\section{I. Introduction}
Impurities embedded in a quantum many-body environment can lead to the formation of quasiparticles coined polarons. The concept was first introduced by Landau and Pekar in the solid-state context to describe an electron coupled to an ionic crystal~\cite{Landau48}. Polarons are fundamental ingredients in many different transport phenomena across condensed-matter physics. Electronic transport in polar crystals or semiconductors~\cite{PolaronsandExcitonsBook} as well as charge and spin transport in organic materials~\cite{Gershenson78,Watanabe14} can be understood in terms of polarons. Pairing between polarons is relevant in the physics of high-temperature superconductors~\cite{Lee06} and polarons are also candidates for electronic transport in DNA and proteins~\cite{EffectiveModelsforChargeTransportinDNANanowires}. Furthermore, polarons are used as probes of quantum many-body systems. For example, the low-energy excitations in a strongly correlated superfluid such as $^{4}$He can be probed by $^{3}$He impurity atoms~\cite{LandauFermiLiquidTheory}.

\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{GENERALULTIMATE.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Average over many snapshots of the particle positions around the impurity for three characteristic values of the impurity-bath coupling constant $\ln(k_{F}a)$. The impurity is located in the center and distances are in units of the healing length $\xi$. The local density $n(r)$ is estimated by summing particles over a square grid of size $L/100$, where $L$ is the size of the simulation box, and the color-bar indicates the ratio $n(r)/n$ over the bulk density $n$. At weak coupling impurities form polarons, {\it{i.e.}} almost free quasiparticles slightly dressed by the medium (right and left upper panels). On the attractive branch as the coupling $\ln(k_Fa)>0$ is decreased, the impurity forms a many-body bound state involving up to few tens of particles and whose size is as large as the healing length (central upper panel).}
\label{M}
\end{figure}

Unprecedented control and versatility of ultracold gases~\cite{Bloch08} made it possible to experimentally observe dressed impurities named Fermi and Bose polarons depending on whether they interact, respectively, with a degenerate Fermi gas~\cite{Schirotzek09, Koschorreck12, Kohstall12, Cetina16, Scazza17} or a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC). For Bose polarons, experiments have been carried out in three-dimensional (3D)~\cite{Jorgensen16,Hu16,Camargo18,Ardila18,Zwierlein19} and one-dimensional (1D)~\cite{Spethmann12,Catani12} geometries. Observation of Bose polarons in ultracold gases has triggered an intense research activity aiming at describing the crossover from weak to strong coupling regimes. In the former case the so-called Bogoliubov-Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian describes accurately the ground state properties of the polaron~\cite{Viverit02, Tempere09, Grusdt15, Grusdt15_2, Kain14, Vlietinck15, Levinsen17, Lampo2018, Nielsen18, DipolarPolaron18}. However, quantum fluctuations become relevant as interactions are increased, making the description in terms of the Fr\"ohlich paradigm inadequate. By using the Gross-Pitaevskii equation strongly interacting Bose polarons were predicted to manifest exotic phenomena such as self-localization~\cite{Cucchietti06,Kalas06, Bruderer08, Santamore11, Blinova13}, but without experimental evidence  so far. Recently, properties of these strongly coupled impurities have also been addressed by techniques such as $T$-matrix, diagrammatic and variational approaches which go beyond the single-phonon excitation scheme of the Fr\"ohlich model~\cite{Rath13, Li14,Christensen15,Ardila15,Shchadilova16,Grusdt2017, Kain18}. These studies predict exotic out of equilibrium dynamics, non trivial quasiparticle splitting due to finite-temperature effects~\cite{Abdelaali14,Abdelaali14-2,Mistakidis18,Mistakidis19,Shchadilova16,Drescher18,Guenther18} as well as important few-body effects~\cite{Levinsen15,Sun17}. Furthermore, the regime of strong coupling should also feature the interchange of Bogoliubov modes between polarons via polaron-polaron interactions~\cite{Dehkharghani18, Camacho2018b}. In the context of theoretical techniques suitable to investigate this latter regime, the quantum Monte-Carlo (QMC) method is based on a microscopic Hamiltonian and provides {\it exact} (within controllable statistical errors) ground-state properties of the polaron for arbitrary coupling strengths~\cite{Ardila15,Ardila16,Parisi16, Grusdt2017}.

Physically, the two-dimensional (2D) geometry is appealing since the role of quantum fluctuations is enhanced while off-diagonal long-range order, responsible of BEC phenomena, still exists in the ground state. Polarons in 2D geometries have been extensively investigated in the context of Fermi polarons~\cite{Koschorreck12,Massignan14,Nga12,Nga13,SchmidtFermi} and exciton impurities coupled to semiconductors~\cite{Sidler17}. Bose polarons have been investigated within the context of the Fr\"ohlich model~\cite{Casteels12,Grusdt16,Pastukhov18}, but a quantitatively precise description of 2D Bose polarons in the strongly coupled regime is still lacking.

Here, we use exact QMC methods~\cite{Ardila15, Ardila16,Parisi16} to study an impurity immersed in a 2D Bose superfluid and to compute the polaron energy, the effective mass and the  quasiparticle residue for arbitrary coupling strength. Quantitatively significant deviations of the quasiparticle properties from perturbation theory are found already at weak coupling strengths between the impurity and the bath. In the strongly interacting regime, the polaron loses the quasiparticle nature characteristic of weak interactions: the wavefunction residue vanishes indicating that the coherence is lost. In this regime the impurity is not longer free to move, but instead is bound to a density perturbation which involves many particles from the bath (see Fig.~\ref{M}).
\section{II. SYSTEM AND PERTUBATION THEORY} We consider an impurity of mass $m_{I}$ embedded in a 2D Bose gas consisting of $N$ atoms of mass $m_{B}$ at $T=0$ in a square box of size $L$ with overall density $n=\frac{N}{L^2}$. In the first quantization formalism the Hamiltonian of the system reads
\begin{eqnarray}
H&=&-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_B}\sum_{i=1}^N \nabla_i^2+\sum_{i<j}V_B(r_{ij})
\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_I}\nabla_\alpha^2+\sum_{i=1}^NV_I(r_{i\alpha}) \;.
\label{Hamiltonian}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the first two terms represent the kinetic and the interaction energy of the bosonic bath where particles interact through the two-body potential $V_B$, which depends on the distance $r_{ij}=|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j|$ between a pair of bosons. Furthermore, $-\frac{\hbar^2\nabla_\alpha^2}{2m_I}$ is the kinetic energy of the impurity denoted by the coordinate vector
${\bf r}_\alpha$ and $V_I$ is the boson-impurity potential depending on the distance $r_{i\alpha}=|{\bf r}_\alpha-{\bf r}_i|$ between the impurity and the $i$-th bath particle. Both interaction potentials $V_B$ and $V_I$ are short ranged and are parameterized by the scattering lengths $a_B$ and $a$, respectively.
Within Bogoliubov theory, the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamiltonian}) can be written in second quantization as the sum of two terms
$H=H_0+H_{\text{int}}$, where
\begin{equation}
H_0=\frac{p^2}{2m_I}+E_B+\sum_{\bf k} \epsilon_k \alpha_{\bf k}^\dagger\alpha_{\bf k} \;,
\label{Hamiltonian0}
\end{equation}
is the unperturbed Hamiltonian of a free impurity moving with momentum ${\bf p}$ and a static host gas. The bath is described in terms of non-interacting Bogoliubov excitations with energy $\epsilon_k=\sqrt{\left(\epsilon_k^0\right)^{2}+2g_Bn\epsilon_k^0}$, where $\epsilon_k^0=\frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m_B}$ is the dispersion of free particles and $g_B=\frac{4\pi\hbar^2/m_B}{\ln(1/na_B^2)}$ is the 2D density-dependent coupling constant of the Bose gas. The ground state of the bath corresponds to the vacuum of excitations and has energy $E_B$. The interaction Hamiltonian $H_{\text{int}}$ is given by the sum of a mean-field shift and a term where the impurity is coupled to the creation and annihilation operators of single excitations in the Bose gas
\begin{equation}
H_{\text{int}}=gn+\frac{g\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt{L^{2}}}\sum_{\bf q}e^{i\bf{q\cdot r_\alpha}}\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_q^0}{\epsilon_q}}\left(\alpha_{\bf q}+\alpha_{-{\bf q}}^{\dagger}\right)\;.
\label{Hamiltonian1}
\end{equation}
Here, $g=\frac{2\pi\hbar^{2}/m_r}{\ln\left(1/na^{2}\right)}$ is the 2D effective coupling constant which contains the reduced mass $m_r=\frac{m_I m_B}{m_I+m_B}$. It describes the scattering processes between the impurity and the bath particles in terms of the scattering length $a$ of the potential $V_I$. The above Hamiltonian $H_0+H_{\text{int}}$ embodies the well-known Fr\"ohlich model which is expected to correctly describe the physics of Bose polarons in the weakly interacting limit, where coupling to multiple excitations of the bath can be neglected~\cite{Levinsen15}.

If $E({\bf p})$  is the energy of the impurity-bath system where the impurity has momentum ${\bf p}$, the low momentum expansion of the energy difference
\begin{equation}
E({\bf p})-E_B=\mu+\frac{p^2}{2m_I^\ast}+\dots \;,
\label{energy}
\end{equation}
defines the binding energy $\mu$ of the impurity and its effective mass $m_I^\ast$. By using perturbation theory one finds the following results holding for $m_I=m_B=m$ to lowest order in the coupling strength $g$ of the interaction Hamiltonian $H_{\text{int}}$ (see Appendix)
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mu}{\mu_{0}}=\frac{4}{\ln\left(4\pi\right)-2\ln\left(k_{F}a\right)},
\label{penergy}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{m}{m^\ast}=1-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\left[\ln\left(4\pi\right)-2\ln\left(k_{F}a_{B}\right)\right]}{\left[\ln\left(4\pi\right)-2\ln\left(k_{F}a\right)\right]^{2}}.
\label{pmass}
\end{equation}
Here we use $\mu_{0}=\frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}_{F}}{2m}$, involving the Fermi wavevector $k_{F}=\sqrt{4\pi n}$ of a system having the same density $n$ of the gas. Moreover, the coupling strength of the impurity-bath interaction is expressed in terms of $\ln(k_{F}a)$. These results were first derived in Ref.~\cite{Pastukhov18}. The same perturbation approach allows one to calculate the overlap $\sqrt{Z_p}$ between the interacting and non-interacting ground state of the impurity-bath system with the impurity moving with momentum ${\bf p}$. For the impurity at rest (${\bf p}=0$) one finds~\cite{Pastukhov18} (see Appendix)
\begin{equation}
Z_{0}=1-\frac{\left[\ln\left(4\pi\right)-2\ln\left(k_{F}a_{B}\right)\right]}{\left[\ln\left(4\pi\right)-2\ln\left(k_{F}a\right)\right]^{2}}.
\label{presidue}
\end{equation}
Notice that the above results hold in the weak-coupling regime $|\ln(k_Fa)|\gg1$ of the impurity-bath interaction.

