text:
# Beam-size or MD-effect at colliders and correlations of particles in a beam

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The so called beam-size or MD-effect is a phenomenon discovered in experiments  at the MD-1 detector (the VEPP-4 accelerator with $`e^+e^{}`$ colliding beams , Novosibirsk 1981). It was found out that for ordinary bremsstrahlung, macroscopically large impact parameters should be taken into consideration. These impact parameters may be much larger than the transverse sizes of the interacting particle bunches. In that case, the standard calculations, which do not take into account this fact, will give incorrect results. The detailed description of the MD-effect can be found in review .

In $`1980`$$`1981`$ a dedicated study of the process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma `$ has been performed at the collider VEPP-$`4`$ in Novosibirsk using the detector MD-1 for an energy of the electron and positron beams $`E_e=E_p=1.8`$ GeV and in a wide interval of the photon energy $`E_\gamma `$ from $`0.5`$ MeV to $`E_\gamma E_e`$. It was observed  that the number of measured photons was smaller than that expected. The deviation from the standard calculation reached $`30\%`$ in the region of small photon energies and vanished for large energies of the photons. Yu.A. Tikhonov  pointed out that those impact parameters $`\varrho `$, which give an essential contribution to the standard cross section, reach values of $`\varrho _m5`$ cm whereas the transverse size of the bunch is $`\sigma _{}10^3`$ cm. The limitation of the impact parameters to values $`\varrho \sigma _{}`$ is just the reason for the decreasing number of observed photons.

The first calculations of this effect have been performed in Refs.  and  using different versions of quasi–classical calculations in the region of large impact parameters. Further experiments, including the measurement of the radiation probability as function of the beam parameters, supported the concept that the effect arises from the limitation of the impact parameters. Later on, the effect of limited impact parameters was taken into account when the single bremsstrahlung was used for measuring the luminosity at the VEPP–$`4`$ collider  and at the LEP-I collider . In the case of the VEPP–$`4`$ experiment , it was checked that the luminosities, obtained using either this process or using other reactions (such as the double bremsstrahlung process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$, where the MD-effect is absent), agreed with each other.

A general scheme to calculate the finite beam size effect had been developed in paper  starting from the quantum description of collisions as an interaction of wave packets forming bunches. Since the effect under discussion is dominated by small momentum transfer, the general formulae can be considerably simplified. The corresponding approximate formulae were given in . In a second step, the transverse motion of the particles in the beams can be neglected. The less exact (but simpler) formulae, which are then found, correspond to the results of Refs.  and . It has also been shown that similar effects have to be expected for several other reactions such as bremsstrahlung for colliding $`ep`$–beams , , $`e^+e^{}`$– pair production in $`e^\pm e`$ and $`\gamma e`$ collisions . The corresponding corrections to the standard formulae are now included in programs for simulation of events at linear colliders. The influence of MD-effect on polarization had been considered in Ref. . In 1995 the MD-effect was experimentally observed at the electron-proton collider HERA  on the level predicted in .

The possibility to create high-energy colliding $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ beams is now wildly discussed. For several processes at such colliders a new type of beam-size effect will take place — the so called linear beam-size effect . The calculation of this effect had been performed by method developed for MD-effect in .

It was realized in last years that MD-effect in bremsstrahlung plays important role for the problem of beam lifetime. At storage rings TRISTAN and LEP-I, the process of a single bremsstrahlung was the dominant mechanism for the particle losses in beams. If electron loses more than $`1\%`$ of its energy, it leaves the beam. Since MD-effect reduced considerable the effective cross section of this process, the calculated beam lifetime in these storage rings was larger by about $`25\%`$ for TRISTAN  and by about $`40\%`$ for LEP-I  (in accordance with the experimental data) then without taken into account the MD-effect. According to our calculations , at B-factories PEP-II and KEKB the MD-effect reduces beam losses due to bremsstrahlung by about 20%.

It is seen from this brief listing that the MD-effect is a phenomenon interesting from the theoretical point of view and important from the experimental point of view. In the present paper we consider once again the MD-effect having in mind two aims. The main purpose is to take into account correlations of particle coordinates in the beams. Usually these correlations are small, however, more accurate measurement may be sensitive to them. In the present paper we derive formulae which necessary to take into account quantitatively the effect of particle correlations in the spectrum of bremsstrahlung as well as in pair production.

Besides, we would like to consider critically recent papers  in which previous results  about bremsstrahlung spectrum had been revised. It was claimed that an additional subtraction related to the coherent contribution has to be done. Analysis, performed in paper , results in the conclusion that this additional “subtraction term” in the spectrum is not important for the MD-1 experiment , but it should be taken into account in processing the HERA experiment ; it also may be important for the future experiments at linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. It should be noted that in paper  there is no derivation of the starting formulae. On the other hand, in paper  there is a general remark that their consideration was motivated by corresponding calculations for bremsstrahlung of ultra-relativistic electrons on oriented crystals. In our critical remark  we had shown that the starting formulae of  are incorrect. After that new paper  was appeared in which there is the “derivation” of the starting formulae used in . Unfortunately, this derivation is incorrect as well.

In the present paper we analyze the coherent and incoherent contributions in the conditions, considered in papers , when the coherent length $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ is much smaller than the bunch length $`l`$ but much larger than the mean distance between particles $`a`$, i.e. $`al_{\mathrm{coh}}l`$. We derive expressions for the coherent and incoherent contributions and show that under these conditions the coherent contribution is completely negligible and, therefore, there is no need to revise the previous results. This conclusion is quite natural. A usual bunch at colliders can be considered as a gaseous media with a smooth particle distribution which has characteristic scales of the order of bunch sizes. In particular, the average particle density in such a bunch has the only scale in the longitudinal direction — the length of the bunch $`l`$. Therefore, the average field of the bunch has the spectral components in the region of frequencies $`\omega =q_zcc/l_{\mathrm{coh}}c/l`$ and vanishes in the region of much higher frequencies considered here. On the contrary, in the crystal case there is another scale related to the size of the particle localization in the crystal structure. In this case, the additional subtraction should be taken into account for incoherent contribution. It seems that the electron radiation on oriented crystals played a misleading role for consideration of the MD-effect in . To clarify a question we give our calculations in full details and pointed out the origin of the corresponding mistake in .

In next Section we present the qualitative description of the MD-effect. In Sect. III we discuss our approximations. Basic formulae for coherent and incoherent contributions are given in Sect. IV. Correction to the standard cross section, related to the particle correlations, are derived in Sect. V. Our critical remarks about results of papers  are presented in Sect. VI. Some conclusions are given in Sect. VII.

## 2 QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE MD-EFFECT

Qualitatively we describe the MD–effect using as an example the $`epep\gamma `$ process111Below we use the following notations: $`N_e`$ and $`N_p`$ are the numbers of electrons and protons (positrons) in the bunches, $`\sigma _z=l`$ is the longitudinal, $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ are the horizontal and vertical transverse sizes of the proton (positron) bunch, $`\gamma _e=E_e/(m_ec^2)`$, $`\gamma _p=E_p/(m_pc^2)`$ and $`r_e=e^2/(m_ec^2)`$ is the classical electron radius.. This reaction is defined by the diagrams of Fig. 1 which describe the radiation of the photon by the electron (the contribution of the photon radiation by the proton can be neglected). The large impact parameters $`\varrho \sigma _{}`$, where $`\sigma _{}`$ is the transverse beam size, correspond to small momentum transfer $`\mathrm{}q_{}(\mathrm{}/\varrho )(\mathrm{}/\sigma _{})`$. In this region, the given reaction can be represented as a Compton scattering (Fig. 2) of the equivalent photon, radiated by the proton, on the electron. The equivalent photons with frequency $`\omega `$ form a “disk” of radius $`\varrho _m\gamma _pc/\omega `$ where $`\gamma _p=E_p/(m_pc^2)`$ is the Lorentz-factor of the proton. Indeed, the electromagnetic field of the proton is $`\gamma _p`$–times contracted in the direction of motion. Therefore, at distance $`\varrho `$ from the axis of motion a characteristic longitudinal length of a region occupied by the field can be estimated as $`\lambda \varrho /\gamma _p`$ which leads to the frequency $`\omega c/\lambda \gamma _pc/\varrho `$.

