zhs and ep theory
DESCRIPTION
ZHS and EP theory. C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23 rd , 2012. Step 1: Liénard-Weichert Potentials. Begin with Maxwell’s equations Add a single ( monopolar ) particle as a source Allow for finite light propagation speed Use Lorentz gauge. Step 2:. Applyto get:. Nearfield Term - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
ZHS and EP theory
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd, 2012
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 2
Step 1: Liénard-Weichert Potentials
- Begin with Maxwell’s equations- Add a single (monopolar) particle as a source- Allow for finite light propagation speed- Use Lorentz gauge
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 3
Step 2:
• Apply to get:
Radiation termEnergy/area as R-2
Energy transport to infinity
Nearfield TermEnergy/area as R-4
Energy decreases with distance
“Accelerating charged particles radiate”
Get rid of this(no Frank-Tamm VC)
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 4
Do some maths…
• Endpoints
• ZHS formula
• Endpoints -> ZHS: (the far-field approximation)
**
*
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 5
Toy experiments
• Take a straight particle track:
• Place an observer in x-z plane
• Calculate emission via…- Endpoints- ZHS (single track)- ZHS (very many sub-tracks)
* *
R
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 6
What do we expect to see?
• Afanasiev, Kartavenko, Stepanovsky J Phys D, 32 (1999)
Vavilo
v-Che
renko
v
radiat
ion im
porta
nt
Bremsstrahlung from endpoints dominates
Bremsstrahlung from endpoints dominates
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 7
Far-field, far from theta_C
• Endpoints, ZHS agree perfectly.• No ZHS track sub-division needed (1m source at 1
km unresolved)
1 m
1000
m
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 8
Low-frequency-limit
• Endpoints reduce to:
• ZHS low-phase limit:
Tends towards a constant term at low frequencies
Tends towards zero at low frequencies
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 9
Difference in the near-field
• Observer much closer to track start than track end• Endpoints accounts for this, ZHS can not
1 m
1 m
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 10
Why?
• ZHS formula:- Accounts for distance difference in phase, but not
magnitude- true no matter how tracks are subdivided
• Endpoints:- Distance affects both magnitude and phase
• Clearly, an observer in the nearfield should see a monopolar component to the pulse- [total net change in potential]
• Important for:- Lunar Cherenkov? No! (very far field)- Important for air-showers? Perhaps (REAS3 vs ZHAires).- Important for dense media?...
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 11
What about near the Cherenkov angle?
• Endpoint formulation:
• In ZHS:
Result can be arbitrarily large (it blows up)
Result is always finite (more sensible)
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 12
Behaviour near the Cherenkov angle
• Endpoints produce a larger contribution (can be arbitrarily large)
1 m1000 m
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 13
Why do endpoints blow up?• Endpoints allow:
- Infinitely small acceleration zone- Infinitely small source particle- Infinitely small detector- [time-domain only] constant refractive index
• Result: potentially infinite field
• This should not be unexpected!- Very common to see infinities in the literature- This is why textbooks always derive the total
radiated power and not the field strengths.
• This is small consolation.
14
What happens in the near-field in the Cherenkov
regime?OR:
When good techniques go bad
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 15
Toy experimental set-up
• Place the observer firmly in the Cherenkov regime 10 m
1 m
Cherenkov zone
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 16
Spectrum: n=2
• Now we see differences…
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 17
Time-domain (no band limit)
• Time-domain output (ZHS vs EP) (n=2):
• Large contribution from ZHS NOT in endpoints!
• Could this be a ‘true’ Vavilov-Cherenkov emission? (or a numerical artefact?)
(note different y-axis scales)
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 18
Quick check: in vacuum
• We do not expect and Cherenkov shock• But we do expect two bremsstrahlung
shocks…
• I do not understand this ZHS behaviour
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 19
1cm from the vacuum track
• Large ZHS pulse… in a vacuum.
• This is not V-C radiation!• It is a numerical artefact OR a static term.
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 20
Summary from toy experiments
• Theoretical expectation:- EP theory models only bremsstrahlung
• Handles near-field• Breaks down near theta_C
- ZHS models only bremsstrahlung + far-field approx• Breaks down in near-field• Handles theta_C
• What we see:- EP theory matches expectation- ZHS: some strange results…
• Produces phantom Vavilov-Cherenkov-like pulse• Somehow misses bremsstrahlung
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 21
Main conclusion
• Neither endpoints nor ZHS get it completely right
ZHS is better(probably not correct)
Far-field Near-fieldN
ear θ
CFa
r fro
m θ
C
EP & ZHS agree(probably correct)
EP theory is better(probably correct)
ZHS crazyEP misses VC (main)(probably both crap)
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 22
Philosophical aside
• What about smooth particle motion?
• Radiation is emitted constantly
• Limit (description -> perfection) [inf points]:- Endpoints have contributions equal-and-
opposite sides of the Cherenkov angle- Divergences are expected to cancel- Hence tendency towards ZHS treatment in
REAS3
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 23
What does the ZHS formula produce• ZHS formula approximates:
• This approximation can not be made near the Cherenkov angle- Same approximation as Tamm (1939)- Shown to exclude Frank-Tamm Cherenkov
• And yet…- ZHS formula produces something sensible.- Endpoints do not.
• We do not know what ZHS produces at the Cherenkov angle
C. W. James, Columbus, Ohio, Feb 23rd 2012 24
Is the divergence physical?
• If:- n is constant- The acceleration event is truly instantaneous- The particle and detector are both infinitely
small• Then yes!• Divergence/magnification at the Cherenkov angle
does NOT necessarily mean Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation!
• Q: Why do we often see total radiated power calculated, but not the fields?
• A: Because this can hide nasty divergences (integrate away this divergence over finite spatial angles)