\section{III. QMC RESULTS}
In order to calculate the properties of the polaron for all coupling strengths we resort to QMC techniques. Details on the general method can be found in Refs.~\cite{ThesisPOL,Ardila15,Ardila16}, whereas an exhaustive discussion of the interatomic potentials used in the simulations and on the trial wavefunction used for importance sampling are found in the Appendix. Simulations are performed for a gas of $N$ identical particles and a single impurity in a square box of size $L$ with periodic boundary conditions. We choose the value $\tilde{g}_B=\frac{m_Bg_B}{\hbar^2}=0.136$ for the dimensionless coupling constant in the bath. This value corresponds to $|\ln(k_Fa_B)|\simeq45$ and is typical for the experimental conditions of 2D Bose gases\cite{Ville18}. Furthermore, as in the perturbation theory study, we consider the case where impurity and particles in the bath have the same mass: $m_B=m_I=m$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{ENERGY.pdf}
\caption{Polaron energy as a function of the coupling strength $\ln(k_{F}a)$ for the attractive and repulsive branches (circles). The dashed line shows the dimer binding energy $\epsilon_b$ and the solid line the perturbation result from Eq.~(\ref{penergy}). The coupling constant of the gas is $\tilde{g}_B=0.136$.}
\label{ENERGY}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

We calculate the polaron energy $\mu$ from the direct calculation of the ground-state energy of the bath with and without the impurity, $\mu=E(N,1)-E(N)$, where $N$ is the number of particles in the bath. Results are shown in Fig.~\ref{ENERGY}. In analogy with the 2D Fermi polaron~\cite{SchmidtFermi,Koschorreck12} we find two branches: one corresponds to the ground state of the attractive polaron with $\mu<0$ and the second to an excited state of the quasiparticle with $\mu>0$. It is important to notice that a two-body bound state with energy $\epsilon_b$ exists for any value of the coupling constant $\ln{(k_Fa)}$. This is in contrast with the 3D polaron where the dimer state only appears as the $s$-wave scattering length turns positive, on one side of the scattering resonance~\cite{Ardila18}. In the weakly interacting regime, $|\ln(k_{F}a)|\gg1$, the QMC results are in good agreement with the prediction (\ref{penergy}) of perturbation theory. Following the attractive branch, we notice that the polaron energy is always much larger, in absolute value, than the dimer binding energy $\epsilon_b$. This is due to many-body effects which favour the formation of cluster states around the impurity involving many particles of the bath (see Fig.~\ref{M} central panel). In particular, in the vicinity of $\ln(k_{F}a)\approx 0$ large fluctuations occur in our QMC simulations due to the formation of very deep many-body bound states which makes both the attractive and the repulsive branch of the polaron hard to follow further. The repulsive branch describes an excited state where the impurity repels the particles of the bath at large distance, but is unstable against cluster formation at short distance. The state is well defined provided the typical size $a$ of bound states is small compared to the average interparticle distance $k_F^{-1}$, but gets increasingly ill defined as the two length scales become comparable. This is exactly what we observe in our simulations where the excited state of the polaron is described using an appropriate choice of the wavefunction used for importance sampling (see Appendix for more details).

\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{MASS.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Effective mass $m^\ast$ of the polaron as a function of the coupling strength $\ln(k_{F}a)$. The coupling constant of the Bose gas is $\tilde{g}_B=0.136$.}
\label{MASS}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{RESIDUE.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Residue $Z_0$ of the polaron as a function of the coupling strength $\ln(k_{F}a)$~\cite{note1}. The coupling constant of the gas is $\tilde{g}_B=0.136$.}
\label{Z}
\end{figure}

Furthermore, we study the mobility of the impurity by calculating its effective mass $m^{\ast}$ as a function of the coupling strength $\ln{k_Fa}$. The effective mass is determined by computing the mean-square displacement of the impurity in imaginary time~\cite{Ardila15}
\begin{equation}
\frac{m}{m^\ast}=\lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\left\langle \left|\Delta\mathbf{r}_{\alpha}(\tau)\right|^{2}\right\rangle }{4D\tau} \;,
\end{equation}
where $D=\hbar^2/(2m)$ is the diffusion constant of a free particle and $\langle \left|\Delta{\bf r}_{\alpha}(\tau)\right|^{2}\rangle =\langle \left|{\bf r}_{\alpha}(\tau)-{\bf r}_{\alpha}(0)\right|^{2}\rangle$, being $\tau=it/\hbar$ the imaginary time of the QMC simulation. The effective mass is found by fitting the slope of the mean-square displacement for large values of $\tau$. The  residue $Z_0$ of the polaron is obtained from the one-body density matrix associated to the impurity
\begin{equation}
\rho(\mathbf{r})=\left\langle \frac{\psi_{T}(\mathbf{r}_{\alpha}+\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}_{1},\cdots,\mathbf{r}_{N})}{\psi_{T}(\mathbf{r}_\alpha,\mathbf{r}_{1},\cdots,\mathbf{r}_{N})}
\label{OBDM}
\right\rangle \;,
\end{equation}
where $\psi_T$ is the many-body guiding wavefunction of the QMC simulation. The above quantity is normalized to unity for ${\bf r}\to0$, whereas its long-range limit gives
the residue
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\rho(\mathbf{r})\rightarrow Z_0\;.
\end{equation}

In Figs.~\ref{MASS}-\ref{Z} we show the results for the effective mass and the quasiparticle residue respectively. The calculation of the residue $Z_0$ is particularly sensitive to finite-size effects which make the extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit delicate. We have chosen different long-range asymptotic behaviours for the Jastrow terms entering the trial wavefunction (see Appendix). In the bath the long-range decay of boson-boson correlations is governed by phonons as shown in Ref.~\cite{ReattoChester67}. For the impurity-boson correlations, instead, we use the same functional form as from the Gross-Pitaevskii equation in the case of a static impurity. This choice of the trial wavefunction exhibits a fast convergence of $Z_0$ with increasing system sizes and allows us to keep finite-size effects under control(see Appendix). From Figs.~\ref{MASS}-\ref{Z} we notice that, even for the smallest reported values of the coupling ($|\ln(k_Fa)|\simeq10$), perturbation theory does not reproduce the QMC results of $m/m^\ast$ and $Z_0$. This is in contrast with the results of the polaron energy reported in Fig.~\ref{ENERGY} and shows that higher order terms, not accounted for by the Fr\"ohlich model, play an important role for these quantities already at such large values of $|\ln(k_Fa)|$~\cite{note}. In the regime of strong interactions both the inverse effective mass and the quasiparticle residue become significantly smaller than the corresponding non-interacting values. Indeed, we find that the polaron looses its quasiparticle nature as it gets more dressed by the particles from the bath. The perturbation caused by the impurity in the surrounding medium involves up to few tens of particles over a distance on the order of the healing length. We find a vanishing quasiparticle residue and a large effective mass which signal the transition to a many-body bound
state (cluster state) without breaking of translational symmetry (localization). A similar situation occurs for Fermi polarons~\cite{SchmidtFermi,Koschorreck12} where Pauli exclusion principle only allows for the formation of a molecular state involving just one particle from the bath. A question which remains open also in the Fermi polaron case is whether the quasiparticle to bound state transition is discontinuous or continuous.

Our findings are also in contrast with Bose polarons in 3D and 1D. In
fact, polarons in 3D remain well defined quasiparticles up to the limit of
resonant interactions ~\cite{Jorgensen16,Hu16}, while in 1D they are never well defined  quasiparticles as the one-body density matrix (\ref{OBDM}) decays to zero at large distances with algebraic law for any value of the coupling constant between the impurity and the bath. In this respect, 2D geometry is peculiar because the quasiparticle nature of polarons is rapidly suppressed by
increasing the interaction strength.

\section{IV. EXPERIMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION}

In Ref.~\cite{Ville18} a gas of $^{87}$Rb atoms in the hyperfine state $\left|F=1,m=0\right\rangle$ is confined in a 2D rectangular box with dimensions $L_{x}\approx L_{y}\approx30$ $\mu$m, at temperatures much below the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless critical temperature. In the transverse direction a strong harmonic confinement is applied with frequency $\omega_{z}/(2\pi)\simeq4.6$ kHz and by changing the number of trapped atoms the 2D density can be varied in the range $n\approx 10-80 \;\mu\text{m}^{-2}$. The 2D scattering length is given by $a_{B}=1.863\;\ell_{z}\exp\left(-\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\ell_{z}/a_B^{(3D)}\right)$ (see Ref.~\cite{Bloch08}), in terms of the 3D s-wave scattering length $a_B^{(3D)}$ and the transverse length $\ell_{z}=\sqrt{\hbar/m_{B}\omega_{z}}$. With the typical ratio of lengths $\ell_z/a_B^{(3D)}\simeq30-50$ reached in experiments the interaction strength is in the range $\tilde{g}_B\simeq0.10-0.16$, where $\tilde{g}_B$ is the dimensionless parameter $\tilde{g}_B=\frac{m_Bg_B}{\hbar^2}=\sqrt{8\pi}a_B^{(3D)}/\ell_z$. Due to the exponential dependence of $a_B$ on the ratio $\ell_z/a_B^{(3D)}$, the 2D gas parameter takes on very small values: $na_B^2\simeq10^{-30}-10^{-50}$. In our purely 2D simulations we use the value $na_B^2=10^{-40}$ for the gas parameter of the bath, which corresponds to the effective 2D coupling strength $\tilde{g}_B=\frac{4\pi}{\ln(1/na_B^2)}=0.136$ close to the experimental conditions of Ref.~\cite{Ville18}.

\section{V. CONCLUSIONS}
We investigated the properties of Bose polarons in two dimensions. The polaron energy, effective mass and  quasiparticle residue have been calculated using QMC techniques for arbitrary coupling strength. We study the properties of the attractive and repulsive branch which correspond to the ground state and to a metastable state of the impurity. In the ground state the polaron energy is much lower than the one of the two-body bound state, which in 2D is present for any value of the interaction strength. At stronger couplings, the impurity forms a bound state involving many particles from the bath, which features a large effective mass and a vanishing wavefunction residue. A vanishing quasiparticle residue and a large effective mass  signal the transition from a polaron to a many-body bound state without breaking of translational symmetry.  A similar behaviour is found along the repulsive branch where a low-density bubble is formed around the impurity. However, this state rapidly becomes unstable against cluster formation as the interaction strength is increased. Our study is important for the investigation of transport properties in layered structures of ultracold atoms~\cite{Chien15,Krinner17} as well as layered solid-state materials~\cite{Sidler17}.

\section{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}

This research was funded by the DFG Excellence Cluster QuantumFrontiers. S.G acknowledges funding from the Provincia Autonoma di Trento. G. E. A. acknowledges funding from the Spanish MINECO (FIS2017-84114-C2-1-P). The Barcelona Supercomputing Center (The Spanish National Supercomputing Center - Centro Nacional de Supercomputaci\'{o}n) is acknowledged for the provided computational facilities (RES-FI-2019-2-0033).

