Does a co-accelerated charge radiate?

  • Thread starter jason12345
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Charge
In summary: See this threadhttps://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=324201&page=2"See the link.In summary, the co-accelerated observer measures radiation from an accelerated charge. The equivalence principle does not apply to extended objects, so one cannot build a radiation detector that is in a comoving frame with a point charge.
  • #1
jason12345
109
0
Is there a consensus on whether or not a co-accelerated observer measures radiation from an accelerated charge?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think it is clear that such radiation is measured.
 
  • #5
clem said:
I think it is clear that such radiation is measured.

Thanks. So do you have a link to a reference to an experiment that measured the radiation from an accelerating charge when the receiver was co-accelerating with it?
 
  • #6
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Look at the equations in the link. They imply that with no relative acc(and no change in rel acc) there is no radiation.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
The short answer is "yes, there is radiation". If you hold up a radiation measuring device, it indicates radiation.

One can then quibble endlessly about this. The longer answer is that locally, you can't tell if you have radiation or just near-field electric and magnetic fields. You can have electric and magnetic fields acting as if they are radiation, but until you measure the 1/r fall off, you can't tell radiation from near-field. So you need an extended object to do the measurement, and this extended object doesn't form a unique reference frame. So the question is actually ill-defined: one strictly speaking cannot build a radiation detector that is in a comoving frame with a point charge.

Let me reiterate the short answer, because it's more important than the quibbling: "yes, there is radiation". If you hold up a radiation measuring device, it indicates radiation.
 
  • #9
It is clearly written in the link that a charge on the surface of the earth, being actually accelerating, doess not radiate or you'd have a perpetual energy souce.
The extended object is in the same comoving frame in which the charge is accelerated, so according to the equivalence principle the situation is the same as an observer with the charge on the ground which does not radiate
 
  • #10
A charge resting on the surface of the Earth does not accelerate.

The equivalence principle does not apply to extended objects - or, more properly, the equivalence principle allows us to distinguish between uniform acceleration and gravity by seeing where they are not equivalent - gravity has tides.

If you hold up a radiation measuring device, it indicates radiation.
 
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
A charge resting on the surface of the Earth does not accelerate.

.

Sorry, I meant subject to acceleration as writtenhere
"One of the most familiar propositions of elementary classical electrodynamics is that "an accelerating charge radiates". In fact, the power (energy per time) of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a charged particle is often said to be strictly a function of the acceleration of that particle. However, if we accept the strong Equivalence Principle (i.e., the equivalence between gravity and acceleration), the simple idea that radiation is a function of acceleration becomes problematic, because in this context an object can be both stationary and accelerating. For example, a charged object at rest on the Earth's surface is stationary, and yet it's also subject to a (gravitational) acceleration of about 9.8 m/sec2. It seems safe to say (and it is evidently a matter of fact) that such an object does not radiate electromagnetic energy, at least from the point of view of co-stationary observers. If it did, we would have a perpetual source of free energy."
 
  • #12
The charge on the Earth with the observer is the same case as he meant here(the Earth also changes acceleration as the latter changes direction)
 
  • #13
The equivalence principle does not apply to electrically charged particles. A charged particle cannot fall freely (ie. under the influence of gravity alone), because as it accelerates in the gravitational field it will give off electromagnetic radiation, which will act on the charge itself - so the charge is no longer falling under the influence of gravity alone.

In the case of a gravitationally charged particle, the charge gives off gravitational radiation (very roughly speaking), so the charge does not fall freely with respect to the "background" spacetime, but does fall freely with respect to the combined "background" + "gravitational radiation" spacetime.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-6/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
This is exactly what I meant by quibbling.

If you hold up a radiation measuring device, it indicates radiation.
 
  • #15
Vanadium 50 said:
The short answer is "yes, there is radiation". If you hold up a radiation measuring device, it indicates radiation.

One can then quibble endlessly about this. The longer answer is that locally, you can't tell if you have radiation or just near-field electric and magnetic fields. You can have electric and magnetic fields acting as if they are radiation, but until you measure the 1/r fall off, you can't tell radiation from near-field. So you need an extended object to do the measurement, and this extended object doesn't form a unique reference frame. So the question is actually ill-defined: one strictly speaking cannot build a radiation detector that is in a comoving frame with a point charge.

Let me reiterate the short answer, because it's more important than the quibbling: "yes, there is radiation". If you hold up a radiation measuring device, it indicates radiation.

Nice answer. But a measuring device co accelerating with the charge in the far field won't detect radiation, right?
 
  • #16
jason12345 said:
But a measuring device co accelerating with the charge in the far field won't detect radiation, right?

I'm arguing that there is no such thing as "a measuring device co accelerating". This device has to be an extended object, and relativity of simultaneity means its not in a single frame at all, much less the same frame as the source.
 
  • #17
atyy said:
The equivalence principle does not apply to electrically charged particles. A charged particle cannot fall freely (ie. under the influence of gravity alone), because as it accelerates in the gravitational field it will give off electromagnetic radiation, which will act on the charge itself - so the charge is no longer falling under the influence of gravity alone.
That's wrong. The equivalence principle does apply to electrically charged particles. The effect on a charged particle accelerating under Earth's gravity(and note, a change in acc can only produce radiation) is the same as in a frame with corresponding opposite acc, look at the first two equations in the link provided in this threadhttp://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath528/kmath528.htm" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm arguing that there is no such thing as "a measuring device co accelerating". This device has to be an extended object, and relativity of simultaneity means its not in a single frame at all, much less the same frame as the source.

OK, so let's minimise the effects of relativity of simultaneity by using an infinitesimally small measuring device and velocity.
 
  • #19
jason12345 said:
OK, so let's minimise the effects of relativity of simultaneity by using an infinitesimally small measuring device and velocity.

Already answered.

Vanadium 50 said:
So you need an extended object to do the measurement
 
  • #20
jason12345 said:
OK, so let's minimise the effects of relativity of simultaneity by using an infinitesimally small measuring device and velocity.
What's your problem?
Did you read the links? I already said "and note, a change in acc can only produce radiation"
You use an extended object, an infinitesimally small object or whatever, you don't measure radiation The equation is this-
dW/dt= -(2e^2/3c^2)(dx/dt) (d^3x/dt^3)
 

1. What is a co-accelerated charge?

A co-accelerated charge refers to two or more charges that are moving together at the same acceleration.

2. Does a co-accelerated charge always radiate?

No, not all co-accelerated charges will radiate. It depends on their relative acceleration and the nature of their movement.

3. What factors determine if a co-accelerated charge will radiate?

The two main factors that determine if a co-accelerated charge will radiate are the magnitude of the acceleration and the direction of the motion of the charges.

4. How is radiation produced by a co-accelerated charge?

Radiation is produced by a co-accelerated charge when there is a change in the electric and magnetic fields surrounding the charges. This change is caused by the acceleration of the charges and results in the emission of electromagnetic waves.

5. What are the applications of studying co-accelerated charge radiation?

The study of co-accelerated charge radiation has various applications in fields such as electromagnetism, telecommunications, and particle physics. It also helps us understand the behavior of electromagnetic waves and their interactions with matter.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
5
Views
988
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
1
Views
290
Replies
73
Views
3K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
9K
Back
Top