text:
# Deviation from standard QED at large distances: influence of transverse dimensions of colliding beams on bremsstrahlung

## 1 Introduction

The formation of the bremsstrahlung process of high-energy particles occurs with extremely small momentum transfers. In the space-time picture this means that the process takes place at the large (macroscopic) distances. The longitudinal length (with respect to the direction of the initial momentum) of formation of the radiation usually is called the coherence (formation) length $`l_f`$. For emission of a photon with energy $`\omega `$ the coherence length is $`l_f(\omega )\epsilon (\epsilon \omega )/m^2\omega `$, where $`\epsilon `$ and $`m`$ is the energy and mass of the emitting particle ( here the system $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ is used). If the particle experiences some action in this length, the radiation pattern changes (in the case when the action is the multiple scattering of the emitting particle one observes the famous Landau-Pomeranchuk effect ).

A different situation exists in the bremsstrahlung process at the collision of electron and electron (positron) in colliding beams experiments. The point is that the external factors act differently on the radiating particle and on the recoil particle. For the radiating particle the criterion of influence of external factors is the same both at an electron scattering from a nucleus and at a collision of particles. For the recoil particle the effect turns out to be enhanced by the factor $`\epsilon ^2/m^2`$, which is due to the fact that the main contribution to the bremsstrahlung cross section give emitted by the recoil particle virtual photons with very low energy

$$q_0\frac{m^2\omega }{\epsilon (\epsilon \omega )},$$
(1.1)
so that the formation length of virtual photon is

$$L_v(\omega )=l_f(q_0)=\frac{4\epsilon ^3(\epsilon \omega )}{m^4\omega }.$$
(1.2)
This means that the effect for the recoil particles appears much earlier than for the radiating particles. For example, the Landau-Pomeranchuk effect distorted the whole bremsstrahlung spectrum in a TeV range (for heavy elements) while it turns out that the action on the recoil particle can be important for contemporary colliding beam facilities in GeV range .

There are a few factors which could act on the recoil electron. One of them is the presence of an external magnetic field in the region of collision of particles -. If the formation length of virtual photon $`L_v`$ turns out to be larger than the formation length $`l_H(\omega )`$ of a photon with energy $`\omega `$ in a magnetic field $`H`$ than the magnetic field will limit the region of minimal momentum transfers, which will lead to a decrease of the bremsstrahlung cross section and a change of its spectrum. Another effect can appear due to the smallness of the linear interval $`l`$ where the collision occurs in comparison with $`L_v(\omega )`$ (see (1.2)). This was pointed out in .

In the experiment  devoted to study of the bremsstrahlung spectrum $`d\sigma _\gamma (\omega )`$ carried out in the electron-positron colliding beam facility VEPP-4 of Institute of Nuclear Physics at an energy $`\epsilon =1.84`$GeV, a deviation of the bremsstrahlung spectrum from the standard QED spectrum was observed. This was attributed to the smallness of the transverse size of the colliding beams. Theoretically the problem of finite transverse dimensions was investigated in  were the bremsstrahlung spectrum at $`e^+e^{}`$ collision have was calculated to within the power accuracy (the neglected terms are of the order $`1/\gamma =m/\epsilon `$) . Later the problem was analyzed in , ,  where the found bremsstrahlung spectra coincide with obtained in .

It should be noted that in  (as well as in all other papers mentioned above) an incomplete expression for the bremsstrahlung spectrum was calculated. One has to perform the subtraction associated with the extraction of pure fluctuation process. Let us discuss this item in some details. The momentum transfer $`𝐪`$ at collision is important for the radiation process (the cross section contains factor $`𝐪^2`$ at $`𝐪^2m^2`$). At the beam collision the momentum transfer may arise due to interaction of the emitting particle with the opposite beam as a whole (due to coherent interaction with averaged field of the beam) and due to interaction with an individual particle of the opposite beam. Here we are considering the incoherent process only (connected with the incoherent fluctuation of density) and so we have to subtract the coherent contribution. The expression for the bremsstrahlung spectrum found in  contains the mean value $`<𝐪^2>`$, while the coherent contribution contains $`<𝐪>^2`$ and this term has to be subtracted. We encountered with an analogous problem in analysis of incoherent processes in the oriented crystals  where it was pointed out (see p.407) that the subtraction has to be done in the spectrum calculated in . Without the subtraction the results for the incoherent processes in oriented crystals would be qualitatively erroneous.

In Sec.2 a qualitative analysis of the incoherent radiation process is given. In Sec.3 the general formulas for the spectral-angular distributions of incoherent bremsstrahlung are derived. The incoherent bremsstrahlung spectrum for the Gaussian beams is calculated in Sec.4 in the form of double integrals. In specific case of narrow beams (the size of beam is much smaller than the characteristic impact parameter) the formulas are simplified essentially (Sec.5). The experimental studies of effect were performed with flat beams (the beam vertical size is much smaller than horizontal one). This specific case is analyzed in Sec.6, while comparison with data is given in Sec.7. In Sec.8 the possible application to the linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider tuning is discussed.

## 2 General analysis of probability of incoherent radiation

In this section we discuss in detail the conditions under which we consider the incoherent radiation. One can calculate the photon emission probability in the target rest frame, since the entering combinations $`\omega /\epsilon `$ and $`\gamma \vartheta `$ ($`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz factor $`\gamma =\epsilon /m`$, $`\vartheta `$ is the angle of photon emission) are invariant (within a relativistic accuracy) and a transfer to any frame is elementary. We use the operator quasiclassical method , . Within this method the photon formation length (time) is

$`l_f={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon kv}}={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon \omega (1\mathrm{𝐧𝐯})}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_{f0}}{\zeta }};`$
$`l_{f0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_{min}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon \epsilon ^{}}{\omega m^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\epsilon ^{}\gamma _c\epsilon _r}{\omega m^2}};`$
$`\zeta =1+\gamma ^2\vartheta ^2,\epsilon ^{}=\epsilon \omega ,`$ (2.1)
where $`p_\mu =\epsilon v_\mu (v_\mu =(1,𝐯))`$ is the 4-momentum of radiating particle, $`\gamma _c=\epsilon _c/m_c`$, $`\epsilon _c`$ is the energy of target particle in the laboratory frame, $`m_c`$ is its mass, $`\epsilon _r`$ is the energy of radiating particle in the laboratory frame; $`k_\mu =(\omega ,\omega 𝐧))`$ is the photon 4-momentum, $`\vartheta `$ is the angle between vectors n and v.

In the case when the transverse dimension of beam $`\sigma `$ is $`\sigma l_{f0}`$ the impact parameters $`\varrho \varrho _{max}=l_{f0}`$ contribute. One can put that the particle density in the target beam is a constant, so that the standard QED formulas are valid. Note that the value $`\varrho _{max}`$ is the relativistic invariant which is defined by the minimal value of square of the invariant mass of the intermediate photon $`|q^2|`$. In the case when the characteristic size of beams is smaller the value $`\varrho _{max}`$ the lower value of $`|q^2|`$ is defined by this size.

In the target rest frame the scattering length of emitting particle is of order of the impact parameter $`\varrho `$. This length is much smaller than the longitudinal dimension of the target $`\gamma _cl`$ ($`l`$ is the length of target beam in the laboratory frame). So one can neglect a variation of configuration of the beam during the scattering time. A possible variation of particle configuration in the beam during a long time one can take into account in the adiabatic approximation.

Another limitation is connected with the influence of value of transverse momentum arising from the electromagnetic field $`E=|𝐄|`$ of colliding (target) beam on the photon formation length. This value should be smaller than the characteristic transverse momentum transfer $`m\sqrt{\zeta }`$ in the photon emission process:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{eEl_f}{m\sqrt{\zeta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha N_c}{(\sigma _z+\sigma _y)l\gamma _c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m\sqrt{\zeta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\epsilon ^{}\gamma _c\epsilon _r}{\omega \zeta m^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha N_c}{(\sigma _z+\sigma _y)l}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m\sqrt{\zeta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon ^{}\epsilon _r}{\omega \zeta m^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha N_c\gamma _r\lambda _c^2\epsilon ^{}}{(\sigma _z+\sigma _y)l\zeta ^{3/2}\omega }}1,`$ (2.2)
here $`\alpha =1/137`$, $`N_c`$ is the number of particles in the target beam, $`\sigma _z`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ are the vertical and horizontal transverse dimensions of target beam. Note that the ratio $`\gamma /l`$ is the relativistic invariant. This condition can be presented in invariant form

$$\frac{2\chi }{u\zeta ^{3/2}}1,$$
(2.3)
where $`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{E_0}}|𝐄_{}+𝐯\times 𝐇|,u={\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\epsilon ^{}}},E_0={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{e}}=1.3210^{16}\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$. Since the main contribution to the spectral probability of radiation gives angles $`\vartheta 1/\gamma `$ ($`\zeta 1`$) this condition takes the form $`\chi /u1`$. For the case $`\chi /u1`$ the condition (2.3) can be satisfied for the large photon emission angles $`\zeta \gamma ^2\vartheta ^2>(\chi /u)^{2/3}1`$. Under these conditions the formation length $`l_f=l_{f0}/\zeta `$ decreases as $`(\chi /u)^{2/3}`$. The same inhibition factor acquires the bremsstrahlung probability .

We consider now the spectral distribution of radiation probability in the case $`\chi 1`$ (this condition is fulfilled in all existing installations), so

$$\chi \alpha N_c\gamma \frac{\lambda _c^2}{(\sigma _z+\sigma _y)l}1.$$
(2.4)
Only the soft photons $`(\omega \chi \epsilon \epsilon )`$ contribute to the coherent radiation (”beamstrahlung”) while the hard photon region $`\omega \chi \epsilon `$ is suppressed exponentially as it is known from the classical radiation theory. As it was mentioned in the soft photon region $`(\omega \chi \epsilon \epsilon )`$, the spectral probability of bremsstrahlung is suppressed by the factor $`(\omega /\epsilon \chi )^{2/3}`$ only. On the contrary, the spectral probability of the bremsstrahlung is negligible comparing with the beamstrahlung taking into consideration that the mean square of multiple scattering angle during all time of beam collisions is small comparing with the value $`1/\gamma ^2`$:

$$\gamma ^2<\vartheta _s^2>=\frac{<q_s^2>}{m^2}\frac{8\alpha ^2N_c\lambda _c^2}{\sigma _z\sigma _y}L1,$$
(2.5)
where $`L`$ is the characteristic logarithm of scattering problem (in the typical experimental condition $`L10`$).

