1: % Template article for preprint document class `elsart'

2: % with harvard style bibliographic references

3: % SP 2001/01/05

4: 

5: \documentclass{elsart}

6: 

7: % Use the option doublespacing or reviewcopy to obtain double line spacing

8: %\documentclass[doublespacing]{elsart}

9: 

10: % the natbib package allows both number and author-year (Harvard)

11: % style referencing;

12: \usepackage[square,comma]{natbib}

13: % if you use PostScript figures in your article

14: % use the graphics package for simple commands

15: % \usepackage{graphics}

16: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands

17: \usepackage{graphicx}

18: \usepackage{pxfonts}

19: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands

20: % \usepackage{epsfig}

21: 

22: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols

23: \usepackage{amssymb}

24: 

25: 

26: 

27: \begin{document}

28: 

29: 

30: 

31: 

32: \begin{frontmatter}

33: 

34: % Title, authors and addresses

35: 

36: % use the thanksref command within \title, \author or \address for footnotes;

37: % use the corauthref command within \author for corresponding author footnotes;

38: % use the ead command for the email address,

39: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:

40: % \title{Title\thanksref{label1}}

41: % \thanks[label1]{}

42: % \author{Name\corauthref{cor1}\thanksref{label2}}

43: % \ead{email address}

44: % \ead[url]{home page}

45: % \thanks[label2]{}

46: % \corauth[cor1]{}

47: % \address{Address\thanksref{label3}}

48: % \thanks[label3]{}

49: 

50: \title{Transverse coherence properties of X-ray beams in third-generation synchrotron radiation sources}

51: 

52: % use optional labels to link authors explicitly to addresses:

53: % \author[label1,label2]{}

54: % \address[label1]{}

55: % \address[label2]{}

56: 

57: \author{Gianluca Geloni}

58: \author{Evgeni Saldin}

59: \author{Evgeni Schneidmiller}

60: \author{and Mikhail Yurkov}

61: 

62: \address{Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), Hamburg,

63: Germany}

64: 

65: 

66: 

67: \begin{abstract}

68: This article describes a complete theory of spatial coherence for

69: undulator radiation sources. Current estimations of coherence

70: properties often assume that undulator sources are

71: quasi-homogeneous, like thermal sources, and rely on the

72: application of the van Cittert-Zernike theorem for calculating the

73: degree of transverse coherence. Such assumption is not adequate

74: when treating third generation light sources, because the vertical

75: (geometrical) emittance of the electron beam is comparable or even

76: much smaller than the radiation wavelength in a very wide spectral

77: interval that spans over four orders of magnitude (from $0.1

78: \mathrm{\AA}$ up to $10^3 \mathrm{\AA}$). Sometimes, the so-called

79: Gaussian-Schell model, that is widely used in statistical optics

80: in the description of partially-coherent sources, is applied as an

81: alternative to the quasi-homogeneous model. However, as we will

82: demonstrate, this model fails to properly describe coherent

83: properties of X-ray beams from non-homogeneous undulator sources.

84: As a result, a more rigorous analysis is required. We propose a

85: technique, based on statistical optics and Fourier optics, to

86: explicitly calculate the cross-spectral density of an undulator

87: source in the most general case, at any position after the

88: undulator. Our theory, that makes consistent use of dimensionless

89: analysis, allows relatively easy treatment and physical

90: understanding of many asymptotes of the parameter space, together

91: with their region of applicability. Particular emphasis is given

92: to the asymptotic situation when the horizontal emittance is much

93: larger than the radiation wavelength, and the vertical emittance

94: is arbitrary. This case is practically relevant for third

95: generation synchrotron radiation sources.

96: \end{abstract}

97: 

98: \begin{keyword}

99: 

100: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword

101: X-ray beams \sep Undulator radiation \sep Transverse coherence

102: \sep Van Cittert-Zernike theorem \sep Emittance effects

103: 

104: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code

105: \PACS 41.60.m \sep 41.60.Ap \sep 41.50 + h \sep 42.50.Ar

106: 

107: \end{keyword}

108: 

109: \end{frontmatter}

110: 

111: % main text

112: 

113: \clearpage

114: \section{\label{sec:intro} Introduction}

115: 

116: In recent years, continuous evolution of synchrotron radiation

117: (SR) sources has resulted in a dramatic increase of brilliance

118: with respect to older designs. Among the most exciting properties

119: of third generation facilities of today is a high flux of coherent

120: X-rays \cite{EDGA}. The availability of intense coherent X-ray

121: beams has triggered the development of a number of new

122: experimental techniques based on coherence properties of light

123: such as scattering of coherent X-ray radiation, X-ray photon

124: correlation spectroscopy and phase contrast imaging. The

125: interested reader may find an extensive reference list to these

126: applications in \cite{PETR}.

127: 

128: Characterization of transverse coherence properties of SR at a

129: specimen position is fundamental for properly planning, conducting

130: and analyzing experiments involving above-mentioned techniques.

131: These objectives can only be met once coherence properties of

132: undulator sources are characterized and then propagated along the

133: photon beamline up to the specimen.

134: 

135: This paper is mainly dedicated to a description of transverse

136: coherence properties of SR sources. Therefore, it constitutes the

137: first step for tracking coherence properties through optical

138: elements, which can be only done when the source is quantitatively

139: described. Solution of the problem of evolution of radiation

140: properties in free-space is also given. This can be used to

141: characterize radiation at the specimen position when there are no

142: optical elements between the source and the specimen.

143: 

144: Since SR is a random process, the description of transverse

145: coherence properties of the source and its evolution should be

146: treated in terms of probabilistic statements. Statistical optics

147: \cite{GOOD, MAND, NEIL} presents most convenient tools to deal

148: with fluctuating electromagnetic fields. However, it was mainly

149: developed in connection with polarized thermal light that is

150: characterized by quite specific properties. Besides obeying

151: Gaussian statistics, polarized thermal light has two other

152: specific characteristics allowing for major simplifications of the

153: theory: stationarity and homogeneity (i.e. perfect incoherence) of

154: the source \cite{GOOD, MAND}.

155: 

156: As we will see, SR obeys Gaussian statistics, but stationarity and

157: homogeneity do not belong to SR fields. Thus, although the

158: language of statistical optics must be used to describe SR

159: sources, one should avoid a-priori introduction of an incorrect

160: model. In contrast to this, up to now it has been a widespread

161: practice to assume that undulator sources are perfectly incoherent

162: (homogeneous) and to draw conclusions about transverse coherence

163: properties of undulator light based on these assumptions

164: \cite{PETR}.

165: 

166: In particular, in the case of thermal light, transverse coherence

167: properties of the radiation can be found with the help of the

168: well-known van Citter-Zernike (VCZ) theorem. However, for third

169: generation light sources either planned or in operation, the

170: horizontal electron beam (geometrical)

171: emittance\footnote{Emittances are measured in m $\cdot$ rad.

172: However, radians are a dimensionless unit. Therefore, we can

173: present emittances measured in meters. This is particularly useful

174: in the present paper, since we need to compare emittances with

175: radiation wavelength.} is of order of $1 \div 3$ nm while the

176: vertical emittance is bound to the horizontal through a coupling

177: factor $\zeta \sim 10^{-2}$, corresponding to vertical emittances

178: of order $0.1 \div 0.3~ \mathrm{\AA}$. As we will show, these

179: facts imply that the VCZ theorem cannot be applied in the vertical

180: direction, aside for the hard X-ray limit at wavelengths shorter

181: than $0.1 ~\mathrm{\AA}$. Similar remarks hold for future sources,

182: like Energy Recovery Linac (ERL)-based spontaneous radiators. ERL

183: technology is expected to constitute the natural evolution of

184: today SR sources and to provide nearly fully diffraction-limited

185: sources in the $1 \AA$-range, capable of three order of magnitudes

186: larger coherent flux compared to third generation light sources

187: \cite{EDGA}. Horizontal and vertical emittance will be of order of

188: $0.3 \AA$, which rules out the applicability of the VCZ theorem.

189: 

190: The need for characterization of partially coherent undulator

191: sources is emphasized very clearly in reference \cite{HOWE}.

192: However, studying spatial-coherence properties of undulator

193: sources is not a trivial task. Difficulties arise when one tries

194: to simultaneously include the effect of intrinsic divergence of

195: undulator radiation, and of electron beam size and divergence.

196: 

197: An attempt to find the region of applicability of the VCZ theorem

198: for third generation light sources is reported in \cite{TAKA}.

199: Authors of \cite{TAKA} conclude that the VCZ theorem can only be

200: applied when SR sources are close to the diffraction limit. We

201: will see that the VCZ theorem can only be applied in the opposite

202: case.

203: 

204: A model to describe partially-coherent sources, the

205: Gaussian-Schell model, is widely used in statistical optics. Its

206: application to SR is described in \cite{COI1,COI2,COI3}. The

207: Gaussian-Schell model includes non-homogeneous sources, because

208: the typical transverse dimension of the source can be comparable

209: or smaller than the transverse coherence length. While

210: \cite{COI1,COI2,COI3} are of general theoretical interest, they do

211: not provide a satisfactory approximation of third generation SR

212: sources. In fact, as we will see, undulator radiation has very

213: specific properties that cannot be described in terms of

214: Gaussian-Schell model.

215: 

216: The first treatment of transverse coherence properties from SR

217: sources accounting for the specific nature of undulator radiation

218: and anticipating operation of third generation SR facilities is

219: given, in terms of Wigner distribution, in \cite{KIM2,KIM3}.

220: References \cite{KIM2,KIM3} present the most general algorithm for

221: calculating properties of undulator radiation sources.

222: 

223: In the present paper we base our theory on the characterization of

224: the cross-spectral density of the system. The cross-spectral

225: density is merely the statistical correlation function of the

226: radiation field at two different positions on the observation

227: plane at a given frequency. It is equivalent to the Wigner

228: distribution, the two quantities being related by Fourier

229: transformation. Based on cross-spectral density we developed a

230: comprehensive theory of third generation SR sources in the

231: space-frequency domain, where we exploited the presence of small

232: or large parameters intrinsic in the description of the system.

233: First, we took advantage of the particular but important situation

234: of perfect resonance, when the field from the undulator source can

235: be presented in terms of analytical functions. Second, we

236: exploited the practical case of a Gaussian electron beam, allowing

237: further analytical simplifications. Third, we took advantage of

238: the large horizontal emittance (compared with the radiation

239: wavelength) of the electron beam, allowing separate treatments of

240: horizontal and vertical directions. Finally, we studied asymptotic

241: cases of our theory for third generation light sources with their

242: region of applicability. In particular, we considered both

243: asymptotes of a small and a large vertical emittance compared with

244: the radiation wavelength, finding surprising results. In the case

245: of a small vertical emittance (smaller than the radiation

246: wavelength) we found that the radiation is not diffraction limited

247: in the vertical direction, an effect that can be ascribed to the

248: influence of the large horizontal emittance on the vertical

249: coherence properties of radiation. In the case of a large vertical

250: emittance we described the quasi-homogeneous source in terms of a

251: non-Gaussian model, which has higher accuracy and wider region of

252: applicability with respect to a simpler Gaussian model. In fact,

253: the non-Gaussian model proposed in our work accounts for

254: diffraction effects. Nonetheless, in order to solve the

255: propagation problem in free-space, a geometrical optics approach

256: can still be used.

257: 

258: We organize our work as follows. First, a general algorithm for

259: the calculation of the field correlation function of an undulator

260: source is given in Section \ref{sec:due}. Such algorithm is not

261: limited to the description of third generation light sources, but

262: can also be applied, for example, to ERL sources. In Section

263: \ref{sec:main} we specialize our treatment to third generation

264: light sources exploiting a large horizontal emittance compared to

265: the radiation wavelength, and studying the asymptotic limit for a

266: small vertical emittance of the electron beam. In the following

267: Section \ref{sec:quas} we consider the particular case of

268: quasi-homogeneous undulator sources, and discuss the applicability

269: range of the van VCZ theorem. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:conc}

270: we come to conclusions.

271: 

272: \section{\label{sec:due} Cross-spectral density of an undulator source}

273: 

274: \subsection{\label{sub:def} Thermal light and Synchrotron Radiation: some concepts and definitions}

275: 

276: The great majority of optical sources emits thermal light. Such is

277: the case of the sun and the other stars, as well as of

278: incandescent lamps. This kind of radiation consists of a large

279: number of independent contributions (radiating atoms) and is

280: characterized by random amplitudes and phases in space and time.

281: Its electromagnetic field can be conveniently described in terms

282: of statistical optics that has been intensively developed during

283: the last few decades \cite{GOOD, MAND}.

284: 

285: \begin{figure}

286: \begin{center}

287: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure1.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

288: \caption{\label{thermal} Light intensity from an incandescent lamp

289: driven by a constant electric current. A statistically stationary

290: wave has an average that does not vary with time.}

291: \end{center}

292: \end{figure}

293: %

294: Consider the light emitted by a thermal source passing through a

295: polarization analyzer, as in Fig. \ref{thermal}. Properties of

296: polarized thermal light are well-known in statistical optics, and

297: are referred to as properties of completely chaotic, polarized

298: light \cite{GOOD, MAND}. Thermal light is a statistical random

299: process and statements about such process are probabilistic

300: statements. Statistical processes are handled using the concept of

301: statistical ensemble, drawn from statistical mechanics, and

302: statistical averages are performed over an ensemble, or many

303: realizations, or outcomes of the statistical process under study.

304: Polarized thermal sources obey a very particular kind of random

305: process in that it is Gaussian and stationary\footnote{Ergodic

306: too. From a qualitative viewpoint, a given random process is

307: ergodic when all ensemble averages can be substituted by time

308: averages. Ergodicity is a stronger requirement than stationarity

309: \cite{GOOD,MAND}.}. Moreover, they are homogeneous.

310: 

311: The properties of Gaussian random processes are well-known in

312: statistical optics. For instance, the real and imaginary part of

313: the complex amplitudes of the electric field from a polarized

314: thermal source have Gaussian distribution, while the instantaneous

315: radiation power fluctuates in accordance with the negative

316: exponential distribution. It can be shown \cite{GOOD} that a

317: linearly filtered Gaussian process is also a Gaussian random

318: process. As a result, the presence of a monochromator and a

319: spatial filter as in the system depicted in Fig. \ref{thermal} do

320: not change the statistics of the signal. Finally, higher order

321: field correlation functions can be found in terms of the second

322: order correlation. This dramatically simplifies the description of

323: the random process.

324: 

325: Stationarity is a subtle concept. There are different kinds of

326: stationarity. However, for Gaussian processes different kinds of

327: stationarity coincide \cite{GOOD,MAND}. In this case, stationarity

328: means that all ensemble averages are independent of time. It

329: follows that a necessary condition for a certain process to be

330: stationary is that the signal last forever. Yet, if a signal lasts

331: much longer than the short-scale duration of the field

332: fluctuations (its coherence time $\tau_c$)  and it is observed for

333: a time much shorter than its duration $\sigma_T$, but much longer

334: than $\tau_c$ it can be reasonably considered as everlasting and

335: it has a chance to be stationary as well, as in the case of

336: thermal light.

337: 

338: Finally, thermal sources are homogeneous. The field is correlated

339: on the transverse direction over the possible minimal distance,

340: which is of order of a wavelength. This means that the radiation

341: intensity at the source remains practically unvaried on the scale

342: of a correlation length. One can say, equivalently, that the

343: source is homogeneous. Homogeneity is the equivalent, in the

344: transverse direction, of stationarity and implies a constant

345: ensemble-averaged intensity along the transverse direction.

346: 

347: Consider now a SR source, as depicted\footnote{Radiation at the

348: detector consists of a carrier modulation of frequency $\omega$

349: subjected to random amplitude and phase modulation. The Fourier

350: decomposition of the radiation contains frequencies spread about

351: the monochromator bandwidth: it is not possible, in practice, to

352: resolve the oscillations of the radiation fields which occur at

353: the frequency of the carrier modulation. Therefore, for comparison

354: with experimental results, we average the theoretical results over

355: a cycle of oscillations of the carrier modulation.} in Fig.

356: \ref{SR}. Like thermal light, also SR is a random process. In

357: fact, relativistic electrons in a storage ring emit SR passing

358: through bending magnets or undulators. The electron beam shot

359: noise causes fluctuations of the beam density which are random in

360: time and space from bunch to bunch. As a result, the radiation

361: produced has random amplitudes and phases. Moreover, in Section

362: \ref{sub:seco} we will demonstrate that SR fields obey Gaussian

363: statistics. Statistical properties satisfied by single-electron

364: contributions (elementary phasors) to the total SR field are

365: weaker than those satisfied by single-atom contributions in

366: thermal sources. Thus, the demonstration that thermal light obeys

367: Gaussian statistics cannot be directly applied to the SR case, and

368: some condition should be formulated on the parameter space to

369: define the region where SR is indeed a Gaussian random process. We

370: will show this fact with the help of Appendix A of \cite{OURU}.

371: 

372: In contrast with thermal light, SR is intrinsically

373: non-stationary, because it presents a time-varying

374: ensemble-averaged intensity on the temporal scale of the duration

375: of the X-ray pulse generated by a single electron bunch. For this

376: reason, in what follows the averaging brackets $\langle ...

377: \rangle$ will always indicate the ensemble average over bunches

378: (and not a time average).

379: %

380: \begin{figure}

381: \begin{center}

382: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure2.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

383: \caption{\label{SR} The intensity of an X-ray beam from a SR

384: source. A statistically non-stationary wave has a time-varying

385: intensity averaged over an ensemble of bunches.}

386: \end{center}

387: \end{figure}

388: %

389: Finally, SR sources are not completely incoherent, or homogeneous.

390: In fact, there is a close connection between the state of

391: coherence of the source and the angular distribution of the

392: radiant intensity. A thermal source that is correlated over the

393: minimal possible distance (which is of order of the wavelength) is

394: characterized by a radiant intensity distributed over a solid

395: angle of order $2 \pi$. This is not the case of SR light, that is

396: confined within a narrow cone in the forward direction. The high

397: directionality of SR rules out the possibility of description in

398: terms of thermal light. As we will see, depending on the

399: situation, SR may or may not be described by a quasi-homogeneous

400: model, where sources are only locally coherent over a distance of

401: many wavelengths but the linear dimension of the source is much

402: larger than the correlation distance\footnote{Note that the high

403: directionality of SR is not in contrast with the poor coherence

404: which characterizes the quasi-homogeneous limit.}.

405: 

406: In spite of differences with respect to the simpler case of

407: thermal light, SR fields can be described in terms of statistical

408: optics. However, statistical optics was developed in relation with

409: thermal light emission. Major assumptions typical of this kind of

410: radiation like, for example, stationarity, are retained in

411: textbooks \cite{GOOD,MAND}. Thus, usual statistical optics

412: treatment must be modified in order to deal with SR problems. We

413: will reduce the problem of characterization of transverse

414: coherence properties of undulator sources in the space-frequency

415: domain to the calculation of the correlation of the field produced

416: by a single electron with itself. This correlation is known as

417: cross-spectral density. The non-stationarity of the process

418: imposes some (practically non restrictive) condition on the

419: parameter space region where a treatment based on cross-spectral

420: density can be applied to SR phenomena. Such condition involves

421: the length of the electron bunch, the number of undulator periods

422: and the radiation wavelength. Given the fact that the electron

423: bunch length can vary from about $10$ ps for third generation SR

424: sources to about $100$ fs  for ERL sources, understanding of the

425: region of applicability this condition is a-priori not obvious.

426: All these subjects will be treated in the next Section

427: \ref{sub:seco}.

428: 

429: 

430: 

431: 

432: 

433: 

434: 

435: \subsection{\label{sub:seco} Second-order correlations in

436: space-frequency domain}

437: 

438: 

439: 

440: 

441: In SR experiments with third generation light sources, detectors

442: are limited to about $100$ ps time resolution. Therefore, they

443: cannot resolve a single X-ray pulse in time domain, whose duration

444: is about $30$ ps. They work, instead, by counting the number of

445: photons at a certain frequency over an integration time longer

446: than the pulse. It is therefore quite natural to consider signals

447: in the frequency domain. With this in mind, let ${\bar{E}}_b(z,

448: \vec{r}_{{}}, \omega)$ be a fixed polarization component of the

449: Fourier transform of the electric field at location $(z,

450: \vec{r}_{{}})$, in some cartesian coordinate system, and frequency

451: $\omega$ by a given collection of electromagnetic sources. We will

452: often name it, slightly improperly, "the field". Subscript "b"

453: indicates that the field is generated by the entire bunch.

454: ${\bar{E}}_b(z, \vec{r}_{{}}, \omega)$ is linked to the time

455: domain field ${{E}}_b(z, \vec{r}_{{}}, t)$ through the Fourier

456: transform

457: 

458: \begin{equation}

459: \bar{{E}}_b(\omega) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt {{E}}_b(t) \exp(i

460: \omega t)~, ~~~~~{{E}}_b(t) = \frac{1}{2\pi}

461: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega \bar{{E}}_b(\omega) \exp(-i \omega

462: t)~. \label{ftran}

463: \end{equation}

464: %

465: We will be interested in the case of an ultra relativistic

466: electron beam going through a certain magnetic system, an

467: undulator in particular. In this case $z$ is the observation

468: distance along the optical axis of the undulator and

469: $\vec{r}_{{}}$ fixes the transverse position of the observer. The

470: contribution of the $k$-th electron to the field depends on the

471: transverse offset $\vec{l}_{k}$ and deflection angles

472: $\vec{\eta}_{k}$ that the electron has at some reference point on

473: the optical axis $z$, e.g. the center of the undulator. Moreover,

474: the arrival time $t_k$ at the center of the undulator has the

475: effect of multiplying the field by a phase factor $\exp{(i\omega

476: t_k)}$, i.e. the time-domain electric field is retarded by a time

477: $t_k$. At this point we do not need to explicitly specify the

478: dependence on offset and deflection. The total field can be

479: written as

480: 

481: \begin{equation}

482: {\bar{E}}_b\left(z,\vec{r}_{{}},\omega\right)=\sum_{k=1}^{N_e}

483: \bar{E}\left(\vec{\eta}_k,\vec{l}_k,z,\vec{r}_{{}},\omega\right)

484: \exp{(i\omega t_k)} ~, \label{total}

485: \end{equation}

486: %

487: where $\vec{\eta}_k,\vec{l}_k$ and $t_k$ are random variables and

488: $N_e$ is the number of electrons in the bunch. Note that $\bar{E}$

489: in Eq. (\ref{total}) is a complex quantity, that can be written as

490: $\bar{E} = \mid\bar{E}_k\mid \exp(i \phi_k)$. It follows that the

491: SR field pulse at fixed frequency and position is a sum of a many

492: phasors, one for each electron, of the form $\bar{E} \exp{(i\omega

493: t_k)} = \mid\bar{E}_{k}\mid \exp(i \phi_k + i \omega t_k)$.

494: 

495: Elementary phasors composing the sum obey three statistical

496: properties, that are satisfied in SR problems of interest. First,

497: random variables $t_k$ are statistically independent of each

498: other, and of variables $\vec{\eta}_k$ and $\vec{l}_k$. Second,

499: random variables $\mid\bar{E}_{k}\mid$ (at fixed frequency

500: $\omega$), are identically distributed for all values of $k$, with

501: a finite mean $\langle \mid\bar{E}_{k}\mid \rangle$ and a finite

502: second moment $\langle \mid\bar{E}_{k}\mid^2 \rangle $. These two

503: assumptions follows from the properties of shot noise in a storage

504: ring, which is a fundamental effect related with quantum

505: fluctuations. Third, we assume that the electron bunch duration

506: $\sigma_T$ is large enough so that $\omega \sigma_T \gg 1$: under

507: this assumption, phases $\omega t_k$ can be regarded as uniformly

508: distributed on the interval $(0, 2\pi)$. The assumption $\omega

509: \sigma_T \gg 1$ exploits the first large parameter of our theory,

510: and is justified by the fact that $\omega$ is the undulator

511: resonant frequency, which is high enough, in practical cases of

512: interest, to guarantee that $\omega \sigma_T \gg 1$ for any

513: realistic choice of $\sigma_T$. Based on the three previously

514: discussed properties, and with the help of the central limit

515: theorem, it can be demonstrated\footnote{The proof follows from a

516: slight generalization of Section 2.9 in \cite{GOOD}. Namely, it

517: can be shown by direct calculation that real and imaginary part of

518: the total phasor ${\bar{E}}_b$ are uncorrelated, with zero mean

519: and equal variance. Then, using the central limit theorem, we

520: conclude that ${\bar{E}}_b$ is a circular complex Gaussian random

521: variable (at fixed $z$, $\vec{r}_{{}}$ and $\omega$).} that the

522: real and the imaginary part of $\bar{E}_b$ are distributed in

523: accordance to a Gaussian law.

524: 

525: As a result, SR is a non-stationary Gaussian random process.

526: 

527: Because of this, higher-order correlation functions can be

528: expressed in terms of second-order correlation functions with the

529: help of the moment theorem \cite{GOOD}. As a result, the knowledge

530: of the second-order field correlation function in frequency

531: domain, $\Gamma_\omega$, is all we need to completely characterize

532: the signal from a statistical viewpoint. The following definition

533: holds:

534: 

535: \begin{equation}

536: \Gamma_{\omega}\left(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{}

537: 2},\omega_1,\omega_2\right) = \left<

538: {\bar{E}}_b\left(z,\vec{r}_{{}

539: 1},\omega_1\right){\bar{E}}^*_b\left(z,\vec{r}_{{}

540: 2},\omega_2\right) \right>~, \label{gamma}

541: \end{equation}

542: %

543: where brackets $<...>$ indicate ensemble average over electron

544: bunches. For any given function $w\left(\vec{\eta}_k, \vec{l}_k,

545: t_k\right)$, the ensemble average is defined as

546: 

547: \begin{eqnarray}

548: \left<w\left(\vec{\eta}_k, \vec{l}_k, t_k\right)\right> = \int

549: d\vec{\eta}_k \int d\vec{l}_k \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d t_k

550: w\left(\vec{\eta}_k, \vec{l}_k, t_k\right) P\left(\vec{\eta}_k,

551: \vec{l}_k, t_k\right) \label{ensembledef}~,

552: \end{eqnarray}

553: %

554: where integrals in $d\vec{l}_k$ and $d\vec{\eta}_k$ span over all

555: offsets and deflections, and $P=P(\vec{\eta}_k, \vec{l}_k, t_k)$

556: indicates the probability density distribution in the joint random

557: variables $\vec{\eta}_k$, $\vec{l}_k$, and $t_k$. Note that, since

558: all electrons have the same probability of arrival around a given

559: offset, deflection, and time, $P$ is independent of $k$. Moreover,

560: already discussed independence of $t_k$ from $\vec{l}_k$ and

561: $\vec{\eta}_k$ allows to write $P$ as

562: 

563: \begin{eqnarray}

564: P\left(\vec{\eta}_k, \vec{l}_k, t_k\right) =

565: f_\bot\left(\vec{l}_k,\vec{\eta}_k\right) f(t_k)~.

566: \label{independence}

567: \end{eqnarray}

568: %

569: Here $f$ is the longitudinal bunch profile of the electron beam,

570: while $f_\bot$ is the transverse phase-space distribution.

571: 

572: Substituting Eq. (\ref{total}) in Eq. (\ref{gamma}) one has

573: 

574: \begin{eqnarray}

575: \Gamma_{\omega} = \left<\sum_{m,n=1}^{N_e} \bar{E}

576: \left(\vec{\eta}_m ,\vec{l}_m , z ,\vec{r}_{{} 1}, \omega_1\right)

577: \bar{E}^* \left(\vec{\eta}_n,\vec{l}_n, z,\vec{r}_{{} 2},

578: \omega_2\right) \exp{[i(\omega_1 t_m- \omega_2 t_n)]} \right> .\cr

579: && \label{gamma2}

580: \end{eqnarray}

581: %

582: Expansion of Eq. (\ref{gamma2}) gives

583: 

584: \begin{eqnarray}

585: &&\Gamma_{\omega} = \sum_{m=1}^{N_e} \left\langle \bar{E}

586: \left(\vec{\eta}_m,\vec{l}_m,z,\vec{r}_{{} 1}, \omega_1\right)

587: \bar{E}^*\left(\vec{\eta}_m,\vec{l}_m,z,\vec{r}_{{} 2},

588: \omega_2\right) \exp{[i( \omega_1- \omega_2) t_m]} \right\rangle

589: \cr && + \sum_{m\ne n} \left\langle

590: \bar{E}\left(\vec{\eta}_m,\vec{l}_m,z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},

591: \omega_1\right) \exp{(i \omega_1

592: t_m)}\right\rangle\left\langle\bar{E}^*

593: \left(\vec{\eta}_n,\vec{l}_n,z,\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega_2\right)

594: \exp{(- i \omega_2 t_n)} \right\rangle.\cr && \label{gamma3}

595: \end{eqnarray}

596: %

597: With the help of Eq. (\ref{ensembledef}) and Eq.

