Arxiv:1907.05186V2 [Gr-Qc] 17 Mar 2020

Cherenkov Radiation of Light Bullets

Ulf Leonhardt and Yuval Rosenberg Department of Physics of Complex Systems, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 761001, Israel (Dated: March 18, 2020) Electrically charged particles, moving faster than the speed of light in a medium, emit Cherenkov radiation. Theory predicts electric and magnetic dipoles to radiate as well, with a puzzling behavior for magnetic dipoles pointing in transversal direction [I. M. Frank, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Fiz. 6, 3 (1942)]. A discontinuous Cherenkov spectrum should appear at threshold, where the particle velocity matches the phase velocity of light. Here we deduce theoretically that light bullets [Y. Silberberg, Opt. Lett. 15, 1282 (1990)] emit an analogous radiation with exactly the same spectral discontinuity for point–like sources. For extended sources the discontinuity turns into a spectral peak at threshold. We argue that this Cherenkov radiation has been experimentally observed in the ﬁrst attempt to measure Hawking radiation in optics [F. Belgiorno et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 203901 (2010)] thus giving experimental evidence for a puzzle in Cherenkov radiation instead.

PACS numbers:

I. INTRODUCTION charged particles — monopoles — to the radiation of dipoles or higher–order multipoles. Frank [12] predicted the Electrically charged particles radiate when they move faster Cherenkov spectrum of electric and magnetic dipoles, and than the phase velocity of light in a medium. Cherenkov [1] found a surprize: while the Cherenkov spectrum of electric was the first to experimentally investigate this radiation start- monopoles and dipoles rises smoothly from zero when the ing in 1934 (thanks to his excellent eye sight). These days, particle becomes superluminal (Figs. 2a and 2b), the spectrum Cherenkov radiation is clearly visible in the eerie blue light in of magnetic dipoles polarized orthogonally to the direction nuclear reactors [2], and is widely known and used, from re- of motion, suddenly jumps from zero (Fig. 2c). In all cases search in high–energy and astrophysics [3, 4] to medical appli- shown (Fig. 2), the spectra depend on the refractive index n cations [5]. Frank and Tamm [6] realized that Cherenkov ra- of the host medium and the velocity v of the particle. As n diation is a consequence of classical electromagnetism in me- depends on the frequency ω of light, the onset of Cherenkov dia [7] (after similar ideas by Heaviside [8] and Sommerfeld radiation occurs at the critical frequency where c/n matches [9] were forgotten) and determined theoretically the emitted v. The discontinuous onset for magnetic dipoles seemed un- spectrum, which agreed with refined experimental measure- physical and puzzled Frank throughout his life [13]. Since ments. Figure 1 shows the emitted radiation field (for the case there has been no experimental evidence for the Cherenkov considered in this paper). The figure illustrates how closely radiation of magnetic dipoles, this puzzle remained without Cherenkov radiation is related to the physics of the supersonic full resolution. boom [10] and the bow wave of ships [11]. In this paper, we consider a closely related case of Frank’s It is natural to generalize the Cherenkov radiation of fast–moving magnetic dipoles that occurs in nonlinear optics [14] and that, as we will explain, has probably been observed experimentally. It has been known that Cherenkov radiation can also be formed by electromagnetic radiation in media, rather than by moving particles. This idea was first realized by Askar’yan [15] who analyzed the induced material polarization at the electric field gradients. Later, the idea was further developed and experimentally verified in electro–optic mate-

arXiv:1907.05186v2 [gr-qc] 17 Mar 2020 rials [16, 17], that posses DC electric polarization and create Cherenkov–type emission similar to that of relativistic electric dipoles. Many other phenomena were also related to the Cherenkov effect, while some possess only a Cherenkov–type phase matching, without the shock–wave nature of Cherenkov emission (see e.g. Ref. [18]). Note that this distinction is not always straightforward (see e.g. Ref. [19]). FIG. 1: Cherenkov radiation emitted from a light bullet traveling in z–direction. The figure shows one Fourier component of the ra- Here we consider optical pulses called light bullets [20]. In nonlinear media the Kerr effect [14] can hold light pulses to- diation field in the x,z plane (units in µm). The real part of Aex is gether, forming light bullets [20]. We show that the nonlinear plotted with Aex described in Fig. 3. The field appears to be made by a Fourier–transformed light bullet, as if the bullet were a train of electric polarization of such pulses in media acts like a com- sources oscillating with a fixed frequency. The figure illustrates the bination of an electric and a magnetic dipole, both pointing Mach–cone emission of light in analogy to the supersonic boom and in transversal direction. We determine theoretically the spec- also to the bow wave of ships. trum of a point–like source and find the same sudden onset (Fig. 2c) as the one predicted by Frank. Moreover, we point 2

this relationship more precise: we relate the peak to the sudden onset of Cherenkov radiation as the feature surviving optical interference. The connection to Cherenkov radiation has been dismissed before [24], but the point is this: unlike the idealized case of Frank’s magnetic dipole, a real light bullet is an extended object. On a whole surface in the light bullet the Kerr effect has enhanced the refractive index such that it matches the bullet’s velocity. The Cherenkov radiation emitted at various positions inside the light bullet interferes. Using a simple model for a ﬁnite emission disk we ﬁnd that the onset of Cherenkov radiation is the only surviving feature of the radiation, turning Frank’s jump in the spectrum into a peak — probably the observed one [21].

