1: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
2: \setlength{\textwidth}{14.8cm} \setlength{\textheight}{22cm}
3: \topmargin -10mm
4: \usepackage{graphics}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Opportunity to study the LPM effect in oriented crystal
9: at GeV energy}
10: \author{V. N. Baier
11: and V. M. Katkov\\
12: Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics,\\ Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia}
13:
14: \maketitle
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: The spectral distribution of electron-positron pair created by
18: photon and the spectral distribution of photons radiated from
19: high-energy electron in an oriented single crystal is calculated
20: using the method which permits inseparable consideration both of the
21: coherent and incoherent mechanisms of two relevant processes. The
22: method includes the action of field of axis (or plane) as well as
23: the multiple scattering of radiating electron or particles of the
24: created pair (the Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal (LPM) effect). The
25: influence of scattering on the coherent mechanism and the influence
26: of field on the incoherent mechanism are analyzed. In tungsten, axis
27: $<111>$ for the pair creation process at temperature T= 100 K the
28: LPM effect attains 8 \% at photon energy 5 GeV and for the radiation
29: process at T= 293 K the LPM effect reaches 6 \% at electron energy
30: 10 GeV.
31:
32:
33:
34:
35:
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: \newpage
39:
40: \section{Introduction}
41:
42: When the radiation formation length becomes comparable to the
43: distance over which the multiple scattering becomes important, the
44: probability of the bremsstrahlung process will be suppressed. This
45: is is the Landau- Pomeranchuk -Migdal (LPM) effect. The
46: characteristic energy $\varepsilon_e$ when the LPM effect affects
47: the whole spectrum is
48: \begin{eqnarray}
49: &&\varepsilon_e=\frac{m}{16\pi Z^2\alpha^2\lambda_c^3n_aL_0}, \quad
50: L_0=\ln(ma)+ \frac{1}{2}-f(Z\alpha),\quad a=\frac{111Z^{-1/3}}{m},
51: \nonumber \\
52: && \quad f(\xi)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
53: \frac{\xi^2}{n(n^2+\xi^2)},\label{1}
54: \end{eqnarray}
55: where $Z$ is the charge of nucleus, $n_a$ is the mean atom density,
56: $f(\xi)$ is the Coulomb correction. The energy $\varepsilon_e$ is
57: very high even for heavy elements: $\varepsilon_e=2.73$~TeV for
58: tungsten and $\varepsilon_e=4.38$~TeV for lead.
59:
60: The LPM effect was studied in SLAC E-146 experiment in many elements
61: using electrons with energy 8~GeV and 25~GeV \cite{ABB} and in
62: CERN-SPS experiment in iridium Ir ($\varepsilon_e=2.27$~TeV) and
63: tantalum Ta ($\varepsilon_e=3.18$~TeV) for electrons with energy up
64: to 287 GeV \cite{HU}. The suppression of bremsstrahlung was observed
65: in the soft part of spectrum $\omega \ll \varepsilon$. The LPM
66: effect will manifest itself also in the process of electron-positron
67: pair creation by a photon. In this process the characteristic photon
68: energy $\omega_e=4\varepsilon_e$. In contrast to the radiation
69: process, where the LPM effect can be observed in soft part of
70: spectrum, for observation of the effect in the pair creation process
71: the energy $\omega \sim \omega_e$ is needed. No such energy is
72: available for the time being. For description of the LPM effect
73: including the discussion of mentioned experiments see e.g. review
74: \cite{BK}.
75:
76: Recently authors developed a new approach to analysis of pair
77: creation by a photon \cite{BK0} and radiation from high energy
78: electrons \cite{BK1} in oriented crystals . This approach not only
79: permits to consider simultaneously both the coherent and incoherent
80: mechanisms of pair creation by a photon or photon emission from high
81: energy electrons but also gives insight on influence of the LPM
82: effect on the considered mechanisms of pair creation or radiation in
83: oriented crystals. It is shown that the relative contribution of the
84: LPM effect in total probability of pair creation $\Delta_p$
85: \begin{equation}
86: \Delta_p=-\frac{W - W^{coh} -W^{inc}}{W}, \label{1a}
87: \end{equation}
88: where $W$ is the total probability of pair creation, $W^{coh}$ is
89: the total coherent probability of pair creation and $W^{inc}$ is
90: the total incoherent probability of pair creation. In tungsten
91: crystal (axis $<111>$) the relative contribution of the LPM effect
92: attains $\Delta_p \simeq 5.5$ \% at the photon energy $\omega \simeq
93: 7$~GeV for the temperature T=100 K and $\Delta_p \simeq 4.3$\% at
94: $\omega \simeq 12$~GeV for T=293 K \cite{BK0}. The origin of the
95: effect is connected with high effective density of atomic nuclei
96: near the crystalline axis which can exceed the mean atom density by
97: 3 order of magnitude. At higher photon energy the field action
98: excludes the LPM effect. As opposed to the pair creation process
99: where the coherent process is suppressed exponentially at the low
100: photon energy, the coherent contribution to the radiation intensity
101: is very essential for any electron energy. Because of this the
102: relative contribution of the LPM effect into the total radiation
103: intensity (the inverse radiation length) $\Delta_r$ ($\Delta_r$ is
104: obtained from $\Delta_p$ by substitution of the probability $W$ in
105: Eq.(\ref{1a}) by the corresponding radiation intensity) is much
106: smaller than in the pair creation probability: in tungsten crystal
107: (axis $<111>$) it has the maximum $\Delta_r \simeq 0.9$\% at the
108: electron energy $\varepsilon \simeq 0.3$~GeV for T=100 K and
109: $\Delta_r \simeq 0.8$\% at $\varepsilon \simeq 0.7$~GeV for T=293 K
110: \cite{BK1}.
111:
112: As it was mentioned, the LPM effect in an amorphous medium was
113: observed in the radiation spectra. It turns out that in an oriented
114: crystal the study of the pair creation spectrum (or the hard part
115: of the radiation spectrum) is very convenient approach for the
116: investigation of the LPM effect.
117:
118: The study performed in the present paper is connected with
119: experiment NA63 carried out recently at SPS at CERN (for proposal
120: see \cite{NA63}).
