charges mov- calculation, we calculate the radiated far-fields as above, ing from position (~x1,t1) to position (~x2,t2). This implic- but for all angles relative to the plane of gyration. These itly defines a velocity β~∗; given the type of particle, the fields are then converted to a radiated power and inte- energy, momentum, and γ-factor are also defined. If the grated over a 4π solid angle, and plotted against F (x) code outputs the positions ‘sufficiently’ accurately, then in Fig. 55. Estimates using both 60, 000 and 6, 000 end- the implied velocity β~∗ will also be ‘sufficiently’ close to points were made, to illustrate when numerical effects the true velocity β~ at each point. become important. The difference between the analytic and endpoint method results is also shown, defined as It is obvious that the radiation from such a particle track can be constructed from two endpoint contributions — 2 Ptheory Pendpoint / Ptheory + Pendpoint . The differ- ence| in estimates− at high| | frequencies is due| to numerical one accelerating/creating a particle at ~x1,t1 from rest to ∗ inaccuracy: this clearly reduces as the number of end- velocity β~ = β~ , the other decelerating/destroying the points increases and better describes the curved track. particle at ~x2,t2. In the very-far-field of both events, the corresponding parameters R,θ can be written θ1 = θ, R1 = R, θ2 = θ, R2 = R cos θδl; we also write t2 = t1 + δt. The track-length δl is− often expressed in terms of the ∗ 5 It is common in textbooks to plot a normalised F (x) — here, we time interval δt via δl = cβ δt. The entire particle track do not include this normalisation factor, equal to 9√3/(8π). is considered as being sufficiently far from the observer 9
1
0.1
0.01
ultra-relativistic limit 0.001 60,000 endpoints Normalised power spectrum 6,000 endpoints
100 invalid γ = inf numerical 10 approximation inaccuracy 1 0.1 % difference 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 ν ν / c
FIG. 5: (Color online) Top panel: normalised frequency spectrum from Fig. 4, calculated using 6 × 104 and 6 × 103 endpoints, and the analytic theory of the ultra-relativistic approximation. Bottom panel: the absolute relative difference between the (β = 0.999) endpoint calculations and the (β = 1) theory.
6 so that the approximation 1/R1 1/R2 = 1/R holds . in a medium with refractive index significantly different Again, it is more common to begin≈ with the expression from 1, the radiation just so happens to very closely re- in Eq. 9. Recalling k = 2πνn/c, we find the radiation semble the classical notion of Vavilov-Cherenkov radia- from a particle track to be: tion. The Vavilov-Cherenkov condition is plainly evident by letting the phase term (1 nβ∗ cos θ) 0 — that q β∗ sin θ is, the observation angle θ tends− towards→ the Vavilov- E~track(~x, ν) = ∗ −1 c 1 nβ∗ cos θ Cherenkov angle θC , where cos θC = (nβ ) — in which − case Eq. 15 reduces to: ei(kR1+2πνt1) ei(kR2+2πνt2) Eˆ i(kR+2πνt) · R1 − R2 ∗ e e E~track(~x, ν)=2πiνδtcβ sin θ Eˆ (16) qβ∗ sin θ ei(kR+2πνt1) c2 R ≈ c R ∗ ∗ The product cβ δt = δl sin θ, so that the radiated inten- 1 e2πiν(1−nβ cos θ)δt sity is proportional to the apparent tracklength. Thus to − Eˆ (15) · 1 nβ∗ cos θ a far-field observer near the Cherenkov angle, the radia- − tion seen is consistent with emission per unit tracklength, Note that Eq. 15 is (to within a factor of 2, due to a dif- although our description makes it clear that this is not 7 ferent definition of the Fourier transform) the ‘Vavilov- the case . Cherenkov radiation formula’ of Eq. 12 in Zas, Halzen, We conclude our discussion on Vavilov-Cherenkov radi- and Stanev [14], with µr = 1 and q = e. That is, al- ation by noting that ‘true’ Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation, though the ZHS code is commonly understood− to calcu- which is emitted in the absence of particle acceleration late ‘the Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation’ from a cascade in in a dielectric medium, can not be dealt with by this a dense medium, what it actually calculates is simply ‘the methodology. This comes by virtue of the fact we deal radiation’ due to particle acceleration. When the parti- only with the ‘radiation’ component of the Li´enard- cles in the cascade are all travelling in the same direction Wiechert potentials, whereas contributions from unac- celerated motion must come from the ‘nearfield’ term. Thus in the classical treatment of Vavilov-Cherenkov ra- diation by Frank and Tamm [27] in which an