format: text

text:
# Critical light scattering in liquids.

## I Introduction

Dynamical critical phenomena manifest themselves in a singular temperature dependence of hydrodynamic transport coefficients . In pure fluids these transport coefficients are the thermal conductivity and the shear viscosity, both diverging on approach of the critical point. In Ref.  the field theoretic renormalization group (RG) theory has been used for a quantitative description of this non-analytic behavior and attention was given to the crossover to the analytic behavior in the background further away from $`T_c`$. The thermal conductivity can be measured in two ways, (i) by measuring the temperature difference when a heat current flows through the liquid (this is an experiment at zero wave vector $`k`$), and (ii) by light scattering experiments in the hydrodynamic region, where the wave vector and the temperature dependent correlation length $`\xi `$ fullfil the relation $`k\xi <<1`$. In the last case the thermal diffusivity $`D_T`$ is measured which is related to the thermal conductivity $`\kappa _T`$ by $`D_T=\kappa _T/(\rho C_P)`$ so that for a comparison of the two experimental data the specific heat has to be known. For the thermal diffusivity and the shear viscosity however theoretical calculations show that no other static quantity apart from the correlation length has to be known. This makes these two transport coefficients most suitable to check the dynamical renormalization calculation.

In light scattering experiments in liquids the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c`$, defined as the half width at half height of the central Rayleigh peak, provides useful additional information about the dynamical properties of the system. Far away from the critical point in the hydrodynamic region the characteristic frequency is given by $`\omega _c=D_T(T,\rho )k^2`$. Approaching the critical point a crossover from the hydrodynamic to the so called critical region ($`k\xi >>1`$) takes place and finally at ($`T_c,\rho _c`$) the characteristic frequency is a function of the wave vector alone. Asymptotically near the critical point (for very small values of $`k`$) the power law behavior $`\omega _ck^z`$ is expected with the dynamical critical exponent $`z3`$. Further away, that means for larger wave vector modulus, a crossover to the background behavior with a non singular thermal conductivity takes place. This is described by the van Hove theory where the characteristic frequency behaves as $`\omega _ck^4`$.

It is the aim of this paper to calculate the characteristic frequency in the whole ($`\xi ,k)`$-plane within the non-asymptotic RG theory in order to describe all types of crossover quantitatively. In addition the density dependence of the line width is considered. The non-universal background parameters entering the expression for the characteristic frequency are taken from other dynamical experiments, e.g measurements of the shear viscosity. Recently very precise data became available for xenon from experiments performed in microgravity . This allows also to reconsider the frequency dependence of the shear viscosity within RG theory already discussed in Ref. .

The results for pure fluids are also compared with light scattering experiments in polymer solutions and polymer blends. The non-asymptotic behavior in a mixture is not completely described by the critical model for pure fluids  but the asymptotics is the same. Therefore agreement should be found as long as the non-universal dynamic parameters are near to their fixed point values.

## II The dynamic model

The dynamic order parameter correlation function for the gas-liquid transition can be described within the model H , which is a special case of the model H’ described in detail in Ref. , containing dynamic equations for the order parameter $`\varphi _0`$ (the entropy density) and the transverse momentum density $`𝒋_t`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{o}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta H}{\delta \varphi _0}}\stackrel{o}{g}(\mathbf{}\varphi _0){\displaystyle \frac{\delta H}{\delta 𝒋_l}}+\mathrm{\Theta }_\varphi ,`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒋_t}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{t}{\overset{o}{\lambda }}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta H}{\delta 𝒋_t}}+\stackrel{o}{g}𝒯\left\{(\mathbf{}\varphi _0){\displaystyle \frac{\delta H}{\delta \varphi _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left[j_k\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta H}{\delta j_k}}_k𝒋{\displaystyle \frac{\delta H}{\delta j_k}}\right]\right\}+𝚯_t,`$ (2)
with fast fluctuating forces $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ and the projector $`𝒯`$ to the direction of the transverse momentum density. The Hamiltonian appearing in the dynamic equations is the normal Hamiltonian of a $`\varphi ^4`$-theory together with the conserved density $`𝒋_t`$ entering quadratically:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dx\left\{\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{o}{\tau }\varphi _0^2+\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{}\varphi _0)^2+\frac{\stackrel{o}{\stackrel{~}{u}}}{4!}\varphi _0^4+\frac{1}{2}a_j𝒋_t^2\right\}}.`$ (3)
As described in Ref.  the dynamic equations may be transformed into a dynamic functional leading to dynamic vertex functions which can be calculated in perturbation theory. In general the dynamic scattering function is different from a Lorentzian due to fluctuation effects. This prediction of scaling theory has been observed in ferromagnets  and even compared with RG calculations . The same scaling arguments as for the ferromagnet also apply for pure fluids although the deviation from a Lorentzian is expected to be smaller . Moreover it turns out that in one-loop order there are no frequency dependent contributions in the one-loop perturbation terms of the order parameter vertex functions . Therefore the shape of the dynamic correlation function is approximated by a Lorentzian and may be written as

$$\chi _{dyn}(k,\xi ,\omega )=2\chi _{st}\mathrm{}\left[\underset{\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{\overset{1}{\stackrel{o}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}(k,\xi ,\omega )\right]=\frac{\chi _{st}(k,\xi )}{\omega _c(k,\xi )}\frac{2}{1+y^2}$$
(4)
in one-loop order with $`y=\omega /\omega _c`$ and the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c`$, defined as the half width at half height of the Rayleigh peak. The width is given by the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}(k,\xi ,\omega =0)`$ so that the unrenormalized characteristic frequency reads

$$\underset{c}{\overset{o}{\omega }}(k,\xi )=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}k^2(\xi ^2+k^2)(1+\frac{\underset{t}{\overset{2}{\stackrel{}{f}}}}{\xi ^{d4}}d^dp\frac{1}{1+(𝐱𝐩)^2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{p^2}),$$
(5)
with $`x=k\xi `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega /\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\underset{t}{\overset{}{f}}=\stackrel{}{g}/\sqrt{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\underset{t}{\overset{}{\lambda }}}`$ after setting the parameter $`\underset{\varphi }{\overset{}{w}}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}/a_j\underset{t}{\overset{}{\lambda }}`$, which is irrelevant under renormalization, to zero. In full analogy to the renormalization of the transport coefficients  the pole in the unrenormalized characteristic frequency may be absorbed into Z-factors using field theoretic renormalization group theory. As we get the same Z-factors (and thus the same flow equations for the Onsager coefficient and the mode coupling) as for the transport coefficients we shall skip the details here.

## III The characteristic frequency

### A General expression

After renormalization the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c`$ is finally found to be

$`\omega _c(k,\xi )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})k^2(\xi ^2+k^2)\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{f_t^2(\mathrm{})}{16}}\left[5+6x^2\mathrm{ln}(1+x^2)\right]\right\}`$ (6)
in an $`ϵ`$-expansion with $`ϵ=4d`$. The temperature dependence enters via the flow equations for the mode coupling and the Onsager coefficient,

$`f_t^2(\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`f_t^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_t^2}{f_0^2}}1\right)\right]^1,`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_0^2}{f_t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_0}{\mathrm{}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_t^2}{f_0^2}}1\right)\right]\right)^{1x_\eta },`$ (8)
with the one-loop fixed point value of the mode coupling $`f_t^2=\frac{24}{19}`$ and the one-loop value of the exponent $`x_\eta =\frac{1}{19}`$. The connection between the flow parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ and the correlation length or the wave vector respectively is found from the matching condition

$$\left(\xi _0^1\mathrm{}\right)^2=\xi ^2+k^2,$$
(9)
for the Lorentzian approximation where the correlation length may be expressed in terms of the reduced temperature $`t`$ via $`\xi =\xi _0t^\nu `$ with $`\nu =0.63`$ along the critical isochore. As described in Ref.  we may use the cubic model to include non-critical values of the reduced density. In (7)-(9) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`f_0`$ are the initial values of the Onsager coefficient and the mode coupling at an arbitrary reduced temperature $`t_0`$ along the critical isochore, $`\mathrm{}_0`$ is the solution of the matching condition at $`t_0`$ and $`k=0`$ and $`\xi _0`$ is the amplitude of the correlation length. Eq. (9) is the frequency independent matching condition which has been used since the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}`$, expressing the characteristic frequency in the Lorentzian approximation, is evaluated at zero frequency.

We may rewrite (6) extracting the asymptotic expressions for the Onsager coefficient and the mode coupling,

$$\omega _c(k,x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{as}k^z\left(\frac{1+x^2}{x^2}\right)^{1x_\lambda /2}\left[c_{na}(k,x)\right]^{x_\lambda }f(k,x)$$
(10)
with $`x=k\xi `$, $`z=4x_\lambda `$ and the function $`f(k,x)`$ defined as

$$f(k,x)=1\frac{f_t^2}{16c_{na}(k,x)}\left[5+6x^2\mathrm{ln}(1+x^2)\right].$$
(11)
The non-asymptotic contributions are collected in

$$c_{na}(k,x)=\left[1+\frac{k}{k_0}\sqrt{\frac{1+x^2}{x^2}}\right]$$
(12)
so that the asymptotic region is characterized by $`c_{na}(k,x)=1`$. Finally the asymptotic Onsager coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{as}`$ and the crossover wave length $`k_0`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{as}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\left(\frac{f_0^2\mathrm{}_0}{f_t^2\xi _0}\right)^{x_\lambda },k_0^1=\left(\frac{f_t^2}{f_0^2}1\right)\frac{\xi _0}{\mathrm{}_0}.$$
(13)
The advantage of Eq. (10) over Eq. (6) is the clear separation of the asymptotic and the non-asymptotic behavior which will make the discussion of the various limits of the characteristic frequency easier. Before we come to that point in the next section we should remark here that it is also possible to evaluate the crossover function in three dimensions  instead of performing an $`ϵ`$-expansion. The characteristic frequency then reads

$`\omega _c(k,\xi )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})k^2(\xi ^2+k^2)\left\{1+f_t^2(\mathrm{})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+x^2}{x^2}}}\mathrm{arctan}x{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\right]\right\}`$ (14)
As expressions (6) and (14) are almost identical after choosing the right initial values for the Onsager coefficient and the mode coupling we shall only discuss the $`ϵ`$-expansion result (also used for the evaluation of the transport coefficients in ) in the following.