II. THE MODEL

Let us ﬁrst focus on the idealized model of the light bullet as a moving point object. The oscillating electric ﬁeld of the bullet creates in the host medium an oscillating electric polarization pointing in transversal direction. The linear part of this dielectric polarization gives rise to the linear electric susceptibility and hence the deviation of the refractive index n from unity. The nonlinear part may be viewed [26] as generating a perturbation of the refractive index that is proportional to the pulse intensity and hence moves with the pulse. The dielectric polarization of this perturbation is the moving object whose radiation we are going to investigate here. Consider a point object of nonlinear electric polarization P pointing in x–direction and moving with velocity v in z– direction (Fig. 1). Changes in P generate electric currents [27] with density

j = ∂tP (1) with

Px = P Θ(z) δ(z0) δ(x) δ(y) ,Py = Pz = 0 (2) at the moving position

z0 = z − vt . (3) We assume from the outset that v exceeds the phase veloc- FIG. 2: Cherenkov spectra. Particles are moving in glass with a ve- ity c/n in the medium, for otherwise no Cherenkov radiation locity v that matches the phase velocity at frequency ω0 = 4.0PHz. The refractive index is given by the standard Sellmeier formula for can be generated on general grounds [28]. The polarization fused silica [25]. The figures show the emission spectra σ [Eq. (56)] is switched on [29] at some position where the pulse enters for various types of particles. a: electric monopoles, b: electric the medium, here z = 0, as the Heaviside function Θ(z) in- dipoles, c: magnetic dipoles pointing in transversal direction rep- dicates. We assume that the subsequently produced radiation resented by the light bullets of this paper. In the case c the emission may propagate in an infinite medium, ignoring surface effects, spectrum jumps at the onset of Cherenkov radiation. for keeping the calculations simple (but not too simple). Let us compare this model with Frank’s moving dipoles [13]. These dipoles are electric or magnetic dipoles in their co–moving frame. For comparing them with our case, we thus out that this Cherenkov radiation of light bullets has proba- need to transform the charge and current profiles of the mov- bly been seen in the first heroic attempt [21] to demonstrate ing polarization [Eq. (2) and (3)] to its co–moving frame. In Hawking radiation [22] in optics. There, instead of Hawk- relativity [30] the charge and current densities % and j form ing radiation, a distinct peak was seen in the spectrum where the density of the contravariant four–vector (c%, j) where, in the phase velocity c/n matched the speed v of the light bullet our case, [21]. After initial discussion [23] the peak was later attributed to some form of superluminal emission [24]. Here we make % = −∇ · P = −∂xPx (4) 3 and j is given by Eq. (1). The Lorentz transformation [30] to and obtain from Eqs. (1-3), and Eqs. (11) and (12): the co–moving frame modifies the charge density iωµ P ∇2 + n2k2 A = 0 eikzδ(x) δ(y) 0 ex (13) % = γ% = −∂xγPx (5) v in terms of the free–space wavenumber defined as by the relativistic gamma factor γ = (1 − v2/c2)−1/2 but ω does not introduce a contribution from the current, as j points k = . (14) orthogonally to the direction of motion. The x–component of c the current density remains unaffected as well, but we need Due to the cylindrical symmetry of Eq. (13), A will only be to transform the time derivative in Eq. (1) to the co–moving ex a function of z and r with r2 = x2 + y2. In order to fully frame, and get take advantage of the cylindrical symmetry we use cylindrical 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 coordinates {r, φ, z} with metric dl = dr + r dφ + dz j = −v ∂ γPx (6) x z and g = r2 for the determinant of the metric tensor. We get 0 from the Lorentz gauge, Eq. (10), as ∂tPx = 0. The z–component of the current density re- ceives, in the Lorentz transformation, a contribution from the ic ic charge density such that Ue = − ∂xAex = − ∂rAex cos φ (15) n2k n2k 0 jz = −vγ% = v ∂xγPx . (7) as ∂r/∂x = x/r = cos φ. These first mathematical conse- quences from our simple model have prepared us for calculat- We thus obtain for the current density ing the electromagnetic field. 0 0 j = ∇ × M ,My = vγPx (8) III. VECTOR POTENTIAL and vanishing Mx and Mz components. This is the effective current density of a transverse magnetic dipole with magne- tization M [27]. The charge density %0, on the other hand, The main mathematical ingredient of the calculation is the describes a transverse electric dipole. Our model thus corre- scalar Green function G describing the field of an instanta- sponds to a certain combination of an electric with a magnetic neous polarization, according to the propagation equation dipole. As we will show in Sec. V this combination produces n2 ∇2 − ∂2 G = −∂ δ(t) δ(x) δ(y) δ(z) (16) a Cherenkov spectrum that is simpler than the spectrum of c2 t t the magnetic dipole alone. We are also going to reproduce the discontinuity at the threshold of Cherenkov radiation. As with the well–known solution [27] the spectrum of the moving electric dipole is continuous [13], iω our analysis supports Frank’s discontinuity of the magnetic Ge = − einkρ , (17) Cherenkov radiation [13]. 4πρ p Having established our model, we proceed to laying the ρ = r2 + z2 (18) ground for our calculations of the Cherenkov spectrum. The electric and magnetic field strengths E and H in SI units are for the Fourier–transformed, outgoing Ge. Writing given in terms of the electromagnetic potentials as Z ∞ Θ(z) δ(z − vt) = δ(t − t0) δ(z − vt) dt0 (19) E = −∂tA − ∇U , µ0H = ∇ × A (9) 0 we obtain from Eqs. (1-3), (11) and (16) with magnetic permeability µ0. It will be advantageous to impose the Lorentz gauge [27]: Z ∞ Ax = µ0P G(z − vt0, t − t0) dt0 , (20) n2 0 ∇ · A + ∂ U = 0 . (10) c2 t and hence Z ∞ From Maxwell’s equations follows [27] iωt0 Aex = µ0P Ge(z − vt0) e dt0 0 2 z 2 n 2 µ P Z ∇ A − ∂ A = µ ∂ P , (11) 0 ikz −ikz0 c2 t 0 t = e Ge(z0) e dz0 (21) v −∞ which implies, inter alia, that the vector potential A points in with z0 = z − vt0. Inserting Eq. (17) we get the explicit x–direction as well. expression In order to define a spectrum, we Fourier–transform the Z z only non–trivial vector potential component: iωµ0P ωnρ ω dz0 Aex = − exp i + i (z − z0) 4πv c v ρ Z +∞ −∞ iωt q Aex = Ax e dt (12) with ρ = r2 + z2 . (22) −∞ 0 4