infinite par- 6 As discussed in detail by Afanasiev, Kartavenko, and ticle track is assumed, the near-field must also be infinite. Stepanovsky (1999) [12], this approximation breaks down as Thus it should come as no surprise that a radiation-based 1 the Cherenkov angle θC = cos− (1/β∗n) is approached, since far-field treatment can not explain this phenomenon. second-order terms in R and cos θ become important. It is ex- actly this approximation that removed the Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation component from Tamm’s formula [13] for the radiation from a finite particle track viewed at large distances, leaving only the ‘bremsstrahlung’ contributions from the endpoints. However, 7 It was first noted by Zrelov and Ruˇziˇcka (1989) that Tamm’s this approximation — and hence equation 15 — is still valid for (1939) approximate formula for radiation from a finite particle 1 angles θ satisfying θ θC sin θC δℓR− , where there is essen- track results from contributions from acceleration at the end- tially no Vavilov-Cherenkov| − |≫ component. points. 10
) total field in medium 1 is then: ,R t 0 ^ , ,r † 1 ~ ~ ~∗ ~ ~∗ * n normal β, ) E(~x, t) = E−(β ,n1, r,tˆ 0, R) + r(ˆrr)E−(β ,n1, rˆr,t0, R) _( ,R particle track E t 0 † ^rr, ~ ~∗ , + t(ˆrt)E+(β ,n2, rˆt,t0, R). (17) * n 1 'stopping' β, ) θ ( ,R d E_ t 0 ^ ) ^ , ( rr ,rt The first two terms arise from the particle in medium 1 r n 2 *β, ‘stopping’ at the boundary; whiler ˆ is the usual direc- θ ( r ξ E + ^ ) tion towards the observer,r ˆr is the apparent observer ( r t Medium 1 (n1 ) t direction seen in reflection from the boundary. The third
Medium 2 (n2 ) term originates from the ‘starting’ event in medium 2, withr ˆt the apparent direction of the observer from the perspective of medium 2. r(ˆrr) and t(ˆrt) are reflection 'starting' θ t and transmission coefficients, which vary according to the geometry defined byr ˆr andr ˆt and the relative refractive indices. In all terms, the velocity β~∗ should be that of the true velocity β~, since there is no possibility of accel- eration between the two endpoints. The ‘†’ in the latter two terms is a reminder that field directions after reflec- FIG. 6: Sketch of the endpoint formulation of transition ra- tion/transmission should be used. The field in medium diation. See Eq. 17 and the associated discussion. 2 can be expressed by switching n n and E~ E~ 1 ↔ 2 − ↔ + in Eq. 17, and recalculating the vectorsr, ˆ rˆr, rˆt and the transmission/reflection coefficients appropriately. This C. Transition radiation ‘three-contribution’ formulation is the same as that noted by Ginzburg and Tsytovich [28] for the case of a particle Transition radiation arises from a relativistic particle normally incident at the boundary between two infinite transitioning between two media with different refrac- uniform (but otherwise arbitrary) media. tive indices. The radiated energy was first calculated by In the case of normal incidence to a boundary, the ge- Ginzburg and Frank [15] in the case of a sharp boundary ometry becomes substantially simpler. In this case, the and a particle moving for an infinite time with uniform observer direction is definable by the angle ξ from the sur- velocity parallel to the boundary surface normal. face normal in the observer’s medium (thus 0 ξ <π/2), J. Bray (private communication) has noted that transi- and all reflection/transmission will occur in the≤ ‘parallel’ tion radiation can be explained as a particle being de- direction. Note that ξ is distinct from the angle θ. De- stroyed on the incoming side of the boundary, then being noting the refractive index from the observer’s medium created on the outgoing side; this picture is consistent as n, that from the other medium as n†, and using ( ) with Ginzburg’s ‘mirror-charge’ explanation of transition to indicate a ‘+’ (‘ ’) sign for observations in medium± ∓ radiation, where the radiation in vacuum from a particle 1 (the incoming medium)− and a ‘ ’ (‘+’) sign for obser- entering an n = inf medium is explained by the sum of vations in medium 2 (the outgoing− medium), the scalar two charge contributions (real and mirror charges) which component of Eq. 17 can be written thus: appear to disappear (or mutually annihilate) upon reach- q 1 β∗ sin ξ ing the boundary [1]. In terms of endpoint-theory, there E~ (ξ,n,n†,β∗) = (18) exists a starting and a stopping event which are simul- | | c R(t′ ) ∓1 nβ∗ cos ξ 0 ± taneous and co-located (or rather, infinitesimally sepa- r (ξ,n,n†)β∗ sin ξ t (ξ,n,n†)β∗ n sin ξ rated). The contributions from these events do not cancel k k n† ∓ 1 nβ∗ cos ξ ±1 n†β∗ 1 ( n sin ξ)2 because 1: the events occur in different media, and 2: an ∓ ± − n† ! observer must be on one or the other side of the bound- p ary, and thus the radiation from one of the two events where will have to be transmitted through the boundary layer. n n 2 † cos ξ n† 1 ( n† sin ξ) The observed radiation will in fact be the sum of three rk(ξ,n,n ) = − − cos ξ + n 1 ( n sin ξ)2 contributions: a ‘direct’ contribution from the event in n† p − n† the observer’s medium, a ‘reflected’ contribution off the 2n cos ξ t (ξ,n,n†) = p (19) boundary from the event in the observer’s medium, and k n 2 † n 1 ( n† sin ξ) + n cos ξ a ‘transmitted’ contribution from the event in the non- − observer medium. This situation is shown in Fig. 6 for Observe that the reflectionp and transmission coefficients an observer in the ‘incoming’ medium (medium 1) with are those appropriate for a point source — in the case refractive index n1 — since the separation of the two end- of r, this is the same as that for a plane wave, while for points is infinitely small, any such observer will be in the transmission, the plane-wave result gets multiplied by far field, and there will be no phase-offset between the (n/n†)cos ξ(1 (n/n†) sin2 ξ)−0.5 (this can be thought of three contributions. Using the endpoint formulation, the as accounting− for the change in divergence of rays upon 11 transmission). Note that the distance R to the observer one of the three terms — direct, transmitted, or reflected is constant for all contributions, since the two endpoints — in Eq. 17, as would be calculated by substituting the are infinitely close together, and that there is no explicit field contribution from that term only directly into Eq. relative phase since the event times are also simultaneous 20. Regions of both constructive and destructive inter- (implicit phases can and do arise however, as we will see ference appear, and there are regimes in which each term below). dominates. In particular, note that it is the direct contri- For this situation, the radiated spectral energy density bution which causes the large peak about the Cherenkov predicted by the endpoint formalism becomes: angle in medium 2 (the Cherenkov condition is not met in medium 1). This is another example where a peak c 2 W (ν, ξ) = 2n R E(ξ,n,n†,β∗) (20) at the Cherenkov angle does not imply the existence of 4π ‘true’ Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation (see discussion in Sec. where the fore-factor of 2 accounts for the energy radiated III B). Interestingly, while the endpoint from which each at negative frequencies. The frequency-dependence of the contribution is derived changes across the boundary (e.g. RHS of Eq. 20 is contained in the implicit frequency- the direct contribution comes from the stopping endpoint dependence of n and n†. in medium 1, and from the starting endpoint in medium For the same physical situation, Ginzburg and Tsytovich 2), the magnitude of each component is in fact continuous define medium 1 by its relative permittivity and perme- across the boundary. ability ǫ1,µ1, and medium 2 via ǫ2,µ2. Using the same A complication which bears discussing is that in the ◦ ◦ notation for and as for Eq. 18, and using for ǫ, µ the regime 90 >ξ> 30 of medium 2, the ‘incident angle’ values in the± observer’s∓ medium and for ǫ†, µ† the val- of the transmitted component cannot be defined, since ues for the other (non-observer) medium, these authors all incident angles from medium 1 map to the range 30◦ ξ 0◦ in medium 2. This is why, in Eqs. 18 derive the radiated spectral energy distribution W (ν, ξ) ≥ ≥ ( 2πW (ω, ξ) for angular frequency ω) as: and 19, we have not used Snell’s Law to define some ≡ † n 2 0.5 sin ξi = (n/n ) sin ξ nor cos ξi = (1 ( n† sin ξ) ) : in ◦ ◦ − W (ν, ξ) = (21) the regime 90 >ξ> 30 in medium 2, sin ξi would be 2 greater than one, and cos ξ purely imaginary, which does q2v2µ√ǫµ ǫ ǫ† 2 sin ξ cos2 ξ i 2π | − | 2 not make intuitive sense. The resolution to this dilemma π2c3 ǫ† cos ξ + ǫ/µ ǫ†µ† ǫµ sin2 ξ is that the reflection and transmission coefficients result − from solving continuity equations for the fields across a 2 † † 2 v † † p p2 v ǫµ−ǫ µ boundary. Solutions to these equations exist even when 1 c ǫ µ ǫµ sin ξ c2 ǫ−ǫ† ǫ ± − − . the solution is not that for incoming and outgoing plane 2 2 · v p 2 v † † 2 [1 2 ǫµ cos ξ][1 ǫ µ ǫµ sin ξ] waves in which Snell’s law is usually defined. It is impor- − c ± c − tant in the endpoint formulation therefore to allow both