\section{APPENDIX A: GROUND-STATE PROPERTIES-PERTURBATION THEORY}

The Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian in Eq.~[3] of the main text reads,
\begin{equation}\tag{A1}
H=H_{0}+gn+\frac{g\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt{L^{2}}}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\exp\left(i\mathbf{k\cdot r_{\alpha}}\right)\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}^{0}}{\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}}}(\alpha_{\mathbf{k}}+\alpha_{-\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger})\;,
\end{equation}
where $H_{0}$ is the unperturbed Hamiltonian in Eq.~[2], consisting of an impurity with momentum $\mathbf{p}$ and independent Bogoliubov excitations with energy $\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}$. Hence, the unperturbed ground state is represented by $\left|0\right\rangle =\left|\mathbf{p},0_{\mathbf{k}}\right\rangle$ and corresponds to the free impurity and the vacuum of Bogoliubov excitations. Relevant
processes consist in states in which the impurity is scattered by a single excitation. These states are represented by  $\left|\mathbf{k}\right\rangle =\left|\mathbf{p-\hbar\mathbf{k}},1_{\mathbf{k}}\right\rangle$ and correspond to unperturbed energies $E_{\mathbf{k}}^{(0)}=\frac{(\mathbf{p}-\hbar\mathbf{k})^2}{2m_I}+E_B+\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}$.

\textit{Polaron energy:} The Hamiltonian is split into $H=H_{0}+H_{\text{int}}$. The energy expansion within perturbation theory is written as $E_{0}=E_{0}^{(0)}+E_{0}^{(1)}+E_{0}^{(2)}+\mathellipsis$, where $E_{0}^{(0)}=\frac{p^2}{2m_I}+E_B$ is the ground-state energy of the unperturbed system. The first and second order contributions to the energy are given by
\begin{equation}\tag{A2}
    \begin{array}{c}
E_{0}^{(1)}=\left\langle0\right|H_{\text{int}}\left|0\right\rangle, \\
\\
E_{0}^{(2)}=\sum_{\mathbf{k}\neq 0}\frac{\left|\left\langle\mathbf{k}\right|H_{\text{int}}\left|0\right\rangle \right|^{2}}{E_{0}^{(0)}-E_{\mathbf{k}}^{(0)}}.
\end{array}
\label{B2}
\end{equation}
By computing the matrix element $E_{0}^{(1)}$ one straightforwardly obtains,
\begin{equation}\tag{A3}
E_{0}^{(1)}=gn=\frac{4\pi\hbar^{2}n}{m}\frac{1}{\ln\left(1/na^{2}\right)}\;,
\label{mu}
\end{equation}
where we assumed equal masses for impurity and particles in the bath ($m_B=m_I=m$). The polaron energy $\mu$ is estimated using the lowest order result~(\ref{mu}) which,
in units of the energy $\mu_{0}$ and in terms of the wavevector $k_{F}$, is written as in Eq.[5] of the main text.\\

\textit{Effective mass:} We assume that the energy of the bath with the impurity is written as $E(\mathbf{p})=E_{B}+\mu+\frac{p^{2}}{2m^\ast}+\mathellipsis$, holding at low momenta $\mathbf{p}$ of the impurity. Thus, in terms of the second order energy correction, the polaron mass is renormalized as
\begin{equation}\tag{A4}
\frac{1}{m^\ast}= \frac{1}{m}+\lim_{\mathbf{p}\to0}\frac{2\left(E_{0}^{(2)}-\mu+gn\right)}{p^2}\;.
\label{effectivemassdef}
\end{equation}
The term $E_{0}^{(2)}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
E_{0}^{(2)}=-g^{2}\frac{n}{L^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\left[\frac{\left(\mathbf{k}\xi\right)^{2}}{\left(\mathbf{k}\xi\right)^{2}+2}\right]^{1/2}\frac{1}{\Omega(\mathbf{k})}\;,
\end{equation*}
where we use $\frac{\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}^{0}}{\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}}=\left[\frac{\left(\mathbf{k}\xi\right)^{2}}{\left(\mathbf{k}\xi\right)^{2}+2}\right]^{1/2}$ with $\xi=\hbar/\sqrt{2mg_Bn}$
the healing length in the bath. In addition, we introduce the quantity $\Omega(\mathbf{k})=\frac{\left(\mathbf{p}-\hbar\mathbf{k}\right)^{2}}{2m}+\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}-\frac{\mathbf{p}^{2}}{2m}$. At low momenta, $\mathbf{p}\rightarrow0$, one can expand $1/\Omega(\mathbf{k})$ as
\begin{equation}\tag{A5}
\frac{1}{\Omega(\mathbf{k})}\simeq\frac{1}{\frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}}{2m}+\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}}+\frac{\hbar\mathbf{k\cdot p}/m}{\frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}}{2m}+\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}}+\frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}p^{2}/m^2}{\left(\frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}}{2m}+\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}\right)^{3}}\cos^{2}\theta+\mathellipsis \;,
\label{em1}
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the angle between $\mathbf{p}$ and $\hbar\mathbf{k}$. After taking the sum over $\mathbf{k}$, we identify the first term in Eq.~(\ref{em1}) as the second order correction to the polaron energy $\mu$ while the second term vanishes due to symmetry. Thus, one ends up with
\begin{equation*}
E_{0}^{(2)}-\mu+gn=\frac{-g^{2}n}{L^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\left[\frac{\left(\mathbf{k}\xi\right)^{2}}{\left(\mathbf{k}\xi\right)^{2}+2}\right]^{1/2}\frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}\cos^{2}\theta p^{2}/m^2}{\left(\frac{\hbar^{2}\theta\mathbf{k^{2}}}{2m}+\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}\right)^{3}}\;,
\end{equation*}
and by performing the integration over momenta one finds
\begin{equation*}
E_{0}^{(2)}-\mu+gn=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\ln\left(1/na_{B}^{2}\right)}{\ln^2(1/na^{2})}\frac{p^{2}}{2m}\;.
\end{equation*}
The result (\ref{effectivemassdef}) is then given by
\begin{equation}\tag{A6}
\frac{m}{m^\ast}=1-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\ln\left(1/na_{B}^{2}\right)}{\ln^2(1/na^{2})}\;.\\
\end{equation}
Finally, in terms of  the wavevector $k_{F}$, the ratio $m/m^\ast$ is written as in Eq.[6] of the main text.\\

\textit{Quasiparticle residue:} Within perturbation theory one computes the correction to the ground state as
\begin{equation}\tag{A7}
\left|\mathbf{p},0\rangle{}_{\text{pert}}\right.=\left|0\right\rangle +\sum_{\mathbf{k}\neq0}\frac{\left\langle\mathbf{k}\right|H_{\text{int}}\left|0\right\rangle}{E_{0}^{(0)}-E_{\mathbf{k}}^{(0)}}\left|\mathbf{k}\right\rangle +\mathellipsis,
\end{equation}
where we neglect terms of second order in $H_{\text{int}}$ orthogonal to $|0\rangle$, as well as higher order contributions. The quasiparticle residue is defined as the square modulus of the overlap between the unperturbed state $\left|0\right\rangle$  and the normalized perturbed state $\sqrt{Z_{\mathbf{p}}}\left|\mathbf{p},0\right\rangle_{\text{pert}}$. Up to second order contributions in $H_{\text{int}}$ one finds
\begin{equation*}
Z_{\mathbf{p}}=\frac{1}{{}_{\text{pert}}^{}\left\langle\mathbf{p},0\right.\left|\mathbf{p},0\right\rangle{}_{\text{pert}}^{}}=1-\sum_{\mathbf{k}\neq0}\frac{\left|\left\langle\mathbf{k}\right|H_{\text{int}}\left|0\right\rangle \right|^{2}}{\left(E_{0}^{(0)}-E_{\mathbf{k}}^{(0)}\right)^{2}}\;.
\end{equation*}
By carrying out the integral over momenta and by taking the limit $\mathbf{p}\to0$ similarly to the case of the effective mass, one finds
\begin{equation}\tag{A8}
Z_0=1-\frac{\ln\left(1/na_{B}^{2}\right)}{\ln^{2}\left(1/na^{2}\right)}\;.
\end{equation}
The above result, if written in terms of  the wavevector $k_{F}$, reduces to Eq.~[7] of the main text.\\

\section{APPENDIX B: TRIAL WAVE FUNCTIONS AND INTER ATOMIC POTENTIALS}

We describe the trial wave function which is used in QMC simulations as a guiding function for importance sampling and to impose proper boundary conditions on the many-body state. In general, the trial wave function is written as a pair product of Jastrow functions
\begin{equation}\tag{B1}
\psi_T({\bf R})=\prod_{i<j}f_B(r_{ij})\prod_{i=1}^N f_I(r_{i\alpha})\;,
\label{trial1}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf R}=({\bf r}_\alpha,{\bf r}_1,\dots,{\bf r}_N)$ is the multidimensional vector containing the spatial coordinates of the impurity and of the bath particles and $f_B$ and $f_I$ are two-body terms accounting, respectively, for boson-boson and impurity-boson correlations.

As a general strategy, the short-range part of both the boson-boson and boson-impurity Jastrow function is taken from the lowest energy solution of the two-body scattering problem $-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m_{r}}\nabla^{2}\psi({\bf r})+V(r)\psi({\bf r})=0$, where $V(r)$ is the corresponding interaction potential and $m_r$ is the reduced mass. Notice that the impurity is considered to have the same mass as the bath particles yielding in both cases $2m_{r}=m$. The two-body short-range behavior is matched with an appropriate tail at large distances specific for boson-boson and boson-impurity correlations.

\subsection{Boson-boson Jastrow terms}

Boson-boson interactions are modelled via a repulsive soft-disk potential $V_{B}(r)=V_{0}\Theta(R_{0}-r)$ of diameter $R_0$, where $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside function. The scattering length $a_{B}$ is related to the range $R_0$ and the height $V_0>0$ of the potential according to: $a_{B}=R_{0}\exp\left[-\frac{1}{k_{0}R_{0}}\frac{I_{0}(k_{0}R_{0})}{I_{1}(k_{0}R_{0})}\right]$. Here, $k_{0}=\sqrt{V_{0}m/\hbar^{2}}$ is the characteristic momentum associated to the potential and $I_{l}$ is the modified Bessel function of zeroth $(l=0)$ and first order $(l=1)$. In our calculations we use $nR_0^2 = 0.01$, thus ensuring that $R_0$ is small compared to the mean interparticle distance. The value of the 2D scattering length $a_B$ is exponentially suppressed and allows us to describe typical experimental conditions where the 3D $s$-wave scattering length is much smaller than the transverse length of the 2D confinement~\cite{Bloch08}. In particular, we choose the height $V_0$ of the repulsive potential such that the 2D gas parameter is equal to $na_B^2=10^{-40}$. This corresponds to a dimensionless coupling constant of the bath $\tilde{g}_B=\frac{mg_B}{\hbar^2}\simeq0.136$, quite close to the experimental conditions of Ref.~\cite{Ville18}.

