clusters of galaxies are the last and most massive class of bound structures to form out of the big bang ( @xmath0 ) .
cluster assembly combines irregular accretion from surrounding diffuse matter , especially from filaments , and violent mergers with other clusters . as in the universe at large ,
most cluster matter is non - baryonic , `` dark matter '' .
the baryonic matter within clusters is predominantly hot , diffuse plasma ( @xmath1 ) ; the intracluster medium ( icm ) .
the icms are shocked and stirred throughout their formation @xcite .
the resulting icm flow structures provide vital information about the large scale dynamics of cluster formation , as well as about the physics of the icm plasma@xcite .
cluster - scale shocks , in particular , are tell - tale consequences of merger events @xcite . tracing and deciphering these icm flow structures are essential to our understanding of cluster formation .
while thermal x - rays have successfully revealed some icm shocks and other flow features @xcite , distinct x - ray signatures are often subtle and hard to isolate and measure cleanly .
observations of the sunyaev - zeldovich effect add some statistical information about the icm pressure and velocity distributions@xcite .
but , a full , clear picture requires additional , complementary tools .
thankfully , non - thermal synchrotron emissions from @xmath2 gev electrons ( cre ) in the icm and in embedded objects may help reach this goal .
so far , the principal non - x - ray tool in efforts to characterize icm dynamics has been cluster - scale , diffuse radio emissions ( radio `` halos '' , `` mini - halos '' and `` relics '' ) by electrons within the icm that are energized or re - energized by cluster shocks and/or turbulence @xcite . there are multiple plausible origins for those diffuse cre , which in various models may be recent or ancient @xcite .
their links to local , current icm dynamics result from the fact that they have rather short lifetimes against synchrotron losses and inverse compton scattering of cmb photons ( @xmath3 100 myr ) .
observed cre must be `` energetically younger '' than this . since icm flow velocities are characteristically @xmath4 kpc / myr , such embedded cre must have been energized relatively close by on cluster scales .
although these emissions place essential constraints on icm physics , their translation into distinct and firm icm dynamical properties has so far proven to be quite challenging @xcite .    at the same time , radio - bright , bipolar plasma outflows from active galactic nuclei ( radio agn , henceforth , simply agn ) are common in clusters @xcite .
interactions between those outflows and icm dynamical structures on scales of 10s to 100s of kpc offer an additional and potentially very useful diagnostic probe of the icm dynamics and physics .
that is quite separate from the increasing evidence that agn - icm feedback loops on those scales in the cores of relatively undisturbed clusters are central to the properties of those icms @xcite .
the focus of our discussion here , instead , is the consequences of agn outflow encounters with cluster scale icm flow structures ( especially shocks ) , and , in particular , impact on the consequent dynamical form of the agn structures that develop as the agn plasma penetrates and generate cavities in the icm .    specifically , we explore major distortions to the agn flows and the potential for using such distortions to identify and characterize icm flow structures , including shocks . in subsequent publications
we will present analyses of high resolution 3d mhd simulations of agn outflows in related dynamical icm situations . there
we will examine details such as coherence and disruption of the agn flows , development of turbulence , magnetic field evolution , as well as relativistic electron propagation , acceleration and emissions .
our purpose now is more restricted ; namely it is to outline a simple , but coherent formalism that we have found to be useful in predicting behaviors of the above simulation experiments and that hopefully captures essential physics needed to interpret observed agn interactions with dynamical icms .
we note , in the context of the hedla workshop that inspired this work , that many of the dynamical components laid out below should be testable in laboratory experiments .    the best known and most widely discussed agn distortion produced by asymmetric icm interactions are those that have formed tails as a result of relative motions between the agn host galaxy and the surrounding icm .
so - called `` narrow angle tailed '' ( nat ) agns , in which the originally collimated agn outflows appear deflected into a pair of quasi - parallel trails in the wake of the galaxy are especially common in disturbed clusters , where relatively high velocity icm motions are likely @xcite .
if there are apparent , but less dramatic deflections , the agns are typically called `` wide angle tailed '' ( wat ) agns @xcite .
both are obvious candidates as probes of icm dynamics @xcite .
the idea that icm shocks encountering plasma bubbles or cavities left behind by expired agn might rejuvenate their cre populations has also been widely discussed @xcite .
to the best of our knowledge , however , expected behaviors of active agn outflows colliding with icm shocks has not been previously outlined , although there have been several recent suggestions that observed nat agn may , in fact , be associated with cluster radio relics @xcite . here
we do not address that issue directly , but do outline the essentials of dynamical encounters of that kind , in order to facilitate future discussions .
basics of the formalism we outline have been in the literature for some time .
our objective is to set them down as a package , extending them as needed for application to the issues at hand , while looking for parameterizations that may be useful for diagnostic purposes .
we specifically target agn outflow / shock encounters , although the necessary formalism has broader applications .
we also include along the way some preliminary results from simulations in order to illustrate the kinds of behaviors that result .
we ignore here a number of complications that will ultimately be important to detailed models , but that do not seem essential to a `` first order '' picture . although our goal in this paper is to set out a simple set of analytic relationships , we do show illustrations of behaviors from high resolution numerical simulations that will be discussed in detail in subsequent publications .
those simulations were carried out using the wombat mhd code employing a second order mhdtvd riemann solver @xcite .
an adiabatic equation of state with @xmath5 was employed .
steady bi - polar jets were formed within a small cylindrical volume , where the jet pressure , @xmath6 , was kept approximately equal to the ambient pressure , and the jet plasma was accelerated to a velocity , @xmath7 .
all the simulations shown in this paper kept the density within the jet - source cylinder , @xmath8 , at 1% of the undisturbed ambient density .
we have , however , varied these parameters to confirm relations described below .
we also allowed jet power to cycle off in some cases .
the simulated jets were weakly magnetized with a toroidal geometry and nominal @xmath9 within the jet - source cylinder .
magnetic stresses are too small to influence dynamics at the levels relevant to this paper .
the simulations did include cre ; in follow - up discussions we will discuss in detail synchrotron emission properties .
that is beyond the scope of the present paper , however .
the paper outline is this .
section [ sec : shock - cavity ] reviews the interactions between a plane shock and a low density cavity . in section
[ sec : jet - wind ] we outline in simple terms the propagation of a jet into a head or tail wind ( section [ subsec : term ] ) and into a cross wind ( section [ subsec : cross ] ) that would , for instance , represent post - shock ambient conditions . for completeness section [ sec : cocoon ]
sets out a simple model to estimate the form of the plasma cocoon inflated by jets nominally prior to the above interactions .
typically the initial encounter between an icm shock and an agn will involve the shock penetrating the agn cocoon / cavity inflated by the agn outflow .
the basic dynamics of such an encounter are qualitatively simple : the core of the cavity is crushed relatively quickly , while the perimeters of the cavity roll into a vortex ring structure @xcite .
here we simply outline of the physics .
consider then a planar icm shock of mach number , @xmath10 , where @xmath11 is the speed of the shock in the icm and @xmath12 is the icm sound speed . @xmath13 and @xmath14 are the pre - shock icm pressure and mass density , while @xmath15 ( @xmath16 ) is the icm adiabatic index .
typical icm shocks will have modest mach numbers , @xmath17 , @xcite but to allow a wider application of this discussion we do not restrict @xmath18 .
we then assume the shock encounters a low density cavity , which we take initially to be in pressure equilibrium with the icm ( @xmath19 ) .
let the undisturbed density inside the cavity be @xmath20 , with @xmath21 .
the initial cavity sound speed is , @xmath22 , where , acknowledging that the cavity includes relativistic plasma , we allow the cavity potentially to have an adiabatic index , @xmath23 , distinct from the icm .
as the shock encounters the cavity , it penetrates at a speed @xmath24 pulling icm gas with it .
pressure balance between the original cavity and un - shocked icm leads to the condition , @xmath25 .
the original icm - cavity contact discontinuity ( cd ) follows the shock at a speed , @xmath26 , intermediate between the icm shock and the cavity shock . at the same time a rarefaction propagates back into the post - shock icm at the post - shock icm sound speed .
pfrommer and jones @xcite presented the full , nonlinear , 1d riemann solution to this problem . here
we need only a few , approximate behaviors in order to understand what happens during the encounter . generally ,
even though the shock speed is greater inside the cavity , the shock strength is less than the incident shock ; that is , @xmath27 .
there is no general , analytic formula for @xmath28 , although it can be found numerically from the riemann solution . in the strong shock limit , when @xmath29 , pfrommer and jones found @xmath30 ; that is @xmath31 . in the weak shock limit ( as @xmath32 ) , of course , @xmath33 . in either regime
the internal shock speed considerably exceeds the incident , icm shock speed whenever @xmath21 .
consequently , the shock passes through the cavity much more quickly than it propagates around it .
the velocity of the cd within the cavity , @xmath34 , obtained in the riemann solution is , @xmath35 this measures the cavity collapse rate .
it will generally be less than @xmath36 .
however , pfrommer and jones found , so long as @xmath37 and @xmath21 , that @xmath38 . under those circumstances ,
the cavity is crushed ( the initial cd pushes all the way through the cavity ) _ before _ the icm shock propagates around it .
we note that if the cavity has previously developed a thick boundary layer within which @xmath39 is not very small ( e.g. , through turbulent mixing ; see section [ sec : cocoon ] ) , the internal shock speed within this layer will be slower than above , but @xmath28 can remain comparable to @xmath18 through that boundary layer .
this can , for instance , significantly influence such things as particle acceleration during shock passage and shock amplification of turbulence .
if the initial cavity is `` round '' ( e.g. , a sphere ) , the shock intrusion into the cavity begins sooner and is usually stronger at the normal , `` point of first contact . '' on the other hand , the oblique penetration towards the extremes of the cavity boundary also generates vorticity .
an initially spherical cavity will , thus , evolve into a torus , or vortex ring that mixes icm and cavity plasma @xcite .
analogously , even if the cavity boundary is planar , but the shock normal is oblique to the cavity boundary , refraction of the shock and penetrating cd will produce vorticity and mixing @xcite .
examples of shocks impacting icm cavities have been presented previously @xcite .
outcomes are also evident in figures [ fig : aljet ] and [ fig : orjet ] .
if an agn jet remains active following shock impact , so that it drives into the post - shock icm , its propagation will be modified because the post - shock icm is denser than the pre - shock icm and also because the post - shock icm plasma is put in motion by the shock . in this section
we outline a toy model to address these effects .
the basic geometry is illustrated in figure [ fig : cartoon ] .
