Does the equivalence principle hold for charged particles?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the equivalence principle (EP) and its implications for charged particles, particularly regarding radiation. Participants debate whether radiation is frame independent or frame dependent, referencing key papers by Shariati and Parrott. The consensus leans towards the idea that radiation is frame dependent, as an observer co-accelerating with a charged particle does not perceive it to radiate. The discussion highlights the complexities of electromagnetic radiation in the context of general relativity and the challenges in reconciling classical electrodynamics with gravitational effects.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the equivalence principle in general relativity
  • Familiarity with classical electrodynamics and radiation theory
  • Knowledge of frame dependence in physics
  • Awareness of key literature, including Shariati's and Parrott's papers
NEXT STEPS
  • Read Shariati's paper "Equivalence principle and radiation by a uniformly accelerated charge" in Found. Phys. Lett. 2 (1999) 427–439
  • Examine Parrott's paper "Radiation from a uniformly accelerated charge and the equivalence principle" in Found. Phys. 32 (2002) 407-440
  • Explore the concept of Unruh radiation and its implications for accelerating observers
  • Investigate the role of electromagnetic radiation in curved spacetime
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in general relativity, and students of electromagnetism seeking to understand the nuances of radiation in accelerating frames and the implications of the equivalence principle for charged particles.

  • #31
pianoplayer said:
I'm inclined to go along with you guys (e.g., Qoo and Chronos) who argue that no radiation is seen by an observer accelerating with the charge. Here's a question: from a purely classical perspective, could one look at the problem as follows. The observer who's accelerating with the charge will see a static electric field -- no time dependence, no retarded potentials, and thus no radiation. Now a guy floating in space sees this accelerating charge move past. From his point of view, the electric field is not static. Could one sit down and do the calculation to show that he sees time-varying (transverse) components of an electric and magnetic field with a non-zero Poynting vector, i.e., EM radiation. If this can be demonstrated, it seems this would settle the argument without resorting to arguments about "fuzzy" particles, etc. Or perhaps it's not this simple.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006037

goes through this calculation, though I really have only glanced at it.

To write the Poynting vector at Rindler instant \mbox{\omega_0} for the local observer who is
seated at (Xo, Yo,Zo), we can write everything in the instantaneous rest frame of the
source S at the retarded time and then use the Lorentz boost that transforms this frame
to the instantaneous rest frame of O (at the moment of observation).

They find that an accelerating observer sees only a pure electric field, and hence no Poynting vector.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K