Radiation from charge ; nature of laws

[apratim.ankur]

1.) does a stationary charge in a gravitational field radiate (as per the principle of equivalence)?

2.) why have we been advancing from seemingly less intelligent species to a more intelligent one? what is its physical significance (besides intelligence corresponding to complexity) ? why do we know more now ,than anytime in the past ,and less than anytime in the future?

3.) what is a law ? a complete law must be self consistent ;as such it should explain its own existence...so the fundamental set of the laws of nature must be such that it explains its own existence ,and the existence of everything it explains...such a law is but restricted by the Godel's incompleteness theorem....please comment..!

 

[Simon Bridge]

1. It's a non-trivial question, see:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9303025
... for an overview, and an argument that it is possible to distinguish between a uniformly accelerated charge and one that is in a gravitational field.

Been discussed in these forums before, see:
https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-230660.html

2. since only humans define what "intelligent" means, it is a spurious observation ... if humans went extinct within a million years we'd be barely a blip in the history of Earth: we have not been around long enough to be more than a random bump in an overall trend which excludes what we recognize as intelligence. Any trend is just evolutionary pressure. We know more now because we've been learning... and we remember the past, not the future.3. A "Law" is a historical name for a model that is very robust. A law does not have to be self-consistent. Godel's incompleteness is not the restriction it is often made out to be. Feynman has the iconic lectures on this topic.

Perhaps it would be useful to put different topic in different threads?