It was supposed in the above estimations of beamstrahlung probability that the radiation formation length is shorter than the target beam length

$$\frac{l_f}{l}\frac{1}{u}\left(1+\frac{\chi }{u}\right)^{2/3}\frac{\gamma \lambda _c}{l}<1.$$
(2.6)
Besides it was supposed that one can neglect a variation of the impact parameter $`\mathit{\varrho }`$ and therefore of the transverse electric field $`𝐄_{}(\mathit{\varrho })`$ during the beam collision. This is true when disruption parameter is enough small

$$D_i=\frac{2\alpha N_c\lambda _cl}{\gamma _r\sigma _i(\sigma _z+\sigma _y)}1,(i=z,y)$$
(2.7)
So, we consider the incoherent bremsstrahlung under following conditions:

$$\chi 1,\frac{\chi }{u}1,D_i1.$$
(2.8)
## 3 Spectral-angular distribution of the <br>incoherent bremsstrahlung probability

In this section we derive the basic expression for the incoherent bremsstrahlung probability at collision of two beams with bounded transverse dimensions.

We consider first the photon emission at collision of an electron with one particle with the transverse coordinate x. We select the impact parameter $`\varrho _0=|\mathit{\varrho }_0|`$ which is small comparing with the typical transverse beam dimension $`\sigma `$ but which is large comparing with the electron Compton length $`\lambda _c`$ ($`\lambda _c\varrho _0\sigma `$). In the interval of impact parameters $`\varrho =|𝐫_{}𝐱|\varrho _0`$, where $`𝐫_{}`$ is the transverse coordinate of emitting electron, the probability of radiation summed over the momenta of final particle can be calculated using the classical trajectory of particle. Indeed,one can neglect by the value of commutators $`|[\widehat{p}_i,\varrho _j]|=\delta _{ij}`$ comparing with the value $`p_{}\varrho `$ in this interval ($`p_{}\varrho m\varrho _01`$). In this case the expression for the probability has the form (see , Eqs.(7.3) and (7.4))

$$dw=|M(\mathit{\varrho })|^2w_r(𝐫_{})d^2r_{}d^3k,$$
(3.1)
where

$$M(\mathit{\varrho })=\frac{e}{2\pi \sqrt{\omega }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}R(t)\mathrm{exp}(ik^{}x(t))𝑑t,k^{}=\frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon ^{}}k.$$
(3.2)
Here $`w_r(𝐫_{})d^2r_{}`$ is the probability to find the emitting particle with the impact parameter $`\mathit{\varrho }=𝐫_{}𝐱`$ in the interval $`d^2\varrho =d^2r_{},R(t)=R(𝐩(t)),kx(t)=\omega t\mathrm{𝐤𝐫}(t)`$ (for details see , Sec. 7.1). Integrating by parts in the last equation and taking into account that $`|𝐪_{}(\mathit{\varrho })|1/\varrho _0m`$ we find

$$M(\mathit{\varrho })\frac{ie}{2\pi \sqrt{\omega }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(ik^{}vt)\frac{d}{dt}\frac{R(t)}{k^{}v(t)}𝑑t\frac{ie}{2\pi \sqrt{\omega }}𝐦(\mathit{\varrho })\frac{}{𝐩_{}}\frac{R(𝐩_{})}{k^{}v},$$
(3.3)
where

$`𝐩_{}=𝐩𝐧(\mathrm{𝐧𝐩})\epsilon (𝐯𝐧),`$
$`𝐦(\mathit{\varrho })={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}(ik^{}vt)\dot{𝐪}(\mathit{\varrho },t)𝑑t={\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathit{\varrho }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{it}{l_f}}\right)V(\sqrt{\varrho ^2+t^2})𝑑t`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{l_f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{\varrho }}{\varrho }}K_1({\displaystyle \frac{\varrho }{l_f}})=2\alpha q_{min}\zeta K_1(\varrho q_{min}\zeta ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{\varrho }}{\varrho }},`$ (3.4)
for the Coulomb potential, $`K_1(z)`$ is the modified Bessel function (the Macdonald function), $`R(𝐩_{})`$ has a form of matrix element for the free particles:

$`R(𝐩_{})=\phi _s^{}^+(A+i𝝈𝐁)\phi _s;A{\displaystyle \frac{m(\epsilon +\epsilon ^{})}{2\epsilon \epsilon ^{}}}(𝐞^{}𝐮),`$
$`𝐁{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega }{2\epsilon \epsilon ^{}}}(𝐞^{}\times (𝐧𝐮));𝐮={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_{}}{m}},\zeta =1+𝐮^2,k^{}v=q_{min}\zeta ,`$ (3.5)
where the vector e describes the photon polarization and the spinors $`\phi _s`$ and $`\phi _s^{}`$ describe the polarization of the initial and final electrons correspondingly.

In the interval of impact parameters $`\varrho \lambda _c`$ the expectation value of operator $`<\mathit{\varrho }|M^+M|\mathit{\varrho }>`$ cannot be written in the form (3.1) since the entering operators become noncommutative inside the expectation value. However because of the condition $`\lambda _c\sigma `$ in this interval $`w_r(𝐫_{})w_r(𝐱)+O(\frac{\lambda _c}{\sigma })`$ one can neglect effect of the inhomogeneous distribution. For the same reason in the calculation of correction to the probability of photon emission, which is defined as the difference of $`dw(\sigma )`$ and the probability of photon emission in a inhomogeneous medium, one can extend the integration interval into region $`\varrho \varrho _0`$.

In this paper we consider the incoherent bremsstrahlung which can be considered as the photon emission due to fluctuations of the potential $`V`$ connected with uncertainty of a particle position in the transverse to its momentum plane. Because of this we have to calculate the dispersion of the vector $`𝐦(\mathit{\varrho })`$ with respect to the transverse coordinate $`\mathit{\varrho }`$:

$`<m_im_j><m_i><m_j>={\displaystyle m_i(𝐫_{}𝐱)m_j(𝐫_{}𝐱)w_c(𝐱)d^2x}`$
$`{\displaystyle m_i(𝐫_{}𝐱)w_c(𝐱)d^2xm_j(𝐫_{}𝐱)w_c(𝐱)d^2x},`$ (3.6)
where $`w_c(𝐱)`$ is the distribution function of target particles normalized to the unity.

As a result we obtain the following expression for the correction to the probability of photon emission connected with the restricted transverse dimensions of colliding beams of charged particles:

$`dw_1={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{\omega }}T_{ij}(𝐞,𝐩_{},s,s^{})L_{ij},T_{ij}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^{}(𝐩_{})}{k^{}v}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^{}(𝐩_{})}{k^{}v}}\right],`$
$`L_{ij}={\displaystyle m_i(\mathit{\varrho })m_j(\mathit{\varrho })\left(w_r(𝐱+\mathit{\varrho })w_r(𝐱)\right)w_c(𝐱)d^2xd^2\varrho }`$
$`\left({\displaystyle m_i(\mathit{\varrho })w_c(𝐱\mathit{\varrho })d^2\varrho }\right)\left({\displaystyle m_j(\mathit{\varrho })w_c(𝐱\mathit{\varrho })d^2\varrho }\right)w_r(𝐱)d^2x.`$ (3.7)
Averaging over the polarization of initial electrons and summing over the polarization of final electrons we find

$$T_{ij}=\frac{l_f}{\epsilon \epsilon ^{}}\left[e_ie_j\frac{2\mathrm{𝐞𝐮}}{\zeta }(e_iu_j+u_ie_j)+\frac{4(\mathrm{𝐞𝐮})^2}{\zeta ^2}u_iu_j+\frac{\omega ^2}{4\epsilon \epsilon ^{}}\delta _{ij}\right].$$
(3.8)
Note, that one can choose the real vector e since only the linear polarization could arise in the case of unpolarized electrons.

After summation in (3.8) over the polarization of emitted photon we have

$$T_{ij}=\frac{l_f}{2\epsilon \epsilon ^{}}\left(v\delta _{ij}\frac{8}{\zeta ^2}u_iu_j\right),v=\frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon ^{}}+\frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon },\zeta =1+\gamma ^2\vartheta ^2.$$
(3.9)
Finally, averaging the last expression over the azimuth angle of emitted photon we obtain

$$T_{ij}=\frac{l_f}{2\epsilon \epsilon ^{}}U(\zeta )\delta _{ij},U(\zeta )=v\frac{4(\zeta 1)}{\zeta ^2}.$$
(3.10)
Substituting the expression obtained into (3.7) we find the correction to the probability of photon emission connected with the restricted transverse dimensions of colliding beams of charged particles:

$$dw_1=\frac{\alpha ^3}{\pi m^2}\frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }U(\zeta )F(\omega ,\zeta )d\zeta ,$$
(3.11)
where

$`F(\omega ,\zeta )=F^{(1)}(\omega ,\zeta )F^{(2)}(\omega ,\zeta ),`$
$`F^{(1)}(\omega ,\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{2\eta ^2}{\zeta ^2}}{\displaystyle K_1^2(\eta \varrho )\left(w_r(𝐱+\mathit{\varrho })w_r(𝐱)\right)w_c(𝐱)d^2xd^2\varrho },`$
$`F^{(2)}(\omega ,\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{2\eta ^2}{\zeta ^2}}{\displaystyle \left(K_1(\eta \varrho )\frac{\mathit{\varrho }}{\varrho }w_c(𝐱\mathit{\varrho })d^2\varrho \right)^2w_r(𝐱)d^2x},`$ (3.12)
here $`\eta =q_{min}\zeta `$.