598: (\ref{independence}), the ensemble average $\langle \exp{(i \omega

599: t_k)} \rangle$ can be written as the Fourier transform of the

600: longitudinal bunch profile function $f$, that is

601: 

602: \begin{equation}

603: \left\langle \exp{(i \omega t_k)} \right\rangle =

604: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d t_k f(t_k) \exp(i\omega t_k) \equiv

605: \bar{f}(\omega)~. \label{FTlong}

606: \end{equation}

607: %

608: Using Eq. (\ref{FTlong}), Eq. (\ref{gamma3}) can be written as

609: 

610: \begin{eqnarray}

611: \Gamma_{\omega} &&= \sum_{m=1}^{N_e} \bar{f}( \omega_1- \omega_2)

612: \left \langle \bar{E} \left(\vec{\eta}_m,\vec{l}_m, z, \vec{r}_{{}

613: 1}, \omega_1\right) \bar{E}^*

614: \left(\vec{\eta}_m,\vec{l}_m,z,\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega_2\right)

615: \right\rangle \cr && + \sum_{m\ne n} \bar{f}( \omega_1)\bar{f}(-

616: \omega_2)  \left\langle

617: \bar{E}\left(\vec{\eta}_m,\vec{l}_m,z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},

618: \omega_1\right) \right\rangle

619: \left\langle\bar{E}^*\left(\vec{\eta}_n, \vec{l}_n,z,\vec{r}_{{}

620: 2}, \omega_2\right) \right\rangle ~, \label{gamma4}

621: \end{eqnarray}

622: %

623: where $\bar{f}^*(\omega_2)=\bar{f}(- \omega_2)$ because ${f}$ is a

624: real function. When the radiation wavelengths of interest are much

625: shorter than the bunch length we can safely neglect the second

626: term on the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{gamma4}) since the form

627: factor product $\bar{f}( \omega_1) \bar{f}(- \omega_2)$ goes

628: rapidly to zero for frequencies larger than the characteristic

629: frequency associated with the bunch length: think for instance, at

630: a centimeter long bunch compared with radiation in the Angstrom

631: wavelength range\footnote{When the radiation wavelength of

632: interested is comparable or longer than the bunch length, the

633: second term in Eq. (\ref{gamma4}) is dominant with respect to the

634: first, because it scales with the number of particles

635: \textit{squared}: in this case, analysis of the second term leads

636: to a treatment of coherent synchrotron radiation phenomena (CSR).

637: In this paper we will not be concerned with CSR and we will

638: neglect the second term in Eq. (\ref{gamma4}), assuming that the

639: radiation wavelength of interest is shorter than the bunch length.

640: Also note that $\bar{f}( \omega_1- \omega_2)$ depends on the

641: \textit{difference} between $ \omega_1$ and $ \omega_2$, and the

642: first term cannot be neglected.}. Therefore we write

643: 

644: \begin{eqnarray}

645: \Gamma_{\omega} &&= \sum_{m=1}^{N_e} \bar{f}( \omega_1- \omega_2)

646: \left \langle \bar{E} \left(\vec{\eta}_m,\vec{l}_m, z, \vec{r}_{{}

647: 1}, \omega_1\right) \bar{E}^*

648: \left(\vec{\eta}_m,\vec{l}_m,z,\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega_2\right)

649: \right\rangle \cr && = N_e \bar{f}( \omega_1- \omega_2) \left

650: \langle \bar{E}\left(\vec{\eta},\vec{l}, z, \vec{r}_{{} 1},

651: \omega_1\right) \bar{E}^* \left(\vec{\eta},\vec{l},z,\vec{r}_{{}

652: 2}, \omega_2\right) \right\rangle  ~. \label{gamma5}

653: \end{eqnarray}

654: %

655: As one can see from Eq. (\ref{gamma5}) each electron is correlated

656: just with itself: cross-correlation terms between different

657: electrons was included in the second term on the right hand side

658: of Eq. (\ref{gamma4}), that has been dropped.

659: 

660: If the dependence of $\bar{E}$ on $ \omega$ is slow enough,

661: $\bar{E}$ does not vary appreciably on the characteristic scale of

662: $\bar{f}$. Thus, we can substitute

663: $\bar{E}^*(\vec{\eta},\vec{l},z,\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega_2)$ with

664: $\bar{E}^*(\vec{\eta},\vec{l},z,\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega_1)$ in Eq.

665: (\ref{gamma5}).

666: %

667: \begin{figure}

668: \begin{center}

669: \includegraphics*[width=110mm]{figure3.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

670: \caption{\label{rela} Schematic illustration of the relative

671: frequency dependence of the spectral correlation function

672: $\bar{f}(\omega-\omega')$ and of the cross-spectral density

673: function (the cross-power spectrum) $G(z,\vec{r}_{{}

674: 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega)$ of SR at points $\vec{r}_{{} 1}$ and

675: $\vec{r}_{{} 2}$ at frequency $\omega$.}

676: \end{center}

677: \end{figure}

678: %

679: The situation is depicted in Fig. \ref{rela}. On the one hand, the

680: characteristic scale of $\bar{f}$ is given by $1/\sigma_T$, where

681: $\sigma_T$ is the characteristic bunch duration. On the other

682: hand, the minimal possible bandwidth of undulator radiation is

683: achieved on axis and in the case of a filament beam. It is peaked

684: around the resonant frequency ${\omega_r} = {2 \gamma_z^2

685: c}/{\lambdabar_w}$ ($\lambda_w$ being the undulator period and

686: $\gamma_z$ the average longitudinal Lorentz factor) and amounts to

687: $\omega_r/N_w$, $N_w\gg 1$ being the number of undulator periods

688: (of order $10^2 - 10^3$). Since $\omega_r/N_w$ is a minimum for

689: the radiation bandwidth, it should be compared with $1/\sigma_T$.

690: For instance, at wavelengths of order $1 \AA$, $N_w \sim 10^3$ and

691: $\sigma_T \sim 30$ ps (see \cite{PETR}), one has $\omega_r/N_w

692: \sim 2\cdot 10^{16}$ Hz, which is much larger than $1/\sigma_T

693: \sim 3\cdot 10^{10}$ Hz. From this discussion follows that, in

694: practical situations of interest, we can simplify Eq.

695: (\ref{gamma5}) to

696: 

697: \begin{eqnarray}

698: \Gamma_{\omega}(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega_1,

699: \omega_2) = N_e \bar{f}( \omega_1- \omega_2) G\left(z,\vec{r}_{{}

700: 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega_1\right)~, \label{gamma6prima}

701: \end{eqnarray}

702: %

703: where

704: 

705: \begin{equation}

706: G(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega) \equiv \left\langle

707: \bar{E} \left(\vec{\eta},\vec{l},z,\vec{r}_{{} 1}, \omega\right)

708: \bar{E}^*\left(\vec{\eta},\vec{l},z,\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega\right)

709: \right\rangle~.\label{coore}

710: \end{equation}

711: %

712: Eq. (\ref{gamma6prima}) fully characterizes the system under study

713: from a statistical viewpoint. Correlation in frequency and space

714: are expressed by two separate factors. In particular, spatial

715: correlation is expressed by the cross-spectral density

716: function\footnote{Note, however, that $G$ depends on $\omega$.}

717: $G$. In other words, we are able to deal separately with spatial

718: and spectral part of the correlation function in space-frequency

719: domain under the non-restrictive assumption $\omega_r/N_w \gg

720: 1/\sigma_T$.

721: 

722: Eq. (\ref{gamma6prima}) is the result of our theoretical analysis

723: of the second-order correlation function in the space-frequency

724: domain. We can readily extend this analysis to the case when the

725: observation plane is behind a monochromator with transfer function

726: $T(\omega)$. In this case, Eq. (\ref{gamma6prima}) modifies to

727: 

728: \begin{eqnarray}

729: \Gamma_{\omega}\left(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega_1,

730: \omega_2\right) = N_e \bar{f}( \omega_1- \omega_2)

731: G\left(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2}, \omega_1\right)

732: T(\omega_1) T^*(\omega_2)~. \label{gamma6}

733: \end{eqnarray}

734: %

735: It is worth to note that, similarly to Eq. (\ref{gamma6prima}),

736: also Eq. (\ref{gamma6}) exhibits separability of correlation

737: functions in frequency and space.

738: 

739: From now on we will be concerned with the calculation of the

740: cross-spectral density $G(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2},

741: \omega)$, independently of the shape of the remaining factors on

742: the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{gamma6}).

743: 

744: \begin{figure}

745: \begin{center}

746: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure4.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

747: \caption{\label{ed12c} Measurement of the cross-spectral density

748: of a undulator source. (a) Young's double-pinhole interferometer

749: demonstrating the coherence properties of undulator radiation. The

750: radiation beyond the pinholes must be spectrally filtered by a

751: monochromator or detector (not shown in figure). (b) The fringe

752: visibility of the resultant interference pattern.}

753: \end{center}

754: \end{figure}

755: %

756: Before proceeding we introduce, for future reference, the notion

757: of spectral degree of coherence $g$, that can be presented as a

758: function of $\vec{r}_{{} 1}$ and $\vec{r}_{{} 2}$:

759: 

760: \begin{equation}

761: g\left(\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2}\right) =

762: \frac{{G}\left(\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2}\right)}{\left\langle

763: \left |\bar{E}\left(\vec{r}_{{} 1}\right)\right|^2\right \rangle

764: ^{1/2} \left \langle \left|\bar{E}\left(\vec{r}_{{}

765: 2}\right)\right|^2\right\rangle^{1/2}} ~. \label{normfine}

766: \end{equation}

767: %

768: Consider Fig. \ref{ed12c}, depicting a Young's double-pinhole

769: interferometric measure. Results of Young's experiment vary with

770: $\vec{r}_{{} 1}$ and $\vec{r}_{{} 2}$. The modulus of the spectral

771: degree of coherence, $|g|$ is related with the fringe visibility

772: of the interference pattern. In particular, the relation between

773: fringes visibility $V$ and $g$ is given by

774: 

775: \begin{eqnarray}

776: V = 2 \frac{ \left<\left|\bar{E}\left(\vec{r}_{{}

777: 1}\right)\right|^2\right>^{1/2}

778: \left<\left|\hat{E}\left(\vec{r}_{{}

779: 2}\right)\right|^2\right>^{1/2}}{

780: \left<\left|\hat{E}\left(\vec{r}_{{}1}\right)\right|^2\right>+

781: \left<\left|\hat{E}\left(\vec{r}_{{}2}\right)\right|^2\right>}

782: \left|g\left(\vec{r}_{{}1},\vec{r}_{{}2}\right)\right|~.

783: \label{Vfrin}

784: \end{eqnarray}

785: %

786: Phase of $g$ is related to the position of the fringes instead.

787: Thus, spectral degree of coherence and cross-spectral density are

788: related with both amplitude \textit{and} position of the fringes

789: and are physically measurable quantities that can be recovered

790: from a Young's interference experiment.

791: 

792: \subsection{\label{sub:temp} Relation between space-frequency and

793: space-time domain}

794: 

795: This paper deals with transverse coherence properties of SR

796: sources in the space-frequency domain. However, it is interesting

797: to briefly discuss relations with the space-time domain, and

798: concepts like quasi-stationarity, cross-spectral purity and

799: quasi-monochromaticity that are often considered in literature

800: \cite{GOOD,MAND}.

801: 

802: First, the knowledge of $\Gamma_{\omega}$ in frequency domain is

803: completely equivalent to the knowledge of the mutual coherence

804: function \cite{WOLF}:

805: 

806: \begin{equation}

807: \Gamma_{t}(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2},t_1,t_2) = \left<

808: {{E}}(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},t_1){{E}}^*(z,\vec{r}_{{} 2},t_2) \right>~.

809: \label{gammatime}

810: \end{equation}

811: %

812: Next to $\Gamma_t$, the complex degree of coherence is defined as

813: 

814: \begin{eqnarray}

815: \gamma_t(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2},t_1,t_2)  =

816: \frac{\Gamma_{t}(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{}

817: 2},t_1,t_2)}{\left[\Gamma_{t}(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{}

818: 1},t_1,t_1) \Gamma_{t}(z,\vec{r}_{{} 2},\vec{r}_{{}

819: 2},t_2,t_2)\right]^{1/2} }~.\label{comdeg}

820: \end{eqnarray}

821: %

822: The presence of a monochromator (see Eq. (\ref{gamma6})) is

823: related with a bandwidth of interest $\Delta \omega_\mathrm{m}$,

824: centered around a given frequency $\omega_o$ (typically, the

825: undulator resonant frequency). Then, $T(\omega)$ is peaked around

826: $\omega_o$ and rapidly goes to zero as we move out of the range $(

827: \omega_o-\Delta \omega_\mathrm{m}/2, \omega_o+\Delta

828: \omega_\mathrm{m}/2)$. Using Eq. (\ref{gamma6}) we write the

829: mutual coherence function as

830: 

831: \begin{eqnarray}

832: \Gamma_t(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2},t_1,t_2) &=&

833: \frac{N_e}{(2\pi)^2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_1

834: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_2 \bar{f}(\omega_1 - \omega_2)

835: T(\omega_1) T^*(\omega_2) \cr && \times G(z,\vec{r}_{{}

836: 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2},\omega_2) \exp{(-i\omega_1 t_1)} \exp{(i\omega_2

837: t_2)} ~.\label{trasfgammabreak}

838: \end{eqnarray}

839: %

840: If the characteristic bandwidth  of the monochromator, $\Delta

841: \omega_\mathrm{m}$, is large enough so that $T$ does not vary

842: appreciably on the characteristic scale of $\bar{f}$, i.e. $\Delta

843: \omega_\mathrm{m} \gg 1/\sigma_T$, then

844: $T(\omega_1)T^*(\omega_2)\bar{f}(\omega_1- \omega_2)$ is peaked at

845: $\omega_1-\omega_2=0$. In this case the process is

846: quasi-stationary. With the help of new variables $\Delta \omega =

847: \omega_1 - \omega_2$ and $\bar{\omega}=(\omega_1+\omega_2)/2$, we

848: can simplify Eq. (\ref{trasfgammabreak}) accounting for the fact

849: that $\bar{f}(\omega_1- \omega_2)$ is strongly peaked around

850: $\Delta \omega=0$. In fact we can consider $T(\omega_1)

851: T^*(\omega_2) G(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2},\omega_1) \simeq

852: |T(\bar{\omega})|^2 G(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2},

853: \bar{\omega})$, so that we can integrate separately in $\Delta

854: \omega$ and $\bar{\omega}$ to obtain

855: 

856: \begin{eqnarray}

857: \Gamma_t(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2},t_1,t_2) &=&

858: \frac{N_e}{(2\pi)^2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\Delta \omega

859: ~\bar{f}(\Delta \omega) \exp{\left(-i \Delta{\omega}

860: \bar{t}\right)} \cr && \times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

861: d\bar{\omega} ~|T(\bar{\omega})|^2 G(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{}

862: 2},\bar{\omega}) \exp{\left[-i \bar{\omega} \Delta t

863: \right]}~.\label{trasfgammabreak2}

864: \end{eqnarray}

865: %

866: where $\bar{t} = (t_1+t_2)/2$ and $\Delta t = t_1 - t_2$. This

867: means that the mutual coherence function can be factorized as

868: $\Gamma_t(\bar{t}, \Delta t) = f(\bar{t}) \widetilde{G}_t(\Delta

869: t)$. In the case no monochromator is present, $\widetilde{G}_t$

870: coincides with the Fourier transform of the cross-spectral

871: density, and the correspondent correlation function

872: $\Gamma_\omega(\bar{\omega},\Delta \omega)$ has been seen to obey

873: Eq. (\ref{gamma5}). Therefore:

874: 

875: $(a_1)$ The temporal correlation function $\widetilde{G}_t(\Delta

876: t)$ and the spectral density distribution of the source

877: $|T(\bar{\omega})|^2 G(\bar{\omega})$ form a Fourier pair.

878: 

879: $(b_1)$ The intensity distribution of the radiation pulse

880: $f(\bar{t})$ and the spectral correlation function $\bar{f}(\Delta

881: \omega)$ form a Fourier pair.

882: 

883: \begin{figure}

884: \begin{center}

885: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure5.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

886: \caption{\label{avecarr} Reciprocal width relations of Fourier

887: transform pairs.}

888: \end{center}

889: \end{figure}

890: %

891: Statement $(a_1)$ can be regarded as an analogue, for

892: quasi-stationary sources, of the well-known Wiener-Khinchin

893: theorem, which applies to stationary sources and states that the

894: temporal correlation function and the spectral density are a

895: Fourier pair.  Since there is symmetry between time and frequency

896: domains, an inverse Wiener-Khinchin theorem must also hold, and

897: can be obtained by the usual Wiener-Khinchin theorem by exchanging

898: frequencies and times. This is simply constituted by statement

899: $(b_1)$. Intuitively, statements $(a_1)$ and $(b_1)$ have their

900: justification in the reciprocal width relations of Fourier

901: transform pairs (see Fig. \ref{avecarr}).

902: 

903: It should be stressed that statistical optics is almost always

904: applied in the stationary case \cite{GOOD,MAND}. Definitions of

905: $\Gamma_t$ and $\gamma_t$ are also usually restricted to such

906: case. The case of a stationary process corresponds to the

907: asymptote of a Dirac $\delta$-function for the spectral

908: correlation function $\bar{f}$. The inverse Wiener-Khinchin

909: theorem applied to this asymptotic case would imply an infinitely

910: long radiation pulse, i.e. an infinitely long electron beam. In

911: contrast to this, the width of $\bar{f}$ is finite, and

912: corresponds to a finite width of $f$ of about $30$ ps. Thus, one

913: cannot talk about stationarity. However, when $\Delta

914: \omega_\mathrm{m} \gg 1/\sigma_T$, the spectral width of the

915: process (i.e. the width of $|T|^2G$ in $\omega$) is much larger

916: than the width of $\bar{f}$. In this case, the process is

917: quasi-stationary. The situation changes completely if a

918: monochromator with a bandwidth $\Delta \omega_\mathrm{m} \lesssim

919: 1/\sigma_T$ is present. In this case, Eq. (\ref{trasfgammabreak2})

920: cannot be used anymore, and one is not allowed to treat the

921: process as quasi-stationary. In the large majority of the cases

922: monochromator characteristics are not good enough to allow

923: resolution of $\bar{f}$. There are, however, some special cases

924: when $\Delta \omega_\mathrm{m} \lesssim 1/\sigma_T$. For instance,

925: in \cite{NOST} a particular monochromator is described with a

926: relative resolution of $10^{-8}$ at wavelengths of about $1 \AA$,

927: or $\omega_o \sim 2 \cdot 10^{19}$ Hz. Let us consider, as in

928: \cite{NOST}, the case of radiation pulses of $32$ ps duration.

929: Under the already accepted assumption $1/\sigma_T \ll

930: \omega_o/N_w$, we can identify the radiation pulse duration with

931: $\sigma_T$. Then we have $\Delta \omega_\mathrm{m} \sim 2 \cdot

932: 10^{11}$ Hz  which is of order of $2 \pi/\sigma_T \sim 2 \cdot

933: 10^{11}$ Hz: this means that the monochromator has the capability

934: of resolving $\bar{f}$.

935: 

936: Cases discussed up to now deal with radiation that is not

937: cross-spectrally pure \cite{MAN2} (or \cite{MAND}, paragraph

938: 4.5.1). In fact, the absolute value of the spectral degree of

939: coherence $g$ is a function of $\omega$. Moreover, as remarked in

940: \cite{COI1,COI2,COI3}, the spectrum of undulator radiation depends

941: on the observation point. This fact can also be seen in the time

942: domain from Eq. (\ref{trasfgammabreak}) or Eq.

943: (\ref{trasfgammabreak2}), because the complex degree of coherence

944: $\gamma_t$ cannot be split into a product of temporal and spatial

945: factors. However, if we assume $\Delta \omega_\mathrm{m} N_w /

946: \omega_o \ll 1$ (that is usually true), $G(z,\vec{r}_{{}

947: 1},\vec{r}_{{} 2},\omega)$ $ = G(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{}

948: 2},\omega_o)$ is a constant function of frequency within the

949: monochromator line, i.e. it is independent on the frequency

950: $\omega$. As a result $\Gamma_t$ in Eq. (\ref{trasfgammabreak})

951: can be split in the product of a temporal and a spatial factor and

952: therefore, in this case, light is cross-spectrally pure:

953: 

954: 

955: \begin{equation}

956: \Gamma_t(z_o,\vec{r}_{{} o1},\vec{r}_{{} o2},t_1,t_2) = N_e

957: \widetilde{g}_t(t_1,t_2) G\left(z,\vec{r}_{{} 1},\vec{r}_{{}

958: 2},\omega_o\right)~, \label{CScasegen}

959: \end{equation}

960: %

961: where $\widetilde{g}_t(t_1,t_2)$ is defined by

962: 

963: \begin{eqnarray}

964: \widetilde{g}_t = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

965: d\omega_1 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_2 \bar{f}(\omega_1 -

966: \omega_2) T(\omega_1) T^*(\omega_2) \exp{[i(\omega_2 t_2-\omega_1

967: t_1)]} ~.\cr &&\label{gtilda}

968: \end{eqnarray}

969: %

970: Note that, for instance, in the example considered before $\Delta

971: \omega_\mathrm{m} /\omega_o \simeq 10^{-8}$ and $N_w \simeq 10^2

972: \div 10^3$, i.e. $\Delta \omega_\mathrm{m} N_w / \omega_o \ll 1$.

973: 

974: 

975: It is important to remark that, since we are dealing with the

976: process in the space-frequency domain, whether the light is

977: cross-spectrally pure or not is irrelevant concerning the

978: applicability of our treatment, because we can study the

979: cross-spectral density $G$ for any frequency component.

980: 

981: Finally, for the sake of completeness, it is interesting to

982: discuss the relation between $G$ and the mutual intensity function

983: as usually defined in textbooks \cite{GOOD, MAND} in

984: \textit{quasimonochromatic} conditions. The assumption $\Delta

985: \omega_\mathrm{m} \gg 1/\sigma_T$ describes a quasi-stationary

986: process. In the limit $\sigma_T \longrightarrow \infty$ we have a

987: stationary process. Now letting $\Delta \omega_m \longrightarrow

988: 0$ slowly enough so that $\Delta \omega_\mathrm{m} \gg

989: 1/\sigma_T$,  Eq. (\ref{trasfgammabreak2}) remains valid while

990: both $\bar{f}(\Delta \omega)$ and $|T(\bar{\omega})|^2$ become

991: approximated better and better by Dirac $\delta$-functions,

992: $\delta(\Delta\omega)$ and $\delta(\bar{\omega}-\omega_o)$,

993: respectively. Then, $\Gamma_t \sim G \exp [-i \omega_o

994: (t_1-t_2)]$. Aside for an unessential factor, depending on the

995: normalization of $\bar{f}$ and $|T({\omega})|^2$, this relation

996: between $\Gamma_t$ and $G$ allows identification of the mutual

997: intensity function with $G$ as in \cite{GOOD,MAND}. In this case,

998: light is obviously cross-spectrally pure.

999: 

1000: 

1001: \subsection{\label{sub:fiel} Undulator field by a single particle with offset and deflection}

1002: 

1003: In order to give an explicit expression for the cross-spectral

1004: density of undulator radiation, we first need an explicit

1005: expression for $\bar{E} \left(\vec{\eta},\vec{l},z,\vec{r}_{{}},

1006: \omega\right)$, the field contribution from a single electron with

1007: given offset and deflection. This can be obtained by solving

1008: paraxial Maxwell's equations in the space-frequency domain with a

1009: Green's function technique. We refer the reader to \cite{OURF},

1010: where it was also shown that paraxial approximation always applies

1011: for ultrarelativistic systems with $1/\gamma^2\ll 1$, $\gamma$

1012: being the relativistic Lorentz factor. Since paraxial

1013: approximation applies, the envelope of the field

1014: $\widetilde{E}(\omega) = \bar{E}(\omega) \exp{(-{i\omega z}/{c})}$

1015: is a slowly varying function of $z$ on the scale of the wavelength

1016: $\lambda$, and for the sake of simplicity will also be named "the

1017: field". In Eq. (17) of reference \cite{OURF} an expression for

1018: $\vec{\widetilde{E}}(z, \vec{r},\omega)$ generated by an electron

1019: moving along a generic trajectory $\vec{r}(z)$ was found. Working

1020: out that equation under the resonance approximation for the case

1021: of a planar undulator where $\vec{r}_{}(z) = {K}/({\gamma k_w})

1022: \cos{(k_w z)} \vec{e}_x + \vec{l} +z \vec{\eta}$, $\vec{e}_x$

1023: being the unit vector in the $x$-direction, yields the

1024: horizontally polarized field

1025: 

1026: 

1027: \begin{eqnarray}

1028: \tilde{E}_{C}&=& \frac{(-e) K \omega   A_{JJ}}{2 c^2  \gamma}

1029: \int_{-L_w/2}^{L_w/2}  \frac{d z'}{{z}-{z}'} \exp \left\{i

1030: \left[\left(C+\frac{\omega \left|\vec{\eta}\right|^2}{2

1031: c}\right){z}' + \frac{\omega\left(\vec{r}-\vec{l}-\vec{\eta}z'

1032: \right)^2 }{2 c(z-z')}\right] \right\}~ .\cr &&

1033: \label{undunormfin00}

1034: \end{eqnarray}

1035: %

1036: Here we defined the detuning parameter $C = \omega

1037: /(2{\gamma}_z^2c)-k_w = ({\Delta\omega}/{\omega_r}) k_w$, where

1038: $\omega = \omega_r + \Delta \omega$. Thus, $C$ specifies "how

1039: much" $\omega$ differs from the fundamental resonance frequency

1040: ${\omega_r} = {2 \gamma_z^2 c}/{\lambdabar_w}$. The subscript "C"

1041: in $\widetilde{E}_C$ indicates that this expression is valid for

1042: arbitrary detuning parameter. Moreover, $\lambdabar_w \equiv 1/k_w

1043: = \lambda_w/(2\pi)$, $\lambda_w$ being the undulator period;

1044: $\gamma_z \equiv \gamma/(1+K^2/2)$; $K=(\lambda_w e H_w) / (2 \pi

1045: m_\mathrm{e} c^2)$ is the undulator parameter, $m_\mathrm{e}$

1046: being the electron mass and $H_w$ being the maximum of the

1047: magnetic field produced by the undulator on the $z$ axis. Finally,

1048: $L_w$  is the undulator length and $A_{JJ} \equiv

1049: J_0[{K^2}/({4+2K^2})] - J_1[ {K^2}/({4+2K^2})]$, $J_n$ indicating

1050: the Bessel function of the first kind of order $n$. It should be

1051: stressed that Eq. (\ref{undunormfio}) was derived under the

1052: resonance approximation meaning that the large parameter $N_w \gg

1053: 1$ was exploited, together with conditions $\Delta \omega/\omega_r

1054: \ll 1$ and $C+\omega r^2/(2 c z^2) \ll k_w$, meaning that we are

1055: looking at frequencies near the fundamental and angles within the

1056: main lobe of the directivity diagram. Moreover, the reader should

1057: keep in mind that no focusing elements are accounted for in the

1058: undulator. This fact is intrinsically related to the choice of

1059: $\vec{r}(z)$ done above.