p reflection and transmission coefficients, and the contribu- An alternative expression — Eq. 2.45e of Ref. [28] — is also given by Ginzburg and Tsytovich, which is sugges- tions from individual endpoints, to be complex numbers. tively close in form to our Eq. 188. This is especially true when the refractive indices them- To compare the result given by the endpoint formula- selves can not be treated as purely real, as is the case for tion (Eqs. 18-20) with that of Ginzburg and Tsytovich’s many applications of transition radiation on metallic tar- Eq. 21, we plot both results in Fig. 7 for the case gets. Finally, note that any and all frequency-dependence must come from the frequency-dependence of the refrac- ǫ1,µ1,ǫ2,µ2 = 1, 1, 4, 1 (i.e. n1 = 1, n2 = 2). Analysing{ Fig.} 7,{ we observe} that the loci overlap com- tive indices. pletely — the endpoint formulation produces exactly the same result as Ginzburg and Tsytovich’s (nine-page) derivation. The detailed angular-dependence of the spec- IV. DISCUSSION trum arises from the angular-dependence of the three individual endpoint contributions, the behaviour of the The endpoint formalism described above provides a sim- reflection and transmission coefficients, and the interfer- ple, accurate, and intuitive method for calculating the ence between terms, which can be constructive or de- radiation resulting from particle acceleration. Using it, structive. To illustrate, we plot in Fig. 8 the spectral the radiated electromagnetic fields due to particle accel- energy density which would result from considering only eration can be calculated in either the time- or frequency- domain for arbitrary particle motion. The domain in which to perform an endpoint-calculation should be the same as that of the desired result. While the process of 8 Ginzburg and Tsytovich go further and point out that their fast-Fourier transforming between time- and frequency- expression can also be derived “using the expression for a domains is usually relatively quick, such transforms re- jump in the Lienard-Vichert [sic] potentials”, thanking V. V. Kocharovskii and Vl. V. Kocharovskii for this point. Since one quire an adequate number of points in the first domain or more endpoints imply a sudden jump in the potentials, it is to produce an accurate result in the second. This is espe- likely that the two derivations are very similar. cially true when a signal is localised in one domain (e.g. a 12
10-25 racy of the endpoint method will reflect the accuracy with GT90 which the distribution of endpoints reflects the true parti- 10-26 Endpoint Formulation cle motion on scales of the smallest wavelength / highest 10-27 time resolution of interest. With reasonable awareness =2) =1) 2 10-28 1 of these issues however, our endpoint methodology can be used to calculate the radiation in some very complex 10-29
) (erg/Hz/sr) physical situations, such as those described in Sec. V. θ , = 1 medium 2 (n medium 1 (n ν -30 In emphasising the utility of the endpoint formulation, C 10 θ θ W(
= we should also mention its limitations, the most obvious ) sin -31 θ 10 1
/n of which is its classical foundation in Maxwell’s equa- 2 10-32 (n tions: it breaks down in any quantum-mechanical limit. Specifically, it can not treat radiation processes involving 10-33 0 30 60 90 60 30 0 only a single photon, nor the radiation of extremely ener- ξ (degrees) getic photons where the wavelength is of the order of the de Broglie wavelength of the radiating particle(s). Such limitations however are common to all classical methods FIG. 7: (Color online) Radiated energy from the transi- of treating radiation and are not increased by our ap- tion of a single electron/positron at normal incidence to the proach. The second limitation is that we have ignored boundary between infinite dielectric media, calculated as per the ‘nearfield’ term from Eq. 2. This does not mean our ‘Endpoint Formulation’ and using the result ‘GT90’ of Ginzburg and Tsytovich for the spectral energy density. Only that our formulation cannot calculate radiation in the one line is visible since the results are in complete agreement. near-field of a source distribution. Since each endpoint is point-like, any observer is always in the far-field of any particular endpoint. Thus a near-field calculation 10-25 requires only taking the trouble to re-calculate the di- -26 Total 10 = 1 rection to the observer from each endpoint individually.