Using the integral

$$K_1^2(\eta \varrho )\varrho 𝑑\varrho =\frac{\varrho ^2}{2}\left[K_1^2(\eta \varrho )K_0(\eta \varrho )K_2(\eta \varrho )\right]$$
(3.13)
and integrating by parts we obtain

$`F(\omega ,\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{\zeta ^2}}[{\displaystyle }[K_0(\eta \varrho )K_2(\eta \varrho )K_1^2(\eta \varrho )]\varrho {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathit{\varrho })}{d\varrho }}d^2\varrho `$
$`2{\displaystyle }\left({\displaystyle }K_1(\eta \varrho ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{\varrho }}{\varrho }}w_c(𝐱\mathit{\varrho })d^2\varrho \right)^2w_r(𝐱)d^2x],`$ (3.14)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathit{\varrho })=w_r(𝐱+\mathit{\varrho })w_c(𝐱)d^2x.$$
(3.15)
In the general case the axes of colliding beams are displaced with respect each other in the transverse plane by the vector $`𝐱_0`$ with coordinates $`z_0,y_0`$. In this case we have to consider

$$w_r(𝐱)w_r(𝐱+𝐱_0),F^{(1,2)}(\omega ,\zeta )F^{(1,2)}(\omega ,\zeta ,𝐱_0),\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathit{\varrho })\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathit{\varrho }+𝐱_0)$$
(3.16)
The first term in the expression for $`F(\omega ,\zeta )`$ in (3.14) coincides with the function $`F(\omega ,\zeta )`$ defined in , Eq.(13). The second (subtraction) term in (3.14)which is naturally arisen in this derivation was missed in Eq.(13),  as it was said above. The expression (3.11) is consistent with Eq.(21.6) in the book  (see also Eq.(2.2) in ) where another physical problem was analyzed. It is the incoherent bremsstrahlung in the oriented crystals.

Below we restrict ourselves to the case of unpolarized electrons and photons. Influence of bounded transverse size on the probability of process with polarized particles will be considered elsewhere.

## 4 Gaussian beams

For calculation of explicit expression for the bremsstrahlung cross section we have to specify the distributions of particles in the colliding beams. Here we consider the actual case of Gaussian beams. Using the Fourier transform we have

$`w(𝐱)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle d^2q\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐱})w(𝐪)};`$
$`w_r(𝐪)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q_z^2\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2+q_y^2\mathrm{\Delta }_y^2)\right],w_c(𝐪)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q_z^2\sigma _z^2+q_y^2\sigma _y^2)\right],`$ (4.1)
where as above the index $`r`$ relates to the radiating beam and the index $`c`$ relates to the target beam, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$ ($`\sigma _z`$ and $`\sigma _y`$) are the vertical and horizontal transverse dimensions of radiating (target) beam. Substituting (4.1) into Eq.(3.15) we find

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathit{\varrho })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle d^2q\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪\mathit{\varrho })\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{q_z^2}{4\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2}\frac{q_y^2}{4\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2}\right]}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}[\varrho _z^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2\varrho _y^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2];`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\sigma _z^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2)}},\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\sigma _y^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_y^2)}},`$ (4.2)
Below we consider the general situation when the axes of colliding beams are displaced with respect each other in the transverse plane by the vector $`𝐱_0`$ with the coordinates $`z_0,y_0`$. This displacement has essential influence on the luminosity. For the processes for which the short distances are essential only (e.g. double bremsstrahlung ) the probability of process is the product of the cross section and luminosity. The geometrical luminosity per bunch, not taking into account the disruption effects, is given by

$$=N_cN_r\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱_0),$$
(4.3)
where as above $`N_r`$ and $`N_c`$ are the number of particles in the radiating and target beams correspondingly. We will use the same definition for our case. Then we have

$$dw_\gamma =\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱_0)d\sigma _\gamma ,d\sigma _1=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(𝐱_0)dw_1,$$
(4.4)
where $`dw_1`$ is defined in Eq.(3.11).

We calculate first the function $`F^{(1)}(\omega ,\zeta )`$ in Eq.(3.12) for the case of coaxial beams when $`𝐱_0=0`$. Passing on to the momentum representation with the help of formula (4.1) we find

$$F^{(1)}(\omega ,\zeta )=\frac{1}{2\pi \zeta ^2}w_r(𝐪)w_c(𝐪)F_2\left(\frac{q}{2\eta }\right)q𝑑q𝑑\phi ,$$
(4.5)
where $`\eta =q_{min}\zeta `$ is introduced in (3.12),

$`F_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{2\eta }}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle K_1^2(\eta \varrho )(1\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪\mathit{\varrho }))d^2\varrho },`$
$`F_2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2x^2+1}{x\sqrt{1+x^2}}}\mathrm{ln}(x+\sqrt{1+x^2})1,q_{min}=m^3\omega /4\epsilon ^2\epsilon ^{},`$ (4.6)
here value $`q_{min}`$ is defined in c.m.s. of colliding particles. The function $`F_2(x)`$ encounters in the radiation theory. To calculate the corresponding contribution into the radiation spectrum we have to substitute (4.5) into Eq.(3.11) and take the integrals. After substitution of variable in (4.5)

$$w=\frac{q}{2q_{min}\zeta },$$
(4.7)
we obtain the integral over $`\zeta `$ in Eq.(3.11):

$`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\zeta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\zeta ^2}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(s^2\zeta ^2)𝑑\zeta f(s)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2s}}(v8s^2)\mathrm{Erfc}(s)+4e^{s^2}+2\mathrm{E}\mathrm{i}(s^2),`$ (4.8)
where

$$s=wrq_{min},r^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi +\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi $$
(4.9)
Making use of Eq.(4.4) we find for the spectrum

$`d\sigma _1^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^3}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\omega }}f^{(1)}(\omega ),`$
$`f^{(1)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi +\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}F_2(z)f(s)s𝑑s,`$
$`z^2={\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{q_{min}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi +\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi }}.`$ (4.10)
This formula is quite convenient for the numerical calculations.

In the case $`𝐱_00`$ we will use straightforwardly Eqs.(3.12) and (4.4). Taking into account (4.2) we have for the difference

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}(𝐱_0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(\mathrm{\Phi }^1(𝐱_0)F^{(1)}(𝐱_0)\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)F^{(1)}(0))`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{\pi \zeta ^2}}{\displaystyle K_1^2(\eta \varrho )\mathrm{exp}\left[\varrho _z^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2\varrho _y^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2\right]\{\mathrm{exp}\left[2\varrho _zz_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^22\varrho _yy_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2\right]1\}d^2\varrho },`$ (4.11)
where the function $`F^{(1)}(𝐱_0)`$ is defined in Eqs.(3.12), (3.16).

Using the Macdonald’s formula (see e.g., p.53)

$$2K_1^2(\eta \varrho )=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\varrho ^2t\frac{\eta ^2}{2t}\right]K_1\left(\frac{\eta ^2}{2t}\right)\frac{dt}{t}$$
(4.12)
and taking the Gaussian integrals over $`\varrho _z`$ and $`\varrho _y`$ we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}(𝐱_0)=\frac{1}{\zeta ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\eta ^2}{2t}\right)K_1\left(\frac{\eta ^2}{2t}\right)}{\sqrt{t+\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2}\sqrt{t+\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2}}\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^4}{t+\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2}+\frac{y_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^4}{t+\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2}\right]1\right\}\frac{\eta ^2dt}{2t}.$$
(4.13)
For the correction to the cross section (see Eqs.(4.4) and (4.10)) we have correspondingly

$$d\sigma _1^{(1)}=\frac{2\alpha ^3}{m^2}\frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }[f^{(1)}(\omega )+J^{(1)}(\omega ,𝐱_0)],$$
(4.14)
where

$$J^{(1)}(\omega ,𝐱_0)=_1^{\mathrm{}}U(\zeta )\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}(𝐱_0)𝑑\zeta .$$
(4.15)
Now we pass over to the calculation of the second (subtraction) term $`F^{(2)}(\omega ,\zeta )`$ in Eq.(3.12). Using Eq.(4.1) we get

$$𝐈=\eta K_1(\eta \varrho )\frac{\mathit{\varrho }}{\varrho }w_c(𝐱\mathit{\varrho })d^2\varrho =\frac{\eta }{(2\pi )^2}S(q)\frac{𝐪}{q}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐱})w_c(𝐪)d^2q,$$
(4.16)
where

$`S(q)={\displaystyle K_1(\eta \varrho )\frac{𝐪\mathit{\varrho }}{q\varrho }\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪\mathit{\varrho })d^2\varrho }`$
$`=2\pi i{\displaystyle K_1(\eta \varrho )J_1(q\varrho )\varrho 𝑑\varrho }=2\pi i{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2+\eta ^2}}.`$ (4.17)
Using the exponential parametrization

$$\frac{1}{q^2+\eta ^2}=\frac{1}{4}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{s}{4}(q^2+\eta ^2)\right]𝑑s$$
(4.18)
and taking the Gaussian integrals over $`q_z`$ and $`q_y`$ we obtain

$`𝐈={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2s}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{s+2\sigma _z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{s+2\sigma _y^2}}\right]`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{z𝐞_z}{s+2\sigma _z^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y𝐞_y}{s+2\sigma _y^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{\sqrt{s+2\sigma _z^2}\sqrt{s+2\sigma _y^2}}},`$ (4.19)
where $`𝐞_z`$ and $`𝐞_y`$ are the unit vectors along axes $`z`$ and $`y`$. Substituting (4.19) into Eq.(3.12), taking the Gaussian integrals over $`z`$ and $`y`$ and using Eq.(4.4) we get the correction to the cross section

$$d\sigma _1^{(2)}=\frac{2\alpha ^3}{m^2}\frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }J^{(2)}(\omega ,𝐱_0),$$
(4.20)
where

$`J^{(2)}(\omega ,𝐱_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ab}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y}}\mathrm{exp}(z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2+y_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_2g\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_{min}\sqrt{s}}{2}}\right)G(s_1,s_2,𝐱_0),`$
$`G(s_1,s_2,𝐱_0)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_1a_2b_1b_2}{AB}}\right)^{1/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a_1a_2}{A}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{z_0^2a^2}{A}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_1b_2}{B}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_0^2b^2}{B}}\right)\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{z_0^2a}{A}}(a_1+a_2){\displaystyle \frac{y_0^2b}{B}}(b_1+b_2)\right].`$ (4.21)
Here the function $`g`$ appears as a result of integration over $`\zeta `$:

