Charges in gravitational fields

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of accelerated charges in gravitational fields, particularly focusing on why charges at rest in a gravitational field, such as that of Earth, do not emit radiation despite the equivalence principle suggesting similarities between accelerated frames and gravitational fields. The conversation explores theoretical implications, interpretations of the Larmor formula, and the nature of radiation in different reference frames.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that accelerated charges emit radiation, and due to the equivalence principle, there should be no difference between an accelerated frame and a gravitational field.
  • Others argue that a charge at rest on Earth does not radiate because of the global static behavior of field lines, as per Larmor's effect, and that this does not contradict the equivalence principle since it applies only to local experiments.
  • A later reply suggests that while there are global frames, none are globally inertial in this context, and that the experiment is intrinsically non-local, making local equivalence statements inapplicable.
  • One participant presents four cases of charged particles in different frames, concluding that radiation depends on relative acceleration, and notes that tidal effects could lead to radiation even in geodesic motion.
  • Another participant expresses confusion regarding whether radiation emitted by accelerated charges is observer-dependent, referencing the Larmor formula and questioning its validity and the type of acceleration used.
  • It is noted that some claims about observer-dependence of radiation are incorrect, as Larmor radiation is a far-field effect and frame invariant, while Unruh radiation remains hypothetical without experimental support.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the implications of the equivalence principle, the nature of radiation in gravitational fields, and the interpretation of the Larmor formula.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the applicability of the Larmor formula, the definitions of acceleration in different contexts, and the implications of observer-dependence in radiation emission.

hellfire
Science Advisor
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
1
Accelerated charges emit radiation. Due to the equivalence principle there is no difference between an accelerated frame and a frame inside a gravitational field. But we do not experience any radiation from charges inside the gravitational field of earth. Why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hellfire said:
Accelerated charges emit radiation. Due to the equivalence principle there is no difference between an accelerated frame and a frame inside a gravitational field. But we do not experience any radiation from charges inside the gravitational field of earth. Why?

This is discussed at
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap7.htm#BM7_2
 
Ok, I went through that chapter. My understanding: the charge at rest on Earth does not radiate because of the global static behaviour of the field lines according Larmor's effect. This does not contradict the equivalence principle because it aplies only for local experiments and no global frame is definable in this case. Is this correct?
 
hellfire said:
Ok, I went through that chapter. My understanding: the charge at rest on Earth does not radiate because of the global static behaviour of the field lines according Larmor's effect. This does not contradict the equivalence principle because it aplies only for local experiments and no global frame is definable in this case. Is this correct?

There are global frames. Its just that none of the global frames for this case are globally inertial. But otherwise, yes. The experiment is intrinsically non local, so a statement about local equivalence does not apply.
 
Let's just try to get away from gravitational fields for now and consider these 4 cases:

(1) The charged particle is at rest in an inertial frame of reference, and you are also.
(2) The charged particle is accelerating ("feels" an acceleration), but you are at rest in an inertial rf.
(3) The charged particle is at rest in a irf, but you "feel" an acceleration.
(4) The charged particle feels an acceleration and you do also.

(1) - no radiation.
(2) - radiation
(3) - radiation
(4) - depends. If you are always at rest wrt the particle = NO radiation. Otherwise, radiation.

Now, let's get back to Earth. Does the gravitational field of Earth change anything? Not really. It still depends on the relative acceleration, although that may become problematic to calculate in odd-ball cases I guess. The fact is, even if both the charged particle and you follow geodesics (essentially case 1 above), there may nevertheless be relative acceleration between you and the particle ("tidal effect"). I suppose then there should be some radiation.

The subject of energy and power may not be well thought out yet in GR, unfortunately.
 
Now I am confused. Do you claim that the radiation emitted by accelerated charges is an observer-dependent phenomenon? If yes, it seams to me that this is in contradiction with the reference DW gave us.

As far as I understood, there the norm of the four-acceleration is used in the Larmor formula, which makes the radiated power invariant (refer to eq. 7.2.3).

So, what kind of acceleration is the one to be used in the Larmor formula? Furthermore, what is the validity of this formula?

Regards.
 
hellfire said:
Now I am confused. Do you claim that the radiation emitted by accelerated charges is an observer-dependent phenomenon? If yes, it seams to me that this is in contradiction with the reference DW gave us.

As far as I understood, there the norm of the four-acceleration is used in the Larmor formula, which makes the radiated power invariant (refer to eq. 7.2.3).

So, what kind of acceleration is the one to be used in the Larmor formula? Furthermore, what is the validity of this formula?

Regards.

Some people do claim this and they are wrong. They are usually mixing Larmor radiation which is known to exist with Unrah radiation. Larmor radiation is a far field effect and as such is frame invariant. Unrah radiation is hypothetical and yet to have any experiment to support a belief that it even exists. In the link I gave the "a" is coordinate acceleration with respect to a globally inertial frame. The A is the four-vector acceleration and those tensor equations with g_mu_nu in them are relativistically correct for any spacetime for which a global inertial frame exists whether you are using that frame or not.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K