text:
# Unified Classical and Quantum Radiation Mechanism for Ultra-Relativistic Electrons in Curved and Inhomogeneous Magnetic Fields

## I Introduction

Since Ginzburg (1953), Shklovski (1953) and Gordon (1954) suggested that the optical radiation of Crab Nebula was synchrotron radiation and would be found to be polarized, the radiation of ultra-relativistic electrons moving in magnetic fields had become a basic mechanism for the understanding of radiation emission of astrophysical objects. At high electron velocities the distribution of the radiation becomes a narrow cone of half-angle $`\theta `$ given by $`\theta =\gamma ^1=\left(1\beta ^2\right)^{1/2}=mc^2E^1`$ (Landau & Lifshitz 1975), with $`\beta =\frac{v}{c}`$ and $`E`$ the total energy of the electron. This directed beam of radiation is typical regardless of the relation between the acceleration and velocity vectors. The radiation is primarily directed in the direction transverse to the magnetic field.

Synchrotron radiation plays a particularly important role in the high energy emission of pulsars (Cheng, Ho & Ruderman 1986a, Cheng, Ho & Ruderman 1986b). But in the radio region the curvature radiation, resulting from the motion of particles along curved magnetic lines, plays an equally important role (Ruderman & Sutherland 1975). These two types of radiation have been usually considered as separate mechanisms. A unifying treatment, including in a single formalism the effects of both radiation mechanisms, has been proposed by Zhang & Cheng (1995) and Cheng & Zhang (1996), called the synchrocurvature radiation mechanism. In their approach the critical frequency of the radiation of the electron is

$$\omega _c=\frac{3}{2}\gamma ^3\frac{c}{\rho }\left[\frac{r_B^2+\rho r_B3\rho }{\rho r_B}\mathrm{cos}^4\alpha +\frac{3\rho }{r_B}\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha +\frac{\rho ^2}{r_B^2}\mathrm{sin}^4\alpha \right]^{1/2},$$
(1)
where $`\omega _B=\frac{eB}{\gamma mc}`$, $`r_B=\frac{c\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\omega _B}`$, $`\alpha `$ is the pitch angle and $`\rho `$ is the radius of curvature of the local magnetic field. The total radiation power spectrum is given in the unified mechanism by

$$\frac{dI}{d\omega }=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^2\gamma }{4\pi r_c^{}}\left\{\left[F\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}\right)\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}K_{2/3}\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}\right)\right]+\frac{\left[\left(r_B+\rho \right)\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2+r_B\omega _B^2\right]^2}{c^4Q_2^2}\left[F\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}\right)+\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}K_{2/3}\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}\right)\right]\right\},$$
(2)
where $`F(x)=x_x^{\mathrm{}}K_{5/3}(y)𝑑y`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\frac{v\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\rho }`$, $`r_c^{}=\frac{c^2}{\left(r_B+\rho \right)\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2+r_B\omega _B^2}`$ and

$$Q_2^2=\frac{1}{r_B}\left(\frac{r_B^2+\rho r_B3\rho ^2}{\rho ^3}\mathrm{cos}^4\alpha +\frac{3}{\rho }\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha +\frac{1}{r_B}\mathrm{sin}^4\alpha \right).$$
(3)
$`K_n`$ denotes the MacDonald function of order $`n`$.

Due to the complicated character of the particle motion in a realistic physical situation (the magnetic field of pulsars is of dipole form), to obtain the previous formulae the simplifying assumption of a circular magnetic field with constant magnitude has been assumed. This radiation mechanism generalizes all the classical results of ordinary synchrotron and curvature radiation. Zhang & Yuan (1998) have studied the corresponding radiation mechanism in the quantum domain by applying the method of equivalent photon scattering (Lieu & Axford 1993; Lieu & Axford 1995; Lieu, Axford & McKenzie 1997). The curvature of the magnetic field could make electron’s radiation spectrum distinct from the power-law one, widely used in the astrophysical literatures (Zhang, Xia & Yang 2000).

However, in obtaining the unified synchrocurvature mechanism (Zhang & Cheng 1995; Cheng & Zhang 1996), a non-physical, curved constant magnitude magnetic field model has been used. Such a field does not satisfy the Maxwell field equations in vacuum. On the other hand a curved physical magnetic field is inhomogeneous, with the density of the magnetic field lines varying from point to point. The inhomogeneity of the magnetic field creates a magnetic gradient $`B`$, which generates a transverse drift motion of the particle and gives a non-negligeable contribution to the radiation spectrum.

It is the purpose of the present paper to consider the general radiation mechanism from a relativistic electron moving in an inhomogeneous curved magnetic field, with the corrections due to the magnetic field gradient explicitly taken into account. We call this mechanism generalized synchrocurvature radiation mechanism. For this case the general motion of the electron can be analyzed by using the concept of the guiding center (Alfven & Falthammar 1963), which separates the motion $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ of a particle into motions $`\stackrel{}{v}_{}`$ parallel and $`\stackrel{}{v}_{}`$ perpendicular to the field.

There are two basic methods for investigating the radiation spectrum from relativistic charged particles. The first one is based on the explicit calculation of the electromagnetic fields and the subsequent determination of the radiation characteristics from the asymptotic form of the Poynting vector (Landau & Lifshitz 1975; Jackson 1998). A second method, without explicit reference to the fields, directly links the nature of the source to the associated radiation (Schwinger, Tsai & Erber 1976). Both these methods are of considerable calculational complexity. In order to obtain a general expression for the radiation spectrum of the electron moving in the curved magnetic field we first derive, by using Schwinger’s method, a general expression for the classical radiation spectrum and characteristic frequency of the electron in arbitrary motion. All the radiation characteristics of the ultra-relativistic particle depend on the absolute value of the acceleration of the particle. With the use of these general formulae the classical radiation spectrum of the electron in the inhomogeneous magnetic field can immediately be obtained, once the acceleration of the particle is known.

The same results can also be obtained using some simple physical considerations. Since the effect of the combined curvature and magnetic drift motion can be described in terms of an effective electric field, the combination of this field with the magnetic field gives an effective electromagnetic field. Substitution of this effective field in the standard expressions for the synchrotron radiation in the presence of constant magnetic fields leads to a consistent description of the generalized synchrocurvature radiation mechanism in both classical and quantum domains.

In the case of an extremely strong magnetic field there are several effects which become important in obtaining the synchrotron spectrum for high values of electron energy. If the peak in the photon energy spectrum approaches the electron kinetic energy, then the electron tends to lose almost all of their energy in single photon emission events and the discrete nature of the emission cannot be ignored. The classical value for the critical radiation frequency, $`\gamma ^2\omega _c`$, exceeds the electron kinetic energy when $`B>\gamma (\gamma 1)B_0`$, where $`B_0=4.414\times 10^{13}G`$ is the critical field strength (Akhiezer & Shulga 1996). Therefore the classical radiation formula can violate conservation of energy. Quantum effects will also be important if the cyclotron energy approaches the electron rest mass, when even relativistic electrons may occupy low Landau states. Quantum effects such as recoil of the emitting electrons will affect the spectrum at low energies near the first few harmonics. Therefore it is important to consider the supplementary quantum effects due to the magnetic field inhomogeneities on the generalized synchrocurvature radiation mechanism and on the radiative transitions rates for relativistic electrons in strong magnetic fields of the order of $`10^{12}G`$. Such field strength lead to an extremely rapid energy losses of charged particles.

The present paper is organized as follows. The motion of electrons in curved inhomogeneous magnetic fields is considered in Section 2. The corresponding general radiation mechanism is described in the classical domain in Section 3. In Section 4 we discuss the quantum corrections to the radiation spectrum. Radiation transitions from low Landau levels to the ground state are discussed in Section 5. In Section 6 we discuss and conclude our results.

## II Motion of charged particles in inhomogeneous curved magnetic fields

Let us assume first a constant and homogeneous magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}=B\stackrel{}{n}`$, with $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ the unit vector directed along the magnetic field. The equation of motion of an electron in this field is $`\frac{d\stackrel{}{p}_0}{dt}=\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{v}_0\times \stackrel{}{B}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{p}_0=\frac{E}{c^2}\stackrel{}{v}_0`$. $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_0`$ are the total energy (which is a constant of the motion) and the velocity of the particle, respectively. By integrating the equation of motion we find $`\stackrel{}{v}_0=\omega _B`$ $`\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{b}`$, $`\omega _B=\frac{eB}{\gamma mc}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}=const.`$ (Jackson 1998). $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ is the position vector of the particle satisfying the relation $`\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{r}=b_{}=v_{}(t=0)`$.

Suppose that the magnetic field is homogeneous with the lines of force curved with a radius $`R_c`$. In a vacuum such a field would obey the Maxwell field equations only if combined with a magnetic field gradient. The net drift therefore would be the sum of the curvature drift and the gradient drift.

To derive the curvature drift alone, let us start from a simplified configuration without a magnetic field gradient. Then the drift of the particle arises from a centrifugal force $`\stackrel{}{F}_{cf}`$ acting on the particle during its motion parallel to the field. Therefore the drift is determined by the speed $`\stackrel{}{v}_{}`$ parallel to the field, where $`\left|\stackrel{}{v}_{}\right|=v_0\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ and $`\alpha `$ is the angle between the vectors $`\stackrel{}{v}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$. The centrifugal force gives rise to an acceleration of magnitude $`\frac{v_{}}{R_c}`$, which can be viewed as arising from an effective electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}_{eff}=\frac{\gamma m}{e}v_{}\frac{\stackrel{}{R}_c}{R_c^2}`$ (Jackson 1998). This combined effective electric and magnetic fields cause a curvature drift velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}_C=c\frac{\gamma m}{e}v_{}^2\frac{\stackrel{}{R}_c\times \stackrel{}{B}}{R_c^2B^2}`$.

In a real field, a field gradient would exist in addition to the curvature. In a vacuum without electric currents the magnetic field obeys $`\times \stackrel{}{B}=0`$. In cylindrical coordinates $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ has only one component in $`\theta `$, $`B_\theta \frac{1}{r}`$, $`B`$ has only one in $`r`$ and $`\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ only one in $`z`$, given by $`\left(\times \stackrel{}{B}\right)_z=\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r}\left(rB_\theta \right)=0`$. Then $`\left|\stackrel{}{B}\right|`$ is proportional to $`\frac{1}{R_c}`$ and $`\frac{\left|\stackrel{}{B}\right|}{\left|\stackrel{}{B}\right|}=\frac{\stackrel{}{R}_c}{R_c^2}`$. Therefore the gradient drift reads $`\stackrel{}{v}_B=c\frac{\gamma m}{2e}v_{}^2\frac{\stackrel{}{R}_c\times \stackrel{}{B}}{R_c^2B^2}`$ (Jackson 1998), with $`v_{}=v_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ .

Combining all these results we obtain the velocity of a charged particle moving in a curved inhomogeneous magnetic field in the form

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{v}_0+\frac{\gamma mc}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c^2B^2}\stackrel{}{R}_c\times \stackrel{}{B}.$$
(4)
For a rigorous deduction of the drift velocity equation in curved inhomogeneous magnetic fields see Somov(1994). The magnitude of the velocity vector is given by

$$v^2=\left|\stackrel{}{v}\right|^2=v_0^2+\frac{2\gamma mcv_0}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_cB}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\frac{\gamma ^2m^2c^2}{e^2}\left(\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_cB}\right)^2,$$
(5)
where we have taken into account that $`\stackrel{}{v}_0\left(\stackrel{}{R}_c\times \stackrel{}{B}\right)0`$.

The acceleration of the particle follows from the equation of motion $`\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}=\frac{e}{\gamma mc}\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ and is given by

$$\stackrel{}{a}=\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}=\frac{e}{\gamma mc}\stackrel{}{v}_0\times \stackrel{}{B}+\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c^2}\stackrel{}{R}_c.$$
(6)
The magnitude of the acceleration is

$$a^2=\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2=\frac{e^2}{\gamma ^2m^2c^2}v_0^2B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +\frac{2ev_0B}{\gamma mc}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\frac{\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)^2}{R_c^2}.$$
(7)
This equation can also be written in the form

$$\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2=a_0^2\left(1+\frac{\gamma mc}{ev_0B\mathrm{sin}\alpha }\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}\right)^2,$$
(8)
where $`a_0=\frac{ev_0B\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\gamma mc}`$ is the acceleration of the electron in the circular motion transversal to the magnetic field.

The acceleration and velocity vectors satisfy the important relation $`\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{v}=0\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{v}`$, which follows from $`\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{a}=\left(e/\gamma mc\right)\stackrel{}{v}\left(\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B}\right)=\left(e/\gamma mc\right)\stackrel{}{B}\left(\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{v}\right)=0`$.

On the other hand from the equation of motion of the electron given by Eq.(6) we can see that an effective electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}_{eff}`$ can also be associated to the combined curvature and magnetic gradient drift motion, with

$$\stackrel{}{E}_{eff}=\frac{\gamma m}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c^2}\stackrel{}{R}_c.$$
(9)
This observation plays a fundamental role in obtaining the radiation spectrum of the electron moving in curved inhomogeneous magnetic fields.

## III Classical Radiation spectrum

With the use of the previous results the basic characteristics of the radiation of an ultra-relativistic electron moving along the field lines in an inhomogeneous magnetic field can be easily calculated.

The total energy radiated per unit time $`P=\frac{d\epsilon }{dt}`$ can be obtained from the general expression (Landau and Lifshitz 1975)

$$P=\frac{d\epsilon }{dt}=\frac{2e^2}{3c^3}\frac{a^2\frac{\left(\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{a}\right)^2}{c^2}}{\left(1\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)^3}=\frac{2e^2}{3c^3}\frac{a^2}{\left(1\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)^2},$$
(10)
where we have taken into account that in the present model the acceleration and velocity vectors are perpendicular. Then a simple calculation yields

$$P=\frac{2e^4\gamma ^2}{3m^2c^5}\left[v_0^2B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +\frac{2mcv_0\gamma B}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\frac{m^2c^2\gamma ^2}{e^2}\frac{\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)^2}{R_c^2}\right].$$
(11)
In Eq. (11) and in the followings we denote by $`e`$ the absolute value of the electric charge of the electron, $`e=\left|e\right|`$.

In the limit $`\alpha 0`$ and $`v_0c`$ the particle is moving along the magnetic field lines, and we also have $`v_{}=0`$. Then from Eq. (11) we obtain

$$P=\frac{2e^2}{3c^3}\gamma ^4\frac{v_{}^4}{R_c^2}.$$
(12)
For $`v_{}c`$ we obtain the well-known formula of the curvature radiation power: $`P_{curv}=\frac{2e^2c\gamma ^4}{3R_c^2}`$.

The limiting case of the synchrotron radiation emitted by an ultra-relativistic ($`v_0c`$) electron in a constant magnetic field is recovered for $`R_c\mathrm{}`$, leading to

$$P_{synch}=\frac{2e^4B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \gamma ^2}{3m^2c^3}.$$
(13)
The variations of the power emitted by an ultra-relativistic electron moving in a curved inhomogeneous magnetic field as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$, $`\gamma `$, the magnetic field $`B`$ and the radius of curvature $`R_c`$ are represented in Figs. 1-4. The figures compare $`P`$ for the cases of the synchrotron radiation ($`R_c\mathrm{}`$), curvature radiation ($`\alpha 0`$), the simple synchrocurvature effect and the general synchrocurvature effect with the inhomogeneities of the magnetic field taken into account.

We can see that the initial synchrocurvature results of (Zhang & Cheng 1995; Cheng & Zhang 1996) and the generalized synchrocurvature results agree each other.

For the total radiation emitted into the solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we have (Landau & Lifshitz 1975)

$$d\epsilon _\stackrel{}{n}=\frac{e^2}{4\pi c^3}d\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\frac{2\left(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{a}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{a}\right)}{c\left(1\frac{\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{n}}{c}\right)^4}+\frac{\stackrel{}{a}^2}{\left(1\frac{\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{n}}{c}\right)^3}\frac{\left(1\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{a}\right)^2}{\left(1\frac{\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{n}}{c}\right)^5}\right]𝑑t^{},$$
(14)
where $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is the unit vector in the direction of the radiation and $`t^{}`$ is the retarded time.

If the velocity and acceleration are perpendicular, for the intensity $`dP`$ radiated into the solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we find (Landau & Lifshitz 1975)

$$\frac{dP}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{e^2}{4\pi c^3}a^2\left[\frac{1}{\left(1\frac{v}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^4}\frac{\left(1\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{\left(1\frac{v}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^6}\right],$$
(15)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle of the vector $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ relative to the plane passing through $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{a}`$.

For the relativistic motion of the electron moving in inhomogeneous curved magnetic fields we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi c^3}}a_0^2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma mc}{ev_0B\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}})^2\times `$ (17)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1\frac{v}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{\left(1\frac{v}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^6}}\right].`$
In order to find the spectral distribution of the classical radiation emitted by an electron in the inhomogeneous curved magnetic field we shall use the method introduced initially by Schwinger (1949) and further developed in Schwinger, Tsai & Erber (1976) (for an extensive presentation of the method in the classical domain see also Schwinger, DeRaad, Milton & Tsai (1998)). By using this formalism we obtain first a general exact expression for the radiation spectrum of an electric charge in arbitrary motion.

The total radiated power per unit frequency emitted by a relativistic electric charge in motion on an arbitrary trajectory is given by the following expression (Schwinger 1949; Schwinger, Tsai & Erber 1976)

$$\frac{dP(\omega ,t)}{d\omega }=\frac{\omega }{4\pi ^2}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}^{}𝑑t^{}\mathrm{cos}\left[\omega \left(tt^{}\right)\right]\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{\omega }{c}\left|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}\right|\right]}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}\right|}\left[\rho (\stackrel{}{r},t)\rho (\stackrel{}{r}^{},t^{})\frac{1}{c^2}\stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{r},t)\stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{r}^{},t^{})\right],$$
(18)
where $`\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ are the electric charge and current densities, respectively. For a point electron of charge $`e`$, located at the variable arbitrary position $`\stackrel{}{R}(t)`$, we have $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r},t)=e\delta \left(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}(t)\right)`$and $`\stackrel{}{j}=e\stackrel{}{v}(t)\delta \left(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}(t)\right)`$, where $`\stackrel{}{v}(t)=\frac{d\stackrel{}{R}}{dt}`$ is the velocity of the electron. With the use of these expressions for $`\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ the spatial integrations in Eq. (18) can be performed and after some simple transformations we obtain for the radiation spectrum the following representation:

$$\frac{dP(\omega ,t)}{d\omega }=\frac{\omega e^2}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left[1\frac{\stackrel{}{v}(t)\stackrel{}{v}\left(t+\tau \right)}{c^2}\right]\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{\omega }{c}\left|\stackrel{}{R}\left(t+\tau \right)\stackrel{}{R}\left(t\right)\right|\right]}{\left|\stackrel{}{R}\left(t+\tau \right)\stackrel{}{R}\left(t\right)\right|}\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega \tau \right)𝑑\tau .$$
(19)
To evaluate the different terms in Eq. (19) we use the power series representation of $`\stackrel{}{R}\left(t+\tau \right)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}(t)`$. Hence we first obtain

$$\left|\stackrel{}{R}\left(t+\tau \right)\stackrel{}{R}\left(t\right)\right|=\left|\stackrel{}{v}\tau +\frac{\tau ^2}{2}\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}+\frac{\tau ^3}{6}\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{v}}{dt^2}\right|\left|\stackrel{}{v}\right|\tau \frac{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2}{c}\frac{\tau ^3}{24}.$$
(20)
To obtain Eq. (20) we have taken into account that $`\stackrel{}{v}\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}^2}{dt}0`$ in the extrem limit of high velocities $`vc`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}\frac{d^2\stackrel{}{v}}{dt^2}=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\stackrel{}{v}\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}\right)\left(\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}\right)^2\stackrel{}{a}^2`$. In the second term of Eq. (20) we have also substituted $`v`$ by $`c`$.

By means of similar transformations we can evaluate the velocity dependent term in the radiation spectrum:

$$1\frac{\stackrel{}{v}(t)\stackrel{}{v}\left(t+\tau \right)}{c^2}=1\beta ^2+\frac{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2}{c^2}\frac{\tau ^2}{2}.$$
(21)
Therefore the radiation spectrum can be represented in the form

$$\frac{dP(\omega ,t)}{d\omega }=\frac{2\omega e^2}{\pi c}_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1\beta ^2+\frac{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2}{c^2}\frac{\tau ^2}{2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\omega \left(\beta \tau \frac{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2}{c^2}\frac{\tau ^3}{24}\right)\right]}{\tau }\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega \tau \right)𝑑\tau .$$
(22)
In the denominator of Eq. (22) we have considered only the first order approximation for $`\left|\stackrel{}{R}\left(t+\tau \right)\stackrel{}{R}\left(t\right)\right|`$ and the high velocity limit with $`vc`$. By transforming the product of the trigonometric functions in sum the above integral becomes:

$$\frac{dP(\omega ,t)}{d\omega }=\frac{\omega e^2}{\pi c}_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1\beta ^2+\frac{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2}{c^2}\frac{\tau ^2}{2}\right)\left\{\mathrm{sin}\left[\omega \left(1\beta \right)\tau +\omega \frac{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2}{c^2}\frac{\tau ^3}{24}\right]\mathrm{sin}\left(2\omega \tau \right)\right\}\frac{d\tau }{\tau }.$$
(23)
Introducing a new variable $`\tau =2\frac{c}{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|}\sqrt{1\beta ^2}x`$, Eq. (23) takes the form

$$\frac{dP(\omega ,t)}{d\omega }=\frac{\omega e^2}{\pi c}\left(1\beta ^2\right)_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1+2x^2\right)\left\{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{3}{2}\xi \left(x+\frac{1}{3}x^3\right)\right]\mathrm{sin}bx\right\}\frac{dx}{x},$$
(24)
where $`b=4\omega \frac{c}{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|}\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$ and $`\xi =\frac{2}{3}\omega \frac{c}{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|}\left(1\beta ^2\right)^{3/2}`$.