$`g(q)={\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\zeta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\zeta ^2}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(q^2\zeta ^2){\displaystyle \frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^2}}=\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(q^2)`$
$`2q^2{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\zeta ^2}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(q^2\zeta ^2)𝑑\zeta `$
$`=\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(q^2)2q^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2q}}\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}q^2\right)\mathrm{Erfc}(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}e^{q^2}+\mathrm{Ei}(q^2)\right].`$ (4.22)
In (4.21) we introduced the following notations

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2}},b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_y^2}},a_{1,2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_{1,2}+2\sigma _z^2}},b_{1,2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_{1,2}+2\sigma _y^2}},`$
$`A=a_1+a_2+a,B=b_1+b_2+b,s=s_1+s_2.`$ (4.23)
## 5 Narrow beams

This is the case when the ratio $`q_{min}/(\mathrm{\Sigma }_z+\mathrm{\Sigma }_y)1`$, so that the main contribution to the integral (4.10) gives the region $`q\zeta 1,z1`$. Using the asymptotics of function $`F_2(z)`$ at $`z1`$

$$F_2(z)\mathrm{ln}(2z)^21$$
(5.1)
and the following integrals

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi +\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi }}=1,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi +\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi +\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi }}=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_z+\mathrm{\Sigma }_y)^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑q^2\left(\alpha \beta \mathrm{ln}q^2\right){\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\zeta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\zeta ^2}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(q^2\zeta ^2)𝑑\zeta `$
$`=\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right)[\alpha +\beta (2+C)]+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\beta ,`$ (5.2)
where C is Euler’s constant $`C=0.577\mathrm{}`$, we get for the function $`f^{(1)}(\omega )`$ (4.14) the following expression

$$f^{(1)}(\omega )\left(v\frac{2}{3}\right)\left(2\mathrm{ln}\frac{q_{min}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z+\mathrm{\Sigma }_y}+3+C\right)+\frac{2}{9},q_{min}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_z+\mathrm{\Sigma }_y).$$
(5.3)
This expression agrees with Eq.(24) of .

Under the assumption used in (5.3) and the additional condition $`q_{min}(z_0+y_0)1`$ the main contribution to the integral in (4.13) gives the region $`t\eta ^2`$. In this case one can use the asymptotic expansion $`K_1(z)1/z(z1)`$. Then we have for the function $`J^{(1)}(\omega ,𝐱_0)`$ in Eq.(4.14) the following expression

$`J^{(1)}(\omega ,𝐱_0)\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right)J`$
$`J={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^4}{t+\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^4}{t+\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2}}\right)1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t+\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2}\sqrt{t+\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2}}}.`$ (5.4)
The expression (5.4) is consistent with Eq.(26) of .

In the case $`(𝐱_0^2+\sigma _z^2+\sigma _y^2)q_{min}^21`$ the main contribution to the integral in (4.21) gives the interval $`sq_{min}^2(𝐱_0^2+\sigma _z^2+\sigma _y^2)q_{min}^21`$. Keeping the main term of expansion over $`q^2`$ in Eq.(4.22) we get

$$g\left(\frac{q_{min}\sqrt{s}}{2}\right)v\frac{2}{3}.$$
(5.5)
The same result can be obtained if one neglects the term containing $`\eta ^2`$ in the exponent of integrand in Eq.(4.19).

Summing the cross section $`d\sigma =d\sigma _1^{(1)}+d\sigma _1^{(2)}`$ with the standard QED bremsstrahlung cross section

$$d\sigma _0=\frac{2\alpha ^3}{m^2}\frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\left(v\frac{2}{3}\right)\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2}{q_{min}^2}1\right),$$
(5.6)
we get the cross section for the case of interaction of narrow beams

$`d\sigma _\gamma =d\sigma _0+d\sigma _1={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^3}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\omega }}\{(v{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}})[2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z+\mathrm{\Sigma }_y}}+C+2`$
$`+JJ_{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\},v={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon ^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }},\epsilon ^{}=\epsilon \omega ,`$ (5.7)
where $`J`$ is given in (5.4),

$$J_{}=\frac{\sqrt{ab}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y}\mathrm{exp}(z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2+y_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_1_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_2G(s_1,s_2,𝐱_0),$$
(5.8)
where entering functions defined in Eqs.(4.21) and (4.23).

In the case of coaxial beams $`𝐱_0=0,J=0`$ one can take the integral in (5.8) over one of variables (for definiteness over $`s_2`$) using the formula

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{(a_z+b_zx)^{3/2}(a_y+b_yx)^{1/2}}=\frac{2}{a_z\sqrt{b_zb_y}+b_z\sqrt{a_za_y}}.$$
(5.9)
After this we have the simple integral over $`ss_1`$

$`J_{}(0)=\sqrt{1+\delta _z}\sqrt{1+\delta _y}(J_z+J_y),`$
$`J_{z,y}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}D_{z,y}(s)𝑑s,D_{z,y}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{z,y}\sqrt{b_zb_y}+b_{z,y}\sqrt{a_za_y}}},`$ (5.10)
where

$$a_{z,y}=s(1+\delta _{z,y})+2\sigma _{z,y}^2(2+\delta _{z,y}),b_{z,y}=\frac{s}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{z,y}^2}+1+\delta _{z,y},\delta _{z,y}=\frac{\sigma _{z,y}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{z,y}^2},$$
(5.11)
The cross section (5.7) differs from Eq.(24) of  because the subtraction term $`J_{}`$ is included. Without this term, generally speaking, the bremsstrahlung cross section would be qualitatively erroneous. In particular an appearance of the term $`J_{}`$ violates, generally speaking, the symmetry of radiation cross section in opposite directions in $`e^{}e^{}(e^{}e^+)`$ collisions.

To elucidate the qualitative features of narrow beams bremsstrahlung process we consider the case of round beams where the calculation becomes more simple:

$`\sigma _z=\sigma _y=\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }_z=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\sigma ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}},`$
$`b=a,b_{1,2}=a_{1,2},B=A,\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}.`$ (5.12)
We consider first the case of coaxial beams ($`𝐱_0=0,J=0`$),

$`J_{}=(1+\delta ){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{[s(1+\delta )+2+\delta ][s\delta +1+\delta ]}}`$
$`=(1+\delta )\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\delta )^2}{\delta (2+\delta )}}.`$ (5.13)
In the limiting cases the function $`J_{}`$ has the form

$$J_{}(\delta 1)\frac{1}{\delta },J_{}(\delta =1)=2\mathrm{ln}\frac{4}{3},J_{}(\delta 1)\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2\delta }.$$
(5.14)
In the first case the subtraction term $`J_{}`$ is small. For the beams of the same size the subtraction term $`J_{}`$ contributes to the constant entering into the expression for the cross section. The subtraction term $`J_{}`$ modifies essentially the cross section in the case when the radius of target beam is much smaller than the radius of radiating beam. In this case the cross section (5.7) contains the combination

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2}{4\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}J_{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2\sigma ^2}=\mathrm{ln}(m\sigma )^2.$$
(5.15)
So in the all cases considered above the cross section defines the transverse dimension of target beam.

When the axes of round beams are displaced with respect each other in the transverse plane the integral in (5.4) is

$`J={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{x+1}}\right)1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x+1}}=\mathrm{Ei}(d)C\mathrm{ln}d,`$
$`d=𝐱_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2={\displaystyle \frac{x_0^2+y_0^2}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\sigma ^2)}}.`$ (5.16)
It is convenient in this case to calculate the function $`J_{}`$ using straightforwardly Eq.(4.19) where we omit the term with $`\eta ^2`$ in the exponent of integrand

$$𝐈_{cr}=\mathit{\varrho }_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathit{\varrho }^2}{s+2\sigma ^2}\right)\frac{ds}{(s+2\sigma ^2)^2}=\frac{\mathit{\varrho }}{\mathit{\varrho }^2}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathit{\varrho }^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)\right]$$
(5.17)
Substituting this expression (I is defined in Eq.(4.16)) into the subtraction term Eq.(3.12) and using the exponential parametrization

$$\frac{1}{\mathit{\varrho }^2}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(\mathit{\varrho }^2s)𝑑s$$

we obtain

$`J_{}={\displaystyle \frac{ae^d}{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle d^2\varrho \mathrm{exp}(\mathit{\varrho }^2s)\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathit{\varrho }^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}(a(\mathit{\varrho }+𝐱_0)^2)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{ae^{dd_1}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s+a}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d_1a}{s+a}}\right)2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s+a+\sigma ^2/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(d_1{\displaystyle \frac{a}{s+a+\sigma ^2/2}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s+a+\sigma ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(d_1{\displaystyle \frac{a}{s+a+\sigma ^2}}\right)]ds={\displaystyle \frac{ae^{dd_1}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}}[\mathrm{Ei}(d_1)2\mathrm{E}\mathrm{i}\left(d_1{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\sigma ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{Ei}\left(d_1{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\sigma ^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\right)],d_1=a𝐱_0^2={\displaystyle \frac{z_0^2+y_0^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}.`$ (5.18)
In the limit $`d_10`$ the last expression goes over to Eq.(5.13).