1060: 

1061: Further algebraic manipulations  (see Appendix B of \cite{OURU})

1062: show that Eq. (\ref{undunormfin00}) can be rewritten as:

1063: 

1064: 

1065: \begin{eqnarray}

1066: \widetilde{E}_C &=& \frac{(-e) K \omega  A_{JJ}}{2 c^2 \gamma}

1067: \int_{-L_w/2}^{L_w/2} \frac{d z'}{z-z'} \cr && \times \exp

1068: \left\{i \left[C z' +

1069: \frac{\omega\left(\vec{r}-\vec{l}~~\right)^2}{2 c z} +\frac{\omega

1070: z z'}{2c (z-z')}

1071: \left(\frac{\vec{r}}{z}-\frac{\vec{l}}{z}-\vec{\eta}\right)^2

1072: \right] \right\} ~.\cr && \label{undunormfio}

1073: \end{eqnarray}

1074: %

1075: In this paper we will make a consistent use of dimensional

1076: analysis, which allows one to classify the grouping of dimensional

1077: variables in a way that is most suitable for subsequent study.

1078: Normalized units will be defined as

1079: 

1080: \begin{eqnarray}

1081: &&\hat{E} = -\frac{2 c^2  \gamma}{K \omega e  A_{JJ}}

1082: \widetilde{E}~, \cr && \vec{\hat{\eta}} =\vec{{\eta}}

1083: \sqrt{\frac{\omega L_w}{c}}  ~,\cr &&\hat{C} = L_w C = 2 \pi N_w

1084: \frac {\omega-\omega_r}{\omega_r}~,\cr&&\vec{\hat{r}}_{{} }

1085: ={\vec{r}}_{{}} \sqrt{{\omega \over{L_w c}}}~,\cr&&\vec{\hat{l}}

1086: ={\vec{l}}\sqrt{{\omega \over{L_w c}}}~,\cr&&

1087: \hat{z}={z\over{L_w}}~.\label{Cnorm}

1088: \end{eqnarray}

1089: %

1090: Moreover,  for any distance $\hat{z}$, we introduce

1091: $\vec{\hat{\theta}} = \vec{\hat{r}}/\hat{z}$. The algorithm for

1092: calculating the cross-spectral density will be formulated in terms

1093: of dimensionless fields. Therefore we re-write Eq.

1094: (\ref{undunormfio}) as

1095: 

1096: 

1097: 

1098: \begin{eqnarray}

1099: \hat{E}_C=  \exp\left[\frac{i

1100: \hat{z}}{2}\left|\vec{\hat{\theta}}-\frac{\vec{\hat{l}}}{\hat{z}}\right|^2\right]

1101: \Psi_{C} \left(\hat{z},\hat{C},

1102: \left|\vec{\hat{\theta}}-\frac{\vec{\hat{l}}}{\hat{z}}

1103: -\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right|\right)~, \label{undunormfin}

1104: \end{eqnarray}

1105: %

1106: where

1107: 

1108: \begin{eqnarray}

1109: \Psi_{C}(\hat{z},\hat{C},\alpha) \equiv \int_{-1/2}^{1/2}

1110: \frac{d\hat{z}'}{\hat{z}-\hat{z}'} \exp \left\{i

1111: \left[\hat{C}\hat{z}' +\frac{\hat{z}\hat{z}' \alpha^2

1112: }{2(\hat{z}-\hat{z}')}\right] \right\} ~.\label{psig}

1113: \end{eqnarray}

1114: %

1115: A physical picture of the evolution of the field along the $z$

1116: direction was given in reference \cite{OURF}, where Fourier optics

1117: ideas were used to develop a formalism ideally suited for the

1118: analysis of any SR problem. In that reference, the use of Fourier

1119: optics led to establish basic foundations for the treatment of SR

1120: fields, and in particular of undulator radiation, in terms of

1121: laser beam optics. Radiation from an ultra-relativistic electron

1122: can be interpreted as radiation from a virtual source, which

1123: produces a laser-like beam. In principle, such virtual source can

1124: be positioned everywhere down the beam, but there is a particular

1125: position where it is similar, in many aspects, to the waist of a

1126: laser beam. In the case of an undulator this location is the

1127: center of the insertion device. A virtual source located at that

1128: position ("the" virtual source) exhibits a plane wavefront.

1129: Therefore, it is completely specified by a real-valued amplitude

1130: distribution of the field (see Eq. (34) of \cite{OURF}). This

1131: amplitude can be derived from the far zone field distribution.

1132: Free-space propagation from the virtual source through the near

1133: zone and up to the far-zone, can be performed with the help of the

1134: Fresnel formula:

1135: 

1136: 

1137: 

1138: \begin{equation}

1139: { \hat{E}}( {z},\vec{r}_{}) = \frac{i }{2 \pi ( \hat{z}-

1140: \hat{z}_s)} \int d \vec{\hat{r}'}_{{}}~

1141: \hat{E}(\hat{z}_s,\vec{\hat{r}'}) \exp{\left[\frac{i

1142: \left|{\vec{\hat{r}}}-\vec{ \hat{r}'}\right|^2}{2  (\hat{z}-

1143: \hat{z}_s)}\right]}~, \label{fieldpropback}

1144: \end{equation}

1145: %

1146: where the integral is performed over the transverse plane, and

1147: $z_s$ is the virtual source position down the beamline.

1148: 

1149: These considerations were applied in \cite{OURF} to the case of

1150: undulator radiation under the applicability region of the resonant

1151: approximation. With reference to Fig. \ref{geo}, we let $z=0$ be

1152: the center of the undulator. Thus, the position of the virtual

1153: source is fixed in the center of the undulator too, $z_s=0$. For

1154: simplicity, the resonance condition with the fundamental harmonic

1155: was assumed satisfied, i.e. $\omega = \omega_r$. For this case, an

1156: analytical description of undulator radiation was provided.

1157: %

1158: \begin{figure}

1159: \begin{center}

1160: \includegraphics*[width=110mm]{figure6.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

1161: \caption{\label{geo} Illustration of the undulator geometry and of

1162: the observation plane. }

1163: \end{center}

1164: \end{figure}

1165: %

1166: The horizontally-polarized field produced by a single electron

1167: with offset $\vec{\hat{l}}$ and deflection $\vec{\hat{\eta}}$ in

1168: the far-zone (i.e. at  $\hat{z} \gg 1$) can be represented by the

1169: scalar quantity\footnote{Note that for a particle moving on axis,

1170: at $\vec{\hat{l}}=0$ and $\vec{\hat{\eta}}=0$ the quadratic phase

1171: $\exp[i \hat{z} \hat{\theta}^2/2]$ in Eq. (\ref{undurad4}) is

1172: indicative of a spherical wavefront in paraxial approximation on

1173: the observation plane. When $\vec{\hat{l}}$ is different from

1174: zero, the laser-like beam is shifted, and this justifies the

1175: present of extra-factors including $\vec{\hat{l}}$. When the

1176: particle also has a deflection $\vec{\hat{\eta}}$, the laser-like

1177: beam is tilted, but the wavefront remains spherical. Since the

1178: observation plane remains orthogonal to the $z$ axis, the phase

1179: factor before $\Psi_f$ does not include $\eta$ and thus it does

1180: not depend on the combination

1181: $\vec{\hat{\theta}}-{\hat{l}}/{\hat{z}}-\vec{\hat{\eta}}$.}:

1182: 

1183: 

1184: \begin{eqnarray}

1185: \hat{E}_{f}\left(\hat{z},\vec{\hat{\eta}}, \vec{\hat{l}},

1186: \vec{\hat{\theta}}\right)&=& \frac{1}{\hat{z}} \exp\left[i\left(

1187: \frac{\hat{z} \hat{\theta}^2}{2}-

1188: \vec{\hat{\theta}}\cdot\vec{\hat{l}}

1189: +\frac{\hat{l}^2}{2\hat{z}^2}~\right)\right]

1190: \Psi_f\left(\left|\vec{\hat{\theta}}-\frac{\hat{l}}{\hat{z}}-\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right|\right)~

1191: , \label{undurad4}

1192: \end{eqnarray}

1193: %

1194: where

1195: 

1196: \begin{eqnarray}

1197: \Psi_f(\alpha) \equiv

1198: \mathrm{sinc}\left[\frac{\alpha^2}{4}\right]~ , \label{bisgg}

1199: \end{eqnarray}

1200: %

1201: subscript $f$ indicating the "far-zone". The field distribution of

1202: the virtual source positioned at $z=0$, corresponding to the waist

1203: of our laser-like beam was found to be:

1204: 

1205: \begin{eqnarray}

1206: \hat{{E}}_{0}\left(0,\vec{\hat{\eta}}, \vec{\hat{l}},

1207: \vec{\hat{r}}_{{}}\right) &=& - i \pi \exp\left[i \vec{\hat{\eta}}

1208: \cdot \left(\vec{\hat{r}}_{}-\vec{\hat{l}}~\right) \right]

1209: \Psi_0\left({\left|~\vec{\hat{r}}_{

1210: {}}-\vec{\hat{l}}~~\right|}\right)~, \label{undurad5gg}

1211: \end{eqnarray}

1212: %

1213: where

1214: 

1215: 

1216: \begin{eqnarray}

1217: \Psi_0(\alpha) \equiv \frac{1}{\pi}\left[\pi - 2\mathrm{Si}

1218: \left(\alpha^2\right)\right]~ . \label{undurad4bisgg0}

1219: \end{eqnarray}

1220: %

1221: where $\mathrm{Si}(z)=\int_0^z dt \sin(t)/t$ indicates the sin

1222: integral function and subscript "0" is indicative of the source

1223: position. Plots of $\Psi_f$ and $\Psi_0$ are given in Fig.

1224: \ref{psif} and Fig. \ref{psio}. It should be noted here that the

1225: independent variable in both plots is the dummy variable $\alpha$.

1226: The characteristic transverse range of the field in the far zone

1227: is in units of the radiation diffraction angle

1228: $\sqrt{\lambdabar/L_w}$, while the characteristic transverse range

1229: of the field at the source is in units of the radiation

1230: diffraction size $\sqrt{\lambdabar L_w}$.

1231: 

1232: \begin{figure}

1233: \begin{center}

1234: \includegraphics*[width=110mm]{figure7.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

1235: \caption{\label{psif} Universal function $\Psi_f(\alpha)$, used to

1236: calculate the far-zone radiation field of a single electron at the

1237: fundamental harmonic at perfect resonance.}

1238: \end{center}

1239: \end{figure}

1240: %

1241: \begin{figure}

1242: \begin{center}

1243: \includegraphics*[width=110mm]{figure8.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

1244: \caption{\label{psio} Universal function $\Psi_0(\alpha)$, used to

1245: calculate the radiation field of a single electron at the

1246: fundamental harmonic at perfect resonance on the virtual source

1247: plane.}

1248: \end{center}

1249: \end{figure}

1250: %

1251: Finally, with the help of the Fresnel propagation formula Eq.

1252: (\ref{fieldpropback}), we found the following expression for the

1253: field distribution at any distance $\hat{z} > 1/2$ from the

1254: virtual source:

1255: 

1256: \begin{eqnarray}

1257: \hat{E}\left(\hat{z},\vec{\hat{\eta}},

1258: \vec{\hat{l}},\vec{\hat{\theta}}_{}\right) &=& \exp\left[\frac{i

1259: \hat{z} }{2}\left|\vec{\hat{\theta}}_{}

1260: -\frac{\vec{\hat{l}}}{\hat{z}}~\right|^2\right]

1261: \Psi\left(\hat{z},\left|\vec{\hat{\theta}}_{}-

1262: \frac{\vec{\hat{l}}}{\hat{z}}-\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right|\right)~,

1263: \label{Esumg}

1264: \end{eqnarray}

1265: %

1266: where we defined

1267: 

1268: \begin{eqnarray}

1269: \Psi(\hat{z},\alpha) \equiv \exp\left[-i \frac{\hat{z}\alpha^2}{2}

1270: \right] \left\{\mathrm{Ei} \left[\frac{i \hat{z}^2\alpha^2

1271: }{2{\hat{z}} - 1}\right]- \mathrm{Ei} \left[\frac{i

1272: \hat{z}^2\alpha^2 }{2{\hat{z}}  + 1}\right]\right\}~,

1273: \label{undurad4bisggz}

1274: \end{eqnarray}

1275: %

1276: and $\mathrm{Ei}(z)=-\int_{-z}^{\infty} dt \exp(-t)/t$ indicates

1277: the exponential integral function. Eq. (\ref{Esumg}) is a

1278: particular case of Eq. (\ref{undunormfin}) at perfect resonance.

1279: Note that free space basically acts as a spatial Fourier

1280: transformation. This means that the field in the far zone is,

1281: aside for a phase factor, the Fourier transform of the field at

1282: any position $z$ down the beamline. It is also, aside for a phase

1283: factor, the spatial Fourier transform of the virtual source:

1284: 

1285: \begin{eqnarray}

1286: {\hat{E}}_0\left(0,\vec{\hat{\eta}},

1287: \vec{\hat{l}},\vec{\hat{r}}_{}\right)&=& -\frac{i  \hat{z}}{2 \pi

1288: } \int d\vec{\hat{\theta}}\exp{\left[-\frac{i  |\vec{

1289: \hat{\theta}}|^2}{2} \hat{z}\right]}{

1290: \hat{E}}_f\left(\hat{z},\vec{\hat{\eta}}, \vec{\hat{l}},

1291: \vec{\hat{\theta}}\right)\exp\left[{i } \vec{\hat{r}}_{{}}\cdot

1292: \vec{\hat{\theta}}\right] ~ . \label{virfiemody}

1293: \end{eqnarray}

1294: %

1295: It follows that

1296: 

1297: \begin{eqnarray}

1298: \int d \vec{{\theta}}~ \Psi_f(\theta) \exp{\left[{i  }

1299: {\vec{\hat{r}}}_{}\cdot\vec{{\theta}} \right]} &=& 2 \pi

1300: \int_0^{\infty} d \theta~ \theta J_o\left( {|\vec{\hat{r}}}_{}|

1301: \theta \right) \Psi_f(\theta)   =  2\pi^2

1302: \Psi_0\left(|\vec{\hat{r}}_{}|\right) ~.\label{psi0psif}

1303: \end{eqnarray}

1304: %

1305: We conclude verifying that Eq. (\ref{Esumg}) is in agreement with

1306: Eq. (\ref{undurad4}) and Eq. (\ref{undurad5gg}) $\hat{z} \gg 1$

1307: and for $\hat{z}=0$, respectively. Consider first $\hat{z}=0$. For

1308: positive numbers $\alpha^2 \equiv

1309: \left|\vec{\hat{r}}-\vec{\hat{l}}-\hat{z}\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right|^2

1310: > 0$, we have

1311: 

1312: \begin{eqnarray}

1313: -i [\pi +2 \mathrm{Si}(\alpha^2)] = \mathrm{Ei}(- i \alpha^2)

1314: -\mathrm{Ei}( i \alpha^2)~, \label{siei}

1315: \end{eqnarray}

1316: %

1317: and Eq. (\ref{Esumg})  yields back Eq. (\ref{undurad5gg}).

1318: 

1319: Consider now the limit for $\hat{z} \gg 1$. For positive numbers

1320: $\xi^2 \equiv \left|\vec{\hat{\theta}} -\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right|^2

1321: > 0$ one has

1322: 

1323: \begin{eqnarray}

1324: &&\exp\left[-\frac{i\hat{z}\xi^2}{2}\right]\left[

1325: \mathrm{Ei}\left(\frac{i \xi^2 \hat{z}^2}{2 \hat{z} -1}\right) -

1326: \mathrm{Ei}\left(\frac{i \xi^2 \hat{z}^2}{2 \hat{z}

1327: +1}\right)\right] \longrightarrow

1328: \frac{1}{\hat{z}}\mathrm{sinc}\left(\frac{\xi^2}{4}\right)~,\label{sincei}

1329: \end{eqnarray}

1330: %

1331: as it can be directly seen comparing Eq. (\ref{Esumg}) with Eq.

1332: (\ref{undunormfin})), where integration in Eq. (\ref{psig}) is

1333: performed directly at $\hat{C} = 0$ and in the limit for $\hat{z}

1334: \gg 1$. Thus, Eq. (\ref{Esumg}) yields back Eq. (\ref{undurad4}),

1335: as it must be.

1336: 

1337: Finally, it should be noted that expressions in the present

1338: Section \ref{sub:fiel} have been derived for $\omega > 0$.

1339: Expressions for the field at negative values of $\omega$ can be

1340: obtained based on the property $\vec{\bar{E}}(-\omega) =

1341: \vec{\bar{E}}^*(\omega)$ starting from explicit expressions at

1342: $\omega>0$.

1343: 

1344: 

1345: \subsection{\label{sub:evol} Cross-spectral density of an undulator source

1346: and its free-space propagation.}

1347: 

1348: 

1349: From now on we consider a normalized expression of the

1350: cross-spectral density, $\hat{G}$, that is linked with $G$ in Eq.

1351: (\ref{coore}) by a proportionality factor

1352: 

1353: \begin{equation}

1354: \hat{G} =  \left(\frac{2 c^2  \gamma}{K \omega e A_{JJ}}\right)^2

1355: G ~.\label{inetransf}

1356: \end{equation}

1357: %

1358: Moreover, we introduce variables

1359: 

1360: \begin{equation}

1361: \Delta \vec{{r}} = {\vec{\hat{r}}_{1}-\vec{\hat{r}}_{2}}~,~~

1362: \vec{\bar{r}} = \frac{\vec{\hat{r}}_{1}+\vec{\hat{r}}_{2}}{2}~.

1363: \label{deltabarx}

1364: \end{equation}

1365: %

1366: and

1367: 

1368: \begin{equation}

1369: \Delta \vec{\theta} =

1370: {\vec{\hat{\theta}}_{1}-\vec{\hat{\theta}}_{2}}~,~~

1371: \vec{\bar{\theta}} =

1372: \frac{\vec{\hat{\theta}}_{1}+\vec{\hat{\theta}}_{2}}{2}~,

1373: \label{deltabarth}

1374: \end{equation}

1375: %

1376: where, as before, $\vec{\hat{\theta}} = \vec{\hat{r}}/z$. Thus,

1377: Eq. (\ref{coore}) can now be written as

1378: 

1379: \begin{equation}

1380: \hat{G}(\hat{z},\vec{\bar{r}},\Delta \vec{r}, \hat{C}) \equiv

1381: \left\langle \hat{E} \left(\vec{\hat{\eta}},\vec{\hat{l}},\hat{z},

1382: \vec{\bar{r}}+ \frac{\Delta\vec{r}}{2}, \hat{C}\right)

1383: \hat{E}^*\left(\vec{\hat{\eta}},\vec{\hat{l}},\hat{z},

1384: \vec{\bar{r}}- \frac{\Delta\vec{r}}{2}, \hat{C}\right)

1385: \right\rangle~.\label{coore2}

1386: \end{equation}

1387: %

1388: On the one hand, the cross-spectral density as is defined in Eq.

1389: (\ref{coore2}) includes the product of fields which obey the free

1390: space propagation relation Eq. (\ref{fieldpropback}). On the other

1391: hand, the averaging over random variables commutes with all

1392: operations involved in the calculation of the field propagation.

1393: More explicitly, introducing the notation

1394: $\hat{E}(z)=\mathcal{O}[\hat{E}(z_s)]$ as a shortcut for Eq.

1395: (\ref{fieldpropback}) one can write

1396: 

1397: \begin{eqnarray}

1398: \hat{G}(z)  = \left\langle

1399: \mathcal{O}\left[\hat{E}(\hat{z}_s)\right]\mathcal{O}^*\left[\hat{E}^*(\hat{z}_s)\right]\right\rangle

1400: =

1401: \mathcal{O}\cdot\mathcal{O}^*\left[\left\langle\hat{E}(\hat{z}_s)\hat{E}^*(\hat{z}_s)\right\rangle\right]

1402: = \mathcal{O}\cdot\mathcal{O}^*\left[G(\hat{z}_s)\right] ~,

1403: \label{comm}

1404: \end{eqnarray}

1405: %

1406: where $\mathcal{O}$ may also represent, more in general, any

1407: linear operator. Once the cross-spectral density at the source is

1408: known, Eq. (\ref{comm}) provides an algorithm to calculate the

1409: cross-spectral density at any position $\hat{z}$ down the beamline

1410: (in the free-space case). Similarly, propagation through a complex

1411: optical system can be performed starting from the knowledge of

1412: $\hat{G}(\hat{z}_s)$. As a result, the main problem to solve in

1413: order to characterize the cross-spectral density at the specimen

1414: position is to calculate the cross-spectral density at the virtual

1415: source. For the undulator case, we fix the position of the source

1416: in the center of the undulator $\hat{z}_s=0$. This is the main

1417: issue this paper is devoted to. However, free-space propagation is

1418: also treated, and may be considered an illustration of how our

1419: main result can be used in a specific case.

1420: 

1421: Based on Eq. (\ref{coore2}) and on results in Section

1422: \ref{sub:fiel} we are now ready to present an expression for the

1423: cross-spectral density at any position down the beamline, always

1424: keeping in mind that the main result we are looking for is the

1425: cross-spectral density at the virtual source position.

1426: 

1427: We begin giving a closed expression for $\hat{G}$ valid at any

1428: value of the detuning parameter $\hat{C}$ by substituting Eq.

1429: (\ref{undunormfin}) in Eq. (\ref{coore2}), and replacing the

1430: ensemble average with integration over the transverse beam

1431: distribution function. We thus obtain

1432: 

1433: \begin{eqnarray}

1434: &&\hat{G}\left(\hat{z},\hat{C},\vec{\bar{\theta}},\Delta

1435: \vec{\theta}\right) = \exp\left[{i \hat{z} \vec{\bar{\theta}}\cdot

1436: \Delta\vec{\theta}} \right]\int d\vec{\hat{l}}

1437: \exp\left[-{i}\vec{\hat{l}}\cdot \Delta \vec{\theta}\right]\cr

1438: &&\times  \int d\vec{\hat{\eta}}

1439: f_{\bot}\left(\vec{\hat{l}},\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right)

1440: {\Psi}_{C}\left(\hat{z},\hat{C},\left|\vec{\bar{\theta}}+\frac{\Delta

1441: \vec{\theta}}{2}-\frac{\vec{\hat{l}}}{\hat{z}}-\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right|\right)

1442: {\Psi}^*_{C}\left(\hat{z},\hat{C},\left|\vec{\bar{\theta}}-\frac{\Delta

1443: \vec{\theta}}{2}-\frac{\vec{\hat{l}}}{\hat{z}}-\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right|\right)~.\cr

1444: && \label{Cany}

1445: \end{eqnarray}

1446: %

1447: It is often useful to substitute the integration variables

1448: $\vec{\hat{l}}$ with $\vec{\phi} \equiv

1449: -\vec{\bar{\theta}}+\vec{\hat{l}}/\hat{z}+\vec{\hat{\eta}}$ In

1450: fact, in this way, Eq. (\ref{Cany}) becomes

1451: 

1452: 

1453: \begin{eqnarray}

1454: &&\hat{G}\left(\hat{z},\hat{C},\vec{\bar{\theta}},\Delta

1455: \vec{\theta}\right) = \hat{z}^2 \exp\left[{i

1456: \hat{z}\vec{\bar{\theta}}\cdot \Delta\vec{\theta}} \right]\int

1457: d\vec{\phi} \int d\vec{\hat{\eta}} \exp\left[-{i \hat{z}}

1458: \left(\vec{\phi}+\vec{\bar{\theta}}-\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right)\cdot

1459: \Delta \vec{\theta}\right]\cr &&\times

1460: f_\bot\left(\vec{\phi}+\vec{\bar{\theta}}-\vec{\hat{\eta}},\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right)

1461: {\Psi}_{C}\left(\hat{z},\hat{C},\left|\vec{\phi}-\frac{\Delta

1462: \vec{\theta}}{2}\right|\right)

1463: {\Psi}^*_{C}\left(\hat{z},\hat{C},\left|\vec{\phi}+\frac{\Delta

1464: \vec{\theta}}{2}\right|\right)~, \label{Cany2}

1465: \end{eqnarray}

1466: %

1467: For choices of $f$ of particular interest (e.g. product of

1468: Gaussian functions for both transverse and angle distributions),

1469: integrals in $d\vec{\eta}$ can be performed analytically, leaving

1470: an expression involving two integrations only, and still quite

1471: generic.

1472: 

1473: Eq. (\ref{Cany2}) is as far as we can get with this level of

1474: generality, and can be exploited with the help of numerical

1475: integration techniques. However, it still depends on six

1476: parameters at least: four parameters\footnote{At least. This

1477: depends on the number of parameters needed to specify $f_\bot$.

1478: For a Gaussian distribution in phase space, four parameters are

1479: needed, specifying rms transverse size and angular divergence in

1480: the horizontal and vertical direction.} are needed to specify

1481: $f_\bot$, plus the detuning parameter $\hat{C}$ and the distance

1482: $\hat{z}$.

1483: 

1484: In the following we will assume $\hat{C} \ll 1$, that allows us to

1485: take advantage of analytical presentations for the single-particle

1486: field obtained in \cite{OURF} and reported before. This means that

1487: monochromatization is good enough to neglect finite bandwidth of

1488: the radiation around the fundamental frequency. By this, we

1489: automatically assume that monochromatization is performed around

1490: the fundamental frequency. It should be noted, however, that our

1491: theory can be applied to the case monochromatization is performed

1492: at other frequencies too. Analytical presentation of the

1493: single-particle field cannot be used in full generality, but for

1494: any fixed value $\hat{C}$ of interest one may tabulate the special

1495: function $\Psi_C$ once and for all, and use it in place of $\Psi$

1496: throughout the paper\footnote{Of course, selection of a particular

1497: value $\hat{C}$ still implies a narrow monochromator bandwidth

1498: around that value.}. From this viewpoint, although the case of

1499: prefect resonance studied here is of practical importance in many

1500: situations, it should be considered as a particular illustration

1501: of our theory only.

1502: 

1503: Also note that in Eq. (\ref{Cany}) the electron beam energy spread

1504: is assumed to be negligible. Contrarily to the monochromator

1505: bandwidth, the energy spread is fixed for a given facility: its

1506: presence constitutes a fundamental effect. In order to

1507: quantitatively account for it, one should sum the dimensionless

1508: energy-spread parameter $\hat{\Delta}_E = 4 \pi N_w

1509: \delta\gamma/\gamma$ to $\hat{C}$ in Eq. (\ref{Cany}) and,

1510: subsequently, integration should be extended over the

1511: energy-spread distribution. Typical energy spread $\delta

1512: \gamma/\gamma$ for third generation light sources is of order $0.1

1513: \%$. For ERL sources this figure is about an order of magnitude

1514: smaller, $\delta \gamma/\gamma \sim 0.01 \%$.

1515: 

1516: \begin{figure}

1517: \begin{center}

1518: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{Espread.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

1519: \caption{Study of $\hat{I}$ given in Eq. (\ref{enspread}) for

1520: different valued of $\hat{C}$ and $\hat{\Delta}_E$. Here $N_w

1521: =70$. Plot (a) : comparison, at $\hat{C}=0$, of the case for

1522: negligible energy spread with the case $\hat{\Delta}_E = 0.88$.

1523: Plot (b) : comparison, at negligible energy spread, of the case

1524: $\hat{C}=0$ with the case $\hat{C} = \pm 0.5$. Plot (c) :

1525: comparison of the case $\hat{C}=0$ at negligible energy spread

1526: with the case $\hat{C} = \pm 0.5$ at $\Delta \omega/\omega \simeq

1527: 0.1 \%$. \label{espread} }

1528: \end{center}

1529: \end{figure}

1530: %

1531: 

1532: In order to study the impact of a finite energy spread parameter

1533: $\hat{\Delta}_{E}$, of a finite radiation bandwidth and of a

1534: relatively small detuning from the fundamental we consider an

1535: expression for the intensity of a diffraction-limited beam

1536: $\hat{z}^2  \hat{I} = \hat{z}^2 \langle |\hat{E}|^2 \rangle$

1537: including both $\hat{\Delta}_{E}$ and $\hat{C}$:

1538: 

1539: \begin{eqnarray}

1540: \hat{z}^2 \hat{I}(\hat{\theta},\hat{C},\hat{\Delta}_E) &&=

1541: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{\Delta}_E} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d

1542: \hat{\xi}_E \exp\left[-\frac{\hat{\xi}_E^2}{2 \hat{\Delta}_E^2}

1543: \right] \mathrm{sinc}^2

1544: \left(\frac{\hat{C}+\hat{\xi}_E}{2}+\frac{\hat{\theta}^2}{4}\right)~.\cr

1545: && \label{enspread}

1546: \end{eqnarray}

1547: %

1548: We plotted $\hat{z}^2 \hat{I}$ for different values of $\hat{C}$

1549: and $\hat{\Delta}_E$ in Fig. \ref{espread}. First, in Fig.