As is shown in Appendix, the above integral is equal to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}K_{5/3}\left(\eta \right)𝑑\eta `$. Hence we obtain the following general form of the classical radiation spectrum of an ultrarelativistic electron in arbitrary motion:

$$\frac{dP(\omega ,t)}{d\omega }=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^2}{2\pi }\frac{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|}{c^2}\gamma F\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}\right),$$
(25)
where the critical frequency $`\omega _c`$ is given by

$$\omega _c=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|}{c}\gamma ^3.$$
(26)
Therefore the radiation spectrum of an electron in arbitrary motion is entirely determined by the magnitude of the acceleration of the particle along its trajectory.

In order to find the spectral distribution of the radiation emitted by an electron in the inhomogeneous curved magnetic field we use the expression for the acceleration of the electron, given by Eq. (7), in Eqs. (25) and (26), thus obtaining:

$$dP=d\omega \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\pi }\frac{e^3}{mc^2}\sqrt{B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +2\frac{\gamma mB}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\frac{\gamma ^2m^2}{e^2}\frac{\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)^2}{R_c^2}}F\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}\right),$$
(27)
where the critical frequency of the unified radiation spectrum is defined by

$$\omega _c=\frac{3e}{2mc}\sqrt{B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +2\frac{\gamma mB}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\frac{\gamma ^2m^2}{e^2}\frac{\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)^2}{R_c^2}}\left(\frac{E}{mc^2}\right)^2.$$
(28)
To obtain Eqs. (27) and (28) we have also considered the limit $`v_0c`$ in the expression of the acceleration of the particle moving along the curved lines of the inhomogeneous magnetic field.

For $`R_c\mathrm{}`$, from Eq. (28) we obtain the well-known synchrotron critical frequency $`\omega _{synch}=\frac{3eB\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2mc}\left(\frac{E}{mc^2}\right)^2`$ (Landau & Lifshitz 1975). In the limit $`\alpha 0`$, the motion of the particle is along the magnetic field lines and the radiation is the curvature radiation. By taking $`v_{}=0`$ and $`v_{}c`$ , from Eq. (28) we obtain $`\omega _{curv}=\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{E}{mc^2}\right)^3\frac{c}{R_c}`$. In the limit $`R_c\mathrm{}`$, from Eq.(27) we obtain the spectral distribution of the synchrotron radiation, $`dP=d\omega \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\pi }\frac{e^3B\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{mc^2}F\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}\right)`$ (Landau & Lifshitz 1975).

In Figs. 5-8 we present the comparison of the behavior of the critical frequency of the radiation, obtained from Eq. (28) , with the values obtained by using the synchrocurvature emission mechanism of (Cheng & Zhang 1995; Cheng & Zhang 1996) and with the synchrotron and curvature radiation mechanisms, respectively. The agreement between the generalized synchrocurvature radiation in inhomogeneous magnetic fields and the synchrocurvature mechanism of Cheng & Zhang (1996) is very good.

The more physical approach adopted in the present paper leads to results very similar to that based on the detailed and complicated mathematical formalism of the simple synchrocurvature mechanism.

The spectral distribution of the total (over all directions) radiation intensity $`\frac{dP}{d\omega }`$ as a function of the frequency $`\omega `$ is represented for an ultrarelativistic electron moving in a curved inhomogeneous magnetic field, for the synchrotron radiation, for the curvature radiation and for the synchrocurvature mechanism of Cheng & Zhang (1996) in Fig. 9.

To obtain the total radiation intensity $`P(\omega )`$ we have to integrate the spectral distribution of the radiation over $`\omega `$. The distributions of the intensity for the generalized synchrocurvature model, the synchrocurvature model of Cheng & Zhang (1996), synchrotron radiation and curvature radiation are presented in Fig. 10.

In this case also there is an excellent agreement between the results obtained from Eq. (27) and the synchrocurvature model.

The degree of polarization of the total power per unit frequency interval at a given frequency is defined as

$$\pi \left(\omega \right)=\frac{K_{2/3}\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _c}\right)}{_{\omega /\omega _c}^{\mathrm{}}K_{5/3}\left(\xi \right)𝑑\xi }.$$
(29)
The variation of $`\pi \left(\omega \right)`$ as a function of frequency for the generalized synchrocurvature mechanism, synchrotron radiation and curvature radiation is represented in Fig. 11.

As already mentioned and extensively discussed in Cheng & Zhang (1996), the degree of polarization can, in principle, provide an effective observational tool in order to distinguish between the different radiation mechanisms.

The spectral distribution of the radiation for an electron moving in an inhomogeneous curved magnetic field can also be obtained by using a phenomenological approach, thus avoiding lengthy derivations of the basic formulae. Also we obtain a physical interpretation of the origin of the radiation spectrum in more complicated magnetic fields. To do this we use the result that the motion along the curved magnetic field lines and the gradient of the field can be considered, from a physical point of view, as an evolution under the action of combined magnetic and electric forces. The radiation in a given direction occurs mainly from the portion of the trajectory of the electron in which the velocity of the particle is almost parallel to that direction. To take into account the effect of the electric field we define a total electromagnetic force $`eF_{eff}`$, so that $`\left(eF_{eff}\right)^2`$ is the sum of the squares of the transverse components of the Lorentz force $`\stackrel{}{F}_{eff}=e\stackrel{}{E}_{eff}+\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{v}_0\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ (Landau & Lifshitz 1975), which can be considered constant within this segment. Since a small segment of a curve can be considered as an arc of circle, we can apply the general results obtained for radiation during uniform motion in a circle in the presence of a constant magnetic field, replacing $`B`$ by $`F_{eff}`$, the value of the transverse force at a given point.

In particular it follows that the main part of the radiation is concentrated in the frequency range (Landau & Lifshitz 1975)

$$\omega \omega _{Feff}\left(\frac{E}{mc^2}\right)^3=\frac{eF_{eff}}{mc}\left(\frac{E}{mc^2}\right)^2.$$
(30)
By assuming an ultra-relativistic motion with $`vc`$ of the charged particle in the curved inhomogeneous magnetic field, we obtain for $`F_{eff}`$

$$F_{eff}=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{B}^2+2\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{E}_{eff}+\stackrel{}{E}_{eff}^2}=\sqrt{B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +2\frac{\gamma mB}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\frac{\gamma ^2m^2}{e^2}\frac{\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)^2}{R_c^2}}.$$
(31)
Therefore to obtain the electromagnetic radiation due to the motion in the combined magnetic and electric field we must substitute the magnetic field $`B\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ with the effective electromagnetic field in the expressions of the power and characteristic frequency, corresponding to the radiation in the presence of a constant magnetic field.

As a first example of this procedure we consider the total power emitted by the electron in the generalized synchrocurvature model. By substituting the magnetic field $`B\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ in the formula giving the power emitted by synchrotron radiation, Eq. (13), we immediately obtain Eq. (11), the power emitted via the generalized mechanism.

By performing the same substitution in the expressions of the radiation spectrum and of the characteristic frequency of the synchrotron radiation, we obtain the exact radiation spectrum and characteristic frequency of the unified radiation mechanism, given by Eqs. (27) and (28). Therefore this physical approach is consistent with the exact results, obtained without any particular assumptions.

## IV Generalized synchrocurvature radiation in quantum domain

In the previous Section we have considered the classical radiation emitted by a charged particle moving in a curved inhomogeneous magnetic field. Due to the complicated character of this problem, we have adopted a simple formalism based on the definition of an effective electromagnetic field $`F_{eff}`$, combining the effects of the space varying magnetic field and of the electric field associated to the motion of the particle along the magnetic field lines. The radiation spectrum of the electron, involving the synchrotron, curvature and emission due to magnetic inhomogeneities mechanisms, has been obtained by substituting the magnetic field $`B`$ in the classical formulae of the synchrotron radiation by $`F_{eff}`$. The numerical results obtained by this simple method are in a quite good agreement with the results obtained by using the formalism of (Cheng & Zhang 1995; Cheng & Zhang 1996), based on a complicated mathematical approach.

It is the purpose of the present Section to extend this method to the study of the quantum effects arising in the radiation of an electron moving in a curved inhomogeneous magnetic field.

In the quantum theory radiation intensity differs from that in the classical theory and is transformed to it as $`\mathrm{}0`$. There are two types of quantum effects taking place, namely an effect due to the quantum character of particle motion in an external field and that due to the recoil that a particle undergoes during radiation. These effects are interrelated but at high energies they can be separated. The former effect, which can be described as one due to the noncomutativity of operators compared to classical values (i.e. operators of the particle momentum, energy, velocity etc.), appears to be less essential than the recoil effect during radiation.

There are several methods of obtaining the quantum corrections to the radiation spectrum of the synchrotron radiation like the Fermi-Weizsacker-Williams (FWW) virtual photons method (for early references and a discussion of recent results see Zolotorev & McDonald (2000)), Schwinger’s operator method (Schwinger, Tsai & Erber 1976; Akhiezer & Shulga 1996) and the semiclassical approximation (Berestetskii, Lifshitz & Pitaievskii 1989). The FWW approach is based on the observation that the electromagnetic fields of an electron in uniform relativistic motion are predominantly transverse, with $`\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}`$. This is very much like the fields of a plane wave, so one is led to regard the fast electron as carrying with it a cloud of virtual photons that it can radiate if perturbed. In the operator method the first quantum correction is involved by the substitution $`\omega \omega \left(1+\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{E}\right)`$ ( $`E`$ is the particle energy) in the classical expression for $`\omega ^1\frac{dI}{d\omega }`$ (Akhiezer & Shulga 1996). Therefore in this formalism the spectral density can be written as

$$\frac{dI}{d\omega }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}\pi }\frac{e^2}{c\gamma ^2}\omega _{\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{E}\right)\omega }^{\mathrm{}}K_{5/3}\left(\xi \right)𝑑\xi .$$
(32)
The quantum correction to the total loss of particle energy in a magnetic field is defined by $`\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2}{mR},R=\frac{E}{eB}`$. This correction increases with the particle energy and the magnetic field strength and at high energies and strengths can become significant.

In the following discussion we shall not adopt the operator method but instead we use the quasi-classical method as described in detail in Berestetskii, Lifschitz & Pitayevskii (1989). In this approach to the problem of the quantum radiation in strong magnetic fields it is explicitly used the fact that the motion of the particle is quasi-classical. The quantum recoil associated with the emission of a photon is determined by the ratio $`\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{E}`$. For the classical theory to be applicable this parameter must be small. In order to take into account quantum effects it is convenient to use the parameter $`\chi =\frac{B}{B_0}\frac{\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|}{mc}=\frac{B}{B_0}\frac{E}{mc^2}=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _B}{E}\left(\frac{E}{mc^2}\right)^3`$, where $`B_0=\frac{m^2c^3}{e\mathrm{}}=4.4\times 10^{13}G`$ and $`\omega _B=\frac{eBv}{pc}=\frac{eBc}{E}`$. In the classical case $`\chi \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{E}<<1`$. When quantum effects become important, the energy of the emitted photon $`\mathrm{}\omega E`$ and $`\chi >>1`$. In this case the significant region of the spectrum extends to frequencies at which the electron energy after emission is $`E^{}mc^2\frac{B_0}{B}`$.