cartoon illustrating the basic geometry of bipolar agn jets propagating into an ambient wind.,scaledwidth=48.0%,scaledwidth=41.0% ]    we approximate the dynamics as that of a jet within an ambient wind , decomposing the wind velocity into components parallel ( head wind or tail wind ) and orthogonal ( cross wind ) to the jet velocity vector , @xmath40 , near its terminus .
that is , we set @xmath41 where @xmath42 .
when @xmath43 ; that is , whenever there is a tail wind , @xmath44 , or a head wind , @xmath45 , the rate of advance of the jet terminus will be modified ; when @xmath46 the jet propagation will be deflected laterally .
although we present the model in the context of a post - shock flow , the formalism applies to any relative motion between the agn and its ambient medium .
indeed the model is essentially a merger and modest extension of classical cartoons of agn jet propagation @xcite .
simply stated , jet advance and deflection are influenced by parallel and transverse ram pressures created by the wind .
we begin by considering the influence of an ambient wind motion aligned with the jet velocity ; that is , consequences of @xmath43 . to keep the discussion simple we consider here only steady , collimated jets ( zero opening angle ) and homogeneous ambient media .
we adopt the standard picture that the advance of the jet terminus into the icm can be expressed in terms of the propagation of a contact discontinuity that forms at the head of the jet @xcite . _
relative to the agn _ , that boundary ( the jet `` head '' ) propagates at velocity , @xmath47 , where @xmath48 represents the length of the jet from the agn .
there will be a bow shock propagating into the wind , ahead of the head , as well as a reverse , `` terminal '' shock in the jet .
the simple , 1d cartoon model ignores these details , drawing a box around all this and assumes the jet thrust ; that is , the total jet momentum flux coming in through an area , @xmath49 , is balanced by the total wind momentum flux coming in on the opposite side of the box , again , through an area , @xmath50 . in reality , because both jet and wind plasma will , as `` back flow '' , exit the face of the box through which the jet enters ( and box sides ) , the effective sizes of the box faces need to be larger than @xmath50 .
we can crudely account for this asymmetry by setting the effective area allocated to the wind , @xmath51 , to be larger than the nominal cross section of the jet .
we comment , as well , that even for a collimated jet the radius , @xmath52 , will not generally be a constant along the length of the jet , especially when it becomes over or under pressured with respect to its surroundings . in that case , for instance , the propagating jet plasma will execute a sequence of expansions and rarefactions around an equilibrium radius . consequently , the jet velocity , @xmath7 , density , @xmath8 , and pressure , @xmath6 , will all vary along a real jet . our analysis here does not try to account for dynamics at that level of detail , so we will assume below that the jet has some suitably chosen characteristic radius , @xmath52 , density , @xmath8 and pressure , @xmath6 .
we allow both the jet velocity and equation of state ( eos ) to be either non - relativistic or relativistic , although we will assume the propagation of the wind and the head through the wind in the agn reference frame are non - relativistic .
then , the jet 4-velocity is @xmath53 , with @xmath54 the lorentz factor of the jet velocity , @xmath7 , while the enthalpy density of the jet plasma in the jet plasma frame is @xmath55 , with @xmath56 the internal energy density of the jet plasma , including rest mass energy , @xmath57 .
the jet momentum flux density in the agn frame can be written @xcite @xmath58 the jet thrust is @xmath59 for a non - relativistic eos , where @xmath60 , @xmath61 , while for a relativistic eos , where @xmath62 , @xmath63 .
it will be useful later on also to have expressions for the jet energy flux density in the agn frame .
subtracting off the rest mass energy this is @xmath64,\end{aligned}\ ] ] so that the `` luminosity '' of the jet is @xmath65 we define the _ internal _ jet mach number as , @xmath66,@xcite where @xmath67 is the jet sound speed , with @xmath68 . for a relativistic eos @xmath69 , while @xmath70 , so @xmath71 .
note in this limit that the jet mach number , @xmath72 , which , if @xmath73 gives @xmath74 .
this makes clear that the fact that a jet velocity is close to the speed of light does not , by itself , imply a high mach number for the jet dynamics .
a non - relativistic eos with @xmath75 recovers the familiar @xmath76 .    with these definitions
the momentum flux density is @xmath77.\ ] ] setting @xmath78 , this becomes simply @xmath79 .
\label{eq : momflux}\ ] ] for a relativistic eos @xmath80 , whereas for a non - relativistic eos , @xmath81 , the usual gas adiabatic index . written in this form
the expression for the jet momentum flux is virtually the same for relativistic or non - relativistic jets .
if , as is often the case , @xmath82 we can neglect the second term in square brackets . then , the jet thrust for either relativistic or non - relativistic flow is @xmath83 in either regime the thrust depends simply on the internal jet pressure and the internal jet mach number .    the jet luminosity is not quite so tidy , but still simple to express . for a non - relativistic eos
the luminosity would be @xmath84 a_j,\ ] ] which , with @xmath85 , but @xmath86 and @xmath87 takes the simple familiar form , @xmath88 at the other extreme , with a relativistic eos , @xmath89 , and @xmath90 , the luminosity is also simple to express ; namely , @xmath91 since , now @xmath92 .
again , in this form the relativistic and non - relativistic expressions are almost the same .
the jet luminosity can , like the thrust , be described in terms of the jet pressure and mach number , but now also in terms of a jet speed , @xmath7 , ( which may @xmath93 ) .
we return now to estimating the rate at which the jet terminus propagates through its surrounding plasma .
the momentum flux balance condition determining the propagation velocity , @xmath94 , is actually measured in the frame of the head , so we should transform the momentum flux relations to that frame . however , provided @xmath95 , it is easy to show that the fractional change in @xmath96 is small .
we will neglect that correction below .
the momentum balance condition becomes , @xmath97.\ ] ] using equation [ eq : momflux - ap ] this leads to @xmath98 \approx    \mathcal{m}_j^2 \frac{\gamma'}{\gamma_w}\frac{a_j p_j}{a_h p_w }   \label{eq : headv - vel}\ ] ] or , @xmath99 \approx    \mathcal{m}_j^2 \frac{\gamma'}{\gamma_w}\frac{a_j}{a_h}\frac{p_j}{p_w }   \label{eq : headv - mach}\ ] ] where @xmath100 and @xmath101 are the mach numbers of the jet head advance and the head / tail wind with respect to the agn
. then , of course , @xmath102 is the wind sound speed . in equations
[ eq : headv - vel ] and [ eq : headv - mach ] the upper ( lower ) sign corresponds to a tail ( head ) wind .
if @xmath103 we have the simple result @xmath104 that is , the mach number of the advance of the head relative to its ambient medium is similar to the internal mach number of the jet modified by a factor that depends mostly on the ratio of the integrated jet pressure , @xmath105 , to the integrated wind pressure ( isotropic pressure , not ram pressure ) `` across the head '' , @xmath106 . in our simulation experiments with steady , fixed axis , non - relativistic jets @xmath107 provides reasonable matches between simulated jet propagation and equations [ eq : headv - vel ] , [ eq : headv - mach ] and [ eq : headv - app ] .
some insights into appropriate @xmath108 are useful going forward .
our discussions relate to jets that are pressure confined as they propagate .
so , we expect @xmath109 , where @xmath110 represents the pressure of whatever medium is immediately surrounding the jet
. if a jet enters a region where it is out of pressure balance , it will generally expand or converge to compensate . as noted above
, the pressures within simulated jets are actually quite non - uniform as a result . on average , however , we find , independent of the pressure assignd to a simulated jet at its origin , the average pressure along the propagating jet becomes roughly comparable to the ambient pressure .
we also find in simulations and argue in section [ sec : cocoon ] that the pressure inside jet cocoons are commonly roughly similar to those in the undisturbed surroundings , even though the cocoon formation drives a shock into its surroundings .
consequently , we expect within a factor of a few that @xmath111 . nonetheless , we leave such ratios as undetermined in our analyses , in order to reveal their roles .
we note also for non - relativistic jets with non - relativistic eos that , since for both the jet and the ambient medium , @xmath76 , equation [ eq : headv - app ] can be written @xmath112 independent of @xmath108 .
this recovers the commonly applied assumption that , modulo `` an efficiency factor '' ( @xmath113 ) the advance speed of the jet head is roughly the jet speed reduced by a factor of the square root of the density ratio between the ambient medium and the jet when the jet and its advance are both highly supersonic @xcite .
it is further evident from these relations , as we would expect intuitively , that the advance speed of the jet with respect to the agn , @xmath114 , is greater when it propagates downstream with a wind ( a `` tail wind '' ) than if it propagates upstream into a wind ( a `` head wind '' ) .
in fact a jet propagating into a sufficiently strong head wind can be stopped , or even reversed . using equation [ eq : headv - app ] the approximate condition for the head wind to stop forward progress of the head is @xmath115 we have verified this condition in our simulations ( see figure [ fig : aljet ] ) .
although the above results would be applicable for any agn relative motion through its ambient medium when the agn jets are aligned with the relative motion , we introduced the issue in the context of post - shock icm flows . in that case
it is useful to express these relations in terms of wind properties resulting from icm shocks . to keep it simple ,
we assume that the pre - shock icm plasma was at rest with respect to the agn , although that is easily modified . again expressing the icm shock mach number as @xmath18 we have ( assuming @xmath116 ) , @xmath117 where ,
as above , the subscript index ` i ' identifies the unshocked icm , and ` w ' indicates post - shock icm ( the `` wind '' ) .    applying equations [ eq : jump - d ] - [ eq : jump - a ] to equation [ eq : headstop ] we obtain an approximate relation for the strength , @xmath118 , of an icm shock that can stop the advance of an approaching jet of internal mach number , @xmath119 in a `` head on collision '' when the agn is at rest in the undisturbed icm ; namely @xmath120 where @xmath121 .
as noted above , we expect for steady jets with fixed axes , @xmath122 .
the function @xmath123 , for @xmath124 , corresponding to expected `` merger - related '' icm shock strengths . as a rough rule of thumb ,
then , an agn jet running head on into a shock will be stopped or reversed if the mach number of the shock is comparable to or even a bit less than the mach number of the jet .
the above behaviors are illustrated in figure [ fig : aljet ] for two , simulated non - relativistic shock - jet interactions with different relative shock strengths .
the views are 3d volume renderings of jet mass fraction ; that is , only plasma that originated from the agn is shown . in both cases , @xmath125 , and the shock normal was aligned with the ( bi - polar ) jet axis .
icm shock propagation was left - to - right , although in this view the shock plane was rotated 40 degrees from the line of sight , in order to reveal the structures more clearly .
the location of the agn is marked by an x in each case . the color map of the mass fraction tracer runs from `` white '' ( 100% ) through yellow , red , green and blue ( @xmath126 30% ) .