We define the wave–number walk–off δk as The remaining integral in Eq. (32) falls off for z → ∞ where r χ0 → ∞ according to Eq. (29). The integral thus contains the ω c2 δk ≡ n2 − (23) transition radiation [29] emitted upon the polarization has en- c v2 tered the medium at z = 0. The saddle point of the integrand’s for superluminal propagation, v > c/n, as assumed, and rep- phase lies at χ = 0, so only for χ0 < 0 the correcting integral resent the phase of the integrand as will play a major role in the far field. Since near the entrance of the moving polarization the field needs to be strongly mod- ωnρ ωz δk r cosh χ ≡ − 0 (24) ified from stationary radiation, we have chosen the branch of c v χ0 in such a way that χ0 < 0 for z = 0. Note that the integral where χ is a function of z0 defined by this equation. Since also describes corrections [Eq. (39)] due to near–field effects. In the far field away from the source (z r) the vec- ωnz ω δk r sinh χ dχ = 0 − dz , tor potential is dominated by the stationary contribution with cρ v 0 (1) H ∼ H0 . The field consists of purely outgoing radiation for ωnz ωρ2 positions (δk)2r2 sinh2 χ = 0 − (25) c v r z (34) we find p(nv/c)2 − 1 dz dχ = 0 (26) according to the asymptotics described by Eq. (33) combined ρ with the phase factor in Eq. (31). Here we obtain for the phase and therefore pattern of Aex the expression Z χ0 iωµ0P i(ω/v)z iδkr cosh χ r 2 2 ! Aex = − e e dχ (27) ω n v 4πv φ ∼ z + r − 1 . (35) −∞ v c2 where χ0 follows from Eqs. (18), (23) and (24) as √ The phase fronts form cones with an angle θ with tan θ = 2 2 nv r + z − cz p(nv/c)2 − 1 such that cosh χ0 = √ . (28) r n2v2 − c2 c cos θ = . (36) Using identities of hyperbolic functions we obtain nv z c χ0 = artanh√ − artanh . (29) This is Frank’s and Tamm’s formula for the angle of r2 + z2 nv Cherenkov radiation. Figure 3 shows the actual phase pro- Note that Eq. (28) has two real solutions, a positive and a neg- file of Aex including near–field and entrance effects. One sees ative one; we have chosen in Eq. (29) the branch with χ0 < 0 that the Mach cones with phase pattern of Eq. (35) are an ex- at z = 0 for reasons that are going to become clear in the next cellent approximation for the far–field regime characterized in paragraph. Eq. (34). The numerical calculation was done after deforming Having established the solution for the Fourier–transformed the integration contour in Eq. (32) such that vector potential A , we express it in a physically intuitive and ex 1 Z π/2 (1) iδkr cosh(χ0+iη) numerically convenient form. We use the integral representa- H = H0 (δk r) − e dη tion of the Hankel function [31], π 0 1 Z ∞ 1 Z +∞ − e−δkr sinh χ dχ (37) (1) iξ cosh χ iπ H0 (ξ) = e dχ (30) χ0 iπ −∞ that rapidly converges. The calculation of the vector potential and obtain from Eq. (27): shows that the field of the moving point polarization does in-