We assume that the electron is ultra-relativistic and the magnetic field satisfies the condition $`\frac{B}{B_0}<1`$. This condition is satisfied with a very good approximation for magnetic fields of the order $`10^{12}G`$. The interval between adjacent energy levels for motion in a magnetic field is $`\mathrm{}\omega _B`$ and the quantization of the electron energy is expressed by the ratio $`\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _B}{E}=\left(\frac{B}{B_0}\right)\left(\frac{mc^2}{E}\right)^2`$. It follows then that $`\mathrm{}\omega _B<<E`$, that is the motion of the electron is quasi-classical for all values of $`\chi `$.

The probability of emission of the photon can be calculated by using perturbation theory (the detailed calculations are presented in Berestetskii, Lifschitz & Pitayevskii (1989). With the inclusion of the quantum effects the spectral distribution of the radiation is given by

$$\frac{dI}{d\omega }=\frac{e^2m^2c^4\omega }{\sqrt{\pi }E^2}\left[_x^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\xi \right)𝑑\xi +\left(\frac{2}{x}+\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{E}\chi \sqrt{x}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\left(x\right)\right],$$
(33)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the Airy function and $`x=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{E^{}\chi }\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}=\frac{m^2c^4}{E^2}\left(\frac{E\omega }{E^{}\omega _B}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}`$. In the classical limit $`\mathrm{}\omega <<E^{}E`$ and the variable $`x`$ becomes $`x=\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _B}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\left(\frac{mc^2}{E}\right)^2`$. Hence the second term in the round brackets is small and we obtain the classical formula (Landau & Lifshitz 1975).

The critical frequency is defined in the quantum case according to $`\mathrm{}\omega _c=\frac{E\chi }{\frac{2}{3}+\chi }`$ (Berestetskii, Lifschitz & Pitayevskii 1989). In the limit $`\chi <<1`$ we obtain again the classical critical frequency for the synchrotron radiation $`\omega _c=\frac{3eB\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2mc}\left(\frac{E}{mc^2}\right)^2`$ (Landau and Lifshitz 1975).

To calculate the total radiation intensity we must integrate Eq. (33) with respect to $`\omega `$ from $`0`$ to $`E`$. The final result is (Berestetskii, Lifschitz & Pitayevskii 1989)

$$I=\frac{e^2m^2c^4\chi ^2}{2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{}^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{4+5\chi x^{\frac{3}{2}}+4\chi ^2x^3}{\left(1+\chi x^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)^4}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)x𝑑x.$$
(34)
There are two important limiting cases of Eq. (34). In the classical limit $`\chi <<1`$ we obtain $`I=\frac{2e^4B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha E^2}{3m^4c^7}\left(1\frac{55\sqrt{3}}{16}\chi +48\chi ^2\mathrm{}\right)`$. In the opposite limit the result is $`I=0.37\frac{e^2m^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(\frac{B\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{B_0}\frac{E}{mc^2}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}`$.

In order to find the general form of the dependence of the radiation intensity emission for an electron in a constant electromagnetic field, we note first that the state of a particle in any constant and uniform field is defined by as many quantum numbers as the state of a free particle, and this may always be so chosen as to become, when the field is removed, those of a free particle, i.e. its 4-momentum $`p^\mu `$ ($`p^2=m^2c^2`$ ). Thus the state of a particle is described in a constant electromagnetic field by a constant 4-vector $`p`$. The total intensity of emission, being an invariant, depends only on the invariants which can be constructed from the constant 4-tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and the constant 4-vector $`p^\mu `$.

Since $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ can appear in the intensity only in combination with the charge $`e`$, there are three dimensionless invariants that can be formed: $`f_1^2=\frac{2}{3}\frac{e^4}{m^4c^5}\left(F_{\mu \nu }p^\nu \right)^2`$, $`f_2^2=\frac{e^4}{m^4c^5}\left(F_{\mu \nu }\right)^2`$ and $`f_3^2=\frac{e^4}{m^4c^5}e_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }F^{\lambda \mu }F^{\nu \rho }`$, with $`e_{\lambda \mu \nu \rho }`$ the totally antisymmetric tensor. But it can be shown (Berestetskii, Lifshitz & Pitaevski 1989) that if the electron is ultra-relativistic then $`f_1^2>>f_2^2,f_3^2`$. If also the fields $`\left|\stackrel{}{E}\right|`$, $`\left|\stackrel{}{B}\right|<<m^2c^3/e\mathrm{}=B_0`$, then $`\left|f_2^2\right|,\left|f_3^2\right|<<1`$ and the intensity of the emission in any constant field is expressed only in terms of the invariant $`f_1^2=\frac{2}{3}\frac{e^4}{m^4c^5}\left[\left(\stackrel{}{p}\times \stackrel{}{B}+p_0\stackrel{}{E}\right)^2\left(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{E}\right)^2\right]`$. With $`p_0=\gamma mc`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}=\gamma m\stackrel{}{v}_0`$ and assuming an ultrarelativistic motion of the electron $`\stackrel{}{v}_0c\stackrel{}{n}`$ we obtain $`f_1^2=\frac{2}{3}\frac{e^4}{m^2c^3}\gamma [{}_{}{}^{2}(\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{B}+\stackrel{}{E})_{}^{2}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{E})^2]`$.

For $`\stackrel{}{E}=0`$ we find $`f_1^2=\frac{2}{3}\frac{e^4B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{m^2c^3}\gamma ^2`$, that is in this case the invariant $`f_1^2`$ gives the total intensity of the synchrotron radiation in the ultrarelativistic case.

We generalize now the previous results to the case of the radiation emitted by an electron moving in a curved inhomogeneous magnetic field. As we have seen, the total intensity of the radiation must be a function of the invariant $`f_1^2`$ only. Therefore we can use the method applied in the previous Section for the study of the classical process, that is, we substitute in all formulae above the magnetic field with the effective electromagnetic field $`F_{eff}`$, including the fictitious electric field which can replace the effect of the centrifugal force determining the motion of the electron along the magnetic field lines and of the transverse motion due to the gradient of the field. In fact the generalized electromagnetic field $`F_{eff}`$ can also be obtained from the expression of the invariant $`f_1^2`$ by taking into account that the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}_0`$ of the electron, corresponding to the motion in the constant magnetic field and the radius of curvature $`\stackrel{}{R}_c`$ are perpendicular, $`\stackrel{}{v}_0\stackrel{}{R}_c=0`$ and hence $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{E}=0`$.

Hence for the critical frequency of the generalized synchrocurvature radiation emitted in the quantum domain we obtain

$$\omega _c=\frac{\frac{e}{mc}\left(\frac{E}{mc^2}\right)^2\sqrt{B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +2\frac{\gamma mB}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\frac{\gamma ^2m^2}{e^2}\frac{\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)^2}{R_c^2}}}{\frac{2}{3}+\frac{\mathrm{}e}{m^2c^3}\frac{E}{mc^2}\sqrt{B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +2\frac{\gamma mB}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\frac{\gamma ^2m^2}{e^2}\frac{\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)^2}{R_c^2}}}.$$
(35)
In the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ we obtain again Eq. (28), the characteristic frequency of the radiation in the clasical domain. The variation of the quantum critical frequency as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$, of the particle energy, magnetic field and radius of curvature is represented in Figs. 12-15. For the sake of comparison we have also presented the variation of the classical critical frequency of the generalized synchrocurvature radiation mechanism in the same domain of physical parameters.

The frequency distribution for the generalized synchrocurvature radiation mechanism is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dI}{d\omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2m^2c^4\omega }{\sqrt{\pi }E^2}}\times `$ (37)
$`\left[{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\xi \right)𝑑\xi +\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{B_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +2\frac{\gamma mB}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\frac{\gamma ^2m^2}{e^2}\frac{\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)^2}{R_c^2}}}{mc^2}}\sqrt{x}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\left(x\right)\right],`$
where the variable $`x`$ is defined as $`x=\left(\frac{m^2c^4}{E^2}\right)\left(\frac{\omega E^2}{emc^3B_0}\right)`$. The variations of $`\frac{dI}{d\omega }`$ for the generalized synchrocurvature radiation, for the synchrotron radiation and for the curvature radiation are presented, for different values of the pitch angle $`\alpha `$, in Figs. 16 and 17.

For the total radiation intensity in the quantum domain we find

$$I=\frac{e^2m^2c^4\chi _{eff}^2}{2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{}^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{4+5\chi _{eff}x^{\frac{3}{2}}+4\chi _{eff}^2x^3}{\left(1+\chi _{eff}x^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)^4}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)x𝑑x,$$
(39)
where we denoted

$$\chi _{eff}=\frac{E}{mc^2}\frac{\sqrt{B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +2\frac{\gamma mB}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\frac{\gamma ^2m^2}{e^2}\frac{\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)^2}{R_c^2}}}{B_0}.$$
(40)
The approximate values of the total intensity of the generalized synchrocurvature mechanism in the two limits, the classical and the quantum, respectively, can also be obtained with the help of the substitution $`\chi \chi _{eff}`$. The total radiation intensity $`I`$ versus the magnetic field $`B`$, $`\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ and the radius of curvature $`R_c`$ is presented in Figs. 18-21.

## V Effects of magnetic field inhomogeneities on radiation transitions rates

In a uniform homogeneous magnetic field electrons must occupy discrete energy states

$$E_n=mc^2\left[1+\left(\frac{p_{}}{mc}\right)^2+\left(\frac{p_D}{mc}\right)^2+\left(\frac{p_{}}{mc}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(41)
where $`p_{}`$, $`p_D`$ and $`p_{}`$ are the momentum components parallel to the magnetic field direction, the magnetic drift momentum and momentum perpendicular to the field, respectively (Boussard 1984; Latal 1986). The perpendicular component is quantized according to $`p_{}^2=2m\mathrm{}\omega _c\left[l+\frac{1}{2}\left(s+1\right)\right]=2n\gamma \frac{B\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{B_0}`$, with $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`s=+1`$ and $`s=1`$ for the spin-up and spin-down states, respectively. In the ground state $`n=0`$ only the spin-down state is allowed. The pitch angle $`\alpha `$ is generally quantized according to $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha =p_{}/p_{}`$. In the following we denote $`p_S^2=p_{}^2+p_D^2`$. Hence the state of the electron is completely described by three quantities $`(n,s,p_S)`$. As in the previous Sections, we assume that the drift is due to the combined effects of the curvature and gradient of the magnetic field and therefore the inhomogeneity and curvature of the magnetic field will cause a drift with velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}_D=\frac{\gamma mc}{e}\frac{v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2}{R_c^2B^2}\stackrel{}{R}_c\times \stackrel{}{B}`$. The corresponding momentum is $`p_D=\gamma mv_D=\frac{1}{2}\frac{c\gamma ^2m^2\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)}{eR_cB}`$.

