If one is far (enough) away from the an accelerating charge in the right
direction, the field is given by primarily by the second (acceleration)
term. This is the ``usual'' transverse EM field. If the particle is
moving slowly with respect to (so ), then

(18.32) | |||

(18.33) |

The energy flux is given by the (instantaneous) Poynting vector:

(18.34) |

As always, the power cross-section (energy per unit solid angle) is

(18.35) |

where is the angle between and .

Aha! we say. The characteristic ! Aha again!
Inspecting the vector products, we see that the radiation is polarized
in the plane of
, perpendicular to **n**.
Finally, the integral over angles yields , so that

(18.36) |

(18.37) |

This can be written one more way, (substituting
and
and using some vector identities) due to Liénard:

(18.38) |

Why, you may ask, is this torture necessary? Because quite a few of you will
spend unreasonable amounts of your lives calculating things like radiative
losses in accelerators. After all, if we could build GeV accelerators in a
little bitty ten foot ring it would be a whole lot cheaper than 6 billion
bucks, plus inflation. Unfortunately, nature says that if you try it the
nasty thing will give off *synchrotron radiation*! Let us see that
tanstaafl^{18.1}.

The radiated power is proportional to the acceleration. The work is proportional to the tangential force times the velocity. Light particles accelerate the most for a given tangential force and have the highest velocity for a given energy; radiative losses are thus the most important for those particles at all energies. We will evaluate the radiative power loss for an electron in a linear accelerator.

We begin with

(18.39) |

(18.40) |

We will turn this into a rate equation by using the chain rule:

(18.41) |

(18.42) |

This quantity will be less than one while the gain in energy in a distance cm is of the order of MeV. That would require a potential difference (or other force) on the order of MV/meter.

Maybe at the surface of a positron. Come to think of it, falling into a
positron there comes a point where this is true and at that point the
total mass energy of the pair *is* radiated away. But nowhere else.
We can completely neglect radiative losses for linear acceleration
simply because the forces required to produce the requisite changes in
energy *when the particle is moving at nearly the speed of light*
are ludicrously large. For a charged particle moving in a straight
line, radiative losses are more important at low velocities. This is
fortunate, or radios and the like with linear dipole antennas would not
work!

However, it is incovenient to build linear accelerators. That is because a linear accelerator long enough to achieve reasonable energies for electrons starts (these days) at around 100-500 miles long. At that point, it is still not ``straight'' because the earth isn't flat and we don't bother tunnelling out a secant. Also, it seems sensible to let a charged particle fall many times through the ``same'' potential, which is possible only if the accelerator is circular. Unfortunately, we get into real trouble when the accelerator is not straight.

In a circular accelerator, there is a non-zero force proportional to
its velocity *squared*, even when *little or no work is being
done to accelerate the particle!* In fact, the centripetal force on the
particle is

(18.43) |

(18.44) |

(18.45) |

If one does some arithmetic (shudder), one can see that for high energy
electrons (where
), this is

(18.46) |

Those of you who need to know can read section 14.3 on your own. The results are straightforward but algebraically tedious, and are of use only if you plan on studying accelerator design or neutron stars. Don't get me wrong. Nobel prizes have been won for accelerator design and may be again. Go for it.

Ditto for 14.4. This is highly readable and contains no algebra. In a nutshell, a particle moving in a synchrotron emits its radiation in its instantaneous direction of motion (which is indeed perpendicular to the acceleration). Since it moves in a circle, a stationary observer in the plane of motion sees short bursts of radiation at the characteristic frequency . The length (in time) of the pulses is in time, and thus will contain frequencies up to in a fourier decomposition of their ``wave packet'' where is the length of the pulse in space. For highly relativistic particles moving in big circles, the characteristic frequency can be many orders of magnitude smaller than the high frequency cut off, as in AM radio frequencies to X-rays or worse. Synchrotron radiation is a potential source of high frequency electromagnetic energy.

Of course, it isn't tunable or coherent (in fact, its highly incoherent since
the spectrum is so wide!) and we'd love to use the same kind of trick to make
coherent, tunable, high frequency light. Some of you probably *will* use
the same kind of trick before you leave, since free electron lasers produce
energy from a similar principle (although with a totally different spectrum!).
Section 14.6 deals with the spectrum, and we will blow that off, too. Suffice
it to say that it can be calculated, and you can learn how, if you need to.
You really should remember that
, and
should take a peek at the distribution curves. These curves let one detect
synchrotron radiation from cosmological sources. These sources are generally
charged particles falling into dark stars, radiation belts around planets,
sunspots, or anyplace else that relativistic electrons are strongly
accelerated in a circular, or helical, path. Finally, we will neglect 14.5
too, which analyzes radiation emitted by particles moving in wierd ways.
Jackson is encyclopaediac, but we needn't be.

We will come back into focus at section 14.7, Thomson Scattering of Radiation. This is scattering of radiation by charged particles and is closely related to Compton scattering. It is important, as it is a common phenomenon.