### B Various limits of the characteristic frequency

First we should note that Eq. (10) yields a finite value for the characteristic frequency in the hydrodynamic limit $`x0`$,

$$\underset{x0}{lim}\omega _c(k,\xi )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{as}k^2\xi ^{2+x_\lambda }\left[1+\frac{1}{x_0}\right]^{x_\lambda }\left\{1\frac{f_t^2}{16}\left[1+\frac{1}{x_0}\right]^1\right\},$$
(15)
with $`x_0=k_0\xi `$. Here the coefficient of $`k^2`$ is the non-asymptotic expression for the temperature dependent thermal diffusion coefficient $`D_T(\xi )`$ discussed in Ref.  so that we can rewrite Eq. 15 in the well-known form $`\omega _c=D_T(\xi )k^2`$ for the hydrodynamic region. Also in the opposite critical limit $`x\mathrm{}`$ we obtain a finite value for the characteristic frequency,

$$\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _c(k,\xi )=\omega _c(k)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{as}k^z\left[1+\frac{k}{k_0}\right]^{x_\lambda }\left\{1+\frac{5f_t^2}{16}\left[1+\frac{k}{k_0}\right]^1\right\},$$
(16)
which is the wave vector dependent non-asymptotic expression of the characteristic frequency. Both non-asymptotic expressions allow to discuss the crossover from the asymptotic limit $`\xi k_0\mathrm{}`$ or $`k/k_00`$ to the background limit $`\xi k_00`$ or $`k/k_0\mathrm{}`$ respectively.

In the hydrodynamic case we obtain the limits

$`\underset{\xi k_0\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _c(k,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{as}k^2\xi ^{2+x_\lambda }\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{f_t^2}{16}}\right),`$ (17)
$`\underset{\xi k_00}{lim}\omega _c(k,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0k^2\xi ^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{f_0^2}{f_t^2}}\right)^{x_\lambda },`$ (18)
where we used the expression for $`k_0`$ given in Eq.(13) for the last limit. In the background limit our expression reaches the van Hove behavior. In the critical region we obtain

$`\underset{k/k_00}{lim}\omega _c(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{as}k^z\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5f_t^2}{16}}\right),`$ (19)
$`\underset{k/k_0\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _c(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0k^4\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{f_0^2}{f_t^2}}\right)^{x_\lambda },`$ (20)
where again we reach the van Hove theory for large values of the ratio $`k/k_0`$. This means that our results for the characteristic frequency describe the crossover in the correlation length (from $`\xi ^{2+x_\lambda }`$ to $`\xi ^2`$) in the hydrodynamic region characterized by the limit $`x0`$ as well as the crossover in the wave vector (from $`k^z`$ to $`k^4`$) in the critical region characterized by the limit $`x\mathrm{}`$.

We have seen that with our non-asymptotic theory we always reach the van Hove behavior in the non-asymptotic limit for large values of the wave vector or small values or the correlation length respectively. This is different from the non-asymptotic mode coupling expression of Olchowy , where the characteristic frequency is given by

$$\omega _c(k,\xi )=\frac{k_BT}{6\pi \overline{\eta }^B\xi }k^2\frac{3}{4}(1+x^2)^{1/2}\left[y_D+y_\delta (1+x^2)^{1/2}\right]$$
(21)
with

$$y_D=\mathrm{arctan}x_D,y_\delta =(1+x_D^2)^{1/2}[y_D+\mathrm{arctan}(x_D(1+x_D^2)^{1/2}]$$
(22)
depending both on the non-universal parameter $`x_D=q_D\xi `$ which is similar to the parameter $`k_0`$ appearing in our non-asymptotic theory. Eq. (21) does not yield the van Hove theory in the non-asymptotic region but instead becomes negative for $`x>2x_D`$. This region of unphysical negative values of the characteristic frequency is always reached at constant correlation length when the wave vector becomes larger than the non-universal parameter $`q_D`$. On the other hand the parameter $`q_D`$ cannot be set to infinity as this limit yields an unphysical divergence in the hydrodynamic limit for $`\xi 0`$ .

### C Discussion of the crossover behavior

In the background we always reach the van Hove behavior for the characteristic frequency. This is a general feature of our non-asymptotic theory. The parameter which describes the crossover from the van Hove expression of the characteristic frequency to its asymptotic expression is in fact the value of the mode coupling $`f_0`$ which can take on values from zero to the fixed point value $`f_t^{}`$. Note that this corresponds to a crossover of $`k_0`$ from its asymptotic limit $`k_0\mathrm{}`$ to its van Hove limit $`k_00`$. The van Hove behavior for $`f_0=0`$,

$$\omega _c^{vH}(k,x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0k^4\left(1+x^2\right),$$
(23)
is different from the background behavior at finite $`f_0`$ so that we can define a background van Hove characteristic frequency $`\omega _c^{BvH}`$ as

$$\omega _c^{BvH}(k,x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0k^4\left(1\frac{f_0^2}{f_t^2}\right)^{x_\lambda }\left(1+x^2\right),$$
(24)
which we now always reach with our non-asymptotic theory in the background limit $`\xi k_00`$ or $`k/k_0\mathrm{}`$ respectively.

Now we can extract the background van Hove behavior from the full characteristic frequency given in Eq. 10,

$$\omega _c(k,x)=\omega _c^{BvH}(k,x)\left(k\xi _0\right)^{x_\lambda }\left(\frac{f_0^2}{f_t^2}\mathrm{}_0\right)^{x_\lambda }\left(\frac{1+x^2}{x^2}\right)^{x_\lambda /2}\left(\frac{c_{na}(k,x)}{1\frac{f_0^2}{f_t^2}}\right)^{x_\lambda }f(k,x),$$
(25)
and plot the ratio $`\omega _c/\omega _c^{BvH}`$ in order to demonstrate the crossover behavior of the characteristic line width. This is done in Fig. 1 from which we see that the ratio $`\omega _c/\omega _c^{BvH}`$ increases near the critical point (characterized by $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ and $`k0`$) as the characteristic frequency then approaches its asymptotic power law behavior, of course with nonuniversal amplitudes depending on value of the mode coupling $`f_0`$ in the background. This effect increases with increasing values of the mode coupling $`f_0`$. Especially we see that choosing the fixed point value $`f_0=f_t^{}`$ the surface of the characteristic frequency never reaches a flat surface (corresponding to the van-Hove behavior).

The crossover from the asymptotic power-law behavior in the critical region, where the characteristic frequency is proportional to $`k^z`$, to the van Hove behavior with $`\omega _ck^4`$ in the non-asymptotic background region can also be seen in Fig. 2 where we compare our asymptotic and non-asymptotic results with the van Hove theory and the result of Kawasaki . To do this we rewrite Eq. (10) extracting $`k^2`$ instead of $`k^z`$,

$$\omega _c^{as}(k,\xi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{as}}{\xi ^{1+x_\eta }}k^2(1+x^2)^{1x_\lambda /2}\left[c_{na}(k,x)\right]^{x_\lambda }f(k,x)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{as}}{\xi ^{1+x_\eta }}k^2\mathrm{\Omega }(x),$$
(26)
and compare the various results for the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ at constant correlation length instead of $`\omega _c`$ itself. Therefore we have to note that the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ defined in Eq. (26) is in general not only a function of $`x=k\xi `$ but also of the wave vector $`k`$ which enters via the non-asymptotic function $`c_{na}(k,x)`$. But keeping the correlation length constant as in Fig. 2 we can express $`k`$ in terms of $`x`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ is really only a function of $`x`$.

As Kawasaki’s result is proportional to $`k^3`$ instead of $`k^z`$ the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ plotted in Fig. 2 becomes constant for large values of $`x`$ whereas our asymptotic result (characterized by $`c_{na}(k,x)=1`$) is proportional to $`x^{x_\eta }`$ and the van Hove theory to $`x`$. Our non-asymptotic results (at constant values of the correlation length $`\xi `$) behave for large values of $`x`$ like the van Hove theory and are therefore proportional to $`x`$. We also see in this figure that the setin of the crossover to the van Hove theory is determined by initial value of the mode coupling $`f_0`$ which is the only free parameter in our non-asymptotic theory. We also should note that in Kawasaki’s theory there is a different prefactor for the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ so that we have normalized the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ so that the curves coincide for $`x0`$.

We can also use the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ defined in Eq. (26) to compare our asymptotic result for the characteristic frequency with other theories: In Fig. 3 we have plotted the asymptotic result for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ (which is only a function of $`x`$ as we have $`c_{na}(k,x)=1`$) as well as the theoretical results of Kawasaki and Lo , Paladin and Peliti  and Burstyn et al. . As the other authors have a different prefactor for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ we have normalized $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ so that the curves coincide for $`x0`$. Again we see that the Kawasaki result for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ becomes constant whereas the other results show the correct $`x^{x_\eta }`$ behavior for large values of $`x`$. In addition to this comparison we should note that at the critical dimension $`d=4`$ our result for the characteristic frequency is identical with the result of Siggia et al. .

And finally let us mention that we can extend our theory to non-critical values of the density and calculate the crossover in the characteristic frequency when we leave the critical isochore: Using the parametric representation to connect the correlation length to the reduced temperature $`t=(TT_c)/T_c`$ and the reduced density $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =(\rho \rho _c)/\rho _c`$  we are able to evaluate the correlation length as a function of $`t`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ and $`k`$. In Fig. 4 we have plotted the characteristic frequency in the hydrodynamic limit for $`k=0`$ as a function of $`t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$. We see that the characteristic frequency goes to zero in the critical limit $`t0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho 0`$ corresponding to $`\xi \mathrm{}`$.

## IV Comparison with experiments

### A Pure liquids

In Fig. 5-8 we compare our asymptotic and non-asymptotic results for the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c/k^2`$ as a function of the reduced temperature $`t`$ and the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ as a function of $`x`$ with experiments in Xe and $`\mathrm{CO}_2`$  (all non-universal parameters are given in Tab. I). As discussed in Ref.  we can treat the exponent $`x_\lambda =1x_\eta `$ as an additional free parameter so that we can fit $`f_0`$ and $`x_\eta `$ from the experimental data (the initial value of the Onsager coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is determined by the value of the shear viscosity at $`t_0`$). But this means that we need additional data for this fit. In Xe we have used the recent shear viscosity data of Berg et al.  discussed in the next section. Fitting the parameter $`f_0`$ from the characteristic frequency data (the exact value of $`x_\eta `$ does hardly affect the exponent $`x_\lambda =1x_\eta `$) and the exponent $`x_\eta `$ from the shear viscosity data we find good agreement for the characteristic frequency (Fig. 5 and 6) as well as for the frequency dependent shear viscosity (Fig. 11 and 12). For $`\mathrm{CO}_2`$ we have taken $`t_0`$, $`f_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ (also given in Tab. I) from the comparison of the shear viscosity and the thermal diffusivity with experiments in Ref.  so that the curves shown in Fig. 7 and 8 are obtained without any free parameter!