In order to take into account the effects of the inhomogeneitis of the magnetic field we assume that these effects can be formally described by means of the formal substitution $`BF_{eff}`$, where $`F_{eff}`$ is the fictitious electromagnetic field combining the effects of the constant magnetic field and of the electric field associated with the curvature and gradient effects.

Hence the energy of the electron moving in an inhomogeneous magnetic field is quantized according to

$$E_n=mc^2\left\{1+\left(\frac{p_{}}{mc}\right)^2+\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\gamma ^2m}{eR_cB}\left(v_{}^2+\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\right)\right]^2+2n\frac{F_{eff}}{B_0}\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(42)
Transitions between the states $`(n,s,p_S)`$ and $`(n^{},s^{},p_S^{})`$, where $`n^{}<n`$, result in the emissions of photons at angle $`\theta `$ to the magnetic field with energy $`\omega `$ given from the kinematics by (Latal 1986; Harding & Preece 1987)

$$\mathrm{}\omega _{nn^{}}=\frac{2m^2c^4\left|nn^{}\right|B/B_0}{\left(1+\xi \right)\left(E_ncp_S\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)},$$
(43)
where $`\xi =\left[12\left(nn^{}\right)\frac{B}{B_0}m^2c^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(E_ncp_S\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^2\right]^{1/2}`$ .

Unless the photon is emitted with angle $`\theta =90^{}`$, the electron will experience a recoil along the field direction with a final parallel momentum $`p_S^{}=p_S\zeta \omega \mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`s=\left(nn^{}\right)/\left|nn^{}\right|`$. For emission $`n>n^{}`$ and $`\zeta =+1`$ while for absorption ($`n<n^{}`$ ) $`\zeta =1`$.

The transition probability per unit time $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ between arbitrary initial and final states and the associated energy rate $`\frac{dI}{dt}`$ involving the emission or absorption of a photon of momentum $`k^\mu =\left(k_0=\frac{\omega }{c},\stackrel{}{k}\right)`$ can be expressed in terms over the current sources in the form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\mathrm{}c\right)^1\frac{d^3k}{2k_0\left(2\pi \right)^3}\left[J\right]^2`$ and $`\frac{dI}{dt}=\frac{d^3k}{2\left(2\pi \right)^3}\left[J\right]^2`$, where $`\left[J\right]^2`$ represents the invariant magnitude of the four-dimensional Fourier transform of the transition current,

$$\left[J\right]^2=\underset{q}{}\left[\left|J^{}\left(k\right)J\left(k\right)\right|\left|J_0(k)\right|^2\right],$$
(44)
and $`J_\mu (k)=ied^4x\overline{\psi }_f\left(x\right)\gamma _\mu \overline{\psi }_i\left(x\right)e^{ikx}`$ (Latal 1986).

The transition probabilities and the energy rate can be calculated for transitions between states with arbitrary $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ (Daugherty & Ventura 1978; Latal 1986). Due to their complicated mathematical character we do not present them here. In the following we restrict our analysis only to emission of radiation due to transitions to the ground state, with $`n^{}=0`$. In this case the transition rate to the ground state is (Latal 1986)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,0}^{(s)}=\left[1s\left(1+2n\gamma \frac{B\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{B_0}\right)^{1/2}\right]\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{n,0},$$
(45)
where

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{n,0}=\tau _0^1{\displaystyle \frac{n^n}{\left(n1\right)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{B\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{B_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma mc^2}{E_n}}\times `$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{mc^2}{E_ncp_S\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\xi \right)^{n1}}{\left(1+\xi \right)^{n+1}}}\left(2n\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{B\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{B_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\xi }{\xi }}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{1\xi }{1+\xi }}\right)𝑑\theta ,`$ (47)
with $`\xi `$ defined as

$$\xi =\left[12n\frac{B\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{B_0}\frac{m^2c^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\left(E_ncp_S\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^2}\right]^{1/2},$$
(49)
and $`\tau _0=\mathrm{}/\left(\alpha mc^2\right)1.765\times 10^{19}s`$ (in this expression $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant).

The associated energy rate is obtained from $`\frac{dI_{n,0}^{(s)}}{dt}=\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,0}^{(s)}`$.

For the case of the electron moving in the curved inhomogeneous field we assume that the emission of the radiation from a higher Landau state $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ to the ground state $`n=0`$ can also be described with the use of equations (43) and (45)-(46) after performing the substitution $`BF_{eff}`$.

In Figs. 22-28 we present the variation of $`\frac{dI}{dt}`$ for an electron moving in a curved inhomogeneous magnetic field with respect to the magnetic field $`B`$, $`\gamma `$ and the radius of curvature $`R_c`$ for different values of $`n`$.

The angular distribution of the radiation emitted during the transition to the ground state follows from $`\frac{d^2I_{n,0}^{(s)}}{dtd\theta }=\mathrm{}\omega \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,0}^{(s)}}{d\theta }`$. Figs. 29-33 present the effect of the gradient drift, described by the radius of curvature of the field, on the angular distribution of the radiation emitted during transition from low Landau levels $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},5`$ to the ground state $`n=0`$, for a constant $`\gamma `$.

## VI Discussions and final remarks

In the present paper we have proposed, based on simple physical considerations, a unified formalism to describe the radiation emitted by an ultra-relativistic electron moving in an inhomogeneous magnetic field in both classical and quantum domains. In the classical domain we have derived, by using Schwinger’s approach, a general representation of the radiation patterns of a relativistic electron in an arbitrary motion. The classical radiation spectrum and the characteristic frequency can be generally expressed as a function of the absolute value of the acceleration of the particle. These general expressions have been used to obtain the distribution over the frequencies of the radiation of the electron in an inhomogeneous magnetic field.

This model combines in a single expression the well-known synchrotron and curvature mechanisms and adds a new correction term involving the magnetic gradient drift of the electron due to the inhomogeneous character of the magnetic field. Although from numerical point of view our results are similar to those obtained in the previous investigations (Zhang & Cheng 1995; Cheng & Zhang 1996; Zhang et al. 2000), our formulae are dealing with a more realistic magnetic field. Of course this monopole-type field can only be considered as an approximation of the realistic (dipole-type) magnetic field of pulsars. The differences in the magnetic field model lead to the differences in the spectral distribution of the radiation between the present model and the Cheng & Zhang (1996) model.

All the exact results derived by using Schwinger’s method (Schwinger et al. 1976) can be also obtained by using the following prescription. From a physical point of view the curvature and gradient terms can be formally described as an electric field acting on the electron. This electric field and the magnetic field can be combined into a single effective electromagnetic field which is then used as a substitute for the (constant) magnetic field in the well-known expressions of the synchrotron radiation. This physical approach to the general radiation mechanism is consistent with the rigurous classical description, leading to the same physical results, thus giving an exact description of the radiation process from regions in which the magnetic field intensity and the radius of curvature of the electron’s trajectory are slowly varying.

On the other hand, due to its simplicity, the present approach based on the substitution of the constant magnetic field with the effective field can be easily extended to the quantum domain of the radiation spectrum, leading to the possibility of a complete description of the quantum recoil due to the emission of a photon. The main advantage of the present approach relies in its mathematical simplicity, allowing the derivation of quite simple analytical expressions for all the physical characteristics of the radiation of an electron in a strong magnetic field, when quantum effects become important. When curvature effects cannot be neglected our formulae can take care of both regimes smoothly.

The application in the quantum domain of the formalism developed in the present paper is restricted to a region of strengths of magnetic fields so that $`BB_0`$, that is to values of the magnetic field smaller than $`4\times 10^{13}G`$. Recent observations show that magnetic fields with strengths much larger than this value can also exist on the surface of compact objects. We must also mention that in the discussion of the quantum effects we have sistematically neglected the effects due to the spin of the electron.

## Acknowledgement

This work is partially supported by a RGC grant of the Hong Kong government. T. H. is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship of the University of Hong Kong. We thank J. L. Zhang, Y. F. Yuan and D. C. Wei for useful discussions and Anisia Tang for help in the preparation of the manuscript.

## Appendix

In order to calculate the integral

$$I=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1+2x^2\right)\left\{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{3}{2}\xi \left(x+\frac{1}{3}x^3\right)\right]\mathrm{sin}bx\right\}\frac{dx}{x},$$
(50)
with $`\xi >0`$ and $`b>0`$ constants, we use first the well-known result $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}bx}{x}𝑑x=\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Hence the integral becomes

$$I=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1+2x^2\right)\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{3}{2}\xi \left(x+\frac{1}{3}x^3\right)\right]\frac{dx}{x}\frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(51)
With the use of the Airy integral (Abramowitz & Stegun 1972),

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}K_{1/3}\left(\xi \right)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{3}{2}\xi \left(x+\frac{1}{3}x^3\right)\right]𝑑x,$$
(52)
we obtain

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}K_{1/3}\left(\xi \right)=\frac{d}{d\xi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{3}{2}\xi \left(x+\frac{1}{3}x^3\right)\right]\frac{dx}{x}.$$
(53)
Hence,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{}}}K_{1/3}\left(\eta \right)𝑑\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{sin}\left[L\left(x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}x^3\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\xi \left(x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}x^3\right)\right]`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\xi \left(x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}x^3\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}.`$ (55)
On the other hand from the general relation $`\left(\frac{d}{d\xi }+\frac{1}{3\xi }\right)K_{1/3}\left(\xi \right)=K_{2/3}\left(\xi \right)`$ (Abramowitz & Stegun 1972) we obtain $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}K_{2/3}\left(\xi \right)=_0^{\mathrm{}}x\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{3}{2}\xi \left(x+\frac{1}{3}x^3\right)\right]𝑑x`$. Therefore we obtain

$$I=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(2K_{2/3}\left(\xi \right)_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}K_{1/3}\left(\eta \right)𝑑\eta \right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}K_{5/3}\left(\eta \right)𝑑\eta ,$$
(56)
where we have also used the reccurence relation $`2\frac{d}{d\xi }K_{2/3}\left(\xi \right)+K_{1/3}\left(\xi \right)=K_{5/3}\left(\xi \right)`$ (Abramowitz & Stegun 1972).


format: text

text:
# On the shape of vortices for a rotating Bose Einstein condensate

## I Introduction

Dilute Bose-Einstein condensates have recently been achieved in confined alkali-metal gases and the study of vortices is one of the key issues. One type of experiments consists in imposing a laser beam on the magnetic trap holding the atoms to create a harmonic anisotropic rotating potential MCWD ; MCWD2 ; AK ; RK . Vortices are nucleated and the number of vortices depends on the rotational velocity. It has been observed experimentally MCWD , that when the first vortex is nucleated, the contrast is not $`100\%`$ which means that the vortex line is not straight but bending. Numerical computations of the Gross Pitaevskii equation have shown evidence of vortex bending GP1 .