the figure upper panel represents the outcome for an icm shock with @xmath127 , whereas the lower panel involves a @xmath128 shock .
both are shown at approximately the same time interval since initial contact between the shock and the left - facing ( upwind ) jet . in the bottom panel the stronger
shock has left the computational domain to the right after reversing the left - facing jet and crushing the two original jet plasma cocoons and stripping them from the jets .
the `` smoke ring '' to the right is the resulting vortex ring structure , whose formation out of the pre - shock cavities was outlined in the previous section .
the flaring seen at the right end of the remaining ( downwind ) jet represents the head of that jet .
the shocked jet plasma is unable to propagate back to the agn through the strong right - facing wind behind this shock .
it is not able to refill a cocoon ( see section [ sec : cocoon ] ) .
the jet remains `` naked '' .
several agns in disturbed clusters have been seen that are candidates for this interaction .
probably the best known example is the radio source ` c ' in a2256 , @xcite which has a roughly 1 mpc , very thin ( unresolved ) `` tail '' extending to the west of an agn , but nothing evident to the east .
indeed , that agn is seen projected near a strong  radio relic  in the cluster , suggesting that it could have passed through a moderately strong cluster merger shock .
the weaker and slower icm shock involved in the upper figure [ fig : aljet ] panel dynamics is still in the volume illustrated , although not directly visible in this rendering . in the undisturbed
icm its position along the jet axis is about 2/3 of the distance from the agn x to the right end of the right - facing jet head . inside the right - side cocoon , the shock has just reached the head at this time .
we found experimentally in this case that an incident shock with @xmath129 would just stop the approaching ( left facing in the figure ) jet .
illustration from simulations of icm shocks colliding head on with @xmath125 agn jet pairs .
both panels are volume renderings of a passive jet mass - fraction tracer .
shock propagation was left to right .
x marks agn location .
the jet axes are rotated 40 degrees out of the plane of the sky with the left jets approaching the observer .
* top * : @xmath130 .
* bottom * : @xmath131 .
see text for details.,scaledwidth=48.0%,scaledwidth=41.0% ]    thus , evidence for relative agn foreshortening to one side has the potential to find and even measure the strengths of icm shocks or winds .      in the presence of a cross wind , @xmath46 ( see figure [ fig : cartoon ] ) , the jet is subjected to an unbalanced transverse ram pressure force , @xmath132 .
particularly , if that cross wind results from a crossing shock , the jet cocoon ( cavity ) will be crushed and stripped away from the propagating jet ( see figure [ fig : orjet ] ) . from that point on the jet
interacts directly with the wind , and we can estimate the induced transverse pressure gradient within the jet as @xmath133 then the transverse acceleration of a steady jet is determined by the relation @xmath134 we can use @xmath135 as a way to estimate the length @xmath136 over which the transverse ram pressure from the wind will deflect the jet by 90 degrees ; that is , the `` jet bending length '' . neglecting the ( initially small ) second term inside the parentheses in equation [ eq : ftrans ] this gives , @xmath137 where the final expression has used equation [ eq : momflux - ap ] .
analogous to the results of the previous subsection we can also write this final form in terms of the jet mach number , @xmath119 and the cross - wind mach number , @xmath138 , @xmath139 if the jet and wind pressures are comparable , the ratio of the jet bending length , @xmath136 , to the jet diameter , @xmath140 , is roughly @xmath141 .
a little bit of algebra shows that equation [ eq : ellbend ] matches the bending radius of curvature derived in @xcite for an agn moving supersonically through an ambient medium at right angles to the jet axis .
of course , only relative motion matters , and here we emphasize that it is not necessary that the cross wind is supersonic for the bending to develop .
the bending radius will , however , scale inversely with the square of the mach number of relative motion .
so , once again , obvious distortion in the agn points to relatively large mach number of the relative motion between the agn and its immediate surroundings .
assuming the cross wind under discussion comes entirely from an icm shock propagating transverse to the jet axis , we can use equations [ eq : jump - d ] - [ eq : jump - a ] to give a relation between the jet bending length , the jet radius , the jet mach number and the icm shock mach number , @xmath18 , @xmath142 by convention , when the jet length , @xmath48 satisfies @xmath143 , but @xmath144 the resulting agn morphology would be describe as a `` wide angle tail '' radio galaxy , or a  wat " . as the ratio @xmath145 becomes smaller , the morphological label would shift to `` narrow angle tail '' or `` nat '' .    figure [ fig : orjet ] illustrates results from a simulation of a @xmath131 shock that crossed from the left and collided at right angles with a pair of @xmath146 jets oriented vertically in the image . equation
[ eq : lbend - mi ] predicts @xmath147 , which is actually very close to the empirical result of the simulation . as in figure
[ fig : aljet ] this image shows a volume rendering of the passive jet mass fraction tracer .
the shock plane has again been rotated 40 degrees from the line of sight to make 3d structures more distinct .
we comment on the close resemblance between the structures visible in figure [ fig : orjet ] and the `` classic '' nat source , ngc1265 @xcite , whose morphology has long been modeled in terms of a strong cross wind in the rest frame of the host galaxy . here
the wind is a feature of the post - shock environment .
that has also been suggested for ngc1265 @xcite .
simulation of an @xmath131 shock that crossed from the left and collided at right angles with an @xmath146 agn jet pair ( vertical jet axis in the image ) .
shown is a volume rendering of a passive jet mass - fraction tracer after the shock has passed through the volume shown .
x marks agn location .
view orientation is the same as figure [ fig : aljet ] .
see text for details.,scaledwidth=48.0%,scaledwidth=41.0% ]    note that the two jets in figure [ fig : orjet ] remain stable long after they are deflected by @xmath148 degrees into `` tails '' , even though turbulent mixing regions develop around them and enlarge downstream .
the tails merge at the far right into a pair of merging vortex rings that formed along the lines outlined in section [ sec : shock - cavity ] as the icm shock crushed the two jet cocoons produced before shock impact .
the jets can be traced as coherent structures almost to the vortex rings .
the shock itself has left the observed volume to the right at the time shown .    finally , we comment on the more complex case where an incident shock collides at an arbitrary angle with respect to the agn jet axis , or more generally when the agn jets encounter an oblique wind .
since @xmath149 is initially the same for both jets , the rate of jet deflection indicated by equation [ eq : ftrans ] would , before deformation , be the same for both jets ( see figure [ fig : cartoon ] ) .
the aligned wind velocity , @xmath150 , has the same magnitude , but opposite sign on the two jets .
the downwind jet , where @xmath151 , thus advances more rapidly . as the jets begin to be deflected , however , the upwind jet , where @xmath45 , is deflected to be more nearly transverse to the wind ( @xmath149 increases along the jet on that side ) , while the downwind jet is deflected to be more nearly aligned with the wind ( @xmath150 increases along this jet ) .
consequently , the upwind jet becomes more sharply bent than the downwind jet .
we have confirmed in simulations a regular transitioun along these lines between the aligned wind interactions described in section [ subsec : term ] . and cross wind interactions outlined at the beginning of this section .
evidently , such asymmetries can provide information about both the relative mach numbers of the jets and a wind and the relative orientations of the wind and the jets .
the shape evolution of the two jets depends distinctively on the ratio of two mach numbers as well as the orientation between the agn jet axis and the wind velocity vector , @xmath152 .
thus , the resulting shape provides a means to determine both @xmath153 and @xmath154 .
also , it is obvious that if the `` weather conditions '' encountered by jets vary as they extend through the icm , additional morphological features are likely to develop that can be used to identify and characterize these icm structures .
we began this discussion with an outline of shock propagation through a pre - existing cavity formed by agn outflows ; that is a jet cocoon .
then we outlined propagation of the jets themselves in the post - shock flow .
the shocks both crush the cocoon and may , if the wind `` stripping '' is faster than replacement from the jet terminus , remove the cocoon ( see figures [ fig : aljet ] and [ fig : orjet ] ) .
we did not , however , address what might be learned from the cocoons themselves , in order to tie the pieces together , here we outline briefly some of the related physics connecting the jet propagation to the formation of the jet cocoon before shock impact . since our purpose is only to lay out a rough picture of cocoon inflation ,
we ignore in this section complications such as relative motions between the agn and its ambient icm , the presence of large scale pressure or density gradients , or icm turbulence .
all of these will modify cocoon morphology and quantitative measures , although they should not fundamentally change the basic picture presented here .    in simple terms
the cocoon represents the reservoir of plasma that has previously passed through the jet .
the cocoon plasma will generally be of substantially lower density than the surrounding icm , with the two media nominally separated by a contact discontinuity . because it is also a `` slip surface '' , that boundary is likely to be unstable to kelvin - helmholtz instabilities ( khi ) , so that some degree of mixing will take place ( unless , for instance , magnetic fields in or around the cocoon are strong enough and coherent enough to stabilize the contact discontinuity @xcite ) .
figure [ fig : noshock - color ] shows volume renderings of cocoons formed from two simulated steady agn jet pairs . in each case the agn ( marked by an ` x ' ) expelled identical , but oppositely directed jets . the rendered quantity is the same passive mass fraction tracer shown in figures [ fig : aljet ] and [ fig : orjet ] . in this case
the jet axis is viewed in the plane of the sky .
the upper image corresponds to a @xmath125 jet pair , while the lower image represents the cocoons of a @xmath146 jet pair .
the structures are viewed when @xmath155 .
the jets , themselves , are faintly recognizable inside the cocoons and along the cocoon axes .
the cocoon boundaries are clearly influenced by khi ; some mixing has occurred .
indeed the small differences between the left and right cocoons come from detailed differences in the khi on the two sides that are seeded by the mismatch between a mathematically circular jet and a cartesian numerical grid .
khi details depend on the exact placement of the agn on the numerical grid .
the jet mass fraction dominating the images @xmath156 . despite such complications ,
there is a relatively clear cocoon boundary , so we assume below that the jet cocoon and the surrounding icm are cleanly separated .     jet `` backflow '' cocoons formed by @xmath125 ( * top * ) and @xmath146 ( * bottom * ) steady jets .
a passive , jet mass - fraction tracer is volumed rendered in the images .
the jets are `` in the plane of the sky '' and shown when they have approximately the same lengths , @xmath48 .
the location of the agn is marked by an ` x ' .
see text for details.,scaledwidth=48.0%,scaledwidth=41.0% ]    the energy deposition from the jet into the cocoon will generally drive a shock laterally outward into the icm .
we will call this the `` inflation shock '' .
provided the jet terminus propagates supersonically into the icm ( @xmath157 , equation [ eq : headv - mach ] ) there will be a bow shock attached to the jet head , which will generally merge with the inflation shock . in figure [
fig : noshock - color ] the tips of the two cocoons are confined by bow shocks .
