suppression of the low - energy part of bremsstrahlung from ultrarelativistic electrons passing through an amorphous scattering medium is the celebrated lpm - effect @xcite , named after landau and pomeranchuk who predicted it qualitatively @xcite , and migdal @xcite who provided an accurate theory for bremsstrahlung in a semi - infinite uniform medium .
it has also been studied for finite - thickness targets @xcite , and for the opposite limit of thin target , which is of intrinsic interest @xcite .
the theoretical predictions were accurately tested experimentally only within the last two decades @xcite , and the theoretical and experimental state of the art is reviewed in @xcite .    a natural further step , both for practice and for theory , is to study composite targets .
one of the simplest configurations thereof is a sequence of thin plates with a gap between them comparable to the photon formation length @xmath1 the latter quantity depends on the electron energy @xmath2 and photon energy @xmath0 in the window covered by the detector , @xmath3 standing for the electron mass .
the problem of structured target as applied to the gamma - quantum emission , was first discussed by blankenbecler @xcite , who treated it at the basis of the model for multiple scattering devised in @xcite .
subsequently , other authors @xcite extended their formalisms to handle this problem .
an experimental verification of the existence of interference effects in bremsstrahlung on compound targets has recently been undertaken at cern @xcite .
it was emphasized @xcite that high electron energy allows achieving macroscopic values for the photon formation length ( [ l_f - def ] ) , and thereby study its manifestations simply by tuning the distance between the scattering plates by a micrometer screw .
but even for cern energies , @xmath4 gev , the coefficient in eq .
( [ l_f - def ] ) amounts only @xmath5 m , wherefore to make @xmath6 practically macroscopic ( @xmath7 mm ) , one needs to consider sufficiently small photon energies compared to @xmath2 , which then renders the problem essentially classical . at the same time , condition @xmath8 can be safely fulfilled , wherewith the contribution from transition radiation may be neglected .
the experiment @xcite conducted at such conditions favored the theory @xcite , but also found some departures from it , and , surprisingly , from other theoretical predictions , which were expected to be more accurate .    to clarify the origin of remaining discrepancies
, it may be instructive to recollect underlying assumptions for the theories at the market .
it is fair to say that blankenbecler and drell @xcite in essence extended landau and pomeranchuk s approach @xcite to cover the case of finite - thickness target , and incorporate quantum effects . at that , a simplified model of scattering in a medium was adopted , in which transverse dimensions of the target random field exceeded that of the electron wave packet , allowing to exactly integrate over electron impact parameters and to reduce the photon emission amplitude to an integral over particle trajectory , like in classical mechanics .
a strong simplification was made then , in the spirit of @xcite , by replacing the medium average of an oscillatory integrand by the corresponding oscillatory function of averaged variables .
that yielded the angle - integral spectrum in the form of a double time integral , which for most cases of interest had to be computed numerically .
along these lines , blankenbecler @xcite evaluated the spectrum of radiation on @xmath9 plates , and discovered an additional maximum , or  shoulder " in the region where the gap width becomes commensurable with the radiation coherence length .
the approach of blankenbecler and drell has the merit of being simple and qualitatively correct .
however , it suffers from a lack of accuracy due to the oversimplified averaging ( the neglect of fluctuations ) , which may be essential for comparison with experiments .
an attempt to improve it was undertaken in blankenbecler s later paper @xcite , where a correlation of the amplitude and the phase of the integrand in the double time integral was taken into account , while other fluctuations were neglected , as before . as we will show , however , the correction so evaluated improves the accuracy only for the case of weak scattering in the plates , whilst in the opposite case of strong ( non - dipole ) scattering , in which interference effects are actually the strongest , this correction is rather counterproductive .
almost simultaneously with @xcite , zakharov @xcite advanced with a calculation of the lpm effect in finite targets including proper averaging .
it was built upon techniques originally developed for particle physics , notably the impact parameter representation .
the merit of the latter is that it naturally invokes fourier transforms of scattering - angle distribution functions , which from solution of the kinetic equation express as simple exponentials of the fourier - transformed scattering differential cross - section .
the main attention in papers @xcite was payed to a single finite - thickness target , while for structured target , the results were presented only graphically .
zakharov noticed that the interference features in his calculated spectrum were less pronounced than those in @xcite , albeit attributed that to the crudeness of the blankenbecler - drell model for scattering medium , rather than to an oversimplification of their averaging procedure .
shortly after , baier and katkov @xcite proposed a technique which allowed them to handle the case of @xmath9 scattering plates analytically . to this end ,
an alternative form of the double time integral representation for the radiation spectrum was adopted , and radiation spectra for @xmath9 plates were calculated by mathematical induction , assuming all the plates to be identical , equidistant , and the scattering angle distributions in them to be gaussian .
the influence of the transition radiation was taken into account too , which can be valuable for lower - energy experiments .
baier and katkov ultimately restricted their analysis to the case of plates infinitesimally thin compared to the gap width , and demonstrated that instead of one maximum , the radiation spectrum features a sequence of maxima and minima of decreasing amplitude .
the common drawback shared by all the abovementioned approaches is that the resulting expressions for the radiation spectrum are rather unwieldy , and relations of the spectral features with physical parameters in the problem remain obscure .
what is more serious , however , is that it led to a number of qualitative controversies in the literature , the most noticeable among which are the following :    * it was suggested in @xcite that the position of the greatest spectral maximum corresponds to a situation when the photon formation length ( [ l_f - def ] ) matches the distance between the plate centres . but in that case , the resonance condition ought to involve an additional factor @xmath10 , as in coherent bremsstrahlung ( see @xcite ) . however , therewith it would definitely contradict the experiment @xcite . * in the integral expressing the radiation spectrum , the oscillating function typically has the argument @xmath11 , where @xmath12 is the electron s lorentz factor , and @xmath13 the radiation angle .
the use of the latter expression suggests that for the distance @xmath14 between the plate centers , the main spectral maximum should be located at @xmath15 involving factor @xmath10 , as expected , but also a denominator @xmath16 , which might compensate it .
practically , though , it is not a priori obvious , with respect to which direction the radiation angles should be counted , and what are their typical values . if one estimates them as @xmath17 , where @xmath18 is the rms scattering angle in the plates @xcite , then for @xmath19 the compensation between the @xmath10 factor and the denominator can be significant . but numerically , such estimates still contradict the experimental findings @xcite . * concerning the comparative strength of the contributions from the enhancement region and the suppression region at low @xmath0 , it is unobvious whether their integrated effect must be zero , as suggested in @xcite , or the suppression must dominate in the total energy losses , as one might anticipate from the migdal s theory @xcite of radiation in a thick target , where no enhancement manifests itself in the spectrum at all .    in the absence of cogent explanation for those controversies , the state of the theory can hardly be regarded as satisfactory .
besides that , it is becoming desirable further to consider the case of plates of unequal thickness , and to fully scrutinize the role of non - gaussian ( coulomb ) tails in scattering , insofar as approaches of baier and katkov , as well as blankenbecler and drell rested on gaussian description of scattering .
given rather fundamental significance of the present problem , it makes sense at present to reappraise its theoretical treatment . in this paper
we shall derive physically more transparent representations for the radiation spectrum , which will help clarify the matter as a whole , and at the same time improve the numerical accuracy . to simplify the problem
, we will consider the case of two _ thin _ scattering plates ( foils ) , which allows avoiding double time integral representations for the radiation spectrum .
we will also limit ourselves to classical electrodynamics , and neglect the transition radiation , which are good approximations for the performed experiments @xcite .
on the other hand , we will investigate in more detail the influence of coulomb corrections . to alleviate the connection between the theory and the experiment , we introduce appropriate visibilities of the interference pattern .
we will be able to resolve the controversies alluded above , and to correct abundant numerical errors existing in the literature .
ultimately , we compare our predictions with the recent experimental data , and show that there is no significant discrepancy between the experiment and the theory .
in classical electrodynamics , the spectral - angular energy distribution of radiation ( with vector @xmath20 marking the direction of photon emission ) expresses in a known way through the charged particle trajectory @xmath21 , @xmath22 @xcite : @xmath23}\frac{d}{dt } \frac{\bm{n}\times\bm{v}(t)}{1-\bm{n}\cdot \bm{v}(t ) } \right|^2,\ ] ] @xmath24 being the electron charge . for our present study
, it will suffice to consider the simplest case when the electron experiences 2 abrupt scatterings , at instants @xmath25 and @xmath26 : @xmath27 integration over the time in eq .
