Main Question or Discussion Point
So, I've been reading a whole bunch of different answers to this online. Some people say yes, some people say no. I'm totally confused...
That didn’t address my specific question to you.Well, supposedly there is a paradox here, where the free fall frame doesn't see the electron radiate, but the lab frame does. However, I just looked on wikipedia, and supposedly the paradox is resolved by using the equivalence principle.
It depends on how "radiation" is defined. In principle, it is straightforward (but not necessarily easy) to calculate the EM field around the charge falling in a gravitational field. The debate is about should such EM field be called "radiation".So, I've been reading a whole bunch of different answers to this online. Some people say yes, some people say no. I'm totally confused...
This paper seems (to me) to be making quite a bold claim in that it would invalidate at least the strong equivalence principle.Not to an observer falling with the charge. Here is a link to an article that addresses that question in depth: "Radiation from a Uniformly Accelerated Charge and the Equivalence Principle," Parrott, S.,
Unless I'm reading this wrong, this would say that you could in fact, using only local experiments and charged particles, tell the difference between a uniform gravitational field or being uniformly accelerated. In fact, I think this would invalidate the Einstein equivalence principle as well wouldn't it? I wonder how this reconciles with the commonly held view that the strong equivalence principle is respected by GR or that Einstein built GR on top of his equivalence principle.We argue that purely local experiments can distinguish a stationary charged particle in a static gravitational field from an accelerated particle in (gravity-free) Minkowski space. Some common arguments to the contrary are analyzed and found to rest on a misidentification of “energy”.
This seems to be in direct contradiction to other conclusions on the subject, e.g. this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0006037v1 or the papers by Fritz Rohrlich and Thomas Fulton.Does Einstein’s Equivalence Principle hold for charged particles? We cannot definitively answer this because a mathematically precise statement of the “equivalence principle” seems elusive — most statements in the literature are not sufficiently definite to be susceptible of proof or disproof. However, we do conclude that most usual formulations seem not to hold in any direct and obvious way for charged particles.
An electron cannot be in strict "free fall", because it interacts with its own electromagnetic field.So, I've been reading a whole bunch of different answers to this online. Some people say yes, some people say no. I'm totally confused...