the tighter `` mach cone '' of the higher mach number jet leads to `` sharper points '' in the cocoons .
although the bow shock may be quite strong , both observations and simulations suggest that the inflation shock is typically rather weak .
for example the @xmath146 jets shown in the bottom of figure [ fig : noshock - color ] and in figure [ fig : noshock - mach ] produce bow shocks with @xmath158 ( @xmath159 ) on the nose of the jet in agreement with expectations from equation [ eq : headv - app ] .
on the other hand , over much of their surfaces the accompanying both inflation shocks have mach numbers , @xmath160 for the duration of the simulation ( see figure [ fig : noshock - mach ] ) .
there is no fixed value , however .
the relatively small mach numbers of most of the inflation shock surfaces also point to the fact that the pressure inside the shocks and inside the cocoons is not much greater than the ambient pressure , @xmath13 ( see equation [ eq : jump - p ] ) .
because these properties do not inherently lead to scale - free structures , we do not try to model cocoon formation in terms of self - similar behavior @xcite .
volume rendering of the shocks associated with the @xmath146 simulation shown in the bottom image of figure [ fig : noshock - color ] .
the * top * image matches the orientation of the bottom image in figure [ fig : noshock - color ] , while the * bottom * image has the jet axis rotated 40 degrees , with the left jet approaching ( so similar to figures [ fig : aljet ] and [ fig : orjet ] .
shocks are color coded , with the strongest shocks , @xmath161 shown in white , with @xmath162 represented by purple .
x marks agn location .
see text for details.,scaledwidth=48.0%,scaledwidth=41.0% ]    still , it makes sense to estimate the volume of the cocoon simply by comparing the work required to inflate the cocoon to the energy that has passed down the jet into the cocoon .
very simply , we set @xmath163 , where @xmath164 is a numerical factor that accounts for energy lost by the cocoon plasma as it inflated .
accounting for adiabatic work done on the icm would lead to @xmath165 . for a non - relativistic jet with @xmath87
, this would give @xmath166 , while for a jet with a relativistic eos and @xmath167 , the equivalent consequences would give @xmath168 .
empirical estimates from non - relativistic simulations do , indeed , suggest @xmath169.@xcite the exact value for @xmath170 is not essential to our purposes here .    as a primitive model for cocoon geometry
we assume the cocoon length is set by @xmath171 , giving @xmath172 where @xmath173 represents a characteristic cocoon cross sectional area .
we do not imply in this that the cocoon cross section is constant , and , indeed , it generally will not be ( see figure [ fig : noshock - color ] ) . in practice
we treat it as a geometric average cross section .
to simplify our treatment further , we express the jet luminosity in the form applicable to both relativistic and non - relativistic jets suggested by equations [ eq : ljet - nonrel ] and [ eq : ljet - rel ] ; that is , @xmath174 where @xmath175 .
for a relativistic jet @xmath73 in this expression .
from equation [ eq : headv - app ] we write @xmath176 combining equations [ eq : cvol - simp ] , [ eq : ljet - simp ] and [ eq : headv - simp ] gives a simple estimate for @xmath173 , @xmath177 we expect @xmath178 , and , indeed using equation [ eq : ac - nonrel ] , below , and the simulation parameters for the cocoons shown in figure [ fig : noshock - color ] we get consistent estimates for @xmath173 using @xmath179 .
note that , if these various jet parameters are time independent , the effective cocoon cross section , @xmath173 is steady in time .
that is , the ratio @xmath180 .
we briefly address alternative possibilities below .    for a relativistic jet with a relativistic eos , @xmath181 , while @xmath182 , and equation
[ eq : ac - gen ] becomes , @xmath183 while for a non - relativistic jet , @xmath184 the only difference between equations [ eq : ac - rel ] and [ eq : ac - nonrel ] is a relative factor @xmath185 in equation [ eq : ac - rel ] .
we can see from these relations that the cocoon cross section scales with the geometric mean of the jet cross section , @xmath50 and the jet head cross section , @xmath51 .
it is strongly boosted if the jet mach number is large ( especially for non - relativistic jets ) , and , with less sensitivity , to a large density contrast between the icm and the jet , @xmath186 .
that is , cocoons will be somewhat fatter for jets with larger density contrast , @xmath187 , but especially fatter for larger mach numbers .
we are assuming in these comments that , as argued previously , we should expect @xmath188 .
the mach number sensitivity of @xmath173 is evident in a comparison of the non - relativistic jet cocoons shown in figure [ fig : noshock - color ] , where the only difference in the two simulations was jet mach number ; above , @xmath125 , while below , @xmath146 .
the @xmath146 cocoon , in particular , is , as noted above , strongly tapered , representing the fact that the mach cone at its nose has strongly confined it .
we associate @xmath173 with the mean cross sectional area , which here would be roughly midway between the agn and the jet terminus .
the reader may have noticed at the same time that the cocoons from the jets shown in figure [ fig : noshock - color ] are relatively skinny compared to typical , observed radio galaxy cocoons .
that is characteristic of the properties of moderate mach number , non - relativistic agn jet simulations that are steady and maintain a precise axis for the jets .
on the other hand , if either the jet power cycles substantially or the axis of the jet wanders or precesses , the relative rate at which the jet advances is reduced @xcite . in order to maintain the same cocoon volume indicated in equation [ eq : cvol - simp ] the cross section must increase .
this effect can , be roughly accounted for in equations [ eq : headv - simp ] - [ eq : ac - nonrel ] by adjusting the effective head area , @xmath51 .
for instance , a precessing jet will balance its thrust during a precession period over an area , @xmath189 , where @xmath190 is the instantaneous length of the jet .
applied into equation [ eq : headv - simp ] the head advance rate , @xmath191 . if we maintain constant jet luminosity , @xmath192 , so @xmath193 .
now , @xmath194 const , rather than @xmath180 .
simultaneously , the volume swept out by the precessing jet itself will be @xmath195 , where @xmath196 is the opening angle of the precession cone .
this sets a scale for the effective @xmath197 .
these effects both fatten the cocoons relative to what we derived above .    finally , we mention that equation [ eq : ac - rel ] predicts rather fat cocoons for high mach number relativistic jets propagating in an environment where @xmath198 .
that is consistent with results of numerical simulations of relativistic hydrodynamical jets @xcite , and also simulations of jets dominated by their poynting flux ( so , internally highly relativistic ) @xcite .
the plasma media in galaxy clusters , icms , are dynamical .
they are stirred by many processes associated with cluster assembly .
the dynamical state of an icm provides unique information about how this takes place , so it is important to find and evaluate icm dynamical conditions , especially those far away from equilibrium .
x - ray observations can reveal critical information about icm thermodynamical properties , some statistical characteristics of icm dynamical states and find relatively strong shocks in higher density icm regions .
but , much of the story is not visible in the x - ray window . on the other hand , agns in so - called `` radio mode ''
are common in clusters , and especially in disturbed clusters .
those agns expel fast plasma jets that plow through the icm .
those interactions will influence the icm and its evolution .
more to the point of this paper , however , is the considerable impact of icm dynamics on the trajectories and of the agn jets and the distributions of their debris . in particular , impacts between icm shocks and winds will distort and even disrupt the agn structures that form . through an understanding of how those distortions develop and
how they depend on the agn and icm properties we hope to open a clearer window to revealing the dynamical structures of icms . by relating those structures to other information about the dynamical state of the cluster , and , for instance , evidence for merging , strong accretion events or gravitational disturbance by dark matter halos
, these insights can provide vital probes of cluster formation processes and their relative roles .
we have laid out in this paper a simple summary of some of the essential dynamical relationships involved in agn / icm interactions , with a special focus on interactions involving icm shocks .
the nominal target application is icm shocks colliding with agn outflows .
we pointed out , however , that the relations we developed have application to any relative motion between the agn and its immediate environment .
the formalism allows agn jets that are either non - relativistic or relativistic .
we set down basic relations to evaluate shock interactions with the low density cavities created by agn jets , as well as to follow the propagation of the jets within post - shock flows . for completeness
, we used the same formalism to provide a basic context for the formation of the cavities themselves .
one notable aspect of the relationships we derive is the essential roles of the internal mach number of the jet flow and the mach number of the icm shock .
more directly , the ratio of these two mach numbers seems central to evaluating the interactions between the agn and a dynamical ambient environment .
this provides a potentially useful link that can help develop quantitative understandings of icm dynamical states that otherwise are likely to remain obscure for some time .
twj and bo were supported in this work at the university of minnesota by nsf grant ast1211595 .
cn was supported by an nsf graduate fellowship under grant 000039202 .
twj , cn and bo gratefully acknowledge support and hospitality of the minnesota supercomputing insitute .
we thank an anonymous referee for constructive comments that improved the manuscript .
2ifxundefined [ 1 ] ifx#1 ifnum [ 1 ]
# 1firstoftwo secondoftwo ifx [ 1 ] # 1firstoftwo secondoftwo `` `` # 1''''@noop [ 0]secondoftwosanitize@url [ 0 ]  + 12$12  & 12#1212_12%12@startlink[1]@endlink[0]@bib@innerbibempty a. kravtsov & s. borgani , `` formation of galaxy clusters '' , araa * 50 * , 353 - 409 ( 2012 )        a. schekochihin & s. cowley , `` turbulence , magnetic fields and plasma physics in clusters of galaxies '' , phys .
plasmas * 13 * , 56501 - 56508 ( 2006 ) m. markevitch & a. vikhlinin , `` shocks and cold fronts in galaxy clusters '' , phys
* 443 * , 1 - 53 ( 2007 )        r. adam , b. comis , i. bartalucci , a. adane , p. ade , p. andre , a. beelen , a. benoit , a. bideaud , n. billot , o. bourrion , m. calvo , a. catalano , g. coiffard , a. daddabbo , f. desert , s. doyle , j. goupy , b. hasnoun , i. hermelo , c. kramer , g. lagache , s. leclercq , j. macias - perez , j. martino , p. mauskopf , f. mayet , a. monfardini , f. pajot , e. pascale , l. perotto , e. pointecouteau , n. pnthieu , g. pratt , v. reveret , a. ritacco , l. rodrigues , g. savini , k. schuster , a. sievers , s. triqueneaux , c. tucker & r. zylka , `` high angular resolution sunyaev - zeldovich observations of macs j1423.8 + 2404 with nika : multi - wavelength analysis '' , a. & a. * 586 * , 122 - 138 ( 2016 )                                  a. bonafede , h. intema , m. bruggen , m. girardi , m. nonino , n. kantharia , r. van weeren & h. rottgering , `` evidence for particle re - acceleration in the radio relic in the galaxy cluster plckg287.0 + 32.9 '' , ap.j . * 785 * , 1 - 14 ( 2014 )


in recent years , there has been intense research work in the topic of highly inhomogeneous light beams , and in particular , in light carrying orbital angular momentum ( oam)also called twisted light ( tl ) @xcite .