( [ init - t - int ] ) trivially yields    [ eq2 ] @xmath28,\label{expand - sum - sq - j}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    with @xmath29 @xmath30 @xmath31 eq .
( [ expand - sum - sq - ja ] ) implies that if scatterings are well separated , the spectral radiation amplitude can be viewed as a sum of spectral amplitudes of radiation at single scatterings ( with a distance- and @xmath0-dependent phase shift @xmath32 between them ) . that may be conceived as the absence of effects of temporarily nonequilibrium proper field on the radiation amplitude level
. however , observed in practice is the radiation intensity , which is proportional to the amplitude square .
it differs from a sum of intensities on separate plates , engaging certain dependence on @xmath0 through the cosine of the phase shift between the scatterings .
an important generic property of eq .
( [ expand - sum - sq - j ] ) is that the @xmath0-integral of the interference term therein strictly vanishes : @xmath33 by virtue of the relation @xmath34,\ ] ] and strictly non - zero value of the argument of the @xmath35-function for @xmath36 .
the absence of interference in the total radiative energy loss at successive random scatterings has a simple physical reason : equivalently , it can be expressed as a _ time _ integral of the particle acceleration squared , in which time - separated scatterings obviously give non - interfering contributions @xcite : @xmath37 hence , if a suppression occurs in one region of the spectrum ( typically at lowest @xmath0 where it is associated with the lpm effect ) , it should be accompanied by a commensurable _ enhancement _ in some other region ( which is natural to call the anti - lpm effect ) .
the established property is undoubtedly general and must hold as well for a number of scatterings greater than 2 .
but it may contradict our experience that in a target with @xmath35-correlated scatterings , interference effects to the spectrum are purely suppressive , and there is seemingly no enhancement region at all @xcite . the contradiction is resolved if one takes into account that in condensed matter , distances between atoms are very short indeed , being usually far shorter than photon formation length . specifically , if we consider inequality @xmath38 where _ quantum _ arguments stipulate that @xmath39 , condition ( [ aa - gg - lf ] ) is fulfilled already at @xmath40 mev . in the latter ( quite ubiquitous ) case
, the radiation spectrum reaches its quantum end at @xmath41 sooner than the radiation enhancement can develop .
therefore , the spectral enhancement has no room to develop , and the suppression dominates both locally and globally @xcite .
one could imagine that for gaseous targets , where distances between atoms are much greater than @xmath42 , the situation might change , but in the latter case , it is essential that @xmath43 should be regarded as a random variable .
we will return to effects of randomization of @xmath43 in sec .
[ sec : randomization ] , and demonstrate that the anti - lpm effect still manifests itself on a scale of photon formation length comparable with the range of _ anti_-correlation , which is of order of atomic size , again .
meanwhile , we will concentrate on studying the case of radiation on two scattering foils with definite and macroscopic separation .    before we proceed
, however , there is another observation worth making .
for bremsstrahlung in a sufficiently thin layer of substance , a fair approximation is the smallness of scattering angles ( dipole limit ) , when @xmath44 . in that case , the structure of currents ( [ j21-def])([j32-def ] ) appreciably simplifies .
linearizing @xmath45 in @xmath46 and @xmath47 in @xmath48 , integrating over radiation angles , and averaging ( [ expand - sum - sq - j ] ) over scattering angles @xmath49 , @xmath50 yields @xmath51 with @xmath52 @xmath53 , and @xmath54 .
since in most cases , successive scatterings are not causally connected , the correlator in ( [ g ] ) reduces to a product of mean scattering angles : @xmath55 for amorphous targets , mean deflection angles are obviously zero , wherefore the whole interference in the spectrum in this approximation vanishes . to preserve the interference effects between the targets ,
one thus needs either to render both scatterings asymmetric are challenging to manufacture .
more compact deflectors could be created with the aid of lasers , as proposed in @xcite , or bent crystals . ] , or to arrange _ non - dipole _
conditions for radiation in the amorphous target , which may be simpler to bring into practice , and will be the subject of our study in what follows .
to make our presentation self - contained , before addressing interference effects in a composite target , let us recapitulate the properties of bremsstrahlung on a single amorphous foil .
this section gives the account of relevant formulae , highlighting the differences between gaussian and molire averaging procedures , as well as between frameworks of different authors .
we will also propose two our own recipes for incorporating coulomb corrections , which give a reasonable balance between precision and simplicity for the addressed case .
radiation spectrum at scattering to a definite angle of arbitrary size ( which is small by absolute value , but may be sizable compared with the typical radiation angle @xmath56 ) expresses by an integral ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) @xmath57 where @xmath58 small - angle expansion of ( [ f - def ] ) can be obtained as    @xmath59    series ( [ f - dipole - series ] ) has finite ( actually , unit ) convergence radius , which is natural in view of the presence in ( [ f - def ] ) of the structure @xmath60 .    the large - angle asymptotics of ( [ f - def ] ) is logarithmic : @xmath61 the logarithm here stems from the fact that although for a large - angle scattering , the radiation cones from the initial and final electron lines are well separated , the region between them is filled by an enhanced radiation , owing to the interference between the cones .
it is integration over this inter - jet domain which gives rise to the large logarithm in ( [ f - la ] ) .
( a ) green solid curve , @xmath62 [ eq .  ( [ fsigma - change - var ] ) or ( [ k1 ^ 2gauss ] ) ] ; red dashed curve , @xmath63 [ eq .  ( [ f - def ] ) or eq .
( [ fb(t)=f(sigma2 ) ] ) ] ; red dot - dashed curve , the corrected blankenbecler - drell approximation ( [ ftilde - blankenbecler - thintarget ] ) .
( b ) red curve ( upper ) ; molire averaging for gold , blue curve , molire averaging for carbon ; dashed curve , gaussian averaging by eq .
( [ highland - approx ] ) . ]      eqs .
( [ i1 ] ) , ( [ f - def ] ) may be used to derive radiation spectrum in a thin layer of substance [ under condition when a target thickness is much smaller than the photon formation length ( [ l_f - def ] ) in the considered range of @xmath0 ] . to this end , ( [ i1 ] ) must be averaged with the appropriate distribution in scattering angles in the target @xcite . in the simplest approximation
, this distribution can be taken to be gaussian .
averaging over scattering angles with the gaussian distribution with rms scattering angle @xmath18 , @xmath65 one gets @xmath66 where @xmath67 inserting here ( [ f - dipole - series ] ) , and integrating termwise yields @xmath68 with @xmath69 .
series ( [ f - aver - series ] ) diverges for any finite @xmath70 ( not surprisingly since it was derived by integrating a series beyond its convergence domain ) ; nonetheless , the sequence of its terms may be used as an asymptotic expansion .    the first two terms in eq .