1550: \ref{espread} (a), we compared, at $\hat{C}=0$, the case for

1551: negligible energy spread with the case $\hat{\Delta}_E = 0.88$,

1552: corresponding to $\delta \gamma/\gamma \simeq 0.1 \%$ at $N_w

1553: =70$, typical of third generation sources. As one can see, maximal

1554: intensity differences are within $10 \%$. Second, in Fig.

1555: \ref{espread} (b) we compared, at negligible energy spread, the

1556: case $\hat{C}=0$ with $\hat{C} = \pm 0.5$ at $N_w = 70$,

1557: corresponding to a shift $\Delta \omega/\omega \simeq 0.1 \%$. One

1558: can see that also in this case maximal intensities differ of about

1559: $10 \%$. Analysis of Fig. \ref{espread} (c), where the case

1560: $\hat{C}=0$ at negligible energy spread is compared with cases

1561: $\hat{C} = \pm 0.5$ at $\Delta \omega/\omega \simeq 0.1 \%$ and

1562: $N_w = 70$ leads to a similar result. This reasoning allows to

1563: conclude that our simplest analytical illustrations can be applied

1564: to practical cases of interest involving third generation sources

1565: and undulators with up to $70$ periods with good accuracy. It

1566: should be remarked that such illustration holds for the first

1567: harmonic only. In fact, while the shape of $\hat{z}^2 \hat{I}$ is

1568: still given by Eq. (\ref{enspread}) in the case of odd harmonic of

1569: order $h$, parameters $\hat{C}$ and $\hat{\Delta}_E$ are modified

1570: according to $\hat{C}_h = h \hat{C}$ and $\hat{\Delta}_{E~h}=h

1571: \hat{\Delta}_{E}$, decreasing the applicability of our analytical

1572: results.

1573: 

1574: %When $\delta\gamma/\gamma \sim 0.01 \%$ the asymptotic case for a

1575: %monoenergetic beam, Eq. (\ref{Cany}), can be used with high

1576: %accuracy. For $\delta\gamma/\gamma \sim 0.1 \%$ Eq. (\ref{Cany})

1577: %can be used as a first estimation for the cross-spectral density.

1578: 

1579: With this in mind, we can present an expression for the

1580: cross-spectral density at $\hat{C} \ll 1$ based on Eq.

1581: (\ref{coore2}) and Eq. (\ref{Esumg}). Substituting the latter in

1582: the former we obtain an equation for

1583: $\hat{G}(\hat{z},\vec{\bar{\theta}},\Delta \vec{\theta})$ that can

1584: be formally derived from Eq. (\ref{Cany}) by substitution of

1585: $\Psi_C$ with $\Psi$. Similarly as before, one may give

1586: alternative presentation of

1587: $\hat{G}(\hat{z},\vec{\bar{\theta}},\Delta \vec{\theta})$

1588: replacing the integration variables $\vec{\hat{l}}$ with

1589: $\vec{\phi} \equiv

1590: -\vec{\bar{\theta}}+\vec{\hat{l}}/\hat{z}+\vec{\hat{\eta}}$. This

1591: results in another expression for

1592: $\hat{G}(\hat{z},\vec{\bar{\theta}},\Delta \vec{\theta})$ that can

1593: be formally derived from Eq. (\ref{Cany2}) by substituting

1594: $\Psi_C$ with $\Psi$. This last expression presents the

1595: cross-spectral density in terms of a convolution of the transverse

1596: electron beam phase space distribution with an analytical

1597: function, followed by Fourier transformation\footnote{Aside for an

1598: inessential multiplicative constant. This remark also applies in

1599: what follows.}.

1600: 

1601: One may obtain an expression for $\hat{G}$ at $\hat{z}=0$ as a

1602: limiting case of Eq. (\ref{Cany}) or Eq. (\ref{Cany2}) at

1603: $\hat{C}=0$. It is however simpler to do so by substituting Eq.

1604: (\ref{undurad5gg}) in Eq. (\ref{coore2}) that gives

1605: 

1606: \begin{eqnarray}

1607: \hat{G}\left(0,\vec{\bar{r}},\Delta \vec{r}\right) &=& \int

1608: d\vec{\eta} \exp\left[i \vec{{\eta}} \cdot \Delta \vec{r}\right]

1609: \cr && \times \int d\vec{l} f_\bot\left(\vec{l},\vec{\eta}\right)

1610: \pi^2 \Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\bar{r}}-\frac{\Delta \vec{r}}{2} -

1611: \vec{l}\right|\right) \Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\bar{r}}+\frac{\Delta

1612: \vec{r}}{2} - \vec{l}\right|\right)~,\label{Gnor}

1613: \end{eqnarray}

1614: %

1615: where the function $\Psi_0$ has already been defined in Eq.

1616: (\ref{undurad4bisgg0}). The product

1617: $\Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\bar{r}}-{\Delta \vec{r}}/{2}

1618: \right|\right)

1619:  \Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\bar{r}}+{\Delta \vec{r}}/{2}\right| \right)$ is a

1620: four-dimensional , analytical function in $\vec{\bar{r}}$ and

1621: $\Delta \vec{r}$. Eq. (\ref{Gnor}) tells that the cross-spectral

1622: density at the virtual source position can be obtained convolving

1623: $\Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\bar{r}}-{\Delta \vec{r}}/{2}

1624: \right|\right) \Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\bar{r}}+{\Delta

1625: \vec{r}}/{2} \right|\right)$ with the transverse beam distribution

1626: at $z=0$, $f_\bot\left(\vec{\hat{l}},\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right)$,

1627: considered as a function of $\vec{\hat{l}}$, and taking Fourier

1628: transform with respect to $\vec{\hat{\eta}}$. When the betatron

1629: functions have minima in the center of the undulator we have

1630: 

1631: \begin{eqnarray}

1632: f_\bot\left(\vec{\hat{l}},\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right) =

1633: f_l\left(\vec{\hat{l}}\right)

1634: f_\eta\left(\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right)~. \label{ff}

1635: \end{eqnarray}

1636: %

1637: Then, Eq. (\ref{Gnor}) becomes

1638: 

1639: 

1640: \begin{eqnarray}

1641: \hat{G}\left(0,\vec{\bar{r}},\Delta \vec{r}\right) &=& \int

1642: d\vec{\hat{\eta}} f_\eta\left(\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right) \exp\left[i

1643: \vec{\hat{\eta}} \cdot \Delta \vec{r}\right] \cr && \times \int

1644: d\vec{\hat{l}} f_l\left(\vec{\hat{l}}\right) \pi^2

1645: \Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\bar{r}}-\frac{\Delta \vec{r}}{2} -

1646: \vec{\hat{l}}\right|\right)

1647: \Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\bar{r}}+\frac{\Delta \vec{r}}{2} -

1648: \vec{\hat{l}}\right|\right)~,\label{Gnor2}

1649: \end{eqnarray}

1650: %

1651: that will be useful later on. In this case, the cross-spectral

1652: density is the product of two separate factors. First, the Fourier

1653: transform of the distribution of angular divergence of electrons.

1654: Second, the convolution of the transverse electron beam

1655: distribution with the four-dimensional function

1656: $\Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\bar{r}}-{\Delta \vec{r}}/{2}

1657: \right|\right) \Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\bar{r}}+{\Delta

1658: \vec{r}}/{2} \right|\right)$.

1659: 

1660: Eq. (\ref{Cany}) (or Eq. (\ref{Cany2})) constitutes the most

1661: general result in in the calculation of the cross-spectral density

1662: for undulator sources. Its applicability is not restricted to

1663: third generation light sources. In particular, it can be used for

1664: arbitrary undulator sources like ERLs \cite{EDGA} or XFEL

1665: spontaneous undulators \cite{XFEL}. Eq. (\ref{Cany2}) has been

1666: derived, in fact, under the only constraints $\gamma^2 \gg 1$,

1667: $N_w \gg 1$ and $\sigma_T \omega_r \gg N_w$. Note that $\sigma_T

1668: \sim 30 $ ps for a typical SR source, whereas $\sigma_T \sim 100$

1669: fs for an XFEL spontaneous undulator source or an ERL. Yet, for

1670: all practical cases of interest, $\sigma_T \omega \gg N_w$. As we

1671: have seen before, Eq. (\ref{Cany2}) further simplifies  in the

1672: particular but practical case of perfect resonance, i.e. in the

1673: limit for $\hat{C} \ll 1$. A particularly important asymptote of

1674: Eq. (\ref{Cany}) at perfect resonance is at the virtual source

1675: position, described by Eq. (\ref{Gnor}), which express the

1676: cross-spectral density in the undulator center. While Eq.

1677: (\ref{Cany}) (or Eq. (\ref{Cany2})) solves all problems concerning

1678: characterization of transverse coherence properties of light in

1679: free-space, the knowledge of Eq. (\ref{Gnor}) constitutes, in the

1680: presence of optical elements, the first (and main) step towards

1681: the characterization of SR light properties at the specimen

1682: position. In fact, the tracking of the cross-spectral density can

1683: be performed with the help of standard statistical optics

1684: formalism developed for the solution of problems dealing with

1685: partially coherent sources. Finally, it should be noted that in

1686: the case of XFELs and ERLs, there is no further simplification

1687: that we may apply to previously found equations. In particular,

1688: the transverse electron beam phase space should be considered as

1689: the result of a start-to-end simulation or, better, of

1690: experimental diagnostics measurements in a operating machine. On

1691: the contrary, as we will see, extra-simplifications can be

1692: exploited in the case of third-generation light sources, allowing

1693: for the development of a more specialized theory.

1694: 

1695: Inspection of  Eq. (\ref{Cany}) or Eq. (\ref{Gnor}) results in the

1696: conclusion that a Gaussian-Schell model cannot be applied to

1697: describe partially coherent SR light. In fact, functions $\Psi_C$,

1698: $\Psi$, $\Psi_0$ and $\Psi_f$ are of non-Gaussian nature, as the

1699: laser-like beam they can be ascribed to is non-Gaussian. This

1700: explains our words in the Introduction, where we stated that

1701: \cite{COI1,COI2,COI3} are of general theoretical interest, but

1702: they do not provide a satisfactory approximation to third

1703: generation SR sources.

1704: 

1705: As a final remark to this Section, we should discuss the relation

1706: of our approach with that given, in terms of Wigner distribution,

1707: in \cite{KIM2,KIM3}. As said in Section \ref{sec:intro}, treatment

1708: based on Wigner distribution is equivalent to treatment based on

1709: cross-spectral density. We chose to use cross-spectral density

1710: because such quantity is straightforwardly physically measurable,

1711: being related to the outcome of a Young's experiment. Essentially,

1712: one can obtain a Wigner distribution $\hat{W}$ from $\hat{G}$ by

1713: means of an inverse Fourier transformation:

1714: 

1715: \begin{eqnarray}

1716: \hat{W} \left(\hat{z},\vec{\bar{r}}, \vec{\bar{u}}\right) =

1717: \frac{1}{4\pi^2} \int d(\Delta\vec{r}~) \exp\left[-i\Delta

1718: \vec{r}\cdot \vec{\bar{u}}

1719: \right]\hat{G}\left(\hat{z},\vec{\bar{r}},\Delta \vec{r}\right) ~.

1720: \label{W1}

1721: \end{eqnarray}

1722: %

1723: Thus, Eq. (\ref{Gnor2}) gives

1724: 

1725: \begin{eqnarray}

1726: \hat{W}\left(0,\vec{\bar{r}},\vec{\bar{u}}\right) &=& \int

1727: d\vec{\hat{l}} \int d\vec{\hat{\eta}}

1728: f\left(\vec{\hat{l}},\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right)

1729: \hat{W}_o\left(0,\vec{\bar{r}}-\vec{\hat{l}},\vec{\bar{u}}-\vec{\hat{\eta}}\right)~.

1730: \label{W2}

1731: \end{eqnarray}

1732: %

1733: where

1734: 

1735: \begin{eqnarray}

1736: \hat{W}_o\left(0,\vec{\alpha},\vec{\delta}\right) = \frac{1}{4}

1737: \int d(\Delta \vec{r}~) \exp\left[-i\Delta \vec{r}\cdot

1738: \vec{\delta} \right] \Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\alpha}-\frac{\Delta

1739: \vec{r}}{2}\right|\right)

1740: \Psi_0\left(\left|\vec{\alpha}+\frac{\Delta

1741: \vec{r}}{2}\right|\right)~,\label{WWW}

1742: \end{eqnarray}

1743: %

1744: The Wigner distribution at $\hat{z}=0$ is presented as a

1745: convolution product between the electron phase-space and a

1746: universal function $\hat{W}_o$. This result may be directly

1747: compared (aside for different notation) with \cite{KIM2,KIM3},

1748: where the Wigner distribution is presented as a convolution

1749: between the electrons phase space and a universal function as

1750: well. The study in \cite{KIM2,KIM3} ends at this point, presenting

1751: expressions for arbitrary detuning parameter. On the contrary, in

1752: the following Sections we will take advantage of expressions at

1753: perfect resonance, of small and large parameters related to third

1754: generation light sources and of specific characteristics of the

1755: electron beam distribution. This will allow us to develop a

1756: comprehensive theory of third generation SR sources.

1757: 

1758: 

1759: \section{\label{sec:main} Theory of transverse coherence for

1760: third-generation light sources}

1761: 

1762: \subsection{\label{sub:cross} Cross-Spectral Density}

1763: 

1764: 

1765: We now specialize our discussion to third-generation light

1766: sources.  We assume that the motion of particles in the horizontal

1767: and vertical directions are completely uncoupled. Additionally, we

1768: assume a Gaussian distribution of the electron beam in the phase

1769: space. These two assumptions are practically realized, with good

1770: accuracy, in storage rings. For simplicity, we also assume that

1771: the minimal values of the beta-functions in horizontal and

1772: vertical directions are located at the virtual source position

1773: $\hat{z} = 0$, that is often (but not

1774: always\footnote{Generalization to the case when this assumption

1775: fails is straightforward.}) the case in practice. $f_\bot =

1776: f_{\eta_x}(\hat{\eta}_x) f_{\eta_x}(\hat{\eta}_y)

1777: f_{l_x}(\hat{l}_x) f_{l_x}(\hat{l}_y)$ with

1778: 

1779: \begin{eqnarray}

1780: && f_{\eta_x}(\hat{\eta}_x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi D_x}}

1781: \exp{\left(-\frac{\hat{\eta}_x^2}{2 D_x}\right)}~,~~~~

1782: f_{\eta_y}(\hat{\eta}_y)  = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi D_y}}

1783: \exp{\left(-\frac{\hat{\eta}_y^2}{2 D_y}\right)}~,\cr &&

1784: f_{l_x}(~\hat{l}_x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi N_x} }

1785: \exp{\left(-\frac{\hat{l}_x^2}{2 N_x}\right)}~,~~~~~

1786: f_{l_y}(~\hat{l}_y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi N_y} }

1787: \exp{\left(-\frac{\hat{l}_y^2}{2 N_y}\right)}~.\label{distr}

1788: \end{eqnarray}

1789: %

1790: Here

1791: 

1792: \begin{equation}

1793: D_{x,y} = \frac{\sigma_{x',y'}^2} {{\lambdabar}/L_w}~,~~~~~

1794: N_{x,y} = \frac{\sigma^2_{x,y}} {\lambdabar L_w}~,\label{enne}

1795: \end{equation}

1796: %

1797: $\sigma_{x,y}$ and $\sigma_{x',y'}$ being rms transverse bunch

1798: dimensions and angular spreads. Parameters $N_{x,y}$ will be

1799: indicated as the beam diffraction parameters, are analogous to

1800: Fresnel numbers and correspond to the normalized square of the

1801: electron beam sizes, whereas $D_{x,y}$ represent the normalized

1802: square of the electron beam divergences.  Consider the reduced

1803: emittances $\hat{\epsilon}_{x,y} = \epsilon_{x,y}/\lambdabar$,

1804: where $\epsilon_{x,y}$ indicate the geometrical emittance of the

1805: electron beam in the horizontal and vertical directions. Since we

1806: restricted our model to third generation light sources, we can

1807: consider $\hat{\epsilon}_x\gg 1$. Moreover, since betatron

1808: functions are of order of the undulator length, we can also

1809: separately accept

1810: 

1811: \begin{eqnarray}

1812: N_x \gg 1~,~~~~~D_x \gg 1, \label{major}

1813: \end{eqnarray}

1814: %

1815: still retaining full generality concerning values of $N_y$ and

1816: $D_y$, due to the small coupling coefficient between horizontal

1817: and vertical emittance.

1818: 

1819: Exploitation of the extra-parameter $\hat{\epsilon}_x\gg 1$ (or

1820: equivalently $N_x\gg 1$ and $D_x \gg 1$) specializes our theory to

1821: the case of third-generation sources.

1822: 

1823: With this in mind we start to specialize our theory beginning with

1824: the expression for the cross-spectral density at the virtual

1825: source, i.e. Eq. (\ref{Gnor2}). After the change of variables

1826: $\vec{\phi} \longrightarrow -\vec{\bar{r}}+\vec{\hat{l}}$, and

1827: making use of Eq. (\ref{distr}), Eq. (\ref{Gnor2}) becomes

1828: 

1829: \begin{eqnarray}

1830: \hat{G}\left(0,\vec{\bar{r}},\Delta \vec{r}\right) &=&

1831: \frac{\pi}{2 \sqrt{N_x N_y}} \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta x)^2

1832: D_x}{2}\right] \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta y)^2 D_y}{2}\right]\cr &&

1833: \times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_x \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d

1834: \phi_y \exp\left[-\frac{\left(\phi_x+\bar{x}\right)^2}{2

1835: N_x}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{\left(\phi_y+\bar{y}\right)^2}{2

1836: N_y}\right] \cr && \times

1837: \Psi_0\left\{\left[\left({\phi_{x}}+\frac{\Delta

1838: x}{2}\right)^2+\left({\phi_{y}}+\frac{\Delta y}{2} \right)^2

1839: \right]^{1/2}\right\} \cr && \times

1840: \Psi_0\left\{\left[\left({\phi_{x}}-\frac{\Delta x}{2}

1841: \right)^2+\left({\phi_{y}}-\frac{\Delta y}{2} \right)^2

1842: \right]^{1/2}\right\}~,\label{Gnor3}

1843: \end{eqnarray}

1844: %

1845: where $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$ indicate components of $\Delta

1846: \vec{r}$. In Eq. (\ref{Gnor3}) the range of variable $\phi_x$  is

1847: effectively limited up to values $|\phi_x| \sim 1$. In fact,

1848: $\phi_x$ enters the expression for $\Psi_0$. It follows that at

1849: values larger than unity the integrand in Eq. (\ref{Gnor3}) is

1850: suppressed. Then, since $N_x \gg 1$, we can neglect $\phi_x$ in

1851: the exponential function. Moreover $D_x \gg 1$ and from the

1852: exponential function in $D_x$ follows that $\Delta x \ll 1$ can be

1853: neglected in $\Psi_0$. As a result, Eq. (\ref{Gnor3}) is

1854: factorized in the product of a horizontal cross-spectral density

1855: $G_x(0,\bar{x}, \Delta x)$ and a vertical cross-spectral density

1856: $G_y(0,\bar{x}, \Delta x)$:

1857: 

1858: \begin{eqnarray}

1859: \hat{G}\left(0,\vec{\bar{r}},\Delta \vec{r}\right) =

1860: \hat{G}_x\left(0,{\bar{x}},\Delta {x}\right)

1861: \hat{G}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right)~, \label{factorizeee}

1862: \end{eqnarray}

1863: %

1864: where

1865: 

1866: \begin{eqnarray}

1867: \hat{G}_x\left(0,{\bar{x}},\Delta {x}\right) &=&

1868: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{N_x}}} \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta x)^2D_x

1869: }{2}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{\bar{x}^2}{2 N_x}\right]

1870: ~,\label{Gnor3x}

1871: \end{eqnarray}

1872: %

1873: \begin{eqnarray}

1874: \hat{G}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right) &=&

1875: \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N_y}}  \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta

1876: y)^2D_y}{2}\right] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_y

1877: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_x

1878: \exp\left[-\frac{\left(\phi_y+\bar{y}\right)^2}{2 N_y}\right] \cr

1879: && \times

1880: \Psi_0\left\{\left[{\phi_{x}}^2+\left({\phi_{y}}+\frac{\Delta

1881: y}{2} \right)^2 \right]^{1/2}\right\}

1882: \Psi_0\left\{\left[{\phi_{x}}^2+\left({\phi_{y}}-\frac{\Delta

1883: y}{2} \right)^2 \right]^{1/2}\right\}~.\cr &&\label{Gnor3y}

1884: \end{eqnarray}

1885: %

1886: Note that, in virtue of Eq. (\ref{fieldpropback}), factorization

1887: holds in general, at any position $\hat{z}$. This allows us to

1888: separately study $\hat{G}_x$ and $\hat{G}_y$. $\hat{G}_x$

1889: describes a quasi-homogeneous Gaussian source, which will be

1890: treated in Section \ref{sub:gaus}. Here we will focus our

1891: attention on $\hat{G}_y$ only. It should be remarked that the

1892: quasi-homogenous Gaussian source asymptote is obtained from Eq.

1893: (\ref{Gnor3y}) in the limit $N_y \gg 1$ and $D_y \gg 1$. In other

1894: words, normalization constants in Eq. (\ref{Gnor3x}) and Eq.

1895: (\ref{Gnor3y}) are chosen in such a way that Eq. (\ref{Gnor3y})

1896: reduces to Eq. (\ref{Gnor3x}) in the limit $N_y \gg 1$ and $D_y

1897: \gg 1$ (with the obvious substitution $x \longrightarrow y$). It

1898: should be clear that this normalization is most natural, but not

1899: unique. The only physical constraint that normalization of Eq.

1900: (\ref{Gnor3x}) and Eq. (\ref{Gnor3y}) should obey is that the

1901: product $\hat{G}_x \hat{G}_y$ should not change.

1902: 

1903: Let us define the two-dimensional universal function

1904: $\mathcal{S}(\alpha,\delta)$ as\footnote{$\mathcal{S}$ stands for

1905: "Source".}

1906: 

1907: \begin{eqnarray}

1908: \mathcal{S}(\alpha,\delta) = \mathcal{K}_S \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

1909: d \phi_x

1910: \Psi_0\left\{\left[{\phi_{x}}^2+\left(\alpha+\frac{\delta}{2}\right)^2

1911: \right]^{1/2}\right\}

1912: \Psi_0\left\{\left[{\phi_{x}}^2+\left(\alpha-

1913: \frac{\delta}{2}\right)^2 \right]^{1/2}\right\}~. \cr &&

1914: \label{mtcm}

1915: \end{eqnarray}

1916: %

1917: The normalization constant $\mathcal{K}_S \simeq 0.714$ is chosen

1918: in such a way that $\mathcal{S}(0,0)=1$. We can present

1919: $\hat{G}_y$ at the virtual source with the help of $\mathcal{S}$

1920: as

1921: 

1922: \begin{figure}

1923: \begin{center}

1924: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure9.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

1925: \caption{\label{FTM} Plot of the universal function

1926: ${\mathcal{S}}$, used to calculate the cross-spectral density at

1927: the virtual source when $N_x \gg1$, $D_x \gg 1$, $N_y$ and $D_y$

1928: are arbitrary. }

1929: \end{center}

1930: \end{figure}

1931: %

1932: 

1933: \begin{eqnarray}

1934: \hat{G}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right) &=&

1935: \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N_y}}  \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta y)^2

1936: D_y }{2}\right] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_y

1937: \exp\left[-\frac{\left(\phi_y+\bar{y}\right)^2}{2 N_y}\right] \cr

1938: && \times~\frac{1}{\mathcal{K}_S} \mathcal{S}(\phi_y,\Delta y) ~.

1939: \label{Gnor4y}

1940: \end{eqnarray}

1941: %

1942: Therefore, $\hat{G}_y$ at the virtual source is found by

1943: convolving an universal function, $\mathcal{S}$, with a Gaussian

1944: function and multiplying the result by another Gaussian function.

1945: 

1946: Note that in the limit $N_x \gg 1$ and $D_x \gg 1$ there is no

1947: influence of the electron beam distribution along the vertical

1948: direction on $\hat{G}_x$. In spite of this, in the same limit, Eq.

1949: (\ref{Gnor4y}) shows that there is an influence of the horizontal

1950: electron beam distribution on $\hat{G}_y$, due to the

1951: non-separability of the function $\Psi_0$ in $\mathcal{S}$. In

1952: fact, contrarily to the case of a Gaussian laser beam,

1953: $\Psi_0[{\phi_{x}}^2+(\alpha- {\delta}/{2})^2 ] \ne

1954: \Psi_0[{\phi_{x}}^2 ] \Psi_0[(\alpha- {\delta}/{2})^2 ]$, and the

1955: integral in $d \phi_x$, that is a remainder of the integration

1956: along the x-direction, is still present in the definition of

1957: $\mathcal{S}$. However, such influence of the horizontal electron

1958: beam distribution is independent of $N_x$ and $D_x$. As a

1959: consequence, $\mathcal{S}$ is a universal function.

1960: 

1961: A plot of ${\mathcal{S}}$ is presented in Fig. \ref{FTM}.

1962: ${\mathcal{S}}$ is a real function. Then, $\hat{G}$ at the virtual

1963: plane is also real. Moreover, ${\mathcal{S}}$ is invariant for

1964: exchange of $\alpha$ with $\delta/2$.

1965: 

1966: 

1967: \begin{figure}

1968: \begin{center}

1969: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure10.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

1970: \caption{\label{M} Plot of the universal function $\mathcal{F}$,

1971: used to calculate the cross-spectral density in the far zone when

1972: $N_x \gg1$, $D_x \gg 1$, $N_y$ and $D_y$ are arbitrary. }

1973: \end{center}

1974: \end{figure}

1975: %

1976: 

1977: 

1978: Let us now deal with the evolution of the cross-spectral density

1979: $\hat{G}_y$ in free-space. In principle, one may use Eq.

1980: (\ref{Gnor4y}) and apply Eq. (\ref{comm}), remembering Eq.

1981: (\ref{fieldpropback}). It is however straightforward to use

1982: directly Eq. (\ref{Cany2}) at $\hat{C} \ll 1$. Under the

1983: assumption $N_x \gg 1$ and $D_x \gg 1$, as has been already

1984: remarked, factorization of $\hat{G}$ as a product of $\hat{G}_x$

1985: and $\hat{G}_y$ holds for any value of $\hat{z}$.  Isolating these

1986: factors in Eq. (\ref{Cany2}) at $\hat{C} \ll 1$ and using Eq.

1987: (\ref{distr}) one obtains

1988: 

1989: 

1990: \begin{eqnarray}

1991: &&\hat{G}_y\left(\hat{z},{\bar{\theta}_y},\Delta {\theta}_y\right)

1992: = \frac{\hat{z}^2}{2 \pi^2 \sqrt{2 N_y D_y}} \exp\left[{i

1993: \hat{z}\bar{\theta}_y \Delta{\theta}_y } \right]\int d{\phi}_y

1994: \exp\left[-{i \hat{z}}\left({\phi}_y+{\bar{\theta}_y}\right)

1995: \Delta {\theta}_y\right] \cr && \times \int d\hat{\eta}_y

1996: \exp\left[i \hat{z}{\hat{\eta}_y}\Delta {\theta}_y\right]

1997: \exp\left[-\frac{\hat{\eta}_y^2}{2 D_y}\right]

1998: \exp\left[-\frac{\left({\phi}_y

1999: +\bar{\theta}_y-\hat{\eta}_y\right)^2}{2 N_y/\hat{z}^2} \right]\cr

2000: && \times \int d \phi_x

2001: {\Psi}\left\{\hat{z},\left[{\phi}_x^2+\left(\phi_y-\frac{\Delta

2002: \theta_y }{2}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\right\}

2003: {\Psi}^*\left\{\hat{z},\left[{\phi}_x^2+\left(\phi_y+\frac{\Delta

2004: \theta_y}{2}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\right\}~. \label{Gnoryany}

2005: \end{eqnarray}

2006: %

2007: The integral in $d \hat{\eta}_y$ (second line) can be calculated

2008: analytically yielding

2009: 

2010: 

2011: \begin{eqnarray}

2012: &&\hat{G}_y\left(\hat{z},{\bar{\theta}}_y,\Delta \theta_y\right) =

2013: \frac{\hat{z}}{2\pi\sqrt{ \pi} \sqrt{N_y/\hat{z}^2 + D_y}}

2014: \exp\left[{\hat{z}}{i \bar{\theta}_y \Delta\theta_{y} } \right]

2015: \exp\left[-\frac{D_y N_y \Delta \theta_y^2 }{2\left(N_y/\hat{z}^2

2016: + D_y \right)}\right] \cr && \times \int d{\phi}_y

2017: \exp\left[-\frac{i \left(\phi_y+\bar{\theta}_y\right) \Delta

2018: \theta_y N_y/\hat{z}}{N_y/\hat{z}^2 + D_y }\right]

2019: \exp\left[-\frac{\left({\phi}_y+{\bar{\theta}_y}\right)^2}{2\left(N_y/\hat{z}^2

2020: + D_y \right)}\right] \cr && \times \int d \phi_x

2021: {\Psi}\left\{\hat{z},\left[{\phi}_x^2+\left(\phi_y-\frac{\Delta

2022: \theta_y }{2}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\right\}

2023: {\Psi}^*\left\{\hat{z},\left[{\phi}_x^2+\left(\phi_y+\frac{\Delta

2024: \theta_y}{2}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\right\}~. \label{Gnoryany2}

2025: \end{eqnarray}

2026: %

2027: We are now interested in discussing the far-zone limit of Eq.