The Jastrow term for boson-boson correlations is chosen of the following form,
\begin{equation}\tag{B2}
f_B(r)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
I_{0}(k_{0}r)\qquad r<R_{0}\\
\\
A\ln\left(\frac{r}{a_{B}}\right)\qquad R_{0}\leq r<\overline{R}\\
\\
B\exp\left(-\frac{C}{r}+\frac{D}{r^{2}}\right)\quad\overline{R}\leq r<L/2 \;.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Here, $A=I_0(k_0R_0)/\ln(R_0/a_B)$ to ensure continuity of $f_B(r)$ at $r=R_0$. Furthermore, the coefficients $B$, $C$ and $D$ are chosen such that $f_B$ and its first derivative $f_B^\prime$ are continuous functions at the matching point $\overline{R}$ and $f_B^\prime(r=L/2)=0$, complying with the periodic boundary conditions. The position $\overline{R}$ of the matching point is a parameter optimized by minimizing the energy in a variational calculation. As stated, the short-range part corresponds to the two-body scattering solution at zero energy and the leading long-range part reproduces the phononic tail as predicted from hydrodynamic theory~\cite{ReattoChester67}.

\subsection{Impurity-boson Jastrow terms: Attractive and repulsive branch}

The impurity-boson interaction is modelled by a contact pseudo-potential. In this case the interaction potential is replaced by Bethe-Peierls boundary conditions on the many-body wave function when a particle of the bath approaches the impurity. These contact conditions are imposed by the term $\prod_{i=1}^N f_I(r_{i\alpha})$ in the trial function~(\ref{trial1}). Notice that the pseudo-potential supports a two-body bound state for any value of the scattering length $a$.  The energy of this bound state is given by $\epsilon_{b}=-\frac{4e^{-2\gamma}\hbar^2}{ma^2}$, where $\gamma=0.577$ is Euler's constant.

For the attractive branch the correlation term $f_I(r)$ is constructed in the following way
\begin{equation}\tag{B3}
f_I(r)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
AK_{0}(2e^{-\gamma}r/a),&r\leq\overline{R_1}\\
\\
B + e^{-Cr}
+e^{-C(L-r)},&\overline{R_1}\leq r<L/2\;.
\end{array}\right.
\label{Eq:wfABattractive}
\end{equation}
Here, $K_0$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind. The parameters $A$ and $B$ are chosen such that $f_I(r)$ and its first derivative are continuous at $r=\overline{R_1}$. The parameter $C$ and the matching point $\overline{R_1}$ are instead additional parameters used to minimize the variational energy. Notice that, by construction, $f_I^\prime(r=L/2)=0$ in compliance with periodic boundary conditions.

The Jastrow term describing the repulsive branch is instead chosen as
\begin{equation}\tag{B4}
f_I(r)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
A\ln\left(\frac{r}{a}\right), \qquad r \leq\overline{R_1}\\
\\
B + e^{-Cr}
+e^{-C(L-r)}, \quad\overline{R_1}\leq r<L/2 \;.
\end{array}\right.
\label{Eq:wfABrepulsive}
\end{equation}
The parameters $A$, $B$, $C$ and $\overline{R_1}$ entering Eq.~(\ref{Eq:wfABrepulsive}) are chosen similarly to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:wfABattractive}).

We point out that, for both branches, the pair wave function satisfies the 2D Bethe-Peierls contact condition of a pseudo-potential with scattering length $a$ which reads: $\frac{[rf_I^\prime]_{r=0}}{[f_I-\ln(qr)rf_I^\prime]_{r=0}}=-\frac{1}{\ln(qa)}$, where $q$ is an arbitrary wave vector. The important difference between attractive and repulsive branches is that in the former case the function $f_I$ is nodeless and properly describes the ground state of the polaron. In the latter case, instead, $f_I$ has a node at $r=a$ and its short-distance behavior corresponds to an excited state of the two-body problem orthogonal to the bound state with energy $\epsilon_b$.

We also notice that the long-range behavior of the Jastrow term $f_I(r)$ is consistent with perturbation theory applied to the Gross-Pitaevskii equation of a Bose condensate in presence of a quenched impurity with infinite mass. In fact, it can be shown~\cite{Astrakharchik04,AstrakharchikPhD} that such impurity induces the following perturbation, $\delta\psi_{\bf k}$, to the wave function of the bath in momentum space,
\begin{equation}\tag{B5}
\delta\psi_{{\bf k}} = -\frac{g\phi_{0}}{\frac{\hbar ^{2}k^{2}}{2m}+2mc^{2}}\, , \label{dPsi}
\end{equation}
where $c=\sqrt{g_Bn/m}$ is the speed of sound in the bath and $\phi_0$ is the wave function of the unperturbed condensate.
In coordinate space, the perturbation decays exponentially in 3D and 1D with the healing length given by $\xi=\hbar/(\sqrt{2}mc)$, while in 2D it involves the modified Bessel function of the second kind
\begin{equation}\tag{B6}
\delta \psi(r) \propto \frac{mg\phi_0}{\hbar^2} K_0\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}r}{\xi}\right)\;.
\end{equation}
The above expression can be expanded with logarithmic accuracy at large distances as
\begin{equation}\tag{B7}
\delta \psi(r) \propto \frac{mg\phi_0}{\hbar^2} \exp\left[-\frac{\sqrt{2}r}{\xi} + {\cal O}\left(\ln\frac{\xi}{r}\right)\right]\;,
\label{Eq:df:polaron}
\end{equation}
exhibiting the same functional form as the long-range behavior in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:wfABattractive}) and (\ref{Eq:wfABrepulsive}).

In addition we have also used a square-well potential with fixed (short) radius to model the boson-impurity interaction. We find that the obtained results depend only on the interaction strength $\ln(k_Fa)$ and not on the details of the potential.

\section{APPENDIX C: REPULSIVE POLARON BRANCH}

An additional physical insight can be obtained from variational calculations for the excited branch using the Jastrow term in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:wfABrepulsive}). Note that this Jastrow term has a node when $r=a$ and if $a\ll\overline{R_1}$ it is orthogonal to the bound state. This choice of trial many-body wave function describes an excited state of the polaron which is expected to be metastable when the mean interparticle distance is much larger than $a$, i.e. for $|\ln(k_Fa)|\ll 1$.
In the opposite limit when the relevant distances are much smaller than $a$, the attractive~(\ref{Eq:wfABattractive}) and repulsive~(\ref{Eq:wfABrepulsive}) Jastrow terms give the same function, in fact $K_0(2e^{-\gamma}r/a) \approx \ln(r/a)$ if $r\ll a$. This means that, at the variational level, the upper repulsive branch constructed from the Jastrow term~(\ref{Eq:wfABrepulsive}) connects with the lower attractive branch~(\ref{Eq:wfABattractive}) for $|\ln(k_Fa)|\gg 1$, see Fig.~\ref{Fig:polrep}. Notice, however, that these variational estimates are upper bounds to the true ground-state energy, which is large and negative and corresponds to a deep bound state of the impurity and many particles from the bath.

In other words, the pair-product construction in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:wfABrepulsive}) for the upper branch becomes unstable due to a significant overlap with the bound state. Although the exact position of the crossing from the upper to the lower branch is not expected to be quantitatively correct, its presence hints to a possible instability of the upper branch also in experimentally relevant configurations with ultracold atoms.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{ENERGYVMC.pdf}
\caption{Variational Monte Carlo (VMC) results for the polaron energy interpolating between the attractive and repulsive branch. Circles show the Diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) results reported in Fig.~2 in the main text. Solid lines correspond to the perturbation theory results in Eq.~(5) of the main text.}
\label{Fig:polrep}
\end{center}
\end{figure}


\section{Introduction}

\subsection*{Overview}
This paper is concerned with the properties of the radiation from a relativistically uniformly accelerated charge. The general formula for an arbitrary trajectory of the total radiated power and its angular distribution are specified to uniform accelerated motion with torsion and hypertorsion.  Schwinger \cite{Schwinger:1949ym} first calculated the angular distribution of power for point charges undergoing linear and circular acceleration for arbitrary dynamics and specification to uniformly accelerated circular motion.  Letaw \cite{Letaw:1980yv} found three previously unknown classes of uniformly accelerated worldlines.  This paper extends Schwinger's initial specification of circular motion to include the power distributions for these three fundamental cases of uniform acceleration.

\subsection*{Motivation}
Stationary background systems based on these new worldlines are of interest because the worldlines are trajectories of time-like Killing vector fields \cite{Letaw:1980yv, Rosu:1999ad, LetawJ}. The less-known trajectories (3, 4, 5; see below) are interesting in their own right because they are simple uniformly accelerated motions.  Their excitation spectra are connected to the question of coordinate dependence of thermodynamics and quantum field theory in flat spacetime (i.e. they may yield insights into the Unruh effect \cite{Unruh:1976db}, with crucial dependence on study of accelerating world lines).

There is broad motivation for investigating the light from these fundamental motions: connections between quantum theory and gravity have been made (e.g. consider relativistic superfluidity \cite{Xiong:2014oga} or geometric creation of quantum vortexes \cite{Good:2014iua}) by pursuing the effects of the influence of quantum fields under external conditions (external effects like the Davies-Fulling effect\footnote{Consider the scale invariant accelerated solution in \cite{Good:2013lca} and the spin-statistics derivation from it \cite{Good:2012cp}.} \cite{Davies:1976hi}, the Hawking effect \cite{Hawking1975}, and the Parker effect \cite{Parker:1968mv}, i.e. respectively, moving mirrors, black holes, and expanding cosmologies). This program \cite{Parkerbook} continues to lead to progress that demonstrate strong correspondences \footnote{Example solutions are explored in the recent black hole-moving mirror correspondence contained in \cite{Good:2016oey}, temperature without a horizon in \cite{Good:2016horizonless}, and a black hole birth cry and death gasp in \cite{Good:2015nja}.} and simplifying physics \footnote{ The Kerr black hole has a temperature $2\pi T = g - k$ where $k = m\Omega^2$ is the spring constant and $g= (4m)^{-1}$ is the Schwarzschild surface gravity \cite{Good:2014uja}. }.

Accelerated trajectories in flat spacetime and motion in curved spacetime are joined via the Equivalence Principle.  The thermodynamics `addendum' made to the Equivalence Principle, (e.g. Unruh effect), has been immensely helpful for further understanding the gravitational influence on quantum fields\footnote{Hawking's effect as a gravitational phenomena is further understood as a result of the quantum field phenomena of the Unruh effect.}. These motions are interesting and simple, and they deserve more attention particularly because of the fundamentally important and wide-reaching nature of uniform acceleration.