121:
122:
123:
124: \section{Spectrum of particles of a pair created by a photon}
125:
126: Basing on Eqs.(16) and (17) of \cite{BK0} (see also Eq.(7.135) in
127: \cite{BKS}) one get the general expression for the spectral
128: distribution of particles of pair created by a photon
129: \begin{eqnarray}
130: && dW(\omega, y)=\frac{\alpha m^2}{2\pi \omega} \frac{dy}{y(1-y)}
131: \int_0^{x_0}\frac{dx}{x_0}G(x, y),\quad G(x, y)=\int_0^{\infty} F(x,
132: y, t)dt +s_3\frac{\pi}{4},
133: \nonumber \\
134: && F(x, y, t)={\rm Im}\left\lbrace e^{f_1(t)}\left[s_2\nu_0^2
135: (1+ib)f_2(t)-s_3f_3(t) \right] \right\rbrace,\quad
136: b=\frac{4\kappa_1^2}{\nu_0^2}, \quad y=\frac{\varepsilon}{\omega},
137: \nonumber \\
138: && f_1(t)=(i-1)t+b(1+i)(f_2(t)-t),\quad
139: f_2(t)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\nu_0}\tanh\frac{\nu_0t}{\sqrt{2}},
140: \nonumber \\
141: &&f_3(t)=\frac{\sqrt{2}\nu_0}{\sinh(\sqrt{2}\nu_0t)}, \label{2}
142: \end{eqnarray}
143: where
144: \begin{equation}
145: s_2=y^2+(1-y)^2,~s_3=2y(1-y),~\nu_0^2=4y(1-y)
146: \frac{\omega}{\omega_c(x)},~\kappa_1=y(1-y)\kappa(x), \label{3}
147: \end{equation}
148: $\varepsilon$ is the energy of one of the created particles.
149:
150: The situation is considered when the photon angle of incidence
151: $\vartheta_0$ (the angle between photon momentum {\bf k} and the
152: axis (or plane)) is small $\vartheta_0 \ll V_0/m$. The axis
153: potential (see Eq.(9.13) in \cite{BKS}) is taken in the form
154: \begin{equation}
155: U(x)=V_0\left[\ln\left(1+\frac{1}{x+\eta} \right)-
156: \ln\left(1+\frac{1}{x_0+\eta} \right) \right], \label{4}
157: \end{equation}
158: where
159: \begin{equation}
160: x_0=\frac{1}{\pi d n_a a_s^2}, \quad \eta_1=\frac{2
161: u_1^2}{a_s^2},\quad x=\frac{\varrho^2}{a_s^2}, \label{5}
162: \end{equation}
163: Here $\varrho$ is the distance from axis, $u_1$ is the amplitude of
164: thermal vibration, $d$ is the mean distance between atoms forming
165: the axis, $a_s$ is the effective screening radius of the potential.
166: The parameters in Eq.(\ref{4}) were determined by means of fitting
167: procedure, see Table 1.
168:
169: The local value of parameter $\kappa(x)$ which determines the
170: probability of pair creation in the field Eq.(\ref{4}) is
171: \begin{equation}
172: \kappa(x)=-\frac{dU(\varrho)}{d\varrho}\frac{\omega}{m^3}=2\kappa_sf(x),\quad
173: f(x)=\frac{\sqrt{x}}{(x+\eta)(x+\eta+1)},\quad \kappa_s=\frac{V_0
174: \omega}{m^3a_s}\equiv \frac{\omega}{\omega_s}.
175: \label{6}
176: \end{equation}
177: For an axial orientation of crystal the ratio of the atom density
178: $n(\varrho)$ in the vicinity of an axis to the mean atom density
179: $n_a$ is (see \cite{BK0})
180: \begin{equation}
181: \frac{n(x)}{n_a}=\xi(x)=\frac{x_0}{\eta_1}e^{-x/\eta_1},\quad
182: \omega_0=\frac{\omega_e}{\xi(0)}, \quad
183: \omega_e=4\varepsilon_e=\frac{m}{4\pi
184: Z^2\alpha^2\lambda_c^3n_aL_0}.\label{7}
185: \end{equation}
186:
187: The functions and values in Eqs.(\ref{2}) and (\ref{3}) are
188: \begin{eqnarray}
189: &&\omega_c(x)=
190: \frac{\omega_e(n_a)}{\xi(x)g_p(x)}=\frac{\omega_0}{g_p(x)}e^{x/\eta_1},\quad
191: L=L_0g_p(x),
192: \nonumber \\
193: &&
194: g_p(x)=g_{p0}+\frac{1}{6 L_0}\left[\ln
195: \left(1+\kappa_1^2\right)+\frac{6 D_{p}\kappa_1^2}
196: {12+\kappa_1^2}\right],\quad
197: g_{p0}=1-\frac{1}{L_0}\left[\frac{1}{42}+h\left(\frac{u_1^2}{a^2}\right)\right],
198: \nonumber \\
199: && h(z)=-\frac{1}{2}\left[1+(1+z)e^{z}{\rm Ei}(-z)
200: \right],\label{8}
201: \end{eqnarray}
202: where $L_0$ is defined in Eq.(\ref{1}), the function $g_p(x)$
203: determines the effective logarithm using the interpolation
204: procedure, $D_{p}=D_{sc}-10/21=1.8246$, $D_{sc}=2.3008$ is the
205: constant entering in the radiation spectrum at $\chi/u \gg 1$ (or in
206: electron spectrum in pair creation process at $\kappa_1 \gg 1$), see
207: Eq.(7.107) in \cite{BKS},~ Ei($z$) is the integral exponential
208: function.
209:
210: The expression for $dW(\omega, y)$ Eq.(\ref{2}) includes both the
211: coherent and incoherent contributions as well as the influence of
212: the multiple scattering (the LPM effect) on the pair creation
213: process (see \cite{BK0}). The probability of the coherent pair
214: creation is the first term ($\nu_0^2=0$) of the decomposition of
215: Eq.(\ref{2}) over $\nu_0^2$ (compare with Eq.(12.7) in \cite{BKS})
216: \begin{eqnarray}
217: && dW^{coh}(\omega, y)=\frac{\alpha
218: m^2}{2\sqrt{3}\pi\omega}\frac{dy}{y(1-y)}
219: \int_0^{x_0}\frac{dx}{x_0}\left[2s_2K_{2/3}(\lambda)
220: +s_3\int_{\lambda}^{\infty}K_{1/3}(z)dz \right],
221: \nonumber \\
222: &&\lambda=\lambda(x)=\frac{2}{3\kappa_1}, \label{9}
223: \end{eqnarray}
224: where $K_{\nu}(\lambda)$ is MacDonald's function. The probability of
225: the incoherent pair creation is the second term ($\propto \nu_0^2$)
226: of the mentioned decomposition (compare with Eq.(21.31) in
227: \cite{BKS})
228: \begin{equation}
229: dW^{inc}(\omega, y)=\frac{4Z^2\alpha^3 n_a L_0}{15 m^2} dy
230: \int_0^{\infty}\frac{dx}{\eta_1}e^{-x/\eta_1}f(x, y)g_p(x),
231: \label{10}
232: \end{equation}
233: where $g_p(x)$ is defined in Eq.(\ref{8}),
234: \begin{eqnarray}
235: &&f(x, y)=f_1(z)+ s_2f_2(z), \quad
236: f_1(z)=z^4\Upsilon(z)-3z^2\Upsilon'(z)-z^3,
237: \nonumber \\
238: && f_2(z)=(z^4+3z)\Upsilon(z)-5z^2\Upsilon'(z)-z^3,\quad z=z(x,
239: y)=\kappa_1^{-2/3}. \label{11}
240: \end{eqnarray}
241: Here
242: \begin{equation}
243: \Upsilon(z)=\int_0^{\infty}\sin\left(zt+\frac{t^3}{3}\right)dt
244: \label{12}
245: \end{equation}
246: is the Hardy function.