( [ f - aver - series ] ) are @xmath71 note that the coefficient at the leading - order term is the same as in ( [ f - dipole ] ) , but the coefficient at the next - to - leading order term is twice greater .    to obtain large-@xmath70 asymptotics of @xmath62 , it is advantageous to change in ( [ fsigma ] ) the integration variable to @xmath72 : @xmath73 the remaining integral in ( [ fsigma - change - var ] ) is a bounded function , ranging from 0 to 1 . at large @xmath70 , this term vanishes due to the pre - factor @xmath74 , so the corresponding asymptotics of @xmath75 is determined by that of macdonald function at the origin : @xmath76 . employing this in ( [ fsigma - change - var ] ) , we get @xcite @xmath77      it is instructive to compare result ( [ i1sigma])([fsigma ] ) with representations derived within frameworks of blankenbecler and drell @xcite , and baier and katkov @xcite , under the same conditions of ( geometrically ) thin target and gaussian scattering .
blankenbecler s result [ see @xcite , eq .
( 30 ) ] for the thin - target limit reads    [ f - blankenbecler - thintarget ] @xmath78 evaluation of this integral yields @xmath79    where @xmath63 is given by eq .
( [ f - def ] ) .
hence , the correspondence between @xmath80 and @xmath70 is @xmath81 and the approximation of blankenbecler consists in substituting the rms scattering angle to the non - averaged ( fixed - scattering - angle ) radiation spectrum : @xmath82 this correspondence is what one could expect , given that blankenbecler and drell @xcite , similarly to landau and pomeranchuk @xcite , replaced an average of an oscillatory function in the integrand of a double time integral by the oscillatory function with average amplitude and phase .
as is seen from comparison of asymptotics ( [ fsigma - la ] ) and ( [ f - la ] ) , however , such a simple - minded replacement deviates from the exact result only by @xmath83 .
yet another possible source of inaccuracy , though , may stem from the fact that for numerical calculations , blankenbecler adopted relation @xmath84 ( with @xmath85 the target thickness and @xmath86 the radiation length ) .
the coefficient in ( [ blankenbecler - q2def ] ) differs by a constant factor @xmath87 from that in the rossi formula @xmath88 accordingly , blankenbecler defined the scaled target thickness [ see @xcite , eq .  ( 10.1 ) , @xcite , eq .
( 16 ) ] @xmath89 consistent with the correspondence rule ( [ t = sigma2/6 ] ) .
but physically , the coefficient in the relation between @xmath90 and @xmath91 should vary logarithmically with @xmath85 .
more accurate description of multiple coulomb scattering will be furnished in sec .
[ subsec:1platemoliere ] .    in @xcite , blankenbecler derived a correction to eq .
( [ f - blankenbecler - thintarget - int ] ) [ see @xcite , eq .  ( 109 ) ] : @xmath92 ^ 2}-1\bigg).\end{aligned}\ ] ] at small @xmath80 , i.e. , small @xmath70 , it rather neatly reproduces the next - to - leading order term in the exact small - angle expansion ( [ fsigma - dipole ] ) , provided one uses here the correspondence ( [ t = sigma2/6 ] ) : @xmath93 however , at large @xmath70 ( or @xmath80 ) , approximation ( [ ftilde - blankenbecler - thintarget ] ) fails by a factor of 2 [ see fig .
[ fig : f](b ) , red dot - dashed curve ] , and can not be regarded as tenable there .
baier and katkov s result for the case of one foil @xcite reads missing in @xcite . ]
@xmath94 ^ 2}\right\}.\ ] ] evaluation of this integral re - obtains expression ( [ fsigma ] ) , once one identifies @xmath95 and @xmath96 baier and katkov stated their own prescription for computation of @xmath97 , which will be compared with our prescription in the next subsection .
for very thin targets , the distribution in scattering angles can significantly deviate from a gaussian , while in the extreme @xmath98 , it must turn proportional to the differential cross - section of single scattering . to be more accurate ,
one may utilize the general ( molire ) solution of the kinetic equation in terms of a fourier - bessel integral @xcite : @xmath99},\ ] ] where @xmath100 is the scattering differential cross - section .
it may be noted that at substantial thicknesses , ( [ moliere - distr - def ] ) is approximable by a gaussian plus corrections @xcite , but we will not resort to such approximations here , dealing directly with the exact integral representation ( [ moliere - distr - def ] ) .    according to eqs .
( [ expand - sum - sq - j ] ) , ( [ j21-def ] ) , @xmath101 where the last integral effectively extends over the transverse plane of small angle differences .
since the two terms in parentheses in ( [ 80 ] ) only differ by a shift in the @xmath102 plane , it may be expedient to expand them into fourier integrals , so that the angular shift converts to a phase factor : @xmath103 considering that @xmath104 is the photon s transverse momentum , @xmath105 can be interpreted as the photon s impact parameter relative to the parent electron .    inserting ( [ wf - angle - wf - imp - par ] ) to eq .
( [ 80 ] ) obtains    @xmath106 ^ 2\left|1-e^{i(\bm{v}_1-\bm{v}_2)\cdot \bm{r } } \right|^2\nonumber\\ & \,&\label{40a}\\ & = & \frac{4e^2}{\pi\gamma^2}\int_0^{\infty } dr r k_1 ^ 2(r/\gamma)\left[1-j_0\left(\chi r\right)\right].\label{k1 ^ 2(1-j)}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    it can be checked that evaluation of the integral in ( [ k1 ^ 2(1-j ) ] ) reproduces the explicit form ( [ i1 ] ) , ( [ f - def ] ) .
the reader familiar with the light - cone formalism @xcite will recognize @xmath107 as being ( the low-@xmath0 approximation for ) the electron - photon component of the electron wave function , with the vector index accounting for the photon polarization . in this spirit , @xmath108 amounts the complete wave function after electron scattering to a definite angle , and for @xmath109 this wave function differs from zero . correspondingly , the integral of its modulus square gives the total probability of emission of a photon with energy @xmath0 , i.e. , the radiation spectrum .
interpretation of this kind may be noteworthy for intuitive understanding of the final results , albeit in this paper we will refrain from using it technically , and adhere to the standard formulation of classical electrodynamics .    to proceed , when expression ( [ k1 ^ 2(1-j ) ] ) is averaged over scattering angles with a gaussian distribution ( [ gauss - distr ] ) , it becomes @xmath110 on the other hand , averaging with molire distribution ( [ moliere - distr - def ] ) leads to the form @xmath111}\right\},\ ] ] essentially coinciding with the result of zakharov @xcite ( see also @xcite ) .
it is also in the spirit of glauber form @xcite for scattering of a high - energy composite quantum system .
( it is not crucial that in our case the scattering is multiple , since it conserves the impact parameter , anyway . )    to use formula ( [ k1 ^ 2(1-edsigma ) ] ) , we need further to specify the differential cross - section of scattering on one atom .
the simplest model thereof is @xmath112 where @xmath113 , and @xmath114 , with @xmath115 playing the role of the atomic screening radius . inserting ( [ dsigma - model ] ) to ( [ k1 ^ 2(1-edsigma ) ] ) gives @xmath116}\right\}\!.\ ] ] at practice , parameter @xmath117 , so for any value of @xmath118 , for description of radiation it is always legitimate to expand @xmath119 in vicinity of the origin : @xmath120 .    to determine the precise value of @xmath121
, one may note that in the limit of small @xmath85 ,    @xmath122    on the other hand , by definition of the radiation length ( in the approximation of complete screening ) , that must equal in eq .
( [ 43x0 ] ) . ]
@xmath123 parameter @xmath121 can thus be related to phenomenological parameters @xmath86 and @xmath124 via @xmath125    in this paper , our approach will be simply to employ relation ( [ x0-rho1 ] ) in eq .
