Does an electron moving along a geodesic radiate?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jnorman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Geodesic
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

An electron moving along a geodesic in a gravitational field does not radiate photons, as it does not experience acceleration in its own frame of reference. This conclusion stems from the principles of General Relativity (GR), which posits that gravity is the curvature of spacetime rather than a force. The discussion references the equivalence principle and highlights that while an electron may appear to change direction to an outside observer, it does not radiate in the same manner as it would in a magnetic field. The conversation also touches on the Unruh effect and the complexities of radiation detection in non-inertial frames.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR) principles
  • Familiarity with the equivalence principle
  • Knowledge of Maxwell's Equations
  • Basic concepts of quantum mechanics and particle physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Unruh effect and its implications in quantum field theory
  • Study the equivalence principle in detail and its applications in GR
  • Explore the relationship between acceleration and radiation in charged particles
  • Examine the mathematical framework of curved spacetime and its effects on particle states
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in quantum mechanics and general relativity, and students seeking to understand the interaction between gravity and electromagnetic radiation.

  • #31
This is indeed an interesting question, even the premiss that accelerating charges radiate seems debatable. Some authors say that linear acceleration is not enough and there has to be some sort of repetitive motion. I found this article one of the better discussions on the various ideas.

http://mathpages.com/home/kmath528/kmath528.htm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
cosmik debris said:
This is indeed an interesting question, even the premiss that accelerating charges radiate seems debatable. Some authors say that linear acceleration is not enough and there has to be some sort of repetitive motion. I found this article one of the better discussions on the various ideas.

http://mathpages.com/home/kmath528/kmath528.htm

I am generally a fan of mathpages. However, the following statements involve several of the confusions I got at in my prior post:

"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. "

(I should also note that a question about this very area was my introductions to physics forums, where I found two peer reviewed, puplished papers from 2010 coming to opposite conclusions about issues related to this. Even more interestingly, the one most disputed here was the more professionally reviewed one, published in Annalen der Physik. The other one was published in a journal for science teachers.).

The problem with the mathpages quote above is that classically, there is no problem with conversion of mass/energy to radiation. Classically, the process of an electron sitting on a planet radiating could amount to continuous conversion of the mass of the planet to radiation, the process assymptotically stopping when the mass is exhausted (and then there is no more proper acceleration producing radiation). Quantum mechanically, one has completely different expectations - just as continuous instability of atoms predicted classically is wrong, such continuous radiation of for a stationary (but properly accelerating) charge is subject to limitation. Yet further complication is that there is no *exact* formulation of QED+gravity; and the classically predicted effects are *many* orders of magnitude too small to detect - so experimental observations are irrelevant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
849
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K