2028: (\ref{Gnoryany2}). Up to now we dealt with the far-zone region of

2029: the field from a single particle, Eq. (\ref{undurad4}). In this

2030: case, the field exhibits a spherical wavefront. Such wavefront

2031: corresponds to the quadratic phase factor in Eq. (\ref{undurad4}).

2032: Note that when the electron is moving on-axis, Eq.

2033: (\ref{undurad4}) consists of the product of $\hat{z}^{-1} \exp[i

2034: \hat{z} \hat{\theta}^2/2]$ by a real function independent of

2035: $\hat{z}$. Such field structure can be taken as a definition of

2036: far-zone. A similar definition can be used for the far-zone

2037: pertaining the cross-spectral density. We regard the quadratic

2038: phase factor $\exp[{\hat{z}}{i \bar{\theta}_y \Delta\theta_{y} }

2039: ]$ in Eq. (\ref{Gnoryany2}) as the equivalent, in terms of

2040: cross-spectral density, of the quadratic phase factor for the

2041: single-particle field. We therefore take as definition of far-zone

2042: the region of parameters where $\hat{G}_y(\hat{z},

2043: \bar{\theta}_y,\Delta \theta_y) = \hat{z}^{-1}

2044: h(\bar{\theta}_y,\Delta \theta_y) \exp[{\hat{z}}{i \bar{\theta}_y

2045: \Delta\theta_{y} }]$, $h$ being a real function, and remains like

2046: that for larger values of $\hat{z}$.

2047: 

2048: Let us discuss the definition of the far-zone region in terms of

2049: problem parameters. In the single-particle situation, the only

2050: parameter of the problem was $\hat{z}$ and, as is intuitively

2051: sound, the far-zone region was shown to coincide with the limit

2052: $\hat{z} \gg 1$. In the case of Eq. (\ref{Gnoryany2}), we deal

2053: with three parameters $\hat{z}$, ${N}_y$ and ${D}_y$. Therefore we

2054: should find that the far-zone is defined in terms of conditions

2055: involving all three parameters.

2056: 

2057: When $N_y\lesssim 1$ and $D_y \lesssim 1$, analysis of Eq.

2058: (\ref{Gnoryany2}) shows that the far-zone region is for $\hat{z}

2059: \gg 1$. In this case the definition of far-zone for $\hat{G}_y$

2060: coincides with that of far-zone for the field of a single

2061: particle.

2062: 

2063: However, when either or both $N_y \gg 1$ or $D_y \gg 1$ the

2064: situation is different, and one finds that the far-zone condition

2065: is a combination of $\hat{z}$, $N_y$, and $D_y$. In all these

2066: cases, detailed mathematical analysis of Eq. (\ref{Gnoryany2})

2067: shows that far-zone is reached when

2068: 

2069: \begin{eqnarray}

2070: \max[N_y,1] \ll \hat{z}^2 \max[D_y,1] ~.\label{farzo}

2071: \end{eqnarray}

2072: %

2073: As it will be clearer after reading Section \ref{sub:geop}, but

2074: can also be seen considering the definition of our dimensionless

2075: units, the physical meaning of comparisons of $N_y$ and $D_y$ with

2076: unity in condition (\ref{farzo}) is that of a comparison between

2077: diffraction-related parameters (diffraction angle and diffraction

2078: size) and beam-related parameters (divergence and size of the

2079: electron beam).

2080: 

2081: When ${N}_y \gg 1$, but $D_y \lesssim 1$ condition (\ref{farzo})

2082: reads $\hat{z}^2 \gg N_y \gg 1$. This result is in agreement with

2083: intuition. The far-zone condition for $\hat{G}_y$ does not

2084: coincide with that for the field of a single electron, but it is

2085: anyway reached far away from the source, at $\hat{z} \gg 1$. As we

2086: will see in Section \ref{sub:nong}, the case ${N}_y \gg 1$ with

2087: $D_y \lesssim 1$ corresponds to a quasi-homogeneous non-Gaussian

2088: source. In Section \ref{sub:nong} we will see that in this case

2089: the VCZ theorem is applicable, and its region of applicability is

2090: in agreement with our definition of far-zone $\hat{z}^2 \gg N_y

2091: \gg 1$.

2092: 

2093: When $D_y \gg 1$ (with arbitrary $N_y$) and condition

2094: (\ref{farzo}) holds, analysis shows that the phase factor under

2095: the integral sign in Eq. (\ref{Gnoryany2}) can be neglected.

2096: Moreover, in this case, the Gaussian function in $\phi_y +

2097: \bar{\theta}_y$ has a width in $\phi_y$ much larger than unity,

2098: while the integral in $d \phi_x$ in second line of Eq.

2099: (\ref{Gnoryany2}) has a width in $\phi_y$ of order unity, because

2100: $\Psi$ does not depend on parameters. Therefore, the dependence in

2101: $\phi_y$ in the Gaussian function can

2102: always be omitted, and the Gaussian function factors out of the integral sign in $d \phi_y$. %It follows that Eq. (\ref{Gnoryany2})

2103: %simplifies to

2104: %

2105: %

2106: %\begin{eqnarray}

2107: %&&\hat{G}_y\left(\hat{z},{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right) = \frac{

2108: %\hat{z}\exp\left[{i \hat{z}\bar{\theta}_y \Delta{\theta}_y }

2109: %\right]}{2 \pi\sqrt{ \pi D_y}} \exp\left[-\frac{N_y \Delta

2110: %\theta_y^2 }{2}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{{\bar{\theta}_y}^2}{2 D_y

2111: %}\right]  \int d{\phi}_y \cr && \times\int d \phi_x

2112: %{\Psi}\left\{\hat{z},\left[{\phi}_x^2+\left(\phi_y-\frac{\Delta

2113: %\theta_y }{2}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\right\}

2114: %{\Psi}^*\left\{\hat{z},\left[{\phi}_x^2+\left(\phi_y+\frac{\Delta

2115: %\theta_y }{2}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\right\}~. \cr &&

2116: %\label{Gnoryany4}

2117: %\end{eqnarray}

2118: %%

2119: One is left with the product of exponential functions and the

2120: double integral

2121: 

2122: \begin{eqnarray}

2123: \tilde{f}(\Delta \theta_y) &\equiv&  \int d{\phi}_y\int d \phi_x

2124: \cr && \times {\Psi}\left\{\hat{z},\left[{\phi}_x^2+

2125: \left(\phi_y-\frac{\Delta

2126: \theta_y}{2}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\right\}

2127: {\Psi}^*\left\{\hat{z},\left[{\phi}_x^2+\left(\phi_y+ \frac{\Delta

2128: \theta_y}{2}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\right\}~, \cr &&

2129: \label{doubleint}

2130: \end{eqnarray}

2131: %

2132: which has a very peculiar property. In fact, it does not depend on

2133: $\hat{z}$. The proof is based on the autocorrelation theorem in

2134: two dimensions, and is given in detail in Appendix C of reference

2135: \cite{OURU}. This quite remarkable property of $\tilde{f}$ carries

2136: the consequence that substitution of $\Psi$ with $\Psi_f$ can be

2137: performed in Eq. (\ref{doubleint}) without altering the final

2138: result.

2139: 

2140: When both $D_y \gg 1$ and $N_y \gg 1$, one may neglect the

2141: dependence in $\Delta \theta_y$ in functions $\Psi$ and $\Psi^*$

2142: in Eq. (\ref{doubleint}), because the exponential function in

2143: $\Delta \theta_y$ before the integral sign limits the range of

2144: $\Delta \theta_y$ to values of order $1/\sqrt{N_y} \ll 1$. As a

2145: result, the double integration in $d \phi_x $ and $d \phi_y$

2146: yields a constant, and the description of the photon beam is

2147: independent of $\Psi$, i.e. does not include diffraction effects.

2148: This result is intuitive: when the electron beam size and

2149: divergence is large compared to the diffraction size and

2150: divergence, the photon beam can be described in terms of the

2151: phase-space distribution of the electron beam. This approach will

2152: be treated in more detail in Section \ref{sub:geop}.

2153: 

2154: Finally, when $D_y \gg 1$ and $N_y \lesssim 1$, diffraction

2155: effects cannot be neglected, nor can be the dependence in $\Delta

2156: \theta_y$ in $\Psi$ and $\Psi^*$. In this case, from condition

2157: (\ref{farzo}) we obtain that the far-zone coincides with $D_y

2158: \hat{z}^2 \gg 1$. This result is completely counterintuitive. In

2159: fact, since $D_y \gg 1$, the far-zone is reached for values

2160: $\hat{z} \sim 1$, i.e. at the very end of the undulator. Yet,

2161: diffraction effects cannot be neglected, and the field from a

2162: single electron is far from exhibiting a spherical wavefront at

2163: $\hat{z} \sim 1$. This paradox is solved by the special property

2164: of the double integral in Eq. (\ref{doubleint}), that allows one

2165: to substitute $\Psi$ with $\Psi_f$ independently of the value of

2166: $\hat{z}$.

2167: 

2168: As it will be discussed in Section \ref{sub:gaus} and Section

2169: \ref{sub:nong}, the case $D_y \gg 1$ corresponds to a

2170: quasi-homogeneous Gaussian source when $N_y \gg 1$ and to a

2171: quasi-homogeneous non-Gaussian source when $N_y \lesssim 1$. It

2172: will be shown that the VCZ theorem is applicable to these

2173: situations. In particular, the applicability region of the VCZ

2174: theorem will be seen to be in agreement with our definition of

2175: far-zone.

2176: 

2177: Our discussion can be summarized in a single statement. The far

2178: zone is defined, in terms of problem parameters, by condition

2179: (\ref{farzo}). Remembering this condition one can derive the

2180: far-zone expression for $\hat{G}_y$ simplifying Eq.

2181: (\ref{Gnoryany2}):

2182: 

2183: \begin{eqnarray}

2184: \hat{G}_y(\hat{z},\bar{\theta}_y,\Delta {\theta}_y) &=&

2185: \frac{1}{\hat{z}} \frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{\pi D_y}} {\exp{\left[i

2186: \hat{z} \bar{\theta}_y \Delta {\theta}_y \right]}} \exp{\left[-

2187: \frac{N_y \Delta {\theta}_y^2}{2} \right]} \cr &&\times

2188: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}_y

2189: \exp{\left[-\frac{(\bar{\theta}_y+{\phi}_y)^2}{2 D_y}\right]}

2190: \frac{1}{\mathcal{K}_F}\mathcal{F}\left({\phi}_y,\Delta

2191: {\theta}_y\right) ~,\label{resu1}

2192: \end{eqnarray}

2193: %

2194: where the universal two-dimensional

2195: function\footnote{$\mathcal{F}$ stands for "Far".}

2196: $\mathcal{F}(\alpha,\delta)$ is normalized in such a way that

2197: $\mathcal{F}(0,0)=1$ and reads :

2198: 

2199: \begin{eqnarray}

2200: \mathcal{F}(\alpha,\delta)&=& \mathcal{K}_F

2201: {\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}_x \Psi_f\left\{\left[{{\phi}_x^2

2202: +\left(\alpha-\frac{\delta}{2}\right)^2}\right]^{1/2}\right\}}

2203: \Psi_f\left\{\left[{{\phi}_x^2

2204: +\left(\alpha+\frac{\delta}{2}\right)^2}\right]^{1/2}\right\}~,\cr

2205: && \label{Motherofall}

2206: \end{eqnarray}

2207: %

2208: with $\mathcal{K}_F={3}/({8 \sqrt{\pi}})$.

2209: 

2210: 

2211: Note that, similarly to the source case, the right hand side of

2212: Eq. (\ref{resu1}) is found by convolving an universal function,

2213: $\mathcal{F}$, with a Gaussian function and multiplying the result

2214: by another Gaussian function.

2215: 

2216: A plot of $\mathcal{F}$ function defined is given in Fig. \ref{M}.

2217: $\mathcal{F}$ is a real function.  Thus,  only the geometrical

2218: phase factor in Eq. (\ref{resu1}) prevents $\hat{G}_y$ in the

2219: far-zone from being real. Another remarkable property of

2220: $\mathcal{F}$ is its invariance for exchange of $\alpha$ with

2221: $\delta/2$. Also, $\mathcal{F}$ is invariant for exchange of

2222: $\alpha$ with $-\alpha$ (or $\delta$ with $-\delta$).

2223: 

2224: Finally, from Eq. (\ref{psi0psif}) and Eq. (\ref{mtcm}) we have

2225: 

2226: \begin{eqnarray}

2227: {\mathcal{S}}(x,y) = \frac{\mathcal{K}_S}{4\pi^3 \mathcal{K}_F}

2228: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\alpha \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\delta

2229: \exp\left[ 2i x \alpha +\frac{i y \delta}{2}\right]

2230: \mathcal{F}(\alpha,\delta)~. \label{calM}

2231: \end{eqnarray}

2232: %

2233: 

2234: \subsection{\label{sub:cross2} Intensity distribution}

2235: 

2236: With expressions for the cross-spectral density at hand, it is now

2237: possible to investigate the intensity distribution\footnote{Words

2238: "intensity distribution" include some abuse of language here and

2239: in the following. What we really calculate is the ensemble average

2240: of the square modulus of the normalized field, $\hat{I}_x

2241: \hat{I}_y = \langle |\hat{E}|^2\rangle$. Conversion to dimensional

2242: units, followed by multiplication by $c/(4\pi^2)$ yields the

2243: spectral density normalized to the electron number $N_e$.} along

2244: the beamline, letting $\Delta \vec{r} = 0$ in the expression for

2245: $\hat{G}$. Since ${N}_x \gg 1$ and $D_x \gg 1$, factorization of

2246: the cross-spectral density still holds. Therefore we can

2247: investigate the intensity profile along the vertical direction

2248: without loss of generality.

2249: 

2250: Posing $\Delta y = 0$ in Eq. (\ref{Gnor4y}) we obtain the

2251: intensity profile at the virtual source,

2252: $\hat{I}_{y}\left(0,{\bar{y}}\right)$, as a function of $\bar{y}$:

2253: 

2254: \begin{eqnarray}

2255: \hat{I}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}}\right) &=& \frac{1}{2 \mathcal{K}_S

2256: }\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N_y}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_y

2257: \exp\left[-\frac{\left(\phi_y+\bar{y}\right)^2}{2 N_y}\right]~

2258: \mathcal{I}_S(\phi_y) ~, \label{Inty0}

2259: \end{eqnarray}

2260: %

2261: where we introduced the universal function

2262: 

2263: \begin{eqnarray}

2264: \mathcal{I}_S(\alpha)\equiv\mathcal{S}(\alpha,0) = \mathcal{K}_S

2265: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_x

2266: \Psi_0^2\left(\sqrt{\phi_x^2+\alpha^2}\right)~. \label{Bdefine}

2267: \end{eqnarray}

2268: %

2269: A change of the integration variable: $\phi_x \longrightarrow x

2270: \equiv (\phi_x^2+\alpha^2)^{1/2}$ allows the alternative

2271: representation:

2272: 

2273: \begin{eqnarray}

2274: \mathcal{I}_S(\alpha)= 2\mathcal{K}_S \int_{0}^{\infty} d x

2275: \frac{\mathrm{rect}\left[\alpha/(2 x)

2276: \right]}{\sqrt{1-\alpha^2/x^2}}\Psi_0^2\left(x\right)~, \label{B2}

2277: \end{eqnarray}

2278: %

2279: where the function $\mathrm{rect}(\xi)$ is defined following

2280: \cite{GOOD}: it is equal to unity for $|\xi|\leqslant 1/2$ and

2281: zero otherwise.

2282: 

2283: \begin{figure}

2284: \begin{center}

2285: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure11.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

2286: \caption{\label{ftbetaplot} The universal function

2287: ${\mathcal{I}_S}$, used to calculate intensity at the

2288: virtual-source position.}

2289: \end{center}

2290: \end{figure}

2291: %

2292: 

2293: The intensity at the virtual-source position is given in terms of

2294: a convolution of a Gaussian function with the universal function

2295: $\mathcal{I}_S$. A plot of $\mathcal{I}_S$ is given in Fig.

2296: \ref{ftbetaplot} .

2297: 

2298: 

2299: Similar derivations can be performed in the far zone. Posing

2300: $\Delta \theta_y = 0$ in Eq. (\ref{resu1}) we obtain the

2301: directivity diagram of the radiation as a function of

2302: $\bar{\theta}_y$:

2303: 

2304: 

2305: \begin{eqnarray}

2306: \hat{I}_y(\hat{z},\bar{\theta}_y) &=& \frac{1}{\hat{z}}

2307: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi D_y} \mathcal{K}_F } \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

2308: d {\phi}_y \exp{\left[-\frac{(\bar{\theta}_y+{\phi}_y)^2}{2

2309: D_y}\right]} \mathcal{I}_F\left({\phi}_y\right) ~,\label{Intyf}

2310: \end{eqnarray}

2311: %

2312: where we defined

2313: 

2314: \begin{eqnarray}

2315: \mathcal{I}_F(\alpha) \equiv  \mathcal{F}\left(\alpha,0\right)

2316: &=&\mathcal{K}_F {\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}_x

2317: \Psi_f^2\left[\left({{\phi}_x^2 +\alpha^2}\right)^{1/2}\right]}

2318: \cr &=&\mathcal{K}_F {\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}_x

2319: \mathrm{sinc}^2\left[\frac{{{\phi}_x^2 +\alpha^2}}{4}\right]}~.

2320: \label{Isintro}

2321: \end{eqnarray}

2322: %

2323: 

2324: \begin{figure}

2325: \begin{center}

2326: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure12.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

2327: \caption{\label{ISnorm} The universal function $\mathcal{I}_F$,

2328: used to calculate the intensity in the far zone.}

2329: \end{center}

2330: \end{figure}

2331: %

2332: 

2333: The intensity in the far-zone is given in terms of a convolution

2334: of a Gaussian function with the universal function

2335: $\mathcal{I}_F$. A plot of $\mathcal{I}_F$ is given in Fig.

2336: \ref{ISnorm}.

2337: 

2338: \subsection{\label{sub:degree} Spectral degree of coherence}

2339: 

2340: We can now present expressions for the spectral degree of

2341: coherence at the virtual source (that is a real quantity) and in

2342: the far-zone (that is not real). Eq. (\ref{normfine}) can be

2343: written for the vertical direction and in normalized units as:

2344: 

2345: 

2346: \begin{equation}

2347: \hat{g}_y\left(\hat{z},{\bar{y}},\Delta y\right) =

2348: \frac{\hat{G}_y\left(\hat{z},{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right)}{

2349: \left[\hat{I}_y(\hat{z},\bar{y}+\Delta y/2)\right]^{1/2}\left[

2350: \hat{I}_y(\hat{z},\bar{y}-\Delta y/2)\right]^{1/2}} ~.

2351: \label{normfine2}

2352: \end{equation}

2353: %

2354: Substitution of Eq. (\ref{Gnor4y}) and Eq. (\ref{Inty0}) in Eq.

2355: (\ref{normfine2}) gives the spectral degree of coherence at the

2356: virtual source:

2357: 

2358: \begin{eqnarray}

2359: \hat{g}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right) &=& \exp

2360: \left[-\frac{(\Delta y)^2 D_y }{2}\right] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

2361: d \phi_y \exp\left[-\frac{\left(\phi_y+\bar{y}\right)^2}{2

2362: N_y}\right] ~ \mathcal{S}(\phi_y,\Delta y)\cr && \times \left\{

2363: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_y

2364: \exp\left[-\frac{\left(\phi_y+\bar{y}+\Delta y/2\right)^2}{2

2365: N_y}\right]~ \mathcal{I}_S(\phi_y)\right\}^{-1/2} \cr &&\times

2366: \left\{ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_y

2367: \exp\left[-\frac{\left(\phi_y+\bar{y}-\Delta y/2\right)^2}{2

2368: N_y}\right]~ \mathcal{I}_S(\phi_y)\right\}^{-1/2} ~. \label{g0}

2369: \end{eqnarray}

2370: %

2371: Similarly, substitution of Eq. (\ref{resu1}) and Eq. (\ref{Intyf})

2372: in Eq. (\ref{normfine2}) gives the spectral degree of coherence in

2373: the far zone:

2374: 

2375: 

2376: \begin{eqnarray}

2377: \hat{g}_y(\hat{z},\bar{\theta}_y,\Delta {\theta}_y) &=&

2378: {\exp{\left[i  \hat{z} \bar{\theta}_y \Delta {\theta}_y \right]}}

2379: \exp{\left[-\frac{  (\Delta {\theta}_y)^2 N_y}{2} \right]}\cr &&

2380: \times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}_y

2381: \exp{\left[-\frac{(\bar{\theta}_y+{\phi}_y)^2}{2 D_y}\right]}

2382: \mathcal{F}\left({\phi}_y,\Delta {\theta}_y\right)\cr && \times

2383: \left\{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}_y

2384: \exp{\left[-\frac{(\bar{\theta}_y+\Delta \theta_y/2+

2385: {\phi}_y)^2}{2 D_y}\right]}

2386: \mathcal{I}_F\left({\phi}_y\right)\right\}^{-1/2}\cr && \times

2387: \left\{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}_y

2388: \exp{\left[-\frac{(\bar{\theta}_y-\Delta \theta_y/2+

2389: {\phi}_y)^2}{2 D_y}\right]}

2390: \mathcal{I}_F\left({\phi}_y\right)\right\}^{-1/2}~.\label{gfar}

2391: \end{eqnarray}

2392: %

2393: 

2394: 

2395: \subsection{\label{sub:limit} Influence of horizontal emittance on

2396: vertical coherence for $D_y \ll 1$ and $N_y \ll 1$}

2397: 

2398: The theory developed up to now is valid for arbitrary values of

2399: $N_y$ and $D_y$. In the present Section \ref{sub:limit} we discuss

2400: an application in the limiting case for ${D}_y \ll 1$ and ${N}_y

2401: \ll 1$ corresponding to third generation light sources operating

2402: in  the soft X-ray range.

2403: 

2404: At the virtual source position, the following simplified

2405: expression for the spectral degree of coherence in the vertical

2406: direction is derived from Eq. (\ref{g0}):

2407: 

2408: \begin{eqnarray}

2409: \hat{g}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right) =

2410: \mathcal{X}_S({\bar{y}},\Delta {y}) ~, \label{g0soft}

2411: \end{eqnarray}

2412: %

2413: where

2414: 

2415: \begin{equation}

2416: \mathcal{X}_S(\alpha,\delta) = \frac{{\mathcal{S}}(\alpha,\delta)}

2417: {\left[{\mathcal{I}_S}(\alpha-\delta/2)\right]^{1/2}

2418: \left[{\mathcal{I}_S}(\alpha+\delta/2)\right]^{1/2}}~.

2419: \label{mathcalchi}

2420: \end{equation}

2421: %

2422: Thus, $\hat{g}_y$ is given by the universal function

2423: $\mathcal{X}_S$. A plot of $\mathcal{X}_S$ is given in Fig.

2424: \ref{ftchi}.

2425: 

2426: 

2427: \begin{figure}

2428: \begin{center}

2429: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure13.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

2430: \caption{\label{ftchi} Plot of the universal function

2431: $\mathcal{X}_S$, used to calculate the modulus of the spectral

2432: degree of coherence of the source when $\hat{N}_x \gg1$,

2433: $\hat{D}_x \gg 1$, $\hat{N}_y \ll 1$ and $\hat{D}_y \ll 1$.}

2434: \end{center}

2435: \end{figure}

2436: %

2437: 

2438: \begin{figure}

2439: \begin{center}

2440: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure14.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

2441: \caption{\label{chi} Plot of the universal function

2442: $\mathcal{X}_F$, used to calculate the modulus of the spectral

2443: degree of coherence in the far zone when $\hat{N}_x \gg1$,

2444: $\hat{D}_x \gg 1$, $\hat{N}_y \ll 1$ and $\hat{D}_y \ll 1$.}

2445: \end{center}

2446: \end{figure}

2447: %

2448: 

2449: Similarly, in  the far zone, one obtains from Eq. (\ref{gfar}):

2450: 

2451: \begin{eqnarray}

2452: \hat{g}_y(\hat{z},\bar{\theta}_y,\Delta {\theta}_y) &=&

2453: {\exp{\left[i \hat{z} \bar{\theta}_y \Delta {\theta}_y \right]}}

2454: \mathcal{X}_F({\bar{\theta}_y},\Delta \theta_{y}) ~.

2455: \label{gfarsoft}

2456: \end{eqnarray}

2457: %

2458: Here the universal function $\mathcal{X}_F$ is given by

2459: 

2460: \begin{equation}

2461: \mathcal{X}_F{\left(\alpha,\delta\right)} =

2462: \frac{\mathcal{F}(\alpha,\delta)}{\left[\mathcal{I}_F(\alpha-\delta/2)\right]^{1/2}

2463: \left[\mathcal{I}_F(\alpha+\delta/2)\right]^{1/2}}~.

2464: \label{chidef}

2465: \end{equation}

2466: %

2467: Thus, $|\hat{g}_y|$ is given by the universal function

2468: $\mathcal{X}_F$. A plot of $\mathcal{X}_F$ is presented in Fig.

2469: \ref{chi} as a function of dummy variable $\alpha$ and $\delta$.

2470: It is straightforward to see that

2471: $\mathcal{X}_F({\bar{\theta}_y},\Delta \theta_{y})$ is symmetric

2472: with respect to $\Delta {\theta}_y$ and with respect to the

2473: exchange of $\Delta {\theta}_y/2$  with $\bar{\theta}_y$. When

2474: $\bar{\theta}_y =0$, i.e. $\hat{\theta}_{y1}= -\hat{\theta}_{y2}$,

2475: we obviously obtain $\mathcal{X}_F(0,\Delta {\theta}_y)=1$ that

2476: corresponds to complete coherence at this particular value of

2477: $\bar{\theta}_y$. However, since $|\hat{g}_y| = \mathcal{X}_F$

2478: oscillates from positive to negative values, in general one never

2479: has full coherence in the vertical direction, even in the case of

2480: zero vertical emittance. Note that this effect does not depend, in

2481: the limit for ${N}_x \gg 1$ and ${D}_x \gg 1$, on the actual

2482: values of ${N}_x$ and ${D}_x$.