the research in tl spans several areas , such as the generation of beams @xcite , the interaction of tl with atoms and molecules @xcite or with condensed matter @xcite .
tl has already proved to be useful in applications .
the most notable example is perhaps the optical trapping and manipulation of microscopic particles @xcite .
applications in other fields are also sought , for example in quantum information technology , where the oam adds a new degree of freedom encoding more information @xcite .
in addition , theoretical studies in solid state physics predict , for instance , that tl can induce electric currents in quantum rings @xcite , and new electronic transitions ( forbidden for plane waves ) in quantum dots @xcite .
this all suggests that tl can be a new powerful tool to control quantum states in nanotechnological applications .
two features of tl are particularly striking .
first , tl exhibits a vortex or phase singularity at the beam axis .
second , polarization and oam are so intermixed that two beams having the same oam but opposite circular polarization behave in a completely different way .
this is in contrast to what happens to plane waves , where the polarization alone does not determine other important properties .
these two features can also be found in other inhomogeneous beams , namely the so - called azimuthally polarized @xcite fields .
the interaction between tl and matter is particularly interesting due to the inhomogeneous nature of the tl , and it is worth revisiting its mathematical formulation .
the most general form to describe the light - matter interaction is the minimal coupling hamiltonian , where the electromagnetic ( em ) fields enter through their potentials . in many cases of interest
, the hamiltonian can be rewritten in terms of em fields using gauge transformations , i.e. , transformations among potentials that preserve the em fields @xcite . usually , the transformations are accompanied by approximations .
one of the best - known among these hamiltonians is the dipole - moment approximation ( dma ) .
it can be derived under the assumption that the em fields vary little in the region where the matter excitation takes place , and effectively the electric field @xmath0 is treated as spatially homogeneous .
the dma hamiltonian then takes the form @xmath1 , where @xmath2 is the dipole moment of the material system .
while gauge invariance is a symmetry property of the electromagnetic interaction and therefore all observable quantities have to be independent of the special choice of a gauge , this independence is usually lost when approximations are performed @xcite .
a standard example is the @xmath3-@xmath4 two - photon transition in a hydrogen atom where it has been explicitly shown that in the case of the @xmath5 coupling already very few intermediate states are sufficient to obtain a very accurate results while in the case of the @xmath6 coupling a very large number of intermediate states is required @xcite .
a similar behavior has been found in calculations of the level width of microwave transitions for the measurement of the lamb shift @xcite . also for single photon transitions in a h@xmath7 ion large differences between the two gauges
have been found when variational wave functions for the molecular orbitals are used with , e.g. for the @xmath8-@xmath9 transition , a strong preference of the @xmath10 coupling @xcite .
the dma form of light - matter coupling is advantageous for several additional reasons : because the dma only contains the electric field , it is manifestly gauge invariant .
the momentum operator has a clear physical meaning and can be used directly for the calculation of quantities like current densities .
in contrast , in the case of the minimal coupling there is an additional , gauge - dependent contribution , usually called the diamagnetic current @xcite .
the difference between the canonical and the mechanical ( or kinetic ) momentum may also lead to an apparent ambiguity in the definition of the photon momentum , as has been discussed in detail in a recent review by barnett et al .
finally , since the dma interaction hamiltonian is linear in the field it can be easily treated perturbatively while the minimal coupling hamiltonian contains terms linear and quadratic in the potential which therefore have to be combined in a proper way when calculating optical nonlinearities .
all these arguments show that a coupling in terms of the electric field has clear advantages .
in fact , when the light field is sufficiently homogeneous over the size of the matter system the dma is perfectly applicable .
this holds for example in atomic and molecular physics and also in the case of nanoscale systems such as quantum dots , where the matter states are highly localized .
when the inhomogeneous nature of the field becomes important the dma can not be used anymore .
one could perform calculations with the minimal coupling hamiltonian , which contains the vector potential . still , it is appealing to work with a hamiltonian which contains the electric and magnetic fields only ,
because then the theory is manifestly gauge invariant . of course , using the so - called poincar gauge @xcite one can formally rewrite the hamiltonian in terms of fields , however , it is not always possible to express the fields explicitly
. a desirable expression would be one resembling the electric dipole - moment hamiltonian , but retaining the spatial dependence : @xmath11 .
we will call this _ electric field coupling _ ( efc ) hamiltonian .
in addition to the dipole - moment coupling , the efc hamiltonian also contains higher order couplings in the electric field , e.g. , quadrupole moments .    in some situations
the spatial inhomogeneity of the field can be kept in an efc hamiltonian in a parametric way , while the transition matrix elements are determined by the coupling via the electric dipole term only @xcite , which has been used to describe for instance four - wave - mixing phenomena @xcite . because for tl new transitions are induced by its oam @xcite
, such an approach would not describe the main feature of tl and , thus , it is crucial to include the spatial dependence also in the transition matrix elements . under certain assumptions , e.g. ,
for the interaction with localized structures placed at the beam maximum , it is possible to cast the hamiltonian in a efc form , and thus , describe the modified selection rules @xcite for example using a power - zienau - woolley transformation @xcite .
however , in this paper we show that for tl - matter interaction in the vicinity of the beam axis an efc hamiltonian can not in general be used .
the tl - matter interaction at the phase singularity for highly focused beams has been analyzed using a multipolar expansion for electric and magnetic fields @xcite , which already revealed that higher order electric and magnetic terms can be of significant importance .
nevertheless , for a subgroup of tl beams we will show that it is possible to derive an electric multipolar hamiltonian for the tl - matter interaction close to the phase singularity , which offers the advantages of a dma hamiltonian .
we organize the article as follows . as a next step we briefly revisit the concepts of gauge transformation and dma hamiltonian necessary to understand the discussion ahead . in sec .
[ sec : tl ] we introduce the mathematical representations of tl . in sec .
[ heur ] , using a heuristic derivation much alike the one found in the literature for the dma , we arrive at the new expression for the tl - matter hamiltonian .
section [ sec : bfields ] shows that the atypical behavior of the electric and magnetic fields of tl is in part responsible for the need to modify the hamiltonian .
section [ lag ] is devoted to a careful derivation of the new hamiltonian .
we wrap up with the conclusions in sec .
[ conc ] . in the appendix
we discuss why the efc gauge , which seems to be the natural extension of the dma , is not useful for tl .
the starting point for a mathematical description of the effect of light on matter is the minimal coupling hamiltonian , that expresses the external em fields in terms of a scalar @xmath12 and a vector @xmath13 potential . for a single particle of mass @xmath14 and charge @xmath15 under a static potential @xmath16
, the hamiltonian reads @xmath17 ^ 2      + v(\mathbf r )      + { q } \ ,
u(\mathbf r , t ) \,.\ ] ] it is obtained from the lagrangian @xmath18 via the canonical momentum @xmath19 and the legendre transformation @xmath20 .
the relationship between potentials and the electric @xmath21 and magnetic @xmath22 fields are    @xmath23    gauge transformations are defined such that they preserve the electric and magnetic fields    [ eq : gauge - transf ] @xmath24    where @xmath25 is the scalar gauge transformation function . since the canonical momentum ( [ eq : canonical ] ) depends on the vector potential it is obviously gauge dependent .    in cases where the em fields vary little on the scale of the system , taken to be centered around @xmath26 , a gauge transformation
is sought that would render @xmath27 in the region around @xmath26 . assuming that for external radiation @xmath28 , this is achieved by the gppert - mayer gauge transformation @xmath29 @xcite leading to the new potentials    [ eq : gm - gauge ] @xmath30    by neglecting the derivatives of the old vector potential in the relevant region of space we can obtain @xmath31 .
this leads to the well - known dma hamiltonian @xmath32 which is evidently gauge - invariant .
it should be understood that the requirement @xmath33 in an extended region of space is a very stringent one , for it demands the magnetic field to be zero in that region , in violation to maxwell s equations for a propagating field .
a striking feature of the dma is that operators retain their physical meaning . as an important example
, we look at the momentum . due to the fact that @xmath27 , the canonical momentum in the new gauge is equal to the mechanical momentum @xmath34 .
the mechanical momentum is indeed important , since it is a form - invariant operator @xcite . as such ,
its eigenvalues are independent of the gauge and are therefore representing physical quantities .
the canonical momentum , on the other hand , is not form - invariant .
this is a drawback , because the quantized version of the canonical momentum , i.e. , the operator @xmath35 , is typically used to perform calculations ( see sect .
iv.a.2b of ref .
@xcite ) . in order
to obtain measurable quantities such as current densities , the correction due to the vector potential have to be taken into account , e.g. , in terms of a diamagnetic current @xcite .
the physical ( i.e. , gauge - independent ) current is then given by the sum of two gauge - dependent contributions .
it is obvious that the dma can not be used to describe the interaction of tl with objects placed close to the beam center because there the electric field and thus the whole light - matter coupling vanishes . in analogy with the dma , a transformation function @xmath36
could be used @xcite which keeps the spatial dependence of the vector potential , yielding new potentials    [ eq : local - dipole ] @xmath37    as expected , the new scalar potential has the dipole - like form as that resulting from the gppert - mayer transformation , but now with a position - dependent electric field .
like in the case of the dma the new vector potential does not vanish , but it contains spatial derivatives of the old one .
again , for sufficiently localized charges and a sufficiently smooth vector potential it may be permissible to disregard these terms resulting in new potentials @xmath38 and @xmath39 , with the concomitant benefits of equality of momenta .
we call this the electric field coupling ( efc ) approximation
. however , we will show below that for tl in the region close the the beam axis this gauge is not useful .
let us now come to the case of tl .
a tl beam can have different radial profiles such as laguerre - gaussian or bessel type beams . here
we will consider the case of a bessel beam , which has the advantage of being an exact solution of maxwell s equations @xcite .
in mathematical terms , the vector potential of a monochromatic tl beam in cylindrical coordinates @xmath40 , can be described by @xmath41 with components @xcite    [ eq : a_bessel ] @xmath42\ , ,   \\ \label{eq : a_bessel_phi }      a_\varphi(\mathbf r , t ) & = &      \sigma f_{q_r\ell}(r ) \sin[(\omega t - q_z z ) - ( \ell + \sigma)\varphi]\ , ,   \\ \label{eq : a_bessel_z }      a_z(\mathbf r , t ) & = &      -\sigma \frac{q_r}{q_z } f_{q_r\ell+\sigma}(r )      \sin[(\omega t - q_z z ) - ( \ell + \sigma)\varphi ] \ , , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}\ ] ]    with frequency @xmath43 , wave vectors @xmath44 and @xmath45 , related by @xmath46 , @xmath47 being the index of refraction of the medium , and @xmath48 , @xmath49 , @xmath50 denoting unit vectors in cylindrical coordinates .
the integer @xmath51 is related to the oam of the beam , as will be discussed in more detail below .
the circular polarization of the field , given by polarization vectors @xmath52 , is singled out with the variable @xmath53 , which yields left ( right)-handed circular polarization for the values @xmath54 .
sometimes , in particular in the quantum theory of light , @xmath53 is referred to as the spin angular momentum of the photon with @xmath55 being the spin per photon @xcite .
the radial profile of the beam @xmath56 is a bessel function : @xmath57 , with @xmath58 being the amplitude of the potential .
note that @xmath59 is a measure of the beam waist .
the vector potential of eq .