247:
248: The next terms of decomposition of the pair creation probability
249: $dW=dW(\omega, y)$ over $\nu_0^2$ describe the influence of
250: multiple scattering on the pair creation process, the LPM effect.
251: The third term ($\propto \nu_0^4$) of the mentioned decomposition
252: has the form
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: && \frac{dW^{(3)}(\omega, y)}{dy}=-\frac{\alpha
255: m^2\omega\sqrt{3}}{5600 \pi \omega_0^2 x_0}
256: \int_0^{x_0}\frac{g_p^2(x)}{\kappa(x)}\Phi(\lambda)e^{-2x/\eta_1}dx
257: \nonumber \\
258: &&
259: \Phi(\lambda)=\lambda^2\left(s_2F_2(\lambda)-s_3F_3(\lambda)\right),
260: \nonumber \\
261: && F_2(\lambda)=(7820+126\lambda^2)\lambda K_{2/3}(\lambda)-
262: (280+2430\lambda^2) K_{1/3}(\lambda),
263: \nonumber \\
264: && F_3(\lambda)=(264-63\lambda^2)\lambda K_{2/3}(\lambda)-
265: (24+3\lambda^2) K_{1/3}(\lambda),\label{13}
266: \end{eqnarray}
267: where $\lambda$ is defined in Eq.(\ref{9}).
268:
269: We consider the case of relatively low photon energies where the
270: influence of the field of axis on the pair creation process is still
271: weak. In this case it is possible to single out the basic elements
272: which distinguish the pair creation process in oriented crystal from
273: the same process in amorphous medium. The first of these elements is
274: the modification of the characteristic logarithm $L_0$ Eq.(\ref{1})
275: \begin{equation}
276: \ln a \rightarrow \ln a - h\left(\frac{u_1^2}{a^2}\right).
277: \label{14}
278: \end{equation}
279: For $u_1\ll a$ one has $h(u_1^2/a^2) \simeq
280: -(1+C)/2+\ln(a/u_1),~C=0.577..$ and so this term characterizes the
281: new value of upper boundary of impact parameters $u_1$ contributing
282: to the value $<{\bf q}_s^2>$ instead of screening radius $a$ in an
283: amorphous medium (${\bf q}_s$ is the momentum transfer at random
284: collision, see \cite{BK0}).
285:
286: Because to action of the field of axis the coherent pair creation by
287: a photon process emerges at $\omega \sim \omega_m$. In
288: near-threshold region the probability of this process has the form
289: (see Eq.(12.14) in \cite{BKS})
290: \begin{eqnarray}
291: && dW^{coh}=\frac{\alpha m^2 dy}{\omega_m
292: x_0}\sqrt{-\frac{3f(x_m)}{4f''(x_m)}}\left(1-\frac{s}{4}\right)
293: \exp\left(-\frac{8}{3\kappa_m s}\right)
294: \nonumber \\
295: && \kappa_m=\kappa(x_m)\equiv \frac{\omega}{\omega_m}, \quad
296: \kappa'(x_m)=0,\quad
297: x_m=\frac{1}{6}(\sqrt{1+16\eta(1+\eta)}-1-2\eta)
298: \nonumber \\
299: && s=s(y)=4y(1-y),\label{15}
300: \end{eqnarray}
301: where the functions $f(x), \kappa(x)$ are defined in Eq.(\ref{6}).
302:
303: The correction to the probability of the incoherent pair creation in
304: the region of the weak influence of the axis field is positive and
305: the probability itself is
306: \begin{eqnarray}
307: &&dW^{inc}=dW^{cr}\left[1+\frac{5}{8}\sigma_1s^2\left(1+
308: \frac{7s}{150d}\right)\right];\quad dW^{cr}=\frac{\alpha m^2 \eta_1
309: d }{\pi \omega_g x_0}dy,\quad \omega_g=\frac{\omega_0}{g_{p0}},
310: \nonumber \\
311: && d=d(y)=1-\frac{s(y)}{3},\quad
312: \sigma_n=\sigma_n(\omega)=\int_{0}^{x_0}\kappa^2(x)
313: \exp\left(-\frac{nx}{\eta_1}\right)\frac{dx}{\eta_1}, \label{16}
314: \end{eqnarray}
315: where $g_{p0}$ is defined in Eq.(\ref{8}). Using Eq.(\ref{7}) one
316: has
317: \begin{equation}
318: dW^{cr}=\frac{\alpha m^2 \eta_1}{\pi \omega_0 x_0}d(y)
319: g_{p0}dy=\frac{4Z^2\alpha^3}{m^2}n_aL_0d(y)g_{p0}dy \label{17}
320: \end{equation}
321: If one omits in this expression the crystal summand in
322: $g_{p0}~(h(u_1^2/a^2))$, the probability $dW^{cr}$ will be very
323: close to the Bethe-Maximon probability.
324:
325: The expression Eq.(\ref{13}) for $dW^{(3)}/dy$ contains the same
326: near-threshold smallness as in Eq.(\ref{15}) and additionally the
327: small factor $\nu_0^4$. Because of this one can neglect this term in
328: the region of applicability of Eqs.(\ref{15}),(\ref{16}).
329:
330: The next terms of decomposition of the pair creation probability
331: $dW=dW(\omega, y)$ over $\nu_0^2$ in the region under study is
332: \begin{equation}
333: \frac{dW^{(4)}}{dy}=-\frac{dW^{cr}}{dy}\frac{\omega^2s^2}{3\omega_g^2}
334: \left[\left(1+\frac{5s}{63d}\right)\left(1+\frac{377}{16}\sigma_3s^2\right)
335: -\frac{1651\sigma_3s^2}{10080d}\right]. \label{18}
336: \end{equation}
337: The last equation, which describes the LPM effect in the region of
338: weak influence of the field, has the rather narrow region of
339: applicability because of the large coefficient 377/16 in front of
340: depending on the field correction. Let us note that one can use
341: following simple expressions for the entering $\sigma_{1,3}$
342: \begin{equation}
343: \sigma_1 \simeq \frac{3}{4}\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega_m}\right)^2,
344: \quad \sigma_3 \simeq
345: \frac{3}{14}\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega_m}\right)^2, \label{19}
346: \end{equation}
347: without violating the accuracy of derived above approximate
348: probabilities.
349:
350:
351:
352: The different contributions to the spectra of
353: created pair (in units ${\rm cm}^{-1}$) in tungsten, axis $<111>$,
354: temperature T=100 K, for the energies where the coherent and the
355: incoherent contributions are comparable, are shown in Fig.1(a),
356: where one-half of spectra, which are symmetric with respect of the
357: line $y=0.5$, are shown. Let us discuss the spectra. When one of the
358: created particles is soft $y \ll 1$ (the other particle takes the
359: large part of photon energy) the incoherent contributions dominate.