As we can see in these figures the experimental data are not described correctly by our asymptotic expressions but only by the non-asymptotic expressions which show the crossover to the van Hove theory for large values of the reduced temperature $`t`$ or small values of the variable $`x`$ respectively. Analogously any asymptotic theory  fails to describe the experimental data correctly. In Ref.  this problem was eliminated adding a regular background contribution of the form $`\omega _c^B=(\lambda ^B/\rho c_p)k^2(1+x^2)`$ to the critical expression for the characteristic frequency with $`\lambda ^B`$ being the regular part of the thermal conductivity and $`c_p`$ the full specific heat at constant pressure containing also critical contributions. The use of the full specific heat together with the term $`1+x^2`$ ensures the crossover to the van Hove theory for large values of the reduced temperature as well as for large values of the wave vector (the background characteristic frequency is proportional to $`k^2\xi ^2`$ for $`x0`$ and to $`k^4`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$) so that the full characteristic frequency $`\omega _c=\omega _c^C+\omega _c^B`$ obtained by this procedure yields basically the same curves as our non-asymptotic theory (see Fig. 6 of Ref. ). In our theory however we use a different form of the background characteristic frequency: Following the discussion of the regular background added to the transport coefficients  we would have to add a background of the form $`\omega ^B=D_T^B(T,\rho )k^2D_T^B(T_c,\rho _c)k^2`$ to our results with the background thermal diffusivity given by $`D_T^B=\lambda ^B/\rho c_p^B`$ and the background specific heat $`c_p^B`$ containing only the regular temperature dependence without the critical singularity. As this background term turns out to be negligibly small in the temperature range shown in Fig. 5-8 we have neglected it so that our asymptotic and non-asymptotic curves for Xe and $`\mathrm{CO}_2`$ contain only the critical contributions discussed in this paper. So the main difference between our non-asymptotic theory and the results of Ref.  is that the crossover to the van Hove theory, which is clearly seen in experiments, is already contained in our expressions for the characteristic frequency and not added by an appropriate form of the background contribution!

In Fig. 6 and 8 we also see that the non-asymptotic results for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ do of course not collapse on a single curve (in contrary to our asymptotic result and the theories of Ref. ) as the non-asymptotic contribution $`c_{na}`$ does not only depend on the variable $`x=k\xi `$ but also on the wave vector $`k`$ and the correlation length $`\xi `$ separately. This behavior can also be seen in the Xe and $`\mathrm{CO}_2`$ data in Fig. 6 and 8 although the experimental data are not precise enough for a true confirmation of the validity of our non-asymptotic theory.

### B Polymer solutions and blends

And finally we apply our theory for the characteristic frequency to light scattering experiments in binary polymer solutions: In Fig. 9 we compare our non-asymptotic theory for the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c/k^2`$ as a function or the reduced temperature with experimental data in a solution of polydisperse polystyrene (PDPS) in cyclohexane . For this figure the initial value of the Onsager coefficient was determined from the value of the background shear viscosity at the critical point also measured in Ref. . The amplitude of the correlation length $`\xi _0`$ as well as the exponents $`\nu =0.7`$ and $`x_\eta =0.065`$ were taken from the same paper. Therefore we have to note that the exponent $`\nu `$ found by Ref.  for the polymer solution is higher than the value $`\nu =0.63`$ found for pure liquids or liquid mixtures. Fitting the initial value of the mode coupling $`f_0`$, which is the only free parameter in our theory, from the experimental data (all values given in Tab. I) we reach a satisfactory description of the experimental data although the curves for large wave vectors lie above the experimental data for small values of the reduced temperature. Nevertheless we have to note that the quality of the description cannot be compared to the one reached for Xe and $`\mathrm{CO}_2`$ as there are no detailed experimental data for the shear viscosity of this polymer solution in the vicinity of the critical point available so that an exact determination of $`\overline{\eta }_0`$ and thus of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ was not possible and also the critical exponent had to be fixed and could not be fitted from the experiments.

However one crucial point remains: The fact the we have used the non-asymptotic theory developed for pure liquids to describe a polymer solution is of course a problem as liquids and liquid mixtures do have the same asymptotic behavior but show a slightly different crossover to the non-asymptotic behavior. But as an asymptotic theory is not able to describe the experimental data (in the same way as we were not able to describe the characteristic frequency in pure liquids with the asymptotic theory) and a non-asymptotic theory for critical light scattering in mixtures has not yet been set up we believe that the systematic errors made by applying a non-asymptotic theory for pure liquids to mixtures (which basically means setting the additional parameter $`w_3`$ found for the transport coefficients in liquid mixtures  to zero) are rather small and can be tolerated. In addition we have to note that a background characteristic frequency given in Ref.  was subtracted from the experimental data as well as from the non-asymptotic results for $`\omega _c/k^2`$.

In Fig. 10 we compare our asymptotic result for the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ as well as the theoretical results of Kawasaki  and Burstyn et al.  with experimental data in the polymer blend of polydimethylsiloxane and polyethylmethylsiloxane . As all these data are only available in a rather small range of $`x`$ we can apply the asymptotic theory and avoid the discussion of the last paragraph. The use of a non-asymptotic theory would also not be possible for a comparison with these experimental data for a second reason: All data shown in Fig. 10 were obtained for different temperatures and wave vectors but these different values of $`k`$ and $`\xi `$ were not indicated separately in the paper but only the corresponding value of $`x=k\xi `$. This was also the reason why we could not fit the initial value of the Onsager coefficient so that the only fit parameter, the prefactor of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$, was set by the choice that our result shall coincide with the result of Burstyn et al. in the limit of small values of $`x`$. In addition we have to note that the experimental values for the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ where obtained from the data for the characteristic frequency dividing not by the full shear viscosity depending on the correlation length but only by its constant background value so that we had to correct this multiplying our theoretical expression for the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ by $`x^{x_\eta }`$. In any case the experimental data shown in Fig. 10 are not precise enough to favor any of the presented theoretical expressions.

## V The frequency dependent shear viscosity

Since we have used information from the shear viscosity in the discussion of the light scattering line width we shall add an analysis of the most recent shear viscosity data for Xe  to this paper. These new data allow a much more detailed analysis of the frequency dependent shear viscosity leading to slightly different parameters than the discussion of the shear viscosity of Xe in Ref.  which was based on older data. In Ref.  we have discussed the theoretical expression for the frequency dependent shear viscosity, which is given by

$$\overline{\eta }(t,\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ,\omega )=\frac{k_BT}{4\pi }\frac{\xi _0}{\mathrm{}f_t^2(\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})}\left[1+E_t(f_t(\mathrm{}),v(\mathrm{}),w(\mathrm{}))\right],$$
(27)
with the one-loop perturbational contribution

$`E_t(f_t(\mathrm{}),v(\mathrm{}),w(\mathrm{}))={\displaystyle \frac{f_t^2}{96}}\{1+6[i{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{w}}\mathrm{ln}v+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_+v_{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{v_{}^2}{v_+}}\mathrm{ln}v_{}{\displaystyle \frac{v_+^2}{v_{}}}\mathrm{ln}v_+)]`$ (28)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(v_+v_{})^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{v_+^3v_{}^3}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(v_+v_{})(v_+^2\mathrm{ln}v_++v_{}^2\mathrm{ln}v_{})(v_+^3\mathrm{ln}v_+v_{}^3\mathrm{ln}v_{})\right]`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(v_+v_{})^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{v_+^3}{v_{}}}(1+4\mathrm{ln}v_+)+{\displaystyle \frac{v_{}^3}{v_+}}(1+4\mathrm{ln}v_{})`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{v_+v_{}}}){\displaystyle \frac{v_+^4\mathrm{ln}v_+v^4\mathrm{ln}v}{v_{}}}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{v_+v_{}}}){\displaystyle \frac{v_{}^4\mathrm{ln}v_{}v^4\mathrm{ln}v}{v_+}}]\}.`$ (31)
The parameters introduced in Eq. (28) are defined as

$$v(\mathrm{})=\frac{\xi ^2(t)}{(\xi _0^1\mathrm{})^2},w(\mathrm{},\omega )=\frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})(\xi _0^1\mathrm{})^4},$$
(32)
$$v_\pm (\mathrm{},\omega )=\frac{v}{2}\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{v}{2}\right)^2+iw},$$
(33)
with the mode coupling $`f_t(\mathrm{})`$ and the Onsager coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})`$ given by Eqs. (7) and (8). The mode coupling parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ is now a function of the correlation length $`\xi `$ and the frequency $`\omega `$ and results from the solution of the matching condition

$$\left(\frac{\xi _0}{\xi }\right)^8+\left(\frac{2\omega }{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})}\right)^2=\mathrm{}^8.$$
(34)
At the moment of publication no experimental data were available to compare them to our theoretical expressions. The situation has changed meanwhile as Berg et al.  performed shear viscosity experiments at small frequencies in a microgravity environment onboard a space shuttle. Comparing their experimental results with the mode coupling theory  they found that they could only describe their data correctly multiplying the frequency by a factor of 2 in the theoretical expressions. They explained the introduction of this factor as a two-loop effect correcting the errors of the one-loop expression used for the frequency dependent shear viscosity. With this multiplicative factor for the frequency they were able to reproduce the experimental data for the shear viscosity very well.

In Fig. 11 and 12 we compare our theory with experimental data in microgravity and in the earth’s gravitational field  fitting the exponent $`x_\eta `$ with $`f_0`$ taken from the light scattering experiments of Ref. . In doing so we found $`x_\eta =0.065`$ instead of the value $`x_\eta =0.069`$ used by Berg et al. We should note here that we can use the exponent $`x_\eta =0.069`$ (with the initial values $`f_0=0.959`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=8.82\times 10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^4/\mathrm{s}`$) to get exactly the same theoretical curves as shown in Fig. 11 and 12 but then we are not able to describe the characteristic frequency data correctly with this choice of $`f_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. This fact that the parameters $`f_0`$ and $`x_\eta `$ cannot be determined unambiguously from the shear viscosity data alone was already discussed in detail in Ref. .

In Fig. 11 and 12 it turns out that we can describe the experimental data in microgravity only if we multiply the frequency by a factor of 5, which may be justified for the same reason as the factor of 2 in the mode coupling theory . But then we are able to describe not only the microgravity data but also the earth-bound experiments very well with a single set of parameters shown in Tab I. And once again let us mention that we have used the same set of parameters to describe the characteristic frequency in Xe correctly in Fig. 5 and 6. As the experimental data shown in Fig. 12 cover a large range of reduced temperatures we had to add the regular background contribution found in Ref. , which is completely independent of the critical behavior described within our model.

Berg et al. did not only measure the real part of the shear viscosity but determined also the imaginary part of $`\overline{\eta }`$ from the phase shift. In Ref.  they compared the mode coupling result for the ratio $`\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })/\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })`$ with their experimental data and found good agreement. Comparing our results with these experimental data we get less satisfactory results  because in our theory the ratio $`\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })/\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })`$ approaches the finite value

$$\underset{TT_c}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{Im}(\overline{\eta })}{\mathrm{Re}(\overline{\eta })}=\frac{1}{76}\frac{\pi }{2}\left[1\frac{1}{76}\left\{3\mathrm{ln}(1/4)1/3\right\}\right]^10.0195$$
(35)
at $`T_c`$ which is different from the value $`0.0353`$ obtained from the mode coupling theory with the exponent $`x_\eta =0.069`$  which turns out to be in good agreement with the experimental data. As the limit of the ratio $`\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })/\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })`$ does not contain any free parameter at $`T_c`$ it cannot be improved and the deviation of our theory from the experiments may be explained by the fact that a one-loop order perturbation theory is not able to describe such small effects (the imaginary part of the shear viscosity is only about 3% of the total complex shear viscosity) and therefore a two-loop theory may be expected to yield much better agreement. In this respect we should also note that the mode coupling expression used by Berg et al. is not purely of one-loop order since it makes use of the experimental value for the exponent $`x_\eta `$ which differs significantly from its one-loop value. If we insert the one-loop value $`x_\eta =1/19`$ into the mode coupling expressions we would get a limit $`\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })/\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })0.0271`$ at $`T_c`$ which is also significantly lower than the measured limiting ratio. So the main difference between the mode coupling theory and our theory is, that it is not possible to introduce the true critical exponent $`x_\eta `$ in our expression for $`\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })/\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })`$ and therefore deviations from the one-loop order perturbation theory cannot be weakened by the use of the correct value for $`x_\eta `$.

