Does a stationary charge in a gravitational field emit radiation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GRDixon
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether a stationary charge in a gravitational field emits radiation. Participants explore theoretical implications, the application of the equivalence principle, and the conditions under which radiation might occur or not. The scope includes conceptual reasoning and references to academic papers.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that an isolated charge, when accelerated by a constant force, radiates according to the Larmor formula, and question if the same applies to a charge at rest in a gravitational field.
  • Others argue that the equivalence principle does not apply to charged particles, suggesting that this affects whether radiation occurs.
  • A participant proposes a method to detect radiation by monitoring temperature changes in a blackened container surrounding the charge.
  • Several references to academic papers are shared, with participants expressing differing opinions on their relevance and correctness regarding the equivalence principle and radiation from charged particles.
  • Concerns are raised about conservation of energy in the context of a stationary charge, questioning where radiated energy would come from if the charge is held at rest.
  • Some participants suggest that the equivalence principle's application to charged particles is ambiguous and remains a topic of ongoing debate.
  • A participant discusses the complexity of mathematical treatments of charged particles in curved spacetime and the potential for misunderstandings in conceptual interpretations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the application of the equivalence principle to charged particles and whether a stationary charge emits radiation in a gravitational field. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the application of the equivalence principle, particularly regarding boundary conditions and the treatment of electromagnetic self-force in the context of radiation from accelerated charges. The discussion highlights the complexity and subtlety of the underlying physics.

  • #61
sylas said:
The instructor also recommends as excellent reading on this subject: G. Greenstein and A.G. Zajonc, “The Quantum Challenge” (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2005).

This is the same reference I gave in post #51. The reference states that quantization of the electromagnetic field is not necessary to explain the photoelectric effect (there's a caveat to this, but it's not relevant at this point).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
atyy said:
This is the same reference I gave in post #51. The reference states that quantization of the electromagnetic field is not necessary to explain the photoelectric effect (there's a caveat to this, but it's not relevant at this point).

I've started a thread about this in the quantum physics forum. The problem with the Scully-Lamb model is that it violates conservation of energy.

I wasn't able to access anything via the link in your #51, but I was able to find the book on amazon, which let me see certain pages. However, I was unable to see the page where they give their reference [1]. Do you have the actual book, and is reference [1] the internal report that's been floating around? I was able to access the pages where they present the idea, and it's basically just a summary of the internal report. They ignore the same issue Scully and Lamb ignore, which is that the hybrid model violates conservation of energy.
 
  • #63
bcrowell said:
IDo you have the actual book, and is reference [1] the internal report that's been floating around?

I haven't got the book, was browsing at Borders some time ago which is when I came across their discussion.
 
  • #64
atyy said:
I haven't got the book, was browsing at Borders some time ago which is when I came across their discussion.

It's funny trying to access this information through "keyholes" like amazon and google books. Although I couldn't access the book through google books at home, I am able to access it through google books here at work. Right after the section on the photoelectric effect, they have a section called "anticoincidences," which makes essentially the same point I'm making. Anyway, the Quantum Physics forum is really the right place to continue this discussion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
776
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K