direct only θ transmitted only Only in certain special circumstances, such as the case -27
reflected only ) sin 10 1 of Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation from non-accelerated sys- /n 2
10-28 (n tems as discussed in Sec. III B, will the near-field term C =2 =1 θ 2 1 provide a significant contribution to the observed electric n -29 n
10 = θ ) (erg/Hz/sr) fields. In general, this nearfield term will only become θ , ν 10-30 important when a large part of the charge distribution W( passes very close to the detectors, and for most experi- 10-31 ments it will represent at most a minor correction only. 10-32 Our last note is to emphasise that this paper is by
10-33 no means the first to use (explicitly or implicitly) an 0 30 60 90 60 30 0 endpoint-like treatment to solve for various radiation pro- ξ (degrees) cesses. The best-known endpoint-based treatment is the Larmor formula for the power radiated by an accelerated charge, which is commonly used in derivations of other FIG. 8: (Color online) The radiated energy which would result from each of the three contributions — direct, reflected, and radiation processes (again, see Jackson [7]). Also, as dis- transmitted — if considered in isolation, compared to the cussed in the introduction, there are numerous examples total radiated energy, where the three field contributions are in the literature where multiple classical radiation pro- coherently summed before squaring. cesses have been described using the same fundamental underlying physics. What we have done here is to explic- itly state that all radiation from particle acceleration can short time-domain pulse, or a narrow-bandwidth signal), be described in terms of a superposition of instantaneous since then it will necessarily be spread over a great range accelerations (endpoints), and give a general methodol- in the other. Usually, if both the time- and frequency- ogy for applying this method to an arbitrary problem. domains are of interest, it will be computationally quicker to perform two direct calculations than to generate ex- cess data points in one domain and use a fast-Fourier V. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS transform to convert to the other. Such was the case for the example of synchrotron radiation presented in Sec. A. Coherent radio emission from near-surface III A. The only exception to this rule is when dispersive cascades in the lunar regolith effects (changing refractive index with frequency) become important, in which case frequency-domain calculations Strong pulses of coherent radiation are expected from ex- 17 would be more practical. tremely high energy (shower energy Es & 10 eV) par- Like any method using a distribution of sources, the accu- ticle cascades in dense media. The mechanism for pro- 13 ducing the radiation is the Askaryan effect, whereby a diation emitted, is truly Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation9. total negative charge excess arises from the entrainment Given that the radiation from the Askaryan effect arises of medium electrons through e.g. Compton scattering, from the coherent superposition of radiation from many and the loss of cascade positrons via annihilation in flight finite particle tracks, the majority of detectable radiation [16]. The radiation from the excess electrons travelling produced by the Askaryan Effect (in a dense ρ 1 g/cm3 super-luminally through the medium will be coherent at medium) itself is not coherent Vavilov-Cherenkov∼ radia- wavelengths larger than the physical size of the cascade. tion at all, but rather coherent radiation from particle ac- The emission is the basis of the ‘Lunar technique’ [17], celeration. Macroscopically, the coherent radiation from a detection method by which the radiation is observed microscopic accelerations and decelerations is correctly from ground-based radio-telescopes. Several current ex- viewed as coming from the time-variation of net charge. periments utilise the technique [18–20], which has been Note that a shock wave at the Cherenkov angle will still proposed to detect both cosmic-ray and neutrino inter- be observed (this is also seen in transition radiation, as actions. previously discussed in Sec. III C). While Askaryan also mentioned the possibility of coherent transition radiation and ‘bremsstrahlung’ (radiation from particle accelera- The emission from the Askaryan effect is considered to tion) in his first (1961) paper, the majority of the paper be coherent Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation, since this is the refers to Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation and coherent ra- mode of radiation upon which Askaryan placed greatest diation from a moving charge excess, rather than to an emphasis in his papers [16], and the emission occurs in accelerated charge excess. the case of charged particles moving super-luminally in a Thus the primary reason why the zero-emission argument dielectric. If indeed this is the case, this