ωµ0P i(ω/v)z deed have the same characteristic phase pattern of Cherenkov Aex = H e (31) 4v radiation (Fig. 3). It remains to calculate the radiation spectrum. with the definition The Cherenkov spectrum is given by the energy flux across Z ∞ (1) 1 iδkr cosh χ a surface around the moving polarization. For deriving an ex- H ≡ H0 (δk r) − e dχ . (32) act expression with minimal technical effort we imagine this iπ χ 0 surface as a closed cylinder around the z–axis (Fig. 4) with (1) The Hankel function H0 describes in Eq. (31) a stationary, radius going to zero. In this case, we need the behavior of Aex outgoing radiation emitted along the propagation axis of the for r → 0, i.e. in the near–field regime close to the source. source, the z–axis, because of the asymptotics [31] We see from Eq. (28) that r 2 z rnv − c H(1)(ξ) ∼ ei(ξ−π/4) for large ξ . (33) cosh χ ∼ for r ∼ 0 (38) 0 πξ 0 r nv + c 5

spectrum analytically. But first we need to extract the electromagnetic field strengths from the vector potential that give the energy flux as the Pointing vector S integrated over the cylinder (Fig. 4).

IV. FIELD STRENGTHS

The electromagnetic ﬁeld strengths are given by Eq. (9) in general, here we need them in cylindrical coordinates {r, φ, z}. As A · dr = Axdx = Ax(cos φ dr − r sin φ dφ) is a spatial scalar, we read off Ar and Aφ as

Ar = Ax cos φ , Aφ = −Axr sin φ . (41)

FIG. 3: Phase pattern of Cherenkov radiation showing the Mach From this and Eq. (15) of the potential U follows cones of the emitted radiation and their modification due to the near field and the entrance of the point source. Near the entrance (z = 0) Eer = iωAex cos φ − ∂rUe the cones morph into the spherical waves of transition radiation [29]. iω 2 2 2 = 2 2 ∂r + n k Aex cos φ (42) The plot shows the contour lines of the argument of Aex given by n k Eqs. (31), (37) and (23) with n = 1.45, v = 1.2c/n, ω = 2πc/λ, and from Eq. (13) in cylindrical coordinates λ = 1.5µm (as in Fig. 1). The contours for multiples of 2π are omitted for clarity. The picture also shows the angle θ of Cherenkov cos φ c 2 1 Eer = ∂ + ∂r Aex − P ∆ (43) radiation. One sees that Frank’s and Tamm’s formula, Eq. (36), gives n2 ik z r an excellent approximation in the radiation zone characterized by condition (34). with the contact term µ c2 ∆ = 0 ei(ω/v)z δ(x) δ(y) . (44) v We obtain for the other components of the electric field strength

Eeφ = −iωAexr sin φ − ∂φUe sin φ c 1 2 2 = ∂r + n k Aexr , (45) n2 ik r cos φ c Eez = −∂zUe = − ∂z∂rAex . (46) n2 ik The magnetic ﬁeld strength is given by the curl of the vector potential,

1 jkl Hi = gij ∂kAl , (47) FIG. 4: Cylinder of the integration surface to obtain the energy µ0 flux from the components of the Poynting vector S. For getting an written using Einstein’s summation convention over repeated analytic expression of the emission spectrum the cylinder is made 2 infinitesimally small. indices, the metric tensor gij = diag(1, r , 1) of cylindrical coordinates, and the Levy–Civita tensor jkl with 1 1 ijk = √ [ijk] = [ijk] (48) where also cosh χ ∼ eχ/2 for which we can solve the integral g r in Eq. (32) exactly. We obtain [31] and [ijk] being the complete antisymmetric symbol [32]. We 1 thus obtain the magnetic field components: H ∼ H(1)(δk r) + Ei (iδkr cosh χ ) − 1 0 iπ 0 1 sin φ Her = − ∂zAeφ = ∂zAex , (49) 2i δk r 1 µ0r µ0 ∼ γ + ln + Ei(iζ) (39) π 2 iπ r cos φ Heφ = ∂zAer = ∂zAexr , (50) µ µ with Euler’s constant γ and 0 0 1 sin φ ω c Hez = ∂rAeφ − ∂φAer = − ∂rAex . (51) ζ = z n − . (40) µ0r µ0 c v Now we have everything ready for calculating the emission Armed with these expressions, we can calculate the emission spectrum. 6