360: For $\kappa_m \geq 1$ and at $y \ll 1/\kappa_m$ this part of the
361: spectrum is described by Eqs.(\ref{15}), (\ref{16}). With $y$
362: increase the coherent contributions appear. Their relative
363: contributions to the summary spectra grow fast with photon energy
364: increase: if for $\omega=5~$GeV (the lowest considered energy) the
365: coherent contribution is rather small, then for $\omega=15~$GeV (the
366: highest considered energy) the coherent contribution dominates at
367: $y\sim 0.5$. In this region the incoherent contributions decrease.
368: This reduction becomes more essential with photon energy increase.
369: For $\omega=7~$GeV the interplay of the coherent and incoherent
370: contributions is leading to the nearly flat final spectrum (the
371: variation is less than 10 \%, this is quite unusual). It should be
372: noted that for $\omega=7~$GeV the right end ($y=0.5$) is slightly
373: lower than the left end of spectrum ($y\rightarrow 0$):
374: $dW/dy(y\rightarrow 0)=2.303~{\rm cm}^{-1}$ and
375: $dW(y=0.5)=2.215~{\rm cm}^{-1}$, while the sum of the incoherent and
376: coherent contributions is slightly higher:
377: $dW^{inc}/dy(y=0.5)+dW^{coh}/dy(y=0.5)=2.365~{\rm cm}^{-1}$. The
378: arising difference is the consequence of the LPM effect. This
379: property may be very useful in experimental study.
380:
381:
382: We define the contribution of the LPM effect into the spectral
383: distribution of created pair, by analogy with \cite{BK0}, as
384: \begin{equation}
385: \Delta_p(\omega, y)=-\frac{dW(\omega, y) -dW^{coh}(\omega,
386: y)-dW^{inc}(\omega, y)}{dW(\omega, y)}. \label{20}
387: \end{equation}
388: The function $\Delta_p(\omega, y)$ is shown in Fig.1(b). It reaches
389: the highest value $\Delta_p=$ 8.35 \% at $\omega=5~$GeV and $y=0.5$.
390: At $\omega=7~$GeV the maximal value $\Delta_p=$ 8.15 \% is attained
391: at $y=0.24$, at $\omega=10~$GeV the maximal value $\Delta_p=$ 8 \%
392: is attained at $y=0.16$, and at $\omega=15~$GeV the maximal value
393: $\Delta_p=$ 7.86 \% is attained at $y=0.09$.
394:
395: The same characteristics but for germanium, axis $<110>$, T= 293 K
396: are shown in Fig.2. In this case the nearly flat spectrum appears at
397: $\omega=55~$GeV. The LPM effect is essentially weaker: at
398: $\omega=55~$GeV the maximal value $\Delta_p=$ 2.04 \% is attained at
399: $y=0.34$, at $\omega=75~$GeV the maximal value $\Delta_p=$ 2 \% is
400: attained at $y=0.22$, and at $\omega=95~$GeV the maximal value
401: $\Delta_p=$ 1.98 \% is attained at $y=0.16$.
402:
403: All the curves in Figs.1(b) and 2(b) have nearly the same height of
404: the maximum and the position of the maximum $y_m$ can be found
405: roughly by solving the equation $s(y_m)=2\omega_m/3\omega$ (the
406: function $s(y)$ is defined in Eq.(\ref{15})). Since $s(y_m) \leq 1$
407: one has from the equation the boundary value of the photon energy
408: $\omega_b \simeq 2\omega_m/3$. For higher photon energy the value
409: $\Delta_p(\omega, y)$ varies insignificantly. At $\omega \ll
410: \omega_b$ the value $\Delta_p^{max}=\Delta_p(\omega, 1/2)$ decreases
411: as $\omega^2$ with $\omega$ reduction according to Eq.(\ref{18})).
412: The absolute maximum of the LPM effect is achieved at $\omega=
413: \omega_b$ and $y=1/2$. Since at $\omega \geq \omega_b$
414: Eq.(\ref{18})) is unapplicable at $y=y_m$ (in the maximum of the LPM
415: effect the depending on field correction is large
416: (($377/16)\sigma_3(\omega)s^2(y_m) \simeq 5s^2(y_m)\kappa_m^2 \simeq
417: 2$), so Eq.(\ref{18})) can be used for rough estimates only:
418: $\Delta_p^{max} \sim \omega_m^2/3\omega_g^2$. For tungsten, T=100 K
419: one has $\omega_m/\omega_g \simeq 0.54$, so that $\Delta_p^{max}
420: \sim 9\%$ (in reasonable agreement with Fig.1(b)); the position
421: estimates according to the presented scheme are in good agreement
422: with Fig.1(b). For tungsten, T=293 K one has $\omega_m/\omega_g
423: \simeq 0.43$, so that $\Delta_p^{max} \sim 6\%$; the numerical
424: calculation in frame of the developed theory gives for the pair
425: ($\Delta_p, y_m$) the following results: for $\omega=10~$GeV (6.6
426: \%, 0.36), for $\omega=15~$GeV (6.4 \%, 0.18), for $\omega=25~$GeV
427: (6.3 \%, 0.1). The position estimates according to presented scheme
428: are in reasonable agreement with these data. For germanium, T=293 K
429: one has $\omega_m/\omega_g \simeq 1/7$, so the magnitude of the LPM
430: is essentially smaller. Small magnitude of the LPM effect for light
431: and intermediate elements was discussed in \cite{BK}.
432:
433:
434:
435:
436:
437:
438:
439: \section{Spectrum of radiation from high-energy electron}
440:
441: The expression for the spectral probability of radiation used in the
442: above derivation can be found from the spectral distribution
443: Eq.(\ref{2}) ($dW/dy=\omega dW/d\varepsilon $) using the standard
444: QED substitution rules: $\varepsilon \rightarrow
445: -\varepsilon,~\omega \rightarrow -\omega,~\varepsilon^2d\varepsilon
446: \rightarrow \omega^2d\omega$ and exchange $\omega_c(x) \rightarrow
447: 4\varepsilon_c(x)$. As a result one has for the spectral intensity
448: $dI=\omega dW$
449: \begin{eqnarray}
450: && dI(\varepsilon,y_r)=\frac{\alpha m^2}{2\pi} \frac{y_r
451: dy_r}{1-y_r} \int\limits_0^{x_0}\frac{dx}{x_0}G_{r}(x, y_r),
452: \nonumber \\
453: &&G_{r}(x, y_r)=\int\limits_0^{\infty} F_{r}(x, y_r, t)dt
454: -r_{3}\frac{\pi}{4},
455: \nonumber \\
456: && F_{r}(x, y_r, t)={\rm Im}\left\lbrace
457: e^{\varphi_1(t)}\left[r_{2}\nu_{0r}^2 (1+ib_r)f_2(t)+r_{3}f_3(t)
458: \right] \right\rbrace,\quad b_r=\frac{4\chi^2(x)}{u^2\nu_{0r}^2},
459: \nonumber \\
460: && y_r=\frac{\omega}{\varepsilon}, \quad u=\frac{y_r}{1-y_r},\quad
461: \varphi_1(t)=(i-1)t+b_r(1+i)(f_2(t)-t), \label{r1}
462: \end{eqnarray}
463: where
464: \begin{eqnarray}
465: &&r_2=1+(1-y_r)^2,\quad r_3=2(1-y_r),\
466: \nonumber \\
467: &&\nu_{0r}^2=\frac{1-y_r}{y_r} \frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon_c(x)},
468: \label{r2}
469: \end{eqnarray}
470: where the functions $f_2(t)$ and $f_3(t)$ are defined in
471: Eq.(\ref{2}). The local value of parameter $\chi(x)$ which
472: determines the radiation probability in the field Eq.(\ref{4}) is
473: \begin{equation}
474: \chi(x)=-\frac{dU(\varrho)}{d\varrho}\frac{\varepsilon}{m^3}=2\chi_s
475: f(x),\quad \chi_s=\frac{V_0 \varepsilon}{m^3a_s}\equiv
476: \frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon_s},
477: \label{r3}
478: \end{equation}
479: where $f(x)$ is defined in Eq.(\ref{6}).