## VI Conclusion

We were able to show that our one-loop perturbation theory result for the characteristic frequency evaluated within the field theoretical method of the renormalization group theory does not only reproduce the correct wave vector and correlation length dependence in the hydrodynamic region as well as in the critical region but is also able to describe experimental data correctly for a large range of wave vectors and reduced temperatures. In addition we showed that also the result for the shear viscosity evaluated within the same model is in good agreement with experiments if a two-loop value for the critical exponent is taken.

There are however some points which indicate the need for a two-loop analysis of the model: First we have seen that in one-loop order the dynamic correlation function is always of Lorentzian form whereas scaling theory  predicts deviations for large frequencies. Second we are not able to get the experimental limiting value for the ratio of the imaginary and real part of the frequency dependent shear viscosity $`\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })/\mathrm{}(\overline{\eta })`$ at $`T_c`$ and we have to introduce a multiplicative factor for the frequency in order to describe the experimental data correctly. This makes a profound two-loop analysis inevitable which is currently in progress.

Acknowledgment: This work was supported by the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung under Project No. P12422-TPH.

Figure caption

Fig. 1

Ratio of the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c`$ divided by the van Hove background expression $`\omega _c^{BvH}`$ for $`f_0=0.1`$ or $`k_0=7.98\times 10^3\AA ^1`$ respectively where the ratio becomes 1 in the background limit $`\xi 0`$ and $`k\mathrm{}`$ and for $`f_0f_t^{}`$ where the van Hove expression is never reached by the asymptotic characteristic frequency.

Fig. 2

Comparison of our asymptotic and non-asymptotic (for various values of $`f_0`$ at constant correlation length $`\xi `$) results for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ with the Ornstein-Zernike theory and the theoretical result of Kawasaki .

Fig. 3

Comparison of our asymptotic result for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ with the theoretical results of Kawasaki , Paladin and Peliti , and Burstyn et al. .

Fig. 4

The characteristic frequency $`\omega _c/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0k^2`$ as a function of the reduced temperature $`t`$ and the reduced density $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ in the hydrodynamic limit for $`k=0`$.

Fig. 5

Comparison of the asymptotic (full lines) and non-asymptotic (dashed lines) expressions for $`\omega _c/k^2`$ with the $`\mathrm{Xe}`$-data of Ref. .

Fig. 6

Comparison of the asymptotic (full lines) and non-asymptotic (dashed lines) expressions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ with the $`\mathrm{Xe}`$-data of Ref. .

Fig. 7

Comparison of the asymptotic (full lines) and non-asymptotic (dashed lines) expression for $`\omega _c/k^2`$ with the $`\mathrm{CO}_2`$-data of Ref. .

Fig. 8

Comparison of the asymptotic (full lines) and non-asymptotic (dashed line) expressions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ with the $`\mathrm{CO}_2`$-data of Ref. .

Fig. 9

Comparison of the non-asymptotic characteristic frequency $`\omega _c/k^2`$ with the experimental data of Ref.  in a polymer solution after subtracting the regular background.

Fig. 10

Comparison of the asymptotic expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)/x`$ with the experimental data of Ref.  in a polymer mixture.

Fig. 11

Comparison of the theoretical expression for the real part of the shear viscosity in microgravity at various frequencies with the experimental data of Ref. . See text for details.

Fig. 12

Comparison of the theoretical expressions for the real part of the shear viscosity in microgravity (at frequencies 0Hz and 2Hz) as well as in earthbound experiments (for two different vessel heights) with the experimental data of Ref. .

Table caption

TableI

Nonuniversal parameters of Xe.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Coherent radio Cherenkov emission is a remarkably effective method for detecting high energy particles. The history of the effect goes back to Jelly, who first asked whether cosmic ray air showers might produce a radio signal . Askaryan  subsequently predicted a net charge imbalance in air showers, and coherent radio power scaling like the energy of the shower squared. Substantial radio emission from atmospheric electromagnetic cascades was observed more than 30 years ago. . Progress in ultra-high energy air showers has sparked renewed interest, and new observations of radio pulses have been reported recently . The current pilot project RICE  uses radio Cherenkov emission to detect $`100TeV`$ and higher energy neutrinos in Antarctic ice. The radio Cherenkov signal is the most efficient known mechanism  for detecting neutrinos of $`100TeV`$ and above in solid media, yielding detection volumes of order $`1km^3`$ per radio detector for $`PeV`$ neutrinos on ice targets. At $`PeV`$ energies and above, the neutrino interaction cross sections offer fascinating new tests of Standard Model physics  and new physics . Tomography of the Earth is also possible with $`PeV`$-scale neutrinos. Radio Cherenkov signals have also been used to search recently for neutrinos and cosmic rays with energies upwards of $`10^{20}eV`$ impinging on the Moon.

Cherenkov radiation is also an intrinsically interesting and beautiful physical phenomenon. Coherence is a basic feature of electrodynamics, and the coherent enhancement of Cherenkov radiation in the microwave region has been observed in the laboratory . The Argonne wake-field acceleration project has successfully generated extremely large microwave field-strengths by manipulating coherent radiation from an intense electron beam.

Despite a long history, the previous literature apparently does not contain a careful treatment of evolving charge distributions, such as those of electromagnetic showers in air or ice, which incorporates all important features of the problem. The problem is intricate because of a multitude of scales. When an electromagnetic shower evolves, it produces a pancake of charge with a finite thickness, a finite width, probed at a finite wavelength of radiation, and for a finite distance over which the shower is big. All this occurs at a finite distance from the detector. Results on evolving and finite-sized charge distributions are few. Tamm  grappled with the problem of a charged particle on a track of limited length in the early days of the theory. Askaryan  anticipated a coherence cut-off in air showers at high frequencies of order the inverse pancake size, imposed somewhat by hand. Allan gave physical arguments and order of magnitude estimates based on one of Feynman’s electrodynamic formulas. Kahn and Lerche  attempted to resolve the coherence issue using superpositions of infinite tracks. McKay and Ralston  and Alvarez-Muñiz and Zas ($`AZ`$)  considered the influence of the $`LPM`$ effect at ultra-high energies. Zas, Halsen, and Stanev ($`ZHS`$) , and $`AZ`$ reported results from summing asymptotic far-fields track-by-track in Monte Carlo calculations of great complexity.

We present an approach which incorporates all the scales and allows a general analysis. Main results include an expression for the electric field in a factorized form. The “factorization” occurs when distance scales can be separated: the characteristic size of the moving charge distribution must be substantially smaller than the scale over which the charge develops. This condition is well satisfied for all cosmic ray applications we have examined. A form factor characterizes the moving charge distribution, which multiplies a charge-evolution integral. Not all the scales decouple: subtleties coming under the classic description of Fraunhofer and Fresnel zones need careful treatment. Finally, the generic situation can be summarized by analytic formulae. This is indispensable given the large parameter space. For example, the numerous and varied numerical plots obtained from immense Monte Carlos can be summarized by a few parameters. With the parameters fixed, predictions can be made for any number of circumstances.

## 2 Consequences of Coherence

Before beginning analysis we review a few basics. The well-known Frank-Tamm (1937) formula uses an exact solution to Maxwell’s equations for a uniformly moving charge on an infinitely long track. The solution is kinematic and can be obtained by the trick of boosting the charge to a speed faster than light in the medium. Extension to a track of finite length has pitfalls. Tamm’s 1939 finite-track formula assumes a uniform charge $`e`$ traveling at a uniform velocity $`v`$ along the $`z`$-axis for $`L/2<z<L/2`$. Tamm gives the energy loss $`dP`$ per angular frequency $`d\omega `$ per solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\frac{d^2P}{d\omega d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{ne^2}{4\pi ^2c^3}(\omega L)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2X}{X^2},$$
(1)
where $`X=n\omega L/(2c)(\mathrm{cos}\theta _c\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _c=c/(nv)`$; $`n`$ is the index of refraction.111We diverge from current practice and use the special symbol $`c`$ to represent the speed of light, otherwise known as “1”. This formula has been cited in the high energy physics literature, and used to interpret experiments observing Cherenkov radiation in the millimeter wavelength range .

Tamm’s finite-track formula includes two competing and distinct physical processes: the Cherenkov radiation of a uniformly moving charge, and bremmstrahlung or acceleration radiation from charges modeled as starting and stopping instantly at the track’s endpoints. The interference of the sudden start and stop contributions with the straight line contribution leads to strong oscillations in the angular distribution. Compared to a typical high energy process the acceleration at the endpoints is fake, that is, the Tamm model is unreliable. This is because a charge created by pair production is accompanied by an opposite charge, which coherently shields the pair from radiating until the oppositely charged partners gradually separate. This “Perkins effect” has been observed  and is closely related to the coherence phenomena in QCD of color transparency . At the end of the Cherenkov processes, charges also do not stop instantly, but instead slow gradually to subluminal speeds. While the slowing has stochastic elements, it is better approximated by a uniform decelleration than by a catastrophic disappearance of charge. Of course, the evolution of a cosmic ray shower over many radiation lengths and involving billions of particles is an even smoother macroscopic process. Thus the Tamm formula and related approximations may misrepresent the physics if the artificial treatment of the endpoints play a major role. Conversely, experimental situations with conditions close to those assumed by the Tamm formula can be constructed: Takahashi et al.  report on the sudden appearance of a charge in a cavity with metallic boundary conditions, leading to a strong mixing of Cherenkov and boundary-condition effects.