V. CHERENKOV SPECTRUM depends on the Hankel–type amplitude H. We obtain from Eq. (39) The energy flux across the surface (Fig. 4) is given by the 2i 1 ∂ H ∼ , ∂ H ∼ eiζ (59) time–averaged Poynting vector [27, 32]. One gets for the r πr z iπz spectral energy flux, i.e. the energy flux per frequency: with ζ given by Eq. (40), express Ei(iζ) as Ci(ζ) + i Si(ζ) + n o i ijk ∗ iπ/2 according to Ref. [31] and obtain for the emission spec- S = Re EejHek . (52) trum from Eqs. (31), (57) and (58) the exact expression In cylindrical coordinates with Levy–Civita tensor of Eq. (48) µ P 2ω3 c2 π sin ζ we have σ = 0 1 + Si(ζ) + − ∂ 8v2π n2v2 2 z n2k2z 1 n ∗ ∗o (60) Sr = Re EeφHe − EezHe , (53) r z φ with ζ being defined in Eq. (40). The spectrum contains the 1 n ∗ ∗o transient radiation [29] due to the light bullet suddenly enter- Sz = Re EerHe − EeφHe (54) r φ r ing the medium at z = 0. For large z the spectrum approaches a stationary value, because [31] Si(ζ) ∼ π/2 − (cos ζ)/ζ and where we lowered the index without change for the r and z terms falling with ζ−1 or z−1 or stronger are vanishing. The components in cylindrical coordinates. The φ–component of stationary limit of the spectrum σ for z → ∞ describes the the Poynting vector vanishes in our case, as the radiation does stationary Cherenkov radiation for v ≥ c/n. Furthermore, we not cycle around the propagation axis. know [28] that σ vanishes for stationary fields at frequencies Consider the differential spectral energy σ per propagation below the Cherenkov threshold (v < c/n). In the stationary length: regime we thus obtain the remarkably simple result: 2 d W  2 3 2 σ = (55) µ0P ω c dω dz  1 + for v ≥ c/n σ = 8v2 n2v2 . (61) where W denotes the energy. According to Poynting’s the- 0 otherwise orem [27] we can write dW/dω as the surface integral of the Poynting vector S given by Eq. (52). The surface we Frank’s formula, Eq. (4.36) of Ref. [13], for the Cherenkov can deform in any way, as long as it encloses the interval of spectrum of a superluminally fast magnetic dipole polarized the propagation (on the z–axis) we wish to consider, because orthogonally to the propagation direction, is more compli- Cherenkov radiation is produced only at the propagation axis. cated, but it shares the same characteristic features with our For a point source, it will be advantageous to employ a cylin- simple result, Eq. (61). The emission spectrum grows with der (Fig. 4) with vanishing radius r0. In this case, we have the cube of the frequency and it differs from zero already at the threshold where v = c/n. In contrast, the spectrum of an Z 2π Z r0 Z 2π electric or a magnetic dipole pointing parallel to the propaga- σ = r S | dφ + ∂ S r dφ dr (56) 0 r r0 z z 0 0 0 tion direction is [13] µ P 2ω3 c2 for r0 → 0. We obtain for the first term, i.e. for the differential  0 2 1 − 2 2 for v ≥ c/n flux in radial direction: σk = 8v n v (62) 0 otherwise Z 2π ( ∗ ) πω (∂r∂zAe )∂zAex S dφ = − Im (∂ A∗ )A + x r r ex ex 2 2 and for an electric dipole orthogonal to the direction of motion 0 µ0 n k (57) [13]  where we used Eqs. (45), (46), (50) and (51) in Eq. (53). Now µ P 2n2ω3 c2 2 we turn to the flux in propagation direction. Here only the  0 1 − for v ≥ c/n σ⊥ = 16c2 n2v2 . (63) contact term [Eq. (44)] in the radial component of the electric  field, Eq. (43), can make a contribution for r → 0, for the fol- 0 otherwise lowing reason. The asymptotics described in Eq. (39) implies In Eqs. (62) and (63) P accounts for the dipole moment such 1/r that the other terms are diverging logarithmically or with that the formulas are adjusted to Eq. (61). With our theoretical 1/r at most. It turns out that the terms cancel each other such calculation of the Cherenkov radiation of a point–like light that only the logarithmic divergency remains, but the integral bullet we have thus confirmed Frank’s puzzling result [12, 13] of a logarithm over an infinitesimally small disk vanishes. In for the combination of electric and magnetic dipole the light this way we obtain from Eqs. (43-45), (49), (50) and (54) the bullet corresponds to (as explained in Sec. II). spectral energy flux in propagation direction:

Z r0 Z 2π c2P n o i(ω/v)z ∗ VI. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE? Sz r dφ dr = − 2 Re e ∂zAex (58) 0 0 2n v in the limit r0 → 0. We have expressed the ﬂuxes in terms of In order to directly compare the Cherenkov radiation of the vector potential. According to Eq. (31) the vector potential light bullets with Frank’s moving magnetic dipoles we made 7

pointing in x–direction: P r2 P = exp − Θ(z) δ(z ) (64) x 2πa2 2a2 0 where a accounts for the size of the disk. The disk is assumed to be inﬁnitely thin and moving with z0 = z − vt as the point–like source considered before. The Heaviside function models the entrance of the light bullet into the host medium of refractive index n. We are going to show that a disk larger then the wavelength suppresses Cherenkov radiation by destructive interference, except at threshold. In a three–dimensionally extended light bullet the emission from different planes will share the same fate. Therefore we expect that our planar model describes the essence of the Cherenkov radiation of extended light bullets. FIG. 5: Peak of Cherenkov radiation from an extended light bul- Having established our model, we proceed to calculate the let (black curve) versus the spectrum of a point source (gray curve). vector potential and the emission spectrum. The Fourier– One sees how the discontinuity at the threshold for the point object is turned into a peak for the extended source. The spectrum was plot- transformed vector potential Aex is the convolution of our solu- ted according to Eq. (78); the gray curve for the point source was tion for the point source with the Gaussian of Eq. (64). Using obtained by integrating σ of Eq. (60) and Fig. (2c) from 0 to z. The the cylindrical symmetry of our case we represent Aex as the parameters are a = 5µm, z = 1000µm, the phase velocity c/n in spatial Bessel transform of the Fourier–transformed Gaussian glass at ω0 = 4PHz was taken as velocity v of the moving polariza- with the spatial Fourier transform A of the point solution as tion. The standard Sellmeier formula for fused silica [25] was used for n(ω). 1 Z ∞ a2u2 Aex = exp − J0(ur) A u du (65) 2π 0 2