\subsection*{Naming Convention}

With an emphasis on torsion \cite{Letaw:1980yv}, the worldlines themselves can be called (e.g. a shortened use of the convention introduced by Rosu \cite{Rosu:1999ad}):
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Nulltor \hskip1.0cm	2. Ultrator  \hskip1.2cm 3. Parator \hskip1.0cm 4. Infrator  \hskip1.0cm 5. Hypertor
\end{enumerate}
 The worldline plots are in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Worldline} where we have also included their four-vector position parametrization $x^\mu(s)$ in proper time \cite{Letaw:1980yv}.

Projected in space, the worldlines take the forms:

\begin{enumerate}
	\item Line \hskip1.0cm	2. Circle  \hskip1.2cm 3. Cusp \hskip1.0cm 4. Catenary  \hskip1.0cm 5. Spiral
\end{enumerate}
where we have ignored the zero acceleration solution, $\kappa=0$, (the inertial path). These spatial projections are in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Spatial}, with the assigned axis convention. The main new results of this paper will be focused on Infrator and Hypertor.

\subsection*{Curvature Invariants}
The three curvature invariants are, $\kappa$, $\tau$, and $\nu$, (curvature, torsion, and hypertorsion, respectively). As mentioned above, the stationary world lines separate naturally into five classes according to the values of the curvature invariants, if we exclude case when particle  at the rest (calling the motions by their projections in space):
\begin{itemize}
  \item Line :   $\kappa \neq 0$, $\nu=\tau=0$;
  \item Circle : $|\kappa|<|\tau|$, $\nu=0$;
  \item Cusp :   $|\kappa|=|\tau|$, $\nu=0$;
  \item Catenary : $|\kappa|>|\tau|$, $\nu=0$;
  \item Spiral : $\nu \neq 0$
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{Power and Acceleration}\label{sec:acc_basics}

Using the the relativistic covariant form of Larmor's formula, an accelerated point charge has power,
\begin{equation}\label{Power1} P = \frac{2}{3} q^2 \alpha^2, \end{equation}
where $\alpha$  is the proper acceleration (as we will see in Eq.~(\ref{properacc})) and $q$ is the charge.  A constant proper acceleration yields constant power. The proper acceleration is the scalar invariant magnitude
\begin{equation} \alpha^2 \equiv -a_{\mu}a^{\mu}, \end{equation}
of the four-acceleration, $a^\mu$,
\begin{equation} a^{\mu} = \f{d^2 x^{\mu}}{d\tau^2},\end{equation}
most easily expressed (see e.g. \cite{ Rindler:1960zz, Proceedings}), in two nice forms:
\begin{subequations}\label{properacc}
\begin{eqnarray} \alpha^2
	&=& \gamma^4a^2 + \gamma^6(\boldsymbol{v}\cdot \boldsymbol{a})^2,\\
  &=& \gamma^6a^2 - \gamma^6(\boldsymbol{v} \times \boldsymbol{a})^2 \;. \end{eqnarray}
 \end{subequations}
In the case of straight-line motion, parallel vectors $\boldsymbol{v}\times \boldsymbol{a} = \boldsymbol{0}$ yield $\alpha^2 = \gamma^6 a^2$. In the case of circular motion, the three-acceleration vector is perpendicular to the three-velocity vector, $\boldsymbol{v}\cdot \boldsymbol{a} = 0$, and one obtains $\alpha^2 = \gamma^4 a^2$. The acceleration ratio, $A_\textrm{WL} \equiv \alpha^2/a^2$, is given for each worldline in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Acceleration}.

In the instantaneous rest frame of the accelerating particle, the proper acceleration, $\alpha$, is the acceleration as measured by a hand-held accelerometer.  It is what is `felt' and is the \textit{proper}-ty of the particle, a Lorentz scalar invariant in all frames. For a stationary worldline the Lorentz scalar remains constant and the proper acceleration, $\alpha = \kappa$ is the curvature, the simplest of the curvature invariants for stationary worldlines (the others being torsion, $\tau$, and hypertorsion, $\nu$ \cite{Letaw:1980yv}). The power is consequently,
\begin{equation} P = \frac{2}{3} q^2 \kappa^2. \end{equation}

\subsection*{Vacuum Spectra}
Stationary world lines are special in part because each have a unique spectrum, e.g. Parator is exactly calculable and distinctly non-Planckian.  Each unique motion is a stationary world line solution of the Frenet equations when the curvature invariants of proper acceleration and proper angular velocity are constant.  There is a dearth of papers that have treated these worldlines over the last four decades\footnote{A more recent treatment discussing the difficulties in finding a characterization of the notion of higher order time derivatives of constant proper $n-$acceleration itself as a Lorentz invariant statement and its relationship to the Frenet-Serret formalism is given by Pons and Palol \cite{Josep}.}, for instance the exactly solvable motion has been treated in only a handful of papers:
\cite{Rosu:1999ad, Padmanabhan:1983ub,Takagi:1986kn,Audretsch:1995iw,Sriramkumar:1999nw,Leinaas:2000mh,Rosu:2005iu,Louko:2006zv,Obadia:2007qf,Russo:2009yd}.

As an illustration of the importance of investigating these worldlines, it is good to remark that the vacuum spectra differ among the stationary worldlines. For instance, two can be calculated exactly: the Nulltor and Parator motions which are both one parameter motions ($\kappa$ only).  The vacuum fluctuation spectrum for the zero torsion case \cite{Letaw:1980yv}, is the same Planckian distribution as found by Unruh \cite{Unruh:1976db} for uniform acceleration radiation, and scales (with $\omega/\kappa \gg 1$):
\begin{equation} \frac{1}{e^{2\pi \omega/\kappa}-1} \approx e^{-2\pi \omega/\kappa}, \quad \textrm{with} \quad T = \frac{\kappa}{2\pi} = 0.159\kappa.  \end{equation}
The spectrum for the paratorsional worldline is Letawian, with a hotter temperature (by a factor of $\pi/\sqrt{3} = 1.81$), scaling:
\begin{equation} e^{-\sqrt{12} \omega/\kappa}, \quad \textrm{with} \quad T = \frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{12}} = 0.289\kappa. \end{equation}
The Nulltor and Parator cases both have uniform acceleration of $\kappa$, with an exactly analytic spectrum,  confirmed in, e.g. \cite{Proceedings}, as first found in Letaw \cite{Letaw:1980yv}.

The current work is a continuation of \cite{Proceedings} which focused exclusively on Parator.  This work contains the new power distributions of both Infrator and Hypertor which are harder because they are not single parameter systems and their spectra are not analytic despite being time-independent.  We have included the distribution of Parator in this work for completeness.

\section{Calculating the Power Distributions}
For a charge in relativistic motion the power distribution has a well-known (e.g. Jackson \cite{DavidJackson}), result (using the notation of Griffiths \cite{Griffiths}) with the intricate vector algebra details in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Angular},
\begin{equation}\label{AngDistr}  \frac{dP}{d\Omega} = \frac{q^2}{4\pi} \frac{|{\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \times (\boldsymbol{u} \times \boldsymbol{a})|^2}{({\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \cdot \boldsymbol{u})^5}. \end{equation}
Two types of relativistic effects are present: (1) the spatial relationship between the velocity and acceleration and (2) the transformation between the instantaneous rest frame of the particle to the observer.\footnote{The denominator terms constitutes this dominant effect for ultra-relativistic motion.} The relevant derivatives for each worldline are given in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Derivatives}.
We define the power distribution function $I_{\textrm{WL}}(\theta,\phi)$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{dP}{d\Omega} \equiv  \frac{2}{3} q^2 \kappa^2 I_{\textrm{WL}}(\theta,\phi),
\end{equation}
so that for any particular worldline, the function $I_\mathrm{WL}$ satisfies the relation,
\begin{equation} \label{unitone}
\int_0^{2\pi} \int_0^\pi I_{\textrm{WL}} \; \textrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\phi =1.
\end{equation}
The total radiating power is therefore given by the constant,
\begin{equation}
P = \frac{2}{3} q^2 \kappa^2.
\end{equation}
Computing the power distribution, Eq.~(\ref{AngDistr}), requires straightforward but involved vector algebra.  We have done this work and the results for each class of motion are in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Power}, where we include the simplified exact algebraic answers, the main results of this paper.  Furthermore, we resolve two dimensional polar plots $\phi = 0$, and 3D plots of the shape of the light for various speeds in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Polar}.

\subsection*{Normalized Power Distribution}
The normalized power distribution, $I_{\textrm{WL}}(\theta,\phi)$, is the power distribution without the coefficient $\frac{2}{3}q^2 \kappa^2$ and satisfies Eq.~(\ref{unitone}).  Below are the results of the normalized power distributions for Infrator and Hypertor motions:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{\textrm{infra}}=\frac{3}{8 \pi H(\theta,\phi)^5} \left[C_2 \, F(\theta,\phi)^2+2\, C_1 F(\theta,\phi)G(\theta,\phi)-\frac{1}{\gamma ^2} G(\theta,\phi)^2\right]\,\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
I_\mathrm{hyper}=\frac{3}{8\pi Q(\theta,\phi)^5} \left[K_1 Q(\theta,\phi)^2+2\, K_2 Q(\theta,\phi)P(\theta,\phi) -\frac{1}{\gamma^2}P(\theta,\phi)^2\right]\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
While ostensibly similar in form, the angular distribution functions are carefully defined with unique scalings and their detailed definitions and form of the coefficients can be found in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Power} .

\newpage

\section{Scaling at High Speeds}
The angle $\theta_{\textrm{max}}$ at which maximum radiation is emitted occurs when
\begin{equation} \frac{d}{d\theta} \Big[\frac{dP}{d\Omega}\Big] = 0. \end{equation}
Calculation of derivative for all world lines was done with respect to the angle $\theta$ in the plane $\phi = 0$, except hypertor, since its  $\phi$ range is between $0$ and $2\pi$. After numerical and graphical analysis we find the solution angles and expand them for the high speed limit,
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta_{\textrm{max}}^{\textrm{nulltor}} = \frac{1}{2\gamma}+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma^2}\right)^{3/2}\,,\quad
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation} \label{maxangle}\theta^{\textrm{parator}}_{\textrm{max}} =
\sqrt{\frac{2}{\gamma}}  + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma}\right)^{3/2}, \end{equation}

For the case of Nulltor and Parator motions, the answer does not depend on curvature invariants, and we will always get the same maximum angle, as it was demonstrated in \cite{Proceedings}. For the case of Infrator and Hypertor motions
we removed the constant variables $\kappa, \tau$, and $\nu$, because they do not affect the final scaling results with respect to $\gamma$.  If we substitute values for the curvature invariants the same series by order  gamma with different numerical coefficients result. For this reason, the maximum angle for  Infrator and Hypertor motions below are shown to leading order in gamma,

\begin{equation} \label{maxangle1}\theta^{\textrm{infrator}}_{\textrm{max}} \sim
\frac{1 }{\gamma}+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma^2}\right)^{3/2}, \end{equation}

\begin{equation} \label{maxangle1}\theta^{\textrm{hypertor}}_{\textrm{max}} \sim
\frac{1}{\gamma}+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma^2}\right)^{3/2}. \end{equation}

The case of Ultrator is trivial as the radiation is always maximally beamed along $\theta_{\textrm{max}}^{\textrm{ultrator}}=0$ for a stationary worldline with circular spatial projection, as $\phi$ ranges from 0 to $2\pi$. These expressions demonstrate the maximum angle scaling for the aforementioned trajectories, placing emphasis on the $\gamma^{-1/2}$ scaling of Parator.  The slow scaling (relative to rectilinear motion) here explains the physics behind the delayed collimation of radiation at high speeds that can be seen in the polar plot, $\phi = 0$, in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Polar}.  The outlier case of Parator is also corroborated by the different scaling in the simple calculation of Thomas precession for the worldlines given in the next section.  The $\gamma^{-1}$ result for Infrator and Hypertor corresponds to the usual beaming that occurs in rectilinear motion at high speeds.