### 2.1 Fraunhofer versus Fresnel

Our study uncovers another, deeper problem with certain asymptotic assumptions of the Tamm-type approach. In a typical application of Cherenkov radiation in high energy physics, we might have a track of length $`L1m`$, observed at a distance $`R1m`$, and in the optical regime with $`R/\lambda L/\lambda >10^6`$. The application to radio detection in ice might have $`R1001000m`$, $`\lambda 0.11m`$, $`L10m`$, with $`L/\lambda 10100`$ with $`R/\lambda `$ even greater. Cosmic ray air showers develop and are observed over tens of kilometers. In all cases, all lengths are large in units of the wavelength. Given $`L`$ large enough for the acceleration contributions to be small, the Tamm formula, Eq. (1), might appear ideal at first sight. Indeed for $`\omega L\mathrm{}`$, the $`\mathrm{sin}^2X/X^2`$ distribution approaches $`2\pi c/(n\omega L)\delta (\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)`$. Integrating over angles we recover the well-tested Frank-Tamm result for an infinitely long track,

$$\frac{d^2P}{d\omega dL}=\omega \frac{e^2}{c^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _c.$$

Yet the Tamm formula is quite inapplicable to such problems. This is evident from the formula’s prediction that the radiated energy will be concentrated in coordinate space at $`\theta =\theta _c`$, up to a small width due to diffraction. For many of the physical situations cited, the energy is actually spread rather uniformly over the length of a cylinder surrounding the charge’s trajectory. This is a broad angular distribution extending over angles $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta L/R`$, where $`R`$ is the distance to the receiver. The Tamm formula, or any asymptotic far field approximation, does not depend on the distance $`R`$, and cannot describe this simple truth. True enough, the momenta (wave numbers) of photons have directions that may be peaked at $`\theta _k\theta _c`$, but this is not the same thing as the power density $`dP/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ seen on a sphere surrounding the system going like $`\delta (\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)`$. There is no paradox: if one fixes $`L`$ arbitrarily large, and then moves to an asymptotically distant location $`R\mathrm{}`$, the photons traveling at the Cherenkov angle will appear to come from a point source whose angular size is diffraction-limited. The Tamm formula is derived by taking the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$; once taken, the case of finite $`L/R`$ is unavailable.

To see this breakdown from a different perspective, one can use simple dimensional analysis and geometrical reasoning. The Fourier transform of the electric field $`E_\omega `$ has dimensions of mass. Cherenkov radiation for the “long uniformly moving track” has cylindrical symmetry. At cylindrical radius $`\rho `$ from the track, the energy per length $`2\pi \rho E^2(\rho )`$ remains constant. Dimensional analysis plus the cylindrical symmetry forces the electric field to go like $`\sqrt{\omega /\rho }`$. This is nothing like the usual radiation from accelerated charges which has fields falling like $`1/R`$ in three-dimensional space. And this peculiarity applies out to arbitrarily large distance $`\rho `$, provided the track is long enough. But if $`\rho `$ is taken so large that the radiation appears to emerge from a point source, the $`E`$ field must fall like $`L\omega /\rho L\omega /R`$. (The factor of $`L`$ comes from the linear power per unit length dependence. Momentarily we will examine this in more detail.)

The breakdown of Tamm’s formula is thus due to an interchange of limits. Tamm’s formula is obtained by making the Fraunhofer approximation, which fails under a broad range of finite track-lengths. The Fresnel zone describes a complementary far-field region where the Fraunhofer approximation must be modified. The basic physics of the Fresnel zone for Cherenkov radiation is elementary but requires some care.

### 2.2 The Coherence Zone

Consider (Figure 1) a charge moving on a straight line. Let $`R(t)`$ be the instantaneous distance from the charge to the observation point. Information propagating in the medium at speed $`c_m`$ will arrive simultaneously from the track if $`R/t=c_m`$. This is the Cherenkov condition: $`R/t=v\mathrm{cos}\theta =c_m`$ for velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ oriented at angle $`\theta `$ relative to the direction $`\widehat{R}`$. Note that $`R(t)`$ is the radius from the charge to the point, not the vector position.

Due to the geometry of the track and observation point, uniform motion produces acceleration of $`R(t)`$. If $`R/t`$ were constant, the fields arriving would all be in phase for the whole track length. However, the acceleration relative to the observation point produces an extra radial change of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=1/2(^2R/t^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2`$. Coherence of modes of wavelength $`\lambda `$ is then maintained only over a finite region of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R<\lambda .`$ Since $`^2R/t^2=v^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /R`$, we solve to find the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{coh}<\sqrt{R\lambda }/(v\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$. Equivalently, there is a finite spatial coherence region for given $`R`$, given wavenumber $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$, namely

$$\mathrm{\Delta }z_{coh}<\sqrt{R/(k\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )}$$

over which the “sonic boom” of radiation is built coherently. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{coh}\sqrt{R}`$, the coherence zone grows to infinite size as $`R\mathrm{}`$: but this limit cannot be taken carelessly.

### 2.3 Coherence of Evolving Charge Distributions

We now return to the emission from an electromagnetic shower or other time-evolving charge distribution. To a reasonable approximation, the number of particles in a highly relativistic shower scales like the primary energy divided by a suitable low energy threshold. The charge imbalance near the shower maximum is of order $`20\%e`$ of the total number of particles. These numbers have been confirmed over and over, with each generation of numerical simulation contributing further detail. The origin of the emitted Cherenkov power going like the shower-energy squared is basic electrodynamics: the electric field will scale like the charge, and the radiated power scales like the electric field-squared.

The evolving shower has a finite length scale $`a`$ over which it is near its maximum, and radiating copiously. This length scale, known as the “longitudinal spread” in cosmic ray physics , is akin to the length scale $`L`$ of Tamm’s approach but represents a smooth onset and decline of maximum power. The shower maximum-length scale $`a`$ is determined by the material, and is conceptually distinct from the shower’s total depth to reach the maximum (which goes like the logarithm of the energy) or the charged pancake size (which is fairly constant once the shower is developed.) A cartoon of these ideas is given in Figure 1.

There are then two characteristic limits. Suppose the longitudinal spread of the shower is “short” compared to the coherence length, $`a\mathrm{\Delta }z_{coh}`$. Then coherence is maintained over the whole range where the current is appreciable. The amplitude is proportional to the total length $`a`$ over which the current was “on”, times $`1/R`$. This is then the $`R\mathrm{}`$ limit, or Fraunhofer approximation, and looks like normal radiation. From dimensional analysis (and here we recall the discussion earlier), $`E_\omega a\omega /R`$.

However, in the limit $`a\mathrm{\Delta }z_{coh}`$, the coherence length is not as big as the longitudinal spread, and coherence only exists over the smaller of the two. Adding amplitudes only over the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{coh}`$ and weighted by $`1/R`$, the $`E_\omega `$ field goes like $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }z_{coh}/R=\sqrt{\omega /R}`$. This behavior is rather different from the previous case: indeed Cherenkov radiation is fundamentally a Fresnel-zone effect, as seen by the $`1/\sqrt{R}`$ dependence of the fields.

Both the Fresnel and Fraunhofer limits are far-field approximations, in the sense that $`kR1`$ is assumed. The subtlety lies in the dimensionless ratio

$$\eta =(a/\mathrm{\Delta }z_{coh})^2=\frac{ka^2}{R}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta $$

which controls how the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ is taken. Confusion on this point is easy; one has $`R/\lambda 10^4`$ in the same regime, and yet $`R`$ is not large enough for a “large $`R`$” Fraunhofer approximation to apply, exactly because the term “large R” is undefined until the limit parameter $`\eta `$ is specified. In the RICE experiment one typically has $`a12m`$, $`\omega 1001000MHz`$, and $`R10^3m`$, so $`\eta <1`$ holds. Extension to closer observation points, or to energies where the $`LPM`$ effect can give a much larger $`a`$, makes $`\eta 1`$ possible. Partly due to the obscurity of the coherence criteria, the Fraunhofer approximation has received much attention in the previous literature , except for those estimates using fields with ”cylindrical” symmetry .

### 2.4 General Set-Up

Let $`\stackrel{}{E}_\omega (x)`$ be the time-Fourier transform of the $`E`$ field, with similar notation for other fields. The Maxwell equations for a dielectric medium are
$`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{D}_\omega =4\pi \rho ,c\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}_\omega =4\pi \stackrel{}{J}_\omega i\omega \stackrel{}{D}_\omega ,\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{B}_\omega =0,c\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}_\omega =i\omega \stackrel{}{B}_\omega ,`$ where $`\stackrel{}{D}_\omega (x)=ϵ(\omega )\stackrel{}{E}_\omega (x)`$. There is a wave equation for the vector potential $`A_\omega ^\mu (x)`$, given by $`c(^2+k^2)A_\omega ^\mu (x)=4\pi J_\omega ^\mu (x)`$, with $`k=\omega \sqrt{ϵ}/c`$. Then we have

$$c\stackrel{}{A}_\omega (\stackrel{}{x})=d^3x^{}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(ik|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|)}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}𝑑t^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t^{})\stackrel{}{J}(t^{},\stackrel{}{x}^{}).$$
(2)
The $`4`$-potential $`A^\mu =(A^0,\stackrel{}{A})`$ has been defined in a generalized Lorentz gauge $`c\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}+ϵA^0/t=0`$ appropriate to the medium. The $`4`$-current $`J^\mu =(\rho /ϵ,\stackrel{}{J})`$, $`\rho `$. Since the components of $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ are related by $`\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{v}\rho `$, we have $`\stackrel{}{A}=A^0ϵ\stackrel{}{v}/c`$. We calculate $`\stackrel{}{A}_\omega `$ and then use $`A_\omega ^0=\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{A}c/(ϵv^2)`$. For radiation problems the denominator factor $`1/|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|`$ is replaced by $`1/R`$. This is standard, with corrections of order $`a^2/R^2`$ or similar effects in the “near field” regime, which is not our subject.

### 2.5 Evading The Fraunhofer Approximation

The Fraunhofer approximation is the textbook expansion for the phase
$`\mathrm{exp}(ik|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|)\mathrm{exp}(ik|\stackrel{}{x}|ik\widehat{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{})`$, dropping terms of order $`k|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2/R`$. All existing simulations make this approximation for the phase, and for good reasons: the subsequent integrations become much simpler. The integrand in Eq. (2) oscillates wildly. A Monte Carlo simulation has to find the surviving phases from myriad cancellations, due to the phases generated over the length of each track, and then summed over thousands to millions of tracks moving in three dimensions. For a $`1TeV`$ shower the code of $`ZHS`$ runs in about 20 minutes on a workstation. Increasing the energy by a factor of 100, the calculational time scales up faster than linear, and computer time becomes prohibitive. For this reason various strategies to rescale the output have been used in arriving at the published values of electric fields. Even for $`TeV`$ energies, standard Monte Carlo routines such as GEANT challenge a work-station’s capacity. For cosmic rays of the highest energies the entire approach of direct numerical evaluation is unfeasible.