with Bessel function J0 [31]. For the spatial Fourier transform A of the point source we employ the same expression in terms one idealization in our model that is currently unrealistic in of the Green function as before, Eq. (21), but replace Ge by its practice: we assumed the light bullet to be a point object. In spatial Fourier transform Ge satisfying reality, a light bullet [20] or a related optical filament [33] 2 2 2 2 extends over several wavelenghts. We can imagine it as a col- ∂z − u + n k Ge = iωδ(z) . (66) lection of point objects, but the Cherenkov radiation emitted from all these points is going to interfere and cancel each other This ordinary differential equation has the causal solution out, unless the radiation pattern is completely frozen in the ω Ge = eiβ|z| (67) co–moving frame, which is only the case at threshold where 2β c/n = v. Our result for the Cherenkov spectrum, Eq. (61), shows that even at threshold the emitted energy does not van- in terms of the effective wave number ish. Therefore, the extended light bullet will still radiate, p β = n2k2 − u2 . (68) but the jump at the threshold (Fig. 2c) will turn into a peak (Fig. 5). Such a peak has been observed in a pioneering ex- Solving the integral in the equivalent of Eq. (21) gives the periment [21] attempting to detect the analogue of Hawking spatial Fourier transform of the vector potential of the point radiation [22] with moving light filaments [33] playing the source, as required in Eq. (65): role of the event horizon [26]. Our theory indicates that in- iωµ P stead of Hawking radiation the experimentalists [21] had seen A = − 0 f , (69) the optical equivalent of Frank’s elusive Cherenkov radiation 2β of transversal magnetic dipoles. ei(ω/v)z − eiβz ei(ω/v)z f = − . (70) In order to make our point more quantitative, we are going ω − vβ ω + vβ to describe the Cherenkov radiation of an extended light bul- Consider a light bullet much larger than the wavelength, let. We will not attempt to re–create the realistic situation in the computer — this has been partly done before [24] — but 2π a . (71) rather use a simple, characteristic model for working out the nk essential features analytically and for being more general than In this case the Gaussian in the integral of Eq. (65) suppresses a specific experiment. Let us assume the moving polarization the values of f(β, z) for β 6= nk where u 6= 0 according to sits primarily in a planar disk corresponding to the back plane Eq. (68). We thus regard of the light bullet where the Cherenkov threshold is reached [34]. For describing the effective extension of the disk we use f(β, z) f(nk, z) ∼ (72) a Gaussian multiplied with a plane of constant polarizations β nk 8 and obtain, after performing the remaining Gaussian integral some Cherenkov radiation sidewards where it could be de- in Eq. (65), the simple formula tected. The moving filament [33] in the experiment [21] cre- ated a gradual perturbation of the refractive index (similar to 2 cµ0P r a graded–index lens). Such a gradual perturbation may scat- Aex ∼ exp − f(nk, z) . (73) 4πina2 2a2 ter a small fraction of light from propagation direction to the orthogonal direction of detection [21]. Now we are ready for calculating the Cherenkov spectrum of the extended light bullet. In order to get a rough estimate of the order of magnitude As the field described by Eq. (73) is concentrated in a Gaus- of the Cherenkov radiation, we note that the nonlinear polar- sian cylinder along the propagation direction on the z–axis, ization P is given by ε0χNLE where ε0 is the permittivity no radiation goes out in radial direction sufficiently far away of the vacuum and χNL ≈ 2nδn the nonlinear contribution from the z–axis. It is advantageous to adjust the integration to the susceptibility that produces the change δn of the re- −3 surface of the energy flux. For the point source we employed fractive index; δn ≈ 10 in the experiment [21]. The total an infinitely thin cylinder (Fig. 4), for the extended source polarization P we estimate as |P |V with the effective vol- 2 we now use as a convenient integration surface an infinitely ume V ≈ a λ, assuming that the radiating disk has roughly thick cylinder where, as the field exponentially vanishes for the thickness of the wavelength λ. From this we get that 2 2 2 2 2 r → ∞ due to interference, no radiation goes out through the µP ≈ 4n δn (a /c)T /Tp times the total energy of the side. The energy flux is thus given by the difference between pulse where T denotes the time of an optical cycle and Tp −15 the flux through the top and the bottom of the infinitely thick the pulse duration, T ≈ 3 × 10 and Tp = 1ps in Ref. [21]. cylinder: From Ref. [21] we also read off a spectral width of about 0.1 T −1 that via Eq. (78) and the Sellmeier formula of the 3 dW Z z Z ∞ Z 2π refractive index [25] corresponds to kz ≈ 10 . As the moving = σ dz = (S | − S | ) dφ rdr . (74) dω z z z 0 filament [33] in the experiment [21] is transient we use this 0 0 0 method to estimate the effective propagation length z. With We obtain from Eqs. (42), (45), (49), (50) and (54): these estimations, we find that the total energy produced by Cherenkov radiation lies in the order of δn2 of the total pulse Z 2π 2 (2) energy, which is a sufficiently large number such that a small πωn ∗ ∆ Sz dφ = − Im (∂zAex) 2 + 2 2 Aex fraction bent sideways may have produced the observed peak 0 µ0 n k (75) at the Cherenkov frequency [21]. Our estimation should be in terms of the 2D–Laplacian taken with a grain of salt though, because it is based on a rather simple model that is only meant to explain how a step 1 in the Cherenkov spectrum for a point source can produce, by ∆(2) = ∂2 + ∂ . (76) r r r interference, a peak for an extended source. In the limit of a large light bullet the Laplacian is significantly smaller than n2k2 such that we can safely ignore the term. Hence we get for the total flux:

Z ∞ Z 2π c2ωµ P 2 S dφ rdr ∼ 0 Im {(∂ f ∗)f} z 2 z VII. SUMMARY 0 0 16πa (c−nv)2 3 2 2 c µ nP sin (ζ/2) − 2 = 0 4(c+nv) (77) 4πa2 (c − nv)2 Nonlinear electric polarizations, moving faster than the speed of light in dielectric media, radiate (Figs. 1 and 3). This with ζ deﬁned in Eq. (40). Finally, we obtain for the radiation resembles the hitherto unobserved Cherenkov radi- Cherenkov spectrum of the extended light bullet: ation of transversal magnetic dipoles Frank had been puzzled with for decades [13]. While ordinary Cherenkov radiation Z z 3 2 2 dW µ0n P c (kz) 2 gradually rises when charged particles, electric dipoles or par- = σ dz ∼ 2 sinc (ζ/2) (78) dω 0 16πa allel magnetic dipoles exceed the speed of light in the medium (Figs. 2a and 2b), the radiation of transversal magnetic dipoles with ζ given by Eq. (40). Clearly, the discontinuity at the suddenly comes into being. We reproduce this sudden onset threshold of Cherenkov radiation has manifested itself as a of Cherenkov radiation (Fig. 2c) for point polarizations and peak growing with growing propagation distance z (Fig. 5). show that for extended sources the optical interference of the Our theory does describe the main feature observed in the emitted radiation turns the discontinuity at the threshold into spectrum of the experiment [21], but it does not account for a peak (Fig. 5). Our study indicates that this peak was prob- the fact that at least some part of the radiation reached the ably observed in the ﬁrst attempt [21] to measure Hawking detector that was placed orthogonal to the propagation direc- radiation in an optical analogue [26]. It seems that instead of tion [21]. Radiation emitted in other directions was not mea- Hawking radiation, Frank’s elusive magnetic Cherenkov radi- sured. Presumably, the curvature of the light bullet did bend ation was seen. 9