( [ exp - k1 ] ) .
the factor @xmath118 in the exponent can be expressed in terms of the ratio @xmath126 : @xmath127 therewith , we have only one adjustable parameter @xmath128 ( instead of two , for radiation with and without atom ionization or excitation ) . that parameter depends on the radiation length , which may include all the molecular binding and crystal structure effects . at practice , though , @xmath86 itself is often inferred from calculations by formulas for bremsstrahlung on a free atom , neglecting the inter - atomic effects @xcite .    utilizing
the commonly used ( calculated @xcite ) values for the radiation length , for gold we obtain @xmath129 , @xmath130 , whereas for carbon , @xmath131 , @xmath132 . note that if the screening radius is estimated from relation @xmath133 , for gold it amounts @xmath134 , while for carbon , @xmath135 .
the presented estimates for @xmath115 are generally greater than those following from the prescription used by zakharov @xcite @xmath136 for gold , eq .
( [ zakh - a ] ) gives @xmath137 , while for carbon , @xmath138 , the latter deviating distinctly from our above estimate .
fortunately , though , the sensitivity to this parameter is only logarithmic .
[ fig : f](b ) overlays the predictions of eq .
( [ exp - k1 ] ) for carbon and for gold . along with those , we plot formfactor ( [ fsigma ] ) for gaussian averaging with the rms scattering angle evaluated by the widely used empirical formula - dependence of the coefficient
were obtained @xcite , but to keep the treatment simple , and expose numerical differences between the approaches , we will confine ourselves here to parameterization  ( [ highland - approx ] ) . ]
@xcite @xmath139 formula ( [ highland - approx ] ) is known to work with an accuracy better than 10% for @xmath140 . from fig .
[ fig : f](b ) we conclude that for bremsstrahlung on one plate , the agreement is good in the whole range of @xmath85 , including @xmath141 .
that is natural since it can be shown that under some approximations , formula ( [ highland - approx ] ) can actually be derived from the rigorous representation ( [ exp - k1 ] ) ( see appendix [ appendix ] ) .
correspondence between values of rms scattering angle calculated by our eq .
( [ 51 ] ) and by baier and katkov s eq .  ( [ bk - rms - prescription ] ) .
red curve  for carbon ; blue curve  for gold .
the auxiliary dashed line marks the diagonal @xmath142 . ]    finally , our eq .
( [ 51 ] ) approximately accounting for coulomb corrections in multiple scattering can also be compared with the recipe of baier and katkov @xcite : @xmath143.\end{aligned}\ ] ] predictions of eq .
( [ 51 ] ) and ( [ bk - rms - prescription ] ) are confronted in fig .
[ fig : rms ] , and are reasonably close , although some differences are perceptible .
we are now in a position to address the case of two plates . in eq .
( [ expand - sum - sq - j ] ) , the first two terms are individual contributions from each plate , described by formulas of sec .
[ sec:1plate ] , while the nontrivial third term of eq .
( [ expand - sum - sq - j ] ) involves the product of currents induced by scattering in different plates . hence , averaging of those currents over corresponding scattering angles proceeds independently : @xmath144 as was pointed out in the end of sec .
[ sec:2scat ] , product ( [ av - prod = prod - av ] ) receives a suppression after integration over azimuthal directions of @xmath20 .
therefore , it is reasonable to carry out the averaging in two steps : first , to average over azimuths of @xmath20 , which does not need a reference to a specific form of the ( axially - symmetric ) scattering angle distribution function . at the second step ,
one implements convolutions with specific angular distribution functions .
granted that the currents entering eq .
( [ eq2 ] ) have similar structure , it suffices to consider a generic form @xmath145 where @xmath146 may equal @xmath147 or @xmath148 .
averaging of expression ( [ j - def ] ) over azimuths of the scattering angle , say , wrt direction @xmath149 ( it makes no difference since ultimately all directions are to be integrated over ) proceeds as follows .
decomposing @xmath146 into components parallel and orthogonal to @xmath149 , @xmath150 with @xmath151 , we compute the azimuthal average : @xmath152 now we can insert @xmath153 , and omit the component parallel to @xmath20 , which does not contribute to the vector product with @xmath20 appearing in eq .
( [ av - prod = prod - av ] ) . as a result
, the azimuthally averaged radiation amplitude assumes the form @xmath154 with @xmath155 in the small - angle approximation , @xmath156 , @xmath157 , @xmath158 , @xmath159 , we obtain @xmath160[\gamma^{-2}+(\theta+\chi)^2]}}\right)\nonumber\\ & \equiv&\frac{1}{2(1+\theta^2)}-\frac{1 } { 4\theta^2}\!\left(\!1\!+\!\frac{\theta^2-x-1}{\sqrt{(x+1-\theta^2)^2 + 4\theta^2}}\!\right),\quad\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath161 .
function ( [ j - scalar - def ] ) is everywhere positive . at small @xmath162
, it expands as @xmath163\!\!\bigg\}\nonumber\\ & \underset{\theta\ll 1}\simeq&\frac12-\frac1{2(1+x)^2}+\mathcal{o}(\theta^2),\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath164 are legendre polynomials @xcite arising as coefficients in the expansion @xmath165 .    before proceeding to averaging over moduli of scattering angles , i.e. , @xmath166 , it is also instructive to examine the asymptotics of @xmath167 as a function of @xmath166 . at small @xmath166 ,    @xmath168\,\ , \label{j - quadrupole - approx - a}\\ & \underset{x\ll1}\simeq&\frac{1}{(1+\theta^2)^3}x+\mathcal{o}(x^2).\label{j - quadrupole - approx}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    here the leading term is proportional to @xmath169 , whereas in the dipole approximation the current is @xmath170 , but the latter contribution vanishes after azimuthal averaging [ see eq .
( [ g ] ) ] .
thus , the leading term ( [ j - quadrupole - approx ] ) corresponds to a  quadrupole " approximation .    on the other hand , at large @xmath171 and fixed @xmath13 ,
@xmath172 factor @xmath173 here describes the radiation from the @xmath149 half - line alone . as for the radiation from the @xmath146 half - line , it is smeared by the azimuthal averaging , but in any case
, the inter - jet region extends only out to polar angle @xmath174 .
it is noteworthy that function @xmath167 features no enhancement around @xmath175 , which could be expected due to the presence of the @xmath146-jet .
so , after the azimuthal averaging , the latter jet does not manifests itself as a peak . for @xmath176 ,
the radiation is suppressed because radiation amplitudes from @xmath149 and @xmath146 lines strongly cancel .     ( a ) loglog plot of the azimuthally averaged electromagnetic current at one scattering , eq .
( [ j - scalar - def ] ) , for scattering angles @xmath177 , 0.3 , 1 , 3 , 6 , 10 , 15 ( solid curves , bottom to top ) .
dashed curves , approximation ( [ j - quadrupole - approx ] ) ; ( b ) same for the gaussian - weighted azimuthally averaged electromagnetic current at one scattering , eq .
( [ j - scalar - av - chi ] ) . dashed curves , approximation ( [ g - small - sigma ] ) .
dot - dashed curves , approximation ( [ gsigma - la ] ) . ]      employing representation eq .
( [ approx - aver - j ] ) in eq .  ( [ av - prod = prod - av ] ) , we have @xmath178 where @xmath179 and
we invoked the identity @xmath180 .
the minus sign in eq .
( [ av - g ] ) , i.e. , the negativity of interference between the currents , retraces to the general property of saturation of radiation . in eq .
( [ expand - sum - sq - j ] ) , though , factor ( [ interf - jj ] ) is multiplied by an @xmath0-dependent factor @xmath181 , and the corresponding product is yet to be integrated over polar radiation angles .
given that @xmath181 is sign - alternating , the spectrum may then actually oscillate with the increase of @xmath182 , not only experience a suppression . combining with the previously computed bremsstrahlung contributions from individual plates , which are @xmath0-independent , we get @xmath183.\,\,\end{aligned}\ ] ] the dependence of function ( [ didomega - combined ] ) on @xmath182 is shown in fig .