In the reference frame connected with the collider, the equivalent photon with energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and the electron with energy $`E_e\mathrm{}\omega `$ move toward each other (Fig. 3) and perform a Compton scattering. The characteristics of this process are well known. The main contribution to the Compton scattering is given by the region where the scattered photons fly in a direction opposite to that of the initial photons. For such a backward scattering, the energy of the equivalent photon $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and the energy of the final photon $`E_\gamma `$ and its emission angle $`\theta _\gamma `$ are related by

$$\mathrm{}\omega =\frac{E_\gamma }{4\gamma _e^2(1E_\gamma /E_e)}\left[1+(\gamma _e\theta _\gamma )^2\right]$$
(1)
and, therefore, for typical emission angles $`\theta _\gamma 1/\gamma _e`$ one has

$$\mathrm{}\omega \frac{E_\gamma }{4\gamma _e^2(1E_\gamma /E_e)}.$$
(2)
As a result, we find the radius of the “disk” of equivalent photons with the frequency $`\omega `$ (corresponding to a final photon with energy $`E_\gamma `$) as follows:

$$\varrho _m=\frac{\gamma _pc}{\omega }\lambda _e\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\gamma _e\gamma _p\frac{E_eE_\gamma }{E_\gamma },\lambda _e=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_ec}=3.8610^{11}\mathrm{cm}.$$
(3)
For the HERA collider with $`E_p=820`$ GeV and $`E_e=28`$ GeV one obtains

$$\varrho _m1\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{for}E_\gamma 0.2\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(4)
Equation (3) is also valid for the $`e^{}e^+e^{}e^+\gamma `$ process with replacement protons by positrons. For the VEPP-4 collider it leads to

$$\varrho _m1\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{for}E_\gamma 15\text{ MeV },$$
(5)
for the PEP-II and KEKB colliders we have

$$\varrho _m1\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{for}E_\gamma 0.1\text{ GeV }.$$
(6)
The standard calculation corresponds to the interaction of the photons forming the “disk” with the unbounded flux of electrons. However, the particle beams at the HERA collider have finite transverse beam sizes of the order of $`\sigma _{}10^2`$ cm. Therefore, the equivalent photons from the region $`\sigma _{}\varrho \varrho _m`$ cannot interact with the electrons from the other beam. This leads to the decreasing number of the observed photons and the “observed cross section” $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is smaller than the standard cross section $`d\sigma `$ calculated for an infinite transverse extension of the electron beam,

$$d\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}=d\sigma d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}.$$
(7)
Here the correction $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}`$ can be presented in the form

$$d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}=d\sigma _\mathrm{C}(\omega ,E_e,E_\gamma )dn(\omega )$$
(8)
where $`dn(\omega )`$ denotes the number of “missing” equivalent photons and $`d\sigma _\mathrm{C}`$ is the cross section of the Compton scattering. Let us stress that the equivalent photon approximation in this region has a high accuracy (the neglected terms are of the order of $`1/\gamma _p`$). But for the qualitative description it is sufficient to use the logarithmic approximation in which this number is (see , §99)

$$dn=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{dq_{}^2}{q_{}^2}.$$
(9)
Since $`q_{}1/\varrho `$, we can present the number of “missing” equivalent photons in the form

$$dn=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{d\varrho ^2}{\varrho ^2}$$
(10)
with the integration region in $`\varrho `$:

$$\sigma _{}\varrho \varrho _m=\frac{\gamma _pc}{\omega }.$$
(11)
As a result, this number is equal to

$$dn(\omega )=2\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varrho _m}{\sigma _{}},$$
(12)
and the correction to the standard cross section with logarithmic accuracy is222Within this approximation, the standard cross section has the form
$$d\sigma =d\sigma _\mathrm{C}\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{dq_{}^2}{q_{}^2}=\frac{16}{3}\alpha r_e^2\frac{dy}{y}\left(1y+\frac{3}{4}y^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{4\gamma _e\gamma _p(1y)}{y}$$
with the integration region $`\omega /(c\gamma _p)q_{}m_ec/\mathrm{}`$ corresponding to the impact parameters $`\varrho `$ in the interval $`\lambda _e\varrho \varrho _m`$.

$$d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}=\frac{16}{3}\alpha r_e^2\frac{dy}{y}\left(1y+\frac{3}{4}y^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{4\gamma _e\gamma _p(1y)\lambda _e}{y\sigma _{}},y=\frac{E_\gamma }{E_e}.$$
(13)
## 3 APPROXIMATIONS

For future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders the transverse sizes of the beams will change significantly during the time of interaction due to a mutual attraction of very dense beams. However, for most of the ordinary accelerators, including practically all $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`ep`$ storage rings, the change of the transverse beam sizes during the collisions can be neglected. Below we use two main approximations: 1) the particle movement in the bunches has a quasi-classical character; 2) the particle distribution remains practically unchanged during the collision. For definiteness, we use again the $`ep`$ collisions as an example.

Therefore, if the proton (electron) bunch moves along (opposite) the direction of $`z`$-axis with the velocity $`v_p`$ ($`v_e`$), its density has the form

$$n_p=n_p(\mathit{\varrho },zv_pt),n_e=n_e(\mathit{\varrho },z+v_et).$$
(14)
We also introduce so called “transverse densities”

$$n_p(\mathit{\varrho })=n_p𝑑z,n_e(\mathit{\varrho })=n_e𝑑z$$
(15)
which is equal to the total number of protons (electrons) which cross a unit area around the impact parameter $`\mathit{\varrho }`$ during the collision. Using the transverse densities, we express the luminosity for collisions of beams whose axes separated by impact parameter $`\mathit{\varrho }`$ as

$$L(\mathit{\varrho })=n_e(𝐫_{})n_p(\mathit{\varrho }+𝐫_{})d^2𝐫_{}.$$
(16)
The usual luminosity for a single collision of $`ep`$-beams $`L_{ep}`$ is then

$$L_{ep}=L(0).$$
(17)
Below we consider in detail the case when an electron deflection angle $`\theta _e`$ is smaller than the typical radiation angle $`1/\gamma _e`$. It is easy to estimate the ratio of these angles. The electric E and magnetic B fields of the proton bunch are approximately equal in magnitude, $`|𝐄||𝐁|eN_p/(\sigma _x+\sigma _y)`$. These fields are transverse and they deflect the electron into the same direction. In such fields the electron moves around a circumference of radius $`R\gamma _em_ec^2/(eB)`$ and gets the deflection angle $`\theta _el/R`$. Therefore, the ratio of these angles is of the order of

$$\frac{\theta _e}{(1/\gamma _e)}\eta =\frac{r_eN_p}{\sigma _x+\sigma _y}.$$
(18)
The parameter $`\eta 1`$ only for the SLC and future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, in most of the colliders $`\eta 1`$.

In our consideration we use the equivalent photon approximation. In the region of interest (where impact parameters are large, $`\varrho \sigma _{}`$) this simple and transparent method has a high accuracy: the neglected terms are of the order of $`1/\gamma `$. It should be stressed that the operator quasi-classical method, used in Ref. , just coincides in this region with the equivalent photon approximation.

## 4 COHERENT AND INCOHERENT CONTRIBUTIONS

### 4.1 General formulae

The corresponding formulae for the number of events in a single collision of the electron and proton bunches can be found in papers , . To calculate the MD-effect, we need to know the distribution of equivalent photons (EP) for large values of impact parameters. In this region we can consider the electron–proton scattering as the scattering of electrons on the electromagnetic field of the proton bunch. Replacing this field by the flux of EP with some frequency distribution, we obtain the number of events in the form

$$dN=dL_{\gamma e}(\omega )d\sigma _\mathrm{C}(\omega ,E_e,E_\gamma ),dL_{\gamma e}(\omega )=n_\gamma (\mathit{\varrho },\omega )d\omega n_e(\mathit{\varrho })d^2\varrho .$$
(19)
Here $`n_e(\mathit{\varrho })`$ is the transverse electron density (15) and $`n_\gamma (\mathit{\varrho },\omega )d\omega `$ is the transverse density of EP with the frequencies in the interval from $`\omega `$ to $`\omega +d\omega `$. The quantity $`dL_{\gamma e}(\omega )`$ denotes the differential luminosity for the collisions of EP and electrons and $`d\sigma _\mathrm{C}(\omega ,E_e,E_\gamma )`$ is the Compton cross section for the scattering of the equivalent photon with the frequency $`\omega `$ on the electron.

For comparison with the experimental data the number of events in a single collision of beams $`dN`$ should be averaged over many collisions of bunches in a given experiment. For example, the typical rate at the HERA collider is less then $`1/100`$ bremsstrahlung photons in a certain interval of frequencies per a single collision of the beams, therefore, in that experiment the averaging over many collisions of bunches really does exist.

The transverse density of the EP is determined by density of the electromagnetic field for a given frequency, i.e. by $`𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })^2/(4\pi )`$, where $`𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })`$ is the spectral component of the collective electric field of the proton bunch. As a result, the transverse density of the EP is

$$n_\gamma (\mathit{\varrho },\omega )d\omega =\frac{c}{4\pi ^2}𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })^2\frac{d\omega }{\mathrm{}\omega },$$
(20)
where the sign $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the above mentioned statistical averaging. The field $`𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })`$ itself depends on a distribution of charges in the proton bunch at $`t=0`$. We introduce the exact (fluctuating) density of the proton bunch $`n(𝐫)`$ and the averaging density

$$n_p(𝐫)=n(𝐫)$$
(21)
as well as the corresponding form factor

$$F_p(𝐪)=n_p(𝐫)\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}}d^3r$$
(22)
with the normalization

$$F_p(0)=n_p(𝐫)d^3r=N_p.$$
(23)
In the classical limit

$$n(𝐫)=\underset{a}{}\delta (𝐫𝐫_a),$$
(24)
where $`𝐫_a`$ is the radius-vector of the $`a`$-th proton. In these notations, the exact (fluctuating) collective field is

$$𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })=\frac{\mathrm{i}e}{\pi c}d^2q_{}\frac{𝐪_{}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐪_{}\mathit{\varrho }}}{D(𝐪)}d^3rn(𝐫)\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}},D(𝐪)=𝐪_{}^2+\frac{q_z^2}{\gamma _p^2}$$
(25)
with $`q_z=\omega /c`$.

As a result, the number of events

$$dNn_\gamma (\mathit{\varrho },\omega )=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi ^4\omega }\frac{(𝐪_{}𝐪_{}^{})}{D(𝐪)D(𝐪^{})}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}(𝐪_{}𝐪_{}^{})\mathit{\varrho }}S(𝐪,𝐪^{})d^2q_{}d^2q_{}^{}$$
(26)
depends on the beam structure factor

$$S(𝐪,𝐪^{})=S(𝐫,𝐫^{})\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}𝐪^{}𝐫^{})}d^3rd^3r^{},S(𝐫,𝐫^{})=n(𝐫)n(𝐫^{})$$
(27)
in which

$$q_z=q_z^{}=\omega /c.$$
(28)
Below we analyze these formulae in conditions when the coherence length $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}c/\omega `$ is much smaller than the bunch length $`l`$, but much larger that the mean distance between particles in the beam $`a`$, i. e. at

$$a\frac{c}{\omega }l_{\mathrm{coh}}=\frac{4\gamma _e^2\mathrm{}c}{E_\gamma }(1E_\gamma /E_e)l.$$
(29)
### 4.2 The beam structure factor

The obtained general formulae include the coherent and incoherent contributions. The coherent contribution is determined by the average field which is given by Eq. (25) with the replacement of the exact density $`n(𝐫)`$ by the average density $`n_p(𝐫)`$. The averaged density of the proton bunch has a single scale in the longitudinal direction — the length of the bunch $`l`$. Therefore, the average field of the bunch is essential in the region of frequencies $`\omega =cq_zc/l`$ and should be small in the region of large frequencies $`\omega c/l`$. In particular, if the proton bunch has the Gaussian distribution,

$$n_p(𝐫)=\frac{N_p}{(2\pi )^{3/2}\sigma _x\sigma _yl}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{x^2}{2\sigma _x^2}\frac{y^2}{2\sigma _y^2}\frac{z^2}{2l^2}\right],$$
(30)
its form factor is equal to

$$F_p(𝐪)=N_p\text{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(q_x\sigma _x)^2\frac{1}{2}(q_y\sigma _y)^2\frac{1}{2}(\omega l/c)^2\right]$$
(31)
and vanishes in the discussed region of frequencies from the interval (29).

If we introduce the density fluctuation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n(𝐫)=n(𝐫)n_p(𝐫),$$
(32)
we can rewrite the average product of densities in the form

$$n(𝐫)n(𝐫^{})=n_p(𝐫)n_p(𝐫^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }n(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }n(𝐫^{}).$$
(33)
In accordance with this presentation, we split the function $`S(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ in two items called coherent and incoherent contribution:

$$S=S_{\mathrm{coh}}+S_{\mathrm{incoh}},S_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=n_p(𝐫)n_p(𝐫^{}),S_{\mathrm{incoh}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }n(𝐫)\mathrm{\Delta }n(𝐫^{}).$$
(34)
The coherent contribution to the structure factor is equal to

$$S_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝐪,𝐪^{})=F_p(𝐪)F_p^{}(𝐪^{}).$$
(35)
This formula was used in Refs. ,  to obtain main characteristics of the coherent bremsstrahlung. It also allows us to obtain the following estimate for the Gaussian beam in the region of interest (at $`|q_x|,|q_x^{}|1/\sigma _x`$ and $`|q_y|,|q_y^{}|1/\sigma _y`$):

$$S_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝐪,𝐪^{})N_p^2\text{exp}\left[(\omega l/c)^2\right].$$
(36)
Let us now consider the incoherent contribution. A bunch at colliders can be treated as a continues media with a smooth average particle distribution. It was shown in Appendix that for such a media the function $`S_{\mathrm{incoh}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is expressed only via the average density $`n_p(𝐫)`$ and via the correlation function $`C(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ as follows

$$S_{\mathrm{incoh}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})n_p(𝐫)+C(𝐫,𝐫^{}).$$
(37)
If we neglect the correlations of the particle coordinates in the beam, the correlation function $`C(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ vanishes, and we obtain (taking into account Eq. (28))

$$S_{\mathrm{incoh}}(𝐪,𝐪^{})=F(𝐪_{}𝐪_{}^{}).$$
(38)
It is important that this expression is determined only by the transverse average density of the proton bunch and it does not depend on $`\omega `$. Formula (38) has been used to derive the previous results about MD-effect (for details see review  and Sect. V). For the Gaussian beam in the region of interest, we get from (38) a useful estimate

$$S_{\mathrm{incoh}}(𝐪,𝐪^{})N_p.$$
(39)
The correlations of the particle coordinates may arise due to Coulomb interaction of particles in the beam. In this case the characteristic quantity — the correlation length $`l_{\mathrm{correl}}`$ — is related to the Debay radius. It is evident that the correlations are negligible if the correlation length is much larger then the coherence length, i.e. at $`l_{\mathrm{correl}}l_{\mathrm{coh}}`$. According to an estimate  it is just the case for the VEPP-4 experiment . In any case, the correlations may give an essential correction to the standard bremsstrahlung cross section only if

$$l_{\mathrm{correl}}l_{\mathrm{coh}}.$$
(40)
Therefore, the important quantity is the spectral component of the correlation function:

$$C_\omega (𝐫_{},𝐫_{}^{})=C(𝐫,𝐫^{})\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega (zz^{})/c}𝑑z𝑑z^{}.$$
(41)
With this notation the incoherent contribution is now:

$$S_{\mathrm{incoh}}(𝐪,𝐪^{})=F(𝐪_{}𝐪_{}^{})+C_\omega (𝐪_{},𝐪_{}^{}),$$
(42)
where

$$C_\omega (𝐪_{},𝐪_{}^{})=C_\omega (𝐫_{},𝐫_{}^{})\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}(𝐪_{}𝐫_{}𝐪_{}^{}𝐫_{}^{})}d^2r_{}d^2r_{}^{}.$$
(43)
## 5 CORRECTION TO THE STANDARD BREMSSTRAHLUNG CROSS SECTION

Let us compare the coherent and incoherent contributions for the Gaussian beams. In this case, the ratio

$$\frac{dN^{\mathrm{coh}}}{dN^{\mathrm{incoh}}}\frac{S_{\mathrm{coh}}(𝐪,𝐪^{})}{S_{\mathrm{incoh}}(𝐪,𝐪^{})}N_p\text{exp}\left[(\omega l/c)^2\right]$$
(44)
is determined by the parameters $`\omega l/c`$. Since $`\mathrm{}\omega E_\gamma /[4\gamma _e^2(1E_\gamma /E_e)]`$, it is also useful to introduced the coherence length (29) and the critical energy for the coherent bremsstrahlung

$$E_c=\frac{4\gamma _e^2\mathrm{}c}{l}.$$
(45)
If the coherence length is large, $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}l`$, or if the final photon energy is small, $`E_\gamma E_c`$, the parameter $`\omega l/c1`$ and the coherent contribution is dominant.

On the contrary, in the region of large photon energy, $`E_\gamma E_c`$, or small coherence length, $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}l`$, considered here, the incoherent contribution dominates. In particular, for $`N_p10^{11}`$ the ratio $`dN^{\mathrm{coh}}/dN^{\mathrm{incoh}}`$ is small even for $`\omega l/c=6`$,

$$\frac{dN^{\mathrm{coh}}}{dN^{\mathrm{incoh}}}N_p\text{e}^{36}1,$$
(46)
and the coherent contribution becomes completely negligible. In this case the number of events for bremsstrahlung can be presented in the form (cf. (7))

$$dN^{\mathrm{incoh}}=L_{ep}d\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}},d\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}=d\sigma d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}},$$
(47)
where $`L_{ep}`$ is the luminosity (17) of the $`ep`$-collisions, $`d\sigma `$ is the standard cross section for the $`epep\gamma `$ process and $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}`$ is the correction related to the MD-effect. Then we perform integration over $`𝐪_{}`$ and $`𝐪_{}^{}`$ using the well known equality

$$\frac{𝐪_{}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐪_{}\mathit{\varrho }}}{𝐪_{}^2+(1/b)^2}d^2q_{}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{i}}{b}\frac{\mathit{\varrho }}{\varrho }K_1(\varrho /b)$$
(48)
where $`K_n(x)`$ denotes the modified Bessel function of third kind with integer index $`n`$ (McDonald function). As a resul, we obtain the correction to the standard cross section in the form (cf. with the approximate formulae (8), (12))

$$d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}=d\sigma _C(\omega ,E_e,E_\gamma )\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }G(\omega ),$$
(49)
where $`d\sigma _C`$ is the Compton cross section and the function $`G(\omega )`$ consists of two items

$$G(\omega )=G^{(1)}(\omega )+G^{(2)}(\omega ).$$
(50)
The first item represents the previous result for the MD-effect (without taking into account correlations),

$$G^{(1)}(\omega )=\frac{d^2\varrho }{\pi \varrho _m^2}\left[1\frac{L(\mathit{\varrho })}{L(0)}\right]K_1^2(\varrho /\varrho _m),\varrho _m=\frac{c\gamma _p}{\omega },$$
(51)
where $`L(\mathit{\varrho })`$ is defined in (16). Some other useful expressions for $`G^{(1)}(\omega )`$ as well as its asymptotics can be found in . The second item is directly related to the correlation function (37), (41):

$$G^{(2)}(\omega )=\frac{d^2\varrho }{\pi \varrho _m^2}\frac{n_e(\mathit{\varrho })}{L_{ep}}C_\omega (𝐫_{}+\mathit{\varrho },𝐫_{}^{}+\mathit{\varrho })\frac{(𝐫_{}𝐫_{}^{})}{r_{}r_{}^{}}K_1(r_{}/\varrho _m)K_1(r_{}^{}/\varrho _m)d^2r_{}d^2r_{}^{}.$$
(52)
Note that the main contribution to $`G^{(1)}(\omega )`$ (51) is given by the region of large impact parameters (11) while the main contribution to $`G^{(2)}(\omega )`$ is given by the region $`\varrho \sigma _{}`$.

The quantity $`d\sigma _Cd\omega /\omega `$ in (49) can be expressed via the energy $`E_\gamma `$ and the emission angle $`\theta _\gamma `$ of the final photon as follows (taking into account relation (1))

$$d\sigma _C\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }=2\alpha r_e^2\frac{dy}{y}\frac{dz}{(1+z)^2}F(y,z),F(y,z)=2(1y)\frac{1+z^2}{(1+z)^2}+y^2,$$
(53)
where

$$y=\frac{E_\gamma }{E_e},z=\left(\theta _\gamma \gamma _e\right)^2,r_e=\frac{e^2}{m_ec^2}.$$
(54)
## 6 CRITICAL REMARKS ABOUT RESULTS of Refs.

We derive the final expression for the incoherent contribution from general equations (19), (20) and (25) as a simple consequence of natural assumptions about the particle distribution in a proton bunch. It is useful to rewrite these equations in the form convenient for comparison with the corresponding equations in . To do this, we note that the Compton cross section $`d\sigma _\mathrm{C}|\mathrm{𝐞𝐌}_{\mathrm{Compton}}|^2`$ where $`\mathrm{𝐞𝐌}_{\mathrm{Compton}}`$ is the amplitude of the Compton scattering for the EP with the polarization vector $`𝐞=𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })/𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })`$. Therefore, the number of events in a given collisions of beams is proportional to $`|M|^2`$, where

$$M=𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })𝐌_{\mathrm{Compton}}$$
(55)
is related to the probability amplitude of the process. Further, we use Eqs. (24) and (48) and present the collective field of the proton bunch $`𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })`$ as a sum of fields of all protons:

$$𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}𝐄_\omega ^{(a)}(\mathit{\varrho }),𝐄_\omega ^{(a)}(\mathit{\varrho })=\frac{2e}{c\varrho _m}\frac{\mathit{\varrho }_a^{}}{\varrho _a^{}}K_1\left(\varrho _a^{}/\varrho _m\right)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega z_a/c},$$
(56)
where $`\mathit{\varrho }_a^{}=\mathit{\varrho }\mathit{\varrho }_a`$ is the impact parameter between the electron and the $`a`$-th proton and the parameter $`\varrho _m=\gamma _pc/\omega `$ is the radius of the “disc” of EP (see Fig. 3).

As a consequence, the amplitude $`M`$ is the sum

$$M=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}m_a\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega z_a/c},m_a=\frac{2e}{c\varrho _m}K_1\left(\varrho _a^{}/\varrho _m\right)\frac{\mathit{\varrho }_a^{}}{\varrho _a^{}}𝐌_{\mathrm{Compton}},$$
(57)
where the item $`m_a\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\omega z_a/c)`$ is the contribution to $`M`$ related to the interaction of the electron with the $`a`$-th proton, while $`|M|^2`$ can be presented as the double sum

$$|M|^2=\underset{a,b}{}m_am_b^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega (z_az_b)/c}.$$
(58)
We split this sum into sum with $`a=b`$ and sum with $`ab`$:

$$|M|^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\underset{a}{}|m_a|^2,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\underset{ab}{}m_am_b^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega (z_az_b)/c}.$$
(59)
Equations (57)—(59) can be considered as the same starting formulae in our approach, based on the equivalent photon approximation, and in approach of , based on the operator quasi-classical method. However, further calculations are quite different. For simplicity, below we consider the case when we can neglect the correlations between the particle coordinates in the proton bunch.

In our approach, the number of events is proportional to $`|M|^2`$ averaged over collisions of beams, i.e.

$$dN|M|^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2$$
(60)
In the considered region of large frequencies (29), the item $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, corresponding to the coherent contribution, vanishes,

$$|\mathrm{\Sigma }_2|\mathrm{\Sigma }_1.$$
(61)
Since $`m_a`$ does not depend on the longitudinal coordinate $`z_a`$, the average value of $`|m_a|^2`$ is determined by the transverse average density of the proton bunch (15),

$$|m_a|^2=|m_a|^2\frac{n_p(𝐫_a)}{N_p}d^3r_a=|m_a|^2\frac{n_p(\mathit{\varrho }_a)}{N_p}d^2\varrho _a,$$
(62)
and it does not depend on index $`a`$. Therefore, the item

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=N_p|m_a|^2$$
(63)
leads to the correction, corresponding to $`G^{(1)}`$ in (49)—(51).

Authors of  as the first step had performed averaging over transverse coordinates of the protons. Certainly, after that they get the same expression for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ as in (63). For $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ they had obtained the following expression

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_2_{}=|m_a_{}|^2Z,Z=\underset{ab}{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega (z_az_b)/c},$$
(64)
where

$$m_a_{}=m_a\frac{n_p(\mathit{\varrho }_a)}{N_p}d^2\varrho _a.$$
(65)
The principal mistake in  consists in the incorrect calculation of $`Z`$. It is not difficult to understand its true behavior in the considered region of large frequencies (29). The quantity $`Z`$ fluctuates near zero for various sets of coordinates $`\{z_a\}=z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_{N_p}`$, corresponding to various collisions of beams, and after averaging over many collisions one obtains the estimate (61). This natural behavior of $`Z`$ is confirmed by numerical calculations given below.

When calculating $`Z`$, the authors of  add and subtract the items with $`a=b`$, as a consequence,

$$Z=JN_p,J=\underset{a,b}{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega (z_az_b)/c}=\left|\underset{a}{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega z_a/c}\right|^2.$$
(66)
Their next step consists in replacement the sum $`J`$ by the integral

$$J\left|\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega z/c}n_p(𝐫)d^3r\right|^2,$$
(67)
which is negligible in the considered region. In particular, for the Gaussian beam the replacement (67) means the following:

$$JN_p^2\text{exp}\left[(\omega l/c)^2\right]N_p$$
(68)
(cf. (36), (44) and (46)). This estimate leads to a large negative value of

$$Z=N_p$$
(69)
and to

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_2_{}=N_p|m_a_{}|^2.$$
(70)
Just expression (70) is a new “subtraction term” derived in .

The mistake of  consists in replacement (67). This replacement is true for the region of small frequencies $`\omega l/c1`$ when $`J=N_p^2`$ and $`Z=N_p+J=N_p(N_p1)N_p^2`$, but such a replacing is completely wrong in the considered region of large frequencies (29). To show this, we perform numerical calculation of the sum $`J`$. For a given collision of beams we can consider a set of the longitudinal proton coordinates $`\{z_a\}`$ as a set of random quantities with some distribution $`w(z)`$. We assume below that

$$w(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }l}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{z^2}{2l^2}\right).$$
(71)
Now the sum

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}qz_a}=C\mathrm{i}S$$
(72)
with

$$C=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}\mathrm{cos}(qz_a),S=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}\mathrm{sin}(qz_a),q=\omega /c$$
(73)
is also the random quantity as well as

$$J=C^2+S^2.$$
(74)
The quantities $`C`$ and $`S`$ are the sums of large numbers of random items. Therefore, one can expect that they distribute in accordance with the normal law:

$$\frac{dW}{dC}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi N_p}\mathrm{\Delta }c}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(CN_p\overline{c}\right)^2}{2N_p(\mathrm{\Delta }c)^2}\right],\frac{dW}{dS}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi N_p\overline{s^2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{S^2}{2N_p\overline{s^2}}\right],$$
(75)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }c=\sqrt{\overline{c^2}\overline{c}^2}`$ and

$`\overline{c}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{cos}(qz)}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}w(z)\mathrm{cos}(qz)𝑑z=\mathrm{e}^{(ql)^2/2},\overline{s}=\overline{\mathrm{sin}(qz)}=0,`$ (76)
$`\overline{c^2}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{cos}^2(qz)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\mathrm{e}^{2(ql)^2}\right),\overline{s^2}=\overline{\mathrm{sin}^2(qz)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\mathrm{e}^{2(ql)^2}\right).`$
Numerical calculations had been performed using the generator of random numbers from MATLAB. These calculations confirm the above distributions (75). In particular, it can be seen from Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 where the results of numerical calculations for $`ql=1,N_p=10^2`$ and $`ql=10,N_p=10^3`$ are presented for $`10^4`$ various sets of $`\{z_a\}`$.

Since

$$C=N_p\overline{c},\left(CN_p\overline{c}\right)^2=N_p(\overline{c^2}\overline{c}^2),S=0,S^2=N_p\overline{s^2},$$
(77)
we have

$$J=N_p+N_p\left(N_p1\right)\overline{c}^2,Z=N_p\left(N_p1\right)\overline{c}^2N_p^2\text{exp}\left[(\omega l/c)^2\right].$$
(78)
Moreover, taking into account that in the considered case $`(N_p\overline{c})^2N_p`$, we find that (in contrast to (68), (69))

$$J=N_p,|Z|N_p.$$
(79)
The distribution of the random quantity $`J`$ becomes very simple at $`ql1`$:

$$\frac{dW}{dJ}=\frac{1}{N_p}\mathrm{e}^{J/N_p}.$$
(80)
The results of numerical calculations, presented on Fig. 6 , confirm Eq. (80). It should be noted that distribution (80) is rather wide,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }J=\sqrt{J^2J^2}=N_p,$$
(81)
therefore, the averaging over many various sets of $`\{z_a\}`$ is necessary to obtain the stable result for $`J`$.

This consideration shows that the effect, derived in , is absent just in the region, discussed in these papers. At the end of this section we reconsider the experiments analyzed in paper .

The HERA experiment . In this case $`E_e=27.5`$ GeV and $`l=8.5`$ cm, therefore, $`E_c=27`$ keV. For the observed photon energies $`E_\gamma =2÷8`$ GeV, the parameter

$$\frac{\omega l}{c}\frac{E_\gamma }{E_c}>10^4,$$
(82)
and the coherent contribution is completely negligible. Therefore, the new correction to the previous results on the level of $`10`$ %, obtained in , is, in fact, absent.

The VEPP-4 experiment . In this case $`E_e=1.84`$ GeV and $`l=3`$ cm, therefore, $`E_c=0.34`$ keV. For the observed photon energies $`E_\gamma 1`$ MeV, the parameter

$$\frac{\omega l}{c}\frac{E_\gamma }{E_c}>10^3,$$
(83)
and the coherent contribution is completely negligible.

The case of a “typical linear collider” with $`E_e=500`$ GeV and $`E_\gamma =E_e/1000`$. This example, considered in paper , is irrelevant for the discussed problem, since the coherent radiation (called in this case beamstrahlung) at a typical linear collider absolutely dominates in this very region over the ordinary incoherent bremsstrahlung — see, for example, the TESLA project  and Sect. 3 of .

## 7 CONCLUDING REMARKS

In the present paper we had performed analysis of the coherent and incoherent contributions to the bremsstrahlung in conditions (29) when the incoherent contribution dominates but large impact parameters give an essential contribution to the standard cross section. In this conditions the known correction (51) to the standard cross section is determined by the transverse distribution of particles in the beams.

We take into account correlations of particles in the beam. The corresponding correction to the standard cross section is given by Eq. (52) and it is determined by correlations of particles in the transverse as well as in longitudinal coordinates.

Through the paper we consider MD-effect in bremsstrahlung. The MD-effect for the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production (for example, in the reaction $`\gamma ee^+e^{}e`$) can be considered in the same manner — for detail see Sect 7.1 from review .

We had shown that replacing the sum $`J`$ (66) by the integral (67) in conditions (29) is incorrect. As a consequence, papers  are incorrect as well.

## Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to A. Chernykh, V. Dmitriev, V. Fadin, I. Ginzburg, V. Katkov, I. Kolokolov, A. Milshtein and N. Vinokurov for useful discussions. This work is supported in part by INTAS (code 00-00679), RFBR (code 03-02-17734) and by the Fund of Russian Scientific Schools (code 2339.2003.2).

## APPENDIX. AVERAGE PRODUCT OF PARTICLE DENSITIES IN THE BEAM

In the classical limit (24) the average product of particle densities in the proton beam is given by the double sum over protons in the beam

$$S(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}\delta (𝐫𝐫_a)\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫_b).$$
(84)
We split this expression into sum with $`a=b`$ and sum with $`ab`$:

$$S(𝐫,𝐫^{})=S_1+S_2,S_1=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})\underset{a}{}\delta (𝐫𝐫_a),S_2=\underset{ab}{}\delta (𝐫𝐫_a)\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫_b).$$
(85)
To perform the averaging, we introduce the average proton distribution function

$$f(𝐫)=n_p(𝐫)/N_p$$
(86)
with the normalization

$$f(𝐫)d^3r=1.$$
(87)
It gives

$$\delta (𝐫𝐫_a)=\delta (𝐫𝐫_a)f(𝐫_a)d^3r_a=f(𝐫).$$
(88)
Note, that quantity $`\delta (𝐫𝐫_a)`$ does not depend on index $`a`$ and, therefore,

$$S_1=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})N_pf(𝐫)=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})n_p(𝐫).$$
(89)
If we can neglect correlations between the particle coordinates, then the average product $`\delta (𝐫𝐫_a)\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫_b)`$ for $`ab`$ can be presented as the product of two averaged factors:

$$\delta (𝐫𝐫_a)\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫_b)=\delta (𝐫𝐫_a)\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫_b)\text{ for }ab.$$
(90)
As a consequence,

$$S_2=\underset{ab}{}\delta (𝐫𝐫_a)\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫_b)=N_p(N_p1)f(𝐫)f(𝐫^{}).$$
(91)
If we do not neglect the correlations between the particle positions, we should introduce the correlation function $`C(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ as follows

$$S_2=\underset{ab}{}\delta (𝐫𝐫_a)\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫_b)+C(𝐫,𝐫^{}).$$
(92)
In that case we obtain instead of (91) the expression

$$S_2=N_p(N_p1)f(𝐫)f(𝐫^{})+C(𝐫,𝐫^{}).$$
(93)
As a result,

$$S(𝐫,𝐫^{})=N_p(N_p1)f(𝐫)f(𝐫^{})+\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})n_p(𝐫)+C(𝐫,𝐫^{}).$$
(94)
Since in right-hand-side of this equation the first and the second items usually do not compensate each other, we can use approximation

$$N_p(N_p1)N_p^2$$
(95)
and, therefore,

$$S(𝐫,𝐫^{})=n_p(𝐫)n_p(𝐫^{})+\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})n_p(𝐫)+C(𝐫,𝐫^{}).$$
(96)


format: text

text:
# GAMMA-RAY SPECTRA & VARIABILITY OF THE CRAB NEBULA EMISSION OBSERVED BY BATSE

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Since the birth of gamma-ray astronomy in the early 1960’s, the Crab nebula has been one of the premier sources for observations by all gamma-ray experiments, operating in the wide spectral range from tens of keV to TeV, with ground-based (100 GeV to 1 TeV), balloon or satellite-borne instruments (30 keV to 1 GeV). In the soft gamma-ray region between 30 keV and 2 MeV covered by BATSE, the Crab nebula is one of the two brightest sources, along with Cygnus X-1, in the sky (see Ling et al. 2000). Because of the relatively steady emission seen over the years, it has frequently been used as a calibration source for new satellite missions.

The Crab spectrum of the total emission (nebula and pulsar) in the 30 keV - 2 MeV range has been measured over the last three decades by a series of balloon (Kurfess 1971; Laros, Matteson $`\&`$ Pelling 1973; Walraven et al. 1975, Gruber $`\&`$ Ling 1977; Leventhal, MacCallum $`\&`$ Watts 1977; Ling et al. 1977; Ling et al. 1979; Strickman et al. 1979; Manchanda et al. 1982; Graser $`\&`$ Schoenfelder 1982; Pelling et al. 1987; McConnell et al. 1987; Ubertini et al. 1994) and satellite experiments (Ariel V: Carpenter, Coe $`\&`$ Engel 1976; OSO 8: Dolan et al. 1977; HEAO-1: Knight, F. K. 1982, Jung 1989; HEAO-3: Mahoney, Ling $`\&`$ Jacobson 1984; CGRO: Ulmer et al. 1995; Much et al. 1996, van der Meulen et al. 1998; Kuiper et al. 2001). Below 300 keV, the spectrum was initially thought to be a single power law based on earlier measurements by Walraven et al. (1975), Carpenter, Coe and Engel (1976), Dolan et al. (1977), and Ling et al. (1979) with an index of $``$2.1. Laros, Matteson and Pelling (1973) were the first to observe a change of the spectrum below $``$100 keV. This was confirmed later by Strickman et al. (1979) and Hasinger (1984). Strickman et al. (1979) showed that the spectral index changed from 1.99 to $``$2.42 at $``$80 keV based on a balloon measurement. Jung (1989), using the HEAO-1 data from three separate observations in September 1977, March 1978, and September 1978, showed possibly a variable spectral break at 130 $`\pm `$ 9, 139 $`\pm 7`$, and 118 $`\pm `$ 5 keV, respectively, with the spectral index changed from $``$2.08 to $``$2.50. Observations of a possible cyclotron feature at 73 - 79 keV in both pulsed and total emission of the Crab spectra were also reported by several groups (Ling et al. 1979; Strickman et al.1982; Manchanda et al., 1982; Ayre et al. 1983; Watanabe 1985). Because this feature was not consistently observed by other experiments (see Owen 1991 for a review), it is considered a variable feature until a more definitive measurement by INTEGRAL can be obtained in the near future.

Between 300 keV and 2 MeV, the spectrum is not well established due to reports of several features/structures in the literature over the past three decades. These include:

(1) A variable red-shifted annihilation line centered at energy between 400 and 450 keV superposed on the power-law continuum. Positive detections for such a feature were reported by Leventhal, MacCallum $`\&`$ Watts, 1977 (1977), Yoshimori et al.(1979), Jung (1989), Ayre et al.(1983), Agrinier et al.(1990), Parlier et al.(1991), and no detections were reported by Ling et al.(1977), Mahoney, Ling $`\&`$ Jacobson (1984), Hameury et al. (1983), and McConnell et al. (1987) (see Owen 1991 for a review)

(2) A possible blue shifted annihilation feature centered at energy $``$540 keV was also reported by Granat-SIGMA (Gilfanov et al, 1994). However, this was not confirmed by BATSE’s simultaneous observations (Wallyn et al., 2001).

(3) A hard spectral component from $``$500 keV to several MeV with photon index of $``$0 were reported by several investigators (Hiller et al. 1970; Baker et al. 1973; Gruber $`\&`$ Ling, 1977). Specifically, HEAO-3 (Ling $`\&`$ Dermer 1991) observed a knee structure in 0.4 - 1 MeV region followed by a power law extending to 3 MeV over a 50-day period in the spring of 1980. The knee structure was not observed by HEAO-3 six months earlier in the fall of 1979.

(4) A final COMPTEL spectrum of the Crab pulsar/nebula emission in the 0.75-30 MeV range, using all available data of COMPTEL observations of the source and improved instrument response was recently presented by Kuiper et al. (2001). The spectrum indicates a possible broad spectral feature in the 0.7-3 MeV region followed by a power law with spectral index of $``$2 up to 30 MeV. The 0.7-3 MeV feature was also hinted in an earlier COMPTEL spectrum obtained by van der Meulen et al. (1998) but at lower fluxes.

The non-pulsed Crab nebula emission is generally interpreted as synchrotron radiation produced by relativistic electrons that were ejected by the pulsar, spiraling in the magnetic field of the nebula with strength of $``$10-4G. Recent optical and X-ray images observed by HST (Hester et al. 2002), and Chandra (Weisskopf et al. 2000; Mori et al. 2003), respectively, revealed a highly dynamical structure of the system that consists of an inner ring, a torus, moving wisps, knots and a jet. X-ray spectra measured by XMM-Newton (Willingale et al. 2001) showed variation of the spectral shape across the nebula with the hardest spectral index seen close to the pulsar and softest in the outer nebula and the jet. Information about the gamma-ray (30 keV to 2 MeV) spectrum and variability need to be considered in the light of this revelation. The large body of information described above from the last three decades, provides some basis for this effort. However, the heterogeneous mixture of viewing periods, energies, and experiment characteristic make a confusing picture in the presence of source variability. Clearly a homogeneous and continuous set of observations is highly desirable to provide a clearer picture of the Crab’s gamma-ray spectrum and variability. Questions that need to be addressed include: (1) Is the gamma-ray emission indeed variable as suggested by previous observations? Specifically, is the spectrum below 300 keV always a broken power law or does it occasionally change to a single power law? The different spectral components may be associated with the different features observed by HST, Chandra and XMM-Newton likely arising from different environments. (2) What are the ranges of the varying spectral parameters? What is the typical time scale for these changes? Is the time scale consistent with that seen in X-rays? (3) What is the gamma-ray spectrum between 300 keV and 2 MeV? Is it also variable?

This paper addresses these issues using the JPL BATSE Earth Occultation database, EBOP (Ling et al. 1996, 2000), which provides a reasonably continuous monitor of the Crab’s gamma-ray emission over the nine-and-half year mission. In this paper, we report results covering the first $``$1200-day period between 1991 and 1994 which were fully processed by EBOP in 1996 (Ling et al. 2000). We have recently resumed processing the remaining six years of BATSE data covering the period from 1994 to the end of the CGRO mission in 2000. These results will be reported separately. A brief description of the EBOP database and technique is given in Section 2. Results produced by EBOP are presented in Section 3, and a discussion of the results is given in Section 4.

## 2 EBOP Database

The eight Large Area Detectors (LADs) of the BATSE experiment, each 50.8 cm diameter and 1.25 cm thick ($`2025`$ cm2 geometrical area), provided an unprecedented capability for independently monitoring the long-term behavior of gamma-ray sources with high spectral sensitivity in the energy range 0.02 - 1.8 MeV using the earth occultation technique. Several previous publications have provided details of the experiment (Fishman et al. 1989), the BATSE earth occultation database and technique developed by the PI team at MSFC (Harmon et al. 2002), and the Enhanced BATSE Occultation Package (EBOP) developed by the JPL team (Ling et al. 1996, Ling et al. 2000). Results presented in this paper were derived exclusively from EBOP. Its processed data products typically consist of daily fluxes for 64 known sources in 14 energy channels between 35 keV and 1.7 MeV, measured independently by each of the eight BATSE LADs. Each day, any given source, such as the Crab, was typically observed by two to four of the eight BATSE LADs with good sensitivity. These ”source-viewing” LADs were selected using the criteria discussed by Ling et al. (1996, 2000). Because the eight BATSE LADs were individually placed at different locations and oriented differently on the spacecraft, the background rates and the responses of the detectors to the source were distinctly different from one LAD to another, as were the associated source count rates.

A strength of the BATSE experiment and the EBOP system is that the source fluxes measured simultaneously by all source-viewing LADs on a given day, which were derived by unfolding the source count-rates through their corresponding detector response functions, can be directly compared, and must be consistent with one another. Achieving consistency requires that both the critical components in determining the source fluxes, namely, the source count-rates derived by the EBOP model, and the detector response matrices determined by the MSFC PI team, be correspondingly accurate.

Fluxes for 604 days of observations of the Crab nebula between 1991 May 17 and 1994 October 17 included in this paper have passed the consistency test, as previously described by Ling et al. (1996, 2000). We exclude days with probability P($`\chi ^2,\nu `$) $`<`$ 5% from further consideration.

Figure 1 shows a sample of nine single-day spectra produced by EBOP. Panels 1-3 contain two simultaneous source-viewing LAD-spectra, panels 4-6 panels have three, and panels 7-9 have four, respectively. The solid line is the best-fit single power-law model to the $`n`$ data points, where $`n`$ = number of LADs x 14 energy channels, using the standard analysis fitting program XSPEC (Arnaud 1996). The best-fit model and parameters, as well as the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ ($`\chi ^2`$/$`\nu `$, where $`\nu `$ is the number of degrees of freedom) of the fit are also displayed in each panel. The level of consistency achieved in these samples, as reflected also by the goodness of the model fits, is a good representation of the 604 single-day spectra that have passed the EBOP consistency test.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Flux Histories

Figure 2 shows the flux histories, with 1-day resolution, in the 35-100 keV, 100-200 keV, 200-300 keV, 300-400 keV, 400-700 keV, and 700-1000 keV energy bands, respectively, covering the period between 1991 May 24 (TJD 8400) and 1994 October 2 (TJD 9627). The solid line in each panel represents the weighted mean of the 604 daily fluxes. Its value and standard error are also displayed in the upper right-hand corner in each panel. Key results shown in this figure are the following:

(1) Positive fluxes were measured by BATSE in all six energy bands, with significances averaging $`31\sigma `$, 20$`\sigma `$, 9.2$`\sigma `$, 4.5$`\sigma `$, 2.6$`\sigma `$, and 1.3$`\sigma `$, respectively, for single days.

(2) Fluxes shown in each of the three low-energy bands (1st, 2nd and 3rd panels) show significantly variations about their corresponding weighted mean value described above. Such variations are represented by the sum of the $`\chi ^2`$ of individual daily fluxes about the weighted mean. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$s for these three energy bands, with 603 degrees of freedom, are, 3.2, 2.0, and 1.3, respectively.

(3) Data shown in the three high-energy bands, however, are more consistent with constant values. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ for these bands are 1.1, 1.1 1.0, respectively.

The higher reduced $`\chi ^2`$ in the three low-energy bands suggest intrinsic variability in the source emission in energies below 300 keV. In the next section, we present results of spectral variability in this energy region that were also observed by BATSE.

### 3.2 Spectra

#### 3.2.1 Variable Broken Power-Law Spectra Below 300 keV

Because of the statistical limitation of single-day spectra such as those shown in Figure 1, a simple power-law adequately characterizes most of the 604 spectra under study. However, as we build up statistics by summing data over many days (e.g. 4-13 days in a typical Viewing Period), a single power-law is no longer adequate in most cases, and a broken power-law is preferable. There were seventy-three Viewing Periods (VPs) that spanned the period between 1991 May 24 (TJD 8400) and 1994 October 2 (TJD 9627) (see Table 1) that have four or more single-day spectra that have passed the consistency test. In each VP, the spacecraft maintained a fixed orientation in inertial space. Consequently, the response to the Crab for each of the eight LADs, was the same throughout the VP. We produced, for each of the 64 sources in the EBOP catalog (see Ling et al. 2000), both single-day spectra such as those shown in Figure 1, as well as VP-average spectra. The latter were obtained by combining the source count-rates obtained for all the days in a VP which pass the consistency test, folded through each LAD response to the source for the VP, using XSPEC.

Table 1 lists the pertinent information for the 73 VP spectra included in this report, including the VP number, the range of days and the number of “clean” days included in the VP, the “source-viewing” LADs and the best-fit parameters for both a single power-law or a broken power-law representation of the data.

In Figure 3-a,b,c, we select 36 of the 73 VP spectra listed in Table 1 to illustrate key spectral features and variability. In each panel, the spectrum is plotted in the form of E2 times Flux vs. Energy. Error bars plotted are of 1$`\sigma `$ significance, and upper limits are at the 2$`\sigma `$ level. The solid line is the best-fit broken power-law to the $`n`$ data points, where $`n`$ = 14 x number of “source viewing” LADs as discussed in Section 2. The best-fit parameters are also shown in each panel. In the four panels of the middle column in each figure spectra measured simultaneously by all “source-viewing” LADs during the VP are shown and compared to illustrate the level of consistency among the LADs that was achieved in these VP spectra, similar to that shown for the single-day spectra in Figure 1.

Key results shown in Table 1 and Figure 3 are summarized as follows:

(1) Sixty-one of the 73 VP spectra listed in Table 1 show lower reduced $`\chi ^2`$ with a broken power-law model than the single power-law.

(2) For twelve VPs, a single power-law ($`\alpha =`$ 2.13-2.20) fits essentially as well as a broken power-law. These are VP-9, 11, 42, 44, 218, 220, 231, 232.5, 305, 314, 319, and 322 (see panels 6, 23, 26, and 35 in Figure 3).

(3) The model parameters shown in Table 1 and Figure 3 indicate significant spectral variability from VP to VP. We compute the mean values and standard deviations of the three key broken power-law parameters, $`\alpha _1`$, $`E_b`$, and $`\alpha _2`$, averaged over the complete set of 73 VPs. They are 2.1 $`\pm `$ 0.1, 123 $`\pm `$ 42 keV, and 2.4 $`\pm `$ 0.2, respectively.

(4) The single or broken power-law can adequately fit only about half of the 73 VP spectra with acceptable $`\chi ^2`$. The relatively poor fits shown in $``$33 of the 73 VP spectra (e.g.VP-5, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 29, 39, 40, 42, 203, 203.3, 204, 207, 209, 218, 221, 226, 227, 228, 229.5, 232.5, 302.3, 303.2, 305, 310, 314, 322, 325, 332, 337, 338.5) are likely caused by the following effects.

(a) Short-term (single-day) spectral and flux variations shown in Figures 1 $`\&`$ 2, respectively due to intrinsic changes in the system preclude the possibility for a simple model (e.g. power-law or broken power-law) to adequately fit the long-term VP spectrum. As an illustration, Table 2 shows a comparison of the best-fit parameters for each of the eleven single-day spectra in VP-5 with those of the integrated VP spectrum. These results show that while a power-law model fits the single-day spectra adequately with spectral indices varying from 2.14$`\pm `$0.05 to 2.29$`\pm `$0.05, neither a single power-law (Table 2) nor a broken power-law (see Table 1) can fit the VP spectrum well.

(b) A poor fit to the multiple-day VP spectrum compared to single-day spectrum, could be also due to the smaller errors associated with fluxes which make it more difficult for a simple model to fit the former spectrum than the latter. This is reflected to some extent by the results shown in Table 1 that twenty-two of the 33 VP spectra listed were averaged over eight or more days with better statistics compared to 11 spectra with less than eight days with relatively larger error bars.

(c) The possible presence of a component above 300 keV that is suggested by many of the VP spectra (e.g. see Figure 3 panels 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 18, 21, 23).

#### 3.2.2 Spectrum Above 300 keV

Hints of excess high-energy flux (e.g. $`>`$300 keV) above the broken power-law model, as shown in many of the VP spectra, warrant a more careful study of the 300-1700 keV energy region. Because the high-energy fluxes above 300 keV (Figure 2, panels 4-6) appear to be quite stable over the 1200-day period, we group the 604 single-day spectra into three $``$400-day periods, namely TJDs 8400-8800, 8800-9200, and 9200-9628, respectively. Figure 4 shows a comparison of the three weighted average spectra of single-days for the three periods, plotted in photon flux units in the left panel (see also Ling et al. 2000 Figure 8 panel 11), and E2 x Flux units in the right panel. The average fluxes for each of the three periods and their sum are shown in Table 3. There were 187 “clean” single-day spectra in the first period (TJD 8400-8800), 197 in the second period (TJD 8800-9200), and 220 in the third period (TJD 9200-9628). The three spectra, which are nearly indistinguisible, can be best described as follows:

(1) From 35 to $``$670 keV, the spectrum has the shape of a broken power-law with spectral indices $`\alpha _1`$ = 2.10, $`\alpha _2`$ = 2.35 around the spectral break at $`E_b`$ = 112 keV. The extrapolation of the 1-10 keV power-law spectrum of (9.59$`\pm `$0.05)E-2.108±0.006 photons cm-2-s-1-keV-1 measured by XMM-Newton (Willingale et al., 2001-dashed line) is also shown in Figure 4 for comparison. The spectral index of 2.108 measured by XMM-Newton is consistent with the averaged index over the 73 VP spectra of 2.1 $`\pm `$ 0.1 below $``$100 keV measured by BATSE (see Section 3.2.1). The extrapolation of the XMM-Newton flux to $``$40 keV of 4 x 10-3 photons cm-2-s-1-keV-1 is also roughly consistent with the flux of $``$4.5 x 10-3 photons cm-2-s-1-keV-1, measured by BATSE (Figure 4 left panel).

(2) Above 670 keV, the spectrum becomes harder. The average of the three spectra in the 766-1104 keV bin is (4.67 $`\pm `$ 0.19) x 10-6 photons$`/`$cm-2-s-1-keV-1 ($``$25$`\sigma `$), and (2.26 $`\pm `$ 0.14) x 10-6 photons$`/`$cm-2-s-1-keV-1 ($``$16$`\sigma `$) in the 1104-1700 keV bin. They can be approximated by a power law with index of 1.75.

(3) There also appears to be a small excess of the 429-595 keV flux bin above the best-fit broken power-law model, in all three spectra. This energy band includes the various possible red-shifted annihilation features reported by several investigators in the past (Leventhal, MacCallum $`\&`$ Watts, 1977; Agrinier et al. 1990; Massaro et al. 1991). The estimated excesses, by subtracting the underlying power-law continuum from the fluxes measured in the 429-595 keV bin, are (1.8$`\pm `$1.4) x 10-4, (3.9$`\pm `$1.4) x 10-4, and (2.4$`\pm `$1.5) x 10-4 photons cm-2-s-1-keV-1, respectively, with a weighted average of (2.7$`\pm `$0.8) x 10-4 photons cm-2-s-1-keV-1.

Observations of the low-energy broken power-law of the Crab spectrum ($`<`$ 300 keV) had been reported by several investigators in the past (eg. Strickman et al. 1979; Jung 1989). The hardening of the spectrum $`>`$670 keV is new. If confirmed, it imposes new constraints on our understanding of the system. The apparent excess flux could conceivably be the result of systematic effects associated with the instrument’s response. For example, an under-estimation of the response matrix above 670 keV would cause an over estimation of the high-energy source flux. But if the response matrix were indeed seriously erroneous, it would affect other source spectra as well. Figure 5 shows a direct comparison of the Crab spectrum with that of Cygnus X-1 for the same period, TJD 8800-9200. The two spectra are distinctly different. The Cygnus X-1 spectrum shows the standard Comptonized component below 300 keV plus a soft power-law tail above 300 keV, as reported by several investigators in the past (Ling et al. 1997; Philip et al. 1997; Ling 2001; McConnell et al. 2000, 2002). At $``$1 MeV, the Cygnus X-1 flux is about a factor of four lower than that of the Crab nebula, and is statistically consistent with the extrapolation of the power-law from low energy. This comparison suggests that the hardening of the three Crab spectra shown in Figure 4 (right panel) may indeed be real, and not caused by problems associated with instrument calibration.

Figure 6 compares the Crab’s spectra from EBOP with those measured simultaneously by other CGRO experiments over differing time intervals: (a) VPs 1, 213 and 221 (top panel, BATSE, OSSE, COMPTEL and EGRET) reported by Much et al.(1996), which is a subset of, (b) 28 VPs shown in the COMPTEL list (Kuiper et al. 2001; except for VP-0, 36 and 724.5) for an averaged EBOP spectrum of 289 days (bottom panel). Included in this figure are also the COMPTEL spectrum reported by Kuiper et al. (2001), and EGRET spectrum by Fierro et al. (1998). In the top panel, the BATSE spectrum as analyzed by the PI team at MSFC, using a different earth-occultation analysis package with the same response matrix (Harmon et al. 2002) was also included in the paper by Much et al. (1996) for comparison. The two earth-occultation spectra are generally consistent with each other, but higher than the OSSE spectrum, especially above $``$300 keV. In particular, both earth-occultation spectra show consistent high fluxes in the $``$429-595 keV bin, and spectral hardening above $``$750 keV. The reason for the discrepancy with OSSE is unknown. In the lower panel, both EBOP and COMPTEL (Kuiper et al. 2001) spectra show similar slopes in the overlapping region between 750 keV and 1.5 MeV. The COMPTEL spectrum (Kuiper et al. 2001) shows a complex structures in the 0.7 - 3 MeV region. Its flux at $``$ 0.75-1 MeV is only lower than BATSE’s by $``$6$`\%`$, suggesting that the ”hard” spectral component around 1 MeV observed by BATSE could in fact be part of this complex structure observed by COMPTEL. The COMPTEL spectrum in the 3-25 MeV range, and EGRET (Nolan et al. 1993; Fierro et al. 1998) flux from 30-50 MeV are consistent with the extrapolation of the low-energy power-law spectrum (solid line). From $``$50 MeV to $``$100 MeV, the EGRET spectrum (Fierro et al. 1998) significantly softens, with an index $`>`$4. It finally flattens again to an index of $``$2 from $``$100 MeV to $``$1 GeV.

## 4 Discussion

Highlights of the BATSE-EBOP results presented in this paper are summarized as follows:

$``$ We observed significant flux (Figure 2) and spectral (Figure 3) variations in the total gamma-ray emission from the Crab nebula in the 35 - 300 keV energy region with time scale of days to weeks. The spectrum in this energy range, averaged over many days of typical viewing periods of the CGRO mission can be generally characterized by a variable broken power law (Figure 3 and Table 1). The average of the three broken power-law parameters, $`\alpha _1`$, $`E_b`$, and $`\alpha _2`$ over the complete set of 73 VPs under study are 2.1 $`\pm `$ 0.1, 123 $`\pm `$ 42 keV, and 2.4 $`\pm `$ 0.2, respectively. These averages include contributions from twelve VP spectra (of 73 total) that can be fitted equally well with a single power-law.