480:
481: The functions and values in Eqs.(\ref{r1}) and (\ref{r2}) (see also
482: Eqs.(\ref{7}) and (\ref{8})) are
483: \begin{eqnarray}
484: &&\varepsilon_c(x)=
485: \frac{\varepsilon_e(n_a)}{\xi(x)g_r(x)}=\frac{\varepsilon_0}{g_r(x)}e^{x/\eta_1},
486: \nonumber \\
487: &&g_r(x)=g_{r0}+\frac{1}{6 L_0}\left[\ln
488: \left(1+\frac{\chi^2(x)}{u^2}\right)+\frac{6 D_{r}\chi^2(x)}
489: {12u^2+\chi^2(x)}\right],
490: \nonumber \\
491: &&
492: g_{r0}=1+\frac{1}{L_0}\left[\frac{1}{18}-h\left(\frac{u_1^2}{a^2}\right)\right],\quad
493: \label{r4}
494: \end{eqnarray}
495: where the function $g_r(x)$ determines the effective logarithm using
496: the interpolation procedure:$L=L_0g_r(x)$, see Eq.(\ref{8}),
497: $D_r=D_{sc}-5/9$=1.7452.
498:
499: The expression for $dI$ Eq.(\ref{r1}) includes both the coherent and
500: incoherent contributions as well as the influence of the multiple
501: scattering (the LPM effect) on the photon emission process (see
502: \cite{BK1}). The intensity of the coherent radiation is the first
503: term ($\nu_0^2=0$) of the decomposition of Eq.(\ref{r1}) over
504: $\nu_{0r}^2$ (compare with Eq.(17.7) in \cite{BKS})
505: \begin{eqnarray}
506: &&dI^{coh}(\varepsilon,y_r)=\frac{\alpha m^2}{\sqrt{3}\pi}\frac{y_r
507: dy_r}{1-y_r}
508: \int\limits_0^{x_0}\frac{dx}{x_0}\left[r_2K_{2/3}(\lambda_r)
509: -(1-y_r)\int_{\lambda_r}^{\infty}K_{1/3}(z)dz \right],
510: \nonumber \\
511: && \lambda_r=\lambda_r(x)=\frac{2u}{3\chi(x)}. \label{r5}
512: \end{eqnarray}
513: The intensity of the incoherent radiation is the second term
514: ($\propto \nu_0^2$) of the mentioned decomposition (compare with
515: Eq.(21.21) in \cite{BKS})
516: \begin{equation}
517: dI^{inc}(\varepsilon,y_r)=\frac{\alpha m^2}{60 \pi}
518: \frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon_0}dy_r
519: \int\limits_0^{\infty}\frac{dx}{x_0}e^{-x/\eta_1}f_r(x, y_r)g_r(x),
520: \label{r6}
521: \end{equation}
522: where
523: \begin{eqnarray}
524: &&f_r(x, y_r)=\left[y_r^2(f_1(z)+f_2(z))+2(1-y_r)f_2(z)\right],
525: \nonumber \\
526: &&z=\left(\frac{u}{\chi(x)}\right)^{2/3}, \label{r7}
527: \end{eqnarray}
528: the functions $f_{1,2}(z)$ are defined in Eq.(\ref{11}).
529:
530: The next terms of decomposition of for the spectral intensity of
531: radiation $I(\varepsilon,y_r)$ over $\nu_{0r}^2$ describe the
532: influence of multiple scattering on the photon emission process, the
533: LPM effect. The third term ($\propto \nu_{0r}^4$) of the mentioned
534: decomposition has the form
535: \begin{equation}
536: dI^{(3)}(\varepsilon, y_r)=-\frac{\alpha m^2\sqrt{3}}{89600\pi x_0}
537: dy_r \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon_0}\right)^2
538: \int\limits_0^{x_0}\frac{g_r^2(x)}{\chi(x)}
539: \Phi(\lambda_r(x))e^{-2x/\eta_1}dx,\label{r8}
540: \end{equation}
541: where
542: \begin{equation}
543: \Phi(\lambda_r)=\lambda_r^2(r_2F_2(\lambda_r)+r_3F_3(\lambda_r)),\label{r9}
544: \end{equation}
545: where $\lambda_r$ is defined in Eq.(\ref{r5}), the functions $F_2$
546: and $F_3$ are defined in Eq.(\ref{13}).
547:
548: When $\chi_m=\chi(x_m)\equiv \varepsilon/\varepsilon_m \leq 1$ (see
549: Eq.(\ref{15})) and the emitted photon is soft enough ($y_r \ll
550: \chi_m$) Eqs.(17.11)-(17.13) in \cite{BKS} may be used. For
551: $\vartheta_0=0$ and $u \simeq y_r \ll 1$ one has the following
552: expression
553: \begin{equation}
554: \frac{dI^{coh}}{d\omega}=\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\right)^{5/3}
555: \Gamma\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)\frac{\alpha m^2}{\pi x_0
556: \varepsilon_s} \left(\frac{y_r}{\chi_s}\right)^{1/3}\left(
557: \ln\left(\frac{\chi_s}{y_r}\right)+a(\eta)\right),\label{r10}
558: \end{equation}
559: where
560: \begin{eqnarray}
561: &&a=a(\eta)=\ln(18\sqrt{3})-\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{3}}-C-\frac{3}{4}-
562: l_1(\eta), \quad C=0.577...
563: \nonumber \\
564: &&l_1(\eta)=3.975\beta^{2/3}\left(1+\frac{8\beta}{15}+\frac{7
565: \beta^2}{18}\right)-\beta\left(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{9\beta}{8}+
566: \frac{13\beta^2}{14}\right),~ \beta=\frac{\eta}{1+\eta}.