[ fig : exact - oscill ] .
as anticipated , it exhibits an oscillatory behavior .
oscillations of spectrum of the bremsstrahlung on two foils , computed for gaussian scattering - angle distribution functions with rms @xmath184 ( thin red curve ) , 1 ( yellow ) , 2 ( green ) , 5 ( blue ) . at @xmath185 ,
the spectrum must rise again , and reach the bethe - heitler constant value ( see sec .
[ sec : plate - formfactor ] ) . ]    to determine the magnitude and the phase of the oscillations , note that at @xmath186 , the integral in the last term of ( [ didomega - combined ] ) is dominated by the vicinity of the lower endpoint , and its evaluation with @xmath187 yields the asymptotics @xmath188.\,\,\end{aligned}\ ] ] according to this result , maxima of @xmath189 should appear at @xmath190 with @xmath124 integer , independently of shapes of distribution functions @xmath191 .
that simple prediction is confirmed by fig .
[ fig : exact - oscill ] . a suggestive geometrical interpretation for the rule ( [ secondary - max ] ) , in the spirit of wave optics ,
is that the maxima correspond to situations when the distance between the plates equals an integer number of full coherence lengths @xmath192 .    concerning the main maximum ( which accounts for the bulk of the anti - lpm enhancement )
, however , there is no possibility to associate it with the case of unit wavelength shift as proposed in @xcite . for @xmath193 , of course , formula ( [ di - largelambda ] ) does not apply , but from the point of exact formula ( [ didomega - combined ] ) , the main maximum of @xmath194 emerges when in the integrand of the last term , the maximum of owes in particular to the factor @xmath195 , which is due to the cancellation of interference effects at small @xmath162  see the end of sec .
[ sec:2scat ] . ] @xmath196 , achieved at some @xmath197 , coincides with the extremum of @xmath198 : @xmath199 whereat @xmath200 .
this situation has to be discriminated from the case @xmath201 in eq .
( [ di - largelambda ] ) , where the existence of a maximum for @xmath202 is irrelevant because there are several oscillations within its width , and the region of dominant contribution shifts to the endpoint . in the latter case
, the half - wavelength shift corresponds to a spectral _ minimum _ next to the main maximum .
as opposed to that , case ( [ denom=1+theta^2 ] ) with the account of the denominator @xmath203 can be called the inclined half - length , which is numerically close to quarter - wavelength .
it is worth stressing in this regard that although there is a denominator in relation ( [ denom=1+theta^2 ] ) depending on @xmath70 , but it obeys a relation @xmath204 . clearly , even at large @xmath70 , the contributing @xmath162 in eq .
( [ didomega - combined ] ) are @xmath205 , i.e. , @xmath206 with respect to the direction @xmath149 .
therefore , the use of the in - medium coherence length @xcite @xmath207 in the resonance condition @xmath208 is _ unjustified_. in fact , employment of ( [ l - f - in - medium ] ) in application to the present problem led in @xcite to a large underestimate of the location of the first spectral maximum .
finally , one must pay attention to the pronounced spectral minimum at @xmath209 , which must be associated with zero wavelength shift .
this limit is known to correspond to a situation when the radiation amplitude completely factorizes from the scattering one , and so radiation on two plates becomes the same as on one plate with the aggregate thickness .
such a relation may be not immediately transparent from eq .
( [ didomega - combined ] ) , although proves by straightforward integration ; we will also supply a simpler derivation thereof in sec .
[ subsec : v0 ] .      to deduce all the consequences from the averaging ,
let us now assume @xmath210 in ( [ av - g ] ) to be a gaussian weighting distribution ( [ gauss - distr ] ) .
the averaging of @xmath167 with such a distribution simplifies after an integration by parts :    @xmath211^{3/2}}.\qquad\label{j - scalar - av - chi}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the behavior of function ( [ j - scalar - av - chi ] ) is illustrated in fig .
[ fig : j](b ) for several values of @xmath70 .
it is largely similar to that of @xmath167 shown in fig .
[ fig : j](a ) , but is smoother at @xmath212 , the latter property being natural inasmuch as the unit step function in ( [ j - largeangle - approx ] ) is smoothened out by the averaging over @xmath171 .
numerically , eq .  ( [ didomega - combined ] ) with entries ( [ fsigma - change - var ] ) , ( [ j - scalar - av - chi ] ) proves to be equivalent to eqs .
( 2.34 ) , ( 2.36 ) of @xcite under the correspondence rule ( [ b - sigma2 ] ) , although analytically , the equivalence of both approaches is challenging to verify .
our representation seems to be better suited for the analytic study of @xmath70- and @xmath182-dependences . with its aid , we will now derive small- and large-@xmath70 asymptotics of function @xmath213 , which will be useful in what follows .    at small @xmath70 , plugging expansion ( [ j - quadrupole - approx - a ] ) to eq .
( [ j - scalar - av - chi - a ] ) , and integrating termwise , we obtain    @xmath214\label{g - small - sigma - series}\\ & \underset{\sigma\ll 1}{\simeq}&\sigma^2(1+\theta^2)^{-3}+\mathcal{o}(\sigma^4).\label{g - small - sigma}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    similarly to eq .
( [ f - aver - series ] ) , expansion ( [ g - small - sigma - series ] ) diverges , but again , it remains sensible as an asymptotic series .
its leading term ( [ g - small - sigma ] ) coincides with the asymptotics of non - averaged expression ( [ j - quadrupole - approx ] ) , granted that there the @xmath171-dependence factorizes .
the behavior of approximation ( [ g - small - sigma ] ) is shown in fig .
[ fig : j](b ) by dashed curves .    on the other hand , at significant @xmath70 ,
it is legitimate to expand @xmath215 to taylor series in vicinity of point @xmath216 and integrate termwise : @xmath217^{3/2}}\nonumber\\ & \,&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\times \left(1+\frac{\theta^2 - 1-x}{\sigma^2}\right)\nonumber\\ & = & \frac{1}{1+\theta^2}e^{-\frac{\theta^2 - 1}{\sigma^{2}}}\left(\frac12-\frac1{\sigma^2}\right)\nonumber\\ & \approx&\frac{1}{2(1+\theta^2)}e^{-\frac{1+\theta^2}{\sigma^{2}}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] according to fig .  [ fig : j](b ) ( dot - dashed curves ) , approximation ( [ gsigma - la ] ) works well for @xmath218 . at large @xmath70 and
fixed @xmath162 , the exponential here tends to unity , and form ( [ j - largeangle - approx ] ) is retrieved .
if instead of a gaussian we prefer to use molire weighting distribution ( [ moliere - distr - def ] ) , it may be more convenient to return to eq .
( [ expand - sum - sq - j ] ) for the radiation spectrum . in the last line of eq .
( [ expand - sum - sq - j ] ) , the product of currents consists of 4 terms , which have similar structure .
it suffices to calculate only one of those , @xmath219,\end{aligned}\ ] ] while the other terms can be reconstructed by replacements @xmath220 or / and @xmath221 .    changing the integration variable to @xmath222 , inserting representations ( [ wf - angle - wf - imp - par ] ) for the first factor in the first line of ( [ 89 ] ) , and a complex conjugate representation for the second factor , one brings it to the form of an integral over impact parameters : @xmath223 here @xmath224 may be regarded as green s function for a two - dimensional free schrdinger equation on the light front : @xmath225\!s_{\omega}\!\left(\bm{r}_1-\bm{r}_3,t_{21}\right)\!\theta(t_{21})\nonumber\\ = -i\delta(\bm{r}_1-\bm{r}_3)\delta(t_{21}),\qquad\end{aligned}\ ] ] and it evaluates in closed form : @xmath226.\ ] ] note that this function depends only on the difference between @xmath227 and @xmath228 , just as in ( [ didomega - combined ] ) the cosine depends , besides @xmath229 , only on the angle between @xmath149 and @xmath20 .