The aim of this paper is to characterize the dependence of the shape of the vortex line on the elongation of the trap and the rotational velocity. In particular, using a simplified energy for a vortex line derived in AR  from the Gross Pitaevskii energy, we study the stability and instability of the straight vortex and we prove that when the condensate has a cigar shape the first vortex is bent, while when it is a pancake, the first vortex is straight and lies on the axis of rotation. We also show that vortices cannot be nucleated too close to the boundary, because they have a minimal length.

In AR , we have derived a simplified expression for the energy of several vortex lines in a rotating trap from the usual Gross Pitaevskii energy describing the steady state of the condensate

$`_{3D}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}|\varphi |^2}+\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(i\varphi ,\varphi \times 𝐱)`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\omega _\alpha ^2r_\alpha ^2|\varphi |^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}g_{3D}|\varphi |^4.`$
We let $`d=(\mathrm{}/m\omega _y)^{1/2}`$ be the characteristic length, $`\omega _x=\alpha \omega _y`$, $`\omega _z=\beta \omega _y`$. We define a small non-dimensional parameter $`\epsilon `$ which characterizes the fact that we are in the Thomas Fermi regime by

$$\epsilon ^2\sqrt{\epsilon }=\frac{d}{4\pi Na},$$

where $`N`$ is the number of particles and $`a`$ the scattering length. In the ENS experiment MCWD2 ; MCWD , $`\epsilon =\mathrm{1.74\; 10}^2`$ while in the MIT experiment RK , $`\epsilon =\mathrm{3.52\; 10}^3`$. We rescale distances by $`d/\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ and the chemical potential $`\mu _0`$ so that the new chemical potential $`\rho _0`$ is given by

$$\rho _0=2\epsilon \frac{\mu _0}{\mathrm{}\omega _y}.$$
(2)
In these units, we have $`\rho _0=0.42`$ and $`\rho _0=0.46`$ respectively for the ENS and MIT experiments. We let

$$\rho (𝐫)=\rho _0(\alpha ^2x^2+y^2+\beta ^2z^2)$$
(3)
be the Thomas Fermi limit of the wave function in rescaled units. Then, we have obtained in AR  a simplified expression for the energy of a vortex line $`\gamma `$, which is

$$\epsilon \mathrm{}\omega _y\pi |\mathrm{log}\epsilon |E[\gamma ]$$

with

$$E[\gamma ]=_\gamma \rho 𝑑l\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma \rho ^2𝑑z,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is related to the experimental rotational velocity $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\omega _y}\frac{1}{(1+\alpha ^2)\epsilon |\mathrm{log}\epsilon |}.$$
(5)
The energy $`E[\gamma ]`$ reflects the competition between the vortex energy due to its length (1st term) and the rotation term. Note that the rotation term is an oriented integral ($`dz`$ not $`dl`$), which actually forces the vortex to be along the $`z`$ axis, while the other term wants to minimize the length. This is why, according to the geometry of the trap, the shape of the vortex varies.

This energy is similar to the one obtained in SF2  in the study of the dynamics of the vortex line. Note that the energy that we actually derive in AR  is slightly more involved than (4). In the regime of the experiments, it is reasonable to restrict to this expression (4), taking into account the fact that the vortex core is sufficiently small (it is of size $`\epsilon `$ in our units) and neglecting the interaction of the curve with itself. We are interested only in the presence of the first vortex: when there are several vortices, the energy has an extra term due to the repulsion between the lines.

In this scaling, the energy of the vortex free solution is zero. Thus, a vortex line is energetically favorable when $`\mathrm{\Omega },\beta `$ are such that $`inf_\gamma E[\gamma ]<0`$. The aim of this paper is to study the shape of the vortex lines $`\gamma `$ minimizing $`E[\gamma ]`$. We define the domain $`𝒟=\{\rho >0\}`$. This is the domain where the condensate lies. All the analysis will be made in $`𝒟`$. In what follows, we assume that we are at a velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that there is a vortex line and we want to find conditions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the elongation $`\beta `$ for the line to be stable and either straight or bent.

First of all, it has been observed numerically GP1  that the vortex line lies in the plane closest to the axis of rotation and we can provide a rigorous justification:

###### Theorem 1

If $`\alpha 1`$, then the energy is minimized when the vortex line lies in the $`(y,z)`$ plane, that is the plane closest to the axis.

Indeed, if we have a curve $`\gamma `$ parametrized as $`\gamma (t)=(x(t),y(t),z(t))`$, then we can define the new curve $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)=(0,\stackrel{~}{y}(t),\stackrel{~}{z}(t))`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{z}(t)=z(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y}(t)=\sqrt{\alpha ^2x^2+y^2}`$. Then $`\rho (\gamma (t))=\rho (\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t))`$. Since $`\alpha <1`$, $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{y}}^2\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2`$, hence $`\rho (\stackrel{~}{\gamma })|\dot{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}|\mathrm{\Omega }\rho (\stackrel{~}{\gamma })\dot{\stackrel{~}{z}}\rho (\gamma )|\dot{\gamma }|\mathrm{\Omega }\rho (\gamma )\dot{z}`$. It follows that the energy of the new curve $`E[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }]`$ is less or equal than $`E[\gamma ]`$. If $`\alpha =1`$, that is the cross section is a disc, then our arguments imply that the vortex line is planar, but of course all transversal planes are equivalent.

From now on, we will assume that the curve lies in the plane $`(y,z)`$, so that $`\rho `$, given by (3), only depends on $`y`$ and $`z`$. Recall from the expression of $`E`$, (4), that for $`E[\gamma ]`$ to be negative, we need $`\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2`$ to be negative somewhere, that is $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho >1`$. For fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we define the regions

$$𝒟_g:=\{(y,z):\mathrm{\Omega }\rho (y,z)>1\},𝒟_b:=𝒟𝒟_g.$$

We will refer to these sets as “the good region” $`𝒟_g`$ and “the bad region” $`𝒟_b`$ respectively. In the bad region, the energy of a vortex per unit arc length is necessarily positive, since $`\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2>0`$, whereas in the good region, for appropriately oriented vortices it can be negative since $`\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2<0`$. One can see easily that for $`\gamma `$ to have a negative energy, part of the vortex line has to lie in the good region, that is close to the center of the cloud. Note that for $`𝒟_g`$ to be non empty, we need at least $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0>1`$. In the region $`𝒟_g`$, we will see that the vortex is close to the axis for all $`\beta `$. On the other hand, in the region $`𝒟_b`$, the vortex goes to the boundary along the quickest path: if $`\beta `$ is small, perpendicularly to the boundary, which gives rise to a bent vortex and if $`\beta >1`$, the vortex stays along the axis of rotation.

The organization of the paper is the following: first we study the local stability of the straight vortex: if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is large, then the straight vortex is a local minimizer. That is when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ gets large, the vortices tend to be straight, while if $`\beta `$ is small then the straight vortex loses local stability and the first vortex to be nucleated is bent. Then, we study the minimization of $`E[\gamma ]`$ in $`𝒟_g`$ and $`𝒟_b`$ according to the value of $`\beta `$. We finally derive that a minimizer of the energy has a minimal length.

## II Stability and instability of the straight vortex

In this section, we study the stability of the straight vortex. We parametrize the straight vortex as $`\gamma _s(z)=(0,z)`$ for $`z_{\text{max}}<z<z_{\text{max}}`$, with $`z_{\text{max}}=\sqrt{\rho _0}/\beta `$. One can compute $`E[\gamma _s]`$ and derive that it is 0 for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0=5/4`$. We have two aims: first show that for $`\beta `$ small, when the straight vortex has 0 energy or small negative energy, that is for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0`$ close to $`5/4`$, then it is unstable. Then, we want to prove on the contrary that if $`\beta `$ is fixed and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is sufficiently big, the straight vortex is stable.

We consider perturbations of the straight vortex of the form $`\gamma _\delta (z)=(\delta v(z),z+\delta ^2w(z))+O(\delta ^3)`$ for $`|z|<z_{\text{max}}`$. We require that $`w`$ be chosen so that $`\rho (\gamma _\delta (\pm z_{\text{max}}))=0`$, thereby respecting the condition that the vortex line terminate at the boundary of the cloud.

Writing a Taylor series expansion for $`E`$, one finds that

$$E[\gamma _\delta ]=E[\gamma _s]+\frac{\delta ^2}{2}(v,E^{\prime \prime }[\gamma _s]v)+O(\delta ^3)$$

where

$$(v,E^{\prime \prime }[\gamma _s]v)=_{z_{\text{max}}}^{z_{\text{max}}}2(2\mathrm{\Omega }\rho 1)v^2+\rho v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}dz.$$

Here and in the rest of this section, $`\rho =\rho (0,z)=\rho _0\beta ^2z^2`$. To get this it is necessary to integrate by parts and use the fact that the straight vortex solves the Euler-Lagrange equations for $`E`$. In particular this eliminates all terms involving $`w`$. No boundary terms arise from integration by parts because $`\rho (\gamma _\delta )=0`$ at the endpoints.

We say that the straight vortex is stable if $`(v,E^{\prime \prime }[\gamma _s]v)>0`$ for all $`v`$, and unstable if $`(v,E^{\prime \prime }[\gamma _s]v)<0`$ for some $`v`$.

###### Theorem 2

The straight vortex is stable if

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0>\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{4\beta ^2}.$$

The straight vortex is unstable if $`\beta <1/\sqrt{3}`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0<\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{6\beta ^2}.$$
(6)
Note that the 2 values are consistent in the sense that they both scale like $`1/\beta ^2`$ when $`\beta `$ is small. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ large, one expects several vortices in the condensate, but the fact that a straight vortex is stable gives an indication that for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ large, each vortex should be nearly straight, which is consistent with the observations AK .

###### Remark 1

It is interesting to see what happens in Theorem 2 when $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0=5/4`$, that is when the straight vortex has zero energy. The first inequality yields that if $`\beta >1/\sqrt{2}`$, then the straight vortex is stable for all $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0>5/4`$, that is when $`E[\gamma _s]<0`$. If $`\beta >1`$, we will see that $`\gamma _s`$ is not just stable but in fact minimizes $`E`$. The second inequality implies that, if $`\beta <\sqrt{2/13}.39`$ then the straight vortex is unstable at the velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0=5/4`$ at which $`E[\gamma _s]=0`$. As a result, for these values of $`\beta `$, the first vortex to nucleate as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ increases is a bent vortex. Note that it has been observed in SF2  that for $`\beta <1/2`$, the ground state of the system corresponds to a curved line.

All this indicates that by varying the elongation of the condensate, one may hope to go from a situation where the first vortex is bent, to a situation where it is straight.

To prove the instability of the straight vortex, we will find explicit perturbations $`v`$ for which $`(v,E^{\prime \prime }[\gamma _s]v)<0`$. These also indicate the shape of good test functions.