would then lead is incorrect is that the radiation due to the Askaryan to a formation-zone suppression of the radiation from Effect does not resemble what is commonly considered near-surface cascades, such as those produced by cos- to be ‘true’ Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation as described in mic rays, which interact immediately upon hitting the the Frank-Tamm picture [27], which presents a negligi- Moon. The reasoning is as follows: consider such a near- ble contribution in the Askaryan effect and indeed will surface cascade, induced by a cosmic-ray interaction near tend towards zero as a particle cascade develops closer the regolith (dielectric)-vacuum boundary. It has been to a vacuum-interface. Instead of the above arguments, both predicted [21, 22] and observed (qualitatively by the use of our endpoint formulation much more easily Danos et al. [23], and as a coherent pulse from single resolves the issue: charged particles are accelerated and electron bunches by Takahashi et al. [24]) that charged decelerated, ergo, the system radiates, and the effect of particles moving in a vacuum near a dielectric boundary the nearby surface from the point of view of a far-field generate Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation in the dielectric. observer is no worse or more profound than for any trans- Analogously, as the distance between the cascade and mission problem. the surface tends to zero, the radiation emitted into the vacuum will approach that from a cascade in the vacuum itself (the ‘formation-zone’ effect, first considered in this B. Radiation from extensive air showers context by Gorham et al. [25]). If indeed the emission from the Askaryan effect is Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation, which is generated by the passage of a particle through a A second example is the case of radio emission from ex- dielectric, then since vacuum is not a dielectric, the emit- tensive air showers. When an energetic primary particle ted power into the vacuum from cascades nearing the interacts in the upper atmosphere, it produces a cascade boundary must tend towards zero. Thus the Askaryan of secondary particles which can reach ground level. Ra- emission from cosmic rays will be highly suppressed if diation at frequencies of a few tens to a few hundreds of the emission is from Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation. MHz from the electron/positron component of these cas- cades has been both predicted [16, 29–31] and observed [32–35], with up until recently only fair agreement be- tween predictions and measurements. The emitted radi- However, the emission from the Askaryan effect is not ation is often understood in terms of one or more classical in general Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation, because it arises from finite particle tracks viewed at a large distance. The emission is therefore of the same character as that pro- duced in the ‘Tamm problem’ of calculating the ‘Vavilov- 9 While as early as 1939 Tamm’s calculations [13] indicated that Cherenkov radiation’ from a finite particle track in a di- radiation from finite particle tracks would be different to that electric medium when viewed at a large distance [13]. from infinite tracks (the 1937 Frank and Tamm result [27]), it is However, it has been pointed out by Zrelov and Ruˇziˇcka this latter result, which gives zero emission in a vacuum, which is [26] that Tamm’s 1939 result for the radiation in such better known in the authors’ fields, and commonly accepted to be ‘the’ Vavilov-Cherenkov result. When Tamm’s 1939 calculations a problem originates from the acceleration/deceleration are recalled, they are also treated as giving ‘Vavilov-Cherenkov’ at the beginning and end of the track. Thus neither radiation, even though it can be shown [12] that the final result Tamm’s approximate result, nor the majority of the ra- ignores the Vavilov-Cherenkov component. 14 radiation mechanisms, and it can be unclear as to what within an air shower is obvious when comparing results extent the mechanisms are different ways of explaining obtained with REAS3 and results obtained by the for- the same phenomena, or are truly separate effects. mer implementation in REAS2.59. This is illustrated The transverse current model [29] describes the effect for a specific example in Fig. 9 for the radio emission of the magnetic field as causing a macroscopic flow of received by an observer 200m south of the core of a ver- charge (a transverse current) due to the different drift tical extensive air shower with a primary particle energy directions of electrons and positrons. The time-variation of 1017 eV. The pulse shapes, the pulse amplitudes and of this current in the course of the air shower evolu- the frequency spectra differ significantly. For a detailed tion produces radiation polarized in the direction denoted comparison of REAS3 and REAS2 we kindly refer the by the Lorentz force. A modern implementation