567: \label{r11}
568: \end{eqnarray}
569: The position of the maximum $y_{rm}$ of this contribution and its
570: value are given by the expressions
571: \begin{equation}
572: y_{rm}=\exp(-3-a(\eta))\chi_s, \quad
573: \frac{dI^{coh}(y_{rm})}{d\omega}\simeq
574: \frac{8\varepsilon_0}{\varepsilon_s \eta_1
575: L_{rad}}\left(1+\frac{2}{3}a\right)e^{-a/3}, \label{r12}
576: \end{equation}
577: where $L_{rad}$ is the Bethe-Maximon radiation length, see e.g.
578: Eq.(7.54) in \cite{BKS}).
579:
580: On the same assumptions the contribution of the incoherent radiation
581: is (see Eq.(7.107) in \cite{BKS})
582: \begin{eqnarray}
583: &&\frac{dI^{inc}}{d\omega}=\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)\frac{1}{5L_{rad}}
584: \int\limits_0^{x_0}\left(\frac{y_r}{3\chi(x)}\right)^{2/3}\left[g_{r0}
585: +\frac{1}{L_0}\left(D_r+\frac{1}{3}\ln\frac{\chi(x)}{y_r}\right)\right]
586: e^{-x/\eta_1}\frac{dx}{\eta_1}
587: \nonumber \\
588: && \simeq 0.3 L_{rad}^{-1}\left(\frac{y_r}{\chi_m}\right)^{2/3}
589: \left[g_{r0}+\frac{1}{L_0}\left(\frac{5}{3}+\frac{1}{3}\ln
590: \frac{\chi_m}{y_r}\right)\right] \label{r13}
591: \end{eqnarray}
592: In the maximum of the spectral distribution this contribution can be
593: written as
594: \begin{equation}
595: \frac{dI^{inc}}{d\omega} \simeq 0.04
596: \left(\frac{\varepsilon_m}{\varepsilon_s}\right)^{2/3}e^{-2a/3}
597: \left[g_{r0}+\frac{1}{L_0}\left(\frac{8}{3}+\frac{a}{3}+\frac{1}{3}\ln
598: \frac{\varepsilon_s}{\varepsilon_m}\right)\right]L_{rad}^{-1},
599: \label{r14}
600: \end{equation}
601: and it is very small comparing with the coherent one.
602:
603: In the case of weak influence of the axis field the intensity
604: spectrum of the incoherent radiation has the form
605: \begin{eqnarray}
606: &&\frac{dI^{inc}}{d\omega} \simeq \frac{dI^{cr}}{d\omega}
607: \left[1+\frac{15}{2}\left(\frac{\chi_m}{u}\right)^2
608: \left(1-\frac{14}{75}\frac{(1-y_r)}{d_r(y_r)}\right)\right],\quad
609: d_r(y_r)=y_r^2+\frac{4}{3}(1-y_r),
610: \nonumber \\
611: && \frac{dI^{cr}}{d\omega}= \frac{\alpha m^2 \eta_1}{4\pi x_0}
612: \frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon_g}d_r(y_r),\quad \varepsilon_g=
613: \frac{\varepsilon_0}{g_{r0}}, \label{r15}
614: \end{eqnarray}
615: where the value $g_{r0}$ is defined in Eq.(\ref{r4}), $u$ is defined
616: in Eq.(\ref{r1}). Using Eqs.(\ref{7}), (\ref{8}), (\ref{r4}) one has
617: \begin{equation}
618: \frac{dI^{cr}}{d\omega}=\frac{4Z^2\alpha^3}{m^2}n_aL_0d_r(y_r)g_{r0}=
619: L_{rad}^{-1}\left(g_{r0}-\frac{1}{18 L_0}\right)d_r(y_r).
620: \label{r16}
621: \end{equation}
622: If one omits in this expression the crystal summand in
623: $g_{r0}~(h(u_1^2/a^2))$, the intensity $dI^{cr}$ will be very close
624: to the Bethe-Maximon one (see also Eq.(\ref{17})). In this case the
625: coherent contribution is
626: \begin{equation}
627: \frac{dI^{coh}}{d\omega}=\frac{\alpha m^2 x_m\sqrt{3}}{\varepsilon_m
628: x_0} (1-y_r+y_r^2)e^{-2u/3\chi_m}, \label{r17}
629: \end{equation}
630: where $x_m$ is defined in Eq.(\ref{15}).
631:
632: The next terms of decomposition of the radiation intensity
633: $dI=dI(\varepsilon, y_r)$ over $\nu_0^2$ which defines the LPM
634: effect (compare with Eq.(\ref{18})) is
635: \begin{equation}
636: \frac{dI^{(4)}}{d\omega}\simeq \frac{dI^{cr}}{d\omega}
637: \frac{\varepsilon^2}{3u^2 \varepsilon_g^2} \left(1-\frac{20}{63}
638: \frac{(1-y_r)}{d_r(y_r)}\right)\left(1+80
639: \frac{\chi_m^2}{u^2}\right). \label{r18}
640: \end{equation}
641: The last expression has rather narrow interval of applicability
642: because of large coefficient 80 in front of depending on field
643: correction. In Eq.(\ref{r17}) we used the simple estimate
644: $-4f''(x_m)/f(x_m) \simeq 1/x_m^2~(x_m \simeq \eta \ll 1)$ and in
645: Eqs.(\ref{r15}) and (\ref{r18}) we used Eq.(\ref{19}) without
646: violating accuracy of derived above approximate expressions.
647:
648:
649:
650: The spectra of radiation from an electron in tungsten, axis $<111>$,
651: temperature T=293 K, for the energies where the coherent
652: $I^{coh}(\varepsilon)$ and the incoherent $I^{inc}(\varepsilon)$
653: contributions to the total intensity are comparable, are shown in
654: Fig.3(a). These spectra describe radiation in thin targets where one
655: can neglect the energy loss of projectile. Weak variation of the
656: spectral intensity of radiation near the maximum in the soft part of
657: spectrum is described quite satisfactory by Eqs.(\ref{r10}),
658: (\ref{r12}). Although it is quite difficult to determine the
659: position of the maximum within a good accuracy, its height is given
660: by Eq.(\ref{r12}) with precision better 10 \%. It is seen that the
661: phenomena under consideration become apparent at relatively low
662: energy. For $\varepsilon=1$~GeV, $dI^{coh} \simeq dI^{inc}$ at
663: $y_r=y_c \simeq 0.2~(\omega \simeq 200~$MeV) while for lower photon
664: energy the coherent contribution dominates and for higher photon
665: energy the incoherent contribution dominates. For
666: $\varepsilon=3$~GeV, $dI^{coh} \simeq dI^{inc}$ at $y_r=y_c \simeq
667: 0.42~(\omega \simeq 1.26$~GeV), for $\varepsilon=5$~GeV, $dI^{coh}
668: \simeq dI^{inc}$ at $y_r=y_c \simeq 0.54~(\omega \simeq 2.7$~GeV),
669: and for $\varepsilon=10$~GeV, $dI^{coh} \simeq dI^{inc}$ at $y_r=y_c
670: \simeq 0.7~(\omega \simeq 7$~GeV). One can estimate the position
671: $y_c (u_c=y_c/(1+y_c))$ using Eq.(\ref{r17})
672: \begin{equation}
673: \frac{dI^{coh}}{d\omega}(u=u_c) \sim\frac{\alpha m^2
674: \eta_1\sqrt{3}}{\varepsilon_m x_0}e^{-2u_c/3\chi_m}=L_{rad}^{-1}
675: =\frac{\alpha m^2 \eta_1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0 x_0},\quad
676: u_c=\frac{3\varepsilon}{2\varepsilon_m}\ln\frac{4\pi \sqrt{3}
677: \varepsilon_0}{\varepsilon_m}. \label{r19}
678: \end{equation}
679: The values of $y_c$ calculated according Eq.(\ref{r19}) are in a
680: good agreement with Fig.3(a).