Acknowledgements related to this paper. Our work was supported by the Euro- pean Research Council, the Israel Science Foundation, and This paper is dedicated to the memory of Yaron Silber- the Murray B. Kofﬂer Professorial Chair. Both authors con- berg. We are most grateful to him and to David Bermudez, tributed equally to this paper. Yehonathan Drori and Itay Griniasty for scientiﬁc discussions

[1] P. A. Cherenkov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 2, 451 (1934). Ortenzi, L. Rizzi, E. Rubino, V. G. Sala, and D. Faccio, ibid. [2] E. B. Podgorsak,ˇ Radiation Physics for Medical Physicists 149402 (2011). (Springer, Berlin, 2010). pp. 168-185. [24] See the supplement of M. Petev, N. Westerberg, D. Moss, E. [3] B. M. Bolotovskii, Phys. Usp. 52, 1099 (2009). Rubino, C. Rimoldi, S. L. Cacciatori, F. Belgiorno, and D. Fac- [4] M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Science 342, cio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 043902 (2013). 1242856 (2013). [25] I. H. Malitson, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 55, 1205 (1965). [5] K. Tanha, A. M. Pashazadeh, and B. W. Pogue, Biomed. Opt. [26] T. G. Philbin, C. Kuklewicz, S. Robertson, S. Hill, F. Konig,¨ Express 6, 3053 (2015). and U. Leonhardt, Science 319, 1367 (2008). [6] I. E. Tamm and I. M. Frank, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 14, 107 [27] J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, (1937). 1999). [7] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continu- [28] We recall the argument [7] for the threshold of stationary ous Media (Pergamon, Oxford, 1984). Cherenkov radiation: For a ﬁeld moving as F (z − vt) with the [8] O. Heaviside, The Electrician 22, 147 (1888). moving source the frequency ω and spatial wavenumber kz are [9] A. Sommerfeld, Nachr. Konigl.¨ Gesell. Wiss. Gottingen,¨ Math.- related by ω = kzv. Since kz ≤ k = n(ω/c) we get v ≥ c/n phys. Klasse 99 (1904); 363 (1904); 203 (1905). as condition. Note that this argument does not apply to non– [10] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics (Pergamon, stationary ﬁelds generated by the source being accelerated or Oxford, 1987). switched on, where some transition radiation is also made for [11] J. Lighthill, Waves in Fluids (Cambridge University Press, frequencies with v < c/n [29]. Cambridge, 1978). [29] This is related to the transition radiation of a charge entering [12] I. M. Frank, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Fiz. 6, 3 (1942). and leaving a dielectric medium, see V. L. Ginzburg and I. M. [13] I. M. Frank, Sov. Phys. Usp. 27, 772 (1984). Frank, J. Phys. (USSR), 9, 353 (1945) and the review V. L. [14] R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear Optics (Academic Press, Burlington, Ginzburg, Phys. Scr. T2/1, 182 (1982). 2008), 3rd ed. [30] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields [15] G. A. Askar’yan, Sov. Phys. JETP 15, 943 (1962). (Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam, 2003). [16] D. A. Kleinman and D. H. Auston, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. [31] A. Erdelyi,´ W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger, and F. G. Tricomi, 20, 964 (1984). Higher Transcendental Functions (McGraw-Hill, New York, [17] D. H. Auston, K. P. Cheung, J. A. Valdmanis, and D. A. Klein- 1981). man, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1555 (1984). [32] U. Leonhardt and T. G. Philbin, Geometry and Light: the Sci- [18] N. Akhmediev and M. Karlsson, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2602 (1995). ence of Invisibility, (Dover, Mineola, 2010). [19] V. Vaicaitis,ˇ Opt. Commun. 209, 485 (2002). [33] A. Couairon, P. Di Trapani, and D. Faccio, Conical Waves, Fil- [20] Y. Silberberg, Opt. Lett. 15, 1282 (1990). aments and Nonlinear Filamentation Optics (Aracne, Rome, [21] F. Belgiorno, S. L. Cacciatori, M. Clerici, V. Gorini, G. Ortenzi, 2015). L. Rizzi, E. Rubino, V. G. Sala, and D. Faccio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [34] The Kerr effect adds a contribution to the refractive index that 105, 203901 (2010). is proportional to the intensity of the light pulse [14]. Due to [22] S. W. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974); Commun. Math. Phys. this extra contribution the Cherenkov threshold is reached in a 43, 199 (1975). surface on the pulse; the strongest effect due to the most rapid [23] R. Schutzhold¨ and W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 149401 change happens at the back face of the light bullet. (2011); F. Belgiorno, S. L. Cacciatori, M. Clerici, V. Gorini, G.