restoring the rest of the interference terms by substitutions @xmath221 or @xmath220 , and combining them , we get @xmath230 convolving this with the molire distribution function , and integrating over azimuths of @xmath227 and @xmath228 , leads to the result @xmath231}\right\ } \nonumber\\ \times\int_0^{\infty } d \rho_3\rho_3 k_1(\rho_3 ) \left\{1-e^{-n_2l_2 \int d\sigma(\chi)[1-j_0(\rho_3\gamma\chi)]}\right\ } \nonumber\\ \times \cos\left(\frac{\rho_1 ^ 2+\rho_3 ^ 2}{4\omega}-\omega\right)j_1\left(\frac{\rho_1\rho_3}{2\omega}\right),\quad\end{aligned}\ ] ] where for convenience we rescaled the impact parameter variable to @xmath232 .
note that after integration over the azimuth , the dependence only on the impact parameter difference is somewhat disguised .    at large @xmath182 , upon approximations @xmath233 , @xmath234 , ( [ impact-2scat ] ) factorizes : @xmath235}\right\ } \nonumber\\ \times\int_0^{\infty }
d \rho_3\rho_3 ^ 2 k_1(\rho_3 ) \left\{1-e^{-n_2l_2 \int d\sigma(\chi)[1-j_0(\rho_3\gamma\chi)]}\right\}.\,\,\end{aligned}\ ] ] this form proves to be equivalent to eq .
( [ di - largelambda ] ) , by virtue of the identity    @xmath236}\right\}\quad\label{80a}\\ = \frac14\int d^2\chi \frac{dw_{\text{m}}}{d^2\chi } \int_0^{\infty } d \rho\rho^2 k_1(\rho ) \left[1-j_0(\rho\gamma\chi)\right]\nonumber\\ = \int d^2\chi \frac{dw_{\text{m}}}{d^2\chi } \left[\frac12-\frac1{2(1+x)^2}\right ] \equiv\left\langle g\right\rangle_{\text{m}}(0)\quad\end{aligned}\ ] ]    [ cf .
( [ g(0 ) ] ) ] .
the spectrum of radiation on two plates that we have evaluated , even under the simplification of a negligible plate thicknesses , is a function of 3 variables : @xmath237 , @xmath237 , and @xmath182 . in limiting cases , though
, it reduces to simpler functions , which will be scrutinized below .     the visibility of the low-@xmath0 dip , eq .
( [ v - through - f ] ) .
( a ) for gaussian averaging and arbitrary @xmath237 , @xmath238 .
( b ) for gaussian averaging and @xmath239 .
solid black curve , exact expression  ( [ visibility ] ) . dashed black curve , its asymptotics ( [ v - largesigma ] ) .
purple dot - dashed curve , the visibility in the blankenbecler - drell approximation .
( c ) for molire averaging .
blue curve , carbon ; red curve , gold ; black dashed curve , gaussian averaging with rms scattering angle computed by formula ( [ highland - approx ] ) . ]      for experimental tests , it is imperative to estimate visibilities of gross features of the spectrum , and find their optimum by choosing appropriate foil materials and their thicknesses .
the interference term reaches its largest absolute value at @xmath209 .
therefore , it is natural to consider the characteristic quantity @xmath240 adopting the terminology from optics , this may be called the visibility of the low-@xmath0 dip . with the aid of eq
( [ didomega - combined ] ) , it can be explicitly written as    [ visibility ] @xmath241 as we already mentioned at the end of sec .
[ subsec : aggr - spectr ] , here the spectrum must reduce to that from a single plate of aggregate thickness .
this can now be proven rather easily , based on the impact parameter representation ( [ impact-2scat ] ) .
there , @xmath242 , and terms @xmath243 , @xmath244 cancel with some of the interference terms , leaving @xmath245 .
thereby , @xmath246 indeed reduces to the form @xmath247    at small @xmath70 , @xmath248 i.e. , essentially it is proportional to the minimal among @xmath249 , @xmath250 .    at large @xmath237 ,
@xmath238 , @xmath251 thus , in principle , asymptotically @xmath246 tends to @xmath252 .
that is natural , inasmuch as radiation at one plate saturates as a function of its thickness , and hence the radiation at any two strongly scattering foils must be about twice stronger than on one of them .
but practically , such a saturation is achieved only logarithmically , and is too remote , so the second term in eq .  ( [ v - largesigma ] ) is usually significant .
the behavior of ( [ visibility ] ) and asymptotic approximation ( [ v - largesigma ] ) is illustrated in fig .
[ fig : v](b ) by black solid and dashed curves . for comparison
, the purple dot - dashed curve also shows the corresponding result for blankenbecler s theory , when in eq .
( [ v - through - f ] ) @xmath75 is replaced by @xmath253 .
notably , that curve intersects with the exact result at @xmath254 , and keeps close to it at greater @xmath70 . but at @xmath255 the difference is relatively large .
it is also interesting to note that the blankenbecler - drell prediction for @xmath246 is lower than the exact one , i.e. , the neglect of fluctuations leads to an underestimation of the interference effect in radiation .
that means that under the conditions of cancellation of dipole contributions in the interference , fluctuations help creating uncompensated contributions .
likewise , it is useful to compare in this limit the predictions of gaussian and molire averaging [ see fig .
[ fig : v](c ) ] .
it appears that the gaussian averaging prediction becomes inaccurate at @xmath256 , just where the accuracy of approximation ( [ highland - approx ] ) itself becomes worse than 10% .      in the opposite limit of large @xmath0 , according to eq .
( [ di - largelambda ] ) , the visibility may be characterized by the ratio @xmath257 at small @xmath70 , this quantity behaves as @xmath258 whereas at large @xmath237 , @xmath238 , it logarithmically decreases : @xmath259 the dependence of @xmath260 on both parameters @xmath237 and @xmath238 is shown in fig .
[ fig : vinfty](a ) .
its maximum is achieved at @xmath261 [ see fig .  [
fig : vinfty](b ) ] .
there , the function still does not exceed 0.7 . yet , in ( [ di - largelambda ] ) it is multiplied by @xmath262 with @xmath263 , hence , actual visibility in the high-@xmath0 region is on the level of a few percent , demanding formidable measurement statistics .
for comparison , in fig .
[ fig : vinfty](b ) by dot - dashed curve we show the behavior of eq .
( [ v_infty - def ] ) after replacement of averaged radiation formfactors by non - averaged functions of averaged argument : @xmath264 which we presume to correspond to blankenbecler - drell approximation . function ( [ 89 ] ) intersects with the exact result at @xmath265 , and keeps close to it at greater @xmath70 , but at @xmath266 the difference is rather large .
same as fig .
[ fig : v ] , for visibility of secondary minima and maxima , eq .
( [ v_infty - def ] ) .
the dashed curve in ( b ) obeys eq .
( [ vinfty - asympt ] ) for @xmath239 . ]    fig .  [ fig : vinfty](c ) compares predictions of eq .
( [ v_infty - def ] ) when averaging is performed with the molire distribution , by eqs .
( [ 80a ] ) , ( [ exp - k1 ] ) ( the blue solid curve for carbon , the red solid curve for gold ) , and with gaussian distribution , eqs .