( [ eq : a_bessel ] ) satisfies the coulomb gauge condition @xmath60 and the vectorial helmholtz equation @xcite .     of the in - plane components of the vector potential ( and
thus of the in - plane components of the electric field ) for a non - vortex beam ( @xmath61 ) and tl beams ( @xmath62 ) . ]
figure [ fig : profile ] shows the beam profile @xmath63 of the in - plane components @xmath64 and @xmath65 and thus also of the in - plane components of the electric field for three different values of the oam : @xmath66 . in the region close to @xmath67 , we observe a main difference that exists between non - vortex beams and tl .
while for non - vortex beams ( @xmath61 ) the amplitude has a maximum at @xmath67 , for tl ( @xmath68 ) the amplitude of the in - plane components is zero there .
close to the origin , the profile of the in - plane components can be approximated by @xmath69 .    since for bessel functions the relation @xmath70 holds ,
it can be seen from eq .
( [ eq : a_bessel ] ) that the structure of the beam is unchanged if simultaneously the parameters @xmath71 are replaced by @xmath72 .
therefore in the following we will restrict ourselves to tl beams with @xmath73 .    in the paraxial approximation , when @xmath74 , the @xmath75-component of the vector potential is disregarded .
this case has been extensively used in the literature @xcite .
the vector potential in the paraxial approximation @xmath76 then reads @xmath77 in this approximation the positive and negative frequency components of @xmath78 are eigenstates of the angular momentum operator @xmath79 with eigenvalue @xmath80 , which can thus be identified with the oam per photon @xcite .
although this does not strictly hold in the non - paraxial case , for the sake of brevity , in the following whenever we refer to the oam of the beam , we are implicitly referring to the oam of its paraxial version .
the integer @xmath51 is also sometimes called the topological charge @xcite .
in this section , following the spirit of the dma , we derive a gauge transformation that captures the essential features of tl , and at the same time retains the advantages of the dma .
the derivation is intended to be intuitive and self - evident , and is only done for the paraxial vector potential eq .
( [ eq : ainitial ] ) . a formal analysis leading to the same results will be given in sec .
[ lag ] , where the more general form of the vector potential eq .
( [ eq : a_bessel ] ) will be used and also the limitations of the paraxial approximation will be discussed .
we are interested in the interaction of tl with a planar , localized structure , such as a quantum disk or a quantum dot , whose lateral dimensions are smaller than the the characteristic radial length scale @xmath81 of the beam ( i.e. , @xmath82 ) .
if such a structure is placed at a position with non - vanishing electric field , in particular close to the beam maximum , the conditions of the dma are satisfied and thus the dma is well applicable .
however , this is different in the case of such a structure centered at @xmath83 . at the beam center
the radial profile of the vector potential can be approximated by @xmath84 , with @xmath85 .
note that the vector potential eq.([eq : ainitial ] ) and consequently also the electric field at @xmath83 are zero and thus , within the dma there would be no interaction whatsoever .
motivated by the efc hamiltonian , we try a gauge transformation function of the form @xmath86 where we have defined a two - dimensional in - plane position vector @xmath87 out of the 3d vector @xmath88 , and added a constant prefactor @xmath89 to be determined later .
for @xmath90 the transformation obviously reduces to the efc case . according to eqs .
( [ eq : gauge - transf ] ) the potentials in the new gauge are calculated to    @xmath91 \ ,          \hat{\mathbf z } \
, , \nonumber \\      & & u^{pa}\,'(\mathbf r , t ) =      - \frac{1}{\beta } \mathbf r \cdot \mathbf e^{pa}(\mathbf r , t ) \,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    while the radial dependence of the scalar potential as well as of the in - plane components of the new vector potential is @xmath92 like in the case of the old vector potential , the remaining component @xmath93 is @xmath94 and can thus be neglected in the region close to the singularity .
this is consistent with keeping terms up to order @xmath95 . in the efc gauge ( @xmath90 ) we then have @xmath96 and @xmath97 .
thus , for @xmath98 the new vector potential is not smaller than the old one clearly demonstrating that this gauge does not help to reduce the difference between mechanical and canonical momentum .    on the other hand , when @xmath99 the in - plane components @xmath100 and @xmath101 of the new vector potential vanish for @xmath102 . as a result , @xmath103 .
the hamiltonian then reads @xmath104 we achieve a hamiltonian which contains an efc - like term , but with a different prefactor . furthermore , since the new vector potential vanishes , the canonical and mechanical momenta are equal .
we will refer to the transformation according to eq .
( [ eq : chi_beta ] ) with @xmath105 as the _ tl gauge_. the very reason for the new prefactor @xmath106 is the existence of a vortex , that causes the first term of an expansion of the vector potential near @xmath26 to be proportional to @xmath107 .        for the case @xmath108 ,
the gauge transformation with @xmath109 is not advantageous .
this is because @xmath110 , as seen by inspecting eq .
( [ eq : heur_anew ] ) , and it can not be neglected .
conversely , choosing @xmath111 ( for @xmath112 ) would remove the @xmath113-component but keep the @xmath114-component .
it is legitimate to wonder why there is such an asymmetry between tl fields having the same @xmath51 but differing in their circular polarization state , while an asymmetry of this type is not present in plane waves .
we will further explore this in the next section .
the aforementioned results suggest that there are two topologically distinct classes of tl fields , depending on the combination of oam and circular polarization , which we will study now in detail .
we calculate the electric and magnetic fields using the full form of the vector potential [ eq .  ( [ eq : a_bessel ] ) ] .
a plot of two representative cases of electric and magnetic fields for @xmath115 and @xmath116 , at @xmath117 and @xmath118 is presented in fig .
[ fig : efields ] . for comparison ,
the fields of a non - vortex beam with @xmath119 and @xmath120 are also shown .
the vectorial character of the non - vortex beam is similar to a plane wave with perpendicular @xmath121 and @xmath122 fields .
the amplitude is radially modulated according to the bessel function @xmath123 .
in contrast , in the case of tl with @xmath115 the field profiles are much more complex . when @xmath124 , the electric field is oriented azimuthally around the beam axis , and the magnetic field in the central region points inwards . for other values of @xmath125 ( or @xmath75 ) , the patterns change , but eventually both magnetic and electric fields cycle through the radially - like and azimuthally - like polarization patterns .
in contrast , when @xmath99 , the fields look entirely different , and never evolve into azimuthal or radial patterns .
we refer to these two as the anti - parallel [ sign@xmath126 sign@xmath127 and the parallel [ sign@xmath128 sign@xmath127 beam classes .
the field patterns shown in fig .
[ fig : efields ] gives an indication why a gauge , in which the scalar potential provides the dominant contribution to the coupling could be found in the parallel class but not in the anti - parallel class . in the central region the field lines of the electric field in the parallel class are similar to a vector field close to a saddle point .
such a vector field can indeed be written as the gradient of a scalar field .
in contrast , in the anti - parallel class the field lines of the electric field are obviously closed indicating that this is dominantly a vortex - type field which has a non - vanishing curl and therefore can not be obtained as a gradient of a scalar potential .
hence , in any gauge the interaction will mainly originate from the vector potential .
& & + & @xmath129 & @xmath130 $ ] & @xmath131 $ ] + & @xmath132 & @xmath133 $ ] & @xmath134 $ ] + & @xmath135 & @xmath136 $ ] & @xmath137 $ ] + & @xmath129 &    [ cols= " < " , ]      + & @xmath135 & 0 & 0 +    it is our interest to study the region close to the phase singularity @xmath83 .
thus , we provide analytical results for the field amplitudes in this region expanded in powers of @xmath138 .
table [ table : fields ] presents the lowest non - vanishing orders in @xmath138 of the electric and magnetic fields in the plane @xmath118 and at @xmath117 obtained from the full vector potential in eq .
( [ eq : a_bessel ] ) . in table
[ table : fields_parax ] the same fields but obtained from the potential in the paraxial approximation [ eq .  ( [ eq : ainitial ] ) ] are given .
note that the in - plane vector potential of eq .
( [ eq : ainitial ] ) gives rise to a @xmath75-component of the magnetic field ; this component , however , has a prefactor @xmath139 and therefore , in order to be consistent with the paraxial approximation , it has been omitted in table [ table : fields_parax ] .
indeed , it is clearly seen that if in table [ table : fields ] all terms containing a factor @xmath139 or @xmath140 are neglected the fields of table [ table : fields_parax ] are obtained .
let us first compare the full form and the paraxial case for the parallel class [ sign(@xmath51)@xmath141sign(@xmath53 ) , in our case @xmath120 ] . in the paraxial approximation we obtain pure in - plane fields with electric and magnetic fields having the same dependence on @xmath114 .
when calculated from the full vector potential , the magnetic field is slightly rescaled , the correction being of second order in the small parameter @xmath139 .
both fields acquire a small @xmath75-component which is of first order in @xmath139 .
additionally it is proportional to @xmath143 and thus decreases faster for @xmath144 than the in - plane components .
thus , these corrections are negligible in the region close to the phase singularity and the assumptions of the paraxial approximation are well satisfied in this region .    in the anti - parallel class [ sign(@xmath51 ) @xmath145 sign(@xmath53 ) , here @xmath108 ] , on the other hand , the @xmath75-components of the electric and magnetic fields still contain the small parameter @xmath139 , however the radial dependence is now proportional to @xmath147 .
the in - plane component of the electric field is still proportional to @xmath95 , thus at sufficiently small @xmath114 the electric field is always dominated by the @xmath75-component .
this clearly demonstrates that the paraxial approximation , which neglects the @xmath75-component , is not applicable in the region close to the phase singularity .
indeed , a careful look at the @xmath75-component of the vector potential in eq .