681:
682:
683: We define the contribution of the LPM effect into the radiation
684: spectrum by analogy with \cite{BK1}, as
685: \begin{equation}
686: \Delta_r(\varepsilon, y_r)=-\frac{dI(\varepsilon, y_r)
687: -dI^{coh}(\varepsilon, y_r)-dI^{inc}(\varepsilon,
688: y_r)}{dI(\varepsilon, y_r)}. \label{r8}
689: \end{equation}
690: The function $\Delta_r(\varepsilon, y_r)$ is shown in Fig.3(b). It
691: reaches the highest value $\Delta_r=$ 6.03 \% at
692: $\varepsilon=10~$GeV and $y_r=0.82$. At $\varepsilon=5~$GeV the
693: maximal value $\Delta_r=$ 5.84 \% is attained at $y_r=0.68$, at
694: $\varepsilon=3~$GeV the maximal value $\Delta_r=$ 5.67 \% is
695: attained at $y_r=0.56$, and at $\varepsilon=1~$GeV the maximal value
696: $\Delta_r=$ 5.41 \% is attained at $y_r=0.3$.
697:
698: All the curves in Fig.3(b) have nearly the same height of the
699: maximum and the position of the maximum $y_m$ and its magnitude are
700: defined roughly by the expressions $u_m \simeq
701: 6\varepsilon/\varepsilon_m (y_m=u_m/(1+u_m)),~\Delta_r^{max} \simeq
702: \varepsilon_m^2/(48\varepsilon_g^2)$.
703:
704:
705: \section{Conclusion}
706:
707:
708: In this paper the spectral distribution of electron-positron pair
709: created by photon and the spectral distribution of radiation from
710: high-energy electron moving in an oriented crystal is calculated for
711: intermediate energies (a few GeV for heavy elements and a few tens
712: GeV for germanium). The interplay of the coherent and the incoherent
713: parts of corresponding process is essential for the summary
714: spectrum. Just in this situation the effects of multiple scattering
715: of charged particles appear.
716:
717: In an oriented crystal at motion of created particles (or the
718: initial electron) near a chain of atoms (an axis) the atom density
719: on the trajectory is much higher than in an amorphous medium.
720: Because of this, the parameter, characterizing the influence of
721: multiple scattering on the pair creation process in a medium in
722: absence of an external field ($\nu_0^2 = \omega/\omega_0$), becomes
723: of the order of unity at relatively low energy (values of $\omega_0$
724: for tungsten and germanium are given in Table 1). For the radiation
725: process the characteristic energy $\varepsilon_0=\omega_0/4$. From
726: the other side, due to the high density of atoms on the trajectory
727: of created particles near the axis, the strong electric field of the
728: axis acts on the electron (positron). As a result, with energy
729: increase the pair creation formation length diminishes and the
730: characteristic angles of the process expand. Hence the influence of
731: multiple scattering on the process decreases. So, one has to use the
732: general expression for the pair creation probability, which includes
733: both the crystal effective field (the coherent mechanism) and the
734: multiple scattering (the incoherent mechanism) to study the pair
735: creation process in oriented crystal \cite{BK0}. The corresponding
736: expression for the radiation process was obtained in \cite{BK1}.
737:
738: The two first terms of decomposition of the spectral probability of
739: pair creation $dW(\omega, y)$ over the parameter $\nu_0^2$ give the
740: coherent and the incoherent pair creation probabilities. It should
741: be noted that in the incoherent contribution the influence of the
742: axis field is taken into account. The next terms of the
743: decomposition represent the multiple scattering effect (the LPM
744: effect) in the presence of crystalline field.
745:
746: Since in an amorphous medium even for heavy elements the LPM effect
747: in pair creation process can be observed only in TeV energy range
748: (see e.g. \cite{BK}), the possibility to study this effect in GeV
749: energy range is evidently of the great interest. The same is true
750: for the hard part of the radiation spectrum.
751:
752: In the present paper the detailed analysis of the spectral
753: properties of the pair creation and radiation processes is
754: performed. The influence of different mechanisms on the general
755: picture of event is elucidated. At high energy $\omega \gg
756: \omega_m~(\varepsilon \gg \varepsilon_m)$ the influence of the
757: multiple scattering on the process under consideration (the LPM
758: effect) manifests itself for relatively low energy of one of the
759: final charged particles ($\varepsilon_f \sim \varepsilon_m \ll
760: \omega~(\varepsilon)$). In this region of spectrum $s_3(r_3) \simeq
761: 0,~s_2(r_2) \simeq 1$ (see Eqs.(\ref{3}), (\ref{r2})), so that one
762: can present Eqs.(\ref{2}) and (\ref{r1}) in the form
763: \begin{eqnarray}
764: &&\frac{dW}{dy}=s_2(y)R_2(\omega y(1-y))-s_3(y)R_3(\omega y(1-y))
765: \simeq R_2(\varepsilon)=R_2(\varepsilon_f),
766: \nonumber \\
767: && \frac{dI}{d\omega}=
768: r_2(y_r)R_{2}\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{u}\right)
769: +r_3(y_r)R_{3}\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{u}\right) \simeq
770: R_{2}(\varepsilon-\omega)=R_2(\varepsilon_f),\label{c1}
771: \end{eqnarray}
772: where we neglect the very small difference of the interpolating
773: functions $g_r(x)$ and $g_p(x)$ ($\sim 1$ \%). So we have the
774: scaling (dependence on the fixed combination of kinematic variables)
775: not only for different energies of the initial particles in a given
776: process, but also in the both crossing processes under consideration
777: since this is the same combination $\omega y(1-y) =\varepsilon/u =
778: \varepsilon(\varepsilon-\omega)/\omega$. For this reason at high
779: energy of the initial particles the maximum value of the LPM effect
780: for both processes is defined by the maximum of the function
781: $\Delta_{max}=\Delta(z_m)$, where
782: \begin{equation}
783: \Delta(z)=\frac{R_2^{coh}(z)+R_2^{inc}(z)}{R_2(z)}-1,\quad z_m
784: \simeq \frac{\varepsilon_m}{6}. \label{c2}
785: \end{equation}
786: In the low energy region $\omega(\varepsilon) \leq
787: \omega_m=\varepsilon_m$ this scaling remains only approximate one.