\section{Thomas precession}\label{sec:Thomas}
 Five  types of Thomas precession in all case of stationary motions with approximations are found. Thomas precession is important as a relativistic correction and a kinematic effect in the flat spacetime of special relativity.  Its importance is underscored by its algebraic origin as a result of the non-commutativity of Lorentz transformations,  and its accounting of relativistic time dilation between the electron and nucleus of an atom, giving the right correction to the spin-orbit interaction in quantum mechanics. Using the cross product definition of proper acceleration Eq. (\ref{properacc}) and the definition of Thomas precession, \begin{equation}(\gamma+1)^2\omega_T^2 = \gamma^4(\boldsymbol{v}\times\boldsymbol{a})^2, \end{equation} and the fact that stationary worldlines have constant acceleration, $\alpha = \kappa$, one finds:
\begin{equation} \gamma^2(\gamma+1)^2 \omega_T^2  = \gamma^6 a^2 - \kappa^2. \end{equation}
We choose the sign for the square root using the standard convention in the the canonical expression $+\omega_T \sim \boldsymbol{a}\times\boldsymbol{v}$, i.e. the right-hand rule in the use of the cross product that results in a positive sign overall. Applying this to the worldlines give the Thomas precession and the lowest order term in $\beta$  for Nulltor and Ultrator motions, respectively:
\begin{equation} \omega_T = 0, \end{equation}

\begin{equation} \omega_T = \frac{\kappa \beta}{\gamma+1} \approx \frac{\kappa \beta}{2}, \end{equation}
and for Parator and Infrator motions, respectively
\begin{equation} \omega_T =  \frac{\kappa}{\gamma}\left(\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma+1}\right)\approx \frac{\kappa \beta^2}{4},\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \omega_T = \frac{\tau}{\gamma+1} \approx \frac{\tau}{2} = \frac{\kappa \beta_R}{2}. \end{equation}
Finally,  precession for Hypertor motion is found. As its approximation looks complicated, for brevity two quantities ($a_N$ and $a_H$)  are introduced:
\begin{equation} \omega_T=\frac{\kappa}{\gamma(\gamma+1)}\sqrt{ \left(\frac{a_H}{a_N}\right)^2-1}. \end{equation}
where $a_N=\kappa/\gamma^3$ is the Nulltor acceleration and  the quantity $a_H$ is the magnitude of the 3-acceleration of Hypertor:
\begin{equation}
a_H \equiv \frac{\gamma_{min}^2}{\gamma^2} \frac{R}{\Delta}\sqrt{\frac{R_{+}^2}{\gamma^2 }+R^2 v_{min}^2}.
\end{equation}
The variable  $\gamma_{min}$ and all others are described in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Power}.

\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusions}

We have found the power distributions for light emitted by a point charge undergoing uniform acceleration for all five classes of stationary worldlines, including those with torsion and hypertorsion. After computing their proper accelerations and confirming that all of the stationary motions have values equal to $\kappa$ (as they should be!), we have calculated acceleration ratios, minimum velocities and confirmed the results with constant power emission.

We have graphically described the emitted radiation with different speeds, starting from rest to near light speed,  in two and three dimensional space. After numerical and graphical analysis we found  the maximum angle at which radiation is emitted. Additionally, in the Appendices  of this work we have  included worldline plots of all systems  with  the four  functions  $x^{\mu}(s)$, specifying the coordinates of each point $s$ on the curve and special projections with their general trajectory equations including curvature, torsion and hypertorsion. Finally, we have derived Thomas precession for all  classes of stationary worldlines.

It may be possible to use these results to act as benchmark for investigating non-stationary trajectories and their power distributions.  Non-stationary trajectories have been investigated in a different context (that of the Unruh effect) in Obadia-Milgrom \cite{Obadia:2007qf}.  For instance, there are several fundamental non-uniformly accelerated motions that may emit interesting shapes of radiation to be distinguished from the stationary cases, e.g. the black hole collapse trajectory \cite{MG14one,MG14two,Good:2016LECOSPA} or the eternal thermal boundary acceleration \cite{Carlitz:1986nh}.  Other non-uniformly accelerated trajectories like those related to black hole remnants \cite{Proex,GTC,universe,MG15}, and particularly those that are of recent interest with respect to entropy and energy emission \cite{paper1,paper2,paper3} can be explored via the power distribution method in this work.

Uniform accelerated motion was crucial for construction of the equivalence principle in general relativity.  Motivated by the fact that investigations into uniform acceleration has yielded insights into gravity, thermodynamics and quantum field theory, we hope that this study may be an incipient direction that can lead toward further insights into the basic radiation emitted from fundamental uniformly accelerated motion (in electrodynamics\footnote{For an interesting and recent paper on paradoxes involving the electric field of a uniformly accelerating charge see \cite{DavidG} and references therein.} or otherwise).

These solutions are exact results in classical electrodynamics and may be a first step toward a better understanding (or disentangling) related radiation effects like Letaw's vacuum spectra, Unruh's uniform acceleration radiation with torsion, or Davies-Fulling moving mirror radiation.

Further work along this direction includes the computation of radiation reaction for each of the five classes of stationary worldline motions. This can be interesting to address because results may be used to contrast with the consensus example that Nulltor radiates without radiation reaction (a nice book on uniformly accelerated point charges including much discussion of this example was written by Lyle \cite{Lyle}).  Other extensions include investigation into the intensity spectrum distribution, and maximum intensity measure\cite{Griffiths}.

\section*{Acknowledgment}

MG thanks Rafael Sorkin for clarifying a point about integral parameter independence and Harret Rosu for discussions on the semicubical parabola. Funding from state-targeted program ``Center of Excellence for Fundamental and Applied Physics" (BR05236454) by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan is acknowledged. Funding also provided by the ORAU FY2018-SGP-1-STMM Faculty Development Competitive Research Grant No. 090118FD5350 at Nazarbayev University.
\newpage

\begin{appendices}

\section{Computational Details}

\subsection{Details to find Angular Distribution}
\label{Appendix:Angular}

The necessary tools for determining the stationary worldline power distributions,
\begin{equation} \frac{dP}{d\Omega} = \frac{q^2}{4\pi} \frac{|{\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \times (\boldsymbol{u} \times \boldsymbol{a})|^2}{({\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \cdot \boldsymbol{u})^5}, \end{equation}
are shown in the following.  Here
\begin{equation} {\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \times(\boldsymbol{u} \times \boldsymbol{a}) = ({\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})\boldsymbol{u} - ({\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \cdot \boldsymbol{u})\boldsymbol{a}, \end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}  |{\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \times (\boldsymbol{u} \times \boldsymbol{a})|^2 = ({\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})^2 u^2 - 2 (\boldsymbol{u}\cdot \boldsymbol{a})({\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \cdot \boldsymbol{a})({\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \cdot \boldsymbol{u}) + ({\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \cdot \boldsymbol{u})^2 a^2. \end{equation}
Using the definitions, including ${\mbox{$\resizebox{.16in}{.08in}{\includegraphics{BoldR}}$}} \equiv \boldsymbol{r} - \boldsymbol{r}'$, (the vector from a source point $\boldsymbol{r}'$ to a field point $\boldsymbol{r}$), where the source point is our origin, $\boldsymbol{r}'=0$,
\begin{equation} {\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \equiv \frac{\boldsymbol{r} - \boldsymbol{r}'}{|\boldsymbol{r} - \boldsymbol{r}'|} = \boldsymbol{\hat{r}} \equiv \sin\theta\cos\phi \boldsymbol{\hat{x}} + \sin\theta\sin\phi \boldsymbol{\hat{y}} + \cos\theta \boldsymbol{\hat{z}},\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \boldsymbol{u} \equiv {\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} - \boldsymbol{v}, \end{equation}
one finds the terms in the order that they appear,
\begin{equation} {\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \cdot \boldsymbol{a} = a_x \sin\theta\cos\phi + a_y\sin\theta\sin\phi + a_z \cos\theta, \end{equation}
\begin{equation} u^2 = ({\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} - \boldsymbol{v})^2 = 1 - 2( v_x \sin\theta\cos\phi + v_y\sin\theta\sin\phi + v_z \cos\theta) + v^2,\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \boldsymbol{u}\cdot \boldsymbol{a} = ({\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} - \boldsymbol{v})\cdot \boldsymbol{a} = a_x \sin\theta \cos\phi + a_y\sin\theta\sin\phi + a_z \cos\theta -v_x a_x -v_y a_y - v_z a_z, \end{equation}
\begin{equation} {\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}} \cdot \boldsymbol{u} = {\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}}^2 - {\mbox{$\hat \brcurs$}}\cdot \boldsymbol{v} = 1- v_x \sin\theta\cos\phi -v_y\sin\theta\sin\phi - v_z \cos\theta, \end{equation}
\begin{equation} a^2 = a_x^2 + a_y^2 + a_z^2, \quad v^2 = v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2. \end{equation}

\newpage
\subsection{Derivatives of the Stationary Worldlines}
\label{Appendix:Derivatives}
\subsection*{Nulltor}
The rectilinear values for the component velocities and accelerations are,
\begin{equation} a_x = 0, \quad a_y = 0, \quad a_z = -\frac{\kappa }{\gamma ^3},\end{equation}
\begin{equation} v_x = 0, \quad v_y = 0, \quad v_z = \beta.\end{equation}
Here $\gamma$ is the usual Lorentz factor and $\beta$ is the speed.
\subsection*{Ultrator}

The values for the component velocities and accelerations are (at proper time moment $s = 0$, axis chosen such that $v_z = v \hat{z}$ and $a_x=a \hat{x}$), using $\beta = \kappa/\tau$,
\begin{equation} a_x = -\frac{\kappa }{\gamma ^2}, \quad a_y = 0, \quad a_z = 0,\end{equation}
\begin{equation} v_x = 0, \quad v_y = 0, \quad v_z = \beta.\end{equation}
Notice $\beta$ is constant in this stationary worldline case.