( [ eq : a_bessel ] ) reveals that already there the small factor @xmath139 is counterbalanced by a @xmath114-dependence which is one order lower than for the in - plane components and therefore dominates close to @xmath83 .
the dominance of the @xmath75-component of the fields is closely related to the field profiles in the anti - parallel case shown in fig .
[ fig : efields ] .
as already mentioned , the electric field profile has a non - vanishing curl which is oriented in the @xmath75-direction . according to maxwell s equation this curl
is associated with the time - derivative of a magnetic field , which therefore necessarily has to have a strong @xmath75-component close to @xmath83 .
half an oscillation period later , the roles of electric and magnetic fields in the central column of fig .
[ fig : efields ] are interchanged .
then the magnetic field lines are closed circles being associated with a strong @xmath75-component of the electric field close to the center
.    for angular momenta @xmath148 the magnetic field in the anti - parallel class has an additional correction which is of second order in @xmath139 but which has a @xmath114-dependence proportional to @xmath149 . for sufficiently small radii
this is the dominant contribution to the fields .
thus , in this case close to the center the beam is dominated by the magnetic field .
this holds in particular for the case @xmath150 , in which there is a non - vanishing in - plane magnetic field at the beam center while the electric field vanishes at this point .
this is again an indication that an efc - like hamiltonian is not applicable since with such a hamiltonian the interaction with matter is described only in terms of the electric field .
some research articles in the topics of highly focused tl and azimuthally / radially - polarized fields report similar findings to ours .
paraxial beams of tl can be focused using , e.g. , high - na lenses @xcite or a nanoantenna @xcite .
the theoretical analysis of focusing , based entirely on electric and magnetic fields , can be done using the formalism by wolf @xcite , and the results @xcite show important similarities with the field patterns presented in fig .
[ fig : efields ] .
azimuthally- and radially - polarized fields are a special class of tl fields @xcite .
the field patterns of azimuthally / radially - polarized _
non_-paraxial bessel beams presented by ornigotti et al .
@xcite are also in agreement with our findings . regarding the magnitude of the fields near @xmath83 zurita - snchez et al .
@xcite have shown that , for the strongly focused azimuthally - polarized beam they studied , the magnetic interaction overcomes the electric interaction near the phase singularity ; recently , their findings have been corroborated by the theoretical study of klimov et al .
@xcite in the case of focused laguerre - gaussian beams . finally , in their research on highly - focused tl beams , monteiro et al .
@xcite , iketaki et al .
@xcite and klimov et al .
@xcite report that interesting effects only occur when @xmath151 and @xmath108 .
the overall similarities are no coincidence , for the vector potential eq .
( [ eq : a_bessel ] ) in contrast to eq .
( [ eq : ainitial]) shares with the aforementioned _ non_-paraxial beams the important feature of having a non - negligible @xmath75-component , which we have shown to give rise to the described features .
we are now in a position to clarify the findings in the heuristic derivation of the tl - matter coupling shown in sec .
there it was assumed that there is no @xmath75-component in the vector potential . from table [
table : fields ] we see that the @xmath75-component of the fields are negligible only in the parallel class . in the anti - parallel class
they are proportional to @xmath152 . because for @xmath153 the magnetic field
can not be neglected compared to the electric field , we were not able to derive an efc - like hamiltonian .
in other words a hamiltonian representation given solely in terms of the electric multipoles , such as @xmath154 , is insufficient to describe the tl - matter interaction for the anti - parallel class .
the use of the gauge transformation function @xmath155 found in sec .
[ heur ] can be motivated using formal arguments . in the following we use the more general form of eq .
( [ eq : a_bessel ] ) for the vector potential in the coulomb gauge .    for charged particles localized around the same center
, a power - zienau - woolley ( pzw ) transformation can be done using the gauge function @xmath156 where @xmath157 is given in the coulomb gauge .
this is the generalization to inhomogeneous fields of the gppert - mayer transformation ( dma ) , and leads to the so - called poincar gauge @xcite . in our work
we focus on the interaction of tl with planar systems . therefore ,
if we consider a charge distribution mainly extended in the @xmath158 plane for a fixed @xmath75 , the quantity @xmath159 scales only in the in - plane component with @xmath160 ( see , e.g. , ref .
@xcite ) .
defining @xmath161 , the gauge function reads @xmath162 for small systems ( @xmath163 ) the radial dependence can be approximated by @xmath164 , which leads to @xmath165 . with these simplifications ,
we evaluate the integrals eq .
( [ eq : chi_poincare ] ) , and obtain @xmath166 the in - plane part of the transformation function @xmath155 is exactly the same as we got in sec .
in addition , there is a new term arising from the non - vanishing @xmath75-component of the vector potential .
note that we have neither required @xmath167 in the new gauge , nor have we neglected @xmath168 .
additionally , for non - vortex fields ( @xmath61 ) with negligible @xmath75-component our result coincides with that of the efc hamiltonian .
here we have motivated the use of eq .
( [ eq : chipzw ] ) by showing that the tl gauge function can formally be derived by a pzw transformation for charged particles localized in a planar structure ( constant @xmath75 ) .
since any gauge transformation function can be postulated and used to cast the potential in suitable forms , the tl gauge can also be applied to other more general structures for variable @xmath75 ( with varying degrees of accuracy or usefulness ) .
we see that the natural extension of the dma to the case of tl beams is slightly different from the plain efc hamiltonian . because of the generalized use of efc hamiltonians @xcite , it is worth exploring further its connection to our result . to this end ,
let us simply postulate a general gauge transformation of the form @xmath169 where @xmath170 is any number .
clearly , we can recover the tl gauge by @xmath171 and @xmath172 .
in contrast , when setting @xmath173 , eq .  ( [ eq : chigeneral ] ) reduces to the efc gauge . in the following
, we will again only consider the case of @xmath174 and polarization @xmath116 , since , as already discussed , there are no essential differences in the case with negative @xmath51 and opposite sign of @xmath53 .    according to eqs .
( [ eq : gauge - transf_u ] ) and ( [ eq : chigeneral ] ) , the scalar potential in the new gauge reads @xmath175 obviously in the scalar potential we recover an efc - type structure of the hamiltonian , however with in general different prefactors for the in - plane and out - of - plane components .
the new vector potential in the region close to the phase singularity is given by    [ eq : new_a ] @xmath176   \sin \left [ { \left ( { \omega t - { q_z}z } \right ) - \left ( { \ell   + \sigma } \right)\varphi } \right]\ , , \label{eq : new_a_r } \\ { { a'}_\varphi } & = & \frac{{{\beta _ r } - \left ( { 1 + \sigma \ell } \right)}}{{{\beta _ r } } }   { a_\varphi } - \frac{\sigma}{{{2\beta _ z } } } \frac{{q_r^2}}{{q_z^2}}{a_0 }   \frac{{\left ( { \ell   + \sigma } \right)}}{{\left ( { \ell   + \sigma } \right ) ! } }   { { \left ( { \frac{{{q_r}r}}{2 } } \right)}^{\ell   + \sigma   - 1 } } \left({q_z}z\right ) \nonumber \\   & & \mbox{\qquad}\times   \left [ 1 - \frac{1}{{\left ( { \ell   + \sigma   + 1 } \right ) } }   { { \left ( { \frac{{{q_r}r}}{2 } } \right)}^{2 } } \right ]   \cos \left [ { \left ( { \omega t - { q_z}z } \right ) - \left ( { \ell   + \sigma } \right)\varphi } \right]\ , , \label{eq : new_a_vp}\\ { { a'}_z } & = & \frac{{{\beta _ z } - 1}}{{{\beta _ z}}}{a_z }   - \frac{\sigma}{{{\beta _ z } } } \frac{{{q_r}}}{{{q_z}}}{a_0 }   \frac{1}{{\left ( { \ell   + \sigma } \right ) ! } }   { { \left ( { \frac{{{q_r}r}}{2 } } \right)}^{\ell   + \sigma } } \left({q_z}z\right ) \nonumber \\   & & \mbox{\qquad}\times \left [ 1 - \frac{1}{{\left ( { \ell   + \sigma   + 1 } \right)}}{{\left ( { \frac{{{q_r}r}}{2 } } \right)}^{2 } } \right ]   \cos \left [ { \left ( { \omega t - { q_z}z } \right ) - \left ( { \ell   + \sigma } \right)\varphi } \right ] \nonumber \\   & & - \frac{{2}}{{{\beta _ r}}}\frac{{{q_z}}}{{{q_r}}}{a_0}\frac{1}{{\ell ! } }   { \left ( { \frac{{{q_r}r}}{2 } } \right)^{\ell   + 1 } }   \sin \left [ { \left ( { \omega t - { q_z}z } \right ) - \left ( { \ell   + \sigma } \right)\varphi } \right]\,,\label{eq : new_a_z}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where we have used the expansion in powers of @xmath138 and kept all terms up to the order @xmath177 .    as discussed in sec .
[ heur ] for the paraxial approximation , also here it is obvious that the efc gauge with @xmath178 is not useful for tl because the transformed in - plane components of the vector potential are not smaller than the original ones .
in fact , for @xmath179 they are in general even larger .
a more detailed discussion of the efc gauge can be found in the appendix . in the following
we will restrict ourselves to the tl gauge @xmath180 and @xmath181 and discuss the vector potential for the different cases .
we remind that @xmath182 and @xmath183 are proportional to @xmath95 while @xmath184 .
we first examine the new vector potential in the parallel class , i.e. , sign(@xmath51 ) @xmath141 sign(@xmath53 ) or , more explicitly , @xmath99 .
the results are a direct extension to those found by the heuristic derivation in sec .