$``$ The high-energy fluxes above 300 keV, however, appear to be fairly constant (Figure 2). The long-term spectra, averaged over three 400-day periods, TJD 8400-8800, 8800-9200, and 9200-9628, respectively, are nearly indistinguishable (Figure 4). They can be well represented by a power law up to $``$670 keV that is consistent with the extrapolation of the broken power law from low-energy fluxes, and a harder spectral component from $``$670 keV to $``$1.7 MeV with a spectral index of $``$1.75 (Figure 4-right panel). The latter shape was also observed in the Crab spectrum measured by COMPTEL (Kuiper et al. 2001) as part of a complex structure in the 0.7-3 MeV range. In a direct comparison with the COMPTEL spectrum over approximately the same observational periods (Figure 6 lower panel), the flux reported by COMPTEL at $``$0.75-1 MeV is lower than that of BATSE by $``$6$`\%`$. Above 3 MeV, the extrapolation of the power-law continuum determined by the low-energy BATSE spectrum (solid line in Figure 6-lower panel) is consistent with fluxes measured by COMPTEL (Kuiper et al. 2001) in the 3-25 MeV range, and by EGRET’s (Fierro et al. 1998) flux in the 30-50 MeV range.

$``$ BATSE also detected hints of excess flux in the 429-595 keV bin over the best-fit broken power-law model in the three 400d\- period spectra. This energy band includes possible contributions from features (variously attributed to red or blue-shifted positron annihilation) that have been reported in the past. The net excess flux averaged over the three spectra is estimated to be (2.7$`\pm `$0.8) x 10-4 photons cm-2-s-1-keV-1.

Gamma-ray emission between 30 keV and 2 MeV from the Crab nebula is generally thought to be produced by the interactions of electrons injected by the Crab pulsar into the surrounding synchrotron nebula. Details of the physical processes for producing the spectra and variability observed by BATSE, however, need to be interpreted in terms of what we have learned about the system today. Recent observations by HST (Hester et al.1995; Hester et al. 2002), ROSAT (van den Bergh and Pritchet, 1989), XMM-Newton (Willingale et al. 2001), and Chandra (Weisskopf et al. 2000; Mori et al. 2003) have provided us fascinating visible and X-ray images showing a highly complex and dynamic system that consists of an inner ring with bright knots, a thick torus with circular loops at two extremities, fast and slow moving wisps, and fast and slow moving jet and counter-jet, all embedded in the large synchrotron nebula. Several noteworthy features based on these images are:

1. The system is roughly cylindrically symmetrical about an axis from the southeast to the northwest, with the northwest axis pointing $``$30o toward us with respect to the plane of the sky (Hester et al. 1995; Weisskopf et al. 2000; Mori et al. 2003)

2. An inner X-ray ring observed by Chandra (Weisskopf et al. 2000) is thought to be caused by shocks associated with the pulsar wind hitting the slowly moving synchrotron-emitting plasma (Kennel & Coroniti 1984). The ring has a semimajor axis of $``$0.14 pc, and a semiminor axis of $``$0.07 pc projected onto the sky.

3. Approximately two dozen bright X-ray knots have been seen in the ring. These knots typically form and move within the ring while their intensity brightens and dimes, with occasional outbursts. Similar but much less conspicuous knots have also been seen at visible wavelengths.

4. Moving wisps have been seen in both x rays by Chandra (Weisskopf et al.2000) and visible light by HST (Hester et al. 1995; 2002). The time interval between Chandra and HST observations (11 and 22 days, respectively) are comparable to the time scale of the variability shown by BATSE. The Chandra movie from their website showed that these wisps appear to emerge near the inner ring and move outward with velocity v$``$0.5c. These moving wisps form the basic fibrous texture of a thick outer torus whose semimajor axis is $``$0.37 pc, and semiminor axis is $``$0.18 pc. The torus has a minor radius of $``$0.08 pc. Wisps have also been seen (Hester et al. 2002) to emerge and move out into the inner nebula at a much lower speed of $``$0.03c resulting in a significantly less variable structures in the outer nebula compared to the dynamic effects seen between the inner ring and the torus. Large circular loop structures were also seen at the two extremities, similar to loops seen near the solar limb. HST data (Hester et al. 2002) suggested that these structures appear to be caused by magnetic field lines in the surrounding nebula that draped around and confined the expanding torus.

5. A bright jet-like structure in the southeast, and a dimmer counterjet in the northwest of the pulsar, approximately along the axis of symmetry, were also seen in both X-ray and visible wavelengths. The southeast jet appears narrower in the inner region near the pulsar, and more diffuse in the outer region (Weisskopf et al. 2000), and is highly dynamic, moving at a speed of $``$0.4c. It then slows down to $``$0.03c as it pushes against the surrounding synchrotron nebula (Hester et al. 2002).

The Crab gamma-ray spectra presented in this paper correspond to the total time averaged emission spatially integrated over entire nebula, including both the pulsar and the surrounding regions discussed above. The phase-averaged spectrum of the pulsar measured by HEAO-3 (Mahoney, Ling $`\&`$ Jacobson, 1984), which can be described by a single power law 1.04 x 10-4(E/100)-2.14 photons cm-2-s-1-keV-1, accounts $``$15% and $``$18% to the observed flux by BATSE at 100 keV and 1 MeV, respectively. At 10 keV, the pulsed flux (Kuiper et al. 2001) accounts to $``$10% of the total emission. The rest must be due to contributions from other parts of the system such as those described above. The broad-band pulsed and nebula spectra, from soft x-rays to TeV gamma-rays, compiled by Kuiper et al. (2001) show that the pulsed spectrum in the 1 to $``$10 keV range a relatively hard, with spectral index of $``$1.6, compared to $``$2 for 10 - $``$500 keV component. The nebula spectrum, on the other hand, can be characterized by a single power-law with spectral index of $``$2.15 for the full energy range from 1 keV to $``$1 MeV. Willingale et al. (2001) showed that the total Crab spectrum (nebula & pulsed)in the 1-10 keV region measured by XMM-Newton can be described as (9.59$`\pm `$0.05)E-2.108±0.006 photons cm-2-s-1-keV-1. The close resemblance of the spectral index of 2.108 for the total emission compared to that the nebula component of 2.15 discussed above, suggests that the nebula emission is the dominant component of the total emission in the 1-10 keV range as expected. Furthermore, the spectral index of 2.108 in the 1-10 keV range measured by XMM-Newtron is also consistent with the averaged index over the 73 VP spectra of 2.1 $`\pm `$ 0.1 from 35 to $``$100 keV measured by BATSE (see Section 3.2.1). The extrapolation of the XMM-Newton flux to $``$40 keV of 4 x 10-3 photons cm-2-s-1-keV-1 is consistent with the flux of $``$4.5 x 10-3 photons cm-2-s-1-keV-1, shown by the three 400-day spectra measured by BATSE (see Figure 4 left panel). While the spectral index for the total X-ray nebula emission measured by XMM-Newton is 2.1, Willingale et al. (2001) showed significant spectral variations across the nebula. The hardest spectrum was observed near the pulsar with an index of 1.6 $`\pm `$ 0.03. This is consistent with the pulsed spectrum shown in the paper by Kuiper et al (2001). For the torus, it was 1.8 $`\pm `$ 0.006 compared to 1.9 measured by Chandra (Mori et al. 2003). The spectra for the jet and outer nebula are softer, with indices 2.10 $`\pm `$ 0.013 and 2.34 $`\pm `$ 0.005, respectively. The corresponding indices observed by Chandra (Mori et al. 2003) are 2.0-2.1 and $``$3.0, respectively. The fact that both the X-ray (1-10 keV) and hard X-ray (35-100 keV) spectra for the total emission (nebula & pulsed) measured by XMM-Newton and BATSE, respectively, have the same spectral indices and flux normalization at $``$40 keV suggests that contributions from various regions of the system seen in 1-10 keV may be extended with the same ratio to $``$100 keV. The softest component seen by BATSE is in the $``$100-700 keV range with an index of 2.34. Is it dominated by emission from the outer nebula as shown in the x-ray data? Similarly, the hardest spectral component observed by BATSE is in the 0.7-1.7 MeV range with an index of 1.75. Is this component associated possibly with a broad spectral feature in the 0.7-3 MeV region observed by COMPTEL? If so, what is the mechanism for producing such a feature?

The BATSE data, together with the recent x-ray observations by XMM-Newton (Willingale et al 2001) and Chandra (Weisskopt et al. 2000; Mori et al. 2003), and gamma-ray observations by COMPTEL (Kuiper et al 2001), EGRET (Fierro et al. 1998) and OSSE (Ulmer et al. 1995), should stimulate future theoretical modeling of the magnetic structure, particle transport, and gamma-ray emission processes in the Crab to address several fundamental questions about the system.

(1) What are the time and spatially dependent electron spectra at various regions of the system, such as the pulsar, torus, rings, jets and outer nebula. Do positrons play any significant role in the electron dynamics, and do their annihilation photons contribute significantly to the emission?

(2) What are the resulting synchrotron gamma-ray spectra produced in these regions, and how do they compare with the spatially integrated and time-dependent gamma-ray spectra observed?

(3) What, if any, role do heavy ions play in the pulsar and nebula plasma? Is the broad spectral structure indicated by COMPTEL and BATSE around 1 MeV related to ion, pair production or annihilation effects?

Finally, in addition to the theoretical work, we hope future high spatial and high-spectral resolution ($``$few arcseconds spatial, 2-3 keV spectral) gamma-ray observations with new experiments such as RHESSI (Lin et al. 2003) and INTEGRAL will illuminate some of these questions.

We wish to thank Gerald Fishman, Alan Harmon and Mark Finger of the BATSE team for their support of the BATSE Earth Occultation investigation effort at JPL over the years. We appreciate the valuable comments made by an anonymous referee, Wm. Mahoney and K. Mori on the manuscript. We are also grateful for the significant contributions made by undergraduate students Juan Estrella and Zachary Medin for processing the data. The work described in this paper was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, under the contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

FIGURE CAPTIONS