\subsection*{Parator}
The values for the component velocities and accelerations are,
\begin{equation} a_x = -\frac{(\gamma -2) \kappa }{\gamma ^3}, \quad a_y = 0, \quad a_z = \frac{\sqrt{2\gamma -2} \kappa }{\gamma ^3},\end{equation}
\begin{equation} v_x = \gamma^{-1}\sqrt{2(\gamma-1)}, \quad v_y = 0, \quad v_z = 1-\gamma^{-1}.\end{equation}
The main difference here is a single parameter $\kappa = \tau$ for the motion, while $\gamma$ is the usual Lorentz factor.
\subsection*{Infrator}
The values for the component velocities and accelerations are,
\begin{equation} a_x =\frac{\sigma ^2 }{\kappa}\text{sech}^3(s \sigma ) , \quad a_y = 0, \quad a_z = - \frac{\sigma ^2 \tau  }{\kappa^2}\tanh (s \sigma ) \text{sech}^2(s \sigma ),\end{equation}
\begin{equation} v_x = \tanh (s \sigma ), \quad v_y =0 , \quad v_z = v_R \text{sech}(s \sigma ),\end{equation}
\\
where $s=\frac{1}{2 \sigma }\textrm{ln} \left(2 \frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma_R ^2} -2\frac{\gamma }{\gamma_R } \sqrt{\frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma_R ^2}-1}-1\right)$.

\subsection*{Hypertor}
The hypertor values with proper time
 for the component velocities and accelerations are,
\begin{multline}
 a_x = \frac{R R_{+} }{\Delta }\text{sech}^3(R_{+} s)\,\,, \qquad a_y = \frac{R  v_{\textrm{min}  } }{\Delta } \text{sech}^2(R_{+} s) [ R_{+} \sin (R_{-} s) \tanh (R_{+} s)-R_{-}\cos (R_{-} s)]\,\,,\\  a_z =- \frac{R v_{\textrm{min} }  }{\Delta }\text{sech}^2(R_{+} s)[R_{+} \cos (R_{-} s) \tanh (R_{+} s)+R_{-} \sin (R_{-} s)]\,\,,\\
 \end{multline}
\begin{equation} v_x = \tanh \left(R_+ s\right), \quad v_y = v_{\textrm{min}} \sin \left(R_- s\right) \text{sech} \left(R_+ s\right), \quad v_z = v_{\textrm{min}} \cos \left(R_- s\right) \text{sech} \left(R_+ s\right),\end{equation}

where  $s=-\frac{1}{R_+}\cosh ^{-1}\left(\frac{\gamma}{\gamma_{\textrm{min}}}\right)$ .

\subsection{Acceleration Ratios}\label{Appendix:Acceleration}
The acceleration ratio is defined simply as $A^2 \equiv \alpha^2/a^2$.
\subsection*{Nulltor}
\begin{equation} A^2_{\textrm{line}} = \gamma^6. \end{equation}
\subsection*{Ultrator}
\begin{equation} A^2_{\textrm{circle}} = \gamma^4, \quad v \equiv \kappa/\tau. \end{equation}
\subsection*{Parator}
\begin{equation} A^2_{\textrm{cusp}} = \frac{\gamma^6}{\gamma^2 - 2\gamma + 2}, \quad \kappa = \tau. \end{equation}
\subsection*{Infrator}
\begin{equation} A^2_{\textrm{cat}} = \frac{\gamma^6}{1+ \gamma^2v_R^2}, \quad v_R \equiv \tau/\kappa. \end{equation}

\subsection*{Hypertor}
\begin{equation} A^2_{\textrm{hyper}} = \frac{\gamma ^4  \kappa ^3 \tau}{R^2 \gamma _{\textrm{min} }^4 v_{\textrm{min}} \left(R^2 v_{\textrm{min} }^2+\frac{R_+^2}{\gamma ^2}\right)}\,\,,  \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \gamma_{{\textrm{min}}} \equiv (1-v_{\textrm{min}}^2)^{-1/2} , \qquad v_{\textrm{min}} \equiv \frac{\kappa \tau}{\Delta^2} \,\,,\end{equation}
\begin{equation}  \Delta^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}( R^2 +\kappa^2 + \tau^2 + \nu^2 ) \,\,,
\end{equation}
 \begin{equation} R^2 \equiv R_+^2 + R_-^2 \,\,,\end{equation}
 \begin{equation}  R_{\pm}^2 \equiv {\sqrt{a^2+b^2} \pm a}\,\,,\end{equation}
 \begin{equation} a=\frac{1}{2} \left(\kappa ^2-\nu ^2-\tau ^2\right) \,\,,\qquad b= \kappa  \nu\,\,.\end{equation}

 \newpage

\subsection{Compilation of Power Distributions}\label{Appendix:Power}
\subsection*{Nulltor}
\begin{equation} \label{LineHS} I_{\textrm{null}} = \frac{3}{8\pi \gamma^6} \frac{\textrm{sin}^2\theta}{(1-\beta\textrm{cos}\theta)^5}. \end{equation}
\subsection*{Ultrator}
\begin{equation} I_{\textrm{ultra}} = \frac{3}{8\pi} \frac{(1-\beta\textrm{cos}\theta)^2-(1-\beta^2)\textrm{sin}^2\theta\textrm{cos}^2\phi}{\gamma^4(1-\beta\textrm{cos}\theta)^5}. \end{equation}
\subsection*{Parator}
\begin{equation}\label{even_func} I_{\textrm{para}} \equiv
\frac{\lambda_1
+\lambda_2 \textrm{cos}{\phi}
+\lambda_3\textrm{cos}^2\phi }{
\left( \textrm{cos}\phi + \lambda_4 \right){}^5},\end{equation}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_0&=&-\frac{3}{8\pi \gamma\sqrt{2\gamma _1}^5 \textrm{sin}^5\theta},\\
\lambda_1&=&\lambda_0
\left[2 + \gamma  \gamma _2 + \gamma _1 \textrm{cos}\theta
\left(\gamma_3 \textrm{cos}\theta-2 \gamma_2\right)\right],\\
\lambda_2&=& -2\lambda_0 \sqrt{2\gamma _1}\textrm{sin}\theta \left(\gamma _1-\gamma _2 \textrm{cos}\theta\right),\\
\lambda_3&=& 2\lambda_0 \gamma_{3/2}\,\textrm{sin}^2\theta,\\
\lambda_4&=& \frac{\gamma _1 \textrm{cos}\theta - \gamma}{\sqrt{2\gamma _1}\textrm{sin}\theta},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\begin{equation} \gamma_n \equiv \gamma-n \end{equation}
\begin{equation} n=1,2,3, 3/2 \end{equation}

\subsection*{Infrator}
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{\textrm{infra}}=\frac{3}{8 \pi H(\theta,\phi)^5} \left[C_2 \, F(\theta,\phi)^2+2\, C_1 F(\theta,\phi)G(\theta,\phi)-\frac{1}{\gamma ^2} G(\theta,\phi)^2\right]\,\,,
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
 G(\theta,\phi)&=&\frac{\sin (\theta ) \, F(\theta,\phi)}{H(\theta,\phi)}\,\left( \cos (\phi )-v_R \, \sin (\phi )\, \sinh (\alpha)\right)\,\,,\\
F(\theta,\phi)&=&(1-v_R^2)\,\text{sech}^3(\alpha)\, H(\theta,\phi)\,\,,\\
H(\theta,\phi)&=&1-v_R \, \sin (\theta ) \, \sin (\phi )\, \text{sech}(\alpha)-\,\sin (\theta )\, \cos (\phi ) \, \tanh (\alpha ) \,\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
C_1&=&(1-v_R^2)\tanh (\alpha)\,\,, \\
C_2&=& v_R^2 \sinh ^2(\alpha)+1 \,\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
 \alpha&=& \frac{1}{2}\, \textrm{ln}(2\,\xi \,\eta-1)\,\,, \\
 \eta &=&\sqrt{\xi^2-1}+\xi\,\,, \\
 \xi &=&\gamma \sqrt{1-v_R^2} \,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

\subsection*{Hypertor}

\begin{eqnarray}
I_\mathrm{hyper}=\frac{3}{8\pi Q(\theta,\phi)^5} \left[K_1 Q(\theta,\phi)^2+2\, K_2 Q(\theta,\phi)P(\theta,\phi) -\frac{1}{\gamma^2}P(\theta,\phi)^2\right]\,\,,
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
Q(\theta,\phi)&=&1 - A_1\,\cos(\theta) + A_2\, \sin(\theta)\cos(\phi) -  A_3\,\sin(\theta) \sin(\phi)\,\,,\\
P(\theta,\phi)&=& B_3\,\cos(\theta) + B_2\, \sin(\theta)\cos(\phi) + B_1\,\sin(\theta) \sin(\phi)\,\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
A_1&=& v_{\textrm{min}} b\cos(\Omega_\gamma)\,\,,\\
A_2&=&\sqrt{1-b^2}\,\,,\\
A_3&=& v_{\textrm{min}}b\sin(\Omega_\gamma)\,\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
B_1&=& b(A_2A_3D_1-A_1D_2)\,\,,\\
B_2 &=& D_1 b^3 \,\,,\\
B_3 &=& b(A_3D_2+A_2A_1D_1) \,\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
K_1&=& B_2^2+B_1^2+B_3^2\,\,,\\
K_2&=& -A_2 B_2+A_3B_1+A_1B_3\,\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
D_1 &=& \frac{R\,R_{+}}{\kappa \Delta}\,\,, \\
D_2 &=& \frac{R\,R_{-}}{\kappa \Delta}\,\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_\gamma&=& \frac{R_{-}}{R_{+}}\cosh^{-1}(\frac{1}{b}) \,\,,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
b=\frac{\gamma_{\textrm{min}}}{\gamma}\,\,,\,\,\,\,\,\,v_{\textrm{min}}=\frac{\kappa\,\tau}{\Delta^2} \,\,,\,\,\,\, \gamma_{\textrm{min}}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v_\textrm{min}^2}} \,\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
R^2=R_{+}^2 + R_{-}^2\,\,,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{+}^2&=& \frac{1}{2}(\kappa^2-\nu^2-\tau^2) +\sqrt{\kappa^2\,\nu^2+\frac{1}{4}(\kappa^2-\nu^2-\tau^2)^2}  \,\,,\\
R_{-}^2&=& -\frac{1}{2}(\kappa^2-\nu^2-\tau^2) +\sqrt{\kappa^2\,\nu^2+\frac{1}{4}(\kappa^2-\nu^2-\tau^2)^2} \,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