[ heur ] . in the parallel class
the radial dependence of the transformed potential is the same as for the original one .
moreover , each component of the vector potential contains a term proportional to the small quantities @xmath185 .
since we assume a planar structure these terms can be neglected .
then the expressions simplify to    @xmath186      a_{z}(\mathbf r , t ) \,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the first thing to notice is that the components @xmath187 and @xmath188 of the new vector potential are zero , as we have already found in sec .
therefore , in the hamiltonian @xmath189 the in - plane tl - matter interaction can be expressed solely by a dipole - like term @xmath190 with a prefactor different to the efc hamiltonian . for the @xmath75-component we have both a dipole - like term , but also
a term @xmath191 which still contains the vector potential .
we point out that @xmath192 a'_z\,^2(\mathbf r , t ) \propto ( q_r r)^{2\ell+2}$ ] , and may be safely disregarded .
it is interesting to also compare again the canonical and mechanical momenta .
their difference is given by @xmath193 also here the canonical and mechanical momenta are the same for the in - plane components and only in the @xmath75-component a difference in the momenta arises , which is however of the order @xmath143 and therefore one order higher than the correction to the in - plane momenta in the original gauge .
let us now consider what happens in situations of experimental and application interest .
we first address the situation when the interaction with the system only occurs through the in - plane components of the field , for example in the selective excitation of heavy holes in a quantum dot .
then , the tl - matter interaction reads @xmath194 and is modeled by electric multipoles only with all the benefits of a dma .
effectively we end up in the desirable situation where the vector potential is eliminated , as also shown in sec .
nevertheless the description is beyond the dma because it keeps the full spatial dependence of the electric field and thus can give rise to transitions which are forbidden in the case of excitation by plane waves , for example transitions from envelope function with @xmath195-type symmetry in the valence band to those with @xmath196-type symmetry in the conduction band or vice versa .
next , we consider the case where the system interacts with the @xmath75-component of the field , for example in intersubband transitions in quantum wells @xcite or the excitation of light holes @xcite . here , the electric multipoles are accompanied by a magnetic term arising from the non - vanishing @xmath75-component of the vector potential . however , since no atypical behavior of the fields near the phase singularity occurs , it is expected that the electric interaction is larger than the magnetic one as usually happens .
one could then safely only retain the electric multipolar term , and possibly neglect the difference between momenta .
therefore for the parallel class a hamiltonian with only electric dipole - moment terms having the correct prefactors can describe the tl - matter interaction at the phase singularity .      for the anti - parallel class
, we already found that a description with electric field only is not sufficient .
still , we can gain valuable insights from studying the anti - parallel case with sign(@xmath51 ) @xmath145 sign(@xmath53 ) , i.e. , @xmath124 . here , the vector potential reads :    @xmath197 a_\varphi(\mathbf r , t ) \ , , \\ \label{eq : apbeta4_varphi }      a_\varphi'(\mathbf r , t ) & = &      \frac{2\ell}{\ell+1 } a_\varphi(\mathbf r , t )      - \frac{q_r^2}{2q_z^2 } \frac{q_z z}{\ell } \left [ ( \ell-1 ) - \frac{4\ell(\ell-1)}{(q_r r)^2}\right ] a_r(\mathbf r , t ) \
\label{eq : apbeta4_z }      a_{z}'(\mathbf r , t ) & = &      \left [ \frac{\ell-1}{\ell } - \frac{2q_z}{q_r}\right ] a_z(\mathbf r , t )      - \frac{q_r}{q_z } \frac{q_z z}{\ell } \left [ \frac{q_r r}{2 } - \frac{2\ell}{q_r r}\right ] a_r(\mathbf r , t ) \,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    here we have kept the terms @xmath198 since , in contrast to the parallel class , they are now accompanied by radial dependencies proportional to @xmath199 and @xmath200 times the original vector potential .
thus , the transformed vector potential becomes even stronger close to the phase singularity .
the magnetic interaction resulting from these terms may be comparable or even surpass the electric interaction .
this is in agreement with previous results for highly focused beams , where a magnetic field contribution stronger than the electric field contribution at the phase singularity was found @xcite .
it is also interesting , that even far from the phase singularity , the in - plane term @xmath188 does not vanish .
let us study this in more detail using as an example the excitation of a quantum dot placed at the beam axis by a tl beam and energy close to the qd band - gap .
considering again the case of optical transitions with in - plane matrix elements such as the heavy hole - to - conduction band transitions , we neglect the @xmath75-component of the interaction , and also the terms proportional to @xmath201 .
then , the hamiltonian reduces to @xmath202 \,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] [ we note that the angular component of the momentum vector reads @xmath203 , where the canonical momentum @xmath204 is in fact an angular momentum @xcite . ]
though there is an efc - type hamiltonian , clearly the in - plane vector potential remains in the hamiltonian .
we wonder how electric and magnetic contributions compare to each other .
let us specifically consider the case @xmath150 .
then , the electric multipolar term is proportional to @xmath205 . on the other hand , the magnetic term in eq .
( [ eq : h_anti - parallel ] ) is proportional to @xmath206 .
if we assume that momentum and position vector are proportional to each other , as it is so in the dma ( since @xmath207 $ ] ) , it becomes clear that one should not a priori neglect the magnetic interaction , for it may be comparable or even larger the electric interaction , in particular at the phase singularity .
when the @xmath75-component of the fields become also important , it is clear that also here the vector potential remains in the hamiltonian .
thus , for the anti - parallel class the tl - gauge transformation , though being mathematically correct , is in general not advantageous .
we have studied the tl - matter interaction close to the beam axis .
in contrast to conventional light beams , twisted light has a phase singularity at the point @xmath83 , and a strong intermixing between polarization and oam .
we distinguished the tl beams into two topologically different classes , namely the parallel class where handedness of circular polarization ( i.e. , the photon spin ) and oam have the same sign and the anti - parallel class where the signs of circular polarization and oam differ .    to obtain a hamiltonian which includes the em fields instead of the potentials , we suggested to use a new gauge , the tl gauge .
for the parallel class , the tl gauge leads to a hamiltonian which has a dipole - type structure , but a different prefactor . for in - plane problems it takes the simple form @xmath208 .
the prefactor is mandatory to describe the correct interaction and to achieve the identity of canonical and mechanical momentum .
the origin of the prefactor in the tl gauge is the vortex , which exists at the phase singularity . for the anti - parallel class we showed that the tl gauge , which casts the hamiltonian at least partly into electric fields , is not in general advantageous as the vector potential can not be eliminated nor neglected .
because in the anti - parallel class magnetic effects can not be neglected compared to the electric ones , the hamiltonian should include magnetic as well as electric terms , and their relative strength must be analyzed in the particular problem at hand .
we compared the tl gauge to the more common dma and efc hamiltonians . while for structures located close to the beam maximum
the dma is applicable , for structures located close to the beam center it can not be used since the electric field at the phase singularity vanishes .
we have also pointed out that the use of the paraxial approximation close to the phase singularity may be misleading and should be avoided at least in the anti - parallel beam class .
in contrast to other gauges the tl gauge depends explicitly on beam parameters , in particular on the oam @xmath51 . on the one hand
this is clearly a restriction , but on the other hand , when tl is used to excite structures in the region of the beam center , this is usually done with the aim to address specific transitions which are driven by a light field with a given value of @xmath51 . in this case
a beam with a well - defined @xmath51 is used and thus , at least for beams within the parallel class , the tl gauge for this experimental set - up is well defined and can be used to write the coupling completely in terms of the electric field .    in comparison to other gauges , like the poincar - gauge or the multipolar gauge
, the tl gauge offers the same advantages for tl beams in the parallel class as the dma offers for slowly varying light beams : in contrast to the poincar - gauge , the tl gauge can be simply evaluated and leads to explicit formulas . for in - plane problems @xmath209 contains only the electric field , which makes it manifestly gauge invariant and secures the physical meaning of the momentum operator .
furthermore , it contains all the higher order electric field couplings like coupling to quadrupole terms in a compact , appealing form .
g.  f.  quinteiro would like to thank p.  i.  tamborenea for fruitful discussions in the topic of gauge - invariance in general and applied to tl .
he also thanks the argentine research agency conicet for financial support through the `` programa de becas externas '' .
in this appendix we will discuss in some more detail why the efc gauge is not useful for tl .
we obtain the efc gauge from our more general gauge function eq .
( [ eq : chigeneral ] ) by setting @xmath210 . from the general formulas ( [ eq : new_a ] ) we can then calculate the new potentials . in the parallel class , when restricting ourselves to the lowest non - vanishing order in @xmath138 ( which is the order @xmath51 for the in - plane components and @xmath177 for the @xmath75-component ) and , as discussed in sec .
[ sec : parallel ] , neglecting terms involving the small quantities @xmath198 , the expressions simplify to      we see that the vector potential in the efc gauge grows with @xmath51 . at first glance the eqs .
( [ eq : apbeta1 ] ) might look surprising since they seem to violate the uniqueness of the em fields : if one wanted to calculate the z - component of the magnetic field using the in - plane components of the new vector potential , one would find that @xmath212 which would violate the independence of the em field on gauge transformations .
such a contradiction is only apparent for the following reason .
we approximated the in - plane components of the vector potential to lowest order in @xmath213 , i.e. , @xmath214 . under this approximation @xmath215 and thus there is no contradiction .
the transformed vector potential also reveals a difference between canonical and mechanical momentum @xmath216 , which also grows with @xmath51 .
therefore , when the efc gauge is applied to high-@xmath51 tl beams at the phase singularity and the canonical momentum instead of the mechanical momentum is used in calculations , a significant error may be introduced .
@xmath217 a_\varphi(\mathbf r , t)\ , , \mbox{\qquad } \\ \label{eq : apbeta3_varphi } & &   a_\varphi'(\mathbf r , t ) =      \ell a_\varphi(\mathbf r , t ) \nonumber \\ & & \mbox{\quad }   - \frac{q_r^2}{2q_z^2 } ( q_z z ) \left [ ( \ell-1 ) - \frac{4\ell(\ell-1)}{(q_r r)^2}\right ] a_r(\mathbf r , t)\ , , \\
\label{eq : apbeta3_z } & &   a_{z}'(\mathbf r , t ) =      - \frac{2q_z}{q_r } ( \ell+1 ) a_z(\mathbf r , t ) \nonumber \\ & & \mbox{\quad }   - \frac{q_r}{q_z } ( q_z z)\left [ \frac{q_r r}{2 } -\frac{2\ell}{q_r r}\right ] a_r(\mathbf r , t ) \,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    again , the in - plane components grow with increasing @xmath51 . furthermore , like in the case of the tl gauge in the anti - parallel class ( sec .  [
sec : antiparallel ] ) , the vector potential exhibits new terms containing @xmath218 multiplying the original vector potential .
thus , also in the efc gauge the transformed vector potential becomes even stronger close to the phase singularity .
for both reasons the efc gauge is not useful in the anti - parallel class .
61ifxundefined [ 1 ] ifx#1 ifnum [ 1 ] # 1firstoftwo secondoftwo ifx [ 1 ] # 1firstoftwo secondoftwo `` `` # 1''''@noop [ 0]secondoftwosanitize@url [ 0 ]
 + 12$12  & 12#1212_12%12@startlink[1]@endlink[0]@bib@innerbibempty @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop _ _  ( ,  ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * , ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * , ( ) @noop _ _ ( ,  ) @noop _ _  ( , ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop _ _  ( ,  ,  ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * , ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop _ _  ( ,  ) @noop * * ,   ( ) s. j. van enk and g. nienhuis 1994 europhys . lett . *
@noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * , ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop * * ,   ( ) @noop _ _  ( , )