788: Nevertheless the value of maximum and its position vary weakly. Just
789: this energy region is suitable for the experimental study because
790: the rather wide of spectrum $\Delta y \sim 1$ contributes. It should
791: be emphasized that the LPM effect is large enough for heavy elements
792: only (it is around 8 \% in the maximum for tungsten at T=100 K, see
793: Fig.1(b)).
794:
795:
796:
797:
798:
799: \vspace{0.5cm}
800:
801: {\bf Acknowledgments}
802:
803:
804: The authors are indebted to the Russian Foundation for Basic
805: Research supported in part this research by Grant 06-02-16226.
806:
807: \newpage
808:
809: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
810: \bibitem{ABB} P. L. Anthony, R. Becker-Szendy, P. E. Bosted {\em et al},
811: Phys.Rev.{\bf D 56} (1997) 1373.
812: \bibitem{HU} H. D. Hansen, U. I. Uggerhoj, C.C.Biino {\em et al},
813: Phys.Rev. {\bf D 69} (2004) 032001.
814: \bibitem{BK} V. N. Baier and V. M. Katkov,
815: Phys.Rep. {\bf 409} (2005) 261.
816: \bibitem{BK0} V. N. Baier, and V. M. Katkov,
817: Phys.Lett., {\bf A 346} (2005) 359.
818: \bibitem{BK1} V. N. Baier, and V. M. Katkov,
819: Phys. Lett.,A {\bf 353} (2006) 91.
820: \bibitem{NA63} J. U. Andersen, K.Kirsebom, S. P. Moller {\em et al},
821: {\em Electromagnetic Processes in Strong Cristalline Fields},
822: CERN-SPSC-2005-030.
823: \bibitem{BKS} V. N. Baier, V. M. Katkov and V. M. Strakhovenko,
824: {\em Electromagnetic Processes at High Energies in Oriented Single
825: Crystals} (World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, 1998).
826:
827:
828:
829: \end{thebibliography}
830: \newpage
831:
832: {\bf Figure captions}
833:
834: {\bf Fig.1}~ The spectral distribution of created by a photon pair
835: vs the electron energy $y=\varepsilon/\omega$ in
836: tungsten, axis $<111>$, temperature T=100 K.\\
837: (a) The different contributions to the electron (positron) spectrum
838: (in units ${\rm cm}^{-1}$) The curves 1, 2, 3, 4 are the theory
839: prediction $dW(\omega, y)/dy$ (see Eq.(\ref{2})) for photon
840: energies $\omega=5,~7,~10,~15$~GeV respectively, The doted curves
841: 1c, 2c, 3c, 4c are the corresponding coherent contributions
842: $dW^{coh}(\omega, y)/dy$, the dashed curves present the incoherent
843: contributions $dW^{inc}(\omega, y)/dy$. At $y \rightarrow 0.5$ these
844: curves from top to bottom are correspondingly for the photon
845: energies
846: $\omega=5,~7,~10,~15$~GeV.\\
847: (b) The relative contribution of the LPM effect in the spectral
848: distribution of created electron (see Eq.(\ref{13}))
849: $\Delta_p(\omega, y)$ (per cent). The curves 1, 2, 3, 4 are
850: correspondingly for photon energies $\omega=5,~7,~10,~15$~GeV.
851:
852: {\bf Fig.2}~The spectral distribution of created by a photon pair vs
853: the electron energy $y=\varepsilon/\omega$ in
854: germanium, axis $<110>$, temperature T=293 K.\\
855: (a) The different contributions to the electron (positron) spectrum
856: (in units ${\rm cm}^{-1}$) The curves 1, 2, 3, are the theory
857: prediction $dW(\omega, y)/dy$ (see Eq.(\ref{2})) for photon
858: energies $\omega=55,~75,~95$~GeV respectively, The doted curves 1c,
859: 2c, 3c are the corresponding coherent contributions
860: $dW^{coh}(\omega, y)/dy$, the dashed curves present the incoherent
861: contributions $dW^{inc}(\omega, y)/dy$. At $y \rightarrow 0.5$
862: these curves from top to bottom are correspondingly for the photon
863: energies
864: $\omega=55,~75,~95$~GeV.\\
865: (b) The relative contribution of the LPM effect in the spectral
866: distribution of created electron (see Eq.(\ref{13}))
867: $\Delta_p(\omega, y)$ (per cent). The curves 1, 2, 3 are
868: correspondingly for photon energies $\omega=55,~75,~95$~GeV.
869:
870: {\bf Fig.3}~ The radiation spectral intensity vs the photon energy
871: $y= \omega/\varepsilon$ in tungsten, axis $<111>$,
872: temperature T=293 K.\\
873: (a) The intensity distribution $dI(\varepsilon, y_r)/d\omega$ (in
874: units ${\rm cm}^{-1}$) The curves 1, 2, 3, 4 are the theory
875: prediction (see Eq.(\ref{r1})) for electron energies
876: $\varepsilon=1,~3,~5,~10$~GeV
877: respectively.\\
878: (b) The relative contribution of the LPM effect in the spectral
879: distribution of emitted photons (see Eq.(\ref{r8})) $\Delta_r$ (per
880: cent). The curves 1, 2, 3, 4 are correspondingly for the electron
881: energies $\varepsilon=1,~3,~5,~10$~GeV.
882:
883:
884:
885:
886: \newpage
887: \begin{table}
888: \begin{center}
889: {\sc Table 1}~ {Parameters of the pair photoproduction and radiation
890: processes in the tungsten crystal, axis $<111>$ and the germanium
891: crystal, axis $<110>$ for two temperatures T
892: ($\varepsilon_0=\omega_0/4, \varepsilon_m=\omega_m,
893: \varepsilon_s=\omega_s$)}
894: \end{center}
895: \begin{center}
896: \begin{tabular}{*{10}{|c}|}
897: \hline Crystal& T(K)&$V_0$(eV)&$x_0$&$\eta_1$&$\eta$&
898: $\omega_0$(GeV)&$\varepsilon_m$(GeV)&$\varepsilon_s$(GeV)&$h$ \\
899: \hline W & 293&417&39.7&0.108&0.115&29.7&14.35&34.8&0.348\\
900: \hline W &100&355&35.7&0.0401&0.0313&12.25&8.10&43.1&0.612\\
901: \hline Ge & 293 & 110& 15.5
902: &0.125&0.119&592&88.4&210&0.235\\
903: \hline Ge & 100 & 114.5& 19.8
904: &0.064&0.0633&236&50.5&179&0.459\\
905: \hline
906: \end{tabular}
907: \end{center}
908: \end{table}
909:
910:
911:
912:
913:
914:
915:
916:
917: \end{document}
918: