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

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around whether an electron moving along a geodesic in a gravitational field radiates photons, exploring the implications of general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) on this phenomenon. Participants examine the nature of acceleration, the role of gravitational fields, and the conditions under which radiation occurs.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that an electron emits photons when it is accelerated, which includes changes in velocity or direction, while others question whether this applies in the context of GR where gravity is not a force.
  • One participant suggests that an electron moving through a gravitational field may radiate, but this raises questions about the equivalence principle and whether it applies to free-falling electrons.
  • Another viewpoint highlights that certain configurations of accelerated electrons do not radiate, referencing studies that analyze this using Maxwell's equations.
  • Concerns are raised about the experimental verification of radiation due to acceleration, noting that all massive particles are continuously influenced by other particles, complicating the observation of radiation effects.
  • Participants discuss the concept that accelerated observers may detect radiation that unaccelerated observers do not, leading to confusion about the nature of photon emission and detection.
  • Some argue that the interactions between charges and fields could be better described using virtual photons rather than real photon emission, complicating the understanding of radiation in non-inertial frames.
  • There is a suggestion that the question could be reframed in terms of whether an electrically charged object in orbit around a planet would radiate and spiral into the planet, which would require solving Einstein's equations for clarity.
  • The Unruh effect is mentioned as a phenomenon that could explain why different observers perceive radiation differently, although this concept is noted to be complex and not fully understood by all participants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on whether an electron radiates while moving along a geodesic in a gravitational field. There is no consensus on the matter, with multiple competing theories and interpretations presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of force and acceleration in GR and QM, as well as the unresolved nature of the mathematical framework required to fully address the questions posed.

  • #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
921
  • · 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