  There is a fundamental difference between the classical expression for the
retarded electromagnetic potential and the corresponding retarded solution of
the wave equation that governs the electromagnetic field. While the boundary
contribution to the retarded solution for the {\em potential} can always be
rendered equal to zero by means of a gauge transformation that preserves the
Lorenz condition, the boundary contribution to the retarded solution of the
wave equation governing the {\em field} may be neglected only if it diminishes
with distance faster than the contribution of the source density in the far
zone. In the case of a source whose distribution pattern both rotates and
travels faster than light {\em in vacuo}, as realized in recent experiments,
the boundary term in the retarded solution governing the field is by a factor
of the order of $R^{1/2}$ {\em larger} than the source term of this solution in
the limit that the distance $R$ of the boundary from the source tends to
infinity. This result is consistent with the prediction of the retarded
potential that part of the radiation field generated by a rotating superluminal
source decays as $R^{-1/2}$, instead of $R^{-1}$, a prediction that is
confirmed experimentally. More importantly, it pinpoints the reason why an
argument based on a solution of the wave equation governing the field in which
the boundary term is neglected (such as appears in the published literature)
misses the nonspherical decay of the field.