Unfortunately the Fraunhofer approximation also neglects terms in the phases, namely $`k|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2/R`$, that may be of order unity given our previous discussion of length and frequency scales. We must avoid this step. Progress is possible due to the translational features of the macroscopic current
$`J^\mu (t^{},\stackrel{}{x}^{})`$. A rather general model is

$$\stackrel{}{J}(t^{},\stackrel{}{x}^{})=\stackrel{}{v}n(z^{})f(z^{}vt^{},\stackrel{}{\rho }^{}).$$
(3)
An even more general situation will be discussed shortly. The charge packet travels with the speed $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, chosen here to be along the $`z`$-axis of the coordinate system. The function $`f(z^{}vt^{},\stackrel{}{\rho }^{})`$ represents a normalized charge density of the traveling packet, with $`\stackrel{}{\rho }^{}`$ the transverse cylindrical coordinate relative to the velocity axis. We normalize $`f`$ by $`𝑑z^{}d^2\rho ^{}f(z^{},\stackrel{}{\rho }^{})=1.`$ In ice the packet is about $`\mathrm{\Delta }z^{}=10cm`$ thick in the longitudinal direction, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{}=10cm`$ in radius (the Moliere radius) in the vicinity of the shower maximum. These size scales are limited because of relativistic propagation. The time evolution of these scales is negligible near the shower maximum, and indeed the Moliere radius is usually approximated by a material constant for the whole shower. Similarly, in air showers the scale of charge separation is small compared to the scale of shower longitudinal spread.

The shower’s net charge evolution appears in the factor $`n(z^{})`$. With our normalization, $`n(z^{})`$ represents the total charge crossing a plane at $`z^{}`$. The symbol $`n_{max}`$ will denote the maxiumum value of $`n(z^{})`$; later we will see that the electric field scales linearly with $`n_{max}`$. The longitudinal spread $`a`$ is a property of $`n(z^{})`$ near the shower maximum. The model neglects charge (current) left behind, and moving at less than light-speed in the medium, which does not emit Cherenkov radiation. We do not have a sharp cut-off at the beginning or end of tracks, and the function $`n(z^{})`$ will vary smoothly.

### 2.6 Factorization for the Fresnel Zone

Now while we cannot expand around $`\stackrel{}{x}^{}=0`$ (the Fraunhofer approximation), the conditions of the problem do permit an expansion around $`\stackrel{}{\rho }^{}=0`$ (the shower axis), namely for $`R(z^{})=[(zz^{})^2+\rho ^2]^{1/2}`$, that

$`|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|`$ $`=`$ $`[(zz^{})^2+(\stackrel{}{\rho }\stackrel{}{\rho }^{})^2]^{1/2},`$
$`=`$ $`R(z^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\rho }\stackrel{}{\rho }^{}}{R}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{R}}).`$
For typical values in this problem, the second term is $`10`$ times smaller than the first, and the third is $`10^3`$ smaller than the second. For the exponent in Eq. (2), the third term does not contribute if $`k\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2/R1`$, that is $`\omega 250GHz`$.

Collecting terms, we have

$`cR\stackrel{}{A}_\omega =\stackrel{}{v}{\displaystyle 𝑑z^{}n(z^{})\mathrm{exp}[i(\frac{\omega }{v}z^{}+kR)]}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }dt^{}d^2\rho ^{}\mathrm{exp}\{i[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{v}}(z^{}vt^{})+\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\rho }^{}]\}f(z^{}vt^{},\stackrel{}{\rho }^{}).`$ (4)
We have shifted the $`t^{}`$ integral which produces the translational phase in the $`z^{}`$ integral. This gives the factorization:

$$\stackrel{}{A}_\omega F(\stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{A}_\omega ^{FF}(\eta ),$$
(5)
where

$$F(\stackrel{}{q})=d^3x^{}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}^{}}f(\stackrel{}{x}^{}),$$
(6)
$$vcR\stackrel{}{A}_\omega ^{FF}=\stackrel{}{v}I^{FF},$$
(7)
and

$`I^{FF}(\eta ,\theta )={\displaystyle 𝑑z^{}\mathrm{exp}[\varphi (z^{})]},`$
$`\varphi (z^{})=ik(z^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _c+R(z^{},\rho ))+\mathrm{log}n(z^{}).`$ (8)
Here $`\stackrel{}{q}=(\omega /v,\stackrel{}{q}_{})`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}=k\stackrel{}{\rho }/R`$, and $`\stackrel{}{x}^{}=(z^{},\stackrel{}{\rho }^{})`$. Provided $`F(\omega )1`$ in either frequency region $`k\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2/R1`$ or $`k\mathrm{\Delta }z^2/R1`$, the decoupling of the integrals is excellent. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z^{}`$ refer to the regions over which the charge exists near the maximum. $`F(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the form factor of the charge distribution, which happens to be defined, just as in the rest of physics, in terms of the Fourier transform of the snapshot of the distribution. From our definitions $`F(0)=1`$.

It is worth noting that the dependence on orientation of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is observable. For example, in a Giant Air Shower, where the mechanism of charge separation might cause an azimuthal asymmetry about the shower axis labeled by a dipole $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, then $`F(\stackrel{}{q})`$ depends on $`F(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p})`$. The orientation of the dipole relative to the observation point thus has a strong effect on the emission. (Other numerically large effects will also be important: for example Allan incorrectly assumes the fields go like $`1/R`$ from his use of Feynman’s formula).

As a consequence of separating out the form factor, the integrations have become effectively one-dimensional.

## 3 Numerical Work

At this stage we have a formula for the vector potential which is a product of a form factor and an object $`I^{FF}(\eta ,\theta )`$ containing the information about the shower history. We will denote $`I^{FF}(\eta ,\theta )`$ the Fresnel-Fraunhofer integral because it interpolates between these regimes. In the Fraunhofer approximation it is easily shown that the factorization is an exact kinematic feature of translational symmetry as exemplified in Eq. (3). If one makes a one-dimensional approximation, the Fraunhofer integral then evaluates the Fourier transform of the current.

The factorization in the Fresnel zone is more demanding, yet should be an excellent approximation. When calculating $`I^{FF}(\eta ,\theta )`$, we cannot (as mentioned earlier) consistently expand in powers of $`z^{}/R`$ because $`\eta 1`$ will be needed.

It makes sense at this point to make a numerical comparison with previous work. Summarizing the results of an extensive Monte Carlo calculation in the Fraunhofer approximation, $`ZHS`$ gave a numerical fit to the electric field

$$\frac{R|\stackrel{}{E}_\omega ^{ZHS}(\theta )|}{F^{ZHS}(\nu )}=1.1\times 10^7\frac{\nu }{\nu _0}\frac{E_0}{TeV}\mathrm{exp}[(\frac{\theta \theta _c}{\mathrm{\Delta }\theta })^2][\frac{V}{MHz}],$$
(9)
with $`\nu _0=500MHz`$. This is the result of a global fit to many angles, energies and frequencies $`\nu =\omega /2\pi <\nu _0`$. In this convention $`\omega `$ is positive. The normalized form factor is $`F_{ZHS}(\nu )=1/[1+0.4(\nu /\nu _0)^2]`$, as discussed below. In making the calculation, results for the field were also rescaled due to computer limitations. As a result, the field reported is strictly linear in the primary energy $`E_0`$. We will comment on this shortly.

We calculated our own result proportional to $`I^{FF}(\eta =0,\theta )`$ over a range of many frequencies and angles (Figure 2). Before doing the integral we scale out the electromagnetic and dimensional factors which are obvious. In our convention $`\mathrm{}<\omega <\mathrm{}`$. The results of our numerical integration are quite well fit by

$$\frac{R|\stackrel{}{E}_\omega ^{\eta =0}(\theta )|}{F(\omega )}=\frac{e}{c^2}a\sqrt{2\pi }n_{max}\omega \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}(ka)^2(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)^2]$$
(10)
Putting in numerical values, this gives:

$$\frac{R|\stackrel{}{E}_\omega ^{\eta =0}(\theta )|}{F(\omega )}=2.09\times 10^7\frac{a}{m}\frac{n_{max}}{1000}\frac{\nu }{GHz}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{cos}\theta )})^2][\frac{V}{MHz}],$$
(11)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{cos}\theta )=0.048\frac{2}{\sqrt{ϵ}}\frac{m}{a}\frac{GHz}{\nu }.$$

( We have indicated that $`a`$ is in units of $`m.`$ and $`\nu `$ in $`GHz`$.) Note the linear dependence on $`a\nu `$, argued earlier to come from dimensional analysis applied to the limit $`\eta 0`$. A cursory inspection shows that this result and the Monte Carlo have the same general features.

To continue the numerical comparison we need numbers for the longitudinal spread parameter $`a`$ and the number of charges at shower maximum $`n_{max}`$. There are several ways to estimate this. Running the $`ZHS`$ code many times and fitting the output of a $`1TeV`$ shower with a cutoff of $`611KeV`$ gives $`a=1.5m`$, $`n_{max}=345`$. Using these and allowing for the factor of two in conventions gives agreement to a few percent in normalization with $`ZHS`$. However, the other way to do the calculation is to evaluate the product $`an_{max}`$ many times. This method is preferred because fluctuations in $`a`$ and $`n_{max}`$ are correlated. Doing this gives $`an_{max}=(570\pm 50)m`$ at $`1TeV`$, which would predict a normalization factor of $`(1.2\pm 0.1)\times 10^7`$ in Eq. (9). This (plus the angular dependence studied below) indicates that the factorized result is quite consistent with the Monte Carlo.

In Figure 2 we show numerically integrated values of $`I^{FF}`$ Eq. (8). These factors appear directly in the fit just cited, and serve to check the formulas. The form factor has been divided out. For the range of parameters relevant to the problem, agreement is very good, and relative error is much less than $`1\%`$.

For experimental purposes one would like independent confirmation of the parameters from another source. Net particle evolution is well described by Greissen’s classic solution, which was simplified further by Rossi to a Gaussian, $`n(z)=n_{max}\mathrm{exp}[z^2/(2a^2)]/\sqrt{2\pi }a`$. While Greissen’s $`a`$ refers to the whole shower, it should also be a reasonable description for the longitudinal spread of the charge imbalance, which tends to be a fixed fraction of the total number of particles after a few radiation lengths. (There is one caution that the Greissen formula does not explicitly include low-energy physics important for the charge imbalance.) The particular Greissen formula we consulted  for the longitudinal spread in radiation lengths $`X_0`$ gives $`a/X_0\sqrt{2/3log(E_0/E)}`$ for particles in the shower with energy greater than $`E`$ and a primary with energy $`E_0`$. In that case one estimates $`a=1.8m`$ at $`E_0=1TeV`$ with $`E=611MeV,X_0=0.39m`$ in ice, which is acceptably close to the previous estimates.

At higher energies there is every reason to believe that Greissen’s
stretched $`\sqrt{\mathrm{log}E}`$ energy dependence will apply. In that case $`a=2.1m`$, $`2.3m`$ for $`100TeV`$, $`1PeV`$ showers, respectively. Note that the product $`n_{max}a`$ is relevant for the field normalization. In this case we also need $`n_{max}1/\sqrt{\mathrm{log}(E_0/E)0.33}`$ from the same Greissen approximation. Rather amazingly, the product $`n_{max}a(E_0/E)\sqrt{2/3\mathrm{log}(E_0/E)}/\sqrt{\mathrm{log}(E_0/E)0.33}E_0/E`$ at high energies. This confirms the phenomenon observed by $`ZHS`$: the normalization of the electric field (Fraunhofer approximation, $`\theta =\theta _c`$) scales precisely linearly in the primary energy. It is rather pleasing that the result can be understood from first principles . Later we will see that the parameter $`a`$ enters in a much more complicated way in the Fresnel zone, creating an extra, weak energy dependence.

Regarding the angular dependence, our work (Figures 3) indicates a general dependence on $`cos\theta cos\theta _c`$ rather than $`\theta \theta _c`$. When fitting numerical output the two functional forms are rather different, unless one has a very narrow distribution. Linearizing for small $`cos\theta cos\theta _c`$ with $`a=1.5m`$ for the comparison, we would predict the scale in the angular dependence $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =2.1^o(\nu _0/\nu )`$ while $`ZHS`$ have the same expression with $`2.4^o`$. We find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is proportional to $`1/a`$. If $`a`$ grows slowly with energy, as Greissen’s formula indicates, then the angular width decreases, which is not seen in $`ZHS`$. Another possible explanation for the small discrepancy is the improper radiation from tracks terminating abruptly at the ends used in the Monte Carlo. We have identified these effects as responsible for the small oscillations seen in the Monte Carlo output, an effect apparently too small to measure.

When numerical output to the frequency dependence is fit, there is a slight coupling between the model for the form factor and the parameter $`a`$ one will extract for the longitudinal spread. We made our own fit to the $`ZHS`$ code’s frequency dependence including the region up to $`1GHz`$, using a Gaussian form factor because of its better analytic properties. (The $`ZHS`$ fit, which contains poles in both the upper and lower half-plane, violates causality.) Specifically, we find

$$F(\nu )=\mathrm{exp}[\nu ^2/(2\nu _{}^2)],\nu _{}=0.93GHz.$$

Using the corresponding $`a`$ value we would predict the Fraunhofer Monte Carlo $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 2.3^o(500MHz/\nu )`$, quite close to $`ZHS`$.

In real life, shower to shower fluctuations are highly important. We studied the statistical features222We thank Soeb Razzaque for help with this. of the parameters $`n_{max}`$, $`a`$ by fitting individual showers many times and looking at the average and $`rms`$ fit values. The results at $`E=1TeV`$ were $`a=1.5\pm 0.2m`$, $`n_{max}=345\pm 60`$. Multiplying these and adding fluctuations in quadratures gives $`an_{max}=520(1\pm 0.22)m`$. The combination $`an_{max}`$, which is the primary variable in determining the normalization of the electric field, was found to be $`(570\pm 50)m`$. The fluctuation of $`an_{max}`$ is less than half the value that the uncorrelated fluctuations of the separate terms would give. The relative fluctuation is said to decrease with increasing energy, but there are uncertainties. For example, threshold rescaling is used in Monte Carlos, leading to loss of information about the true fluctuations. Very preliminary results of running the standard Monte Carlo GEANT show variations in average shower parameters such as $`an_{max}`$ at the 30$`\%`$ level compared to the average of $`ZHS`$. These comparisons indicate that the electrodynamics is probably determined better than the rest of the problem. Indeed, the deviations from Gaussian behavior in showers is an effect contributing to the fields at the few percent level. At the level of $`1015\%`$, many other small effects contribute. Unless one uses details about the uncertainties and errors in fits, and especially about the shower-to shower fluctuations in all relevant quantities, it is pointless to fine-tune the comparison further. We conclude from the numerical work that the factorized expression is at least as reliable as the Monte Carlos, and has the attractive feature that the parameters can be adjusted directly.

## 4 The Saddle Point Approximation

While the Rossi-Greissen Gaussian approximation to the shower is common, there are additional features which favor such an approach to the emitted radiation. The coherence is dominated by regions where the phases add constructively, greatly enhancing the peak region. In such circumstances analysis is helpful, especially when the largest contribution to $`I^{FF}`$ is dominated by saddle points. These are points where the phase is stationary, $`d\varphi (z_{})/dz_{}=0`$.

Here we describe the saddle-point method to evaluate $`I^{FF}(\eta ,\theta )`$. This is a classic, controlled approximation when the charge distribution has a single maximum and $`kR1`$. The method turns out to give the exact result in the limit of flat charge evolution, that is, the Frank-Tamm formula, where numerical evaluation is highly unstable. With the saddle-point approximation, we can extract analytic formulas which are as good as the numerical integration.

We now describe the saddle-point features. By translational symmetry the shower maximum can be located at $`z^{}=0`$. Referring to the formula of Eq. (8) cited earlier, the saddle point of the phase is given by solving

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _c(zz_{})/R(z_{})(i/k)(d/dz_{})\mathrm{log}n(z_{})=0$$

for the point $`z_{}`$ dominating the integral. The maximum electric field is already known to occur at points $`(z,R)`$ near the Cherenkov cone. For such observation points $`z=R\mathrm{cos}\theta _c`$, and the saddle point equation has an easy solution at $`z_{}=0`$. Thus the dominant integration region is near the shower maximum, as physically expected.

As the point of observation moves off the Cherenkov cone, the saddle point moves away into the complex $`z^{}`$ plane. To find the complex saddle-point, we approximate $`\mathrm{log}n(z^{})z^2/(2a^2)`$ in the vicinity of the shower maximum; that is, we fit the top of the shower locally with a Gaussian. To re-iterate: the saddle-point approximation does not need to replace the entire shower by a Gaussian, but replaces the vicinity of the region where phases are contributing coherently by a Gaussian. The saddle-point condition gives a quartic equation which can be solved. Unfortunately the solution is impossibly complicated, thwarting a direct approach. We circumvented this by studying the saddle-point location numerically. We found the quartic solution is accurately linearized in a special variable: expand about $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ close to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _c`$. We then find $`z_{}R(0)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)[1+iR(0)/ka^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ]^1`$. With this formula the reader inclined can repeat all the calculations. We also show the saddle-point to highlight the appearance of the ratio $`R(0)/(ka^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )`$ indicated by the qualitative “acceleration” argument. Finally, replace $`R(0)=R=\sqrt{z^2+\rho ^2}`$.

The rest of the calculation is standard mathematical physics , so we just quote the results. Calculating fields from the potential and keeping only the leading terms in $`1/(kR)1`$ we find:

$`\stackrel{}{E}_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{Rc^2}}F(\stackrel{}{q})I^{FF}(\eta ,\theta )[(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)\stackrel{}{e}_R`$ (12)
$`(1i\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _c}{sin^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c}{1i\eta }})\mathrm{sin}\theta \stackrel{}{e}_\theta ],`$
$$\stackrel{}{B}_\omega =\frac{i\omega }{vcR\mathrm{cos}\theta _c}F(\stackrel{}{q})I^{FF}(\eta ,\theta )(1+i\eta \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{sin^2\theta }\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c}{1i\eta })\mathrm{sin}\theta \stackrel{}{e}_\varphi ,$$
(13)
where

$`I^{FF}(\eta ,\theta )=`$ $`e^{ikR}a\sqrt{2\pi }[1i\eta (\theta )(13i\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c}{1i\eta }})]^{1/2}`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ka)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)^2}{1i\eta }}],`$
and where

$$\eta =\frac{ka^2}{R}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$

Inspection reveals that these formulas have the dependence on $`\omega `$, $`R`$, and a distance scale $`a`$ quoted earlier on physical grounds. The formulas cited earlier as summarizing the numerical work are, in fact, the saddle-point approximations evaluated at $`\eta =0`$, which fit closer than any empirical formula.

### 4.1 Remarks

The dependence of the fields on symbol $`\eta `$ summarizes a good deal of complexity. For example:

* The limit $`\eta 0`$ yields the Fraunhofer limit, with spherical wave fronts and $`E_\omega a\omega /R.`$
* The limit $`\eta \mathrm{}`$ gives the cylindrically symmetric $`E_\omega \sqrt{\omega /R}`$ fields. This field can be substantially different from the Fraunhofer approximation. In fact one must take this limit to get the Frank-Tamm formula.

A notable application is emission from ultra-high energy air showers. In such showers the $`LPM`$ effect plays a definite role in suppressing the soft emissions from the hardest charges. There is no corresponding suppression of the evolution of the low-energy regions of showers where most particles exist, however . The major effect that we find is that the showers become long kinematically: that is, the parameter $`a`$ gets big if one is working with, say, a primary of $`10^{20}eV`$. The emitted fields approach those of the Frank-Tamm formula as $`a\mathrm{}`$, via the formula cited. The effect is important numerically: a $`10^{20}eV`$ air shower does not approach the Fraunhofer limit nearer than $`300km`$. The conditions of RICE are more amenable to the limit, and at $`R1km`$, $`\omega 1GHz`$ the Fraunhofer-based estimates near the Cherenkov cone in the literature are good to $`20\%`$.
* The frequency dependence in the Fraunhofer approximation is strongly affected by “diffraction”. Independent of the form factor effect, the Fraunhofer approximation imposes an upper limit to the frequency of order $`\omega <(1/a)(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)`$. The true behavior is substantialli different: from Eq. (14) we see that the field exists in a region

$$\omega <(1/a)[(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)^2(a^2/R^2)\mathrm{sin}^4(\theta )]^{1/2}.$$

For large $`\omega `$ and in the angular region where the signal exists, the behaviour is much flatter. This is illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. This effect is invisible at the exact value $`\theta =\theta _c`$, where the fake Fraunhofer frequency cutoff and most of the true functional dependence in the exponent of $`I^{FF}`$ both drop out. As a result of the difference in frequency dependence, the time-structure of the electric field may be substantially different from the Fraunhofer approximation. We will return to this point in a Section Causal Features .
* Fields in the forward and backward directions, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 0`$, are the fields of $`\eta 0`$, the Fraunhofer approximation, regardless of the physical values of $`k,a,R`$. We note that the experiments of Takahashi  observe an extremely limited region of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 0`$. Perhaps this contributes to the observed agreement with Tamm’s formula in a regime where $`a^2k/R`$ is not close to zero.
* The polarization varies considerably. From symmetry the polarization is in the plane of the charge and the observation point. Moreover, for $`\theta =\theta _c`$ the electric field is transverse to $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ for any $`\eta `$. Yet naive transversality is not true in general at any finite $`\eta `$.
* Between the various limits the dependence on every scale in the problem, namely the frequency $`\omega `$, the distance $`R`$, the length scale $`a`$, and the angle $`\theta `$, is neither that of the Fraunhofer limit nor that of the infinite track Frank-Tamm limit, but instead a smooth interpolation between the cylindrical and spherical wave regimes.
* In the finite $`\eta `$ limit, one may also include a further effect, namely that as $`\omega 0`$ one has a ‘near-zone’ Coulomb-like response at small $`R`$. (Indeed, the $`\omega 0`$ limit measures the net charge.) This effect, important below about $`10MHz`$, also has a slight effect on the time structure of pulses.