We define a perturbation $`v`$ (depending on a parameter $`\theta `$, which for now we regard as fixed) by

$$v(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }z\theta z_{\text{max}}\hfill \\ \left(\frac{z}{z_{\text{max}}}\theta \right)(1\theta )^1\hfill & \text{ if }z\theta z_{\text{max}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`v`$ is normalized so that $`v(z_{\text{max}})=1`$. For this choice of $`v`$, a lengthy but straightforward calculation shows that

$`(v,E^{\prime \prime }[\gamma _s]v)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0^{3/2}}{30\beta }}[(1\theta )^2(\theta +4)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0}}(1\theta )\beta ^2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}})]`$
$`=:{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0^{3/2}}{30\beta }}\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta ).`$
It follows that the straight vortex is unstable if

$$(1\theta )^2(\theta +4)<\frac{5}{\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0}\left((1\theta )\beta ^2(1+\frac{\theta }{2})\right)$$
(7)
for some $`\theta [0,1)`$. It is helpful to write $`\theta `$ as $`\theta =1\eta \beta ^2`$ for some $`\eta >0`$ to be determined. Then (7) can be written in terms of $`\eta `$, as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0<5\left(\frac{1+(\beta ^2/2)(3/2\eta )}{\eta \beta ^2(5\eta \beta ^2)}\right).$$

This is satisfied if

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0<\frac{1+(\beta ^2/2)(3/2\eta )}{\eta \beta ^2}=\frac{1}{2\eta }+\frac{1}{\eta \beta ^2}(1\frac{3}{2\eta }).$$

The extremum is achieved for $`\eta `$ close to 3, so we can take $`\eta =3`$ to find that (6) is a sufficient condition for instability. Because $`\theta =1\eta \beta ^20`$, this conclusion only holds if $`\beta 1/\sqrt{3}`$. For larger values of $`\beta `$, one can make different choices of $`\theta `$ to find thresholds for instability.

To derive the sufficient condition for stability, note that for every $`z`$,

$$\frac{3\rho }{2\rho _0}\frac{(z\rho )^{}}{2\rho _0}=1.$$

Multiplying $`v^2`$ by the expression on the left and integrating by parts, we obtain

$$_{z_{\text{max}}}^{z_{\text{max}}}v^2𝑑z=_{z_{\text{max}}}^{z_{\text{max}}}\rho \left[\frac{3v^2}{2\rho _0}+\frac{z}{\rho _0}vv^{}\right]𝑑z.$$

Since $`|z|/\rho _0z_{\text{max}}/\rho _0=1/\beta \sqrt{\rho _0}`$ for $`|z|<z_{\text{max}}`$,

$$_{z_{\text{max}}}^{z_{\text{max}}}v^2𝑑z_{z_{\text{max}}}^{z_{\text{max}}}\rho \left[\frac{3}{2\rho _0}v^2+\frac{1}{\beta \sqrt{\rho }_0}|v||v^{}|\right]𝑑z.$$

Now we use the inequality $`aba^2/2+b^2/2`$, to deduce

$$_{z_{\text{max}}}^{z_{\text{max}}}v^2𝑑z_{z_{\text{max}}}^{z_{\text{max}}}\rho \left[(\frac{3}{2\rho _0}+\frac{1}{2\rho _0\beta ^2})v^2+\frac{1}{2}(v^{})^2\right]𝑑z.$$

In particular, if

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0>\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{4\beta ^2}$$

then this implies that $`(v,E^{\prime \prime }[\gamma _s]v)>0`$ for all $`v`$. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.

We would like to derive a more precise estimate of the critical velocity for which a bent vortex minimizes the energy $`E[\gamma ]`$. We have seen that for $`E[\gamma ]`$ to be negative, we need at least $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0>1`$ so that the good region $`𝒟_g`$ is nonempty. Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0=1`$ is exactly the 2D critical velocity at the plane $`z=0`$ for the existence of a vortex. But a bent vortex cannot be a minimizer of $`E[\gamma ]`$ exactly at $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0=1`$, since the good region $`𝒟_g`$ has to have some critical size so that the vortex energy in the good region provides a sufficient contribution to compensate the positive part due to the length in the bad region. On the other hand, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0=5/4`$, the straight vortex has 0 energy. Thus, the critical velocity to obtain a bent vortex is $`1<\mathrm{\Omega }_c\rho _0<5/4`$. We want to obtain a sharper estimate by using appropriate test functions. To find good test functions, note that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\theta )=[3\theta ^2+4\theta (7\frac{5}{2\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0}(2+\beta ^2)]$$

and so $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has a local maximum at

$$\theta _{}=\frac{2}{3}+\sqrt{\frac{25}{9}\frac{5}{6\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0}(1\beta ^2)}$$

which lies in the interval $`(0,1)`$ for the parameter range that we care about.

Note that $`\theta _{}`$ is an increasing function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which is consistent with numerical calculations showing that for larger values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the minimizing path stays close to the $`z`$ axis over a longer interval. For $`\theta =\theta _{}`$, we compute the energy of the path which is straight between $`z=\theta `$ and $`\theta `$ and goes to the boundary along a straight line. The optimal end point on the boundary is at $`z=\theta +\beta `$ for $`\beta `$ small. For this special test function $`\gamma `$, we can compute $`E[\gamma ]`$ to find that it is less than

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0}{8}(\frac{53}{4}36\beta +21\beta ^24\beta ^3)\frac{25}{8}+3\beta \beta ^2+108\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0$$

Thus, for $`\beta `$ small, we find an upper bound for the critical velocity which yields a negative energy for such a test function:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0=\frac{(220+96\beta )}{(203+76\beta )}.$$

In the condition of the ENS experiment, this yields $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0<1.08`$, that is in the original variable (see (5)), $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\omega _y<0.385`$, which is very close to the value found numerically 0.38 CM .

As a conclusion, we have shown that there is a critical value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ called $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c\rho _01.08`$, such that a bent vortex has negative energy and less energy than a straight vortex.

## III Shape of the vortex according to $`\beta `$

In this section we prove that when the condensate cloud has a pancake shape, then the straight vortex is always minimizing among vortices with negative energy.

Recall that $`𝒟=\{\rho >0\}`$ and we write $`\gamma (t)=(y(t),z(t))`$ to denote a generic vortex line represented by a continuous Lipschitz function from $`I=[0,1]`$ into $`\overline{𝒟}`$ such that $`\gamma (0),\gamma (1)𝒟`$.

For such a curve $`\gamma `$, let $`I_{\gamma ,g}:=\{tI:\gamma (t)𝒟_g\}`$ and $`I_{\gamma ,b}=II_{\gamma ,g}`$. And let $`\gamma _g`$ be the restriction of $`\gamma ()`$ to $`I_{\gamma ,g}`$, and similarly $`\gamma _b`$.

The definition of $`I_{\gamma ,b}`$ implies that $`\rho (\gamma (t))\mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2(\gamma (t))>0`$ for $`tI_{\gamma ,b}`$, and as a consequence

$$\rho (\gamma (t))|\dot{\gamma }(t)|\mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2(\gamma (t))\dot{z}|\dot{\gamma }(t)|\left(\rho (\gamma (t))\mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2(\gamma (t))\right)$$

which is positive in $`I_{\gamma ,b}`$. Thus if $`\gamma `$ is such that $`I_{\gamma ,g}`$ is empty, then clearly $`E[\gamma ]>0`$ and it is energetically favorable not to have a vortex. This is the case in particular for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _0<1`$ since then $`𝒟_g`$ is empty. We may thus restrict our attention to the case $`I_{\gamma ,b}`$ nonempty.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`M_g=inf\{E[\gamma _g]\}`$, where $`\gamma _g`$ is the restriction of $`\gamma ()`$ to $`I_{\gamma ,g}`$, then for all $`\beta `$ and all $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the infimum is attained by the straight vortex.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`M_b=inf\{E[\gamma _b]\}`$, , where $`\gamma _b`$ is the restriction of $`\gamma ()`$ to $`I_{\gamma ,b}`$, then for all $`\beta 1`$, the infimum is attained by the straight vortex.

Note that in the bad region, Proposition 2 only holds for $`\beta >1`$. If $`\beta <1`$, the situation is somewhat more complicated: $`_{\gamma _b}\rho 𝑑l`$ is minimized by a path that joins $`𝒟_g`$ to $`𝒟`$ along the $`y`$ axis, whereas $`_{\gamma _b}\rho ^2𝑑z`$ is minimized by the straight vortex running along the $`z`$-axis. The minimizer of the full energy reflects the competition between these two terms, and hence is bent.

We always have

$$E[\gamma ]=E[\gamma _g]+E[\gamma _b]M_g+M_b$$

In particular, as a corollary of the above propositions we deduce

###### Theorem 3

For $`\beta 1`$

$$E[\gamma ]inf(0,E[\gamma _s])$$
(8)
where $`\gamma _s`$ is the straight vortex along the $`z`$ axis. If $`E[\gamma _s]<0`$, the equality in (8) can happen only if $`\gamma `$ is the straight vortex.

To prove Proposition 1, first note that

$$_{\gamma _g}\rho 𝑑l\mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2dz_{\gamma _g}\rho |dz|\mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2dz_{\gamma _g}(\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2)𝑑z.$$

Since we have assumed that $`\gamma `$ does not self-intersect, we can identify $`\gamma `$ with the (oriented) boundary of an open set $`V𝒟`$. Then $`\gamma _g`$ can be identified with $`𝒟_gV=(𝒟_gV)(𝒟_g\overline{V})`$. Since $`\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2=0`$ precisely on $`𝒟_g`$, this implies that

$$_{\gamma _g}(\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2)𝑑z=_{(𝒟_gV)}(\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2)𝑑z.$$

And by Stokes’ Theorem,

$$_{(𝒟_gV)}(\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2)𝑑z=_{𝒟_gV}(12\mathrm{\Omega }\rho )\rho _y𝑑y𝑑z.$$

The definition of $`𝒟_g`$ implies that $`12\mathrm{\Omega }\rho <0`$, and so this integral is clearly minimized if $`𝒟_gV`$ is just the subset of $`𝒟_g`$ where $`\rho _y>0`$, so that

$$_{(𝒟_gV)}(\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2)𝑑z_{\{(y,z)𝒟_g:y<0\}}(12\mathrm{\Omega }\rho )\rho _y𝑑y𝑑z.$$
(9)
Again using Stokes Theorem and the fact that $`\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2`$ vanishes on $`𝒟_g`$, we find that this is equal to

$$_z_{}^z_{}\left(\rho (0,z)\mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2(0,z)\right)𝑑z,$$

where $`(0,\pm z_{})`$ are the points where the $`z`$-axis intersects $`𝒟_g`$. Combining these inequalities, we find that

$$_{\gamma _g}\rho 𝑑l\mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2dz_z_{}^z_{}\left(\rho (0,z)\mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2(0,z)\right)𝑑z.$$
(10)
It is easy to see that equality holds in (9), and hence in (10), exactly when $`\gamma `$ is the straight vortex, and so we have proved Proposition 1.