( [ j - scalar - av - chi ] ) and ( [ fsigma - change - var ] ) ( black dashed curve ) .
there is a distinct difference between the predictions around the maximum , which is achieved at @xmath267 , i.e. , @xmath268 .
the sign of this difference tells that in the region of substantial photon energies , the account of fluctuations of scattering leads to a lowering of the interference effect in radiation , contrary to the situation with @xmath246 in the previous section . that admits rather simple explanation : fluctuations always tend to suppress the radiation , but at @xmath209 , where the interference effect itself is suppressive , that worked towards increasing the effect , whereas in the large-@xmath0 region it just lowers both amplitudes @xmath269 and @xmath270 in the interference term .      for a generic case , integral ( [ didomega - combined ] ) can only be evaluated numerically .
but for limiting cases ( [ j - quadrupole - approx ] ) and ( [ j - largeangle - approx ] ) , the integration is analytically manageable . for completeness , in the remainder of this section
, we will collect formulae for the corresponding limiting spectral shapes , and compare them with results of @xcite , obtained for same limits , at @xmath271 .      to begin with ,
consider the case when scattering angles in both of the foils are small . inserting ( [ g - small - sigma ] ) to ( [ didomega - combined ] ) , we get @xmath272 where @xmath273 and @xmath274 is the quadrupole - quadrupole interference function .
the latter function achieves its first ( anti - lpm ) maximum at @xmath275 ( see fig .  [ fig : g - qq ] ) . according to eqs .
( [ qq ] ) , ( [ g - qq - def ] ) , the visibility of spectral fringes is @xmath276 .
it must be noted that our function ( [ g - qq - def ] ) appears to differ from function @xmath277 obtained in @xcite , eq .
the comparison of those functions in fig .
[ fig : g - qq ] shows ample differences except in the limits @xmath278 and @xmath279 .
we believe therefore that the corresponding result of @xcite is in error .
( while contributions @xmath280 from @xmath281 and @xmath282 must cancel ) .
we did not follow this procedure , wherefore we can not indicate the source of the error . ]      the next case to be considered is when scattering angles on each of the foils are @xmath283 . inserting eq .
( [ gsigma - la ] ) to ( [ didomega - combined ] ) , obtains @xmath284,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath285\nonumber\\ & = & e^{-\xi}\cos\omega-\mathfrak{re}\left[(1+\xi+i\omega)e_1\left(\xi+i\omega\right)\right],\nonumber\\\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath286 the exponential integral .
term @xmath287 in the argument of @xmath288 is negligible if @xmath289 ; then our eq .
( [ ll ] ) reduces to eq .
( 2.45 ) of @xcite .
this limiting function has an anti - lpm maximum at @xmath290 ( see fig .
[ fig : gll ] ) , which agrees with the conclusions of blankenbecler - drell and baier - katkov that the maximum is achieved at @xmath291.m .
] however , for small @xmath182 , term @xmath292 in the argument of @xmath288 is crucial .
there , @xmath293 , wherewith @xmath294 corrections proportional to @xmath292 , especially in the prefactor of the logarithm in ( [ g_ll - approx ] ) , can be important at moderately small @xmath295 . neglecting @xmath296 or @xmath297 under the logarithm sign in ( [ g_ll - approx ] ) , we arrive correspondingly at eq .
( 2.42 ) or ( 2.43 ) of @xcite . in fig .
[ fig : gll ] we compare the behavior of function ( [ e1 ] ) ( solid curve ) , with that of approximation ( [ g_ll - approx ] ) ( dotted curve ) , and of an approximation resulting when we put in eq .
( [ e1 ] ) @xmath298 ( dashed curve ) .
the latter two approximations are seen to work in complementary regions .
interference function for the case of double small - angle - scattering .
solid curve , eq .
( [ g - qq - def ] )  close to the red curve of fig .
( [ fig : exact - oscill ] ) .
blue dot - dashed curve , baier - katkov s function @xmath299 @xcite . ]
finally , we examine the case when one of the foils scatters weakly , whereas another one scatters the electrons through angles @xmath283 . inserting the corresponding limiting forms ( [ g - small - sigma ] ) and ( [ gsigma - la ] ) to ( [ didomega - combined ] )
, we arrive at @xmath300\right\},\ ] ] where @xmath301 this function has a maximum at @xmath302 .
notably , there is no logarithmic dependence in the interference term , and its amplitude does not depend on @xmath238 , which corresponds to strict saturation of radiation .
correspondingly , the visibility in this case is @xmath303 , i.e. , even lower than for the case of double small - angle scattering .
interference function for the case of double large - angle - scattering .
solid curve , eq .
( [ e1 ] )  close to the blue curve of fig .
[ fig : exact - oscill ] . dashed curve , @xmath304 .
dotted curve , asymptotics  ( [ g_ll - approx ] ) . ]
hitherto we presumed negligible thicknesses of both targets , but at a sufficiently large @xmath0 , finite target thickness must inevitably show up . indeed , when @xmath305 decreases down to the value of @xmath85 , the target geometry gets resolved .
thereat , the radiation spectrum must additionally rise from the doubled but logarithmically saturated values to the completely saturation - free bethe - heitler value .    in principle
, our framework requires only minor modification to reflect the mentioned rise : it suffices to multiply the radiation spectrum computed above by the plate formfactor , which smoothly interpolates between unity at @xmath306 and migdal s function @xmath307 at @xmath308 ( specifically , @xmath309 ) .
the implementation of such an interpolation , however , is beyond our scope in the present paper .
the best way to test our equations is to confront them with experimental data
. measurements of bremsstrahlung spectra from 178 gev electrons on a sequence of plates were performed in @xcite with two equal 26 @xmath310 m thick golden foils ( @xmath311 mm ) separated by a gap of variable width .
the scattering strength parameter for one such a foil , according to eq .
( [ highland - approx ] ) , estimates as @xmath312 , so the scattering angles there were rather large .    in fig .
[ fig : experiment ] we compare predictions of our eq .
( [ didomega - combined ] ) and eq .
( [ impact-2scat ] ) with the experiment @xcite , letting @xmath43 be equal to the distance between plate centres , @xmath14 .
the agreement may be regarded as fair .
some possible experimental inaccuracies at @xmath313 mev were discussed in @xcite , but they do not seem to cause large deviations .
since our gaussian and molire averaging procedures give numerically close results , and on the other hand , it was found in sec .
[ sec:1plate ] that our prescriptions for scattering parameters are close to those of baier - katkov and zakharov , we expect that baier - katkov s and zakharov s predictions for the radiation spectrum must be in agreement with the experiment @xcite , too , even though the qualitative inferences based on the baier - katkov theory seem to disagree with it .
shapes of spectral oscillations for conditions of experiment @xcite ( @xmath314 m ) .
( a ) @xmath315 m ; ( b ) @xmath316 m ; ( c ) @xmath317 m .
dark blue curves , gaussian averaging , with @xmath70 calculated by eq .
( [ highland - approx ] ) .
green curves , molire averaging for gold . ]    as for comparison of experimental results with predictions of blankenbecler , recalling our results of sec .
[ sec : analysis ] , it should be noticed that the use of plates with scattering strength @xmath318 closely corresponds to the point of intersection of visibilities in bd approximation with exact ones [ see fig .
[ fig : vinfty](b ) ]
. therefore , blankenbecler s predictions may agree with particular experiment @xcite rather nicely , too .
basic agreement of experimental results with @xcite ( and disagreement with @xcite ) was actually reported in @xcite . however , for foils several times thinner that currently used ( or made of a lighter material ) , we predict a growing inaccuracy of blankenbecler - drell predictions . at the same time , for weaker scattering foils ,
the visibility of _ secondary _ spectral minima and maxima can yet increase by about a factor of 2 [ see figs .  [
fig : vinfty](b),(c ) ] .
having dwelt enough on the case of bremsstrahlung on two targets separated by a fixed distance , it would be instructive also to generalize it so that it could be compared with the conventional case of bremsstrahlung in an extended random medium . of course
, presently we possess equations for radiation only at two scatterings , but arguably , the greatest contribution to the interference must come from nearest scatterings . therefore , we can exploit previous formulae , if @xmath43 is regarded as a random variable distributed within some range @xmath319 . rather realistically , it can be modeled by an exponential @xmath320 , corresponding to the probability of avoiding an encounter with the next atom in a uniform gas with the mean interatomic distance @xmath321 . to preserve the anti - lpm effect , though
, we must prevent @xmath43 from tending to zero , as was pointed out in sec .