When the displacement of the axes of colliding beams is large enough $`(𝐱_0^2\sigma ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ one use the asymptotic expansion of the function Ei($`z`$) in (5.18):

$$\mathrm{Ei}(z)\frac{e^z}{z}\left(1+\frac{1}{z}\right),z1.$$
(5.19)
In this case the main terms in the difference $`JJ_{}`$ in Eq.(5.7) are canceled:

$$JJ_{}\frac{e^d}{d}\left(\frac{1}{d}\frac{1}{d_1}\right)=\frac{2e^d}{d}\frac{\sigma ^2}{𝐱_0^2}.$$
(5.20)
The compensation of the main terms in (5.19) is due to the fact that the incoherent scattering originates on the fluctuations of the potential of the target (scattering) beam. Correspondingly we have for the mean square of the momentum transfer dispersion at the large distance from the target beam

$`<𝐪^2(\mathit{\varrho })><𝐪(\mathit{\varrho })>^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(𝐱_0+\mathit{\varrho })^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐱_0^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4(𝐱_0\mathit{\varrho })^2}{𝐱_0^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{\varrho }^2}{𝐱_0^4}}={\displaystyle \frac{<\mathit{\varrho }^2>}{𝐱_0^4}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma ^2}{𝐱_0^4}}.`$ (5.21)
Substituting (5.20) into Eq.(5.7) and multiplying the result by the luminosity (4.3):

$$=N_cN_r\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{\pi }\mathrm{exp}(𝐱_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)$$
(5.22)
we have for the probability of bremsstrahlung of round beams moving apart at large distance

$`dw_\gamma 4N_cN_r{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3}{\pi }}\lambda _c^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\omega }}\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right)`$
$`\times \left[\mathrm{exp}(𝐱_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{(𝐱_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)^2}}+O(\mathrm{exp}(𝐱_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2))\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\sigma ^2)}},𝐱_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2={\displaystyle \frac{z_0^2+y_0^2}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\sigma ^2)}}1,q_{min}^2(z_0^2+y_0^2)1.`$ (5.23)
According to (5.23) when $`𝐱_0^2`$ increases so that one can neglect the first term in square brackets, the probability of bremsstrahlung of the round beams diminishes as a power of distance between beams ($`\sigma ^2/𝐱_0^4`$). The cross section Eq.(5.7) in this case grows exponentially as $`e^d/d^2`$. Let us note that without the subtraction term one has erroneous qualitative behaviour of probability ($`1/𝐱_0^2`$). These circumstances explain also Eq.(5.15) for the coaxial beams: at integration over $`d^2\varrho `$ the region contributes where $`<𝐪^2(\mathit{\varrho })><𝐪(\mathit{\varrho })>^21/\mathit{\varrho }^2`$, so that $`\varrho \sigma `$.

Let us consider now the general case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y`$ for enough large displacement of beams $`𝐱_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{z,y}^2`$. In this case the main contribution into the integral $`𝐈(𝐱)`$ (for $`\eta ^2=0`$) in Eqs.(4.16),(4.19) at large $`|𝐱||𝐱_0|`$ (see Eq.(3.12)) are given by large values $`s𝐱_0^2\sigma _{z,y}^2`$. Expanding the integrand over the powers $`\sigma _{z,y}^2/s`$ and keeping after integration the two main terms of the decomposition over $`1/𝐱^2`$ we get

$$𝐈^2(𝐱)\frac{1}{𝐱^2}\left[1+\frac{2}{(𝐱^2)^2}(y^2z^2)(\sigma _y^2\sigma _z^2)\right].$$
(5.24)
Expanding the function $`1/(𝐱_0+𝝃)^2`$ over the powers $`\xi /x_0`$ at the integration over $`𝝃=𝐱𝐱_0`$ in Eq.(3.12)) we find

$`{\displaystyle }𝐈^2(𝐱_0+𝝃)w_r(𝝃)d^2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐱_0^2}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(𝐱_0^2)^2}}(z_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2+y_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }_y^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝚫^2}{𝐱_0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(𝐱_0^2)^2}}(y_0^2z_0^2)(\sigma _y^2\sigma _z^2)],𝚫^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_y^2.`$ (5.25)
In this case the region $`t1/𝐱_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{z,y}^2`$ contributes into the integral $`J`$ Eq.(5.4)). Expanding the integrand over the powers $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }_{z,y}^2`$ and keeping the two main terms of decomposition over $`1/𝐱_0^2`$ we have

$`J{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y𝐱_0^2}}\mathrm{exp}(z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2+y_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2)\{1{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈^2+𝚫^2}{𝐱_0^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(𝐱_0^2)^2}}[z_0^2(\sigma _z^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2)+y_0^2(\sigma _y^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_y^2)]\},𝝈^2=\sigma _z^2+\sigma _y^2.`$ (5.26)
For the difference $`JJ_{}`$ we obtain finally

$$JJ_{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y}\mathrm{exp}(z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2+y_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2)\frac{𝝈^2}{(𝐱_0^2)^2}.$$
(5.27)
## 6 Narrow flat beams ($`\sigma _z\sigma _y,\mathrm{\Delta }_z\mathrm{\Delta }_y)`$

Let us begin with the coaxial beams. We consider first the case where the size of radiating beam is much larger than size of target beam ($`\delta _{z,y}1`$). In this case one can neglect the terms $`\delta _{z,y},\sigma _z^2,\mathrm{\Delta }_y^2`$ in the functions $`a_{z,y}`$ and $`b_{z,y}`$ in the integral in Eq.(5.10). Within this accuracy

$$a_zs,a_ys+4\sigma _y^2,b_z\frac{s}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2}+1,b_y1.$$
(6.1)
After substitution in the integral $`J_y`$ in Eq.(5.10) $`s4\sigma _y^2s`$ one gets

$$J_y(\kappa )=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s+1}(\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s+1}\sqrt{1+2\kappa s})},\kappa =\frac{\sigma _y^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2}.$$
(6.2)
After substitution in the integral $`J_z`$ in Eq.(5.10) $`s2\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2/s`$ one gets $`J_z=J_y`$ so that

$`J_{}(\kappa )=2\sqrt{1+\delta _z}\sqrt{1+\delta _y}J_y(\kappa )2J_y(\kappa ),`$
$`J_{}(\kappa 1)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\kappa }},J_{}(\kappa 1)\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}}.`$ (6.3)
It is seen from the last equation that at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_z\sigma _y`$ the contribution of the term $`J_{}`$ into the cross section Eq.(5.7) is relatively small. In the opposite case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_z\sigma _y`$ this contribution leads to change of the logarithm argument in Eq.(5.7)

$$2\mathrm{ln}\frac{m}{(\mathrm{\Sigma }_z+\mathrm{\Sigma }_y)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{8}{\kappa }2(\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{2}m\mathrm{\Delta }_z)\mathrm{ln}(2\sqrt{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_z}{\sigma _y}))=2\mathrm{ln}\frac{m\sigma _y}{2}.$$
(6.4)
This is a new qualitative result.

In the opposite case when the size of radiating beam is smaller or is of the order of size of target beam ($`\delta _{z,y}1`$) the contribution into the integral $`J_z`$ in Eq.(5.10) gives the region $`s\sigma _z^2`$ and into the integral $`J_y`$ the region $`s\sigma _y^2`$. Performing in the integral $`J_z`$ the substitution $`s2\sigma _z^2s`$ and in the integral $`J_y`$ the substitution $`s2\sigma _y^2/s`$ one gets

$`J_z{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _z}{\sqrt{2+\delta _y}\sigma _y}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{((s+1)\delta _z+1)\sqrt{s(1+\delta _z)+2+\delta _z}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{2+\delta _y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_z}{\sigma _y}}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta _z(2+\delta _z)}}};`$
$`J_y{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_z}{\sigma _y}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{((s+1)(\delta _y+1)+s)\sqrt{(s+1)\delta _y+s}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{2+\delta _y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_z}{\sigma _y}}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta _y(2+\delta _y)}}};`$
$`J_{}=\sqrt{1+\delta _z}\sqrt{1+\delta _y}(J_z+J_y)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{1+\delta _z}\sqrt{1+\delta _y}}{\sqrt{2+\delta _y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_z}{\sigma _y}}\left(\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta _z(2+\delta _z)}}}+\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta _y(2+\delta _y)}}}\right).`$ (6.5)
In the case $`\delta _{z,y}1,\mathrm{\Delta }_z\sigma _y`$ this formula is consistent with Eq.(6.3).

Now we go over to the case of the displaced beams. For enough large displacement of the beams the formulas (5.7) and (5.27) are valid. So the intermediate case is of interest. As an example we consider the case $`\sigma _y^2z_0^2\sigma _z^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2,y_0^2\sigma _y^2`$. In this case the contribution to the integral in (5.4) gives the interval $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^2tz_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2`$. Keeping the main terms of decomposition over $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^21`$ and $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }_y^21`$ we have

$$J\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2z_0^2t\right)\frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{z_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_z}\mathrm{exp}(z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2).$$
(6.6)
Under these conditions ($`𝐱_0^2\sigma _y^2`$) the contribution into the integral for $`J_{}`$ in (5.8)of the term in the function $`G(s_1,s_2,𝐱_0)`$ Eq.(4.21) in the square brackets containing $`b_1b_2/B`$ is defined by the function $`J_y`$ in Eq.(6.5) to within the terms $`z_0/\sigma _y`$. In the term containing $`a_1a_2/A`$ (which we denote by $`J_{}^{(z)}`$) the main contribution gives the summand $`z_0^2a^2/A^2`$ in the interval $`\sigma _y^2s_{1,2}z_0^2\sigma _z^2`$ where

$$a_{1,2}\frac{1}{s_{1,2}},b_{1,2}\frac{1}{2\sigma _y^2},Aa,B\frac{1}{\sigma _y^2}+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_y^2}.$$
(6.7)
As a result we obtain

$`J_{}^{(z)}(𝐱_0){\displaystyle \frac{z_0^2}{2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y\sigma _y^2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{b}{B}}}e^{d_z}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_1}{s_1^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(z_0^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_2}}\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{ds_2}{s_2^{3/2}}}`$
$`=\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_z}{\sigma _y}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\delta _z}\sqrt{1+\delta _y}}{\sqrt{2+\delta _y}}}e^{d_z},`$
$`JJ_{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{d_z}}}e^{d_z}h(z_0),d_z=z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2,`$
$`h(z_0)=1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi (1+\delta _y)}}{\sqrt{2(2+\delta _y)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_0}{\sigma _y}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta _y(2+\delta _y)}}}\right).`$ (6.8)
It should be noted that for the flat beams the probability of radiation as a function of distance between beams (for the considered interval) decreases more slowly $`1/\sqrt{d_z}`$ than for the round beams given in Eq.(5.23)

$$dw_\gamma ^{fl}4N_cN_r\frac{\alpha ^3}{\pi }\lambda _c^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y\frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\left(v\frac{2}{3}\right)\left[e^{d_z}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{d_z}}h(z_0)\right].$$
(6.9)
Compensation in the difference $`JJ_{}`$ begins in the region $`z_0\sigma _y+\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$ were Eq.(6.8) is not valid and one have to use more accurate Eq.(5.8). In the region $`z_0\sigma _y+\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$ the probability of radiation decreases as $`1/z_0^4`$ according to Eqs.(4.4), (5.7), (5.27) provided that one can neglect the exponential term in the square brackets in Eq.(6.9) (compare with Eq.(5.23))

$$dw_\gamma ^{fl}(z_0)2N_cN_r\frac{\alpha ^3}{\pi }\frac{\lambda _c^2\sigma _y^2}{z_0^4}\frac{\epsilon ^{}}{\epsilon }\left(v\frac{2}{3}\right)\frac{d\omega }{\omega },z_0y_0.$$
(6.10)
## 7 Observation of beam-size effect

