text:
# Similarities and Differences between Relativistic Electron-Photon Cascades Developed in Matter, Photon Gas and Magnetic Field

## 1 Introduction

Relativistic electrons – directly accelerated, or being secondary products of various hadronic processes – may result in copious $`\gamma `$-ray production caused by interactions with ambient targets in forms of gas (plasma), radiation and magnetic fields. In different astrophysical environments $`\gamma `$-ray production may proceed with high efficiency through bremsstrahlung, inverse Compton scattering and synchrotron (and/or curvature) radiation, respectively. Generally, $`\gamma `$-ray production is effective when the cooling time that characterizes the rate of the process does not significantly exceed (i) the source (accelerator) age (ii) the characteristic time of non-radiative losses caused by adiabatic expansion of the source or particle escape and (iii) the cooling time of competing radiation mechanisms that result in low-energy photons outside the $`\gamma `$-ray domain. As long as the charged particles are effectively confined in the $`\gamma `$-ray production region, at some circumstances these condition could be fulfilled even in environments with a relatively low gas and photon densities or weak magnetic field. More specifically, the $`\gamma `$-ray production efficiency could be close to 1 even when $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}R/c`$ ($`R`$ is the characteristic linear size of the production region, $`c`$ is the speed of light). In such cases the secondary $`\gamma `$-rays escape the source without significant internal absorption. Each of the above mentioned $`\gamma `$-ray production mechanisms has its major “counterpart” - $`\gamma `$-ray absorption mechanism of same electromagnetic origin resulting in electron-positron pair production in matter (the counterpart of bremsstrahlung), in photon gas (the counterpart of inverse Compton scattering), and in magnetic field (the counterpart of synchrotron radiation). The $`\gamma `$-ray production mechanisms and their absorption counterparts have similar cross-sections, therefore the condition for radiation $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}R/c`$ generally implies small optical depth for the corresponding $`\gamma `$-ray absorption mechanism, $`\tau _{\mathrm{abs}}1`$. But in many astrophysical scenarios, in particular in compact galactic and extragalactic objects with favorable conditions for particle acceleration, the radiation processes proceed so fast that $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}R/c`$. At these conditions the internal $`\gamma `$-ray absorption becomes unavoidable. If the $`\gamma `$-ray production and absorption processes occur in relativistic regime, namely when (i) $`E_{\gamma ,\mathrm{e}}10^3m_ec^2`$ in the hydrogen gas, (ii) $`E_{\gamma ,\mathrm{e}}ϵm_\mathrm{e}^2c^4`$ in photon gas (often called Klein-Nishina regime; $`ϵ`$ is the average energy of the target photons), or (iii) $`(E_{\gamma ,\mathrm{e}}/m_\mathrm{e}c^2)(H/H_{\mathrm{cr}})1`$ in the magnetic field (often called quantum regime; $`H_{\mathrm{cr}}4.4\times 10^{13}\mathrm{G}`$ is the so-called critical strength of the magnetic field), the problem cannot be reduced to a simple absorption effect. In this regime, the secondary electrons produce new generation of high energy $`\gamma `$-rays, these photons again produce electron-positron pairs, so the electromagnetic cascade develops.

The characteristics of electromagnetic cascades in matter have been comprehensively studied, basically in the context of interactions of cosmic rays with the Earth’s atmosphere (see e.g. ) as well as for calculations of performance of detectors of high energy particles (e.g. ). The theory of electromagnetic cascades in matter can be applied to some sources of high energy cosmic radiation, in particular to the “hidden source” scenarios like massive black holes in centers of AGN or young pulsars inside the dense shells of recent supernovae explosions (see e.g. ). Within another, so-called “beam dump” models (see e.g. Ref. ) applied to X-ray binaries, protons accelerated by the compact object (a neutron star or black hole), hit the atmosphere of the normal companion star, and thus result in production of high energy neutrinos and $`\gamma `$-rays . In such objects, the thickness of the surrounding gas can significantly exceed $`100\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$, thus the protons produced in the central source would initiate (through production of high energy $`\gamma `$-rays and electrons) electromagnetic showers. These sources perhaps represent the “best hope” of neutrino astronomy, but they are generally considered as less attractive targets for gamma-ray astronomy. However, the $`\gamma `$-ray emission in these objects is not fully suppressed. The recycled radiation with spectral features determined by the thickness (“grammage”) of the gas shell, should be seen in $`\gamma `$-rays in any case, unless the synchrotron radiation of secondary electrons dominates over the bremsstrahlung losses and channels the main fraction of the nonthermal energy into the sub gamma-ray domains.

The development of electromagnetic cascades in photon gas and magnetic fields is a more common phenomenon in astrophysics. In photon fields such cascades can be created on almost all astronomical scales, from compact objects like accreting black holes , fireballs in gamma-ray bursts  and sub-pc jets of blazars  to large-scale (up to $`100`$ kpc) AGN jets  and $`1`$ Mpc size clusters of galaxies . Electromagnetic cascades in the intergalactic medium lead to formation of huge ($`10`$ Mpc) nonthermal structures like hypothetical electron-positron pair halos . Finally, there is little doubt that the entire Universe is a scene of continuous creation and development of electromagnetic cascades. All $`\gamma `$-rays of energy $``$ a few GeV emitted by astrophysical objects have a similar fate. Sooner or later they terminate on Hubble scales due to interactions with the diffuse extragalactic background. Since the energy density of 2.7 K CMBR significantly exceeds the energy density of intergalactic magnetic fields, these interactions initiate electron-photon cascades . The superposition of contributions of $`\gamma `$-rays from these cascades should constitute a significant fraction of the observed diffuse extragalactic background.

Bonometto and Rees  perhaps where the first who realized the astrophysical importance of development of electron-photon cascades supported by $`\gamma `$-$`\gamma `$ pair-production and inverse Compton scattering in dense photon fields. When the so called compactness parameter  $`l=(L/R)(\sigma _\mathrm{T}/m_\mathrm{e}c^3)`$ (L is the luminosity and R is the radius of the source) is less than 10, then the cascade is developed in the linear regime, i.e. when the soft radiation produced by cascade electrons do not have a significant feedback effect on the cascade development. In many cases, including the cascade development in compact objects, this approximation works quite well.

The first quantitative study of characteristic of linear cascades in photon fields has been performed using the method of Monte Carlo simulations . Generally, the kinetic equations for the cascade particles can be solved only numerically. However, with some simplifications it is possible to derive useful analytical approximations  which help to understand the features of the steady-state solutions for cascades in photon fields.

The cascade development in the magnetic field is a key element to understand the physics of pulsar magnetospheres , therefore it is generally treated as a process associated with very strong magnetic fields. However, such cascades could be triggered in many other (at first glance unusual) sites like the Earth’s geomagnetic field , accretion disks of massive black holes , etc. In general, the pair cascades in magnetic fields are effective when the product of the particle (photon or electron) energy and the strength of the field becomes close to the “quantum threshold” of about $`H_{\mathrm{crit}}m_\mathrm{e}c^22\times 10^7\mathrm{TeV}\mathrm{G}`$, unless we assume a specific, regular field configuration. An approximate approach, similar to the so-called approximation A of cascade development in matter , has been recently applied by Akhiezer et al. . Although this theory quite satisfactorily describes the basic features of photon-electron showers, it does not provide an adequate accuracy for quantitative description of the cascade characteristics . Note that in both studies approximate cross-sections for magnetic bremsstrahlung and magnetic pair-production have been used, thus reducing the validity of the results to the limit $`EH10^7\mathrm{TeV}\mathrm{G}`$ ($`E`$ is the minimum energy of secondary particles being under consideration).

As long as we are interested in the one-dimensional cascade development (which seems to be quite sufficient for many astrophysical purposes), all 3 types of cascades can be described by the same integro-differential equations like the ones derived by Landau and Rumer , but in each case specifying the cross-sections of relevant interaction processes. The solution of these equations in a broad range of energies is however not a trivial task. In this paper we present the results of our recent study of cascade characteristics in 3 substances - matter, photon gas and magnetic field - with emphasis on the analysis of similarities and differences between these 3 types of cascades. For quantitative studies of these characteristics we have chosen the so-called technique of adjoint cascade equations. Although this work has been initially motivated by methodological and pedagogical objectives, some results are rather original and may present practical interest in certain areas of high energy astrophysics.

