Accelerating charges and frames of reference

AI Thread Summary
An accelerating charge emits electromagnetic radiation, but in its own frame of reference, it appears stationary and does not radiate. This paradox is illustrated with the example of a charge in a falling elevator, where the charge does not emit light as perceived by an observer inside the elevator. The discussion highlights that while gravitationally accelerated mass can radiate gravitational waves, the detection of electromagnetic radiation is relative to the observer's motion. The conversation also touches on the Hawking-Unruh radiation phenomenon, suggesting that the complexities of gravity and acceleration complicate the understanding of radiation emission. Overall, the consensus indicates that the interplay between acceleration and radiation detection is nuanced and requires careful consideration of frames of reference.
lavinia
Science Advisor
Messages
3,362
Reaction score
749
An accelerating charge radiates light. But in its own frame of reference it is stationary. So it does not emit light.
How is this explained?

Extreme Example:

A charge inside an elevator is falling in a gravitational field. The elevator is lined with a light sensitive sensor that triggers a chemical explosion that obliterates the elevator in mid-air.

Inside the elevator a man is reading a book. The charge is stationary in his free fall frame. The man finishes the book just as the elevator hits the ground.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Acceleration is invariant, meaning that it is actually felt by the object ubdergoing acceleration and all observers will agree that the object is actually accelerating. The acceleration due to gravity is not an actual acceleration in the sense that an accelerometer would not know whether it is floating in space or in free fall under the influence of gravity. So a charge falling in a gravitational field shouldn't radiate, but this has not been experimentally verified as far as i know.
 
lavinia said:
An accelerating charge radiates light. But in its own frame of reference it is stationary. So it does not emit light.
How is this explained?
That question is related to Hawking-Unruh radiation phenomenon.
See here:http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/unruhrad.pdf
 
mrspeedybob said:
If gravitationally accelerated mass radiates gravity waves then gravitationally accelerated charge should emit EM waves.

Got a reference or an explanation for this?
 
Accelerated charge (with respect to stationary observers) emits EM radiation regardless of the cause of acceleration. But detection of EM radiation is relative, not absolute. It depends on the motion of receiver/antenna and EM field. Antenna of the observer in uniformly accelerated frame of the charge should not detect radiation from co-moving accelerated charge.
 
zoki85 said:
Accelerated charge (with respect to stationary observers) emits EM radiation regardless of the cause of acceleration. But detection of EM radiation is relative, not absolute. It depends on the motion of receiver/antenna and EM field. Antenna of the observer in uniformly accelerated frame of the charge should not detect radiation from co-moving accelerated charge.

If a charge and an observer are both under acceleration, shouldn't the charge experience back-reaction from the emitted radiation? And why wouldn't the observer pick up this radiation?
 
Drakkith said:
If a charge and an observer are both under acceleration, shouldn't the charge experience back-reaction from the emitted radiation? And why wouldn't the observer pick up this radiation?
I said why: Becouse detection of EM radiation is relative. I'm positive that can be rigorously shown by appropriate transformation of coordinates between the two systems in framework of GR (and probably is standard result).
 
zoki85 said:
I said why: Becouse detection of EM radiation is relative.

Can you elaborate on that?
 
  • #10
Most preceise elaboration is derivation. Luckily, I've just found a nicely written paper which backs up the statement:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903052
Even without going through all the steps of derivations, I can say I have at least two reasons why I can thrust it.
 
  • #11
Interesting read. Thanks, zoki.
 
  • #12
It seems to be the general consensus that the OP's issue is that the problem wasn't complicated enough. Instead of a straightforward question on electromagnetism, we have to throw in gravity. Then gravitational radiation. Then semiquantum gravity.
 
  • #13
Vanadium 50 said:
It seems to be the general consensus that the OP's issue is that the problem wasn't complicated enough. Instead of a straightforward question on electromagnetism, we have to throw in gravity. Then gravitational radiation. Then semiquantum gravity.

Welcome to PF! :wink:
 
Back
Top