Above we calculated the incoherent bremsstrahlung spectrum at collision of electron and positron beams with finite transverse dimensions. This spectrum differs from spectrum found previously in , ,  because here (in contrast to previous papers) we subtract the coherent contribution. In general expression for correction to the probability of photon emission (3.11) the subtraction term is $`F^{(2)}(\omega ,\zeta )`$. For the coaxial beams for numerical calculation it is convenient to use Eqs.(4.10), (4.20) and (4.21). In the last equation one have to put $`y_0=z_0=0`$. In the case of collision of narrow beams the subtraction term in the bremsstrahlung spectrum (5.7) is $`J_{}`$. The dimensions of beams in the experiment  were $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Delta }_z=24\mu m,\sigma _y=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=450\mu m`$, so this is the case of flat beams. The estimate for this case (6.5) gives $`J_{}(4/3\sqrt{3})\pi \sigma _z/\sigma _y1`$. This term is much smaller than other terms in (5.7). This means that for this case the correction to the spectrum calculated in  is very small.

The result of calculation and VEPP4 (INP, Novosibirsk) data are presented in Fig.1 where the bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $`\omega d\sigma /d\omega `$ is given in units $`2\alpha r_0^2`$ versus the photon energy in units of initial electron energy ($`x=\omega /\epsilon `$). The upper curve is the standard QED spectrum, the three close curves below are calculated using Eqs.(4.10) and (4.20) for the different vertical dimensions of colliding beams (equal for two colliding beams $`\sigma =\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Delta }_z`$):$`\sigma =20\mu m`$ (bottom), $`\sigma =24\mu m`$ (middle), $`\sigma =27\mu m`$ (top) (this is just the 1-sigma dispersion for the beams used in the experiment). We want to emphasize that all the theoretical curves are calculated to within the relativistic accuracy (the discarded terms are of the order $`m/\epsilon `$). It is seen that the effect of the small transverse dimensions is very essential in soft part of spectrum (at $`\omega /\epsilon =10^4`$ the spectral curve diminishes in 25 %), while for $`\omega /\epsilon >10^1`$ the effect becomes negligible. The data measured in  are presented as circles (experiment in 1980) and as triangles (experiment in 1981) with 6 % systematic error as obtained in  (while the statistical errors are negligible). This presentation is somewhat different from . It is seen that the data points are situated systematically below the theory curves but the difference is not exceed the 2-sigma level . It should be noted that this is true also in the hard part of spectrum where the beam-size effect is very small.

The last remark is connected with the radiative corrections (RC). The RC to the spectrum of double bremsstrahlung  (this was the normalization process) are essential (of the order 10 %) and were taken into account. The RC to the bremsstrahlung spectrum  are very small (less than 0.4 %) and may be neglected. It should be noted that the RC to the bremsstrahlung spectrum are insensitive to the effect of small transverse dimensions.

The dependence of bremsstrahlung spectrum on beams characteristics was measures specifically in . The first is the dependence of bremsstrahlung spectrum on vertical sizes of beams $`\sigma _z`$. It is calculated using Eqs.(4.10) and (4.20) for $`\omega /\epsilon =10^3`$. The result is shown in units $`2\alpha r_0^2`$ in Fig.2. The data is taken from Fig.7 in . The second is the measurement of dependence of bremsstrahlung spectrum on the vertical displacement of beams $`z_0`$. It is calculated using Eqs.(5.4) and (5.8) for $`\omega /\epsilon =10^3`$. Because of displacement it is necessary to normalize the spectrum on the luminosity

$$=N_cN_r\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y}{\pi }\mathrm{exp}(z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2),$$

see Eq.(4.3). This means that when we compare the bremsstrahlung process (where the beam-size effect is essential) with some other process like double bremsstrahlung used in  (which is insensitive to the effect) we have to multiply the cross section of the last process by the luminosity $``$. This is seen in estimate Eq.(6.9): after taking out the exponent $`e^{d_z}`$ we have the luminosity as the external factor and in expression for ratio $`N_\gamma /N_{2\gamma }`$ (which was observed in ) the cross section of double bremsstrahlung will be multiplied by the luminosity. After this operation the second term in square brackets will contain the combination $`e^{d_z}h(z_0)/\sqrt{d_z}`$ which grows exponentially with the displacement $`z_0`$ increase. The normalized bremsstrahlung spectrum is shown in units $`2\alpha r_0^2`$ in Fig.3. So, the very fast (exponential) increase with $`z_0`$ is due to fast decrease with $`z_0`$ of the double bremsstrahlung probability for the displaced beams. The data is taken from Fig.8 in . It should be noted that in soft part of spectrum the dependence on photon energy $`\omega `$ is very weak. It is seen in these figures that there is quite reasonable agreement between theory and data just as in . This means that contribution of $`J_{}`$ term which is calculated only in the present paper is relatively small.

One more measurement of beam-size effect was performed at HERA electron-proton collider (DESY, Germany) . The electron beam energy was $`\epsilon `$=27.5 GeV, the proton beam energy was $`\epsilon _p`$=820 GeV. The standard bremsstrahlung spectrum for this case is given by Eq.(5.6) where $`q_{min}`$ should be substituted:

$$q_{min}q_{min}^D=\frac{\omega m^2m_p}{4\epsilon _p\epsilon \epsilon ^{}},$$
(7.1)
here $`m_p`$ is the proton mass. In this situation the characteristic length is $`l_{f0}^D=1/q_{min}^D`$ and at the photon energy $`\omega =1`$ GeV one has $`l_{f0}^D2`$ mm. Since the beam sizes at HERA are much smaller than this characteristic length, the beam-size effect can be observed at HERA. The parameters of beam in this experiment were (in our notation): $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Delta }_z=(50÷58)\mu m`$, $`\sigma _y=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=(250÷290)\mu m`$. In part of runs the displaced beams were used with $`z_0=20\mu m`$ and $`y_0=100\mu m`$. The bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $`\omega d\sigma /d\omega `$ in units $`2\alpha r_0^2`$ versus the photon energy in the units of initial electron energy ($`x=\omega /\epsilon `$) for the HERA experiment is given in Fig.4. The upper curve is the standard QED spectrum. We calculated the spectrum with beam-size effect taken into account for three sets of beams parameters; the set 1: $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Delta }_z=50\mu m,\sigma _y=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=250\mu m,z_0=y_0=0`$, the set 2: $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Delta }_z=50\mu m,\sigma _y=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=250\mu m,z_0=20\mu m,y_0=0`$, the set 3: $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Delta }_z=54\mu m,\sigma _y=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=250\mu m,z_0=y_0=0`$. The result of calculation is seen as two close curves below, the top curve is for the set 3, while the bottom curve is actually two merged curves for the sets 1 and 2. Since the ratio of the vertical and the horizontal dimensions is not very small, the general formulas were used in calculation: for coaxial beams Eqs. (4.11) and (4.20),and for displaced beams Eqs. (4.14) and (4.20). It should be noted that the contribution of subtraction term (Eq.(4.20)) is quite essential (more than 10%) for the beam parameters used at HERA. The data are taken from Fig.5c in . The errors are the recalculated overall systematic error given in . It is seen that there is a quite satisfactory agreement of theory and data. The final data are given in  also as the averaged relative difference $`\delta =(d\sigma _{QED}d\sigma _{bs})/d\sigma _{QED}`$ (where $`d\sigma _{QED}`$ is the standard QED spectrum, $`\sigma _{bs}`$ is the result of calculation with the beam-size effect taken into account) over the whole interval of photon energies (2-8 GeV), e.g. for the set 1 $`\delta _{ex}=(3.28\pm 0.7)\%`$, for the set 2 $`\delta _{ex}=(3.57\pm 0.7)\%`$, for the set 3 $`\delta _{ex}=(3.06\pm 0.7)\%`$, . The averaged $`<\delta >`$ over the interval $`0.07x0.28`$ (or 1.95 GeV$`\omega `$ 7.7 GeV) in our calculation are for the set 1 is $`<\delta >`$=2.69%, for the set 2 is $`<\delta >`$=2.65%, for the set 3 is $`<\delta >`$=2.54%. So, for these data there is also a satisfactory agreement of data and theory (at the 1-sigma level, except set 2 where the difference is slightly larger).

So, the beam-size effect discovered at BINP (Novosibirsk) was confirmed at DESY (Germany). Of course, more accurate measurement is desirable to verify that we entirely understand this mechanism of deviation from standard QED.

## 8 Conclusion

Above the influence of the finite transverse size of the colliding beams on the incoherent bremsstrahlung process is investigated. Previously (see papers , , , ) for analysis of this effect an incomplete expression for the bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum was used because in it the subtraction was not fulfilled. It is necessary to carry out this subtraction for the extraction of pure fluctuation process which is just the incoherent bremsstrahlung. We implement this procedure in the present paper. We indicated the cases where the results without the subtraction term are qualitatively erroneous. The first this is the case when the transverse sizes of scattering beam are much smaller than the corresponding sizes of radiating beam. For coaxial round beams see e.g. Eq.(5.15) and for flat beams Eq.(6.4). In contrast to previous papers here we draw a conclusion that the bremsstrahlung cross section is determined by the transverse sizes of scattering beam.

The new qualitative result is deduced for the case when the displacement of beams is enough large. Then the square of momentum transfer dispersion, which determines the bremsstrahlung cross section, decreases with displacement increase faster than mean value the momentum transfer squared (see Eqs.(5.21), (5.27)). As it was noted in Sec.7, it is necessary to normalize the spectrum on the luminosity for displaced beams. Then the bremsstrahlung cross section grows exponentially with displacement increase. This very fast (exponential) increase with $`z_0`$ is due to fast decrease with $`z_0`$ normalization process probability for displaced beams.