We pause to comment on the generality of the result. What if we had not made the physical, but specific ansatz (3)? The entire analysis can be repeated for an arbitrary charge distribution $`j(t^{},z^{},\stackrel{}{\rho }^{})`$. The Fraunhofer expansion of the transverse variable, and the Fourier integral of the $`t^{}`$ variable are general. Provided the $`\stackrel{}{\rho }^{}`$ extent is finite, and there exists a dominant $`z^{}`$ region, then the integrals always factor into a product of a form factor and a one-dimensional integral for $`A_\omega ^{FF}(\eta )`$. In fact nothing changes (the reader can repeat the calculation) except that when an arbitrary current is set up, the existence of a single saddle point cannot be assumed. Corrections to the local Gaussian approximation are straightforward. The slight skewness of real showers (or other arbitrary charge distributions) can also be developed as a saddle-point power series. Again: there are elements of bremmstrahlung in real showers, having a stochastic nature, which the current model has not attempted to reproduce. Detailed Monte Carlo simulations  of our group have included the bend-by-bend amplitudes of tracks undergoing collisions. This goes well beyond the approximation of a single straight line track, suddenly beginning and ending, of the previous literature . The effect of all the small kinks is negligible except in the very high frequency region $`\omega 100GHz`$, while the endpoint accelerations give oscillations in the angular dependence down by orders of magnitude. As a final side remark: we explicitly studied contributions of finite tracks, just to see what would happen, in the development towards the conditions of the Tamm formula. It is straightforward to develop these pieces if one needs them for, say, the Takahashi-type experiments , in the Fresnel zone.

### 4.2 The General Case

We now turn to fields valid for any $`\eta `$. The form factor, which was extracted from the Fraunhofer calculations, is universal and need not be changed. The validity of the saddle-point approximation does not depend explicitly on the value of $`\eta `$. The procedure of linearization to locate the saddle-point happens to be good to $`cos\theta cos\theta _c1`$, so that the approximation is rather good in the entire region $`R/a1`$, $`kR1`$.

For practical applications it is useful to have a formula for the fields with quantities measured in physically motivated units. For this purpose we rewrite (12) as follows

$$R\stackrel{}{E}_\omega 2.5210^7\frac{a}{m}\frac{n_{max}}{1000}\frac{\nu }{GHz}F(\stackrel{}{q})\psi \stackrel{}{}[\frac{V}{MHz}].$$
(15)
Here $`n_{max}`$ is the excess of electrons over positrons at the shower maximum, $`R`$ is measured in meters, $`\nu `$ is measured in $`GHz`$. The rescaled field is

$`\stackrel{}{}`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\stackrel{}{e}_R+(1i\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _c}{sin^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c}{1i\eta }})\stackrel{}{e}_\theta ]`$ (16)
$`[1i\eta (13i\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c}{1i\eta }})]^{1/2}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ka)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)^2}{1i\eta }}].`$
We have defined a kinematic factor $`\psi =i\mathrm{exp}(ikR)\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ in such a way that the rescaled field $`\stackrel{}{}`$ is normalized at $`\theta =\theta _c`$,

$$\stackrel{}{}(\theta =\theta _c)=(1i\eta )^{1/2}\stackrel{}{e}_\theta .$$
(17)
It is convenient to plot the magnitude of the rescaled field, Eq. (16). Figure 3 shows the magnitude as a function of the angle difference $`\theta \theta _c`$ in various limits. The Fraunhofer approximation is shown by a dashed curve, and our result by the solid curve. One observes that the Fraunhofer limit is approached from below. This is physically clear: The Fresnel zone fields have a wider angular spread, and conservation of energy forces them to be smaller in magnitude compared to the sharper, diffraction-limited Fraunhofer fields. As the fields evolve to infinity, they coalese into narrower and taller beams.

The frequency dependence of $`R|\stackrel{}{E}_\omega |/F(\omega )`$ is shown on Figures 4 and 5. Exactly at the Cherenkov angle the difference between the Fraunhofer approximation and our results are minor for the typical parameters of $`RICE`$. However, away from the Cherenkov angle there is a substantial difference between the two, throughout the region where the magnitude of the field is large. This effect can be masked by the form factor, so we have plotted $`RE_\omega /F(\omega )`$ to show it. This effect may have important repurcussions for the time-structure of pulses, which are also discussed in the last Section.

Figures 6-10 are contour plots of the electric field. We did not bother to remove the small region $`a/R1`$, where our result does not apply. The Fraunhofer approximation has trivial $`1/R`$ dependence on the distance to the observation point (Figure 10). The exact result is certainly different, with Figures 6, 8, and 9, in particular, illlustrating the effects of constructive interference in the region of cylindrical symmetry. A complementary view examines contour plots of constant phase. This is shown in Figures 8 and 9. In making these figures we decreased the kinematic phase $`ikR`$ to values showing several oscillations (as opposed to hundreds) across the range of the plots. The lines of constant phase can be used to illustrate the time-evolution of waves of a given frequency: that is, the Fourier transform of $`\delta (\omega \omega _{})E_\omega exp(i\omega t)`$ has wave fronts at each moment in time given by the lines of constant phase. The constant phase lines of the Fraunhofer approximation are, of course, spherical (Figure 10). The constant phase lines of the true behaviour interpolate between cylindrical and spherical symmetry. As a consequence of the Fresnel-zone behaviour, the eikonals of the expanding radiation field do not emerge radially, but actually curve due to interference effects. This is a sobering impact of very basic physics, which has a measurable effect in the signal propagation speed discussed later under the topic of causal feature.

## 5 Causal Features

With our convention that the electric field $`E(t,\stackrel{}{x})=1/(2\pi )_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)E_\omega (\stackrel{}{x})`$, causality requires $`E_\omega `$ to be analytic in the upper half-plane of $`\omega `$. Singularities in the lower half-plane determine the details of $`E(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ and the precise causal structure.

To discuss this we consider detection of signals via an antenna-system response function $`𝒜_\omega `$. By standard arguments the detected voltage is a convolution in time, and therefore a product in $`\omega `$ space, of the antenna function and the perturbing electric field. The antenna function has the same causal analytic properties as the electric field. A proto-typical antenna or circuit function for a driven $`LRC`$ circuit is

$$𝒜_\omega =Z/(\omega ^2+\omega _𝒜^2i\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega ),$$

where $`Z`$ depends on where the amplifier is connected in the circuit and can be treated as a constant. Note that $`𝒜_\omega =𝒵/(\omega \omega _+)(\omega \omega _{})`$ where $`\omega _\pm `$ are in the lower half-plane. The dielectric function $`ϵ(\omega )`$ can then be taken as slowly varying in the region where the antenna and form factor allow a response, and also has its analytic structure in the lower half-plane if this detail needs to be included. We will also ignore the form factor for this discussion, which earlier was cited as a formula analytic in the complex plane. While nothing in our analysis depends on these idealizations, this approach to the analytic structure serves to make our point.

As a first illustration, consider the electric field fit given by $`ZHS`$, proportional to $`1/(\omega i\omega _0)(\omega +i\omega _0)`$ with $`\omega _0/(2\pi )=500MHz`$. This field has poles in both the upper and lower half-plane, violating causality. One may argue that the literal analytic behavior in the complex plane goes beyond the ambitions of the original semi-empirical fit. Nevertheless, Cauchy’s theorem applies to the subsequent numerical integrations that have been made , giving non-causal branches to numerically evaluated Fourier transforms, as well as unphysical short-time structure.

Let us compare the analytic structure of the electric field in the saddle-point approximation. This approximation does not attempt to describe the region $`\omega 0`$, which requires treatment of the near zone. However for causality we do not need $`E_\omega `$ near the origin but at large $`|\omega |`$. The saddle point approximation is good here so the results should be reliable.

Let us investigate this in more detail. In the exponent in the expression for the electric field we have $`(1/2)(ka)^2(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)^2(1+i\eta )/(1+\eta ^2)`$. Since $`\eta `$ goes like $`\omega `$ there is a phase linear in $`\omega `$ at large $`|\omega |`$. There is also a branch-cut and pole from the prefactor which occurs at $`\eta =i`$. All singularities are in the lower half-plane and consistent with causality. The causal structure of $`E(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ then hinges on closing the contour at infinity. For this the details of the antenna function, which generally has isolated singularities, as well as singular behavior of $`E_\omega `$ near the origin do not matter.

We close the contour at infinity avoiding the branch cuts, which may be oriented along the negative imaginary axis or as consistent. Convergence then requires

$$\underset{\omega i\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{Re}[i\omega t+i\omega \sqrt{ϵ}R\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2ϵa^2(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)^2\frac{i\eta }{1+\eta ^2}]<0.$$

Using the definition of $`\eta `$, causality implies

$$t\sqrt{ϵ}\frac{R}{c}[1\frac{(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)^2}{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }]^1>0.$$

This result has a natural interpretation. While the radiation from the shower appears to come primarily from the geometric location of the maximum, $`\theta \theta _c`$, the shower actually develops and radiates earlier. Consequently the strict causal limit must correspond to an apparent propagation speed slightly faster than the naive speed of $`c/\sqrt{ϵ}`$ deduced from the location of the observation point at $`R`$. The earliest signal actually arrives at an apparent speed $`v_{app}`$ of

$$v_{app}=\frac{c}{\sqrt{ϵ}}[1\frac{(cos\theta cos\theta _c)^2}{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }]^1.$$

This formula is entirely geometrical, consistent with the simple picture that distance differences in the problem are causing the effect, but it also incorporates subtle features of coherence. For example, the distance scale $`a`$ cancels out. Yet $`a`$ determines the angular spread $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c`$ over which most of the power in the wave is contained, and enters in this fashion.

The Fraunhofer limit, in which all signals originate at a single point of origin, is incapable of capturing such an effect. It is interesting to trace the origin of the discrepancy. The singularities of interest are located by the zeroes of $`1i\eta =1i\omega \sqrt{ϵ}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /R.`$ When the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ is taken in the first step of the Fraunhofer approximation, all the non-trivial analytic structure moves away to $`\omega i\mathrm{}`$ and is lost. This procedure does not commute with closing the contour at $`|\omega |\mathrm{}`$. The correct procedure, of course, is to first close the contour, and then take the limit of large $`R`$.

In practice, of course, not all of the signal arrives at the earliest possible moment. The time scale over which the signal is detected depends on competition between dispersion, the antenna and form factor details, and something like twice the ”advanced” time interval. This time interval is $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{caus}=R\sqrt{ϵ}/(2c)(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _c)^2/\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$. Since the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{caus}`$ effect scales proportional to the distance $`R`$, it does not become negligible in any limit, exhibiting another subtle facet of breakdown of the Fraunhofer approximation.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy, the University of Kansas General Research Fund, the
K\*STAR programs and the Kansas Institute for Theoretical and Computational Science. We thank Jaime Alvarez-Muñiz, Enrique Zas, Doug McKay, Soeb Razzaque and Suruj Seunarine for many helpful suggestions and conversations. We especially thank Enrique for writing and sharing the ZHS code, and Soeb and Suruj for generously sharing their results from running shower codes.