of the reader to [11]. The next step in improving the simula- transverse current model, the MGMR model [36], com- tions will be the inclusion of the refractive index of the plements the transverse current emission with additional atmosphere, which is slightly different from unity and radiation components, in particular the emission from varies with atmospheric density. a relativistically moving dipole and from a time-varying charge excess, the latter of which essentially corresponds to the Askaryan effect. Difficulties can, however, arise in VI. CONCLUSION the separation of these phenomenological “mechanisms”. For example, a component similar to Vavilov-Cherenkov We have presented an ‘endpoint’ methodology for mod- radiation would appear even in case of charge-neutral elling the electromagnetic radiation produced by the ac- particle showers in the presence of a magnetic field, be- celeration of charged particles. The approach is uni- cause the magnetic field would induce a sufficient spatial versally applicable and is especially well-suited for nu- separation of the positive and negative charges for the merical implementation. Its universality has been illus- electron and positron contributions not to cancel at the trated by reproducing prototypical radiation processes frequencies of interest [37]. such as synchrotron radiation, Tamm’s description of In contrast to such macroscopic descriptions, microscopic Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation, and transition radiation in Monte Carlo models calculate the radio emission as a su- the frequency- and time-domains. The method’s true perposition of radiation from individual charges being de- strength, however, lies in modelling more complex (in flected in the geomagnetic field. This approach, although other words “realistic”) situations in which such indi- originally inspired by the notion of ‘geosynchrotron’ ra- vidual prototypical radiation mechanisms can no longer diation [38, 39], does in fact not need the assumption be easily disentangled. As demonstrated in Sec. V, the of any specific emission mechanism. Monte Carlo codes ‘endpoint’ methodology can for example be used to solve for the calculation of radio emission from extensive air outstanding problems in the field of high-energy particle showers have been realized by different authors in var- astrophysics. In conclusion, we would like to point out ious time-domain implementations [40–43]. It recently that we believe the ‘endpoint’ approach to be an impor- turned out, however, that all of these implementations tant way of viewing radiation processes which is useful at (and others) in fact treated the emission physics incon- both an undergraduate student level, and also for career sistently, thereby neglecting radio emission produced by researchers. Except perhaps for those researchers work- the variation of the number of charged particles during ing constantly with fundamental electromagnetic theory, the course of the air shower evolution. With the endpoint we hope this methodology will increase the reader’s un- formalism described here, a new and fully consistent im- derstanding of radiative processes by providing a simple plementation of a microscopic modelling approach has and unified approach. been realized in the REAS3 code [11]. The universality of the endpoint formalism ensures that the radio emission from the motion of the charged particles is predicted in all of its complexity. In case of the REAS3 code, this Acknowledgments becomes evident since both the “transverse current” ra- diation polarized in the direction of the Lorentz force The authors would like to acknowledge J. Alvarez-Mu˜niz and the radially polarized “charge excess” emission is and J. Bray for discussions regarding the ‘ZHS’ code and reproduced automatically and in good agreement with the nature of transition radiation. This research has been macroscopic calculations [44]. The importance of a con- supported by grant number VH-NG-413 of the Helmholtz sistent treatment taking into account also the radiation Association. C.W. James was the recipient of a 2009 due to the variation of the number of charged particles Rubicon Fellowship from the NWO.
[1] V.L. Ginzburg, Physica Scripta T2, 182 (1982). [3] R.J. Pogorzelski, C. Yeh, and K.F. Casey, J.App.Phys. [2] A.A. Sokolov, A.Kh. Mussa, and Yu.G. Pavlenko, 45, 5251 (1974). Sov.Phys.J. 20, 599 (1977). [4] A. Erteza and J.J. Newman, J.App.Phys. 33, 1864 15
FIG. 9: (Color online) Simulations of the radio emission from a vertical extensive air shower with primary energy of 1017 eV. The comparison of radio pulses (left) and corresponding frequency spectra (right) simulated with REAS3 and REAS2.59 at an observer position 200 m south of the shower core illustrate the importance of a consistent treatment as implemented in REAS3 based on the endpoint formalism. The correctly predicted pulses become bipolar. Equivalently, the correct frequency spectra fall off to zero at zero frequency.