## 2 Technique of adjoint cascade equations

The results of this study are based on numerical solutions of the so-called adjoint cascade equations. The potential of this computational technique, in particular its possible applications to different problems of cosmic ray physics has been comprehensively described in Ref.. Below we briefly discuss the main features of solution of the adjoint cascade equations. For our purposes it is quite sufficient to consider only the longitudinal development of electromagnetic cascades neglecting the emission angles of secondary particles and, thus, assuming that all cascade particles are moved along the shower axis. Besides, we neglect the differences in interactions of electrons and positrons, i.e. do not consider positron annihilation, both in flight and after thermalization in the ambient plasma. This is a quite good approximation as long as we are interested in $`\gamma `$-ray energies exceeding $`\alpha _\mathrm{f}^1m_\mathrm{e}c^270\mathrm{MeV}`$ ($`\alpha _\mathrm{f}=1/137`$ is the fine structure constant). Under these assumptions, the system of adjoint cascade equations reads

$$\frac{f}{t}+f/\lambda _e_{\epsilon _{th}}^\epsilon W_{ee}(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})f(t,\epsilon ^{})𝑑\epsilon ^{}_{\epsilon _{th}}^\epsilon W_{e\gamma }(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})g(t,\epsilon ^{})𝑑\epsilon ^{}=F(t,\epsilon ),$$
(1)
$$\frac{g}{t}+g/\lambda _\gamma _{\epsilon _{th}}^\epsilon W_{\gamma e}(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})f(t,\epsilon ^{})𝑑\epsilon ^{}_{\epsilon _{th}}^\epsilon W_{\gamma \gamma }(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})g(t,\epsilon ^{})𝑑\epsilon ^{}=G(t,\epsilon ).$$
(2)
The adjoint functions $`f(t,\epsilon )`$ and $`g(t,\epsilon )`$ in Eqs. (1) and (2) describe the contributions (averaged over random realizations of the cascade development) from cascade initiated by a primary electron ($`f`$) or a photon ($`g`$) of energy $`\epsilon `$ (all energies are expressed in units $`m_ec^2`$); $`t`$ is the cascade penetration depth; $`\epsilon _{th}`$ is the minimum energy of cascade particles being under consideration.

The parameter $`\lambda _\alpha `$ in Eqs. (1) and (2) defines the mean free path length of cascade particles of type $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =e\mathrm{or}\gamma `$). It can be expressed through the total cross-sections ($`\sigma _\alpha `$) of interaction with the ambient medium. In the most general case, when the medium consists of matter ($`M`$), magnetic field ($`F`$) and photon gas ($`G`$),

$$\lambda _\alpha =\left[n_0^{(M)}\sigma _\alpha ^{(M)}+\sigma _\alpha ^{(F)}+n_0^{(G)}\sigma _\alpha ^{(G)}\right]^1$$
(3)
where $`n_0^{(M)}`$ and $`n_0^{(F)}`$ are the number density of the matter atoms and the ambient photons, respectively. The parameters

$$W_{\alpha \beta }(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})=n_0^{(M)}w_{\alpha \beta }^{(M)}(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})+w_{\alpha \beta }^{(F)}(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})+n_0^{(G)}w_{\alpha \beta }^{(G)}(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})$$
(4)
are differential cross-sections over the energy $`\epsilon ^{}`$ of the secondary particle of type $`\beta `$ ($`\beta =e`$ or $`\gamma `$). They are normalized as

$$W_{\alpha \beta }(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})𝑑\epsilon ^{}=n_0^{(M)}\overline{n}_{\alpha \beta }^{(M)}\sigma _\alpha ^{(M)}+\overline{n}_{\alpha \beta }^{(F)}\sigma _\alpha ^{(F)}+n_0^{(G)}\overline{n}_{\alpha \beta }^{(G)}\sigma _\alpha ^{(G)}$$
(5)
where $`\overline{n}_{\alpha \beta }^{(M)}`$, $`\overline{n}_{\alpha \beta }^{(F)}`$ and $`\overline{n}_{\alpha \beta }^{(G)}`$ are the mean multiplicities of secondary particles of type $`\beta `$ produced by a particle of type $`\alpha `$.

Properties of the particle “detector” located at the depth $`t`$ are defined by the right hand side functions $`F`$ and $`G`$ in Eqs. (1) and (2) and by the boundary conditions $`f(t=0,\epsilon )`$ and $`g(t=0,\epsilon )`$. For example, if the “detector” measures the number of cascade electrons above some threshold energy, $`\epsilon \epsilon _{th}`$, then

$$F(t,\epsilon )=G(t,\epsilon )=0;f(t=0,\epsilon )=H(\epsilon \epsilon _{th}),g(t=0,\epsilon )=0$$
(6)
where $`H(x)=1`$ for $`x0`$ and $`H(x)=0`$ for $`x<0`$. Analogously, if the “detector” measures the number of cascade photons with energy $`\epsilon \epsilon _{th}`$, then

$$F(t,\epsilon )=G(t,\epsilon )=0;f(t=0,\epsilon )=0,g(t=0,\epsilon )=H(\epsilon \epsilon _{th}).$$
(7)
For solution of the adjoint cascade equations we use the numerical method proposed in Ref. . To apply this approach to Eqs. (1) and (2) we introduce an increasing subsequence $`\{\epsilon _k\}=\epsilon _0=\epsilon _{th},\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _k,\mathrm{}`$ of energy points, and corresponding values of adjoint functions $`\{f_k(t),g_k(t)\}`$. Let’s write now the Lagrange polynomial interpolation formulae for an approximate presentation of functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ inside the energy intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _k=(\epsilon _{k1},\epsilon _k)`$ for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ through their values at the support points $`\{\epsilon _k\}`$,

$$f(\epsilon ,t)\stackrel{~}{f}(\epsilon ,t)=\underset{j=kn}{\overset{k}{}}f_j(t)L_{kj}^n(\epsilon ),g(\epsilon ,t)\stackrel{~}{g}(\epsilon ,t)=\underset{j=kn}{\overset{k}{}}g_j(t)L_{kj}^n(\epsilon );$$

$$L_{kj}^n(\epsilon )=\underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}(\epsilon \epsilon _{kr})(\epsilon _j\epsilon _{kr})^1,rkj,\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _k$$
(8)
where $`nn(k)=\mathrm{min}(N,k)`$ and $`N`$ is the maximum available power of the Lagrange polynomial.

For the first $`k`$ energy intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _k`$ the support values from $`f_0,g_0`$ to $`f_k,g_k`$ are used; in this case the polynomial power $`n`$ is equal to $`k`$. For intervals with $`kN`$ the support values $`f_{kN},g_{kN},f_{kN+1},g_{kN+1},\mathrm{}`$, $`f_k,g_k`$ are involved in the interpolation with use of the power $`n=N`$.

Let’s adopt now $`\epsilon =\epsilon _k`$ in Eqs.(1) and (2), and present the integral members of these equations in the form of the sum over the energy intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$):

$$_{\epsilon _0}^{\epsilon _k}W_{\alpha \beta }(\epsilon _k,\epsilon )\mathrm{}𝑑\epsilon =\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}_{\epsilon _{i1}}^{\epsilon _i}W_{\alpha \beta }(\epsilon _k,\epsilon )\mathrm{}𝑑\epsilon ,\alpha ,\beta =e,\gamma .$$
(9)
Then, after some simple calculations, we find the following equations

$$\frac{f_k}{t}+A_kf_kB_kg_k=F_k^{},\frac{g_k}{t}C_kf_k+D_kg_k=G_k^{}$$
(10)
where

$$A_k=1/\lambda _e(\epsilon _k)a_{kk},B_k=b_{kk},C_k=c_{kk},D_k=1/\lambda _\gamma (\epsilon _k)d_{kk},$$
(11)
$$F_k^{}=F_k+\underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}[a_{jk}f_j+b_{jk}g_j],G_k^{}=G_k+\underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}[c_{jk}f_j+d_{jk}g_j].$$
(12)
The coefficients $`a_{jk},b_{jk},c_{ik}`$ and $`d_{jk}`$ can be expressed through cross-sections of relevant processes:

$$a_{jk}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}_{\epsilon _{i1}}^{\epsilon _i}W_{ee}(\epsilon _k,\epsilon )L_{ij}^n(\epsilon )\underset{s=in}{\overset{i}{}}\delta _{js}d\epsilon ,$$

$$b_{jk}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}_{\epsilon _{i1}}^{\epsilon _i}W_{e\gamma }(\epsilon _k,\epsilon )L_{ij}^n(\epsilon )\underset{s=in}{\overset{i}{}}\delta _{js}d\epsilon ,etc.$$
(13)
with $`\delta _{js}=1\mathrm{if}j=s,`$ and $`\delta _{js}=0\mathrm{if}js`$.

Thus, this method allows us to reduce the integro-differential Eqs. (1) and (2) to the system of ordinary differential equations (10). The solution of Eq. (10) can be obtained in two steps:

(1) for $`\epsilon =\epsilon _0=\epsilon _{th}`$ in formulae (1) and (2), we find the following equations for functions $`f_0(t)`$ and $`g_0(t)`$

$$\frac{f_0}{t}+f_0(t)/\lambda _e(\epsilon _0)=F(t,\epsilon _0),\frac{g_0}{t}+g_0(t)/\lambda _\gamma (\epsilon _0)=G(t,\epsilon _0)$$
(14)
(2) after solving Eqs. (14) we can calculate the functions $`f_1(t),g_1(t)`$, because for $`k=1`$ Eq. (10) contains only $`f_0(t),g_0(t)`$, $`f_1(t)`$ and $`g_1(t)`$; after that one can find by the same way the functions $`f_2(t),g_2(t)`$, $`f_3(t),g_3(t)`$, etc.

