Charged Particle Free Fall in Grav Field: Does Anyone Know Answer?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on whether a charged particle in free fall within a gravitational field emits electromagnetic waves. While the particle is accelerating, the equivalence principle suggests it should not radiate. Observers in different frames perceive radiation differently; a comoving observer does not detect radiation, while a stationary observer does. This discrepancy highlights the frame-dependent nature of energy and momentum in the context of general relativity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the equivalence principle in general relativity
  • Knowledge of electromagnetic radiation and its relationship with acceleration
  • Familiarity with frame-dependent concepts in physics
  • Basic grasp of geodesics and their significance in curved spacetime
NEXT STEPS
  • Read Øyvind Grøn's recent review article on charged particles in gravitational fields
  • Explore the implications of the equivalence principle on electromagnetic radiation
  • Investigate the concept of geodesics in non-inertial frames
  • Examine related threads on particle radiation in gravitational fields for broader context
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of general relativity, and anyone interested in the interaction between charged particles and gravitational fields will benefit from this discussion.

lerus
Messages
25
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
Will a charged particle, free falling in a gravitation field, emit electromagnetic waves?
From one point of view the charged particle is accelerating and should emit electromagnetic waves.
But from the equivalence principle, I think, it should not.
Does anybody know the answer?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks a lot, somehow I didn't find it myself.
But is it possible that for in free falling observer particle doesn't radiate but for supported observer radiation exists?
I think I have to read the article.
 
lerus said:
I think I have to read the article.
That's not my specialty, so you will know more than I.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
This is not at all a trivial problem, but some notable authors have already written papers on this: see some references here: https://inspirehep.net/literature/44837 and a recent Review Article by Øyvind Grøn.

In the end it boils down to the result that the question of whether radiation takes place or not is not invariant against general transformations involving acceleration. A comoving observer does not observe radiation of a freely falling charge, whereas a stationary observer does.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the links.

I saw similar results in other places but it is difficult to understand how it is possible that one observer observes radiation when another doesn't. Radiation takes energy and momentum - it means if charge radiates then it will not follow geodesics. But if there is no radiation then it will (I think) follow geodesics.

Anyways, I'll try to read papers that you mentioned.
 
lerus said:
I saw similar results in other places but it is difficult to understand how it is possible that one observer observes radiation when another doesn't. Radiation takes energy and momentum
Energy and momentum are frame dependent as well.

lerus said:
But if there is no radiation then it will (I think) follow geodesics.
Depends on the frame. A charge with constant proper acceleration doesn't follow geodesics (frame invariant fact). But in its non-inertial rest frame it doesn't radiate, it just has a distorted (non-radial field). See image (b) below.

A.T. said:
In that context it might be helpful to use images where the acceleration is constant (b), not changing (a):

figures_fieldlinesofacceleratingcharge-png.png


From: https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.01150
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
791
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K