For Gaussian beams the expression for the bremsstrahlung spectrum is obtained in the form of double integrals convenient for numerical calculations (see Eqs.(4.10), (4.20) and (4.21)).For soft part of spectrum we deduced the general expression for spectrum which is independent of minimal momentum transfer $`q_{min}`$ and is defined only by transverse size of beams (see Eqs.(5.3), (5.4) and (5.7)-(5.11)).

The important feature of the considered beam-size effect is smooth decrease of radiation probability with growth of displacement of beams. For the flat beams we see in Eqs. (6.9), (6.10) that the main (logarithmic) term in expression for the probability decreases exponentially ($`\mathrm{exp}(z_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z^2)`$ as luminosity), but there is the specific long-range term $`1/z_0`$ which results in quite appreciable radiation probability even in the case when beam the displacement is large. This phenomenon may be helpful for tuning of high-energy electron-positron colliders. As an example we consider the ”typical” collider were the beam energy is $`\epsilon =500`$GeV and the beam dimensions are equal and $`\sigma _z=5nm`$ and $`\sigma _y=100nm`$. The beam-size effect in this collider is very strong and for $`x=10^3`$ the intensity spectrum is only $`0.3`$ part of the standard $`\omega d\sigma _{QED}(\omega )/d\omega `$. The dependence of bremsstrahlung probability on the displacement distance $`z_0`$ (in $`nm`$) is shown in Fig.5. It is calculated using Eqs. (5.6)- 5.8) for soft photons with $`x=10^3`$ (the asymptotic formulas (6.9) are (6.10) are not enough accurate in this case). Actually the dependence on photon energy is contained in the external factor $`(1x)(v(x)2/3)`$. The curve in Fig.5 reflects the main features mentioned above. One can see that even for $`z_0`$=100 ($`z_0=20\sigma _z`$) the cross section is $`0.002`$ part of very large bremsstrahlung probability at head-on collision of beams. So, measuring the radiation for displaced beams one can estimate magnitude of displacement of beams. This information may be useful for beam tuning.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Prof. Krzysztof Piotrzkowsky for additional information about the HERA experiment. This work was supported in part by the Russian Fund of Basic Research under Grant 00-02-18007.

Figure captions

* Fig.1 The bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $`\omega d\sigma /d\omega `$ in units $`2\alpha r_0^2`$ versus the photon energy in units of initial electron energy ($`x=\omega /\epsilon `$) for VEPP4 experiment. The upper curve is the standard QED spectrum, the three close curves below are calculated for the different vertical dimensions of colliding beams (equal for two colliding beams $`\sigma =\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Delta }_z`$):$`\sigma =20\mu m`$ (bottom), $`\sigma =24\mu m`$ (middle), $`\sigma =27\mu m`$ (top). The data measured in  are presented as circles (the experiment in 1980) and as triangles (the experiment in 1981) with 6 % systematic error as obtained in .
* Fig.2 The bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $`\omega d\sigma /d\omega `$ in units $`2\alpha r_0^2`$ versus the vertical sizes of beams $`\sigma _z`$ (in $`\mu m`$). The data taken from .
* Fig.3 The normalized to luminosity $``$ the bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $`\omega d\sigma /d\omega `$ in units $`2\alpha r_0^2`$ versus the vertical displacement of beams $`z_0`$ (in $`\mu m`$). The data taken from .
* Fig.4 The bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $`\omega d\sigma /d\omega `$ in units $`2\alpha r_0^2`$ versus the photon energy in units of initial electron energy ($`x=\omega /\epsilon `$) for the HERA experiment. The upper curve is the standard QED spectrum, the two close curves below are calculated with the beam-size effect taken into account: the bottom curve is actually two merged curves for sets 1 and 2 (the set 1 is $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Delta }_z=50\mu m,\sigma _y=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=250\mu m,z_0=y_0=0`$, set 2 is $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Delta }_z=50\mu m,\sigma _y=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=250\mu m,z_0=20\mu m,y_0=0`$); while the top curve is for set 3 ($`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Delta }_z=54\mu m,\sigma _y=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=250\mu m,z_0=y_0=0`$). The data taken from Fig.5c in .
* Fig.5 The spectral intensity probability $`\omega dw_\gamma /d\omega `$ normalized to one particle in the beam in units $`2\alpha r_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\mathrm{\Sigma }_y/\pi `$ versus the vertical displacement of beams $`z_0`$ (in $`nm`$).


format: text

text:
# A Revised Parallax and its Implications for RX J185635-3754

## 1 Introduction

The compact object RX J185635-3754 (Walter, Wolk, & Neuhäuser 1996; Walter & Matthews 1997) is one of the closest isolated neutron stars to the Sun (Walter, 2001). Because of its relative brightness, its isolated nature, and its apparently thermal spectrum (Pons et al., 2002) from X-ray to optical wavelengths, this object affords the opportunity to study the surface emission properties of neutron stars, and to measure its radius. These are important constraints on the dense matter equation of state and the interior composition of the neutron star. The angular diameter has been estimated by modeling of the spectral energy distribution (e.g., Pons et al. 2002), while the distance is inferred from the trigonometric parallax.

Walter (2001) found a parallax of 16.5$`\pm `$2.3 milli-arcseconds (mas), based on three images obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2). The implications of the inferred 60 pc distance include a likely origin in the Upper Scorpius OB association, possibly as a companion to the runaway O star $`\zeta `$ Oph, an age of 0.9$`\times `$106 years, and a space velocity of about 100 km s-1. The uniform temperature heavy-element atmospheric models of (Pons et al., 2002) yield a radiation radius $`R_{\mathrm{}}=R/\sqrt{12GM/c^2}68`$ km and a redshift $`z=(12GM/Rc^2)^{1/2}10.30.5`$, where $`M`$ and $`R`$ are the neutron star’s mass and radius. The indicated radii and masses are in the ranges 4.5–8 km and 0.6–1.2 M, respectively. The implied radius $`R`$ is smaller than allowed by any reasonable equation of state, including that of self-bound quark matter, unless the mass is less than 0.8 M. In that case the radius could be matched by self-bound quark matter configurations. Relaxing the assumption of uniform surface temperature, Pons et al. (2002) showed that somewhat larger radii, up to R=13 km, are accommodated. The inferred small radius, together with the lack of photospheric features in the X-ray spectrum (Burwitz et al., 2001) and the lack of strong pulsations (Ransom, Gaensler, & Slane, 2002), has led to speculation that the object might be a self-bound quark star (e.g., Xu 2002; Drake et al. 2002).

Kaplan, van Kerkwijk, & Anderson (2002) reexamined the WFPC2 images, using a more sophisticated point spread function-fitting technique to measure source positions and improved (and unpublished) geometric distortion corrections. They concluded that the parallax is 7$`\pm `$2 mas, resulting in a distance about twice what Walter (2001) measured. If true, the observational support for an extremely soft equation of state is removed.

Three observations are the minimum required to measure a parallax. Since the expected parallax corresponds to a sub-pixel shift in the PC camera (45.5 mas pixel-1), we sought and were awarded a fourth observation, which occurred on 2001 March 24, in order to confirm the parallax.

## 2 The Data

The fourth WFPC2 image was scheduled near the time of maximum parallactic displacement on March 30. The first WFPC2 observation was described by Walter & Matthews (1997), and the next two were discussed by Walter (2001). The fourth observation is a 7400 second observation consisting of 6 exposures at two dither positions with nominal offsets of 5.5 pixels along each axis. The nominal pointing position was the same as in all of the other observations. The F606W filter was used to maximize the number of astrometric comparison stars. The choice of the same filter and pointing position was designed to minimize differential instrumental distortions.

The particulars of all four observations are summarized in Table 1. The spectrophotometry has been discussed by Pons et al. (2002).

## 3 Data Analysis

We reanalyzed the images obtained at all four epochs, taking into account corrections discussed by Kaplan, van Kerkwijk, & Anderson (2002). We made no attempt to perform absolute astrometry. All positions are measured with respect to the first epoch (1996.7). The images were re-downloaded from the Multimission Archive at STScI (MAST) prior to analysis to ensure that the best instrumental calibrations were applied using the MAST on-the-fly-calibration facility.

We employed two independent measurement techniques and three independent analysis techniques, as described below.

### 3.1 Measurement of Source Positions

The first measurement of the source positions was performed by coadding and median-filtering the data obtained at each dither point, resulting in two images per epoch. We did not analyze the individual images, primarily because of S/N considerations. We fitted the positions of the targets in each pair of images, with a 2-dimensional Lorentzian function as template (using the IDL MPFIT2DPEAK111http://astrog.physics.wisc.edu/~craigm/idl/fitting.html  function). We corrected the raw Y positions for the 34th row error, using the prescription in Anderson & King (1999), and then applied the geometric distortion correction from Holtzmann et al. (1995). Uncertainties in the positions are the formal 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainties of the fit parameters, based on counting statistics in the images. To these uncertainties we added in quadrature an uncertainty of 0.03 pixels to account for systematic effects of non-uniformities in the intra-pixel response. For the subsequent analysis, we used the same reference objects (mostly field stars) as employed in Walter (2001), except that stars 109, 121, 125 and 126 were removed because of difficulties in fitting their positions.

In the second measurement method we used the HSTphot software (Dolphin, 2002). This code fits the point spread functions generated with the TinyTim (Krist, 1993) software. We fitted all the images from each observation, at both dither positions, simultaneously. Dolphin (2002) claims an astrometric accuracy of 0.03 pixels with this software. The HSTphot astrometry corrects for the 34th row error, but does not account for the geometric distortions, for which we applied the Holtzmann et al. (1995) correction. We followed all the processing steps described in the HSTphot manual prior to running HSTphot. HSTphot confirms that the objects identified as extended in Table 2 of Walter (2001) are indeed extended; all other objects are consistent with point sources. We did not include the extended objects 104, 108, or 109 in this analysis.