2483: 

2484: 

2485: \begin{figure}

2486: \begin{center}

2487: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{plot2Dcompnew.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

2488: \caption{\label{plot2Dcomp} Comparison between some zeros of

2489: $\mathcal{X}_F$, at coordinates  $(\bar{\theta}_y,\Delta

2490: {\theta}_{y}$ (black circles), and the directivity diagram of

2491: undulator radiation in the vertical direction at very large

2492: horizontal electron beam divergence $\hat{D}_x \gg 1$ and

2493: negligible vertical divergence $\hat{D}_y \ll 1$ (solid line).}

2494: \end{center}

2495: \end{figure}

2496: %

2497: In other words, as it is evident from Fig. \ref{chi},

2498: $\mathcal{X}_F({\bar{\theta}_y},\Delta \theta_{y})$ exhibits many

2499: different zeros in $\bar{\theta}_y$ for any fixed value of $\Delta

2500: {\theta}_y$. In Fig. \ref{plot2Dcomp} some of these zeros are

2501: illustrated with black circles on the plane

2502: $(\bar{\theta}_y,\Delta {\theta}_{y})$. Consider a two-pinhole

2503: experiment as in Fig. \ref{ed12c}. Once a certain distance

2504: $\hat{z} \Delta {\theta}_y$ between the two pinholes is fixed,

2505: Fig. \ref{plot2Dcomp} illustrates at what position of the pinhole

2506: system, $\bar{\theta}_{y}$, the spectral degree of coherence in

2507: the vertical direction drops from unity to zero for the first

2508: time.

2509: 

2510: To estimate the importance of this effect, it is crucial to

2511: consider the position of $\bar{\theta}_{y}$ in the directivity

2512: diagram of the radiant intensity, that coincides in this

2513: case\footnote{In other words, it can be shown that $\mathcal{I}_F$

2514: is the directivity diagram corresponding to the case $N_x\gg1$,

2515: $D_x \gg1$, $N_y \ll 1$, $D_y \ll 1$.} with

2516: $\mathcal{I}_F(\bar{\theta}_y)$  (solid line in Fig.

2517: \ref{plot2Dcomp}).

2518: %

2519: From Fig. \ref{plot2Dcomp} one can see that

2520: $\mathcal{X}_F({\bar{\theta}_y},\Delta \theta_{y})$ drops to zero

2521: for the first time at $\Delta {\theta}_y \sim 2$ $\bar{\theta}_y

2522: \sim 2$, where the X-ray flux is still intense. This behavior of

2523: the degree of coherence may influence particular kind of

2524: experiments. To give an example we go back to the two-pinhole

2525: setup in Fig. \ref{ed12c}. After spatial filtering in the

2526: horizontal direction, one will find that for some vertical

2527: position $\bar{\theta}_y$ of the pinholes (at fixed $\Delta

2528: {\theta}_y$), well within the radiation pattern diagram, there

2529: will be no fringes, while for some other vertical position there

2530: will be perfect visibility. Without the knowledge of the function

2531: $\mathcal{X}_F$ it would not be possible to fully predict the

2532: outcomes of a two-pinhole experiment. Results described here

2533: should be considered as an illustration of our general theory that

2534: may or may not, depending on the case under study, have practical

2535: influence. It may, however, be the subject of experimental

2536: verification.

2537: 

2538: \subsubsection{Discussion}

2539: 

2540: Although the $\mathcal{X}_F$ is independent of $N_x$ and $D_x$,

2541: its actual shape is determined by the presence of a large

2542: horizontal emittance. Let us show this fact. If both $N_{x,y} \ll

2543: 1$ and $D_{x,y}\ll 1$ (filament beam limit), one would have had

2544: $|\hat{G}| = \Psi_f\left(\left|\vec{\theta}_1\right|\right)

2545: \Psi_f\left(\left|\vec{\theta_2}\right|\right)$, so that

2546: $|\hat{g}|=1$, strictly. Note that in this case $\hat{G}$ could

2547: not be factorized. When instead $N_x \gg 1$ and $D_x \gg 1$ the

2548: cross-spectral density can be factorized according to Eq.

2549: (\ref{factorizeee}), but the integration in $d\phi_x$, that

2550: follows from an integration over the horizontal electron beam

2551: distribution, is still included in the vertical cross-spectral

2552: density $\hat{G}_x$ (and, therefore, in $\mathcal{X}_F$). This

2553: results in the outcome described above and can be traced back to

2554: the non-Gaussian nature of $\Psi_f$. Note that if one adopted a

2555: Gaussian-Schell model, the cross-spectral density could have been

2556: split in the product of Gaussian intensity and Gaussian spectral

2557: degree of coherence and $\Psi_f$, being a product of Gaussians,

2558: would have been separable. Then, $|\hat{g}_y|$ would have been

2559: constant for $N_x\gg 1$ and $D_x \gg 1$. As a result, the effect

2560: described here would not have been recognized. This fact

2561: constitutes a particular realization of our general remarks about

2562: Gaussian-Schell models at the end of Section \ref{sub:evol}.

2563: 

2564: As a final note to the entire Section, we stress the fact that our

2565: theory of partial coherence in third generation light sources is

2566: valid under several non-restrictive assumptions. Alongside with

2567: previously discussed conditions $\gamma^2 \gg 1$, $N_w \gg 1$,

2568: $\sigma_T \omega \gg N_w$ and the assumption of perfect resonance

2569: (i.e. the limit $\hat{C} \ll 1$), we assumed separability and

2570: particular shape of the electron beam phase space (see Eq.

2571: (\ref{distr})). Moreover, for third generation light sources we

2572: assumed $\epsilon_x \gg \lambdabar$ (up to the VUV range).

2573: Together with $\beta_{x,y} \simeq L_w$ this implies $N_x \gg 1$

2574: and $D_x \gg 1$, allowing for separability of the cross-spectral

2575: density in horizontal and vertical factors. Moreover, due to $N_x

2576: \gg 1$ and $D_x \gg 1$, we are dealing with quasi-homogenous

2577: Gaussian sources in the horizontal direction. This particular kind

2578: of sources will be treated in detail as an asymptote of our

2579: general theory in the next Section. In the vertical direction

2580: instead, we still have fully generic sources. We showed how the

2581: vertical cross-spectral density can be expressed in terms of

2582: convolutions between two-dimensional universal functions and

2583: Gaussian functions. A particularly interesting case is that of

2584: quasi-homogeneous non-Gaussian sources that will also be treated

2585: as an asymptotic case in the following Section dedicated to

2586: quasi-homogeneous sources.

2587: 

2588: \section{\label{sec:quas} Quasi-homogeneous asymptotes for

2589: undulator sources}

2590: 

2591: In Section \ref{sec:main} we developed a general theory of

2592: transverse coherence properties of third generation light sources.

2593: In this Section we consider the class of quasi-homogeneous sources

2594: for undulator devices as an asymptotic limit for that theory.

2595: 

2596: Quasi-homogeneous sources are defined by the fact that the

2597: cross-spectral density of the virtual source (positioned at $z=0$)

2598: can be written as:

2599: 

2600: 

2601: \begin{eqnarray}

2602: \hat{G}\left(0,\vec{\bar{r}},\Delta \vec{r}\right) =

2603: \hat{I}\left(0,\vec{\bar{r}}\right) \hat{g}\left(\Delta

2604: \vec{r}\right) ~.\label{introhdopo}

2605: \end{eqnarray}

2606: %

2607: The definition of quasi-homogeneity amounts to a factorization of

2608: the cross-spectral density as the product of the field intensity

2609: distribution and the spectral degree of coherence. A set of

2610: necessary and sufficient conditions for such factorization to be

2611: possible follows: (i) the radiation intensity at the virtual

2612: source varies very slowly with the position across the source on

2613: the scale of the field correlation length and (ii) the spectral

2614: degree of coherence depends on the positions across the source

2615: only through the difference $\Delta \vec{r}$.

2616: 

2617: Factorization of Eq. (\ref{Gnor3}) as in Eq. (\ref{introhdopo}),

2618: for third generation light sources, is equivalent to a particular

2619: choice of the region of parameters for the electron beam: ${N}_x

2620: \gg 1$, ${D}_x \gg 1$ and either (or both) ${N}_y \gg 1$ and

2621: ${D}_y \gg 1$\footnote{These conditions describe the totality of

2622: third generation quasi-homogeneous sources. In fact, while a

2623: purely mathematical analysis indicates that factorization of Eq.

2624: (\ref{Gnor3}) is equivalent to more generic conditions (${N}_x

2625: \gg1$ and ${N}_y \gg 1$, or ${D}_x \gg1$ and ${D}_y \gg 1$),

2626: comparison with third generation source parameters ($N_x \gg 1$

2627: and $D_x \gg 1$) reduces such conditions to the already mentioned

2628: ones.}. In this case, the reader may verify that conditions (i)

2629: and (ii) are satisfied.

2630: 

2631: In the horizontal direction, we have both $N_x \gg 1$ and $D_x \gg

2632: 1$ for wavelengths up to the VUV range, so that factorization of

2633: the cross-spectral density in horizontal and vertical

2634: contributions $\hat{G}_x$ and $\hat{G}_y$ always holds.

2635: 

2636: Let us first consider $\hat{G}_y$. Depending on the values of

2637: $N_y$ and $D_y$ we may have Gaussian quasi-homogeneous sources

2638: characterized by a Gaussian transverse distribution of intensity

2639: ($N_y \gg 1$ and $D_y \gg 1$), as well as non-Gaussian

2640: quasi-homogeneous sources ($N_y \gg 1$ and $D_y \lesssim 1$ or

2641: $N_y \lesssim 1$ and $D_y \gg 1$). Gaussian quasi-homogenous

2642: sources are to be expected in the vertical direction in the hard

2643: X-ray limit, where diffraction effects play no role. On the

2644: contrary, diffraction effects must be accounted for when dealing

2645: with non-Gaussian quasi-homogeneous sources.

2646: 

2647: Let us now consider $\hat{G}_x$. In the horizontal direction both

2648: $N_x \gg 1$ and $D_x \gg 1$. It follows that Gaussian

2649: quasi-homogeneous sources find a very natural application in the

2650: description of the cross-spectral density in the horizontal

2651: direction, from the hard X-ray to the VUV range.

2652: 

2653: We will see that the VCZ theorem applies to all quasi-homogeneous

2654: cases. Actually, the concept of far-zone for quasi-homogeneous

2655: sources can be introduced as the region in the parameter space

2656: $\hat{z}, N_{x,y}, D_{x,y}$ such that the VCZ theorem holds. We

2657: will see that these condition coincides with condition

2658: (\ref{farzo}) given before.

2659: 

2660: \subsection{\label{sub:gaus} Gaussian undulator sources}

2661: 

2662: When $N_x \gg 1$ and $D_x \gg 1$ Eq. (\ref{Gnor3x}) applies. When

2663: $N_y \gg 1$ and $D_y \gg 1$, Eq. (\ref{Gnor3y}) reduces to

2664: 

2665: \begin{eqnarray}

2666: \hat{G}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right) &=&

2667: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{N_y}}} \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta y)^2D_y

2668: }{2}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{\bar{y}^2}{2 N_y}\right]

2669: ~,\label{Gnorgauss0}

2670: \end{eqnarray}

2671: %

2672: that is equivalent to Eq. (\ref{Gnor3x}): thus, identical

2673: treatments hold separately in the horizontal and vertical

2674: directions. For this reasons, and for simplicity of notation, we

2675: drop all subscripts "x" or "y" in the present Section

2676: \ref{sub:gaus}, and we substitute letters "x" and "y" in variables

2677: with the more generic "r". However, as stated before, the Gaussian

2678: quasi-homogeneous model primarily describes third generation light

2679: sources in the horizontal direction.

2680: 

2681: Eq. (\ref{introhdopo}) is satisfied. Moreover,

2682: 

2683: \begin{eqnarray}

2684: \hat{I}\left(0,{\bar{r}}\right)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{N}}}

2685: \exp\left[-\frac{\bar{r}^2}{2 N}\right] \label{integauss}

2686: \end{eqnarray}

2687: %

2688: and

2689: 

2690: \begin{eqnarray}

2691: \hat{g}(\Delta r) = \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta r)^2D }{2}\right]

2692: ~.\label{degregauss0}

2693: \end{eqnarray}

2694: %

2695: Propagation of Eq. (\ref{Gnorgauss0}) can be found taking the

2696: limit of Eq. (\ref{Gnoryany2}) for $N\gg 1$ and $D\gg 1$, which

2697: yields an analytical expression for the evolution of the

2698: cross-spectral density based on Eq. (\ref{Cany2}) at $\hat{C} \ll

2699: 1$ :

2700: 

2701: 

2702: 

2703: \begin{eqnarray}

2704: \hat{G}(\hat{z},\bar{r},\Delta r) &=& \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{{\hat{z}

2705: \sqrt{A+D}}} \exp\left[-\frac{\bar{r}^{2}}{2({A}+{D})

2706: \hat{z}^2}\right] \exp\left[ i \frac{\bar{r}\Delta

2707: {r}}{\hat{z}}\right]\cr &&\times \exp\left[-  i

2708: \frac{{A}\bar{r}\Delta {r}}{\hat{z} ({A}+{D})}\right]

2709: \exp\left[-\frac{{A} {D} (\Delta r)^{2}}{2({A}+{D}) }\right]

2710: ~,\label{Ggaussz}

2711: \end{eqnarray}

2712: %

2713: where

2714: 

2715: \begin{equation}

2716: {A} = \frac{{N}}{\hat{z}^2} ~.\label{a2set}

2717: \end{equation}

2718: %

2719: We have

2720: 

2721: \begin{eqnarray}

2722: \hat{I}(\hat{z},\bar{r}) &=& \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{{\hat{z}

2723: \sqrt{A+D}}} \exp\left[-\frac{\bar{r}^{2}}{2({A}+{D})

2724: \hat{z}^2}\right] ~,\label{Igaussz}

2725: \end{eqnarray}

2726: %

2727: and

2728: 

2729: \begin{eqnarray}

2730: \hat{g}(\hat{z},\Delta r) &=& \exp\left[i \frac{\bar{r}\Delta

2731: {r}}{\hat{z}}\right] \exp\left[-  i \frac{{A}\bar{r}\Delta

2732: {r}}{\hat{z} ({A}+{D})}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{{A} {D} (\Delta

2733: r)^{2}}{2({A}+{D}) }\right] ~.\label{degregaussz}

2734: \end{eqnarray}

2735: %

2736: Note that, due to the phase factors in Eq. (\ref{Ggaussz}), only

2737: the virtual source at $\hat{z}=0$ constitutes a quasi-homogeneous

2738: source.

2739: 

2740: Geometrical interpretation of ${A}$ is the dimensionless square of

2741: the apparent angular size of the electron bunch at the observer

2742: point position, calculated as if the beam was positioned at

2743: $\hat{z}=0$.

2744: 

2745: The far-zone for quasi-homogeneous Gaussian sources is given by

2746: condition $A \ll D$, which can be retrieved by condition

2747: (\ref{farzo}) or directly by Eq. (\ref{Ggaussz}). In this case,

2748: simplification of Eq. (\ref{Ggaussz}) or use of Eq. (\ref{resu1})

2749: in the limit for $N\gg 1$ and $D \gg 1$ yields the far-zone

2750: cross-spectral density:

2751: 

2752: 

2753: \begin{eqnarray}

2754: \hat{G}\left(\hat{z},{\bar{\theta}},\Delta {\theta}\right) &=&

2755: \frac{1}{\hat{z}} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{D}} \exp\left[i \hat{z}

2756: {\bar{\theta}} \Delta {\theta}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{N (\Delta

2757: \theta)^2}{2}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{\bar{\theta}^2}{2 D}\right]

2758: ~,\cr &&\label{Gnorgaussf}

2759: \end{eqnarray}

2760: %

2761: so that

2762: 

2763: 

2764: \begin{eqnarray}

2765: \hat{I}\left(\hat{z},{\bar{\theta}}\right) &=& \frac{1}{\hat{z}}

2766: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{D}} \exp\left[-\frac{\bar{\theta}^2}{2 D}\right]

2767: ~,\label{Integaussf}

2768: \end{eqnarray}

2769: %

2770: and

2771: 

2772: \begin{eqnarray}

2773: \hat{g}\left(\hat{z},\Delta {\theta}\right) &=&  \exp\left[i

2774: \hat{z} {\bar{\theta}}  \Delta {\theta}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{N

2775: (\Delta \theta)^2}{2}\right] ~.\label{degregaussf}

2776: \end{eqnarray}

2777: %

2778: Similarly as before we suppressed subscripts "x" or "y" in the

2779: symbol $\theta$.

2780: 

2781: Analysis of Eq. (\ref{Gnorgauss0}) and Eq. (\ref{Gnorgaussf})

2782: allows to conclude that

2783: 

2784: $(a_2)$ the spectral degree of coherence of the field at the

2785: source plane $g({\Delta {r}})$ and the angular distribution of the

2786: radiant intensity $I({\bar{\theta}})$ are a Fourier pair.

2787: 

2788: $(b_2)$ the spectral degree of coherence of the far field

2789: $g(\Delta {\theta})$ and the source-intensity distribution

2790: $I({\bar{r}})$ are, apart for a simple geometrical phase factor, a

2791: Fourier pair.

2792: 

2793: The statement $(b_2)$ is a version of the VCZ theorem valid for

2794: quasi-homogeneous sources.  Statement $(a_2)$ instead, regards the

2795: symmetry between space and angle domains, and can be seen as an

2796: inverse VCZ theorem.

2797: 

2798: This discussion underlines the link between the VCZ theorem and

2799: the Wiener-Khinchin theorem. Exactly as the space domain has a

2800: reciprocal description in terms of transverse (two-dimensional)

2801: wave vectors, the time domain has a reciprocal description in

2802: terms of frequency. The reader will recognize the analogy between

2803: statements $(a_2)$ and $(b_2)$, with statements $(a_1)$ and

2804: $(b_1)$ discussed in Section \ref{sub:temp}. In particular, the

2805: VCZ is analogous to the inverse Wiener-Khincin theorem. Similarly,

2806: separability of $G$ in Eq. (\ref{introhdopo}) in the product of

2807: spectral degree of coherence and intensity is analogous to

2808: separability of $\Gamma_\omega$, in Eq. (\ref{gamma6prima}) in the

2809: product of spectral correlation function and spectral density

2810: distribution of the source.

2811: 

2812: Let us calculate the transverse coherence length $\hat{\xi}_c$ as

2813: a function of the observation distance $\hat{z}$. We introduce the

2814: coherence length following the definition by Mandel \cite{WOLF}.

2815: The coherence length, naturally normalized to the diffraction

2816: length $\sqrt{L_w c/\omega}$ is defined as

2817: 

2818: \begin{equation}

2819: \hat{\xi}_c(\hat{z}) =  \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |g(\hat{z},\Delta

2820: r )|^2 d(\Delta r)~, \label{cohlen}

2821: \end{equation}

2822: %

2823: Performing the integration in Eq. (\ref{cohlen}) with the help of

2824: Eq. (\ref{degregaussz}) yields:

2825: 

2826: \begin{equation}

2827: \hat{\xi}_c(\hat{z}) =  {\sqrt{\pi}}

2828: \left(\frac{1}{{A}}+\frac{1}{{D}}\right)^{1/2}~.\label{cohlen2}

2829: \end{equation}

2830: %

2831: \begin{figure}

2832: \begin{center}

2833: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure15.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

2834: \caption{\label{uno} Coherence length $\hat{\xi}_c$ as a function

2835: of $\hat{z}$ and asymptotic behaviors for $\hat{z} \longrightarrow

2836: 1/2$ and $\hat{z} \gg 1$. Here ${N} = 10^3$ and ${D} = 10$.}

2837: \end{center}

2838: \end{figure}

2839: %

2840: 

2841: The coherence length in Eq. (\ref{cohlen2}) exhibits linear

2842: dependence on $\hat{z}$, that is $\hat{\xi}_c \longrightarrow

2843: \sqrt{\pi/ {N}}~{\hat{z}}$ while for $\hat{z} \longrightarrow 1/2$

2844: that is at the end of the undulator, it converges to a constant

2845: $\hat{\xi}_c \longrightarrow [\pi/(4{N})+\pi/{D}]^{1/2}$. Eq.

2846: (\ref{cohlen2}) and its asymptotes are presented in Fig. \ref{uno}

2847: for the case ${N} = 10^3$, ${D} = 10$. At the exit of the

2848: undulator, $\hat{\xi}_c \sim 1/\sqrt{{D}}$, because ${N} \gg {D}$.

2849: On the other hand, horizontal dimension of the light spot is

2850: simply proportional to $\sqrt{{N}}$. This means that the

2851: horizontal dimension of the light spot is determined by the

2852: electron beam size, as is intuitive, while the beam angular

2853: distribution is printed in the fine structures of the intensity

2854: function that are of the dimension of the coherence length.  In

2855: the limit for $A \ll D$ the situation is reversed. The radiation

2856: field at the source can be presented as a superposition of plane

2857: waves, all at the same frequency $\omega$, but with different

2858: propagation angles with respect to the $z$-direction. Since the

2859: radiation at the exit of the undulator is partially coherent, a

2860: spiky angular distribution of intensity is to be expected. The

2861: nature of the spikes is easily described in terms of Fourier

2862: transform theory. From Fourier transform theorem  we can expect an

2863: angular spectrum with Gaussian envelope and rms width

2864: $\sqrt{{D}}$. Also, the angular distribution of intensity should

2865: contain spikes with characteristic width $1/\sqrt{N}$, as a

2866: consequence of the reciprocal width relations of Fourier transform

2867: pairs (see Fig. \ref{spikesp}). This is realized in mathematics by

2868: the expression for the cross-spectral density, Eq. (\ref{Ggaussz})

2869: and by the equation for the coherence length, Eq. (\ref{cohlen2}).

2870: 

2871: It is also important to remark that the asymptotic behavior for

2872: ${A} \ll 1$ of $\hat{g}$, that is Eq. (\ref{degregaussf}) and

2873: $\hat{\xi}_c$, that is

2874: 

2875: \begin{equation}

2876: \hat{\xi}_c \longrightarrow \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{

2877: N}}{\hat{z}}\label{cohlen2vcz}

2878: \end{equation}

2879: %

2880: \begin{figure}

2881: \begin{center}

2882: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure16.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

2883: \caption{\label{spikesp} Physical interpretation of the

2884: generalized VCZ theorem. If the radiation beyond the source plane

2885: is partially coherent, a spiky angular distribution of intensity

2886: is expected. The nature of these spikes is easily described in

2887: Fourier transform notations. We can expect that typical width of

2888: the angular distribution of intensity should be of order $(\omega

2889: \Delta/c)^{-1}$, where $\Delta$ is the typical linear dimension of

2890: spatially random intensity fluctuations. If the source has

2891: transverse size $d$, the angular distribution of intensity should

2892: contain spikes with typical width of about $(\omega d/c)^{-1}$, a

2893: consequence of the reciprocal width relations of Fourier transform

2894: pairs.}

2895: \end{center}

2896: \end{figure}

2897: %

2898: are direct application of VCZ theorem.  In fact, the last

2899: exponential factor on the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{Ggaussz})

2900: is simply linked with the Fourier transform of

2901: $f_{{l}}\left(\hat{l}\right)$. We derived Eq. (\ref{Ggaussz}) for

2902: ${N} \gg 1$ and ${D} \gg 1$, with $ A \ll D$: in non-normalized

2903: units these conditions mean that the VCZ theorem is applicable

2904: when the electron beam divergence is much larger than the

2905: diffraction angle, i.e. $\sigma'^2 \gg \lambda /(2\pi L_w)$, the

2906: electron beam dimensions are much larger than the diffraction

2907: size\footnote{We do not agree with statement in \cite{TAKA}: "the

2908: electron-beam divergence must be much smaller than the photon

2909: divergence" for the VCZ theorem to apply. This would imply

2910: $\sigma' \ll \sqrt{\lambda /(2\pi L_w)}$ (reference \cite{TAKA},

2911: page 571, Eq. (57)).}, i.e. $\sigma^2 \gg \lambda L_w/2\pi $, and

2912: $({\sigma'} {z})^2 \gg {\sigma}^2$.

2913: 

2914: In \cite{GOOD} (paragraph 5.6.4) a rule of thumb is given for the

2915: applicability region of the generalization of the VCZ theorem to

2916: quasi-homogeneous sources. The rule of thumb requires $z > 2 d

2917: \Delta/\lambda$ where $d$ is "the maximum linear dimension of the

2918: source", that is the diameter of a source with uniform intensity

2919: and $\Delta$ "represents the maximum linear dimension of a

2920: coherence area of the source". In our case, since $\sigma$ is the

2921: rms source dimension, $d\simeq 2\sigma$. Moreover, from Eq.

2922: (\ref{cohlen2}) we have $\Delta = \xi_c \simeq \lambda/(2

2923: \sqrt{\pi} \sigma')$. The rule of thumb then requires $z >2

2924: \sigma/( \sqrt{\pi} \sigma')$: in dimensionless form this reads $

2925: \hat{z} \gtrsim \sqrt{{N}/{D}}$. This is parametrically in

2926: agreement with our limiting condition $A \ll D$, even though these

2927: two conditions are different when it come to actual estimations:

2928: our condition $A \ll D$ is, in fact, only an asymptotic one. To

2929: see how well it works in reality we might consider the plot in

2930: Fig. \ref{uno}. There ${N} = 10^3$ and ${D} = 10$. Following

2931: \cite{GOOD} we may conclude that a good condition for the

2932: applicability of the VCZ theorem should be $\hat{z} \gtrsim 10$.

2933: However as it is seen from the figure, the linear asymptotic

2934: behavior is not yet a good approximation at $\hat{z} \simeq 10$.

2935: This may be ascribed to the fact that the derivation in

2936: \cite{GOOD} is not generally valid, but has been carried out for

2937: sources which drop to zero very rapidly outside the maximum linear

2938: dimension $d$ and whose correlation function also drops rapidly to

2939: zero very rapidly outside maximum linear dimension $\Delta$.

2940: However, at least parametrically, the applicability of the VCZ

2941: theorem in the asymptotic limit $A \ll D$ can be also expected

2942: from the condition $z > 2 d \Delta/\lambda$ in \cite{GOOD}.

2943: 

2944: 

2945: We conclude that the far field limit ${A} \ll {D}$ corresponds

2946: with the applicability region of the VCZ theorem. When this is the

2947: case, the VCZ theorem applies and the modulus of the spectral

2948: degree of coherence in the far field, forms a Fourier pair with

2949: the intensity distribution of the virtual source.  In particular

2950: one concludes that the rms width of the virtual source is

2951: $\sqrt{N}$. In our study case for $N \gg 1$ and $D \gg 1$, such a

2952: relation between the rms width of the spectral degree of coherence

2953: in the far field and the rms dimension of the virtual source is

2954: also a relation between the rms width of the cross-spectral

2955: density function in the far field and the rms dimension of the

2956: electron beam at the plane of minimal beta function in the center

2957: of the undulator. In dimensional units one can write the value

2958: $\sigma_c$ of the rms width of the spectral degree of coherence

2959: $\hat{g}(\Delta \vec{r})$ in the far field as

2960: 

2961: \begin{equation}

2962: \sigma_c = \frac{\lambda z}{2\pi \sigma} ~.\label{eqdimboh}

2963: \end{equation}

2964: %

2965: Here $\sigma$ is, as usual, the rms dimension of the electron

2966: beam. These few last remarks help to clarify what is the size of

2967: the source in the VCZ theorem, that is far from being a trivial

2968: question. In several papers \cite{YAB1,PFEI} the  rms electron

2969: beam size is recovered from the measurement of the transverse

2970: coherence length and subsequent application of the VCZ theorem,

2971: under the assumptions that the VCZ theorem can indeed be applied.

2972: In this regard, in \cite{YAB1} Section V, one may find a statement

2973: according to which the rms electron beam size "is only the average

2974: value along the undulator" because "the beta function has a large

2975: variation along the undulator". Another example dealing with the

2976: same issue is given in reference \cite{PFEI}. This paper (as well

2977: as reference \cite{YAB1}) reports experimental results. However,

2978: authors of \cite{PFEI} observe a disagreement between the electron

2979: beam rms size reconstructed from the VCZ theorem and beam

2980: diagnostics result of about a factor $2$. They ascribe this

2981: variation to the variation of the electron beam size along the

2982: undulator. In footnote 25 of reference \cite{PFEI}, one may read:

2983: "The precise shape and width of the x-ray intensity distribution

2984: in the source plane are directly connected to the properties of

2985: the electron beam. It would not be surprising if the limited depth

2986: of focus of the parabolically shaped electron beta function in the

2987: undulator translates into a virtually enlarged x-ray source

2988: size.". At first glance it looks like if the SR source had a

2989: finite longitudinal dimension, and the virtual source size

2990: depended on variations of the beta function along the undulator.