For a fixed value of $`k`$, we introduce an increasing subsequence of the depth values $`\{t_l\}`$ ($`t_0=0,t_l=t_{l1}+\tau _l`$) and correspondingly $`f_k(t_l)=f_{k,l}`$, $`g_k(t_l)=g_{k,l}`$. For each interval $`(t_{l1},t_l)`$ one can evaluate $`f_{k,l},g_{k,l}`$ by solving Eq. (10) for which the values $`f_{k,l1},g_{k,l1}`$ serve as boundary conditions. This leads to

$$f_{k,l}=(\lambda _{0k}\lambda _{1k})^1\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{1}{}}(1)^\nu \{\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _{\nu k}\tau _l)[(D_k+\lambda _{\nu k})f_{k,l1}+B_kg_{k,l1}]+$$

$$+_{t_{l1}}^{t_l}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _{\nu k}(t_l\tau )][(D_k+\lambda _{\nu k})F_k^{}(\tau )+B_kG_k^{}(\tau )]\}d\tau ,$$
(15)
$$g_{k,l}=(\lambda _{0k}\lambda _{1k})^1\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{1}{}}(1)^\nu \{\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _{\nu k}\tau _l)[(A_k+\lambda _{\nu k})g_{k,l1}+C_kf_{k,l1}]+$$

$$+_{t_{l1}}^{t_l}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda _{\nu k}(t_l\tau )][(A_k+\lambda _{\nu k})G_k^{}(\tau )+C_kF_k^{}(\tau )]\}d\tau $$
(16)
where

$$\lambda _{\nu k}=\frac{1}{2}\{(A_k+D_k)+(1)^\nu [(A_kD_k)^2+4B_kC_k]^{1/2}\}.$$
(17)
Note that for the homogeneous environment these relations are valid for an arbitrary value of $`\tau _l`$, otherwise they can be applied only for $`\tau _lt_l`$.

The knowledge of $`f_{k,0}`$ and $`g_{k,0}`$ (these quantities can be calculated on the basis of boundary conditions like Eq. (6) or Eq. (7) ) and the multiple application of Eqs (15) – (17) allow to calculate quantities $`f_{k,l},g_{k,l}`$ for $`l=1,2,`$ etc.

The approach of solution of adjoint cascade equations described above provides an accuracy better than a few per cent and gives results for an arbitrary region ($`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}},\epsilon _{\mathrm{max}}`$) of the primary energy in just one run of calculations. Also we notice that the computational time consumed by this method does not exceed on average a few minutes for a 1 GHz PC type computer and increases only weakly (logarithmically) with the primary energy. In summary, the important feature of this technique is its flexibility to describe the cascade processes in 3 different substances. It allows large number of calculations with a good accuracy throughout very large energy intervals of both primary and secondary energies. This is an important condition for the quantitative analysis and for clear understanding of similarities and differences in cascade development in environments dominated by matter, photon gas or magnetic field.

## 3 Elementary processes

The above described technique requires specification of elementary processes that initiate and support the cascade development. If we are interested in the longitudinal development of cascades, the input should consist of total cross-sections of interactions and the differential cross-sections as functions of energy but integrated over the emission angles of secondary particles. In many astrophysical situations, especially at very high energies, this is a fair approximation, given the very small (of order $`m_\mathrm{e}c^2/E1`$) emission angles of secondary products. The one-dimensional treatment of the cascade development perfectly works, if electrons move along the lines of the regular magnetic field. Otherwise, the deviation of particles from the cascade core is determined by reflection of secondary electrons by magnetic inhomogeneities rather than the emission angles. In these cases the diffusion effects must be appropriately incorporated into the cascade equations. This question is beyond the present paper.

All processes involved in the electromagnetic cascades are well known. The cross-sections of these processes have been calculated and comprehensively studied with very high precision within the quantum electrodynamics.

In the case of cascades in matter we take into account the ionization losses and bremsstrahlung for electrons (positrons), and the pair production, Compton scattering and photoelectric absorption for photons. At extremely high energies the so-called Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal (LPM) effect that results in suppression of the bremsstrahlung and pair-production cross-sections, may have significant impact on the cascade development. The energy region where the LPM effect becomes noticeable, depends on the atomic number of the ambient matter. In the hydrogen dominated medium this energy region appears well beyond $`E10^{20}`$ eV, therefore in many astrophysical scenarios the LPM effect can be safely ignored.

Two pairs of coupled processes – the inverse Compton scattering and $`\gamma `$-$`\gamma `$ pair production in the photon gas and the magnetic bremsstrahlung (synchrotron radiation) and magnetic pair production in the magnetic field – determine the basic features of cascade produced in radiation and magnetic fields. At extremely high energies the higher order QED processes may compete with these basic channels. Namely, when the product of energies of colliding cascade particles (electrons or photons) $`E`$ and the background photons $`ϵ`$ significantly exceed $`10^510^6m_\mathrm{e}^2c^4`$, the processes $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}e^+e^{}`$ and $`e\gamma e\gamma e^+e^{}`$  dominate over the single ($`e^+,e^{}`$) pair production and the Compton scattering, respectively. For example, in the 2.7 K CMBR the first process stops the linear increase of the mean free path of highest energy $`\gamma `$-rays around $`10^{21}\mathrm{eV}`$, and puts a robust limit on the mean free path of $`\gamma `$-rays of about 100 Mpc. Analogously, above $`10^{20}\mathrm{eV}`$ the second process becomes more important than the conventional inverse Compton scattering. Because $`\gamma \gamma 2e^+2e^{}`$ and $`e\gamma e\gamma e^+e^{}`$ channels result in production of 2 additional electrons, they significantly change the character of the pure Klein-Nishina pair cascades. However, an effective realization of these processes is possible only at very specific conditions with an extremely low magnetic field and narrow energy distribution of the background photons.

Because this study has methodological objectives, below we do not include these processes in calculations of cascade characteristics. This allows us to avoid unnecessary complications and make the analysis more transparent. For the same reason we do not include in this study the effect of the photon splitting  which becomes quite important in pulsars with magnetic field close to $`H_{\mathrm{crit}}=4.4\times 10^{13}\mathrm{G}`$ (see e.g. Ref. ).

### 3.1 Total cross-sections

In Figs. 1,2 and 3 we show the photon- and pair-production cross-sections in hydrogen gas and in radiation and magnetic fields, respectively. The energies of electrons and $`\gamma `$-rays are expressed in units of $`m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$.

In Fig. 1 the total cross-sections for matter are presented. They are normalized to the asymptotic value of the pair production cross-section at $`\epsilon _0\mathrm{}`$:

$$\sigma _0=7/9\times 4\alpha _\mathrm{f}r_\mathrm{e}^2Z(Z+1)\frac{\mathrm{ln}(183Z^{1/3})}{1+0.12(Z/82)^2}$$
(18)
where $`Z`$ is the charge of the target nucleus, $`r_\mathrm{e}`$ is the classical electron radius. This actually implies introduction of the so-called radiation length

$$X_0^{(M)}=7/9\left[n_0^{(M)}\sigma _0\right]^1$$
(19)
$`X_0^{(M)}`$ has a meaning of the average distance over which the ultrarelativistic electron loses all but 1/e of its energy due to bremsstrahlung. The same parameter approximately corresponds to the mean free path of $`\gamma `$-rays. Therefore, the cascade effectively develops at depths exceeding the radiation length. Usually the radiation length is expressed in units $`\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$. For the hydrogen gas $`X_0^{(M)}=63\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The second important parameter that characterizes the cascade development is the so-called critical energy below which the ionization energy losses dominate over bremsstrahlung losses. In the hydrogen gas $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}}700`$. Effective multiplication of particles due to the cascade processes is possible only at energies $`\epsilon \epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}}`$. At lower energies electrons dissipate their energy by ionization rather than producing more high energy $`\gamma `$-rays which would support further development of the electron-photon shower.

The bremsstrahlung differential cross-section has a $`1/\epsilon _\gamma `$ type singularity at $`\epsilon _\gamma 0`$ ($`\epsilon _\gamma `$ is the energy of the emitted photon), but because of the hard spectrum of bremsstrahlung photons the energy losses of electrons are contributed mainly by emission of high energy $`\gamma `$-rays. In Fig. 1 we show the bremsstrahlung total cross-sections calculated for 3 different values of minimum energy of emitted photons: $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}=2`$, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ and $`\epsilon _\mathrm{e}/2`$. The first value corresponds to the cross-section of production of all $`\gamma `$-rays capable to produce electron-positron pairs. The second value corresponds to the cross-section of production of $`\gamma `$-rays produced above the critical energy, and thus capable to support the cascade. And finally, the third value corresponds to the cross-section of production of the “most important” $`\gamma `$-rays which play the major role in the cascade development. It is seen from Fig. 1 that while for $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}=2`$ the total cross-section of pair-production is an order of magnitude lower compared to the bremsstrahlung cross-section, for $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}=\epsilon _\mathrm{e}/2`$ the cross-sections of two processes become almost identical at energies $`\epsilon 100`$.

Both cross-sections grow significantly with energy until $`\epsilon _010^3`$. At higher energies the pair-production cross-section becomes energy-independent, but for $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}=2`$ the bremsstrahlung cross-section continues to grow, although very slowly (logarithmically).

In Fig. 2 we show the total cross-sections of the inverse Compton scattering and pair-production for the mono-energetic and Planckian isotropic photon fields, normalized to the Thompson cross section $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}=8/3\pi r_\mathrm{e}^2=6.65\times 10^{25}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Both cross sections depend on the product $`\kappa _0=\epsilon _0\omega _0`$ of the primary ($`\epsilon _0`$) and ambient ($`\omega _0=ϵ/m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$) photon energies. At $`\kappa _00`$ the inverse Compton cross-section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{IC}}\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$. At high energies it decreases with $`\kappa _0`$, as $`(\kappa _0\mathrm{ln}\kappa _0)^1`$.