### 3.2 Analysis of the source positions

We analyzed the measured positions by three independent methods. The derived proper motions and parallaxes are presented in Table 2.

#### 3.2.1 Full Astrometric Solution

First, we performed full $`\chi ^2`$ minimizations for the proper motions and parallaxes of the objects in the field, including image offsets, residual rotations from the nominal roll angles, and scale factor changes from the nominal plate scale (45.5 mas pixel-1). This procedure was performed twice, both excluding and including the neutron star in the optimization. In the former case, the proper motion and parallax of the neutron star were obtained using the image offsets, residual rotations and scale factor changes from the other objects. This distinction was made since the expected proper motion and parallax of the neutron star are much greater than for those expected from the field objects. As anticipated, we found the parallax and proper motion of the neutron star are slightly smaller in the second analysis. The results quoted in Table 2 are from the first analysis.

#### 3.2.2 Independent X,Y Regressions

Secondly, we determined the proper motion and parallax of the neutron star independently in the N-S and E-W directions. We registered the images with the assumption that the mean proper motions and parallaxes of the field stars are negligible. We rotated the measured positions to an equatorial coordinate frame using the nominal roll angles. We registered the images by shifting by the median offset in each coordinate. We iterated the registration, excluding stars whose residual differences are significant at $`>`$3$`\sigma `$ significance. Registration using a weighted mean shift produced insignificant differences. We then determined the deviations from the nominal roll angle and plate scale by minimizing the diffences between the positions at each epoch and those of the first epoch. After resetting the roll angles and the plate scales, we re-registered the images. Uncertainties in the image registrations are about 0.02 pixels (1 mas) in each coordinate.

We then shifted the measured position of the neutron star by the plate offsets, residual rotations and plate scale changes. The parallax vector was determined by independent linear regression in both right ascension and declination. The true parallax is the projection of this vector in the direction of the parallactic motion (position angle 83).

In both the independent X,Y regressions and the full astrometric solution we find that the differences from the nominal rotation ($`<0.02`$ degrees) and plate scale ($`<0.03`$%) are small but significant. These affect the determination of the parallax at about the 20% level.

#### 3.2.3 Proper Motions From Annual Pairs

As a safety check, we also determined the proper motions of all objects using the pairs of observations separated by integral years. The residuals at the half-year intervals are the sum of the parallactic shift and the measurement errors. We found a residual shifts in right ascension consistent with the parallax of the neutron star determined in the other analyses, but no significant residual shift in declination. The proper motions and parallaxes determined in this measurement are fully consistent with those in Table 2, but with uncertainties about a factor of three larger.

## 4 Discussion and Astrophysical Implications

The various techniques yield the same results within the uncertainties, and are presented in Table 2. For the subsequent discussion, we use the $`117\pm 12`$ pc distance obtained with full least squares minimization using the HSTphot positions, which have slightly smaller nominal errors than those of the 2D fits. This result is robust because it is based on 4 observations, two at each apex of the parallactic ellipse. This parallax is significantly smaller than that published earlier (Walter, 2001). We attribute the difference to the omission of the geometric distortion of the camera, which amount to nearly 4 pixels at the edges of the fields (Holtzmann et al., 1995). The revised parallax is slightly larger than, but agrees to within errors, with that reported by Kaplan, van Kerkwijk, & Anderson (2002).

We examined all the stars in the field for their proper motions and parallaxes. The mean proper motions in (X,Y) are (-1,2)$`\times `$10-5 mas yr-1, respectively, and the mean parallax is 4$`\times `$10-6 mas. This justifies the assumptions used for the image registration in §3.2.2.

### 4.1 Origin and Age

(Walter, 2001) suggested that RX J185635-3754 had its origin in the Upper Scorpius OB association. This conclusion is unaltered by the present analysis. The proper motion is essentially unchanged from what was originally reported, but the tangential space velocity is revised to $`185(D/117\mathrm{pc})`$ km s-1. For assumed radial velocities larger than -150 km s-1, the projected path of the neutron star traverses the projected position of the Upper Scorpius OB association within the last 2 million years.

Assuming that the neutron star originated in this association, the distance of closest approach of the neutron star to the center of the association is a function of the assumed radial velocity. For a present distance of 117 pc, the smallest separation of the star from the center of the association is about $`8.5\pm 2.0`$ pc, which occurs for an assumed radial velocity of -10 km s-1. The closest approach occurred in this case about 0.5 million years ago. This separation is appreciably smaller than the size of the association, extrapolating its present size backwards in time.

If RX J185635-3754 was born in the Upper Sco association, and its age is 5$`\times `$105 years, it is no longer a viable candidate for the binary companion of the runaway O star $`\zeta `$ Oph. Hoogerwoerf, de Bruijne, & de Zeeuw (2001) argue that the pulsar PSR J1932+1059 is the likely companion. RX J185635-3754 is either the result of a more recent supernova, or is unrelated to the Upper Sco association.

The conclusion of Pons et al. (2002) that RX J185635-3754 is, within uncertainties, on the standard cooling curve expected for neutron stars is unaltered by the smaller revised age: the luminosity of the neutron star is also increased. The estimates quoted in Pons et al. (2002) for the magnetic field strength and spin period of the neutron star, based upon the observation of a bow shock nebula by van Kerkwijk & Kulkarni (2000) and a discussion by Walter & Wijers (2002), are revised to $`B10^{11}`$ G and $`P0.15`$ s.

### 4.2 The Radius

The most important reason to measure an accurate distance to this neutron star is to constrain its mass and radius. Our measurements indicate that, to a first approximation, these quantities will be approximately twice those estimated by Pons et al. (2002). For the heavy-element model atmosphere fits (Pons et al., 2002) of the spectral energy distribution of the neutron star, from optical to X-ray wavelengths, the revised mass and radius of RX J185635-3754 are shown in Figure A Revised Parallax and its Implications for RX J185635-3754. The model atmosphere fits, coupled with the revised distance of 117 pc, constrain both $`R_{\mathrm{}}15\pm 3`$ km and the redshift $`z0.35\pm 0.15`$. In turn, the quantities $`R`$ and $`M`$ are constrained to $`R11.4\pm 2.0`$ km and $`M1.7\pm 0.4`$ M. These values are permitted by a large number of current equations of state (Lattimer & Prakash, 2001), including those containing exotic matter such as quarks in their cores. However, these constraints appear to be inconsistent with extremely soft equations of state.

Since the analysis by Pons et al. (2002), new high resolution Chandra X-ray spectra have become available. Burwitz et al. (2001) find that the Chandra X-ray spectra is consistent with a blackbody temperature of 63 eV, and show that there is no evidence for the absorption lines and edges expected from a non-magnetized heavy-element atmosphere. The hotter temperature requires a smaller angular diameter R$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}/D0.037`$ km pc-1 for the X-ray emitting blackbody (the statement by Drake et al. 2002 that the predicted optical flux increases by 10% is incorrect; the predicted optical flux actually decreases by about a factor of 3 relative to the extrapolation from the ROSAT blackbody because the inferred angular diameter decreases by nearly a factor of 2). This implies $`R_{\mathrm{}}4.2`$ km, even including a revised, increased distance (Drake et al., 2002). On this basis, together with the featureless spectrum and lack of significant pulsations, Drake et al. (2002) suggested that the object may be a self-bound quark star.

However, as demonstrated by Pons et al. (2002), and earlier by Pavlov et al. (1996) and by Rajagopal & Romani (1996), the inferred radius depends critically upon the details of the atmosphere and the spectral energy distribution. Comparing the ROSAT and EUVE X-ray observations with optical and ultraviolet data, Pons et al. (2002) showed that the optical and ultraviolet radiation cannot originate from the X-ray blackbody (see Figure A Revised Parallax and its Implications for RX J185635-3754). Either the X-ray emission arises in a hot polar cap, or there is significant modification of the spectral energy distribution from radiative transfer through a stellar atmosphere. The ROSAT/EUVE thermal component has an effective blackbody temperature of 55 eV, so the higher temperature inferred from Chandra observations only makes this argument more striking.

If the surface has two different thermal components, we can follow the formalism of Pons et al. (2002) to estimate the true radius. Extrapolation of the 63 eV blackbody fit to the Chandra spectrum underpredicts the optical flux by a factor of 6 (Figure A Revised Parallax and its Implications for RX J185635-3754). Attribution of the optical flux to the cooler part of a two-temperature blackbody surface results in R/D $`<`$0.18, or a maximum radiation radius R$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}21`$ km at a distance of 117 pc. In reality, the situation will be more complex than a simple one or two component blackbody. Nevertheless, the atmospheric models of Pons et al. (2002) have the net effect that the spectral emissions from a neutron star behave similarly to that of the two component blackbody model: the total radiating surface area must be substantially larger than a one component blackbody model to reconcile the optical data and X-ray data. On this basis, we suggest that the Chandra data will not dramatically change the conclusions summarized in Figure 1.

We are examining model atmosphere fits to the Chandra spectrum as well as to the full multiwavelength spectral energy distribution (work in progress). Pons et al. (2002) discussed only non-magnetic model atmospheres. New generations of magnetic model atmospheres are becoming available, and may be able to better reproduce the observed spectral energy distribution, as well as the lack of significant spectral features and pulsations. As we cannot yet select which atmospheric model best represents the full spectral energy distribution, the radius inferred from blackbody fits to the X-rays alone represent no more than lower limits to the true radiation radius.

We emphasize in addition that the apparent disagreement between the Chandra and ROSAT spectral fits is troubling, as is a possible disagreement between the Chandra and EUVE fluxes where their responses overlap. Pons et al. (2002) found that the ROSAT and EUVE fluxes were mutually consistent, in comparison. There may be unresolved calibration issues which affect our ability to determine the radius at the level needed to distinguish various equations of state. Until we understand the full spectral energy distribution, it is premature to infer that the radius is substantially smaller than that expected from a normal neutron star.

This research has been supported by NASA through grants GO 074080196A and GO 081490197A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, by LTSA grant NAG57978, and by the USDOE grant AC02-ER-40317. We acknowledge stimulating converations with F. Özel concerning magnetized neutron star atmospheres, and appreciate ongoing discussions with M. Prakash about the implications for nuclear theory.