To prove Proposition 2, fix $`\gamma `$ such that $`I_{\gamma ,g}`$ is nonempty. The beginning and end of $`\gamma `$ must lie in the bad region, and $`\gamma `$ intersects the good region, so $`I_{\gamma ,b}`$ must consist of at least two components. Let $`(a_1,b_1)`$ denote the first such component and $`(a_2,b_2)`$ denote the last, and write $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ to denote the corresponding portions of $`\gamma _b`$, so that $`\gamma _1`$ is parametrized as $`\gamma _1=(y,z):(a_1,b_1)𝒟_b`$, with $`\gamma _1(a_1)𝒟`$ and $`\gamma _1(b_1)𝒟_g`$. We need to show that $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ both have more energy than the corresponding parts of the straight vortex. We will consider only $`\gamma _1`$, as the argument for $`\gamma _2`$ is exactly the same.

Define $`\gamma _s=(0,\zeta )`$ to be a parametrization of the part of the straight vortex joining $`(0,z_{\text{max}})`$ to $`(0,z_{})`$, where $`z_{\text{max}}=\sqrt{\rho _0}/\beta `$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(t)=\frac{1}{\beta }(y(t)^2+\beta ^2z(t)^2)^{1/2},\zeta (t)=\underset{ast}{\mathrm{max}}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(s).$$

Recall that we have $`\gamma _1=(y(t),z(t))`$. The definition is arranged so that $`t\zeta (t)`$ is nondecreasing and $`|\dot{\gamma }_s|=\dot{\zeta }`$. To prove the proposition, it thus suffices to show that

$$\rho (\gamma _1)|\dot{\gamma }_1|\mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2(\gamma _1)\dot{z}\rho (\gamma _s)|\dot{\gamma }_s|\mathrm{\Omega }\rho ^2(\gamma _s)\dot{\zeta }.$$

If $`\zeta (t)>\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(t)`$, this is clear, because then $`\dot{\zeta }=0`$, so the right-hand side vanishes while the left-hand side is nonnegative, by the defining property of the bad region $`𝒟_b`$.

And if $`\zeta (t)=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(t)`$, then $`\rho (\gamma _1(t))=\rho (\gamma _s(t))`$, and so in this case $`01\mathrm{\Omega }\rho (\gamma _1(t))=1\mathrm{\Omega }\rho (\gamma _s(t))1`$. So we only need to show that

$$|\dot{\gamma }|c\dot{z}|\dot{\gamma }_s|c\dot{\zeta }$$
(11)
for any $`c[0,1]`$. We will apply it to $`c=\mathrm{\Omega }\rho (\gamma _s(t))`$.

To do this, first note that

$$\dot{\zeta }=\dot{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}\left(\frac{y\dot{y}}{\beta ^2}+z\dot{z}\right)=(\dot{y},\dot{z})\left(\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}(\frac{y}{\beta ^2},z)\right).$$

So

$$|\dot{\zeta }||\dot{\gamma }|\left(\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^2}(\frac{y^2}{\beta ^4}+z^2)\right)^{1/2}=|\dot{\gamma }|\left(\frac{\beta ^4y^2+z^2}{\beta ^2y^2+z^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$

Since $`\beta >1`$, we conclude that $`|\dot{\zeta }||\dot{\gamma }_1|`$. Also, it is clear that $`|\dot{z}||\dot{\gamma }_1|`$. So if $`0\alpha 1`$, then

$$|\dot{\gamma }_1|c\dot{z}|\dot{\gamma }_1|(1c)\dot{\zeta }(1c)=|\dot{\gamma }_s|c\dot{\zeta },$$

which proves (11), and hence Proposition 2.

## IV Minimal length

In the case $`\beta <1`$, that is when the vortex line is bent, we will prove that the vortex has a minimum length. This is related to the fact that the vortex has to go to the center of the cloud and spend some time in the good region.

For an open set $`U𝒟`$ with Lipschitz boundary, we endow $`U`$ with an orientation in the standard way, so that Stokes’ theorem holds.

We will prove the following isoperimetric-type inequality:

###### Theorem 4

For every $`0<\beta 1`$

$$\left|_U\rho ^2𝑑z\right|(2\sqrt{\rho _0})^{1/2}\left(_U\rho 𝑑l\right)^{3/2}$$
(12)
for every connected open subset $`U𝒟`$,

###### Remark 2

The exponent $`3/2`$ is the best possible. An inequality similar to (12) is valid for $`\beta >1`$, but the proof needs to be modified a bit. For the straight radial vortex,

$$_U\rho ^2𝑑z=\frac{16}{15}\frac{(\rho _0)^{5/2}}{\beta }\text{ and }_U\rho 𝑑l=\frac{4}{3}\frac{(\rho _0)^{3/2}}{\beta },$$

and so

$$\left(_U\rho ^2𝑑z\right)\left(_U\rho 𝑑l\right)^{3/2}0.52\beta ^{1/2}(\rho _0)^{1/4}.$$

This shows that the constant $`(2\sqrt{\rho _0})^{1/2}`$ in (12) is fairly close to sharp for $`\frac{1}{4}\beta <1`$ say.

1. We use Stokes’ Theorem to calculate

$$_U\rho ^2𝑑z=2_U\rho \rho _y𝑑y𝑑z2_U^{}\rho \rho _y𝑑y𝑑z$$

where $`U^{}=\{(y,z)U:y<0\}`$, since $`\rho \rho _y0`$ for $`(y,z)𝒟`$ such that $`y0`$.

So the coarea formula implies that

$`{\displaystyle _U}\rho ^2𝑑z2{\displaystyle _U^{}}\rho {\displaystyle \frac{|\rho _y|}{|\rho |}}|\rho |𝑑y𝑑z`$
$`=2{\displaystyle _\rho _{}^\rho ^{}}s\left({\displaystyle _{\{(y,z)U^{}:\rho (y,z)=s\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\rho _y|}{|\rho |}}𝑑l\right)𝑑s`$
where $`\rho _{}=inf\{\rho (y,z):(y,z)U\}`$, and $`\rho ^{}=sup\{\rho (y,z):(y,z)U\}`$. Thus

$`\left|{\displaystyle _U}\rho ^2𝑑z\right||\rho ^{}\rho _{}|`$
$`\underset{s}{sup}\left(s{\displaystyle _{\{(y,z)U:\rho (y,z)=s\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _y}{|\rho |}}𝑑l\right).`$
Thus to prove the theorem it suffices to establish the following two claims:

$$s_{\{(y,z)U:\rho (y,z)=s\}}\frac{\rho _y}{|\rho |}𝑑l_U\rho 𝑑l$$
(13)
for every $`s`$, and

$$|\rho ^{}\rho _{}|(2\sqrt{\rho _0})^{1/2}\left(_U\rho 𝑑l\right)^{1/2}.$$
(14)
2. We first prove (13). Fix some $`s(\rho _{},\rho ^{})`$ and write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ to denote $`\{(y,z)U^{}:\rho (y,z)=s\}`$. Also, let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s`$ denote $`U\{\rho s\}`$.

First assume for simplicity that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ is connected, so that it consists of the short arc of the ellipse $`\{\rho =s\}`$ joining two points, say $`p_0=(y_0,z_0)`$ and $`p_1=(y_1,z_1)`$ with $`z_0<z_1`$. We can represent $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ as the image of the mapping

$$z(y(z),z)=((s\beta ^2z^2)^{1/2},z),z_0<z<z_1.$$

Differentiating the identity $`\rho (y(z),z)=s`$ we find that $`\rho _yy^{}(z)+\rho _z=0`$. Thus

$$\left|\frac{d}{dz}(y(z),z)\right|=\left(1+y^{}(z)^2\right)^{1/2}=\left(\frac{(\rho _y^2+\rho _z^2)}{\rho _y^2}\right)^{1/2}=\frac{|\rho |}{|\rho _y|}.$$

It follows that

$$s_{\{(y,z)U:\rho (y,z)=s\}}\frac{\rho _y}{|\rho |}𝑑l=s_{z_0}^{z_1}𝑑z.$$

On the other hand, the one-dimensional measure of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s`$ is certainly greater than $`|p_1p_0|z_1z_0`$, and $`\rho s`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s`$, and so

$$_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s}\rho (z,y)𝑑lsl(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_s)s(z_2z_1).$$

This proves (13) if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ is connected. If not, one can apply the same argument on each connected component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$.

3. Next we prove (14). Let $`q_{}`$ and $`q^{}`$ be points in $`U`$ such that $`\rho (q_{})=\rho _{}`$, $`\rho (q^{})=\rho ^{}`$. Since we have assumed that $`U`$ is connected, $`U`$ contains a path joining $`q_{}`$ to $`q^{}`$. In fact it contains two such paths. If we write $`𝒫`$ to denote the set of all Lipschitz paths in $`𝒟`$ joining the level set $`\{\rho =\rho _{}\}`$ and the level set $`\{\rho =\rho ^{}\}`$, it follows that

$$_U\rho 𝑑l2\underset{\gamma 𝒫}{inf}_\gamma \rho 𝑑l.$$

Arguments in the proof of Proposition 2 show that for $`\beta 1`$, $`inf_{\gamma 𝒫}_\gamma \rho 𝑑l`$ is attained by a path that goes in a straight line along the $`y`$ axis. Thus

$$\underset{\gamma 𝒫}{inf}_\gamma \rho 𝑑l=_y^{}^y_{}(\rho _0y^2)𝑑y,$$

where $`y_{}=\sqrt{\rho _0\rho _{}},y^{}=\sqrt{\rho _0\rho ^{}}`$. And since $`y_{},y^{}\sqrt{\rho }_0`$,

$`{\displaystyle _y^{}^y_{}}(\rho _0y^2)𝑑y`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\rho _0}}}{\displaystyle _y^{}^y_{}}(\rho _0y^2)2y𝑑y`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\rho _0}}}{\displaystyle _\rho _{}^\rho ^{}}\rho 𝑑\rho `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\rho _0}}}\left((\rho ^{})^2(\rho _{})^2\right).`$
Since $`b^2a^2(ba)^2`$ when $`0<a<b`$, we deduce that (14) holds. This concludes the proof of the theorem.

A short calculation starting from (12) shows that if $`E[\gamma ]<0`$ then

$$_\gamma \rho 𝑑l>\frac{1}{(2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\sqrt{\rho _0})}.$$
(15)
We expect that even for a configuration with multiple vortices, adding a new vortex would require to overcome an energy barrier which implies that the length of the new vortex has a lower bound of the type (15).

## V Conclusion

We have studied the shape of the first vortex line to be nucleated in a harmonic anisotropic rotating potential, according to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the elongation of the cloud $`\beta `$. We investigate the stability of the straight vortex and get that when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is large, the straight vortex is a local minimum of the energy. We prove that when a vortex is nucleated, it is close to the axis of rotation where the condensate density is high, and that near the boundary, where the density is low, the shape of the vortex depends on whether the cloud has a cigar or pancake shape. This shape reflects the competition in the energy between the rotation and the inhomogeneity of the trap, which makes the geometry of the experiment very important. In the case $`\beta >1`$ (pancake), the vortex stays straight along the $`z`$ axis while in the case $`\beta `$ small (cigar), the vortex is bending. In the case $`\beta `$ small, this allows us to define an energy barrier for the nucleation of vortices and to prove that when a vortex line is nucleated, it has to have a minimal length.