\newpage

\section{Plots}

\subsection{Worldline Plots}\label{Appendix:Worldline}

\subsection*{Nulltor}
\begin{equation} x^\mu (s) = \kappa^{-1} \left(\sinh(\kappa s), 0, 0, \cosh(\kappa s)\right). \end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
{\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[width=1.0in]{wl_line.pdf}}}
{\caption{\label{fig:WL_Line} The hyperbola in a spacetime diagram.  The vertical axis is time, the horizontal axis is space.  This is the uniformly accelerated rectilinear worldline.  This is usual straightline motion with constant proper acceleration.  Here $s$ is proper time and $\kappa$ is the proper acceleration.  It is a one parameter motion defined by $\kappa$ only.  }}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Ultrator}
\begin{equation} x^\mu (s) = \rho^{-2} \left(\tau \,\rho \,s, \kappa \cos\rho s, 0, \kappa \sin \rho s\right). \end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{wl_circle.pdf}
{\caption{\label{fig:WL_Circle} The helix worldline for familiar circular motion.  This is a 3D parametric plot of the uniformly accelerated worldline that is spatially projected as circular motion.  Here $s$ is proper time, $\rho^2 = \tau^2 - \kappa^2$, $\tau$ is the torsion, and $\kappa$ is the proper acceleration.  It is a two-parameter system defined by $\kappa$ and $\tau$.  }}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\newpage

\subsection*{Parator}
\begin{equation} x^\mu (s) = \left(s + \frac{1}{6} \kappa^2 s^3, \frac{1}{2} \kappa s^2, 0, \frac{1}{6} \kappa^2 s^3\right). \end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{wl_cusp.pdf}
{\caption{\label{fig:WL_Cusp} The cusp world line which is spatially a semi-cubic parabola plotted in a 3D parametric plot.  It is a one-parameter system defined by $\kappa = \tau$. Here $s$ is proper time and the system moves in two dimensions of space.
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Infrator}
\begin{equation} x^\mu (s) = \sigma^{-2} \left(\kappa \sinh (s \sigma ), \kappa \cosh (s \sigma ), 0, s \tau \sigma\right). \end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{wl_cat.pdf}
{\caption{\label{fig:WL_Cat1} The infrator worldline (spatial catenary) plotted in a 3D parametric plot. Here $s$ is proper time, $\sigma^2 = \kappa^2- \tau^2$, and $\tau<\kappa$.  This is a two-parameter system in two dimensions of space.  Its projected spatial shape is the familiar hanging chain. } }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Hypertor}
The Hypertor worldline is 3+1 dimensional, and so cannot be plotted on a 3D plot.  Its worldline function is written down explicitly in Letaw (1980): \cite{Letaw:1980yv}.

\newpage

\subsection{Spatial Projections}\label{Appendix:Spatial}

\subsection*{Nulltor: Line}
For the zero torsional worldline whose spatial projection is just a line, its direction has been assigned to the z-axis in this work.

\subsection*{Ultrator: Circle}
\begin{equation} z=\pm\sqrt{\frac{\kappa^2}{(\tau^2-\kappa^2)^2}-x^2} \end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{spcircle.pdf}
{\caption{\label{fig:WL_Circ} The spatial Ultrator plot with invariants $\tau > \kappa$ for $\tau = 1$ and  $\kappa = 3/5$, with radius $R=\frac{\kappa}{\rho^2}=15/16 $.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Parator: Cusp}
\begin{equation} z = \frac{\sqrt{2 \kappa}}{3} x^{3/2}\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{spcusp.pdf}
{\caption{\label{fig:WL_Cusp1} The spatial Parator plot with invariants $\kappa =\tau= 1$.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Infrator: Catenary}
\begin{equation} z= \frac{\tau}{\kappa^2-\tau^2}\cosh^{-1}\left[ \frac{x(\kappa^2-\tau^2)}{\kappa}\right]  \end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{spcat.pdf}
{\caption{\label{fig:WL_Cat3} Two dimensional catenary  plot with invariants $\tau < \kappa$ for $\tau = 1$,  $\kappa = 2$ of the Infrator motion.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Hypertor: Helix with Variable Pitch}
Parametric equations:
\begin{equation} x = \frac{\Delta}{RR_{+}} \cosh (R_{+}s ),\end{equation}
\begin{equation} y = \frac{\kappa \tau}{R\Delta R_{-}}\cos(R_{-}s),\end{equation}
\begin{equation} z = \frac{\kappa \tau}{R\Delta R_{-}}\sin(R_{-}s). \end{equation}
where variable $\Delta$ and others are shown in Appendix \ref{Appendix:Acceleration}.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{spHelix.pdf}
{\caption{\label{fig:WL_hyper} Spatial Projection of the Hypertorsional worldline with $\tau = 10$, $\nu = \kappa = 1$.  Proper time ranges from $-1$ to $1$.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\newpage

\subsection{Polar Distribution Plots}\label{Appendix:Polar}
\subsection*{Nulltor}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{L1.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{L2.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{L3.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{L4.pdf} }}
\caption{\label{fig3} Rectilinear Angular Distribution; A polar plot with different velocities for the particle, $\beta = 0.001, 0.333, 0.666, 0.999$. In the first figure the particle has a very small velocity. In  other figures particle moving with  $33\%$ ,$66\%$, $99\%$ speed of light.  The vertical axes is $x$ and the horizontal axis is $z$. The electron moves forward along the $z$ straight line direction.  This is the usual textbook distribution of braking radiation with forward beaming around the axis of motion (no actual radiation in the precise direction of motion, just around it).   }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Ultrator}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{S1.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{S2.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{S3.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{S4.pdf} }}
\caption{\label{fig4a} Synchrotron Angular Distribution; A polar plot with $\beta = 0.001, 0.333, 0.666, 0.999$. In the first figure  particle  moving with constant velocity along a circle. In the second figure, the particle is moving with  $33\%$ speed of light, in the third and fourth figures, we have $66\%$ and $99\%$ speed of light respectively. The vertical axes is $x$ and the horizontal axis is $z$. The electron moves circularly in the horizontal $z$-$y$ plane. Notice each graph is a different worldline as the shape remains the same along a constant $\beta$ stationary worldline. This is the usual textbook example of synchrotron radiation, where the radiation is as a `train headlight', always directed in the forward motion, quite distinct from braking radiation. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\subsection*{Parator}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{C1.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{C2.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{C3.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{C4.pdf} }}
\caption{\label{fig5a} Cusp Angular Distribution; A polar plot with speeds $\beta = 0.001, 0.333, 0.666, 0.999$. The vertical axes is $x$ and the horizontal axis is $z$. The electron moves in both dimensions.  Here there is a single parameter $\kappa = \tau$.  The limiting angle is zero despite appearances in the fourth frame, as the scaling for the maximum angle of radiation is slower than the other stationary worldlines.  That is, much higher speeds than $99.9\%$ are required to achieve beaming along the horizontal $z$ axis.     }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Infrator}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT1.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT2.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT3.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT4.pdf} }}
\caption{\label{fig456} Catenary Angular Distribution; The catenary hangs as a chain would with the vertical axis $x$ and horizontal axis as $z$.  A polar plot with $v_R=0.0001$ and $\beta = 0.001, 0.333, 0.665, 0.997$. The electron moves in both dimensions but at high speeds moves mostly in the $x$-direction (thus the reason for the beaming in the $x$-direction).  Notice the symmetry to that of Nulltor, which is mostly coincidental due to the very low Rindler drift in Infrator's motion.  A very small drift means a very small torsion, similar to Nulltor, but Infrator is inherently a 2D motion (Nulltor is 1D), and so the beaming of Infrator is directed differently as can be seen in the following Figures.  }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT5.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT6.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT7.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT8.pdf} }}
\caption{\label{fig123} Catenary Angular Distribution; Additional torsion is added with substantial Rindler drift: $v_R=0.25$.  Here $\beta = 0.251, 0.500, 0.749, 0.998$ for the four plots respectively.  }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT9.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT10.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT11.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{CAT12.pdf} }}
\caption{\label{figabc} Catenary Angular Distribution; Even more Rindler drift requires an initial starting speed where $\beta > v_R$.  Here $v_R=0.333$, and $\beta = 0.334, 0.555, 0.776, 0.997$.  }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\newpage

\subsection*{Nulltor}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{line0_3.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{line0_6.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{line0_9.pdf} }}
\caption{\label{fig3a}3-Dimensional Rectilinear Angular Distribution also known as "Bremsstrahlung radiation"; A polar plot with different velocities for the particle, $\beta =  0.333, 0.666, 0.999$.  The electron moves forward along the $+z$  direction. The plot range is $\theta=[0,\pi]$ and $\phi=[0,\pi]$. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\subsection*{Ultrator}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.0in]{circle0_3.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.0in]{circle0_6.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.0in]{circle0_9.pdf}}}
\caption{\label{fig4} Synchrotron Angular Distribution in 3D; A spherical 3D plot.  In the first figure, the particle is moving with  $33\%$ speed of light, in the second and third figures, we have $66\%$ and $99\%$ speed of light respectively. The electron moves in the $z$ direction, but around the $x$ axis in circular motion.  The plot range is $\theta=[0,\pi]$ and $\phi=[0,\pi]$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\subsection*{Parator}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{cusp0_3.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{cusp0_6.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{cusp0_9.pdf} }}
\caption{\label{fig5} Cusp Angular Distribution in 3D pace; A polar plot with speeds $\beta =  0.333, 0.666, 0.999$. The electron moves between $x$ and $z$ dimensions.  The plot range is $\theta=[0,\pi]$ and $\phi=[0,\pi]$. Here curvature and torsion are equal,  $\kappa = \tau$. As it was mentioned before for Parator motion the limiting angle is zero despite appearances in the third frame, as the scaling for the maximum angle of radiation is slower than the other stationary worldlines.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Infrator}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{cat0_3.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{cat0_6.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{cat0_9.pdf} }}
\caption{\label{figdef} Catenary Angular Distribution in 3D space; Additional torsion is added with substantial Rindler drift: $v_R=0.2$.  Here $\beta = 0.332, 0.664, 0.996$ . The direction of the electron appears as a resulting vector from components along $x$ and $z$ dimensions.  The plot range is $\theta=[0,\pi]$ and $\phi=[0,\pi]$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\newpage
\subsection*{Hypertor}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{0_1helix0_3.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{0_1helix0_6.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{0_1helix0_9.pdf} }}
\caption{\label{figh11} Hypertor Angular Distribution in 3D space; For the case when curvature invariants are  $\kappa = 1$, $\tau=\nu=0.1$ the radiation shape is displayed above. A polar plots with different velocities $\beta = 0.333, 0.665, 0.998$. In Hypertor motion the particle moves along a helix with a variable pitch trajectory and the radiation will be emitted in the prescribed directions. The plot range is $\theta=[0,\pi]$ and $\phi=[0,\pi]$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{0_5helix0_3.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{0_5helix0_6.pdf}}\quad
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{0_5helix0_9.pdf}}}
\caption{\label{figh22}  Hypertor Angular Distribution in three dimensional space with  invariants  : $\kappa = 1,   \tau=\nu=0.5$, and speed  $\beta = 0.331 , 0.666 , 0.998$ . Compared to the previous example Fig. (\ref{figh11}) it can be seen how changes in invariants can affect to shape of radiation, i.e. quite a variety of change can happen to the ancillary lobe depending on the particular choice of torsion and hypertorsion. The plot range is $\theta=[0,\pi]$ and $\phi=[0,\pi]$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\end{appendices}
\newpage