(1962). Phys. Rev. 92, 828 (1953). [5] J. Schwinger, W. Tsai, and T. Erber, Annals of Physics [24] T. Takahashi, Y. Shibata, K. Ishi, M. Ikezawa, M. Oya- 96, 303 (1976). mada, and Y. Kondo, Phys. Rev. E 62, 8606 (2000). [6] J. Alvarez-Mu˜niz, W.R. Carvalho, Jr, M. Tueros, and E. [25] P.W. Gorham, K.M. Liewer, C.J. Naudet, D.P. Saltzberg, Zas, arXiv:1005.0552 (2010). and D.R. Williams, arXiv:astro-ph/0102435 (2001). [7] J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (John Wiley & [26] V.P. Zrelov and J. Ruˇziˇcka, Czech. J. Phys B 39, 368 Sons, New York, 1998), 3rd ed. (1989). [8] J. Alvarez-Mu˜niz, A. Romero-Wolf, E. Zas, Phys.Rev. D [27] I.M. Frank and I.E. Tamm, Dok. Akad. Nauk SSSR 14, 81, 123009 (2010). 109 (1937). [9] B.M. Bolotovskii, V.A. Davydov, and V.E. Rok, [28] V.L. Ginzburg, V.N. Tsytovich, Transition Radiation Sov.Phys.Uspekhi 25 [3], 167 (1982). and Transition Scattering (Revised Ed.), Taylor & Fran- [10] J. Alvarez-Mu˜niz, R.A. V´azquez, and E. Zas, Phys. Rev. cis (1990). D 62, 063001 (2000). [29] F.D. Kahn and I. Lerche, Roal. Soc. London. Proc. Se- [11] M. Ludwig and T. Huege, Astropart. Phys. 34, 438 ries A 289, 206 (1966). (2010) [30] S.A. Colgate, J.Geophys.Res. 72, 4869 (1967). [12] G.N. Afanasiev, V.G. Kartavenko, and Y.P. Stepanovsky, [31] H.R. Allan, Prog. Elem. part. Cosm. Ray. Phys. 10, 171 J.Phys.D 32, 2029 (1999). (1971). [13] I.E. Tamm, J.Phys. (Moscow) 1, 439 (1939). [32] J.V. Jelley et al., Nature 205, 327 (1965). [14] E. Zas, F. Halzen, and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. D 45, 362 [33] H. Falcke et al., Nature 435, 313 (2005). (1992). [34] D. Ardouin et al., Astropart. Phys. 26, 341 (2006). [15] V.L. Ginzburg and I.M. Frank, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [35] T. Huege et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 617, 484 (2009). [Sov. Phys. JETP] 16, 15 (1946); I.M. Frank and [36] O. Scholten, K. Werner, and F. Rusydi, Astropart. Phys. V.L. Ginzburg, J.Phys. (Moscow) 9, 353 (1945). 29, 94 (2008). [16] G.A. Askaryan, Sov. Phys. JETP, 14, 441 (1962); 48, [37] R. Engel, N.N. Kalmykov, and A.A. Konstantinov, 988 (1965). Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21S1, 65 (2006). [17] R.D. Dagkesamanskii and I. M. Zheleznykh, Sov.Phys. [38] H. Falcke and P. Gorham, Astropart. Phys. 19, 477 JETP Let. 50, 233 (1989). (2003). [18] C.W. James, R.D. Ekers, J. Alvarez-Mu˜niz,´ J.D. Bray, [39] T. Huege and H. Falcke, Astron. & Astroph. 412, 19 R.A. McFadden, C.J. Phillips, R.J. Protheroe, and (2003). P. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 81, 042003 (2010). [40] D.A. Suprun, P.W. Gorham, and J.L. Rosner, As- [19] O. Scholten et al., Phs.Rev.Lett. 103, 191301 (2009). tropart. Phys. 20, 157 (2003). [20] T. Jaeger, R.L. Mutel, and K.G. Gayley, Astropart. Phys. [41] T. Huege and H. Falcke, Astron. & Astroph. 430, 779 34, 293 (2010). (2005). [21] V.L. Ginzburg and I.M. Frank, Dok. Akad. Nauk SSSR [42] M.A. Duvernois, B. Cai, and D. Kleckner, Proc. 29th 56, 699 (1947). ICRC, Pune, India 8, 311 (2005). [22] R. Ulrich, Zeitschrift f ur Physik 194, 180 (1966) [43] T. Huege, R. Ulrich, and R. Engel, Astropart. Phys. 27, [23] M. Danos, S. Geschwind, H. Lashinsky, and A. van Trier, 392 (2007). [44] T. Huege, M. Ludwig, O. Scholten and K.D. deVries The 16 convergence of EAS radio emission models and a detailed Activities’ (ARENA), Nantes, France (2010), Nucl. In- comparison of REAS3 and MGMR simulations, Pre- str. Meth. A in press, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010.11.041 sented at ‘Acousitc and Radio EeV Neutrino detection