[ sec:2scat ] . for simplicity
, we shall assume the shape of the anticorrelation to be described also by an exponential , but shorter - range one , thus choosing the distribution function @xmath322 parameter @xmath323 provides the ` repulsion ' distance between the scatterers .
weighting eq .
( [ didomega - combined ] ) with ( [ dwdt21 ] ) , we get @xmath324\!\!\bigg\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the @xmath0-depending factor in the integrand is now a difference of lorentzians ( bell - shaped functions of definite sign ) having different heights and widths determined by @xmath321 or @xmath325 , but equal areas .
the first term in the brackets is negative , and can be associated with lpm - like uniform suppression , whereas the second term is positive , representing the anti - lpm enhancement , which is now strictly positive and non - oscillatory .
the shapes of radiation - angle - integral spectra are illustrated in fig .
[ fig : oscill - aver - t21 ] for same values of @xmath70 as in fig .
[ fig : exact - oscill ] , and ( for the sake of illustration ) a moderately large ratio @xmath326 .
it may be observed that with the increase of @xmath70 , the shape of lpm - like suppression sharpens towards @xmath327 , although it does not tend to the thick - target dependence @xmath328 .
obviously , to get the @xmath329 behavior , more than two scatterings need to be involved .
spectra of bremsstrahlung on two plates with a randomized distance between them , eq .
( [ i - aver - t21 ] ) , for @xmath330 and same parameter values for scattering strengths as in fig .  [ fig : exact - oscill ] . ]
finally , we note that in atomic matter , scales @xmath321 and @xmath325 should vastly differ . to estimate @xmath321
, it may suffice to note that according to migdal s calculation , typical @xmath0 at which lpm effect develops are @xmath331 , where @xmath332 is the range at which the angle of multiple scattering becomes comparable with the radiation angle @xmath56 .
hence , @xmath333 , and owing to the presence of factor @xmath334 , this range is at least by 4 orders of magnitude greater than typical interatomic distance ( a few units of @xmath42 ) , which must constitute the scale for @xmath325 .
therefore , anti - lpm enhancement in atomic matter must be virtually invisible indeed , reconciling its principal existence with the conventional theories of the lpm effect . put differently , @xmath335 can be effectively sent to zero , justifying the formal use of the @xmath35-correlated model of multiple scattering employed by migdal @xcite .
in course of our study , we arrived at the following conclusions :    * for scattering foils with macroscopic and fixed separation , the lpm - like suppression of bremsstrahlung at lowest @xmath0 is accompanied by an adjacent enhancement , which can be called the anti - lpm effect .
the latter effect may be associated with an inclined - half - wavelength resonance [ see eq .
( [ denom=1+theta^2 ] ) ] , but not with the unit wavelength resonance , as was previously suggested in @xcite . in classical electrodynamics ,
lpm and anti - lpm effects are predicted to have equal strength , in the sense that their @xmath0-integrated effect is zero ( see the end of sec .
[ sec:2scat ] ) .
however , in a random and weakly scattering media , like the ordinary atomic matter , the anti - lpm enhancement is expected to smear over a broad spectral interval , and thus become faint . *
the shape of the anti - lpm maximum depends on the strength of the scattering in each plate ( see fig .  [
fig : exact - oscill ] ) .
it assumes universal forms for limits of strong or weak scattering : for small scattering angles in both plates , the shape of the oscillatory pattern in the spectrum is described by eq .
( [ g - qq - def ] ) . for large scattering angles in both plates ,
it is described by function ( [ e1 ] ) ( unifying different limiting cases described in @xcite ) . for the mixed case
when one plate scatters strongly , and another one weakly , the spectrum shape obeys eq .
( [ g_ql - def ] ) , where the dependence of the interference term on @xmath70 strictly saturates . * at asymptotically large @xmath0 ,
the dominant contribution to the interference term stems from photon emission angles close to @xmath149 , such that @xmath336 .
therewith , the interference term scales as @xmath337 , with the coefficient proportional to the product of @xmath167-amplitudes of radiation emitted strictly parallel to @xmath149 [ see eq .
( [ di - largelambda ] ) ] . granted this universality , the locations of _ secondary
_ maxima and minima are virtually independent of the scattering strength in the plates .
we have also established that if the rms scattering angle is calculated with a proper account of coulomb corrections , the predictions of gaussian averaging are pretty close to those of the more precise molire averaging , and practically comply with the results of zakharov @xcite , and baier and katkov @xcite . for 2 scattering plates ,
the equation for molire averaging is basically as simple as that for gaussian averaging .
finally , we note that satisfactory agreement of predictions of classical electrodynamics with experiment was found . for future experiment planning
, it may be useful to refer to visibilities of the interference minima and maxima at low and at large @xmath0 , computed in sec .
[ sec : analysis ] ( figs .  [
fig : v ] and [ fig : vinfty ] ) . it may be added that prospects of observing anti - lpm effect in radiation may be not restricted to artificial assemblies of plates , provided one finds a case when @xmath338 , i.e. , every constituent of the matter can scatter the radiating projectile relativistically .
conditions for such a situation may be sought , for instance , in nuclear matter .
this work was supported in part by uffr project no .
to clarify the success of the gaussian approximation in conjunction with interpolation ( [ highland - approx ] ) for the rms scattering angle , consider the large-@xmath339 limit of eq .
( [ exp - k1 ] ) : @xmath340}\right\}\nonumber\\ & \simeq&2\int_0^{\rho_0 } \frac{d\rho}{\rho}\left\{1-e^{-\frac12\rho^2\gamma^2\chi^2_c\left(\ln\frac{2}{\gamma\chi_1\rho}+\frac12-\gamma_{\text{e}}\right)}\right\}\nonumber\\ & \,&+2\int_{\rho_0}^{\infty } d\rho \rho k_1 ^ 2(\rho)\nonumber\\ & \simeq&\int_0^{\rho_0 ^ 2 } \frac{d\rho^2}{\rho^2}\left\{1-e^{-\frac14\rho^2\gamma^2\chi^2_c\left[\ln\left(\frac{\chi^2_c}{\chi^2_1}\ln\frac{\chi^2_c}{\chi^2_1}\right)+1 - 2\gamma_{\text{e}}\right]}\right\}\nonumber\\ & \,&+2\left(\ln\frac2{\rho_0}-\frac12-\gamma_{\text{e}}\right)\nonumber\\ & \simeq&\ln\left\{\gamma^2\chi^2_c\left[\ln\left(\frac{\chi^2_c}{\chi^2_1}\ln\frac{\chi^2_c}{\chi^2_1}\right)+1 - 2\gamma_{\text{e}}\right]\right\}-1-\gamma_{\text{e}}. \nonumber\\\end{aligned}\ ] ] comparing it with eq .
( [ fsigma - la ] ) , we establish the correspondence @xmath341.\ ] ] if we neglect here @xmath342 , and substitute @xmath118 from eq .
( [ chi2c / chi21 ] ) , it casts as      next , one can put @xmath344 , @xmath345 , @xmath346 , and @xmath347 can vary from @xmath348 ( if @xmath349 ) to @xmath350 ( if @xmath351 ) . as a result
, @xmath70 can be approximated by @xmath352 with @xmath353 , and @xmath354 .
those numbers comply with the coefficients in eq .
( [ highland - approx ] ) , which we have thereby derived ab initio .
parameter @xmath310 can also be compared with rossi s @xmath355 mev .
product @xmath356 becomes twice smaller than @xmath357 at @xmath358 , which then exactly corresponds to approximation ( [ blankenbecler - q2def ] ) .
in general case , of course , it is more reliable to use formula with an explicit @xmath359 dependence , like ( [ highland - approx ] ) .