2991: However, as we have seen before, the concept of virtual source

2992: involves a single transverse plane, and in the most general case

2993: any variation of the beta function does not affect the virtual

2994: source size. In our case of quasi-homogeneous Gaussian source, the

2995: virtual source is located where the beta function is minimal, and

2996: its size coincides with the transverse size of the electron beam

2997: at that location.

2998: 

2999: Finally, it should be remarked that the VCZ theorem can only be

3000: applied to quasi-homogeneous sources. Consider for example

3001: \cite{YAB1,YAB2}, where a characterization of the vertical

3002: emittance in Spring-8 is reported, based on the measurement of the

3003: X-Ray beam coherence length in the far zone. The experiment was

3004: performed at the beamline BL29XU. Based on the assumption of

3005: validity of the VCZ theorem, it was found that the rms electron

3006: beam size at the undulator center (corresponding to the minimal

3007: value of the beta function) was $s_y \simeq 4.5 ~\mu$m, and that

3008: the coupling factor between horizontal and vertical emittance was

3009: down to the value $\zeta \simeq 0.12 \%$, which corresponds to an

3010: extremely small vertical emittance $\epsilon_y = 3.6$

3011: pm$\cdot$rad. A resolution limit of this method was also

3012: discussed, based on numerical calculations of the radiation size

3013: from a single electron performed at the exit of the undulator,

3014: $s_p \simeq 1.6 ~\mu$m at $E_p = 14.41 $ keV for the $4.5$ m long

3015: undulator used in the experiment. The resolution limit of the

3016: measurement of $s_y$ was estimated to be about $1~ \mu$m.

3017: Considering propagation laws for Gaussian beams it seems

3018: reasonable that the radiation spot size at the virtual source,

3019: located in the center of the undulator, be smaller than $s_p$.

3020: However, undulator radiation from a single electron cannot be

3021: considered a Gaussian beam. In particular, under the resonance

3022: approximation the field at the exit of the undulator exhibits a

3023: singularity and is not suitable for evaluation of the radiation

3024: spot size.

3025: 

3026: Use of $s_p$ led to an underestimation of the virtual source size

3027: and, thus, an overestimation of the resolution. Let us show this

3028: fact. Based on Eq. (\ref{undurad5gg}), we can determine the

3029: correct virtual source size of undulator radiation from a single

3030: electron. Let us consider the case when the single electron is

3031: emitting photons at the fundamental harmonic with energy $E =

3032: 14.41$ keV. The angular frequency of light oscillations is given,

3033: in this case, by $\omega = 2.2 \cdot 10^{19}$ Hz. For an undulator

3034: length $L_w = 4.5$ m, the normalization factor for the transverse

3035: size, $(L_w c/\omega)^{1/2}$, is about $8~\mu$m. From Fig.

3036: \ref{psio} obtain the dimensionless Half Width Half Maximum (HWHM)

3037: radiation size from a single electron (i.e. the HWHM width of the

3038: intensity distribution at the virtual source, located at the

3039: center of the undulator). This HWHM dimensionless value is about

3040: $0.7$. It follows that the HWHM value of the radiation spot size

3041: from a single electron is about $0.7 \cdot (c L_w/\omega)^{1/2}

3042: \simeq 6~ \mu$m. Therefore, the resolution in \cite{YAB1,YAB2}, is

3043: estimated to be better than the correct value.

3044: 

3045: Note that the HWHM radiation spot size from a \textit{single

3046: electron} is larger than the \textit{rms electron beam size} $s_y

3047: \simeq 4.5 ~ \mu$m found by means of coherence measurements. One

3048: concludes that the uncertainty due to finite resolution is larger

3049: than the measured electron beam size. This suggests that the

3050: analysis of experimental results \cite{YAB1,YAB2} might include a

3051: logical flaw. Authors of that reference assume the validity of the

3052: VCZ theorem in the vertical direction. If one assumes their result

3053: of a vertical emittance ${\epsilon}_y \simeq 0.3 \lambda/(2 \pi)$,

3054: it follows \textit{a posteriori} that the VCZ theorem could not

3055: have been applied in first instance (in this experiment the value

3056: of the beta function was ${\beta} \simeq L_w$). We suggest that

3057: analysis of experimental results in \cite{YAB1,YAB2} should be

3058: based, instead, on the study of transverse coherence for

3059: non-homogeneous undulator sources in free space made in the

3060: previous Section \ref{sec:main}.

3061: 

3062: 

3063: 

3064: 

3065: \subsection{\label{sub:nong} Non-Gaussian undulator sources}

3066: 

3067: Let us now turn to the analysis of non-Gaussian quasi-homogeneous

3068: sources on the basis of Eq. (\ref{Gnor3y}) and Eq. (\ref{resu1}).

3069: We still assume that $N_x \gg 1$ and $D_x \gg 1$. Moreover, as

3070: before, we assume that the minimal beta function is located at the

3071: undulator center.

3072: 

3073: \subsubsection{Case of a large electron-beam size $N_y \gg 1$ and $D_y

3074: \lesssim 1$.}

3075: 

3076: Eq. (\ref{Gnor3y}) simplifies to

3077: 

3078: \begin{eqnarray}

3079: \hat{G}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right) &=&

3080: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N_y}}  \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta

3081: y)^2D_y}{2}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{\bar{y}^2}{2 N_y}\right]

3082: \gamma_S(\Delta y)~,\cr &&\label{nong10}

3083: \end{eqnarray}

3084: %

3085: where we defined the universal function $\gamma_S(\alpha)$ as

3086: 

3087: \begin{eqnarray}

3088: \gamma_S(\alpha)&=&\frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_y

3089: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_x

3090: \Psi_0\left\{\left[{\phi_{x}}^2+\left({\phi_{y}}+\frac{\alpha}{2}

3091: \right)^2 \right]^{1/2}\right\}

3092: \Psi_0\left\{\left[{\phi_{x}}^2+\left({\phi_{y}}-\frac{\alpha}{2}

3093: \right)^2 \right]^{1/2}\right\}\cr && = \frac{1}{2 \mathcal{K}_S}

3094: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\phi_y \mathcal{S}(\phi_y,\alpha) ~.

3095: \label{gammadef}

3096: \end{eqnarray}

3097: %

3098: 

3099: \begin{figure}

3100: \begin{center}

3101: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure17.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

3102: \caption{\label{gammas} Plot of the universal function

3103: $\gamma_S(\alpha)$, used to calculate the cross-spectral density

3104: of a quasi-homogeneous source when ${N}_x \gg1$, ${D}_x \gg 1$,

3105: ${N}_y \gg 1$ and ${D}_y \lesssim 1$.}

3106: \end{center}

3107: \end{figure}

3108: %

3109: 

3110: A plot of $\gamma_S(\alpha)$ is given in Fig. \ref{gammas}. Main

3111: features of $\gamma_S$ are a strong non-Gaussian shape, and the

3112: fact that also negative values are assumed. Eq. (\ref{introhdopo})

3113: is satisfied. Moreover,

3114: 

3115: \begin{eqnarray}

3116: \hat{I}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}}\right) &=& \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{ N_y}}

3117: \exp\left[-\frac{\bar{y}^2}{2 N_y}\right] ~,\cr &&\label{nong10In}

3118: \end{eqnarray}

3119: %

3120: and

3121: 

3122: \begin{eqnarray}

3123: \hat{g}_y\left(0,\Delta {y}\right) &=& \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta

3124: y)^2D_y}{2}\right] \gamma_S(\Delta y)~,\cr &&\label{nong10de}

3125: \end{eqnarray}

3126: %

3127: In the far-zone, Eq. (\ref{resu1}) simplifies to

3128: 

3129: \begin{eqnarray}

3130: \hat{G}_y(\hat{z},\bar{\theta}_y,\Delta {\theta}_y) &=&

3131: \frac{1}{2\pi \hat{z} \sqrt{\pi D_y} \mathcal{K}_F} {\exp{\left[i

3132: \hat{z} \bar{\theta}_y \Delta {\theta}_y \right]}} \exp{\left[-

3133: \frac{N_y \Delta {\theta}_y^2}{2} \right]}\cr &&\times

3134: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \hat{\phi}_y

3135: \exp{\left[-\frac{(\bar{\theta}_y+\hat{\phi}_y)^2}{2 D_y}\right]}

3136: \mathcal{I}_F(\phi_y) ~,\label{nong1f}

3137: \end{eqnarray}

3138: %

3139: where $\mathcal{I}_F$ has already been defined in Eq.

3140: (\ref{ISnorm}).  Moreover,

3141: 

3142: 

3143: \begin{eqnarray}

3144: \hat{I}_y(\hat{z},\bar{\theta}_y) &=& \frac{1}{2\pi \hat{z}

3145: \sqrt{\pi D_y} \mathcal{K}_F} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d

3146: \hat{\phi}_y \exp{\left[-\frac{(\bar{\theta}_y+\hat{\phi}_y)^2}{2

3147: D_y}\right]} \mathcal{I}_F(\phi_y) ~,\label{nong1fIn}

3148: \end{eqnarray}

3149: %

3150: and

3151: 

3152: 

3153: \begin{eqnarray}

3154: \hat{g}_y(\hat{z},\Delta {\theta}_y) &=& {\exp{\left[i \hat{z}

3155: \bar{\theta}_y \Delta {\theta}_y \right]}} \exp{\left[- \frac{N_y

3156: \Delta {\theta}_y^2}{2} \right]} ~\label{nong1fde}

3157: \end{eqnarray}

3158: %

3159: Note that, due to geometrical phase factor in Eq. (\ref{nong1f}),

3160: only the virtual source at $\hat{z}=0$ constitutes a

3161: quasi-homogeneous source.

3162: 

3163: Also, $\gamma_S$ and $\mathcal{I}_F$ basically form a Fourier

3164: pair:

3165: 

3166: \begin{eqnarray}

3167: \gamma_S(\Delta {y}) = \frac{1}{{2}\pi^2 \mathcal{K}_F}

3168: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}_y \exp{\left[i \Delta {y}

3169: {\phi}_y\right]} \mathcal{I}_F({\phi}_y)~,\label{G2D3lastlastno2}

3170: \end{eqnarray}

3171: %

3172: meaning that the inverse VCZ theorem is satisfied for $N_{x,y} \ll

3173: \hat{z}^2$.

3174: 

3175: Finally, it is possible to calculate $\gamma_S$ analytically. To

3176: this purpose, it is sufficient to note that the Fourier transform

3177: 

3178: \begin{eqnarray}

3179: {\widetilde{\gamma}}_S(\xi,\eta) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d

3180: \hat{\phi}_x \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \hat{\phi}_y

3181:  \exp{\left[i(\xi \hat{\phi}_x+\eta \hat{\phi}_y)\right]}

3182: \mathrm{sinc}^2\left(\frac{\hat{\phi}_x^2+\hat{\phi}_y^2}{4}\right)

3183: ~\label{G2D3lastlastno3}

3184: \end{eqnarray}

3185: %

3186: can be evaluated with the help of the Bessel-Fourier formula as

3187: 

3188: \begin{eqnarray}

3189: {\widetilde{\gamma}}_S(\lambda) &=& 2\pi \int_{0}^{\infty} d

3190: {\phi} ~{\phi} J_0\left({\phi} \lambda\right)

3191: \mathrm{sinc}^2\left(\frac{{\phi}^2}{4}\right)  \cr &=& 2\pi

3192: \left[\pi+ \lambda^2 \mathrm{Ci}\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\right)-

3193: 2 \sin\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\right)- 2

3194: \mathrm{Si}\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\right)

3195: \right]~,\label{G2D3lastlastno4}\end{eqnarray}

3196: %

3197: where $\lambda^2 = \xi^2+\eta^2$, $\phi^2 = \phi_x^2+\phi_y^2$,

3198: $\mathrm{Si}(\cdot)$ is the sine integral function and

3199: $\mathrm{Ci}(\cdot)$ is the cosine integral function. Thus,

3200: letting $\xi=0$ and $\eta = \Delta y$ one has

3201: 

3202: 

3203: \begin{eqnarray}

3204: \gamma_S(\Delta {y}) =\frac{1}{\pi} \left[\pi+ (\Delta y)^2

3205: \mathrm{Ci}\left(\frac{(\Delta y)^2}{2}\right)- 2

3206: \sin\left(\frac{(\Delta y)^2}{2}\right)- 2

3207: \mathrm{Si}\left(\frac{(\Delta y)^2}{2}\right)

3208: \right]~.\label{G2D3lastlastno5}

3209: \end{eqnarray}

3210: %

3211: 

3212: \subsubsection{Case of a large electron-beam divergence $D_y \gg 1$ and $N_y \lesssim 1$.}

3213: 

3214: A similar analysis can be given in the case of a large

3215: electron-beam divergence. In this case Eq. (\ref{Gnor3y})

3216: simplifies to give

3217: 

3218: 

3219: \begin{eqnarray}

3220: \hat{G}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right) &=&

3221: \frac{1}{2\mathcal{K}_S} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N_y}}  \exp

3222: \left[-\frac{(\Delta y)^2D_y}{2}\right] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d

3223: \phi_y \exp\left[-\frac{\left(\phi_y+\bar{y}\right)^2}{2

3224: N_y}\right] \mathcal{I}_S(\phi_y)~,\cr &&\label{nong20}

3225: \end{eqnarray}

3226: %

3227: where $\mathcal{I}_S$ has already been defined in Eq. (\ref{B2}).

3228: Eq. (\ref{introhdopo}) is satisfied. Moreover,

3229: 

3230: 

3231: \begin{eqnarray}

3232: \hat{I}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}}\right) &=& \frac{1}{2 \mathcal{K}_S

3233: }\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N_y}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \phi_y

3234: \exp\left[-\frac{\left(\phi_y+\bar{y}\right)^2}{2 N_y}\right]

3235: \mathcal{I}_S(\phi_y)~,\cr &&\label{nong20In}

3236: \end{eqnarray}

3237: %

3238: 

3239: \begin{eqnarray}

3240: \hat{g}_y\left(0,\Delta {y}\right) &=& \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta

3241: y)^2D_y}{2}\right]~.\cr &&\label{nong20de}

3242: \end{eqnarray}

3243: %

3244: In the far zone, Eq. (\ref{resu1}) simplifies to

3245: 

3246: \begin{eqnarray}

3247: \hat{G}(\hat{z},\bar{\theta}_y,\Delta {\theta}_y) &=&

3248: \frac{1}{\hat{z}} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{D_y}} {\exp{\left[i \hat{z}

3249: \bar{\theta}_y \Delta {\theta}_y \right]}} \exp{\left[- \frac{N_y

3250: \Delta {\theta}_y^2}{2} \right]}

3251: \exp{\left[-\frac{\bar{\theta}_y^2}{2 D_y}\right]}\gamma_F(\Delta

3252: \theta_y) ~,\cr &&\label{nong2f}

3253: \end{eqnarray}

3254: %

3255: where

3256: 

3257: \begin{eqnarray}

3258: \gamma_F(\alpha) &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d

3259: {\phi}_y \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}_x \cr && \times

3260: \Psi_f\left\{\left[{{\phi}_x^2

3261: +\left(\phi_y-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)^2}\right]^{1/2}\right\}

3262: \Psi_f\left\{\left[{{\phi}_x^2

3263: +\left(\phi_y+\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)^2}\right]^{1/2}\right\} \cr

3264: && = \frac{1}{2\pi^2 \mathcal{K}_F}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d

3265: \phi_y \mathcal{F}(\phi_y,\alpha) ~.\label{betadef}

3266: \end{eqnarray}

3267: %

3268: Moreover

3269: 

3270: 

3271: \begin{eqnarray}

3272: \hat{I}_y(\hat{z},\bar{\theta}_y) &=& \frac{1}{\hat{z}}

3273: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{D_y}} \exp{\left[-\frac{\bar{\theta}_y^2}{2

3274: D_y}\right]} ~ ,\cr &&\label{nong2fIn}

3275: \end{eqnarray}

3276: %

3277: and

3278: 

3279: \begin{eqnarray}

3280: \hat{g}(\hat{z},\Delta {\theta}_y) &=& {\exp{\left[i \hat{z}

3281: \bar{\theta}_y \Delta {\theta}_y \right]}} \exp{\left[- \frac{N_y

3282: \Delta {\theta}_y^2}{2} \right]} \gamma_F(\Delta \theta_y) ,\cr

3283: &&\label{nong2fde}

3284: \end{eqnarray}

3285: %

3286: 

3287: 

3288: 

3289: \begin{figure}

3290: \begin{center}

3291: \includegraphics*[width=140mm]{figure18.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

3292: \caption{\label{gammaf} Plot of the universal function $\gamma_F$,

3293: used to calculate the cross-spectral density in the far zone when

3294: $\hat{N}_x \gg1$, $\hat{D}_x \gg 1$, $\hat{N}_y \lesssim 1$ and

3295: $\hat{D}_y \gg 1$.}

3296: \end{center}

3297: \end{figure}

3298: %

3299: 

3300: A plot of $\gamma_F(\alpha)$ is given in Fig. \ref{gammaf}. As for

3301: $\gamma_S$, main features of $\gamma_F$ are a strong non-Gaussian

3302: shape, and the fact that also negative values are assumed. Due to

3303: the phase factors in Eq. (\ref{nong2f}), only the virtual source

3304: at $\hat{z}=0$ constitutes a quasi-homogeneous source.

3305: 

3306: Also, $\mathcal{I}_S$ and $\gamma_F$ form a Fourier pair:

3307: 

3308: \begin{eqnarray}

3309: {\mathcal{I}_S}(\bar{y}) = \frac{\mathcal{K}_S}{\pi}

3310: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}_y \exp\left[-i \bar{y}

3311: {\phi}_y\right] \gamma_F({\phi}_y) ~,\label{BB}

3312: \end{eqnarray}

3313: %

3314: meaning that the VCZ theorem is satisfied for $\hat{z}^2 D_{x,y}

3315: \gg 1$. Since $D_{x,y} \gg 1$ this means that, in this case, the

3316: far zone begins at the very exit of the undulator, at $\hat{z}

3317: \sim 1$.

3318: 

3319: Finally, starting with the representation of $\mathcal{I}_S$ in

3320: Eq. (\ref{B2}), we can write (see \cite{GOOD} Appendix A.3.)

3321: 

3322: 

3323: \begin{eqnarray}

3324: {\mathcal{I}_S}(\bar{y}) = \mathcal{K}_S \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d

3325: {\phi}_y \exp\left[-i \bar{y} {\phi}_y\right] \int_{0}^{\infty} d

3326: \alpha ~ \alpha J_0(\alpha \phi_y) \Psi_0^2(\alpha) ~.\label{BBQ1}

3327: \end{eqnarray}

3328: %

3329: Comparison with Eq. (\ref{BB}) yields the following alternative

3330: representation of $\gamma_F$ in terms of a one-dimensional

3331: integral involving special functions:

3332: 

3333: \begin{eqnarray}

3334: \gamma_F(\phi_y) = \pi \int_{0}^{\infty} d \alpha ~ \alpha

3335: J_0(\alpha \phi_y) \Psi_0^2(\alpha) ~.\label{BBQ2}

3336: \end{eqnarray}

3337: %

3338: 

3339: 

3340: 

3341: 

3342: \subsection{\label{sub:accu} Accuracy of the quasi-homogeneous approximation}

3343: 

3344: As we have discussed before, the quasi-homogeneous approximation

3345: can be applied when either or both $N_y \gg 1$ or $D_y \gg 1$. In

3346: this Section we will see that the accuracy of the

3347: quasi-homogeneous approximation scales as $(\sqrt{\max[N_y,1]

3348: \max[D_y,1]}~)^{-1}$. As we have previously seen, in the

3349: particular case when both $N_y \gg 1$ and $D_y \gg 1$, a Gaussian

3350: model may be used. We will see that the accuracy of such model is

3351: worse than that of the quasi-homogeneous model, and scales as

3352: $\max(1/\sqrt{D_y},1/\sqrt{N_y})$.

3353: 

3354: We begin demonstrating that, when the source is quasi-homogeneous,

3355: we may take the approximation $\hat{\mathcal{S}}(\Delta {y},

3356: \hat{\phi}) \simeq \gamma_S(\Delta {y}) \mathcal{I}_S(\hat{\phi})$

3357: in Eq. (\ref{Gnor4y}) with an accuracy scaling as

3358: $(\sqrt{\max[N_y,1] \max[D_y,1]}~)^{-1}$. First, let us introduce

3359: a normalized version of the one-dimensional inverse Fourier

3360: transform of the function $\mathcal{F}$, that is

3361: 

3362: \begin{eqnarray}

3363: \bar{\mathcal{F}}(u,v) &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2

3364: \mathcal{K}_F}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

3365: \mathcal{F}\left(\alpha,v\right) \exp\left[2 i u \alpha \right] d

3366: \alpha = \frac{1}{2\mathcal{K}_S}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

3367: {\mathcal{S}}\left(u,\delta\right) \exp\left[-i v\frac{\delta}{2}

3368: \right] d \delta,\cr &&\label{WIG2}

3369: \end{eqnarray}

3370: %

3371: where the normalization factor is chosen in such as way that

3372: $\bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)=1$. The cross-spectral density  in Eq.

3373: (\ref{Gnor4y}) can therefore be written as

3374: 

3375: \begin{eqnarray}

3376: \hat{G}_y(0,\bar{y},\Delta {y}) &=&

3377: \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}\pi^2}\exp\left[- \frac{{D}_y (\Delta {y}^2)}{2}

3378: \right] \cr && \times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {u} \exp\left[-i

3379: \frac{{u}\bar{y}}{2}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{{N}_y

3380: {u}^2}{2}\right] \bar{\mathcal{F}} (\Delta {y}, {u})~,\cr

3381: &&\label{gen2sepa}

3382: \end{eqnarray}

3383: %

3384: having used the convolution theorem. Under the quasi-homogeneous

3385: assumption, we can approximate $\bar{\mathcal{F}} (\Delta {y},

3386: {u}) \simeq \bar{\mathcal{F}} (\Delta {y}, 0)\bar{\mathcal{F}} (0,

3387: {u})$. To show this, let us represent $\bar{\mathcal{F}}(u,v)$

3388: using a Taylor expansion around the point $(0,0)$. One obtains

3389: 

3390: \begin{eqnarray}

3391: \bar{\mathcal{F}}(u,v) &=& 1 + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k!}

3392: \left[u^k \frac{\partial^k \bar{\mathcal{F}}(u,0)}{\partial

3393: u^k}\Bigg|_{u=0}+v^k \frac{\partial^k

3394: \bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,v)}{\partial v^k}\Bigg|_{v=0}\right] \cr && +

3395: O(uv) ~, \label{Mpexp}

3396: \end{eqnarray}

3397: %

3398: where the normalization relation $\bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)=1$ has

3399: been taken advantage of. Similarly, one may consider the following

3400: representation of the product $\bar{\mathcal{F}}(u,0)$

3401: $\bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,v)$ also obtained by means of a Taylor

3402: expansion:

3403: 

3404: \begin{eqnarray}

3405: \bar{\mathcal{F}}(u,0)\bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,v) &=&

3406: \left[\bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)+ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{u^k}{k!}

3407: \frac{d^k \bar{\mathcal{F}}(u,0)}{du^k}\Bigg|_{u=0}\right]\cr

3408: &\times& \left[\bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)+ \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}

3409: \frac{v^j}{j!} \frac{d^j

3410: \bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,v)}{dv^j}\Bigg|_{v=0}\right] \cr &=& 1 +

3411: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} \left[u^n \frac{d^n

3412: \bar{\mathcal{F}}(u,0)}{du^n}\Bigg|_{u=0} \right.\cr && \left.

3413: +v^n \frac{d^n \bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,v)}{dv^n}\Bigg|_{v=0}\right] +

3414: O(uv) ~,\label{Mpexp2}

3415: \end{eqnarray}

3416: %

3417: having used $\bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)=1$. Comparison of the last

3418: equality in (\ref{Mpexp2}) with the right hand side of Eq.

3419: (\ref{Mpexp}) shows that $\bar{\mathcal{F}}(u,v)\simeq

3420: \bar{\mathcal{F}}(u,0)\bar{\mathcal{F}}(0,v)$ up to corrections of

3421: order $uv \sim 1/\sqrt{\max[{N}_y,1]\max[{D}_y,1]}$, that is the

3422: quasi-homogeneous accuracy. Using this approximation in Eq.

3423: (\ref{gen2sepa}) yields

3424: 

3425: \begin{eqnarray}

3426: \hat{G}(0,\bar{y},\Delta {y}) &=& \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}\pi^2}

3427: \exp\left[-\frac{{D}_y \Delta {y}^2}{2} \right] \bar{\mathcal{F}}

3428: (\Delta {y}, 0) \cr &&\times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {u}

3429: \exp\left[-i \frac{{u}\bar{y}}{2}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{ {N}_y

3430: {u}^2}{2}\right] \bar{\mathcal{F}} (0,{u})~.\label{gen2sepabis}

3431: \end{eqnarray}

3432: %

3433: Finally, recalling the definitions of $\gamma_S$ and

3434: $\mathcal{I}_S$ we can write Eq. (\ref{gen2sepabis}) as

3435: 

3436: \begin{eqnarray}

3437: \hat{G}(0,\bar{y},\Delta {y}) &=& \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N_y

3438: }}\frac{1}{2\mathcal{K}_S }\exp\left[-\frac{{D}_y \Delta {y}^2}{2}

3439: \right] \gamma_S(\Delta {y}) \cr && \times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

3440: d {\phi} \exp\left[-\frac{(\bar{y}+{\phi})^2}

3441: {2{N}_y}\right]\mathcal{I}_S({\phi})~.\label{gen2qhapp}

3442: \end{eqnarray}

3443: %

3444: Eq. (\ref{gen2qhapp}) is valid in any quasi-homogeneous case.

3445: 

3446: Note that Eq. (\ref{gen2qhapp}) accounts for diffraction effects

3447: through the universal functions $\gamma_S$ and $\mathcal{I}_S$.

3448: This may be traced back to the use of the inhomogeneous wave

3449: equation to calculate the cross-spectral density for the virtual

3450: source, from which Eq. (\ref{gen2qhapp}) follows. Deriving Eq.

3451: (\ref{gen2qhapp}), we assume a large number of modes, and this

3452: justifies the use of phase space representation as an alternative

3453: characterization of the source, in place of the cross-spectral

3454: density (i.e. Eq. (\ref{gen2qhapp}) itself).

3455: 

3456: Setting $\Delta {y}=0$, Eq. (\ref{gen2qhapp}) gives the exact

3457: intensity distribution at the virtual source, i.e. Eq.

3458: (\ref{Inty0}). The spectral degree of coherence on the virtual

3459: source is then recovered using the definition of quasi-homogeneous

3460: source $\hat{G} = \hat{I}(\bar{y}) g(\Delta {y})$. Since the

3461: source is quasi-homogeneous, the Fourier transform of the spectral

3462: degree of coherence $g(\Delta {y})$ yields the intensity in the

3463: far zone. Remembering that $\gamma_S$ and $\mathcal{I}_F$ form a

3464: Fourier pair, we conclude that, starting from Eq.

3465: (\ref{gen2qhapp}) it is possible to reproduce the exact result for

3466: the intensity in the far zone, Eq. (\ref{Intyf}). Quite

3467: remarkably, Eq. (\ref{gen2qhapp}), which is derived under the

3468: quasi-homogeneous approximation and is related to an accuracy

3469: $1/\sqrt{\max[{N}_y,1]\max[{D}_y,1]}$, yields back two results,

3470: Eq. (\ref{Inty0}) and Eq. (\ref{Intyf}) which are valid regardless

3471: the fact that the source is quasi-homogeneous or not.

3472: 

3473: Let us now consider the quasi-homogeneous case when both

3474: $\hat{N}_y \gg 1$ and $\hat{D}_y \gg 1$. Worsening the accuracy in

3475: the calculation of the cross-spectral density of the source, we

3476: may reduce Eq. (\ref{gen2qhapp}) to

3477: 

3478: \begin{eqnarray}

3479: \hat{G}_y\left(0,{\bar{y}},\Delta {y}\right) &=&

3480: \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{N_y}}} \exp \left[-\frac{(\Delta y)^2D_y

3481: }{2}\right] \exp\left[-\frac{\bar{y}^2}{2 N_y}\right]

3482: ~,\label{gen2qhappworse}

3483: \end{eqnarray}

3484: %

3485: that is Eq. (\ref{Gnorgauss0}). Note that neglecting the product

3486: with the $\gamma_S$ function can be done with an accuracy

3487: $1/\sqrt{{D}_y}$, while extraction of the exponential function in

3488: $\bar{y}$ from the convolution product with the $\mathcal{I}_S$

3489: function can be done with an accuracy $1/\sqrt{{N}_y}$. In our

3490: study case when ${D}_y \gg 1$ and ${N}_y \gg 1$, the overall

3491: accuracy of Eq. (\ref{gen2qhappworse})  can be estimated as

3492: $\max(1/\sqrt{{D}_y},1/\sqrt{{N}_y})$, that is the accuracy of the

3493: Gaussian approximation. Such accuracy is much worse than that of

3494: the quasi-homogeneous assumption in Eq. (\ref{gen2qhapp}), that is

3495: $1/\sqrt{{N}_y {D}_y}$.