In the mono-energetic radiation field the pair production has a strict kinematic threshold at $`\kappa _0=1`$. At small values of $`\kappa _02`$ the cross-section rapidly increases with $`\kappa _0`$ achieving its maximum of about $`0.2\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ at $`\kappa _03.54`$, and decreases with further increase of $`\kappa _0`$ as $`(\kappa _0\mathrm{ln}\kappa _0)^1`$. Thus in this regime the pair-production cross-section behaves quite similar to the Compton scattering in the Klein-Nishina regime, but its absolute value is higher by a factor of 1.5.

In the case of interactions of electrons and photons with the magnetic field it is more convenient to introduce, instead of standard total cross-sections, the interaction probabilities . But in the literature this parameter is still formally called as cross-section. These probabilities normalized to the strength of the magnetic field are shown in Fig. 3. The probabilities of both processes – photon production by electrons (synchrotron radiation) and pair production by photons – depend only on the parameter $`\chi _0=\epsilon _0H/H_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, where H is the component of magnetic field intensity perpendicular to the velocity of the particle. The parameter $`\chi _0=H/H_{\mathrm{cr}}\epsilon _0`$ is an apparent analog of the parameter $`\kappa _0`$. While the probability of the synchrotron radiation at $`\chi _01`$ is constant, the probability of the pair production drops dramatically below $`\chi _0=1`$. After achieving its maximum at $`\chi _010`$, the probability of the pair production decreases with $`\chi `$ as $`\chi _0^{1/3}`$. The same behaviour at large $`\chi `$ has also the probability of synchrotron radiation, but the absolute value of the latter always exceeds by a factor of 3 the probability of the pair production.

### 3.2 Differential cross-sections of cascade processes

The differential cross-sections of cascade processes are presented in Figs. 4,5 and 6. The bremsstrahlung and pair-production cross-sections are from Ref. . The cross-sections for the inverse Compton scattering and pair production in the mono-energetic isotropic photon field are from Ref.  and Ref. , respectively. The cross-sections of processes in the magnetic field are from Ref. .

All three cross-sections of pair-production are symmetric functions in respect to the point $`x=\epsilon _e/\epsilon _0=0.5`$. The photon production processes are asymmetric functions. The bremsstrahlung, synchrotron radiation, the inverse Compton scattering and the pair production in the photon gas have singularities. The location of singularities and the cross-section behaviour near the singularity points are summarized in Table 2.

The character of cascade development is largely determined by the fraction of energy of electrons and photons lost per interaction. In Table 3 we present mean fractions of the electron energy transferred to the secondary photons in the inverse Compton and synchrotron radiation processes at different values of $`\kappa _0`$ and $`\chi _0`$. In the classical regime ($`\kappa _01`$ and $`\chi _01`$) the mean energy lost by the electron per interaction is very small, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon /\epsilon 1`$. In the ”quantum” regime ($`\kappa _01`$ and $`\chi _01`$) the interactions have a catastrophic character; the secondary photons get a significant fraction of the energy of parent electrons. In the photon gas at $`\kappa _01`$ this fraction exceed 0.5, approaching asymptotically to 1. In the magnetic field the energy transfer is smaller; at $`\chi _01`$ it is approximately 0.1, and asymptotically approaches to 1/4 at extremely large $`\chi _0`$.

The pair production processes in all 3 substances have (by definition) catastrophic character (the photon always disappears). Since the differential spectra of secondary electrons are quite flat with increase towards the maximum energy $`\epsilon _\mathrm{e}\epsilon _\gamma `$ (in the ultrarelativistic regime), these processes proceed with formation of leading electron with energy $`x=\epsilon _e/\epsilon _\gamma 1`$ in the photon gas and somewhat smaller ($`0.8`$) in the magnetic field (see Table 4).

## 4 Cascades

In this section we discuss and compare the so-called cascade curves and the energy spectra of electrons and photons for showers produced in matter, photon gas and magnetic field.

### 4.1 Cascade curves

The cascade curve $`N_\beta (t,\epsilon _0,\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}})`$ describes the average number of cascade electrons ($`\beta =e`$) or photons ($`\beta =\gamma `$) above $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}`$, as a function of the penetration depth $`t`$.

#### 4.1.1 Matter

In Fig. 7 we show the cascade curves for electrons calculated for different values of the primary ($`\epsilon _0`$) and threshold ($`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}`$) energies using the adjoint equation technique. For comparison we also show the cascade curves calculated within the approximation A of the analytical theory of electromagnetic cascades  (valid for $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}\epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}}`$), as well as the cascade curves obtained by Monte Carlo simulations using the ALTAI code. The results obtained by 3 different methods are in a good agreement with each other.

One of the basic parameters characterizing the cascade development is the depth $`t_\mathrm{m}`$ (expressed in units of radiation length $`X_0^{(M)}`$) at which the cascade curve achieves its maximum. Generally $`t_\mathrm{m}`$ grows logarithmically with the primary energy. In particular, for light materials (with the nucleus charge number $`Z10`$) and for $`\epsilon _0\epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}}`$, the parameter $`t_\mathrm{m}`$ for electrons of a cascade initiated by a primary photon can be approximated as :

$$t_\mathrm{m}^\mathrm{e}\text{ln}(\epsilon _0/\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}})\text{for}\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}\epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}};t_\mathrm{m}\text{ln}(\epsilon _0/\epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}})\text{for}\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}0.$$
(20)
The primary electron interacts with matter somewhat earlier than the primary $`\gamma `$-ray (see Fig. 1), therefore $`t_\mathrm{m}^\gamma t_\mathrm{m}^\mathrm{e}+0.7`$.

Another important parameter is the total number of electrons at the shower maximum: $`N_{\mathrm{max}}=N_\mathrm{e}(t_\mathrm{m},\epsilon _0,\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}})`$. This number is approximately proportional to the primary energy. In the energy region $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}\epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ the electron number $`N_{\mathrm{em}}\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}^1`$; however it does not depend on $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}`$, if $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}0`$.

In Fig. 8 we present the ratio of the number of the cascade photons to electrons as a function of the penetration depth. For $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}\epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}}`$, the number of cascade photons $`N_\gamma `$ is comparable to the electron number $`N_\mathrm{e}`$. At small threshold energies, ($`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}\epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}}`$) the number of $`\gamma `$-rays considerably exceeds the number of electrons. This is explained by the break of symmetry between the electrons and $`\gamma `$-rays caused by ionization losses of electrons.

#### 4.1.2 Photon gas

For description of the cascade development in the mono-energetic photon gas it is convenient to introduce, analogously to the cascade in matter, the radiation length $`X_0^{(\mathrm{G})}`$ in the following form

$$X_0^{(\mathrm{G})}=\left[4\pi n_0^{(\mathrm{G})}r_\mathrm{e}^2\right]^1\kappa _0,$$
(21)
where $`n_0^{(\mathrm{G})}`$ is the number density of photons. Apparently, $`X_0^{(\mathrm{G})}`$ corresponds, with accuracy up to logarithmic terms, to the mean free path of $`\gamma `$-rays in the photon field at $`\kappa _01`$.

Note that unlike to the radiation length in matter, the primary energy enters, through the parameter $`\kappa _0=\epsilon _0\omega _0`$, in $`X_0^{(\mathrm{G})}`$. Obviously, for the ambient photon gas with a broad band energy distribution this parameter becomes meaningless. At the same time in a narrow band radiation fields, e.g. with Planckian distribution, this parameter can work effectively by substituting $`\overline{\omega }_03kT/m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$. Note that for the black-body radiation the density of photons is determined by temperature, therefore

$$X_0^{(\mathrm{BB})}=3/\pi \alpha _\mathrm{f}^3r_0(kT/m_\mathrm{e}c^2)^2\epsilon 6.9\times 10^7(kT/m_\mathrm{e}c^2)^2\epsilon \mathrm{cm}$$
(22)
In particular, in the 2.7 K CMBR $`X_0^{(\mathrm{BB})}3.3\times 10^{12}\epsilon \mathrm{cm}`$.

The results shown in Fig. 9 are cascade curves of electrons and photons in the blackbody photon gas calculated for the fixed value of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{th}}=\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}\overline{\omega _0}=1`$ corresponding to the threshold energy of cascade particles, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}=m_\mathrm{e}c^2/3kT`$, but for different values of the parameter $`\kappa _0`$, i.e. for different primary photons energies $`\epsilon _0=\kappa _0m_\mathrm{e}c^2/3kT`$.

We can see that the depth $`t_\mathrm{m}`$ of the shower maximum measured in units of radiation length $`X_0^{(\mathrm{G})}`$ depends rather weakly on the primary energy $`\epsilon _0`$. It ranges within $`1÷2`$. This means that in geometrical units of length $`t_\mathrm{m}`$ is approximately a linear function of $`\epsilon _0`$. This is explained by the approximately linear decrease of the cross-sections and correspondingly by the increase of mean free path of electrons and $`\gamma `$-rays interacting with the ambient photons in the Klein-Nishina (quantum) regime (see Fig. 2).

The number of cascade particles in the Klein-Nishina regime increases with $`\epsilon _0`$ slowly. Even near the shower maximum this number does not exceed a few particles. This is explained by an extremely high efficiency of conversion of energy of the photon to the leading electron at $`\gamma `$-$`\gamma `$ interactions, and vice versa - the electron energy to the upscattered photon at the Compton scattering (see Figure 5 and Tables 3,4). As a result, the energy of the second (secondary) particle appears too small for noticeable contribution to the cascade development. Since in this regime the cross-sections of the Compton scattering and photon-photon pair production are quite similar, the cascade process in the zeroth approximation can be considered as propagation of a single composite $`\gamma /e^{\prime \prime }`$ particle which spends 2/5 of its time in the “$`\gamma `$ state” and 3/5 in the “electron state” (these times are determined by the ratio 1.5 of the corresponding cross-sections in the Klein-Nishina limit).

Fig. 10 illustrates dependence of the cascade curve on the threshold energy $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}`$ with the corresponding parameter $`\kappa _{\mathrm{th}}`$ below and above 1. With reduction of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{th}}`$, the cascade curves of both $`\gamma `$-rays and electrons increase, especially in the regime of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{th}}1`$. This has a simple explanation. Although in this (Thompson) regime of scattering the cross-section is large, the energy transferred to the secondary photon is quite small (see Table 3). Consequently, the mean free path of these electrons increases with reduction of their energy as $`1/\epsilon `$. These electrons produce large number of $`\gamma `$-rays with energy below the effective pair-production threshold <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1In the case of the black-body radiation of background photons there is no strict kinematic threshold; $`\gamma `$-rays with energy $`\epsilon m_\mathrm{e}c^2/3kT`$ may still interact with the background photons from the Wien tail of distribution., which therefore penetrate very large distances without interacting with the ambient background radiation. Consequently, the number of these photons remains almost constant.

#### 4.1.3 Magnetic field

Fig. 11 shows the cascade curves of electrons in the magnetic field obtained with the adjoint equation technique. The comparison with the Monte Carlo simulations  shows nice agreement between results obtained by two different methods.

Following to Ref.  we express the depth of penetration of cascade particles in units of the radiation length in the magnetic field

$$X_0^{(\mathrm{F})}=0.20710^7\frac{H_{\mathrm{cr}}}{H}\chi _0^{1/3},$$
(23)
where $`\chi _0=\epsilon _0H/H_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. Similar to the cascade in the photon gas, the radiation length in the magnetic field depends on the primary energy, but in this case the dependence is slower, $`X_0^{(\mathrm{F})}\epsilon _0^{1/3}`$.

Fig. 11 illustrates dependence of cascade curves on the primary energy in a deep quantum regime with the threshold value of the parameter $`\chi _{\mathrm{th}}=10^3`$. It is seen that the location of the cascade curve maximum $`t_\mathrm{m}`$ ranges within $`2÷3`$ radiation lengths. In geometrical units this implies that the position of the cascade curve maximum increases with energy proportional to $`\epsilon _0^{1/3}`$. The maximum electron number, $`N_\mathrm{m}`$, grows with $`\epsilon _0`$ as $`\epsilon _0^{0.7}`$. Thus, the cascade development in the magnetic field in the quantum regime is somewhat intermediate between the cascades in matter and the photon gas.

In Fig. 12 we present the cascade curves of electrons and photons for different values of the threshold energy $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}`$. It is seen that in the regime $`\chi _{\mathrm{th}}1`$ the cascade curves have a behaviour quite similar to that for the cascade curves in the photon gas shown in Figure 10. This can be explained by similarities of the synchrotron radiation and the Compton scattering in the non-quantum regime. In both cases the electrons suffer a large number of collisions but with small energy transfer to secondary photons. In addition, in both cases $`\gamma `$-rays stop to interact effectively with the ambient medium.

Table 5 demonstrates the dependence of the $`N_\gamma /N_\mathrm{e}`$ ratio on $`\chi _{\mathrm{th}}`$ and $`t`$. It behaves quite similar to cascades in matter. Particularly, for large threshold energies $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}`$ the electron and photon numbers are comparable; for small $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}`$ the photon number is considerably larger, and the ratio $`N_\gamma /N_\mathrm{e}`$ increases with the depth.

### 4.2 Energy spectra of cascade particles

Compared to the cascade curves, the energy spectra of electrons and photons at different stages of the cascade propagation contain more circumstantial information about the shower characteristics.

In Fig. 13 we show the energy spectra of cascade electrons and photons at different penetration depths in the hydrogen gas. At energies exceeding the critical energy, $`\epsilon \epsilon _{\mathrm{cr}}`$, the spectra of both electrons and photons are described by power-law $`dN/d\epsilon \epsilon ^\alpha `$, where the spectral index is function of the penetration depth. Near the shower maximum, $`\alpha `$2 for both electron and photon spectra. With depth the spectra become steeper.

Below the critical energy, the cross-sections of the bremsstrahlung and pair-production processes are not sufficiently large to support the cascade development against the dissipative processes like ionization and Compton scattering. Thus the multiplication of cascade particles is dramatically reduced. The cooling time of electrons due to ionization losses is proportional to energy, therefore below the critical energy this process leads to significant hardening of the electron, and correspondingly also the photon spectrum that behaves as $`\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}\epsilon \epsilon ^1`$.

In Fig. 14 we show the differential energy spectra of cascade particles in the radiation field with Planckian type spectral distribution. These spectra are quite different from the ones that appear in the cascades developed in matter. In the high energy (Klein-Nishina) region, $`\kappa =\epsilon \omega _01`$, and for not very large depths ($`t10`$ r.l.) the shape of the differential spectra of electrons and photons is quite insensitive to the depth (contrary to the cascade in matter). At these energies the differential spectra are characterized by slopes with indices between 1 and 1.5.

At $`\kappa 1`$ there exists a pronounced transition region where the energy spectra undergo dramatic changes. The reason for the appearance of the transition region is the change of the character of Compton scattering (from the Thompson to the Klein-Nishina regime) and the sharp reduction of the pair production cross-section. Obviously, a broader energy distribution of background photons would make this transition smoother and less pronounced.

At low energies ($`\kappa 1`$) the cascade development is not supported by pair-production. Here we deal with an ensemble of photons not interacting with the environment and an ensemble of electrons continuously cooling down with the characteristic (Thompson) time $`t_\mathrm{T}1/\epsilon `$. This results in standard electron spectra with spectral index $`\alpha =2`$. During propagating into deeper layers of the photon gas, these electrons produce large number of low energy photons with energy spectrum $`\mathrm{d}N_\gamma /\mathrm{d}\epsilon \epsilon ^{1.5}`$.

For any finite depth $`t`$, electrons do not have enough time to be cooled down to energies $`\epsilon 0`$. Therefore the electron spectrum drops dramatically below some energy $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_\mathrm{e}`$ which decreases with depth as $`1/t`$. This effect is clearly seen Fig. 14. The corresponding response in the photon spectrum is also quite distinct. Below the break energy around $`\omega _0\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_\mathrm{e}^2`$, the photon spectrum becomes extremely hard, $`\mathrm{d}N_\gamma /\mathrm{d}\epsilon const`$.

The energy spectra of electrons and photons produced during the cascade development in the magnetic field are quite similar to the spectra of electromagnetic cascades in the radiation field with Planckian distribution of target photons. These spectra are shown in Fig. 15. All features discussed above in the context of cascading in the photon gas, are clearly seen also in cascades developed in the magnetic field, if we express the penetration depths in units of radiation lengths, and the energies of electrons and photons in the form of products $`\epsilon \omega _0`$ and $`\epsilon (H/H_{\mathrm{cr}})`$. The cascade spectra in radiation and magnetic fields are not, however, identical. For example, because of significant differences in the asymptotics of relevant cross-sections, $`\gamma `$-ray spectra in the magnetic field in the quantum regime are flatter than the corresponding $`\gamma `$-ray spectra in the photon gas in the Klein-Nishina regime (compare Figs. 14 and 15).

## 5 Mixed environment

In order to reveal peculiarities of the cascade development in different substances, in previous sections we limited our discussion to the “clean” environments dominated by matter, radiation or magnetic fields. The “pure cascade” concept is not only a convenient theoretical approximation. In fact, under certain realistic conditions and within limited energy regions, this could be the most likely realization of particle interactions with then ambient medium. The relativistic electron-photon cascades in the Earth’s atmosphere, in the intergalactic medium and in pulsar magnetospheres are 3 characteristic examples of “pure” cascade developments in matter, photon gas and magnetic field, respectively.

In some cases, however, “parallel” interactions of electrons and photons with 2 or 3 substances can proceed simultaneously and with comparable efficiencies. The outcome of the interference of several competing processes could be quite different and complex depending on relative densities of the ambient plasma, radiation and magnetic fields, as well as on the energy of primary particles. For example, interactions of $`10^{20}\mathrm{eV}`$ protons with 2.7 K CMBR leads to production of secondary electrons, positrons and $`\gamma `$-rays of energy $`10^{19}\mathrm{eV}`$, which in their turn trigger electromagnetic cascades in the same radiation field. However, due to the synchrotron cooling of electrons this process would be significantly suppressed if the intergalactic magnetic field exceeds $`10^{10}\mathrm{G}`$. The characteristic energy of synchrotron photons $`5\times 10^8(B/10^{10}\mathrm{G})(\mathrm{E}/10^{19}\mathrm{eV})^2\mathrm{eV}`$ is too small for interactions with the diffuse photon fields on the Hubble scales. However, if the energy of electrons and/or photons injected into the intergalactic medium exceeds $`10^{21}\mathrm{eV}`$ (this could be the case, for example, of secondary products from decays of the so-called topological defects), then the synchrotron photons appear in the TeV energy range. The TeV $`\gamma `$-rays effectively interact with the diffuse extragalactic infrared radiation, and trigger new, low energy electron-photon cascades. In both cases the synchrotron radiation changes the character of the cascade development in the radiation field, but cannot support its “own” cascade in the magnetic field.

Below we briefly discuss a more interesting scenario, when the cascade develops both in the radiation and magnetic fields. Let’s assume that a $`\gamma `$-ray photon of energy $`E_\gamma =10^{20}`$ eV is injected into a highly magnetized low-density plasma with thermal radiation density comparable to the energy density of the magnetic field $`H^2/8\pi `$. In principle such a situation can occur in the vicinity of central engines of AGN.

Fig. 16 illustrates the impact of the magnetic field and the temperature of blackbody radiation on cascade curves. Five different combinations of these parameters presented in Table 6 have been analyzed. The minimum particle energy for the cascade curves was taken $`5\times 10^{11}`$ eV, i.e. comparable or larger (for the assumed radiation temperatures) to the effective pair production threshold in the black-body radiation , $`E_{\mathrm{th}}^{(\mathrm{G})}m_\mathrm{e}^2c^4/kT10^{11}(kT/1\mathrm{eV})^1\mathrm{eV}`$.

For the chosen parameters, the radiation length in the magnetic field is much smaller than the mean free path of primary $`\gamma `$-rays in the photon field. At absence of magnetic field (parameter combination 2) primary $`\gamma `$-rays penetrates very deep into the source without interacting with the ambient photon gas. Consequently, the cascade starts very late and remains as underdeveloped.

The presence of a strong magnetic field makes the cascade development much more effective, which now is supported by magnetic pair production and synchrotron radiation. The cascade develops in this regime until the energy of $`\gamma `$-rays is reduced down to the effective threshold of the magnetic pair production, $`E_{\mathrm{th}}^{(\mathrm{F})}10^{17}(H/100\mathrm{G})^1\mathrm{eV}`$. Therefore, in the case of pure magnetic field we have quite simple and predictable cascade curves (parameter combination 1).

The presence of photon gas changes significantly the character of cascade development. At energies above $`E_{\mathrm{th}}^{(F)}`$ both electrons and $`\gamma `$-rays interact mainly with magnetic field. When the cascade particles enter the energy interval determined by the pair-production thresholds in the radiation and magnetic fields, \[$`E_{\mathrm{th}}^{(G)}`$, $`E_{\mathrm{th}}^{(F)}`$\], the $`\gamma `$-rays interact effectively with the photon gas, while the electrons continue to interact mainly with the magnetic field. Although for $`kT=3\mathrm{eV}`$, the blackbody radiation density considerably exceeds the energy density of 100 G magnetic field (see Table 6), because of the Klein-Nishina effect the interactions of electrons with photon gas become significant only when the electrons are cooled down to energies $`100`$ GeV. The mean free path of $`\gamma `$-rays in the black-body radiation field has minimum around $`E_{\mathrm{th}}^{(\mathrm{G})}`$. Therefore, $`\gamma `$-rays start to interact intensively with the ambient photons at depths comparable with the mean free path $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma (E_{\mathrm{th}}^{(\mathrm{G})})`$. This results in a rapid growth of the electron cascade curve and reduction of the high energy photon cascade curve (parameter combinations 3-5). Due to the rapid synchrotron cooling, the mean free paths of very energetic electrons in the magnetic field are very short, therefore for each given depth the main source of these electrons are $`\gamma `$-rays which can penetrate much deeper. On the other hand, due to the same synchrotron losses, the electrons cannot support reproduction of very high energy $`\gamma `$-rays. Therefore, the at depths $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{min}}`$ both the electron and photon curves are suppressed.

The increase of the temperature increases the energy density of the photon gas ($`T^4`$) and makes interactions of cascade particles with radiation more intensive. This results in faster absorption of cascade particles (parameter combination 4). The reduction of the magnetic field (parameter combination 5) leads to the increase of the magnetic radiation length, as well as to the increase of the magnetic pair production threshold. As a result, the cascade develops slower.

Figure 17 illustrates the spectral evolution of cascade $`\gamma `$-rays calculated for $`H=100\mathrm{G}`$ and two different temperatures of the black-body radiation, $`kT=0.3`$ and 3 eV (parameter combinations 3 and 4). It is seen that at small depths ($`t10^{10}`$ cm for the upper panel and $`t10^8`$ cm for the bottom panel) the spectra are fully determined by interactions with the magnetic field. At these depths a “standard” power-law spectrum with $`\alpha =1.5`$ is formed in a broad energy region below $`E_{\mathrm{th}}^{(F)}`$. At larger depths the interactions with the photon gas start to deform the shape of the spectrum. These interactions lead to absorption of photons above $`E_{\mathrm{th}}^{(\mathrm{G})}`$. At the same time, synchrotron radiation of the photo-produced pairs appears in the energy region $`EE_{\mathrm{th}}^{(\mathrm{G})}`$. Thus, only the photons with energy below $`E_{\mathrm{th}}^{(\mathrm{G})}`$ can survive at large depths. The spectrum of these photons is close to power-law with photon index 1.8-1.9, i.e. steeper than the the canonical $`\epsilon ^{1.5}`$ cascade photon spectrum formed in the pure photon gas or pure magnetic field. This is explained by the break of symmetry between electrons and $`\gamma `$-rays. While at late stages of the cascade development $`\gamma `$-rays continue to produce high energy electron-positron pairs, the synchrotron cooling of these electrons does not anymore support the cascade, but rather destroys it.

Finally, in Fig. 18 we show the spectral evolution of cascade $`\gamma `$-rays calculated for a less extreme combination of model parameters. Namely, compared to Fig. 17, we assume a smaller energy for primary $`\gamma `$-rays ($`E=10^{17}`$ eV) and weaker magnetic field ($`H=1`$ G). At these conditions the primary photons do not interact with the magnetic field. Instead, the cascade development starts with pair production in the radiation field. Nevertheless, we can see that many basic features, in particular the $`\epsilon ^2`$ type spectrum at low energies, are quite similar to the spectra shown in Fig. 17.

## 6 Summary

In this study, the technique of adjoint cascade equations has been applied to investigate properties of electron-photon cascades in hydrogen gas and in ambient radiation and magnetic fields. We also have inspected the main features of cross-sections of relevant processes that initiate and support cascade developments in these substances.

The cascade curves of electrons and photons in the photon gas and magnetic field have features quite different from the cascade curves in matter. The energy spectra of cascade particles are also considerably different from the conventional cascade spectra in matter. The spectra for the magnetic field have properties intermediate between those for cascade spectra in matter and in the photon field. Although for certain astrophysical scenarios the development of cascades in “pure” environments can be considered as an appropriate and fair approximation, at some conditions the interference of processes associated with interactions of cascade electrons and $`\gamma `$-rays with the ambient photon gas and magnetic field (or matter) can significantly change the character of cascade development, and consequently the spectra of observed $`\gamma `$-rays. The impact is very complex and quite sensitive to the choice of specific parameters. Therefore each practical case should be subject to independent studies.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to A.Timokhin for fruitful discussions. AVP thanks Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (Heidelberg) for hospitality and support during his work on this paper.


format: text

text:
# A Sample of Ultra Steep Spectrum Sources Selected from the Westerbork In the Southern Hemisphere (WISH) survey.

## 1 Introduction

Powerful radio sources provide excellent targets to probe the formation and evolution of galaxies out to cosmological distances. The Hubble $`Kz`$ diagram of radio and near$``$IR selected galaxies shows that at $`z\mathrm{}>1`$, the host galaxies of powerful radio sources are $`>`$2 magnitudes brighter than HDF field galaxies (De Breuck et al., 2002). Because there are strong arguments that this $`K`$band emission is due to starlight, and not due to direct or scattered AGN contributions, high redshift radio galaxies (HzRGs) are among the most massive galaxies known at high redshift. This is consistent with the observations at low redshifts ($`z\mathrm{}<1`$), where radio galaxies are uniquely identified with massive ellipticals (e.g. Best, Longair, & Röttgering, 1998; McLure & Dunlop, 2000). Because HzRGs pinpoint over-dense regions in the early Universe, they have also been successfully used as tracers of proto-clusters at very high redshifts (e.g. Le Fèvre et al., 1996; Pascarelle et al., 1996; Pentericci et al., 2000; Venemans et al., 2002).

The first redshift surveys of radio sources targeted only the brightest objects in the sky (3CR Bennett, 1962; Spinrad et al., 1985). Present-day surveys reach flux densities several orders of magnitude fainter than the 3CR (e.g. McCarthy et al., 1996; Lacy et al., 1999; Rawlings, Eales, & Lacy, 2001; Willott et al., 2002). However, because the optical spectroscopy of the host galaxies requires substantial integration times on 3$``$10m class telescopes, these flux density limited surveys necessarily need to be limited in sky area. This excludes the objects with the lowest space density, such as the most distant luminous radio galaxies (e.g. Blundell et al., 1998; Jarvis et al., 2001b). To find such objects, additional ’high redshift filters’ need to be applied to the samples of radio surveys, at the expense of completeness. The most efficient filter is the selection of sources with ultra steep radio spectra (USS; $`\alpha 1;S\nu ^\alpha `$). The success of this USS technique is mainly based on the $`k`$correction of the generally concave radio spectrum of powerful radio galaxies. Several such USS samples have shown to be much more efficient in finding $`z>2`$ radio galaxies than the complete samples (e.g. Röttgering et al., 1997; Stern et al., 1999; De Breuck et al., 2001; Jarvis et al., 2001a).

It is now possible to define large, well defined samples of USS sources using a new generation of large area radio surveys: the Westerbork Northern Sky Survey (WENSS; 325 MHz Rengelink et al., 1997), the Texas survey (Douglas et al., 1996, 365 MHz), The Sydney University Molonglo Sky Survey (SUMSS Bock, Large, & Sadler, 1999), the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS; 1.4 GHz Condon et al., 1998), and the Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty centimeters (FIRST; 1.4 GHz Becker et al., 1995). De Breuck et al. (2000) have used these surveys to define a sample of 669 USS sources covering the entire sky outside the Galactic plane. However, their samples necessarily favour the northern hemisphere, because the WENSS survey, which is an order of magnitude deeper than the Texas survey, covers only the sky at $`\delta >+29`$°. In this paper, we introduce the Westerbork In the Southern Hemisphere (WISH) survey, the southern extension of the WENSS. We use WISH in combination with NVSS to define a fainter sample of USS sample in the $`9\mathrm{°}<\delta <26\mathrm{°}`$ region, in analogy with the northern WENSS$``$NVSS sample of De Breuck et al. (2000). The construction of such a southern hemisphere sample is especially timely due to the advent of several 8m class telescopes in the southern hemisphere, which can be used for the optical/near$``$IR identification and spectroscopy of the host galaxies.

The layout of this paper is as follows. In §2, we introduce the WISH survey, and compare the data products with the WENSS. In §3, we define the WISH$``$NVSS USS sample. §4 compares this new sample with previous samples and §5 concludes with an overview of the planned observations of this sample.

## 2 The WISH survey

### 2.1 Motivation

The 325 MHz WENSS survey (Rengelink et al., 1997) has proved to be an extremely valuable tool for extra-galactic and galactic Astronomy. Some of the scientific applications include (i) the study of large-scale structure using radio sources (Rengelink, 1999a), (ii) the search for high redshift radio galaxies (De Breuck et al., 2000), (iii) the selection of faint Gigahertz Peaked Spectrum sources (Snellen et al., 1998), (iv) the selection of Giant Radio Galaxies (Schoenmakers et al., 2001), (v) the construction of samples to search for gravitational lenses in the context of the Cosmic Lens All Sky Survey (Myers et al., 1995), (vi) the selection of optically bright galaxies with radio counterparts to construct the local radio luminosity functions of elliptical and spiral galaxies (de Ruiter et al., 1998), (vii) the study of linear polarization of the diffuse galactic radio background (Haverkorn, Katgert, & de Bruyn, 2000), and (viii) the study of pulsars (Kouwenhoven, 2000).

The WENSS survey is the most sensitive low-frequency survey covering a substantial fraction (25 %) of the sky. The limitation of the sky coverage is due to the East-West construction of the WSRT. With the advent of several new large optical facilities in the southern hemisphere (VLT, Gemini South, Magellan), there is a clear need for equally sensitive samples in the South. Because the WSRT can also observe a part of the southern sky, we extended the WENSS by carrying out a similar Westerbork survey in the southern hemisphere, the WISH.

### 2.2 Survey design

The main goal of the WISH is to cover as large as possible an area that can be observed with the VLT. The limitations are the latitude of Westerbork, where the horizon is at $`\delta =37`$°, and an infinite elongation of the synthesized beam towards $`\delta =0`$°. We therefore imposed a northern limit of $`\delta <9`$°, to obtain a beam with a ratio of the major to minor axis of $`<`$6. In order to obtain at least 4 hours of hour angle coverage, we limited the survey to $`\delta \mathrm{}>26`$°. However, the uv-coverage is still limited (see Fig. 1), which results in a synthesized beam with large near-in sidelobes. To limit the effects of this problem, we decided to avoid the Galactic Plane ($`|b|>15`$°) with its bright extended emission.

Apart from the above limitations, the design of WISH is based on that of WENSS. We used the broadband back-end with 8 bands of 5 MHz to improve the uv-coverage using bandwidth synthesis. The central frequencies of these 8 bands are 325.0, 333.0, 341.0, 347.0, 354.85, 366.6, 371.3, and 377.3 MHz. This bandwidth synthesis mosaicing technique was used before for the WENSS polar cap area ($`\delta >+75`$°) and proved very successful (Rengelink, 1999b). Because this requires only three configurations of the $`9A`$ baseline, instead of six for WENSS, WISH was also more efficient in observing time.

WISH consists of mosaics of $`8\times 8`$ pointings each. With a grid-step of 1.25 each mosaic covers $`10\mathrm{°}\times 10\mathrm{°}=100`$ square degrees (10 degrees in Declination and 42 minutes in Right Ascension). Each pointing was observed for 20 sec. With a move time of 10 s we have thus covered a mosaic once every 32 minutes. In an average observing time of 6 hours we have therefore obtained 11 cuts at each position. By observing in three different configurations (9A=48m, 72m and 96m) we have thus accumulated 33 cuts.

### 2.3 Observations and data reduction

The observations for WISH started in the Autumn 1997, and were concluded in the Spring of 1998. The observational techniques, data reduction, and source extraction process are identical to the polar cap region of the WENSS, and are discussed by Rengelink (1999b). Table 1 lists the 49 frames of the WISH with their respective field centers. Figure 1 shows the $`uv`$ plane coverage of a sample field, and Fig. 2 the central $`3\mathrm{°}\times 3\mathrm{°}`$ of this field. Although the limited $`v`$coverage leads to beam shapes elongated along the North-South direction, we can still resolve several sources into individual components.

The total sky area of WISH is 1.60 sr (half the WENSS area). Figure 3 shows the total sky coverage of WISH. Note that $``$38% of the $`\delta =13\mathrm{°}`$ fields could not be observed due to the limited observing time.

The final WISH catalogue contains 73570 sources, and is available on the WENSS homepage (note that this catalogue has already been corrected for the flux density problem described in §2.4): http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/wenss

#### 2.3.1 Noise

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the local noise level in WISH. The use of the broadband back-end for the WISH leads to slightly lower noise level compared with the main WENSS. However, we do not achieve the noise levels obtained in the WENSS polar cap region, which was observed with the same broadband system. This is probably due to the poorer $`uv`$ coverage, resulting in higher sidelobe noise (see also §2.4).

#### 2.3.2 Positional accuracy

The check the accuracy of the positions in WISH, we want to correlate the WISH with other catalogues with similar or better positional accuracy. Ideally, we would like to use accurate optical catalogues such as the USNO-A2.0, but due to the large WISH beam, there are on average more than one optical counterpart within one wish beam. We therefore used other radio catalogues overlapping with the WISH area.

The only radio catalogues in the WISH area that have position accuracies $`<`$1″ are the TEXAS (Douglas et al., 1996) and NVSS (Condon et al., 1998). Using the TEXAS, we find a mean position difference of $``$0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$54 (median $``$0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$55) in Right Ascension (RA) and $``$0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$27 (median $``$0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$39) in Declination (DEC). The NVSS has better position accuracy than the TEXAS, and we have therefore used NVSS sources as position calibrators for WISH. A comparison of the WISH and NVSS positions is therefore not independent, and should be treated with caution. We still perform such a comparison, as our sample of USS sources (§3) is based on this correlation.

To avoid problems due to the different resolution of WISH and NVSS, we only retained WISH sources fitted with a single Gaussian component (see §2.3.3), and excluded all objects with $`2`$ NVSS sources within 200″. Figure 5 shows the relative position differences. The most obvious feature is the strong asymmetry in the position differences due to the very elongated synthesized beam of the WISH. This effect is not seen in the comparison with the TEXAS survey, as this survey groups sources $`<`$2′ as a single entry in the catalogue.

The mean offset between WISH and NVSS is $`<\mathrm{\Delta }(RA)>=0\stackrel{}{.}59`$ (median $``$0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$51) and $`<\mathrm{\Delta }(DEC)>=0\stackrel{}{.}32`$ (median $``$0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$37). These values are consistent with those found from the correlation with the TEXAS. The offset can also be compared with the systematic offset between the WENSS and NVSS positions: $`<\mathrm{\Delta }(RA)>=0.12`$ and $`<\mathrm{\Delta }(DEC)>=0.09`$. However, for consistency with the WENSS, and in order to retain independent positions for comparison with future surveys, we did not apply this correction to the WISH catalogue.

We find a significantly larger offset in RA, which is due to the lack of correction for polar motion and/or a timing problem (see also de Vries et al., 2002). Despite this large scatter due to the elongated beam, the offset in DEC is only half that in RA, indicating that the large Gaussian fitting errors do not introduce a systematic bias.

#### 2.3.3 Morphology

As can be seen from Fig. 2, WISH has poor resolution in declination. The mean ratio between the fitted major and minor axis $`<b_{maj}/b_{min}>=5.00`$, while for WENSS, $`<b_{maj}/b_{min}>=1.89`$. This illustrates the strong difference in ellipticity of the synthesised beam. Because we used the same source finding algorithm as WENSS, this leads to a large number of mis-classifications of WISH sources as resolved North-South sources. Because the NVSS already covers the same area at 45″ resolution, the NVSS morphological parameters should be used in any selection based on such parameters. We include the WISH source dimensions only for consistency with the 2 WENSS catalogues.

### 2.4 Flux density

#### 2.4.1 Comparison with other radio surveys

To check the flux calibration of the WISH, we correlated WISH with several other radio surveys. Because no previous 352 MHz survey is available covering this part of the sky, we have to use surveys at different frequencies. These are the 365 MHz Texas survey (Douglas et al., 1996), the 408 MHz MRC Large et al. (1981), and the 1.4 GHz NVSS (Condon et al., 1998). Both the Texas and MRC surveys use the TXS flux scale, which is related to the more commonly used Baars (BA) scale by the relation $`S(TXS)=0.9607\times S(BA)`$ (Douglas et al., 1996). To compare the flux densities, we have put the Texas and MRC flux densities on the Baars scale, as used for WISH.

For the Texas survey, the difference in survey frequency should cause the WISH flux densities to be only $``$3% brighter than the Texas flux densities (assuming $`\alpha _{352}^{365}=0.8`$). The observed flux ratio is clearly higher: $`<S_{WISH}/S_{Texas}=1.071>`$ (median 1.059). A similar result is seen for the MRC: $`<S_{WISH}/S_{MRC}=1.242>`$ (median 1.262) with an expected value of 1.125. For the NVSS, the flux differences are larger, but they also point towards a $``$16% over-estimation of the WISH flux densities: $`<S_{WISH}/S_{NVSS}=3.500>`$ (median 3.551) with an expected value of 3.018.

#### 2.4.2 Cause of the flux density problem

We examined the dependence of this flux discrepancy on several source parameters such as flux density, morphology, and position difference with respect to the other surveys. None of these appear to influence this flux discrepancy.

We do find a strong variation of mean spectral index between individual survey frames (Table 1). There is no dependence on Galactic latitude or longitude, or on Galactic extinction, nor is there a dependence on distance from the field centre. There is a clear discontinuity across the frame boundaries, but no strong inter-frame correlations, suggesting the flux discrepancy depends rather on the epoch of observation than on the position on the sky.

The most obvious explication for these large flux density errors are the low elevations at which the WISH has been observed. This could lead to errors in the system temperature corrections, especially when using flux density calibrators observed at much higher elevations.

#### 2.4.3 Correction using NVSS

Because none of the other radio surveys have the same frequency as WISH, we can only apply a statistical correction factor to the individual frames, assuming a constant spectral index between the two survey frequencies. Although they are close in survey frequency, we prefer not to use the Texas and MRC surveys, because they are much shallower than the WISH, and have $`23\times `$ poorer resolution. We shall therefore only use the NVSS in the following.

To determine the expected WISH$``$NVSS spectral indices, we use the spectral index distribution of the 13600 sources in the WENSS$``$NVSS polar cap region. Here, we consider only the sources from the WENSS polar cap, because they were observed with the same broadband receiver system as WISH111We have checked that the WENSS polar cap region is not subject to this flux density problem; this implies that the problem is not due to the broadband receiver system itself.. As noted by Rengelink (1999b), this system leads to bandwidth smearing, which attenuates faint sources, leading to an underestimate of the flux densities of the order of 10% for the faintest ($`S_{352}\mathrm{}<30`$ mJy) sources. To avoid this problem, we therefore consider only sources with $`S_{352}>40`$ mJy. As shown by De Breuck et al. (2000), this does not significantly affect the spectral index distribution. Because the steep part of the WENSS$``$NVSS spectral index distribution has a nearly Gaussian distribution, we use the fitted peak $`GP_{\mathrm{WENSS}\mathrm{NVSS}}=0.786`$ of the distribution to compare with the WISH$``$NVSS spectral indices. In each WISH frame, there are on average $`550`$ single component sources with $`S_{352}>40`$ mJy and an NVSS counterpart. We also fit a Gaussian to their spectral index distribution to determine $`GP_{\mathrm{WISH}\mathrm{NVSS}}`$ for each frame. Forcing these peaks to coincide with $`GP_{\mathrm{WENSS}\mathrm{NVSS}}`$ yields correction factors

$$C=(1400/352)^{GP_{\mathrm{WISH}\mathrm{NVSS}}GP_{\mathrm{WENSS}\mathrm{NVSS}}}.$$

Table 1 lists these correction factors for each frame. They range from 0.691 to 1.199, with a mean of 0.868 (median 0.846), indicating the WISH flux densities are statistically overestimated by an average $`13`$%.

We have also determined the correction factors comparing the mean and median spectral WISH$``$NVSS and WENSS$``$NVSS spectral indices. The resulting correction factors are consistent with the ones determined from the Gaussian peaks, with a mean difference of $`1`$%, and a maximum difference of 7% and 2% for the correction factors based on the mean and median, respectively. We therefore estimate these statistical correction factors to be accurate to $`<`$2%.

We have applied these correction factors to flux densities listed in the WISH catalogue published on the WENSS homepage, and will consider only the corrected values in the remainder of this paper.

## 3 USS sample selection

We now use the WISH to define a sample of USS sources analogous to the WENSS$``$NVSS sample of De Breuck et al. (2000). We use the same selection criteria, i.e. only sources outside the Galactic Plane $`|b|>10`$° with $`\alpha _{352}^{1400}<1.30`$, $`S_{1400}10`$ mJy, and position differences between WISH and NVSS $`<`$10″. We also need to exclude objects which are listed as a single source in WISH, but resolved in the NVSS. This can occur due to differences in resolution and source finding algorithms, and could easily introduce spurious USS sources. In the WENSS$``$NVSS, De Breuck et al. (2000) conservatively excluded all WENSS sources with $`>`$1 NVSS source within a 72″ from the WENSS position. Because the WISH synthesized beam is much more asymmetrical than the WENSS beam, we cannot use such a circular beam here. Based on Figure 5, we adopt a box of 40″ in RA and 150″ in DEC to exclude the multiple-component sources. This results in a sample of 154 USS sources, listed in Table 2.

## 4 Discussion

Although we used almost the same selection criteria, the source density of the WISH$``$NVSS USS sample (78 sr-1) is roughly half that of the WENSS$``$NVSS USS sample. This can be explained by the much larger position uncertainty in declination of the WISH survey (§2.3.2), which results in a much larger number of sources that fall outside our adopted circular 10″ search radius. Contrary to the asymmetrical exclusion box for multiple NVSS sources (§3), we keep a circular correlation search radius because the sources with larger position offsets could also have larger flux density uncertainties, and could also select sources with large angular sizes ($`\mathrm{}>1\mathrm{}`$), which are less likely to be at very high redshifts. This implicitly introduces a small bias against sources oriented North-South.

We have searched the literature for previous observations of the sources in this USS sample. There is a significant overlap (16 sources) with the shallower Texas$``$NVSS USS sample of De Breuck et al. (2000). This also includes the highest redshift radio galaxy known to date, TN J0924$``$2201 ($`z=5.19`$ van Breugel et al., 1999). Six sources are also detected in the second data release of the 2MASS survey Jarrett et al. (2000), suggesting they are identified with low redshift galaxy clusters. This is consistent with the samples of De Breuck et al. (2000), who found that $`>`$3% of their USS sources are associated with nearby galaxy clusters.

## 5 Conclusions

The WISH survey is the deepest low-frequency survey covering roughly a quarter of the area between the WENSS and SUMSS surveys ($`30\mathrm{°}<DEC<+28\mathrm{°}`$). Because it has been observed at very low elevations, it has relatively poor declination resolution compared with the NVSS. It is sufficiently deep to provide spectral index information for $``$42000 sources in common with the NVSS. This provides a unique sample of faint USS sources which can be observed with southern hemisphere telescopes. We have obtained VLA and/or ATCA snapshot observations of a first batch of 69 sources from this sample to provide more accurate positions and morphological information needed for the identification of the host galaxies. A campaign of $`K`$band identifications with CTIO, and optical spectroscopy with the VLT has already identified several new $`z>3`$ radio galaxies from this sample (de Vries et al., in preparation).

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Wim de Vries of useful discussions. The Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) is operated by the Netherlands Foundation for Research in Astronomy (NFRA) with financial support of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). This work was supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Community programme ’Improving Human Research Potential and the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base’ under contract number HPMF-CT-2000-00721. The work by W.v.B. at IGPP/LLNL was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.