3496: 

3497: When ${N}_y \gg 1$ and ${D}_y \simeq 1$ the accuracy of the

3498: quasi-homogeneous approximation becomes $1/\sqrt{{N}_y

3499: \max[1,{D}_y]}$. When ${N}_y \simeq 1$ and ${D}_y \gg 1$ it

3500: becomes, instead, $1/\sqrt{\max[1,{N}_y]\hat{D}_y }$. In these

3501: cases, the accuracy of the quasi-homogeneous approximation is

3502: comparable to the accuracy of the Gaussian approximation. To be

3503: specific, when ${N}_y \gg 1$ and ${D}_y \simeq 1$ the accuracy of

3504: the quasi-homogeneous approximation is of order $1/\sqrt{{N}_y}$

3505: and Eq. (\ref{gen2qhapp}) can be substituted with

3506: 

3507: \begin{eqnarray}

3508: \hat{G}(0,\bar{y},\Delta {y}) &=& \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N_y

3509: }}\exp\left[-\frac{\bar{y}^2}{2{N}_y}\right]\exp\left[-\frac{{D}_y

3510: \Delta {y}^2}{2} \right] \gamma_S(\Delta {y})~.\label{gen2qhappN}

3511: \end{eqnarray}

3512: %

3513: without loss of accuracy, because the relative accuracy of the

3514: convolution is of order $1/\sqrt{{N}_y}$ as the accuracy of the

3515: quasi-homogenous approximation. Eq. (\ref{gen2qhappN}) is just Eq.

3516: (\ref{nong10}). A similar reasoning can be done when ${D}_y \gg 1$

3517: and ${N}_y \simeq 1$. In this case the accuracy of the

3518: quasi-homogeneous approximation is of order $1/\sqrt{{D}_y}$, and

3519: Eq. (\ref{gen2qhapp}) can be substituted with

3520: 

3521: \begin{eqnarray}

3522: \hat{G}(0,\bar{y},\Delta {y}) &=& \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{N_y

3523: }}\frac{1}{2\mathcal{K}_S }\exp\left[-\frac{{D}_y \Delta {y}^2}{2}

3524: \right]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d {\phi}

3525: \exp\left[-\frac{(\bar{y}+{\phi})^2}

3526: {2{N}_y}\right]\mathcal{I}_S({\phi})~.\label{gen2qhappD}

3527: \end{eqnarray}

3528: %

3529: without loss of accuracy. Eq. (\ref{gen2qhappD}) is just Eq.

3530: (\ref{nong20}).

3531: 

3532: 

3533: 

3534: 

3535: \subsection{\label{sub:geop} Quasi-homogeneous sources in terms of phase space}

3536: 

3537: 

3538: The cross-spectral density at the virtual source can be written as

3539: in Eq. (\ref{introhdopo}) that we rewrite here for convenience in

3540: terms of coordinates $\bar{r}_{x,y}$ and $\Delta {{r}_{x,y}}$:

3541: 

3542: 

3543: \begin{eqnarray}

3544: \hat{G}_o({\bar{r}_x},\bar{r}_y,\Delta {{r}_x},\Delta {{r}_y}) =

3545: \hat{I}\left(\bar{r}_x,\bar{r}_y\right) {g}(\Delta {{r}_x},\Delta

3546: {{r}_y}) ~.\label{introhdopob}

3547: \end{eqnarray}

3548: %

3549: For notational simplicity we use notation $\hat{G}_o$ to indicate

3550: $\hat{G}$ at $\hat{z}=0$. The Fourier transform of Eq.

3551: (\ref{introhdopob}) with respect to all variables will be

3552: indicated with

3553: 

3554: \begin{eqnarray}

3555: \hat{\mathcal{G}}_o( {\bar{\theta}_x}, {\bar{\theta}_y},{\Delta

3556: {\theta}_x},\Delta {\theta}_y) &=& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d

3557: \Delta { {r}_x'}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d \Delta { {r}_y'}

3558: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d { \bar{r}_x'}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d

3559:  { \bar{r}_y'} ~ \hat{G}_o({ \bar{r}_x'},{ \bar{r}_y'},

3560: \Delta{{r}'_x},\Delta{{r}'_y}) \cr &&\times\exp [2i (

3561: \bar{\theta}_x \Delta{{r}'_x}+\bar{\theta}_y \Delta{{r}'_y} )]\exp

3562: [i ( \Delta {\theta}_x { \bar{r}'_x}+\Delta {\theta}_y {

3563: \bar{r}'_y} )]~.\cr && \label{ftgdeffor}

3564: \end{eqnarray}

3565: %

3566: The two quantities

3567: $\hat{I}(\bar{r}_x,\bar{r}_y)=\hat{G}_o({\bar{r}_x},\bar{r}_y,0,0)$

3568: and $\hat{\Gamma}({\bar{\theta}_x}, {\bar{\theta}_y})

3569: =\hat{\mathcal{G}}_o( {\bar{\theta}_x}, {\bar{\theta}_y},0,0)$ are

3570: always positive because, by definition of $\hat{G}_o$, they are

3571: ensemble averages of quantities under square modulus.

3572: 

3573: Let us now introduce the Fourier transform of Eq.

3574: (\ref{introhdopo}) with respect to $\Delta {r_{x,y}}$:

3575: 

3576: \begin{eqnarray}

3577: \hat{\Phi}_o({\bar{r}_x},\bar{r}_y, {\bar{\theta}_x},

3578: {\bar{\theta}_y}) &=& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \Delta {

3579: {r}_x'}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d \Delta {r_y'}~ \hat{G}_o({

3580: \bar{r}_x},{ \bar{r}_y}, \Delta{{r}'_x},\Delta{{r}'_y}) \cr

3581: &&\times\exp [i ( \bar{\theta}_x \Delta{ {r}'_x}+\bar{\theta}_y

3582: \Delta{{r}'_y} )]~. \label{wigdef}

3583: \end{eqnarray}

3584: %

3585: Accounting for Eq. (\ref{introhdopob}), i.e. in the particular

3586: case of a (virtual) quasi-homogeneous source, Eq. (\ref{wigdef})

3587: can be written as

3588: 

3589: \begin{eqnarray}

3590: \hat{\Phi}_o({\bar{r}_x},\bar{r}_y, {\bar{\theta}_x},

3591: {\bar{\theta}_y}) &=& \hat{I}\left(\bar{r}_x,\bar{r}_y\right)

3592: \hat{\Gamma}({\bar{\theta}_x}, {\bar{\theta}_y})~,

3593: \label{wigdefdef}

3594: \end{eqnarray}

3595: %

3596: having recognized that $\hat{\Gamma}({\bar{\theta}_x},

3597: {\bar{\theta}_y}) =\hat{\mathcal{G}}_o( {\bar{\theta}_x},

3598: {\bar{\theta}_y},0,0)$ is the Fourier transform of the spectral

3599: degree of coherence ${g}$. The distribution $\hat{\Phi}_o$, being

3600: the product of two positive quantities, never assumes negative

3601: values. Therefore it may always be interpreted as a phase space

3602: distribution\footnote{Physically, in the quasi-homogeneous case,

3603: $\hat{\Gamma}$ can be identified with the radiant intensity of the

3604: virtual source. This follows from a statement similar to the van

3605: Cittert-Zernike theorem for quasi-homogeneous sources (see

3606: \cite{MAND}). Note that the intensity and the Fourier transform of

3607: the spectral degree of coherence are obtained back from the phase

3608: space distribution, Eq. (\ref{wigdefdef}), by integration over

3609: coordinates $\bar{\theta}_{x,y}$ and $\bar{r}_{x,y}$

3610: respectively.}. This analysis shows that quasi-homogeneous sources

3611: can always be characterized in terms of Geometrical Optics. It

3612: also shows that, in this particular case, the coordinates in the

3613: phase space, $\bar{r}_{x,y}$ and $\bar{\theta}_{x,y}$, are

3614: separable.

3615: 

3616: Eq. (\ref{wigdef}) is the definition of a Wigner distribution. In

3617: the case of quasi-homogenous sources, as we have just seen, the

3618: Wigner distribution is never negative and, therefore, can always

3619: be interpreted as a phase space distribution.  In the case of non

3620: quasi-homogeneous sources one may still define a Wigner

3621: distribution using Eq. (\ref{wigdef}). However the Wigner function

3622: itself is not always a positive function. As a consequence it

3623: cannot always be interpreted as a phase space distribution. On the

3624: one hand, quasi-homogeneity is a sufficient condition for the

3625: Geometrical Optics approach to be possibly used in the

3626: representation of the source. On the other hand though, necessary

3627: and sufficient conditions for $\hat{\Phi}_o$ to be a positive

3628: function are more difficult to find.

3629: 

3630: 

3631: Note that in the case of quasi-homogeneous non-Gaussian sources

3632: one should account to diffraction effects when calculating source

3633: properties. However, using a Wigner function approach, one can

3634: still use a phase-space representation. In this case diffraction

3635: effects have the effect of complicating the structure of the

3636: phase-space describing the source. Also note that Gaussian-Schell

3637: model cannot be applied in all generality even to

3638: quasi-homogeneous sources, as it does not properly describe the

3639: case of non-Gaussian sources, which is most natural for third

3640: generation facilities in the vertical direction.

3641: 

3642: As we have seen before, third generation light sources are

3643: characterized, up to the VUV range, by ${N}_x \gg 1$ and ${D}_x

3644: \gg 1$, which implies factorization of the cross-spectral density.

3645: Thus, considering the vertical direction separately, equivalent

3646: condition for quasi-homogeneity requires that either (or both)

3647: ${N}_y \gg 1$ and ${D}_y \gg 1$.

3648: 

3649: An intuitive picture in the real space is given by a (virtual)

3650: quasi-homogeneous source with characteristic (normalized) square

3651: sizes of order $\max[{N}_{y},1]$ and $N_x$, and characteristic

3652: (normalized) correlation length square sizes of order

3653: $\min[1/{D}_{y},1]$ and $1/D_x$, in the vertical and horizontal

3654: directions. Since horizontal and the vertical directions can be

3655: treated separately, we have a large number of independently

3656: radiating sources given by the product

3657: 

3658: \begin{equation}

3659: M_{y}= \max[{N}_{y},1]\max[{D}_{y},1]~ \label{modesappr}

3660: \end{equation}

3661: %

3662: in the vertical direction, and

3663: 

3664: 

3665: \begin{equation}

3666: M_{x}= {N}_{x}{D}_{x}~ \label{modesappr2}

3667: \end{equation}

3668: %

3669: in the horizontal direction. The number $M_{x,y}$ is, in other

3670: words, an estimation of the number of coherent modes in the

3671: horizontal and in the vertical direction\footnote{This is in

3672: agreement with an intuitive picture where the photon-beam phase

3673: space reproduces the electron-beam phase space up to the limit

3674: imposed by the intrinsic diffraction of undulator radiation.

3675: Imagine to start from a situation with ${N}_{x,y}\gg 1$ and

3676: ${D}_{x,y} \gg 1$ and to "squeeze" the electron-beam phase space

3677: in the vertical direction by diminishing ${N}_{y}$ and ${D}_{y}$.

3678: On the one hand the characteristic sizes of the phase space of the

3679: electron beam are always of order ${N}_{y}$ and ${D}_{y}$. On the

3680: other hand the characteristic sizes of the phase space of the

3681: photon beam are of order $\max[{N}_{y},1]$ and $\max[{D}_{y},1]$:

3682: diffraction effects limit the "squeezing" of the phase space of

3683: the photon beam. }. The number $M_{x,y}^{-1}$ is the accuracy of

3684: Geometrical Optics results compared with Statistical Optics

3685: results or, better, the accuracy of the quasi-homogeneous

3686: assumption. It should be noted that, as $M_{x,y}$ approaches

3687: unity, the accuracy of the quasi-homogeneous assumption becomes

3688: worse and worse and $M_{x,y}$ cannot be taken anymore as a

3689: meaningful estimation of the number of modes: it should be

3690: replaced by a more accurate concept based on Statistical Optics.

3691: To complete the previous statement we should add that $M_{x,y}$

3692: completely loses the meaning of "number of modes" when Geometrical

3693: Optics cannot be applied. For instance when both ${N}_y$ and

3694: ${D}_y$ are of order unity (or smaller), one can state that the

3695: Geometrical Optics approach fails in the vertical direction

3696: because the phase space area is getting near to the uncertainty

3697: limit. In this case it is not possible to ascribe the meaning of

3698: "number of modes" to the number $M_y$ simply because the

3699: Geometrical Optics approach in the vertical direction fails.

3700: However, when ${N}_y$ and ${D}_y$ are of order unity (or smaller),

3701: but both ${N}_x \gg 1$ and ${D}_x \gg 1$, the cross-spectral

3702: density admits factorization in the horizontal and in the vertical

3703: direction and the source in the horizontal direction can be still

3704: described, independently, with the help of Geometrical Optics.

3705: 

3706: We should remark that Statistical Optics is the only mean to deal,

3707: in general, with the stochastic nature of SR. Only in particular

3708: cases SR can be treated in terms of Geometrical Optics, where

3709: planning of experiments can take advantage of ray-tracing code

3710: techniques. One of these cases is constituted by second generation

3711: light sources, because ${N}_{x,y} \gg 1$ and ${D}_{x,y} \gg 1$.

3712: 

3713: Description in terms of quasi-homogeneous sources is also

3714: important for third generation facilities in the case of bending

3715: magnet beamlines (surprisingly, in both horizontal and vertical

3716: plane), horizontal plane in undulator beamlines, but it cannot be

3717: applied with accuracy to future sources (e.g. ERL-based sources).

3718: 

3719: 

3720: Quasi-homogenous sources can be described in terms of geometrical

3721: optics, the outcome being equivalent to description in terms of

3722: statistical optics. In order to decide whether Geometrical Optics

3723: or Wave Optics is applicable, in all generality one should

3724: separately compare the \textit{photon beam} size and divergence

3725: with the radiation diffraction size and diffraction angle, which

3726: are quantities pertaining the single electron radiation. Let us

3727: fix a given direction $x$ or $y$. The square of the diffraction

3728: angle is defined by $(\sigma_d')^2 \sim \lambda/(2 \pi L_f)$,

3729: $L_f$ being the formation length of the radiation at wavelength

3730: $\lambda$. The diffraction size of the source is given by

3731: $\sigma_d \sim \sigma'_d L_f$. In calculating the photon beam size

3732: and divergence one should always include diffraction effects. As a

3733: result, if $\sigma^2$ and $(\sigma')^{2}$ indicate the square of

3734: the electron beam size and divergence, the corresponding square of

3735: the photon beam size and divergence will be respectively of order

3736: $\max[\sigma^2, \sigma_d^2]$ and $\max[(\sigma')^{2},

3737: (\sigma_d')^2]$. These quantities can be rewritten in terms of the

3738: electron beam emittance  as $\max[\epsilon \beta, \sigma_d^2]$ and

3739: $\max[\epsilon/\beta, (\sigma'_d)^2]$, $\beta$ being the beta

3740: function value at the virtual source position for the radiator

3741: (undulator, bending magnet, or other). Dividing these two

3742: quantities respectively by $\sigma_d^2$ and $(\sigma'_d)^2$  give

3743: natural values, normalized to unity, for the photon beam size

3744: $\max[2 \pi \epsilon \beta/(L_f \lambda), 1]$ and divergence

3745: $\max[2 \pi \epsilon L_f/ (\beta \lambda), 1]$. When the product

3746: between these two quantities is much larger than unity one can use

3747: a Geometrical Optics approach. In this case, this product

3748: represents the normalized \textit{photon beam} emittance. When

3749: $\beta \sim L_f$, as in many undulator cases, one may compare, for

3750: rough estimations, the electron beam emittance and the radiation

3751: wavelength as we have done before. However, in the case of a

3752: bending magnet one may typically have $\beta$ of order $10$ m and

3753: $L_f\simeq (\rho^2 \lambdabar)^{1/3}$ ($\rho$ being the bending

3754: radius) of order $10^{-3} \div 10^{-2} $ m. The ratio $\beta/L_f

3755: \gg 1$ now constitutes an extra large parameter of the problem. In

3756: this case, even if the electron beam emittance is two order of

3757: magnitude smaller than the wavelength, due to diffraction effects

3758: one can still apply a Geometrical Optics approach, because $\max[2

3759: \pi \epsilon \beta/(L_f \lambda), 1] \cdot \max[2 \pi \epsilon

3760: L_f/ (\beta \lambda), 1] \gg 1$, i.e. the photon beam emittance is

3761: much larger than the wavelength. As a result, dimensional analysis

3762: suggests that bending magnet radiation may be treated exhaustively

3763: in the framework of Geometrical Optics even for third generation

3764: light sources.

3765: 

3766: 

3767: \section{\label{sec:conc} Conclusions}

3768: 

3769: This work presents a theory of transverse coherence properties

3770: from third generation light sources, valid while radiation evolves

3771: in free-space. Besides being important for experiments involving

3772: coherence that make no use of optical elements, it constitutes the

3773: first step towards the solution of the image formation problem for

3774: undulator sources (see \cite{OURP}) that will be a natural

3775: follow-up to the present article.

3776: 

3777: We considered Synchrotron Radiation (SR) as a random statistical

3778: process to be described using the language of statistical optics.

3779: Statistical optics developed in connection with Gaussian,

3780: stationary processes characterized by homogeneous sources.

3781: However, for SR, there is no a priori reason to hold these

3782: assumptions satisfied.

3783: 

3784: We showed that SR is a Gaussian random process. As a result,

3785: statistical properties of SR are described satisfactory by

3786: second-order field correlation functions. We focused, in

3787: particular, on undulator sources. It should be noted here that

3788: wiggler and bending magnets are still being used at third

3789: generation facilities. However, as has been remarked in the

3790: previous Section \ref{sub:geop}, these devices are characterized

3791: by a much shorter formation length, which allows one to apply a

3792: Geometrical Optics approach to describe them. Thus, in this case,

3793: the formalism developed for second generation facilities can be

3794: satisfactory taken advantage of. In other words, use of wigglers

3795: and bending magnets is mainly related with applications requiring

3796: higher photon flux (but not high coherent flux), compared with

3797: analogous devices installed in second generation facilities. Our

3798: choice of considering undulator sources is justified by the fact

3799: that we are interested in transverse coherence properties of

3800: radiation.

3801: 

3802: With this in mind, a frequency-domain analysis was used to

3803: describe undulator sources from a mathematical viewpoint. As a

3804: consequence of the frequency domain analysis we could study the

3805: spatial correlation for a given frequency content using the

3806: cross-spectral density of the system. This can be used to extract

3807: information even if the process is non-stationary, and

3808: independently of the spectral correlation function.

3809: 

3810: We gave a general expression for the cross-spectral density

3811: dependent on six dimensionless parameters. Subsequently we assumed

3812: small normalized detuning from resonance, thus obtaining a

3813: simplified expression of practical relevance.

3814: 

3815: We simplified our expressions further in the case of third

3816: generation light sources, based on a large horizontal emittance

3817: (compared with the wavelength). In this case, the cross-spectral

3818: density can be factored in the product of a horizontal and a

3819: vertical factor.

3820: 

3821: Attention was subsequently drawn on the vertical cross-spectral

3822: density $\hat{G}_y$, without loss of generality. We expressed

3823: $\hat{G}_y$ in terms of one-dimensional convolutions between

3824: universal functions and Gaussian functions, and studied different

3825: asymptotic cases of interest.

3826: 

3827: In the case of a vertical emittance much smaller than the

3828: radiation wavelength we derived the counter-intuitive result that

3829: radiation is not fully coherent in the vertical direction. This

3830: effect can be interpreted as an influence of a large horizontal

3831: emittance on the vertical plane, and is related with the

3832: particular non-Gaussian nature of the single particle field.

3833: 

3834: Subsequently, we studied  quasi-homogeneous cases of interest,

3835: discussing the applicability of the VCZ theorem for Gaussian and

3836: non-Gaussian quasi-homogeneous sources. Finally, we discussed the

3837: accuracy of the quasi-homogeneous model.

3838: 

3839: It is interesting to spend a few words about relation of our

3840: theory with numerical techniques. Computer codes have been written

3841: (see e.g. \cite{CHUB,BAHR}) that deal with beamline design, based

3842: on wave-optics techniques. Codes also begin to be used to treat

3843: the case of partially coherent radiation: one of their final goals

3844: is to solve the image formation problem starting from first

3845: principles. Results may be obtained using numerical techniques

3846: alone, starting from the Lienard-Wiechert expressions for the

3847: electromagnetic field and applying the definition of the field

3848: correlation function without any analytical work. Calculation of

3849: the intensity at a single point on the image plane can be

3850: approached by propagating wavefronts from different

3851: macro-particles through the entire optical system, calculating

3852: intensities and summing them up. This method is well-suited for

3853: parallel processing, and relatively easy to implement. Yet, a

3854: first-principle calculation of the field correlation function

3855: between two generic points at the image plane involves very

3856: complicated and time-expensive numerical evaluations. To be

3857: specific, one needs to perform two integrations along the

3858: undulator device and four integrations over the electron-beam

3859: phase space distribution to solve the problem in free space. Then,

3860: even in the simple case when the optical beamline can be modelled

3861: as a single focusing lens, other four integrations are needed to

3862: characterize coherence properties on the image plane, for a total

3863: of ten integrations. The development of a universal code for any

3864: experimental setup is then likely to be problematic. A more

3865: conservative approach may suggest the use of computer codes based

3866: on some analytical transformation of first principle equations

3867: suited for specific experimental setups. From this viewpoint our

3868: most general expressions (or alternatively, as it is being done,

3869: expressions for the Wigner distribution function) may be used as

3870: reliable basis for the development of numerical methods. Our

3871: analytical theory allows treatment and physical understanding of

3872: many asymptotes of the parameter space and their applicability

3873: region with the help of a consistent use of dimensional analysis.

3874: This physical understanding, together with the possibility of

3875: using our asymptotic results as benchmarks for numerical methods,

3876: will be of help to code writers.

3877: 

3878: In closing, as has been remarked in \cite{HOWE}: "[...] it is very

3879: desirable to have a way to model the performance of undulator

3880: beamlines with significant partial coherent effects, and such

3881: modelling would, naturally, start with the source. The calculation

3882: would involve the knowledge of the partial coherence properties of

3883: the source itself and of how to propagate partially coherent

3884: fields through space and through the optical components used in

3885: the beamline. [...] it is important to recognize that, although

3886: most of these calculations are, in principle, straightforward

3887: applications of conventional coherence theory (Born and Wolf,

3888: 1980; Goodman, 1985), there is not much current interest in the

3889: visible optics community.". These statements were formulated more

3890: than ten years ago, when operation of third generation light

3891: sources started. While it was immediately recognized that usual SR

3892: theory was not adequate to describe them, no theoretical progress

3893: was made in that direction. Our paper finally answers the call in

3894: \cite{HOWE}.

3895: 

3896: 

3897: 

3898: \newpage

3899: 

3900: \section*{Acknowledgements}

3901: 

3902: The authors wish to thank Hermann Franz and Petr Ilinski for many

3903: useful discussions, Massimo Altarelli, Jochen Schneider and Edgar

3904: Weckert for their interest in this work.

3905: 

3906: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

3907: 

3908: \bibitem{EDGA} D. Bilderback, P. Elleaume and E. Weckert, J. Phys.

3909: B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 38, 773 (2005)

3910: \bibitem{PETR} K. Balewski, W. Brefeld, W. Decking, H. Franz, R. R\"{o}hlsberger and E. Weckert (ed) 2004 PETRA III:

3911: a low emittance synchrotron radiation source, Technical Design

3912: Report DESY 2004-035, Online available at

3913: http://www-hasylab.desy.de/facility/upgrade/petra$_-$tdr.htm

3914: \bibitem{GOOD} J. W. Goodman, Statistical optics, John Wiley $\&$

3915: Sons, Inc., 1985

3916: \bibitem{MAND} L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and

3917: Quantum optics, Cambridge University Press, 1995

3918: \bibitem{NEIL} E. O'Neill, Introduction to Statistical optics,

3919: Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, New York (1991)

3920: \bibitem{HOWE} M.R. Howells and M.M. Kincaid, "The properties of

3921: undulator radiation" in New Directions in Research with

3922: Third-Generation Soft X-Ray Synchrotron Radiation Sources, Kluwer

3923: Academic Publishers, 315-358 (1994)

3924: \bibitem{TAKA} Y. Takayama et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth.

3925: in Phys. Res. A 441, 565 (2000)

3926: \bibitem{COI1} R. Co\"{i}sson, Applied Optics 34, No. 5, 904-908

3927: (1995)

3928: \bibitem{COI2} R. Co\"{i}sson and S. Marchesini, J. Synchrotron

3929: Radiat. 4, 263 (1997)

3930: \bibitem{COI3} R. Co\"{\i}sson and S. Marchesini, "Spatial

3931: Coherence of Synchrotron Radiation", Recent research developments

3932: in Optics, 3, 213 (2003), and report UCRL-JRNL-200688

3933: http://library.llnl.gov/uhtbin/cgisirsi/0/0/0/60/55/X

3934: \bibitem{KIM2} K-J. Kim, Nucl. Instr. Meth., A246, p. 71, 1986

3935: \bibitem{KIM3} K-J. Kim, SPIE Proceedings. vol. 582, p. 2, 1986.

3936: \bibitem{OURU} G. Geloni, E. Saldin, E. Schneidmiller and M.

3937: Yurkov, "Understanding transverse coherence properties of X-ray

3938: beams in third generation light sources", DESY 05-109 (2005)

3939: \bibitem{WOLF} E. Wolf, Nature, 172, 535 (1953)

3940: \bibitem{NOST} M. Yabashi, K. Tamasku et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.,

3941: 88, 24 (2000)

3942: \bibitem{MAN2} L. Mandel, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 51,1342 (1961)

3943: \bibitem{OURF} G. Geloni, E. Saldin, E. Schneidmiller and M.

3944: Yurkov, Opt. Commun 276, 1, 167 (2007)

3945: \bibitem{XFEL} M. Altarelli et al. (ed.), XFEL: The European X-Ray Free-Electron

3946: Laser. Technical Design Report, DESY 2006-097, DESY, Hamburg

3947: (2006) (See also http://xfel.desy.de)

3948: %\bibitem{OURS} G. Geloni, E. Saldin, E. Schneidmiller and M.

3949: %Yurkov, "Paraxial Green's functions in Synchrotron Radiation

3950: %theory", DESY 05-032, ISSN 0418-9833 (2005)

3951: \bibitem{YAB1} M. Yabashi, K. Tamasaku and T. Ishikawa, Phys. Rev.

3952: A 69, 023813 (2004)

3953: \bibitem{PFEI} F. Pfeiffer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 164801

3954: (2005)

3955: \bibitem{YAB2} M. Yabashi, K. Tamasaku S. Goto and T. Ishikawa, J.

3956: Phys D: Appl. Phys. 38 (2005) A11-A16

3957: \bibitem{OURP} G. Geloni, E. Saldin, E. Schneidmiller and M.

3958: Yurkov "Statistical Optics Approach to the Design of Beamlines for

3959: Synchrotron Radiation", DESY 06-037, ISSN 0418-9833 (2006)

3960: \bibitem{CHUB} O.Chubar and P.Elleaume, in Proc. of the 6th European Particle Accelerator Conference EPAC-98, 1177-1179 (1998)

3961: \bibitem{BAHR} J. Bahrdt, Phys. Rev. ST-AB 10, 060701 (2007)

3962: \end{thebibliography}

3963: 

3964: 

3965: 

3966: 

3967: \end{document}

3968: